Announcement

**ZPDM** · 04-02-2016, 08:21 PM

Have done a little more work on just the BiTT part of the arc reactor and as seems to often happen for me when I make some progress I now moved backwards when I tried making the changes that I thought would improve things COP 1.5 -1.2 → <1. I really need to stop tearing things down when I finish with them because now I also question did I really see what I put down the first time. So I am going to try and rebuild to my original specs. I am beating around the bush with just cranking this thing up to 800 – 1000 volts but I would really like to have good voltage transformation efficiency when I get to that part. Its pretty simple BiTT flyback transformer to 1000 V sparkgap, see what induction I can grab from spark gap. So took a hiatus to look at something else re induction. I can say for myself I found no way of placing an air coil in any orientation around an inductor where when you drew power off the aircoil secondary it had any effect on impedance/amp draw to the primary. It is also not very efficient in any set-up I could come up with in a day. I took it one step further and put three separate winds of 100-200 winds on a 3 inch air coil. I then pulsed the center wind and looked at the inner and outer winds. Surprisingly to me the outer wind showed the same amount of induction as the inner, neither had an effect on impedance when loaded, however, the two pick-up winds are inductively linked in the sense that if you load one, say the outer wind the inner wind then has next to nothing that it has left over for inductance and vice versa. The magnetic field off the primary seems to “contract” symmetrically. Was sort of hoping maybe you could draw off the outside of the field, the inside would still be the same for the inside wind put another coil on top one on bottom, I'm in like Flynn. Doesn't work that way and aircoil transformation doesn't seem to be at all efficient. But you are still left with why when you load an aircoil it doesn't affect the impedance of the power coil, I have an idea now that at least fits part of that.

I have been thinking about the B and H Fields. So I got pretty early on that the B field is the magnetic field as is commonly thought of and then there is this other thing called the H field that has different units and isn't talked about much. I sort of thought well maybe it is another manifestation of magnetism or it is a different geometry field, but and correct me if I am wrong, the H field is the reactionary field to the B field, correct? It would explain a lot for me. First all the different types of magnetism so if you have a B field in vacuum there is no way to know it is there as there is nothing to interact with it. If it is where there are lots of magnetic domains (ferromagnetic) that can align, they do so and the aligned magnetic domains create their own opposite field (the H field, opposite, hence Lenz, back EMF), some of the domains may get stuck in their orientation especially if temperature is lowered, permanent magnet. So in the air core above there is no ferromagnetic linkage between power and pick-up coil, hence no appreciable H field to alter amp draw in response to drawing current off the secondary. There is oddly, if not tremendously efficient, still induction though.

If the B field acts strongly on one magnetic domain type but weakly on another, it will orient the first domain, the second domain will instead respond to the local condition of the first domain and flip to that (antiferromagnetism/ferrimagnetism). Paramagnetism is a bit tougher but perhaps there are situations where the interaction of the external B field and the local field in the material might lead to such a result. So there will be myraid reactions to the B field but it is only one magnetism. Lastly you have diamagnetism where there are no free net magnetic dipoles to change orientation. In this case the only observable effect is the Lorentz effect on orbiting electrons. When ever you are talking about changes in angular momentum, well I guess I would just say remember the guy that released that “toy” spinning top that would tool around for months before running down, I think I finally got the joke that the real mystery wasn't why the top stays powered for months, it was why doesn't a spinning top fall over? I just learned a couple days ago when I was trying to reduce the B and H field units to common units to see if they were the same thing that the amp is defined as the current which produces a Force of 2 x10e-7 Newtons on parallel conductors one meter apart in a vacuum. Now whenever there is an electric field there is a magnetic field and vice versa and 2) there are no alignable magnetic domains in copper conductors in a vacuum. Is that force, which defines the amp, from diagmetism, i.e. the alteration of electron orbits from the magnetic Lorentz force? It may be a bridge too far but if I had to guess I would say the Townsend/Brown effect is diamagnetism.

