## Saturday, 31 January 2009

### Prism Rainbow

I'm trying to imagine what happens to light as it passes through a prism. It is thought that the speed of light 'slows down' inside the prism. As discussed previously, the speed of light must be the same inside, and outside the prism, because the colours of the visible spectrum maintain their wavelength and frequencies. If either the frequency or wavelength or speed of light were to change, then so would the substance of the light. This plainly does not happen. The angles of refraction infer that the same violet light inside the prism is the exact same one which exits the prism. Rather than the speed of light slowing down, perhaps it is the medium through which light travels that is being stretched.

Before Einstein introduced us to the entity that is spacetime, most scientists were familiar with the idea that electromagnetic waves propagated through an 'invisible' medium - the aether. Some have referred to the aether as a latent magnetic field, which becomes excited by matter. EMR was thought to travel through the aether, much like sound waves need to travel through molecules in the air.

I am only in the early stages of learning about the aether, so don't accept what I am about to say as gospel, but it would appear that the aether could quite easily fill the boots of spacetime. That is, where before we had a mass, such as a planet, forming a huge dent on the blanket of spacetime, we can now think of it as a blanket of aether. Whereas the speed of light was once bent by gravitational forces, it is now bent by surface tension in the aether. This all obviously needs work, but it does have a parallel with what is happening to the light inside the prism.

I could explain this a bit better with a diagram, but I plain don't know how to, so please bear with me. Draw a U-shape. Now draw a triangle shape with the U in the centre. The triangle is your prism. A simple line to denote white light moving from outside to inside the prism is enough. Once inside, the white light is dispersed, so we shall draw frantic shortwave frequencies to denote the violet end of the spectrum - these travel not in a straight line through the prism, but follow the shape of the U - until you are out the other side of the prism. Okay, so next-up is red light moving through the prism and following the shape of the U. Red has a longer wavelength, and lower frequency than violet, and it travels much faster around the U than the higher frequencies of violet.

The 'U' represents the aether field. I am proposing that inside the prism the aether field is being distorted. This would explain why the shorter wavelengths of violet appear to travel faster inside the prism than the longer wavelengths of red. It's an illusion. Violet does not travel faster than red, it simply takes longer to cover the same distance. It would also imply that the higher frequencies are more affected by a distortion in the aether field. The prism has created a 'sink' in the aether field. The aether field is sometimes referred to as cold energy (and electromagnetim as heat energy). So what we have is a cold energy sink. A cold energy sink can perhaps, be thought of as a storage space of energy. How can we maximise, and tap into this free energy?

## Friday, 30 January 2009

### White Heat

When you look at an object, you are seeing the light that has been reflected by it. This light is transmitted through the air, through your cornea, through the lens of your eye, through the vitreous humour, and through two layers of cells in your retina before it is absorbed by light sensitive pigments in your photoreceptor cells. We could argue that colour does not even exist in the Universe, and that it is something which exists only in the mind.

We've seen how white light is transformed into the visible spectrum by a prism. Have you ever wondered what white light is exactly? White light is thought of as being the combination of every colour in the visible spectrum; this produces a light that is colourless, or 'white'. Have you noticed that we are not surrounded by streaming hues of colour that richochet off everything and filling the space of our everday world with millions upon millions of rainbows? That's because light which has been reflected by an object travels through the air as white light until it reaches the eye.

Prisms are made of glass. Glass is sometimes described as having a 'vitreous' nature; some have even gone as far as describing glass as a 'supercooled liquid'. Prisms are able to transform white light into the visible spectrum by reducing the (apparent) velocity at which the wave propagates. This same mechanism used by a prism to disperse white light must also be used by the eye. The vitreous humour is the clear gel that fills the space between the lens and the retina of the eyeball; and just like glass, the vitreous humour even has a refractive index (1.336) which 'slows down' the speed of light.

So what is white light? What is its frequency? Well, white light apparently does not have a frequency. White light is a mixture of all the different frequencies of the spectrum. If a prism and the eye, can in some way, appear to slow down the velocity of light, then it stands to reason that the light travelling in the air has a higher velocity, and therefore lower frequency. Heat propagates at a lower frequency. What is the relationship between white light and heat?

Nope, it's not snow. The above image is an infrared picture of an oak tree.

Many thanks:

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/videos/ir_yellowstone/
http://www.pbase.com/catson/image/26680355
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/infrared%20dslr.shtml
http://dxyner2000.com/tutorials/light.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitreous_humour
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html

## Wednesday, 28 January 2009

### Gee Whiz

A toy car sits patiently on my kitchen floor, waiting to be played with. For my kids, it is bubbling with endless possibilities: a drive over the chair, a push across a table, a jaunt down Mummy's leg, and a long skid upon the floor. Even though the car is idle it is seething with potential energy. It has the potential (especially in the eyes of children) to do many things.

Once again we shall tie ticker-tape to a toy car falling off a table and watch as it hits the ground. We then analyse the results of the tape which have passed through a stamping machine. The machine stamps down one dot for every second that passes. When the car is stationary, it's just one dot on top of the other. When the car is falling, the dots begin to seperate, and as the velocity of the car increases, the dots become even further apart. The dots become less frequent, and we could thus describe the car as travelling on a lower frequency. Loss of potential energy is exactly equal to the gain of kinetic energy. The car's potential energy is being unravelled into kinetic energy. As a car converts its potential energy into kinetic energy, it can be said to have a lower potential.

When the car hits the floor, the kinetic energy is lost upon the impact. The impact will create friction, so we have some kinetic energy transferred into heat energy. The impact will also form a vibration in the floor - a soundwave. So the car has converted its potential energy into kinetic energy, and then, on impact, it has converted it into heat and sound energy. As the car comes to rest on the floor it has returned to its full potential. If we look at the ticker-tape, it's as if the energy of the car was pulled open like an accordian, and then slammed shut again. Trusting that the tough little car lost nothing in the fall (it has managed to keep all its wheels), we will find that the car will have returned to its previous full potential.

On the floor the car has come to rest. The dots on the ticker-tape once again fall one on top of the other. The car looks exactly the same as it did on top of the table. In fact, if we took a photo of the falling car with a camera that had an excellent shutter speed, we could see that the car in the picture looks exactly the same as the car that was sat on top of the table, and also the car that sits idle on the floor. We assume that as it falls, the car has a lower potential, and a higher kinetic energy, but this appears to be false. Indeed, the car has the exact same potential energy throughout - from the top of the table, during its fall, inevitable impact, and eventual rest.

Now this may seem like we are falling into an argument of mere semantics, but I sincerely hope not. I think this holds a great deal of importance. If the potential energy is the same throughout, something is creating the illusion that the car is transferring potential energy into kinetic energy. The act of observation has created the illusion of motion. I suddenly feel that this whole episode has little to do with the car, but has everything to do with that which surrounds us. I am of course referring to the aether field.

It is thought that kinetic energy is a way of storing work in the form of motion, and therefore, energy is conserved in falling objects. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that our toy car is not storing energy as it falls, but is utilising energy from the aether field which surrounds us. The falling car is indirectly sucking energy out of the aether. If we imagine a cannonball that is falling from the top of the Empire State building, then that capacity to suck energy out of the aether is greatly increased with a higher velocity.

A falling object is not travelling at higher velocities - rather, it is the aether which implies that the car is travelling at higher velocities. The lower frequency of a falling object is also implied by the aether. The lower potential, and higher kinetic energy, is once again implied by the aether. It's an illusion. The focus of our attention has always been the falling object, whereas the real culprit is the fluid (including air) that it falls in. We have been distracted by a falling object and its mass, but the mass remains constant throughout. The fluid acts on behalf of the aether field. Therefore, it would appear that the aether field holds all the equations pertaining to a falling object's fate. With an infinite number of infinite velocities - that's some pretty clever fluid, right?

There's something else. When the car hits the floor, the kinetic energy is converted into a vibrating soundwave. But there is no conversion. The aether field which has been sucked in by the falling car, has now been displaced through matter. Sound can only travel through matter. Is sound the vibration of the aether through matter?

Many thanks:

### Diamonds Are Forever

The speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second. But when light travels through a diamond it can be slowed to speeds of 80, 000 miles per second. If you look closely at a faceted diamond (fat chance I get) you can see that it soaks up white light and breaks it apart like a prism, dispersing it into a rainbow of colours. Prisms made of glass work on the same principle. We are taught that as light enters the prism it slows down, and then re-emerges at its previous speed, but now it is made-up of all the different colours of the spectrum. The components of white light get refracted by different angles and follow different paths within the prism. The phenomenon due to which white light splits into component colours is called dispersion.

The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths in air from about 380 to 750 nanometers. A nanometer (nm) is one billionth of a meter. The wavelength is defined by the distance travelled by the speed of light in one second. The visible spectrum begins with the shorter wavelengths of violet at 400 nm. So we are saying that violet light travels 400 billionths of a meter, about 400 million million times a second (400 terahertz). From this relationship one can conclude that the wavelength of light is inversely proportional to frequency.

We are taught that upon entering a new medium (such as glass or water from air) the speed and wavelength of light is reduced, although the frequency remains unaltered. The speed of light travelling through window glass is around 120,000 miles per second, and I shall use this same speed for the light passing through the prism. 120,000 miles per second is two thirds the speed of light in a vacuum. If the frequency remains at 400 terahertz, then the slower moving violet light shall form wavelengths which are one third shorter - that's something like 266 nm; but this is the size of shortwave UV light and it's outside the visible spectrum! The angles of refraction impose that the light which appears as violet inside the prism, is the exact same which emerges once again into the medium of the air. The violet light, once outside the prism, is restored to its normal speed (around 180,000 miles per second) - but with no obvious change in its wavelength or frequency. If the wavelength and frequency of the light has remained the same, then it is the velocity at which the wave propagates that has changed.