Returning to ferromagnetism and the B and H fields. There is a lot I don't get, why doesn't the magnetic field flip in an air core flip when an iron core is introduced? The iron core orients itself opposite the field in the coil, however the field is reinforced? I dunno. I do believe the Lorentz force likely mediates the change in amp draw in an electromagnet however, the Lorentz force is at a right angle to the current flow, if the current path is constrained in the wire, unless there are frictional losses from the Lorentz force which may be there I don't know I am not sure how it would effect current velocity? Lastly the Lorentz force isn't responsible for induction, a) the Lorentz force is present at constant current whereas induction only occurs with a changing magnetic field b) the idea of Lorentz forces pushing electrons in a conductor as the source for current flow from induction would also not be valid if there is a single reproducible COP>1 electromagnetic device. You run out of charge carriers. Take the Tesla switch, let's say someone did publicly demonstrate a working COP>1 Tesla switch before a large audience, after say running a radio and batteries staying charged for x amount of time, eventually you would run out of charge carriers to push around if new ones weren't appearing. You can say they were created or they were virtual and became observable or were from the ether or the zero point, but they weren't from around these parts and they are here now. As an outsider I can say outlandish maybe stupid things but if one accepts the above the next reasonable question to me would be is the process of creation of electricity something which only happens under specific conditions of induction? Are there two types of induction, the normal induction which powers our electric grid and then a COP>1 phenomenon that occurs in certain inductive arrangements? Or is induction always creating electricity and it is just when one considers a specific system the balance of dissipative losses and inductive gains may be for that system on balance positive entropic or negentropic? I dunno. Wonder what the COP of the electric grid is if you factor in all the electricity flowing to ground? Wonder whether we have changed the reference voltage of the earth with 100 years of global electricity grids, gaaaa something else to worry about. So, lastly, I am certainly no expert, just thought I'd throw some mica schist out there that some might have fun reading.

**ZPDM** · 04-22-2016, 01:19 AM

Few quick updates on the arc reactor and perhaps some related to unrelated theory. Finally got my spark gap (arc), it eventually occurred to me if I have a small cap hooked to a volt meter maybe I would get a better spark with the meter turned off, lol. Won't mention how many days before that occurred to me. I'm slowly getting better but when it comes to the builds I'm still basically like a blindfolded five year old swinging at the pinata, I've got no idea what I'm doing but darn if I'm not having fun. There are some issues, but I am really optimistic. I temporarily backed off from the BiTT as it is quite non linear and just used a torrid transformer to transform voltage. I realize at this point that I had plenty of voltage from the Bitorroidal transformer if I had turned the darn volt meter off. However, concerning the behaviour with the torroid transformer, there is beautiful induction that can be captured off spark gap discharging a capacitor. As I saw with my earlier experiments if you discharge the cap through a small air coil inductor the effect is more pronounced though it is harder to quantify with a finicky spark gap. One current set back which I don't understand, the idea was to charge a cap to 1000V discharge the cap to capture the inductive spike off the changing magnetic field from the discharging cap and at the same time to discharge the cap through a battery to charge that battery, i.e. the cap discharge goes to charge a battery. So that part which should be simpler just plain doesn't work. The battery being charged directly from the spark discharge of the cap doesn't budge it may even go down a bit. The weird thing is if I spark discharge the cap into a larger say 1000 uF 25V cap, the spark discharge charges that cap fine. Something with impedance or whatnot of battery in current set-up, or maybe you just plain can't spark gap discharge a LA battery. So I then just flat out shorted the cap. On the positive side, just capturing the inductive spike (though air coil) of shorted spark gapped cap and sending that to another battery, it's real hard to say but seemed about 1:1. So as I said optimistic, though certainly things have a way of throwing curves, however, 1) my homebrew BiTT seems to transform voltage more efficiently than the torroid 2) You have two legs on the BiTT and one of them is going out directly to another battery 3) While at these voltages there will be a change in amp draw from spark discharged cap it may likely be mitigated by the BiTT and at the same time will be increasing output from the other leg of the transformer. 4) Maybe the strange problem with the cap not actually charging another battery will go away. If not I suppose you could put it into a large voltage cap, which again oddly does work, then discharge that cap to a battery, seems a waste not to grab it, but not sure I want to do that as it means another transistor, likely an opto, then where do you put the pulldown resistor, etc., etc., see piñata syndrome above. Am planning to return now to the BiTT and see what I get. So in summary, some difficulties, but heck yea there is a lot of induction coming off a spark discharged cap. I've thought of another way of looking at this spark discharge from a cap that I'm going to be coy about for the moment would just say a) it eliminates all transistors b) it is pre-made (I like premade) maybe 80 bucks Arbour scientific or some such c) I'll need to string a lot of 1K diodes together