Science dictates that the mechanism by which a light wave is transported through a medium occurs in a manner which is similar to the way that any other wave is transported - by particle -to -particle interaction. In a vacuum the light can travel at its top speed because there are no particles to slow it down. The speed of light is supposedly slowed down by the optical density of a medium. The optical density of a material relates to the sluggish tendency of the atoms of a material to maintain the absorbed energy of an electromagnetic wave in the form of vibrating electrons before re-emitting it as a new electromagnetic disturbance. The more optically dense a material is, the longer it stalls light moving through the material (one indicator of the optical density is the index of refraction value of the material).

I struggle with this current theory. Light travels just fine through a vacuum without being passed from atom to atom. Is it possible that light is actually propagating through a medium that is inside the vacuum : the aether field? If light travels through the aether, why would it choose to switch travel plans in a medium (such as glass or water), and instead travel from atom to vibrating atom? The speed of light must remain the same inside the prism because the wavelengths, and frequencies throughout the spectrum are consistent with those outside the prism. What illusion is taking place that makes it appear as if light is slowing down inside the prism? One possible explanation is that if the speed of light does not change inside the prism, then it is the aether field which is being stretched.

There is one more question which arises out of a simple curiousity - why is it that as the light exits the prism, it is always pointing down?

Many thanks:

http://%20sharkride.com/blog/2006/06/page/2/
http://www.emory.edu/X-RAYS/century_05.htm
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/wavebasics/

### Electric Worm

Your average everyday worm is full of surprises. I found this on the web:

"Skin of earthworms repels soil adhesion with a thin water film, created by electro-osmotic flow.

Earthworms use self-generated electricity to aggregate minute quantities of water dispersed throughout soil, reducing their drag without toxic lubricants or external energy. At rest, the difference in electric potential between an earthworm’s surface and its environment is essentially zero, but the moment it starts to move, a negative electrical charge forms wherever its body is in motion, attracting positively-charged water molecules out of surrounding soil precisely where friction with the soil is greatest. This auto-lubrication results from small amounts of cutaneous bioelectrical current (e.g., 40 millivolts) extracting locally available water supplies from the interstitial spaces of the soil. Scale-up tests applying 12 volts of electrical current to bulldozer blades have demonstrated soil resistance reductions of up to 32% over conventional blades, representing dramatic potential energy savings, for instance, in site preparation activities."

My thanks to:

## Tuesday, 27 January 2009

### Magnetic Friction

If a disc of conducting material is held at absolute zero, and the disc is given an electric charge, the electric current will circulate around and around the disc forever, never losing its energy. It could be said that this property of cold matter is instrumental in the storage of at least one form of energy. What if the cold matter is not so much storing energy, but is able to maximise a source of energy that for the most part is invisible, yet completely surrounds us?

If we think about how we measure cold, we measure matter which is cold. Physics describes cold as the absence of heat. We don't actually measure the cold though, we measure how much heat is absent. It's the same when we think about the dark. Darkness is the absence of light. We are unable to measure the darkness itself, and do so only by measuring the absence of light. We could say that darkness does not exist - but it's there - waiting patiently for the light to go out. There could be no such thing as light, or heat, if there was no such thing as darkness, or cold. It's Yin and Yang, man.

Light and heat are forms of electromagnetic radiation (EMR). According to my theory (although it's not particularly original), the electrostatic field is generated by the magnetic fields' relationship with matter. What happens if we remove the matter? Then the electrostatic field is removed also, and all we are left with is magnetic energy. There's no more x-rays, visible light, heat, or radiowaves. It's now cold and black, and it's starting to sound a lot like outer space. In trying to explain the aether, some of its proponents describe it as an all-pervasive liquid, occupying all of space. Space has to be something, it can't just be nothing - because it's there. In the same way darkness is the absence of light, so is space the absence of matter. It thus emerges (at least in my mind) that the aether field is a latent magnetic field (as proposed by Schappeller).

Back to our superconductor which has been cooled to a temperature where it no longer emits heat. Can I write this another way? The superconductor has reached a state where it no longer converts potential energy into kinetic energy in the form of heat. Some suppose that this is because the molecules cease to vibrate against one another, and that there is no more heat generated because of this lack of friction. But in my Universe, matter is electromagnetic energy vibrating at a very high frequency (above gamma-rays). If the matter did not vibrate it would not exist as matter. So, why does the superconductor no longer radiate heat?