Some theory. Recently I have been thinking intensively on three things, induction, circular motion, relativity. By relativity I don't mean the modern (nonsense?) notion but the more obvious useful concept of relativity discussed in Galileo's time. If you are below deck on a boat sailing on smooth seas how do you know whether you are in motion? To an observer on another boat travelling at identical speed you are at rest to someone on shore you are in motion, something anyone who has driven on a highway can relate to. An object at constant velocity is the same as being at rest as motion has no meaning without some point of reference.

It is my opinion that credentialled experts while often being right, when they are wrong seem to have a statistically significant bias towards not being sort of wrong or merely wrong but stupendously, horrifically, gloriously, magnificently wrong, maybe the same holds true in electromagnetism. And the outside the box experts, who often end up in the textbooks of the next century are usually open to discussion even if it is nonsense. So I'll skip with further self-deprecation.

I don't know what induction is or what causes it, it is said to be the result of a change in magnetic field. If the change in magnetic field is mediated by the change in velocity of current flow which would seem to be the case, then one can may say that induction is a second order derivative of point charge. That is to say it bears the same relationship to a point charge as acceleration bears to a point. I said in a previous post that induction occurs whenever charge moves in space, move from point A to B. I should qualify that a bit, it is true, however if one took say a 12 V battery and ran it through a large resistor to a 9 volt battery, there would be a very small amount of induction as the current flow was established, once established, current flow would be constant, magnetic field would be constant and there would be no further induction. If someone looked a second after the connection was established they would see charge moving from point A to point B in space w/o induction. So this emphasizes Tesla's fascination with rapidly alternating DC currents and rapid pulsed DC (which would give the most abrupt changes in current velocity, hence most induction). So really you can move electric charge from place to place with next to no induction or with massive amounts of induction dependant on how fast and often current accelerates/decelerates.

There is something else though and it is the reason I am posting. Something happens with a point charge moving in space that does not happen (at least per textbook or that I can see) with a non charged object. A dipole creates a frame of reference for velocity. Let's return to our example of say two ships sailing at identical speed from New York to Dublin. Ship one looks at ship two on the smooth sea and says we seem to be stuck in place and neither of our ships are moving. Now let us suppose there is a dipole between NY and Dublin and that ship B has a net charge. As it moves, at constant velocity (AT CONSTANT VELOCITY) it generates a magnetic field. No it does not cause induction, but it does generate a magnetic field, one whose magnitude is solely dependant on the rate of velocity between the dipole. Now if someone on ship A looked at ship B they would say, well it seems like we aren't moving but ship B is glowing green from it's magnetic field we are moving. Or if you like they could use a compass and say my compass is deflected ten degrees by ship B's magnetic field we are moving towards Europe. Now if the wind picked up they could say it still looks like we are motionless but we are moving 50% faster towards Europe my compass is deflected 15 degrees. I will say it again because if it is not gloriously wrong it is worth considering a dipole creates a frame of reference for motion where something at constant velocity which might otherwise be considered at rest is tagged as in motion in relation to the dipole and the magnitude of velocity is declared by the strength of the magnetic field.

Will talk about circular motion some other time, would just say I keep trying and trying to make it more simple and don't know if I am left with "Why is the sky blue?" It just is, don't know why a sling shot moves off at a right angle to the tangent and the circular momentum disappears, don't know why there is no recoil. When I spin it (and spin it) in my head what I come up with is either God's bookkeeper keeps a notation of the previous state of things so something knows whether or not it is in circular motion or any collision results in a field effect which stretches out in both space and time. Maybe they are the same idea, but as any collision is an interaction of what electrostatic forces, strong nuclear forces the idea of the result being a force over space is not so far fetched, that force though as far as I can see would have to be stretched in time for David's sling shot to easily give Goliath his comeuppance.

Not clear and pretty dizzy thinking on the circular motion stuff, but that a dipole creates a frame of reference for velocity and motion, that appears self evident from what is already common knowledge. Now if they'll just spin one of those darn space stations to create artificial gravity and have an 800,000 foot high penthouse, golly ... wonder why they won't do that? Bedabee Bedabee Beedabbe That's all folks.

**ZPDM** · 04-22-2016, 08:48 PM

Alright its OT but I started the thread Its Friday, have a bottle of red I will put ink to paper (figuratively) my current ruminations on circular motion. So at this point I am not trying to understand gyroscopic precession, obvious alterations in gravitational/inertial mass with gyroscopes, etc I am trying to get as simple as I possibly can. Can I understand a ball swinging in a circle, I'll return to it and how I tried to get even more simple, but short answer is it's a mystery to me. I do find it say interesting that as "advanced" as we are no one at MIT or Caltech has any physics to describe a yoyo, or if some do they don't want to share it with us monkeys. If Stephen Greer and Col Corsi etc are correct and truthful It is also at least possible that there are no people in the shadows who actually understand what the heck they are doing and it is more a "monkey see monkey do" reverse engineering of things no one meant for us to get our hands on and we are sort of in a Sorcerer’s Apprentice scenario with our technology. Ha ha and hey if not you are always welcome to come out of the shadows and share your brilliance with the rest of us.

Circular motion, so as I said to get as absolutely simple as I could, consider two balls in abstract space. Ball B moves to Ball A and hits it with a perfectly, what is it inelastic? collision. Ball B comes to rest Ball A moves off at the velocity of Ball A. Considering only the two ball system in space one might change the camera angle and now with equal validity say it was Ball B that was at rest and Ball A moved to hit it, Ball A came to rest and Ball B was put in motion. Without a frame of reference there is no way of saying which ball is at rest there is only the relative motion of the two, this becomes important in considering centrifugal force later. Now let us add a third point to our system, this allows us to define angles in two dimensional space. Ball A is moving at a right angle to our abstract point C when considered in relation to points C and Ball B. Ball B is moving towards point C at 180 degrees. Ball B collides with Ball A. In relation to point C, ball B now comes to rest say 1 foot from point C. What happens to Ball A, the right angle velocity velocity is unchanged as it was hit broadside by B, Ball A though now also acquires Ball B's velocity towards point C, it fall inwards towards point C, however because its right angle velocity is unchanged that component of the velocity vector is moving away from point C. So say at 90 degrees from the original collision Ball A is again one foot from point C and darn if it wasn't hit broadside again by Ball D in the exact same manner as previously. Another 90 degrees the same things happens again and by incredible happenstance it happens 4 times. At this point you have traced out a square and Ball A is right back to its original starting point. Let's say the same thing happens again but this time it only takes 45 degrees for ball A to again be one foot from point C, after eight collisions you have traced out an octogon, see where I'm going, eh eh? So now it only takes 1 degree before Ball A just happens to get hit by incoming. If all the balls that broadsided ball A came to rest after 360 degrees you would have 360 balls lined up at rest in relation to point C that look very much like a circle. Now instead of 360 balls in a circle, let's make that circle a steel ring like the drum of a centrifuge. What happens with Ball A now, well now there is a continuous inward force on ball A, I don't know how to conceptualize continuous or infinite so I would say whatever the quantum of movement is, it moves one frame encounters the inward force from the rim of the centrifuge and the process repeats. Something is different here though, previously we considered a ball which was in relation to point C, the center of the circle, moving towards it. In this case the rim of the centrifuge is at rest. Therefore, as Newton expressed it for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, the rim of the circle doesn't know it is at rest except that it "knows" it is at rest in relation to the center of the circle. As it exerts an inward force on Ball A, this then while the two are in physical contact is also an outward force on the rim. It views the situation as, I started at rest in relation to point C I should now be moving away from point C, it can't of course because the iron rim constrains it (this is also why an unbalanced rotor vibrates). The same situation holds for a ball on a string. From this I can at least posit a reason for why a marble released from a centrifuge or a ball released from a slingshot has no recoil or reactionary force. Namely, the frame of reference to point C is defined by the force exerted by the rim of centrifuge if there is say a hole in the centrifuge that force then disappears, Ball A no longer has any relation to point C ("what traffic have we with people of point C" they say), but seriously, without the force of the rim defining point C how could ball A have any idea which point in space is point C. It knows that there is a force which now defines its velocity and constant velocity is the same as being at rest without a frame of reference and the frame of reference is lost hence no reactionary force. Not bad and so far so good but there are two large problems remaining. 1) and this where I am at maybe it is a the sky is blue answer, when a slingshot leaves the sling or a marble escapes a hole in the centrifuge it leaves at a 90 degree right angle to the tangential circular motion. I am only 99% certain of this and someone should just get a high speed camera release something from a circle and confirm that it travels 90 degrees from the tangent to the circle, that said I've been in these parts for awhile I think I know the traffic laws and David (to my mind) didn't calculate well my sling shot is rotating at this speed not the other so I release at at a 30 degree angle or maybe 32 degree angle to my quarry. No he flicked his wrist when he had his arm pointing straight at that fat f's head. (may they all rest in peace). The problem is where did the angular momentum of ball A go when it was released, all I got is it disappeared, it sailed for the undying lands, it journeyed to the ether, where is Waldo?