Heat is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Matter and magnetism converge to emit EMR in the form of heat. If we return to Foucalt's copper-wheel experiment, the resistance offered by the conductor converts magnetic force into electricity (eddy currents). When the wheel is turned, heat is produced. The electricity converts the kinetic energy of the turning wheel into heat. This heat is the product of friction. It does not appear that molecules are bumping into one another to produce the heat - but rather the heat is the result of magnetic friction. This friction is generated by matter (the conductor) creating a resistance as it moves through the magnetic field. Therefore, is all heat energy a product of magnetic friction? If this can be applied to EMR in the form of heat, then it can also be applied to all forms of EMR - gamma rays, visible light, microwaves, etc. Are all EMR waves the product of magnetic friction? This would mean that electricity is a form of magnetic friction.

A superconductor is said to have no electrical resistance. Heat is no longer being produced by magnetic friction. The electricity is allowed to simply flow. Superconducting loops of wire have been shown to carry electrical currents for several years with no measurable loss. Electricity would thus appear to be a motion in the aether. In a previous post, I wondered if the term having no electrical resistance could also be written as having perfect magnetic resistance - where the conductor converts magnetic energy into electricity without generating friction. Does this still apply?

## Friday, 23 January 2009

### Norman's Goblet

While rummaging for information on the magnetic dip of a compass, I found this site and thought it best to give it it's own mention. It's nicely put together, and has a good go at not only explaining magnetic dip, but magnetism in general.

"Robert Norman was a compass maker in London. In those days, this is how you made a compass. You produced a flat steel needle, then found the place in the middle where it balanced, and made an indentation, so that the needle could be placed on top of a pivot at that point. Then you rubbed the steel needle against a lodestone to magnetize it. But a strange thing was noted: when the needle was placed again on its pivot, it no longer balanced. The north-pointing end seemed heavier, and the compass builder had to snip off a bit from that end, to balance it again.

One day Robert Norman spoiled a needle by snipping off too much, and decided to investigate. He balanced a needle on a horizontal axis lined up in the east west direction, and after balancing it carefully, magnetized it. The needle could still point north-south, but now it also had the freedom to point at any angle to the horizontal. Suspended that way, it did not stay horizontal, but tilted its northward-seeking end at a steep angle downwards. This showed that the magnetic force pulling it northward was not horizontal, but slanted downward, into the solid Earth."

http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/NSTA1A.htm

## Thursday, 22 January 2009

### Something Bright

I chanced upon this article by NASA. It made me wonder about what 2012 shall bring? The Maya calendar almost certainly predicts something. According to them it will be the end to an enormous cycle. Hopefully it will be the start of something bright.

"February 15, 2001 -- You can't tell by looking, but scientists say the Sun has just undergone an important change. Our star's magnetic field has flipped.

The Sun's magnetic poles will remain as they are now, with the north magnetic pole pointing through the Sun's southern hemisphere, until the year 2012 when they will reverse again. This transition happens, as far as we know, at the peak of every 11-year sunspot cycle -- like clockwork."

"The winter solstice, 21st December 2012, will see our solar system come into perfect synchronous alignment with the galactic equator of the Milky Way. This event will mark the synchronous completion of a 75,000 year galactic cycle and a 25,000 year planetary cycle.
Much has been prophesied about the significance of this coming alignment event by ancient civilizations. Mayans, for example, equated it with the ending of their own time-system and the arrival of a Golden Age for humanity. This alignment event also marks the transition from the age of Pisces to the age of Aquarius."

Near the centre of our galaxy, a nebula was discovered by the Spitzer Space Telescope - the Double Helix Nebula. It is thought to have been distorted by magnetic torsion into the shape of two connected spirals, known popularly as a double helix, akin to the shape of DNA. (It is this image of the nebula you see at the top of this post.)

## Wednesday, 21 January 2009

That can't be right, surely? If electricity is the magnetic flow of force, does that mean it travels from the power station to my light bulb and back at 50 times a second? That simply don't feel right.

Nope. It still don't feel right.

## Tuesday, 20 January 2009

### Balancing Act

I found these teachings of Hermes on the web. They are called the Kybalion. Maybe I've seen them before, but I honestly don't remember. The similarities between these teachings, and the conclusions that science has drawn about the Universe are pretty amazing. It appears the human race has known for a very long time that the Universe is electric.

"Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."--The Kybalion.

"The Hermetic Teachings are that not only is everything in constant movement and vibration, but that the "differences" between the various manifestations of the universal power are due entirely to the varying rate and mode of vibrations. Not only this, but that even THE ALL, in itself, manifests a constant vibration of such an infinite degree of intensity and rapid motion that it may be practically considered as at rest, the teachers directing the attention of the students to the fact that even on the physical plane a rapidly moving object (such as a revolving wheel) seems to be at rest. The Teachings are to the effect that Spirit is at one end of the Pole of Vibration, the other Pole being certain extremely gross forms of Matter. Between these two poles are millions upon millions of different rates and modes of vibration.