The second problem which I find equally intractable is I seem only able to consider things as discrete frame by frame events not a continuum. So here is what I would consider might/should happen if a centrifuge sprung a leak or a centrifugal gun were fired. The marble is rolling around the rim of the centrifuge, it hits a hole. Because of the hole there is now no longer any inward force, there is hence no longer any reactionary outward force. The ball should continue on its tangential path bridge the hole and hit the other side like a bit of a speed bump. It doesn't it shoots outward forgets its previous momentum and has no reactionary force in relation to point C. Without the inward force of the rim how did Ball A know it was in circular motion? This is actually a very straightforward and general question, if you can only conceptualize things as frame by frame, how does something know whether it is in circular motion?? However it's behaviour is different and non-Newtonian if it started from circular motion. What I come up with is a bit odd but there it is, either a record is kept of previous states so the ball can say of for example, the past three frames, I have been in circular motion I should behave in a non-Newtonian fashion not a Newtonian one. Or the force exerted in frame one by the rim of the centrifuge extends out in frame two to the hole in the centrifuge, extends in space, and also extends from the time of frame one to the future time of frame two, i.e. it is still there when the ball hits the hole. This implies that any mechanical collision (i.e. any time where a force causes acceleration/deceleration) leads to a field effect which is not localized in either space or time. Think I'll back off and enjoy my wine and time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLNrspWAWP8

**Notsure** · 04-23-2016, 01:33 PM

THINKING VERSUS SENSING

Man is still a primate with very few exceptions. He has not yet learned to think powerfully from knowledge. He is just beginning to think as an extension OF knowledge.
You sense electrically, and then you mistake that electrical sensing of observed effects for thinking. Sensing is NOT thinking. Sensation is but an electrical awareness of wave motion by other waves.
You mistake the electrical records of the information which your brains have recorded as sensation, for thinking and for knowledge.
Information thus acquired by the senses is not knowledge, however. A man may have vast information and skill but have very little knowledge.
The greatest scientists of today, for example, are well informed. They know how to do wonderful things but do they know the WHY of what they do? Information from observed effects, and skills in putting those effects together for useful purposes, have multiplied vastly since man first observed natural phenomena. His sense of observation told him how to make a boat; then a sail for the boat. He then discovered the wheel and fire. Electric awareness of effects of motion, plus memory, plus the power to reason objectively, gave him the ability to do this. Very little of it is has been due to either thinking or knowledge.
You thus confuse sensing for thinking and knowing when, factually, you have been but functioning through sensed electrical awareness acquired from information. The “information’ thus conveyed is electrical, not mental. The telegraph message which goes over any wire is not the thought conveyed by that message. Even the typed telegram is not the thought conveyed by it. It symbols inform the thinker of the thought conveyed by it, but it is not the thought.
Thus it is that your vast mechanistic, electrically motivated universe is inter-sensitized for the purpose of informing every nerve ganglion in every cell of every organic and inorganic part of it of the condition of every other part of it.

**ZPDM** · 05-02-2016, 02:25 AM

Will post some video of the Arc Reactor Mark 0.05 hopefully later this week. Am just using a toroid to generate the spark gap off a discharging cap, but yes you get good inductance or radiant spike if you will off a spark gapped cap. Have started fiddling with the Mark I version, which is using a BiTT to transform voltage. Early results are encouraging, there is a diminished/mitigated increase in amp draw when the cap sparks using the BiTT, you also have the second secondary on the BiTT which can go to another battery or some such the whole time. So don't know what I have but certainly enough to keep my interest. As I alluded to earlier at some point I want to pick up a small Wimshurst machine. With this I could crank the machine and just look at a single spark at a time. What I would be interested in is the following. Set the spark gap at a constant distance. Discharge the cap into another cap and measure joules in other cap. Repeat say ten times. Then do the same thing and rectify the inductive collapse off the discharging cap into a second cap. Does the amount of power transferred vary dependant on whether you rectify the change in magnetic field or does it stay the same? For all I know a Wimshurst may be ten percent efficient and perhaps a spark gap itself is 10 percent efficient, don't think so but am just saying it doesn't matter, the question is does rectifying the changing magnetic field alter the amount of power you end up with at point B? Should be fun to take a look.

Will mention more philosophy. First off I think I was entirely wrong about a ball released from a spinning string losing its angular momentum, I think that part of the motion is still there. So probably not a good idea to run my mouth unless I am looking at experimental data. That said ...

well there is still the problem of the absence of recoil, also the line of thinking well it is just so philosophical I think I can mention it (and some does seem self-evident) while keeping in mind I got nothin experimental here, it is just where the wind blew me.

So away we go, what is force? Force from Newton's Principia, is that which changes the constant velocity of a thing (object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an external force). It is that which causes acceleration/deceleration. Now Isaac also said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It would seem to me that if the action and reaction force happened simultaneously nothing could ever move. If a force simultaneously generated its opposite how could things change? I may be missing something but that seems almost self evident. So the reactionary force is a re-action which happens at a later point in time. Again it would seem to me otherwise if a billiard ball struck another, unless the balls somehow understood that they were two separate balls what would happen is the first would strike it would generate a force and its equal opposite reaction force simultaneously, both balls would sit there like a block of wood. What happens instead is the first ball imparts its force the second ball moves off and an instant later the reactionary force brings the first ball to rest. At least that is how I view it.

From here things get more speculative. I would say any force causing a change in velocity causes a field. So we speak of magnetic and gravitational and electric fields of force, in the case of the billiard balls it is the electrostatic interaction of the two approaching electron clouds, but again we would have an electrostatic force field which would extend outward beyond the billiard balls. Indeed, with diminishing effect any field of force extends to the furthest reaches of the Universe. We defined previously force as that which changes velocity. If both these are true it stands on its head any concept of relativity. That is to say anytime, anything, anywhere changes direction or velocity this information is broadcast even to the ends of creation.

Three, what is the interval of time between the force and Newtons reactionary force? As nature is not unnecessarily complex I would speculate that the interval is one unit of time, it is the quantum of time. I would further speculate that the constant, speed of light, is what defines and characterizes this interval. I am perhaps quite hazy here but light, electromagnetic radiation, is what occurs when there is a change in magnetism, a change in the velocity of magnetism perhaps, the light appears to be a manifestation of the reactionary force. It is if you like what ties together space and time or they both express themselves in light. Will return to this in a moment

Fourth, what is the speed of propagation of fields of force, gravitational, magnetic etc? I am going to say instantaneous, perhaps it is a longitudinal wave propagation, but I believe either very very fast or instantaneous, to keep it simple immediate. Might even be tested by correlating tides with position of moon down to the second. But I think if the sun were suddenly 50 million miles out of place (of course couldn't happen without massive forces but ignoring that) the gravitational effect would be immediate and not on a nine minute delay. Similarly, if you had astronauts on the moon and were tracking their vital signs you might have two ways of relaying the vital signs to Earth. In one way you beam them back through electromagnetic radiation at the speed of light taking 1 or 2 seconds. In the second way, you have a super sensitive magnetic field detector what do they call it a SQUID and a real powerful way to alter magnetic fields on the moon, hey were havin fun a giant Tesla coil. You turn the coil on and off for Morse Code. I think the SQUID detected magnetic field change would arrive before the electromagnetic radiation.