The Universal Ether, which is postulated by science without its nature being understood clearly, is held by the Hermetists to be but a higher manifestation of that which is erroneously called matter (i.e. Matter at a higher degree of vibration) and is called by them "The Ethereal Substance". The Hermetists teach that this Ethereal Substance is of extreme tenuity and elasticity, and pervades universal space, serving as a medium of transmission of waves of vibratory energy such as heat, light, electricity, magnetism, etc. The Teachings are that The Ethereal Substance is a connecting link between the forms of vibratory energy known as "Matter" on the one hand and "Energy" or "Force" on the other; and also that it manifests a rate, mode and degree of vibration entirely its own.

There are degrees of Love and Hate, and there is a middle point where "Like and Dislike" become so faint that it is difficult to distinguish between them."

Love and hate are basically different sides of the same coin. I think a person who is able to balance with perfect poise at this mid-point would be an enlightened being. This inner spiritual strength is centred around balance. Is it possible, in some way perhaps, to apply ideas of strength and balance to the physical laws of magnetism? It is frustrating that so much of magnetism remains invisible, until that is, one decides to simply look at the everyday around them. Magnetism is everywhere. It shapes and pervades everything - giving it all a sublime symmetry.

If you get a chance, I'd also recommend reading this guy's stuff. His name is Charles F Haanel . Fascinating. I think it ties in very well with the above. http://www.psitek.net/pages/PsiTekTMKSContents.html

Many thanks also :
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/kyb/kyb12.htm

## Wednesday, 14 January 2009

"From Maxwell's field equations only the well-known (transverse) Hertzian waves can be derived, whereas the calculation of longitudinal electromagnetic waves gives zero as a result. This is a flaw of the field theory, since longitudinal waves exist for all particle waves, like e.g. as plasma wave, as photon- or neutrino radiation."
http://www.tfcbooks.com/mall/more/610sw.htm

I also found this on the internet. It's from an article called ' Faster Than Light, and it's written by a guy called Hugo Gernsback - "...Dr. Tesla revealed that he had made a number of surprising discoveries in the high-frequency electric field and that, in the course of these experiments, he had become convinced that he propagated frequencies at speeds higher than the speed of light.

In his patent No. 787,412, filed May 16, 1900, Tesla showed that the current of his transmitter passed over the earth's surface with a speed of 292,830 miles per second, while radio waves proceed with the velocity of light Tesla holds, however, that our present "radio" waves are not true Hertzian waves, but really sound waves."
http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko/delo/10868

"Although Tesla took those first steps toward radio, he did not benefit from its financial returns because his visions were in other directions. The equipment he constructed and patented were oriented toward a complete planetary communications system. First, he built a large experimental facility near Colorado Springs, Colorado, where he explored natural electromagnetic signals, especially from lightning. He then went on to transmit high power and large potential electromagnetic signals around the earth, while utilizing varying versions of what has become known as 'Tesla coils'.

Tesla considered his methods of transmission not 'Hertzian waves', or what we now refer to as transverse electromagnetic waves (radio), but another type of signal transmission. He described them as faster-than-light (FTL) longitudinal wave transmissions." - I would be sure to read this entire page because it's very interesting.
http://home.gwi.net/~erichard/fastlit.htm

Tesla had some ideas about broadcasting electricity where "...the air will serve as a conductor for the current produced, and the latter will be transmitted through the air with, it may be, even less resistance than through an ordinary copper wire."

"....he speaks of tuning his apparatus until Hertzian radiations have been eliminated, he is referring to using ELF vibrations: "...the Hertzian effect has gradually been reduced through the lowering of frequency"."

## Tuesday, 13 January 2009

### Luminiferous Aether

"The Michelson–Morley experiment, one of the most important and famous experiments in the history of physics, was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University. It is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the theory of a luminiferous aether.

At any given point on the Earth's surface, the magnitude and direction of the aether wind would vary with time of day and season. By analyzing the return speed of light in different directions at various different times, it was thought to be possible to measure the motion of the Earth relative to the aether.

Instead of providing insight into the properties of the aether, Michelson and Morley’s article in the American Journal of Science reported the measurement to be as small as one-fortieth of the expected displacement but “since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity” they concluded that the measured velocity was approximately one-sixth of the expected velocity of the Earth’s motion in orbit and “certainly less than one-fourth.” Although this small “velocity” was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of aether, and it was later said to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero."

So with the 'failure' of this experiment, scientists moved away from the idea of a luminiferous aether (which is a bit of a shame as it's such a lovely pairing of words). Spacetime replaced the luminiferous aether. Now that spacetime has been disproved (well, for me anyways) - I wonder if we should return to some of the old ideas, and experiments, regarding the mysterious luminiferous aether.

It appears Newton thought that the aether IS the vaccum...."Is not the heat of the warm room convey'd through the vacuum by the vibrations of a much subtler medium than air, which after the air was drawn out remained in the vacuum?"

It also appears that Einstein still maintained thoughts about the qualities of the aether, even as he replaced it with spacetime - "Einstein's conclusion about the existence of Ether after he developed the General relativity - a fact missing in the scholar Physics textbooks. In 1920 Albert Einstein stated [1]:

page 16: But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adducted in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical quality whatever. The fundamental facts of (quantum) mechanics do not harmonize with this view.

page 23: Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."

In the late 19th century, Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism were formulated. They predicted that the speed of light (and of electromagnetic waves in general) in vacuum is 300,000 km/s. In a Universe where light can travel at any speed, why does light choose to travel in a vacuum at 300,00km/s? Could it be that a luminiferous aether regulates the speed at which electromagnetic radiation travels in a vacuum? Is the aether only applicable within the Schumann cavity - or perhaps the Earth's magnetic field - or even the solar system's magnetosphere? ( I guess one more question on the pile won't hurt) - Is the luminiferous aether illustrating the electric effect of the Sun upon the Earth?

## Sunday, 11 January 2009

### Ohm Eddy

A magnet produces a vector field, the magnetic field at all points in the space around it. We are taught that the magnetic field is created by the moving charges in a current-carrying wire. Except I don't believe the charges are in the conductor - hopping and bopping from atom to atom in the metal. In a DC supply, such as a battery, the flow of charge around a circuit is from the positive terminal to the negative terminal (and also vice versa). If there are no charges in the conductor, it means that the 'flow of charge' should actually be acknowledged as the flow of the magnetic field.

If magnetic lines of force (induced by an AC supply) intercept a conducting metal sheet, eddy currents are produced. The eddy currents reduce the intensity of the perpendicular magnetic field at the surface of the conductor. The magnetic field has been converted into electricity by the conductor. The conductor has produced electricity by offering resistance to the magnetic field. Therefore, if no resistance was offered by the conductor to the magnetic field - there would be no electricity - and the magnetic lines of force would pass directly through. (So I wonder if a superconductor is actually representing zero resistance to an electric current. Maybe its offering an incredibly efficient resistance to a magnetic field - so that all the lines of magnetic force are converted into electricity????)

Eddy currents are produced in any core material that is an electric conductor. Eddy currents are the root cause of the skin effect in conductors carrying AC current. I'll go the whole hog and say the eddy currents represent the flow of the magnetic field. In one of Foucault's experiments, a geared-up copper wheel was rotated in the gap of an electromagnet. With no current through the magnet coils the wheel rotated easily. As soon as the magnet was energized (by a DC supply), resistance to rotation was felt and the copper disk started to heat up. In one experiment, the temperature of the disk rose from 10ÂºC to 61ÂºC.

So I'm trying to get this straight. The resistance of the conductor converts magnetic force into electricity. The electricity then converts the kinetic energy of the turning wheel into heat. We have magnetic force being converted into heat. Heat is often dismissed by science as proof of inefficiency in the system, because heat cannot be converted back into kinetic energy with 100% efficiency. Some energy from the heat will aways be lost. Wouldn't it be great to find a way of converting heat into kinetic energy with 100% efficiency?

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magfield.htm

### Battery Included

A battery is a perfect example of a direct current power supply. Batteries have three parts, an anode (-), a cathode (+), and the electrolyte. Alkaline batteries are the ones you normally find around your household. In this case, zinc is the anode, or the electrode that becomes negatively charged due to the electrolyte. Manganese dioxide is the cathode, or the electrode that becomes positively charged. The electrolyte (providing the ion transport mechanism between the anode and cathode) of an alkaline cell is a strong alkali solution of potassium hydroxide.

It is supposed that the chemical reactions in the battery cause a build-up of electrons at the anode. This then results in an electrical difference between the anode to the cathode within the battery. Apparently, the electrolyte keeps the electrons from going straight from the anode to the cathode within the battery. If you connect a wire between the negative and positive terminals, the electrons will flow from the negative to the positive terminal as fast as they can. Normally, you connect some type of load to the battery using a length of wire. The load might be something like a light bulb, a motor, or an electronic circuit like a radio. Unless electrons are flowing from the negative to the positive terminal - the chemical reaction does not take place. Once you connect a wire, the reaction starts.

I am struggling with the above idea of how a battery works. For a start, I don't follow the assumption that electrons flow from the negative to the positive terminal (I don't even follow electrons). As discussed in previous posts, I am far more inclined to believe that electrical energy travels from each terminal simultaneously - not simply from the negative to positive terminals, but also from the positive to negative terminals. Hereby, electricity starts to take on the appearance of a double helix.

The electrodes of a battery are dissimilar metals which induce a chemical reaction. Current theory is that the electrolyte allows ions to move between the electrodes. Outside the cell they can be connected by a circuit through which electrons will flow, but inside the cell, the electrolyte keeps the electrons from going straight from the anode to the cathode. (To make this a little more confusing, I also read somewhere else that electrons in a circuit flow from the cathode through the electrolyte to the anode). It's here I hope to unmuddy the waters a bit. Sure, we have a chemical reaction, but it's far more likely that the reaction is not seperating the charges in the electrodes - but rather in the electrolyte? This would then explain why electrical energy does not travel inside the cell from anode to cathode.

The anode and cathode are reacting with each other in such a way as to force charges in the electrolyte to seperate. These seperated charges produce an electromagnetic force we know as electricity. Electricity is popularily known as the flow of electrical charge. The flow of charge is called the current. A DC circuit is also known as a uni-directional flow of electrical charge - but what exactly is moving? There are no vibrating charges in the conductor of a DC circuit (as found in an AC circuit) - all the vibrations appear to take place inside the battery.

In a DC circuit (and very possibly an AC circuit), I wonder if charges are flowing at all. I think it is the magnetic force that is flowing. A force which is created by the division of electromagnetic radiation inside the battery. In my world, electromagnetic radiation is a double helix - one side of the helix constitutes a positive charge and the other a negative charge. The charges are in a constant spin of attraction for one another. If we seperate the charges of the helix, we reveal the electromagnetic force which ties them together. It is supposed there is no such thing as as a monopole. When a battery seperates the charges, is it possible that batteries are creating monopoles?

The frequency of a DC circuit is supposedly zero. But what of the frequency inside the battery? Maybe there are many lessons to be learnt about the vibrational qualities of the electrodes upon the electrolyte. These vibrations, or frequencies, could be manipulated to seperate charges on a much grander scale.

http://www.bized.co.uk/images/battery.jpg
http://library.thinkquest.org/10796/ch13/ch13.htm
http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/electron.htm
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/batteries.html
http://www.howstuffworks.com/battery.htm

## Wednesday, 7 January 2009

### Can Comets Be Chondritic Meteors?

I am returning to a few thoughts on comets. Comets are percieved to be made of ice. Meteorites on the other hand are known to be made of stone. I don't quite understand why these very similar objects in space would be made from completely different materials. I suspect they are not different at all. Perhaps comets are made from the very same stuff as the meteors we recieve. I popped-out to Wiki's again -

"Most meteorites that fall on Earth are chondrites, which are characterized by the presence of round grains called chondrules (from Ancient Greek chondros, grain). Chondrules formed as molten or partially molten droplets in space before being accreted to their parent asteroids. Because chondrites represent the oldest solid material within our solar system and are believed to be the building blocks of the planetary system, it follows that an understanding of the formation of chondrules is important to understand the initial development of the planetary system.

Chondrites are stony meteorites that have not been modified due to melting or differentiation of the parent body. They formed when various types of dust and small grains that were present in the early solar system accreted to form primitive asteroids. Prominent among the components present in chondrites are the enigmatic chondrules, millimeter-sized objects that originated as freely floating, molten or partially molten droplets in space; most chondrules are rich in the silicate minerals olivine and pyroxene.

A carbonaceous chondrite or a C-type chondrite is a type of chondritic meteorite which contains high levels of water and organic compounds, representing only a small proportion (~5%) of known meteorites. Their bulk composition is mainly silicates, oxides and sulfides, while the minerals olivine and serpentine are characteristic. The presence of volatile organic chemicals and water indicates that they have not undergone significant heating (>200°C) since they formed, so their composition is considered to be representative of the solar nebula from which the solar system condensed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrule

"Meteorites are hardy, and the type known as chondrites are also primitive, dating back to the very early solar system. Chondrites contain a high density of so-called chondrules—roughly millimeter-sized spheres like the one shown here in polarized light—that were flash-melted at temperatures around 2000 K and subsequently cooled and incorporated into a meteorite's parent object, typically an asteroid. The heating mechanism is unknown but could involve shocks or lightning. Mostly made of silicate minerals such as olivine and pyroxene and of the metals iron and nickel, chondrules are expected to be deficient in volatile elements like sodium. But researchers at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, the US Geological Survey, and the American Museum of Natural History say it isn't so. Using electron microprobe spectroscopy, they studied 26 chondrules from the Semarkona meteorite that fell in India in 1940 and found significant sodium throughout."
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/update/statistical_physics_thermodyna/

"What is interesting about chondrules is that radiometric dating has put them among the first solids to have formed in the solar nebula. That is, they are the first things to have "frozen" out of the interstellar gas that eventually became our solar system. So by understanding the processes that affected chondrules, we'll gain insight as to what processes were taking place as solids first formed in the solar nebula which could have determined how the nebula as a whole evolved over time." Fred Ciesla, http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~fciesla/work/chondrule/
http://www.saharamet.com/meteorite/chondrules/show.html

A lot of people are convinced that the chondrite meteorites formed billions of years ago. This is because they are unable to explain the high temperatures needed to create the chondrules. Surely electrolysis explains the presence of chondrules. Electrolysis would also explain the behaviour of a comet - if the comet was made of the same stuff as a chondrite meteor. With the minerals that make up a meteor, we could imply that it becomes highly conductive under conditions where its salts have become molten. Where perhaps minerals and salts are expended under electrolysis, then a comet could fall out of its circuit with the Sun, and may even become a meteor.

http://dl.clackamas.cc.or.us/ch105-09/molten.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonaceous_chondrite

## Saturday, 3 January 2009

### The Sargasso Sea

Each year, about 1,700 million tonnes of dust are produced by deserts around the world and obout one third of this falls into the oceans. In fact, a staggering 40 million tonnes of dust is transported from the Sahara to the Amazon each year. The sand and dust are rich in nutrients and minerals. The dust blown across the Atlantic falls into the sea, where the minerals are thought to fertilize the ocean. Deep within the Atlantic Ocean, near the Bermuda Triangle, lies a sea shrouded with mystery - named the Sargasso Sea. The sea is named after a seaweed which is unique to the area - sargassum.

The Sargasso's currents are largely immobile yet surrounded by some of the strongest currents in the world. Although most scientists thought that this expanse of sea contained no sustainable life, observations showed that oxygen and other elements were being consumed at a higher rate than theories and models could account for. This led scientists to think there must be some nutrient source fueling the blooms of phytoplankton in the Sargasso Sea ( Carlowicz, 2006; LiveScience). This discovery, in turn, led to the discovery of eddies.

Eddies are the internal weather of the sea - the oceanic equivalent of storms in the atmosphere. The largest eddies can contain upto 1,200 cubic miles of water and can last from months to a year. Eddy-driven nutrient transport actually primes the ocean's 'biological pump' fertilizing the waters with nutrients from the deep. Fed by this unusual upwelling, the phytoplankton population greatly increases, and in-turn, attracts more zooplankton and other animals higher up the food chain. The fate of all that biomass also is important as plankton blooms can remove substantial amounts of carbon dioxide from surface waters, and sink it to the deep ocean.

I am reminded of so many things here. I think of mountains that are so large that they generate their own weather. It would also appear that the Sargasso Sea creates its own weather. The Sargasso Sea is found above the seafloor that is the Nares Abyssal Plain which has a maximum depth of 6,491 meters. As some kind of comparison, Mount Kilimanjaro stands at 5,885 meters above sea-level. ( I'm unsure of its relevance, but I'm also reminded of how forest wildfires produce their own weather)

Then there is the obvious comparison of eddy-currents in the Sargasso Sea, and those eddy-currents which are an electrical phenomena as discovered by French physicist Leon Foucalt in 1851. A magnet moved near a solid mass, or plate of metal, induces in it currents which, in flowing through it from one point to another, have their energy frittered down into heat, and which, while they last, produce (in accordance with Lenz's law) electromagnetic forces tending to stop the motion. An eddy-current is the current induced in little swirls ('eddies'). If the waters of the Sargasso Sea act as eddies - what is creating the imposed magnetic field?

Water is a conductor. Salty water is an excellent conductor. The water of the Sargasso Sea is said to be salty, and warm, maintaining a salinity around 36%, and euphotic zone temperature up to 22 c. The northern region contains warm water known as eighteen-degree water that moves outwards along the surface of the sea, allowing it to maintain that temperature year round whereas coastal waters with the same latitudes freeze in the winter. So perhaps here we have a little evidence of the heat generated by electrical eddy-currents.

Work is done when lifting a grain of sand off the ground to a certain height, because the sand's potential energy changes. I'm trying to imagine what happens as 1,700 million tonnes of the stuff is transformed from potential energy into kinetic energy. We have seen the spectacular effects from the electrolysis of minerals on-board comets - so what could be the effects of mineral rich dust? What effects (if any) does this have on the atmospheric weather systems, and the systems of the sea?

The Sargasso is an oasis of calm surrounded by strong currents; my mind is drawn to hurricanes. The eye of a hurricane is well known for its calm winds, and being surrounded by a ring of towering thunderstorms where the most severe weather of a cyclone occurs.(As a point of interest, hurricanes develop in the southern part of the North Atlantic Ocean).

There are five major ocean-wide gyres - the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific, and Indian Ocean Gyres. These are giant circular surface currents that sweep around the major ocean basins. Mid-ocean gyres are known as 'ocean deserts'. Is a pattern starting to appear in connection with the 'skin-effect' of electrical flow in conductors? Where electricity does not simply flow in the core of the conductor, but flows outside on the skin.

Many thanks:

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=10592

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Gyre

http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Sargasso_Sea

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7228081.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_(cyclone)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/blueplanet/infobursts/gyres_bg.shtml

http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Oceans.html