Fifth, if the above happens to have any validity, it offers an alternative way out of the conundrum in special relativity, namely why do any and all observers independent of how they are moving in relation to one another always observe the speed of light as the same speed. So let's use the sun that's a big example. The sun creates a force, an alternation in magnetism, which extends outward with diminishing effect into space. The electromagnetic radiation, the transverse wave, is an expression of reaction to force, to the changing magnetic field of the sun. The force is set-up instantaneously, the transverse wave takes 8-9 minutes to express itself here as the reaction force must occur, quantum by quantum over time and space. However, when it gets here, the light is an expression of the magnetic force between Earth and Sun, the light points to the sun, the transverse wave took 9 minutes to get here, but the reaction to the magnetic force happened as it were right on Earth, the light was created if you like at the spot of observation. That is why the speed of light is always constant independent of frame of reference, it is because it is a reaction to conditions established nine minutes ago by the sun, because of the great distance it took Newton's reactionary force that long to catch up with the initiating force but the reaction occurs right at the point of observation, pointing back toward the sun and illuminating the grass. If I think of things this way it reminds me of that guy who went into a coma and then came out with a new periodic table, can't recall his name at the moment, but I read a very little of him and he was saying something about you don't perceive the prime mover, you don't perceive the ship on the sea, you only perceive the wake in its path. The electromagnetic radiation light then would be the wake.

**Notsure** · 05-03-2016, 06:04 AM

Light cannot be seen; it can only be KNOWN. Light is still. The sense of sight cannot respond to stillness. That which the eyes "feel" and believe to be Light is but wave motion simulating the idea of Light. Like all things else in this electric wave universe the idea of Light cannot be produced. Electric waves simulate idea only. They do not become idea.
A lot of controversy has come forth as to whether light is corpuscular, as Newton claimed it to be, or waves. There is much evidence in favor of both theories. It is both. Light is expressed by motion. All motion is wave motion. All waves are expressed by fields of equal and opposite pressures of two way motion. The entire volume within wave fields is filled with the two opposite expressions of motion--the positive expression which compresses light into solids and the negative expression which expands it into space surrounding solids.
All space within wave fields is curved. Curvature ends at planes of zero curvature which bound all wave fields. These boundary planes of omnipresent magnetic Light act as mirrors to reflect all curvature into all other wave fields in the universe, and as fulcrums from which motion in one wave field is universally repeated.
There is much confusion concerning the many kinds of particles of matter such as electrons, protons, photons, neutrons and others. These many particles are supposedly different because of the belief that some are negatively charged, some are positively charged and some are so equally charged that one supposedly neutralizes the other.
There is no such condition in nature as negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.
Compressing bodies are charging into higher potential conditions. Conversely, expanding bodies are discharging into lower potential conditions. To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting body.
Contracting and expanding bodies move in opposite directions. Contracting bodies move radially inward toward mass centers, and expanding bodies move radially outward toward space which surrounds masses. In this two-way universe, light which is inwardly directed toward gravity charges mass and discharges space. When directed toward space it charges space and discharges mass. All direction of force in Nature is spiral.
The charging condition is positive. It multiplies speed of motion into density of substance. The principle of multiplication of motion because of decrease of volume is the cause of the acceleration of gravity (for sheer lack of language capability to describe it). The discharging condition is negative. It divides speed of motion into tenuity of substance. The principle of the division of motion because of expansion of volume, is the cause of the deceleration of radiation.
One can better comprehend this principle by knowing that what you call substance is purely motion. Motion simulates substance by its variation of pressures, its speed and its gyroscopic relation to its wave axis.
Particles are variously conditioned as to pressure but there are no different kinds of particles. All are light waves wound up into particles which are doubly charged. Their position at any one point in their wave causes them to have the electric condition appropriate for that point.
Light particles are forever moving in their octave waves. All are either heading toward their cathode or their anode, which means toward vacuity or gravity. They are all moving either inward or outward, spirally.

**Faraday88** · 05-04-2016, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Notsure View Post

Light cannot be seen; it can only be KNOWN. Light is still. The sense of sight cannot respond to stillness. That which the eyes "feel" and believe to be Light is but wave motion simulating the idea of Light. Like all things else in this electric wave universe the idea of Light cannot be produced. Electric waves simulate idea only. They do not become idea.
A lot of controversy has come forth as to whether light is corpuscular, as Newton claimed it to be, or waves. There is much evidence in favor of both theories. It is both. Light is expressed by motion. All motion is wave motion. All waves are expressed by fields of equal and opposite pressures of two way motion. The entire volume within wave fields is filled with the two opposite expressions of motion--the positive expression which compresses light into solids and the negative expression which expands it into space surrounding solids.
All space within wave fields is curved. Curvature ends at planes of zero curvature which bound all wave fields. These boundary planes of omnipresent magnetic Light act as mirrors to reflect all curvature into all other wave fields in the universe, and as fulcrums from which motion in one wave field is universally repeated.
There is much confusion concerning the many kinds of particles of matter such as electrons, protons, photons, neutrons and others. These many particles are supposedly different because of the belief that some are negatively charged, some are positively charged and some are so equally charged that one supposedly neutralizes the other.
There is no such condition in nature as negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.
Compressing bodies are charging into higher potential conditions. Conversely, expanding bodies are discharging into lower potential conditions. To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting body.
Contracting and expanding bodies move in opposite directions. Contracting bodies move radially inward toward mass centers, and expanding bodies move radially outward toward space which surrounds masses. In this two-way universe, light which is inwardly directed toward gravity charges mass and discharges space. When directed toward space it charges space and discharges mass. All direction of force in Nature is spiral.
The charging condition is positive. It multiplies speed of motion into density of substance. The principle of multiplication of motion because of decrease of volume is the cause of the acceleration of gravity (for sheer lack of language capability to describe it). The discharging condition is negative. It divides speed of motion into tenuity of substance. The principle of the division of motion because of expansion of volume, is the cause of the deceleration of radiation.
One can better comprehend this principle by knowing that what you call substance is purely motion. Motion simulates substance by its variation of pressures, its speed and its gyroscopic relation to its wave axis.
Particles are variously conditioned as to pressure but there are no different kinds of particles. All are light waves wound up into particles which are doubly charged. Their position at any one point in their wave causes them to have the electric condition appropriate for that point.
Light particles are forever moving in their octave waves. All are either heading toward their cathode or their anode, which means toward vacuity or gravity. They are all moving either inward or outward, spirally.

Hi Notsure,
Infact i'm of the opinion that Light Travel is of Temporal characteristics and does not travel in the Spatial sense..it can be in a way termed as the 'Temporal Space'.
Material transportation in Space co-ordinates at Time rate is different to Space formation in the Time Co-ordinates ...Light is of the later character.
Rgds,
Faraday88.

**Notsure** · 05-06-2016, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Faraday88 View Post

Hi Notsure,
Infact i'm of the opinion that Light Travel is of Temporal characteristics and does not travel in the Spatial sense..it can be in a way termed as the 'Temporal Space'.
Material transportation in Space co-ordinates at Time rate is different to Space formation in the Time Co-ordinates ...Light is of the later character.
Rgds,
Faraday88.

It's important to remember the many illusions of light to the senses. Motion simulates stillness. We forget that the clouds hanging in the sky are spinning at like a thousand miles per hour. Your coffee cup is made of violent spinning atoms. So to travel great distances, do we really need to go anywhere? All we have to do is adjust the frequency vibration of the “electric” universal substance and wham, bam--There we are!

Waves of the ocean seem to traverse the ocean but they only appear to do so, for waves are pistons in the universal engines, and pistons operate only up and down. Wave pistons of light, or of the ocean, operate radially and spirally inward and outward, toward and away from gravity.

**ZPDM** · 05-17-2016, 09:32 AM

Not an arc reactor project video that I had been planning to post but fun video if anyone is feeling bored, will probably leave this up a few days. Aaron, if you get a free moment, I pm'd you that I am having trouble with conference registration.

Announcement

Arc Reactor

Arc Reactor

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment