Friday, 29 May 2009

Try This One For Size

Got a pen handy? Draw ten circles in a row. Let's think of each circle as a wheel. With the first circle, the direction of rotation is clockwise. The direction of rotation for each circle alternates from circle to circle. With the second circle the direction of spin is counter-clockwise, and with the third circle it's clockwise, etc, etc. A simple way for an electric fluid to get all ten moving would be to weave between each circle, in a zig-zag motion, like a motorbike weaving between bollards. The fluid, which we can think of more as a rope, has only to move in one direction - let's say from left to right. Starting from the top of the first wheel the rope moves round the bottom of the second wheel, before moving round the top of the third wheel, and so on. As the rope is pulled to the right, it acts upon the ten wheels and pulls them round. Thus, each alternate wheel rotates in a different direction to its neighbour.

If you just look at the rope, the zig-zags take on the form of sinusoidal waves. In a previous post I spoke of tying a long ribbon to a flat stone, and then watching the shape of the ribbon as the stone skims across a lake. Well, now the rope reminds me of that ribbon. The size and number of vortices, and the distance between them, could effect the size and number of waves in the rope.

If we had only two circles which make up a counter-rotating vortex pair, or dipolar vortices, an effective way for the fluid to move around the two would be in the shape of a figure-eight. If the wheel on the left was moving clockwise, and the one on the right moving counter-clockwise, then the fluid would start from the top of the left wheel and move to the bottom of the wheel on the right. The fluid could follow the motion of the wheel round counter-clockwise, before moving across to the bottom of the wheel on the left. Both wheels are therefore turning in alternate directions with a simple unidirectional flow.

In following the motion of the two wheels, we can see how they would serve in inducing the fluid of the aether down between the two of them. The flow of the figure-eight would effect the shape of this induction, and on the longitudinal axis (the line taken around the outermost rim of a torus) the motion would surely take place in spirals. That's spirals into the centre of the torus and spirals back out again. At the moment though, these dipolar vortices offer a very thin cross-sectional slice of a torus. To create a torus proper, the dipole pair would need to be spun round 360 degrees, like the blades of a helicopter.

Electrons have a spin like a top that is also quantized. Simply put the spin can be either clockwise or counterclockwise, and the spin can only have exactly one magnitude of energy. Quantum theory states that only two electrons can occupy a single energy level of an atom and that those two electrons must have opposite spins. If somehow one of the two electrons switches spin then the other electron will instantaneously switch spins also. This "connection" that the two electrons share is called entanglement. The nucleus of the atom as a whole also has spin which is quantized as do the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus. Particles of light, called photons, have a polarity that is also quantized similar to electron spin, which can be one of two possible states.
http://scimysticism.com/unprovabletruths-p3.htm

There are two modes of electron spin. Schematically we can represent them as either clockwise or counter-clockwise. If the electron is spinning in a horizontal plane and counter-clockwise as viewed from above, the direction of the magnetic moment is directed up. If it is clockwise, the reverse is true. The direction of the moment is comparable to the direction of the magnetization (from S to N poles) of a permanent magnet to which the electron spin is equivalent.
Modern Ferrite Technology By Alex Goldman


So it appears that the dipolar vortices as proposed by Kelvin and Maxwell, could be the exact same things which we refer to as electrons. An electron pair would appear to be the dipolar vortices of a torus. Is an electron pair basically a donut? A smoke ring? This is reassuring as it starts to reveal how the aether generates matter by the motion of the dipolar vortices. The motion of dipolar vortices also generates polarity.

I did have a few thoughts about polarity. If you could hover over the north pole of the Earth and look down, you would find the planet rotated in a counter-clockwise direction. If you went to the south pole and observed from there, you would find the planet rotated in a clockwise direction. It's interesting how the act of observation appears to directly affect polarity.

A hyperboloid can be seen as the centre of a torus. A yo-yo can look a bit like a hyperboloid, right? It's interesting that if you stand in front of a yo-yo that is made to spin in a clockwise direction, and you then step away from the yo-yo, and you walk round to face it from the other side, you will find that the yo-yo is moving in a counter-clockwise direction. The act of observation dictates direction. In the same way, if you were able to see the clock hands move through the back of a transparent clock, they would thus appear to move in a counter-clockwise direction.

We've seen with weather systems how important direction is in dictating the behaviour of a pressure system. In the northern hemisphere, winds are sucked counter-clockwise into a low pressure system; whereas a high pressure system blows winds in a clockwise direction. The direction, it could be said, dictates whether the pressure system sucks or blows.

The winds which so often whip us to work in the morning are horizontal winds. But high and low pressure systems also have vertical air motions, caused by density differences, and this process is known as convection. With a high pressure system, sinking cold air pushes down - so the overall flow is "down and then out". Whereas with a low pressure system, hot air expands, and gets less dense, and rises - so overall flow is "in and then up". I wonder what happens next when we apply this to the workings of our atomic torus?

Okay, we're back with our dipolar vortices. For this example, I've found it easier to make the rotation of the vortex on the right clockwise, and the one on the left counter-clockwise. Let's impose the motion of the fluid around the vortices in the shape of a figure-eight; a high pressure system feeding a low pressure system. This motion describes the horizontal winds so to speak. Horizontally, at the Earth's surface, wind always blows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure (vertically, winds move from areas of low pressure to areas of high pressure).

The vertical "winds" then shall take place inside the inner tube of the torus. Basically, and I'm making a somewhat uneasy comparison between atoms and weather systems, the energy moves vertically up from the counter-clockwise (low pressure) vortex, passes through the tube of the torus, and descends thus into the clockwise (high pressure) vortex. The picture we've built so far looks something like half a bundt cake, but the motion of those vertical winds could merrily rotate the figure-eight 360 degrees - like helicopter blades.

Does the hyperboloid at the centre of our torus describe an atomic nucleus? What of the spiral nature at the centre of our torus - does it bear any relationship to EMR? With the sinking and rising of air we are dealing with heat systems - and according to this model - it is the electrons which act as the inner tube of our torus, and as such, could be responsible for the generation of "heat".

Many thanks:
http://www.ladhyx.polytechnique.fr/activities/geo_en.html
http://www.mrsciguy.com/weather.html
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/dipole.pdf
http://www.pulse-berlin.com/index.php?id=144
http://home.comcast.net/~cochranjim/PDFS/7AS.pdf
http://reich-chemistry.wikispaces.com/file/view/Electron+Configuration+1a.doc

Thursday, 28 May 2009

Did The Egyptians Pour The Pyramids?


A man by the name of Joseph Davidvovits began to contest this classical theory of pyramid construction in 1979. His ideas and research may force even Egyptologists to revise their thinking about how the pyramids were built. Davidovits suggests that the Egyptians actually used man-made stone that was cast at the pyramid site, where it was needed. The process, he says involved pouring slurry of crushed limestone and special mineral binder into wooden molds. Within a few hours the mixture would harden into material almost indistinguishable from rock. Such a construction method would have taken less time, and required far fewer workers.

In 1984 Davidovits presented his conclusions from a analysis of rock samples from three of the pyramids and two limestone quarries at Turah and Mokhatam, traditionally associated with pyramid building. He found that the pyramids samples contained traces of minerals that were not found in the quarry. Instead, they contained as much as 13 percent of what Davidovits calls a “geopolymeric” binder. In addition, microscope examination of the samples showed that the quarried limestone consisted almost entirely of lightly packed calcite crystals that gave it a uniform density. In contrast, the casting stone was less dense and contained numerous air bubbles. Consequently if the casting stones were natural limestone, and did not match that of the quarries than where did the Egyptians get there stone? There are other clues that suggest that the Egyptians poured the pyramids.

The ingredients deeded for the mineral binder- sodium carbonate, various phosphates, quartz, and Nile silt, were all readily available to the Egyptians. In addition the casting stones had a millimeter thick surface coating that appears to consist entirely of this binder. Davidovits suggests that during setting some of the binder came to the surface to form a “skin”, it was the presence of this obviously man made coating that originally prompted him to look for traces of this material within the rock itself. This idea of manufactured stone helps to explain how the sides of the casting stone were so smooth and straight, maybe to straight for a man to quarry, cut, and shape the stone. This could also explain how the Egyptians were able to get the blocks to fit so well together that a postcard cannot even be inserted in between them. The sides of the previously molded blocks could be used as the walls for making the stone in between them. With this system, and a primitive form of concrete, the Egyptians may have completed pyramid construction within a relatively fast and effortless period of time

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/26/hce195.shtml



Pines have a pyramid shape with branches growing in layers....There is no pump inside a tree, but they do have tubes inside them. Inside these tubes, or pipelines, water drops become stacked on top of each other from the roots to the leaves. Special properties of water mean that it can rise hundreds of feet into the air. Water molecules stick to each other. When one molecule is pulled out of the leaf by evaporation, it pulls up the next water molecule in line and then the next one and so on. In this manner, water molecules are being pulled up through the tree.
http://www.newsday.com/other/special/naturalworld/ny-nw-dad-main0810,0,6183649.story

If you’ve ever opened up a bottle of juice that’s been sitting in the sun, you probably noticed a rush of air coming out of the bottle as the pressure was released. In late winter, pressure in maple trees causes sap to flow out of any hole in the wood, or even to drip from a broken branch. When temperatures drop below freezing at night, the pressure changes to suction and the trees suck moisture from the ground. This moisture replenishes the sap. As the sun rises and warms the trees, pressure builds and sap flows again. This cycle of pressure and suction makes the tree act like a pump, drawing up moisture and then releasing it.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/volunteer/young_naturalists/maple_syrup/maple_syrup.pdf

When an insect lands in tree resin, insects, plant debris and pollen can become encased in tree resin. The volatile components of the resin evaporate over thousands of years. First, it becomes a hard substance known as copal, and as all of the volatile compounds disappear, it turns into a hard, inert material called amber. These specimens are very useful, since they preserve the fossil's entire physical structure. Amber can also contain bubbles of water, air and gas.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/fossil3.htm

The recent discovery of oxygen-rich bubbles that had apparently been preserved in amber since the time of the dinosaurs has drawn its first major challenge. Two researchers in California say that their amber samples show no oxygen at all.

Dr. Berner and his collaborator, Gary P. Landis of the United States Geological Survey, reported oxygen levels as high as 32 percent, compared with 21 percent now. They analyzed bubbles that they believe were trapped directly in amber - hardened yellow lumps of resin from pine trees.

Dr. Craig, however, believes the gases do not directly reflect the ancient atmosphere, but must first have been dissolved in fluid. Oxygen dissolves more readily than nitrogen, the major component of the atmosphere, so relatively high levels of oxygen might be expected, he said.

Although the Scripps team detected no oxygen in their samples, they did measure unusually high levels of argon, another gas that dissolves easily in water. Dr. Berner said that he, too, was seeing high levels of argon, which he acknowledged was ''puzzling.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/09/us/scientists-challenge-finding-of-oxygen-in-ancient-amber.html?n=Top/News/Science/Top

Argon is used to displace oxygen- and moisture-containing air in packaging material to extend the shelf-lives of the contents. Aerial oxidation, hydrolysis, and other chemical reactions which degrade the products are retarded or prevented entirely. Bottles of high-purity chemicals and certain pharmaceutical products are available in sealed bottles or ampules packed in argon. In winemaking, argon is used to top-off barrels to avoid the aerial oxidation of ethanol to acetic acid during the aging process.

Incandescent lights are filled with argon, to preserve the filaments at high temperature. It is used for the specific way it ionizes and emits light, such as in in plasma globes and calorimetry in experimental particle physics. Gas-discharge lamps filled with argon provide blue light. Argon is also used for the creation of blue laser light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon

The third most abundant gas, making up one percent of the atmosphere. The quantity has increased since the Earth was formed because radioactive potassium turns into argon as it decays. Argon is a colourless, odourless gas that is totally inert to other substances, and for this reason it is ideal in light bulbs.
http://www.rsc.org/chemsoc/visualelements/Pages/argon.html

Tesla coil discharges inside a jar of argon welding gas.
http://www.electricstuff.co.uk/Argon.html

Potassium-argon dating is a method for estimating the age of volcanic rocks by measuring the ratio of potassium-40 to argon-40 present.

The method is based on the fact that the potassium-40 isotope of potassium decays over time to form argon-40. The useful fact about these two substances is that at normal temperatures, potassium is a solid, but argon is a gas. Therefore, during volcanic eruptions, any argon that is present escapes from the rock. But after the rock solidifies, any potassium-40 that is present continues to decay, and the argon-40 that is produced cannot escape from the rock.

Thus, geologists use potassium-argon dating to measure the age of volcanic rocks. If the concentration of argon-40 is almost zero, then the rock was formed recently. If it is high relative to the amount of potassium-40 present, then the rock is old. Archaeologists and biologists are also sometimes able to use potassium-argon dating to measure the age of artifacts and fossils, when these have become trapped in or buried under volcanic rock.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Potassium-argon_dating

Decomposition is most rapid when oxygen is present. If the supply of oxygen is restricted, as in the sediments of productive lakes or waterlogged soils, the decomposition process slows down. There are some micro-organisms (anaerobes) that are active in the absence of oxygen and, in the presence of organic matter, can contribute to the process of decomposition.

Denitrifying, sulphate-reducing, and methane-producing (methanogenic) bacteria utilize nitrate, sulphate, and carbon dioxide respectively to generate energy in much the same way as aerobic microbes use oxygen. Other anaerobes (fermenting bacteria) generate energy for metabolic processes by transforming organic compounds.
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781532796_2/decay_and_decomposition.html


The Heart Is Not A Pump

I've bumped into the theory that the heart is not a pump a few times now. I'm starting to feel that the idea that the heart is a pump is perhaps a little strange. What else is at work in the human body?

In 1932, Bremer of Harvard filmed the blood in the very early embryo circulating in self-propelled mode in spiralling streams before the heart was functioning. Amazingly, he was so impressed with the spiralling nature of the blood flow pattern that he failed to realize that the phenomena before him had demolished the pressure propulsion principle. Earlier in 1920, Steiner, of the Goetheanum in Switzerland had pointed out in lectures to medical doctors that the heart was not a pump forcing inert blood to move with pressure but that the blood was propelled with its own biological momentum, as can be seen in the embryo, and boosts itself with "induced" momenta from the heart. He also stated that the pressure does not cause the blood to circulate but is caused by interrupting the circulation.

The fact that the heart by itself is incapable of sustaining the circulation of the blood was known to physicians of antiquity. They looked for auxiliary forces of blood movement in various types of `etherisation' and `pneumatisation' or ensoulement of the blood on its passage through the heart and lungs. With the dawn of modern science and over the past three hundred years, such concepts became untenable. The mechanistic concept of the heart as a hydraulic pump prevailed and became firmly established around the middle of the nineteenth century.

The heart, an organ weighing about three hundred grams, is supposed to `pump' some eight thousand liters of blood per day at rest and much more during activity, without fatigue. In terms of mechanical work this represents the lifting of approximately 100 pounds one mile high! In terms of capillary flow, the heart is performing an even more prodigious task of `forcing' the blood with a viscosity five times greater than that of water through millions of capillaries with diameters often smaller than the red blood cells themselves! Clearly, such claims go beyond reason and imagination. Due to the complexity of the variables involved, it has been impossible to calculate the true peripheral resistance even of a single organ, let alone of the entire peripheral circulation. Also, the concept of a centralized pressure source (the heart) generating excessive pressure at its source, so that sufficient pressure remains at the remote capillaries, is not an elegant one.

Movement without applied pressure is movement with momentum, as we observe so dramatically in the long leaps of racing cats. It is also manifest in nature in flowing water in open streams, traveling tornadoes, and jet streams which are actually horizontal spirals of air and moisture that can be thousands of miles long and move around like meandering rivers in the upper atmosphere.

Rudolf Steiner, scientist and philosopher, pointed out on several occasions that the blood moves autonomously 5, and that the pressure is not the cause of blood flow but the result of it 6. The clinicians of old used elaborate methods of describing the nature of the arterial pulse and the ictus cordis or the apex beat, which is the impulse of the heart against the chest wall. Many descriptive terms such as thready pulse of hypovolemic shock, collapsing or water-hammer pulse of aortic incompetence and `heaving' apical impulse of left ventricular hypertrophy, convey the intuitive understanding of the real mechanism of the heart's action.

In a movie made by Bremer of the beating embryonic heart, one observes that the spiraling blood is boosted by the pulsating heart without creating turbulence in the blood. This suggests that the momentum transfer occurring between the heart and blood is in phase; the heart must somehow sense the motion of the blood and respond to it in turn with a spiraling impulses at the same velocities as the blood, thereby combining blood and heart momenta.

...When moving through larger arteries the red cells are in toroidal shape, with their mass at the periphery to maximize the moment of inertia, and are assumed to rotate about their individual axes due to the phenomenon of vorticity (the creation of micro-vortices between swirling layers in the main vortex moving at different velocities). Thus we can expect to find that the billions of red cells are actually traveling in their own unique space as further evidence of the extreme order of the blood motion.

The spiral theme is also apparent in the heart and vessel form and function. The musculature of the heart and arteries all the way down to the pre-capillaries is spirally oriented, and both the heart and arteries move spirally to augment the momenta of the blood 2,(18), 19. The literature on anatomical and physiological considerations of the twisting motion of the heart and vessels is comprehensive and has recently been reviewed 2. The fact that arterial endothelial cell orientation closely follows the blood flow patterns is well established 18, (19).

The autonomic vortex movement of the blood discussed herein is inherent to the blood motion. It is not an accidental local disturbance often explained as turbulence or eddy currents, nor a localized phenomena with a single functional purpose as in heart valve dynamics. From a broader view it is to be expected that blood should so move, considering that fluids in nature tend to move curvilinearly, which is their path of least energy. The extreme expression of this tendency in nature, in terms of order, stability and minimal expenditure of energy are tornados and "jet" streams.

The Bourdon tube gage is named after its inventor, Bourdon. Its pressure sensitive element consists of a circularly bent tube that is flattened to increase its sensitivity to pressure. When the tube is subjected to an internal positive pressure it tends to straighten; when subjected to an internal negative pressure its radius of curvature is increased. The deformation of the tube is proportional to the pressure and is transmitted via links and gears to motions that turn a pointer on a scale calibrated to indicate pressure.
http://www.rsarchive.org/RelArtic/Marinelli/

It was this last paragraph which caught my eye. I've no idea what a Bourdon tube gage is, but it's the way it acts which intrigues me. It sounds something like a diaphragm. It also reminds me of the actions of a water-strider as it attempts to tackle the meniscus at the water's edge.(?) And ultimately, of the magnetic field around a bar magnet.(?!)

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

Found this....

"05 Jan 2001

I have just been reading your debunking of the pharaohs pump. Firstly - I am a skeptic. I found this stuff on the internet and thought it was very strange. In addition the site does not help itself by linking within one click to perpetual motion 'vortex' machines.

Despite the theory being strange and I myself would need a lot more evidence to be convinced there was a working pump in the pyramid, it is not a truly outlandish idea. About 100 years ago pumps were built along the Murray (Australia's largest river) which consisted of large cylinders bored into the ground alongside the river. Fuel (oil) and air entered the chamber, were ignited and the pressure forced the water out for irrigation. The volume of the pump was about the size of a large room. Nothing weird here - simply a large internal combustion engine with water acting as the piston. The engine ran for about 50 years.

One of the problems that would have faced the ancients is they lacked metals - specifically steel. It is very difficult to build engines that can handle any sort of pressure without metals. One solution of course is to dig out a hole in the ground. Large pressures can then be accommodated."

Dr James Moxham (medical Dr, not engineer)Adelaide Australia


http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/pharoahspump.html

Earth - An Electromagnetic Pump?

Current theory is that the Earth is a geodynamo. Geophysicists think that the ambient magnetic field measured at the Earth's surface is due to electric currents flowing in its liquid iron core. In the Earth it is thought that the magnetic field is maintained by dynamo action, whereby the kinetic energy of convective motion in the Earth's liquid core is converted into magnetic energy. Since this process is percieved as operating without an external energy source, the geodynamo is said to be self-sustaining. But, perhaps, there really is an external energy source, one that not only sustains the Earth, but also everything in the Universe - including us. For those who are familiar with previous posts, well, you will know this external power source is the aether that I'm always banging on about. Rather than being a geodynamo - is the Earth an electromagnetic pump?

An electromagnetic pump is used in nuclear reactors. It works by applying a magnetic field to a pipe containing a conductive metal fluid. A current is passed crosswise through the fluid. This establishes an electromagnetic force in the direction of the flow that drives the fluid forward. The flow of fluid transfers heat away from the reactor to a steam generator, which then drives the turbine. It has also been found useful in pumping blood without causing damage to blood cells in the heart-lung, and artificial kidney machines. I wonder, if the Earth is acting as an electromagnetic pump - does magma therefore act as a conductive fluid? Does light from the Sun generate an applied current?

The Physics of the Plasma Universe by Anthony Peratt describes magma as a plasma, a medium containing moving charges. Perhaps that which we refer to as charged particles, or ions, are really dissolved gases which have become invisible inside the magma. Ultrasonic vibrations in the bowels of the Earth could be the cause of the dissolved gases inside magma. Plasma is an ionized gas. Gases can become plasmas in several ways, but all include pumping the gas with energy. In the same way that magma acts as a plasma, because the ultrasonic vibrations dissolve gases, and literally pump the magma with energy.






Many thanks:
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/04/08/new-array-captures-redoubt-volcano-lightning/
http://www.gns.cri.nz/news/release/volc.html
http://www.mig.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/stargaze/Slatlong.htm
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/26950
http://www.spaceweathercenter.org/swop/Science_Briefs/Magnet/1.html
http://www.singularvortex.com/WFE%20on%20polar%20aurora.htm
http://www.1stardrive.com/solar/mag.htm
http://www.dapla.org/aura.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051212volcaniclightning.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/geodynamo

Getting To Grips With The Elusive Electron



The electron is said to behave like a little magnet; the Earth is said to behave like a huge magnet; a bar magnet then could be said to be a model for both the electron, and the planet. So far, and this could all be wrong, but so far I have come to view the bar magnet as two toroids, or rather two doughnuts stacked one on top of the other. The toroids suck in the aether from both ends. Somewhere between these two donuts, at the equator so to speak, something happens.... on Earth it's warm at the equator, right? And hey, we get those funny lights at the north and south poles too! Do the auroras have any relation, perhaps, to EMR, and what we think of as photons?

A cross section of a torus reveals dipolar vortices. I believe these dipolar vortices are the atomic dipolar vortices referred to by Maxwell. If the one on the left turns counter-clockwise, and the one on the right clockwise, we can see that it could draw the fluid of the aether up through its centre, like a tornado. The centre of the torus is made up with a hyperbolic surface, where the aether enters from one side, and is thus expelled from the other. The motion of the aether within the hyperboloid is one of spirals.




A torus is made up of two circles perpendicular (at right angles) to one another. With EMR, the electric field is perpendicular to the magnetic field. The outermost rim of the torus is the longitudinal axis. The spirals of the double cone occupy the longitudinal axis of the torus's interior. The Earth is also thought of as having two lines which are perpendicular to one another - latitude and longitude. On the globe however, lines of constant longitude ("meridians") extend from pole to pole, like the segment boundaries on a peeled orange.

What then of electrons in this model? In 1906, JJ Thomson concluded from an analysis of the scattering of X-rays by gases and of absorption of beta-rays by solids, both of which he assumed were affected by electrons, that the number of electrons in an atom was approximately equal to the atomic number. The bigger the atom is, the slower the electrons oscillation is, and the lower the frequency the radiation emitted. Electrons are supposed to be some 1800 times lighter than the lightest atom hydrogen, however, scientists are a little unsure of its size:

"The electron is as small (or as large) as you want it to be, because the electron exhibits properties that we associate with particles (that have a size) and waves (that do not have a size). This duality is not a matter of "doing a better experiment" it is inherent in the nature of the particles."

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00666.htm

"Since the middle of the 1920‘s physicists have been struggling to understand the electron. From experiments it was concluded that the electron is a structure-less point-like object which has its entire mass in this extension-less centre. On the other, hand the electron shows properties which normally result from an extended structure, namely an angular momentum (spin), a magnetic moment, and some kind of an internal oscillation.

To investigate whether the electron is built by several constituents, it was bombarded by other particles (e.g. protons) at a very high energy. The electron was not decomposed, so it was concluded that it does not have further constituents. However, in the view of the Basic Particle Model the constituents of the electron do not have a mass on their own. So, if one of the constituents is accelerated to the speed of light c which is the maximum possible, then the other constituent can follow without any delay. There is not even force acting on that constituent. So an electron can never break up"

http://ag-physics.org/electron/

"The photoelectric effect (thank Albert Einstein) was telling scientists that photons behaved as if they were discrete particles with an energy proportional to their wavelength. Electrons in atoms acted as if they had discrete energy levels and could move from one to another by absorption or emission of these light particles, or photons."

http://nanopedia.case.edu/NWPage.php?page=electron.wavelength

"Magnets are usually made of metal in some form. Metals are usually made of small crystals. If you could look at these crystals in a magnet from the inside, you would see that each one of these crystals is a small magnet with its own poles. So a magnet is really a bunch of little magnets. The big magnet doesn't act like a magnet until all the little magnets are lined up the same way.

It turns out that all electrons have a little spin all the time. (I don't yet know why. It seems to be a rather fundamental fact of life. Maybe someday physicists will explain it.) In atoms, most spinning electrons have best-buddies which spin the opposite way, cancelling out their little bit of magnetic field. Some atoms have an "un-paired" electron with no buddy; these atoms are strong little magnets."

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05022.htm

"Some people might be bothered by this description because they have been told that there are no "magnetic monopoles," i.e. there are no teeny little isolated magnetic field sources. This is true, but it turns out that if you take an electric field source (such as an electron) and run it around in a circle (say as if it were orbiting an atom), it then exhibits a magnetic moment, and looks a lot like a little magnet."

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae640.cfm



"A Maltese cross made of thin mica is placed between the cathode and the walls of the tube. When the discharge is past, the green phosphorescence no longer extends all over the end of the tube, as it did when the cross was absent. There is now a well-defined cross in the phosphorescence at the end of the tube; the mica cross has thrown a shadow and the shape of the shadow proves that the phosphorescence is due to something travelling from the cathode in straight lines, which is stopped by a thin plate of mica. The green phosphorescence is caused by cathode rays..."

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/ea/THOMSONann.HTML

The auroras often display green lights too. Matter emits wavelengths of EMR which the eye interprets as green light. Is matter sucking up electrons and emitting photons? Judging by the auroras at the poles, it is the motion of electrons which produces light...(?)



So far, hints suggest that the aether is incompressible and indivisible. For these reasons I don't believe in the existence of a single particle as such, but rather an unbreakable chain of "particles" flowing as the fluid of the aether. Each "particle" appears to be acutely aware of its position in the Universe. Sometimes I have to stop thinking about it because it makes my brain hurt.

Monday, 25 May 2009


"It is possible that the electrical forces involved may also give the tornado some portion of its destructive power on the ground. Where charges are out of balance, the electrical force dominates over the force of gravity!

Have you ever wondered why that little piece of plastic wrap clings to your hand (static [electric] cling), despite violently shaking it and despite the entire gravitational potential of the Earth resting below your feet pulling downward it? Yep, that’s how much stronger the raw electric force is with respect to gravity…

The notion of electrical forces playing a significant role in tornadoes is not especially new, just not well-known. In fact, several notables have contributed anecdotally to the theory. Their collected works may be greater on the whole than any one single contribution.

In addition to the paper above on stabilization of a high-voltage discharge, Bernard Vonnegut also penned a paper on the Electrical Theory of Tornadoes (abstract below):

"Modern theory and observations appear to support the very old and almost forgotten idea that tornadoes are a manifestation of thunderstorm electricity. It is suggested that there is sufficient electrical energy in an intense thunderstorm to power a tornado and that the electrification could cause extraordinarily intense winds by electrically heating air or by accelerating charged air in an electric field. "

The theory of “electrically heating air” has been largely discarded as a formative mechanism. Accelerating charged particles in the air, and thus the air itself through collisions of those particles with neutral particles in the air, has not been as widely studied. However, a few notable papers have been penned on the subject."


http://collegetimes.us/on-the-electromagnetic-basis-of-tornadoes/

Sunday, 24 May 2009

Longer Path


According to Bernoulli's Principle, the greater the velocity of flow in a fluid, the greater the dynamic pressure, and the less the static pressure. In other words, slower-moving fluid exerts greater pressure than faster-moving fluid. The discovery of this principle ultimately made possible the development of the airplane.

With the airfoil, air flowing over the top has a greater distance to cover than the air flowing under the wing. The air at the top will flow faster to meet the other portion of the airstream, the air flowing past the bottom of the wing, when both reach the end of the airfoil. Faster airflow, as demonstrated by Bernoulli, indicates lower pressure, meaning that the pressure on the bottom of the wing keeps the airplane aloft.

http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Chemistry-Vol-3-Physics-Vol-1/Fluid-Mechanics.html

I thought that here perhaps, was an inkling on to how to manipulate free energy. It appears the airfoil seperates the fluid of the air, and it is the air's search for equilibrium which gives us lift. There's some debate however that this theory, the so-called "Longer Path" theory, is actually correct.

"Despite the obvious problems with this "theory" in relation to lift of flat plates, symmetric airfoils, or inverted flight, the error is often repeated, even in recent works, and in otherwise reliable sources."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_with_the_equal_transit-time_fallacy

The faster a fluid (either gas or liquid) flows over a surface, the less time it has to push on that surface and so the less air pressure there is on that surface. In other words, a fluid moving over a surface creates an area of low pressure. The faster the flow, the lower the pressure. This is Bernoulli’s Law. When blowing over a strip of paper, greater pressures beneath the paper push it up. If you blow a strong enough wind over the top of a board while keeping the air underneath it stationary, you can lift the board just like a piece of paper. That's interesting, right? Could this at all be applied to pressure in the aether?
http://www.utahweather.org/great_wx_experiments.html

"When you blow air into the rear of the Hovercraft it makes the pressure rise inside the plenum chamber at the front of the craft. The air pressure you created by blowing lifts the front of the craft up and reduces the friction between the table and the paper. With the reduced friction and the air pressure from behind the craft the Blow Hovercraft starts to move forward. Air removes the friction between the table and paper by making a lubricating film between the two surfaces; this is the basic principle of all Hovercraft."

http://www.hovercraftmodels.com/Hovercraft.PDF

Now it's the thought of using the aether to lift stuff which reminds me of our old friend Edward Leedskalnin. Leedskalnin was rumoured to have used "magnetism" to build Coral Castle.

"Coral Castle is a stone structure located at the intersection of U.S. Route 1. It’s made of huge stones of coral, each weighing several tons. There are approximately 1,000 tons of coral rock used in the walls and tower alone. And, supposedly, it was put together by only one man. A small framed, barely 100 pound man. A man named Edward Leedskalnin.

Since the reclusive Leedskalnin spent nearly thirty years working mostly at night and away from prying eyes, no one actually saw him move the coral. Since no one saw the blocks actually being moved, no one can state for certain that the task was accomplished by Leedskalnin alone. The claim that Leedskalnin didn’t use modern (post-1920s) tools is obviously true, but the mistake is in assuming that modern tools are required to move the large blocks of coral.

Ultimately-and ironically-the solution may lie in Leedskalnin’s own simple explanation: that he did it using principles of weight and leverage. “I have discovered the secrets of the pyramids,” he said, employing the same methods used by ancient Egyptians. If Leedskalnin was being truthful, then the mystery is solved, for the methods by which the Egyptian pyramids could be constructed are well understood (see, for example, Mark Lehner’s 1997 book The Complete Pyramids)."

http://oddculture.com/2007/05/31/the-mystery-of-ed-leedskalnin-and-coral-castle/

I can't leave Leedskalnin without taking a bit of his wisdom on magnetism, and electricity. Indeed, Leedskalnin presented electricity as magnetic current:

"Volt meters and ampere meters are one-sided. They only show what is called positive electricity, but never show the negative electricity…the positive electricity is composed of streams of north pole individual magnets and negative electricity is composed of streams of south pole individual magnets…Protons and electrons - Are you sure they are not the north and south pole individual magnets?

ONCE AND FOR ALL … YOUR PRECIOUS ELECTRONS ARE REALLY BOTH KINDS OF MAGNET !!It’s the True “BASE of ENERGY” , In fact it’s the true “BASE” of every single thing in EXISTENCE."


Many thanks also:
http://www.jimloy.com/physics/airplane.htm
http://chemistryandphysics.astate.edu/jpratte/jmp6.html
http://keelynet.com/energy/emery.htm

Saturday, 23 May 2009

"As the cathode rays carry a charge of negative electricity, are deflected by an electrostatic force as if they were negatively electrified, and are acted on by a magnetic force in just the way in which this force would act on a negatively electrified body moving along the path of these rays, I can see no escape from the conclusion that they are charges of negative electricity carried by particles of matter. (Thomson 1897, p. 302)"

Electrons are affected by magnets. Electrons are a fundamental source of magnetism and each electron has a magnetic moment, ie, they each behave like a little magnet. A beam of electrons, cathode rays, had been shown by Thomson to be bent by magnets. Electrons were shown to have a negative charge. X-rays though, remain unaffected by an applied magnetic field. Light, like all forms of EMR, is supposedly carried by photons, which are elementary particles that have no electric charge. Since they have no electric charge, they are not affected by electric or magnetic fields. In the case of an X-ray discharge tube, it appears the electrons have a negative charge - which they lose as they pass through the glass of the tube, and become photons.

Einstein won the Nobel Prize for Physics not for his work on relativity, but for explaining the photoelectric effect. He proposed that light is made up of packets of energy called photons. Photons have no mass, but they have momentum and they have energy. This makes for a little bit of confusion because energy is equivalent to mass.

The photoelectric effect works like this. If you shine light of high enough energy on to a metal, electrons will be emitted from the metal. Light below a certain threshold frequency, no matter how intense, will not cause any electrons to be emitted. Light above the threshold frequency, even if it's not very intense, will always cause electrons to be emitted.

Some have wondered how is it that the massless photon is thus affected by gravity. For example, light from distant stars behind the Sun have been shown to have been bent by the very fabric of space being stretched by the Sun's mass.

The very fabric of space though is the aether. Light is carried by photons. Light is emitted by matter. The aether is induced to flow through matter, and is then emitted as EMR. Matter chews up electrons and spits out photons. Previously we've discussed the idea that EMR does not in itself carry energy, but rather it is something which is able to incite energy from matter. EMR may well be compared to lines of force in the aether. Are photons then something like these lines of force?

I quite often find myself reading old discussions on physics forums. You can get some pretty interesting stuff. I found this one worthy of a mention:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=2622.msg21076

From the discussion, I thought the following observation rather cute:

"The propagation of waves involves the transport of energy from one vibrating particle to another. If one drops a pebble into a pool of water , the molecules of water merely move up and down in the same place , while the energy is transported to the next molecule of water and so on. Thus in general all waves need some kind of medium to be transported."

I'm going to make what is probably a bad analogy, and I'm unsure it even belongs here, but what the hay, here goes:

Imagine we have a pebble, a nice smooth, flat pebble that is ideal for skimming over the surface of the water of a cool, calm lake. To this pebble we tie a length of ribbon which is 300,000 kms long. And we throw it. Let's say the pebble bounces 400 trillion times in the space of one second - this just so happens to be in the frequency of the visible spectrum of light. I picture the ribbon frozen in space after that one second, and floating above the surface of the water - it reveals the rabid bobbing of the pebble, and it also gives us the size of one wavelength - 620nm (a nanometer being one-billionth of a meter).

Okay, let's throw another one. This time it bounces 300 thousand times in one second (300 kHz). The ribbon shows a wavelength of 1km. This happens to be around the medium frequency of radiowaves, and AM (medium wave) broadcasts.

I'm going to throw the pebble again. This time it bounces only once off the surface of the water, halfway on its journey across the lake. This wavelength will be around 300,000 kms - giving us the frequency of 1Hz. Spacetime dictates that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The maximum limit of EMR is 300,000 km/s - the pebble has to bounce at least once. We simply don't have big enough arms to throw the pebble all the way across the lake.

By skimming the surface of the water the pebble is able to gain energy to travel a further distance. More energy has been used to throw a pebble that bounces only once, compared to one that bounces 400 trillion times. The speed of light is a measurement of speed, which is distance over time. The pebbles have travelled the distance of 300,000 km in one second, but I don't think this means it would have crossed a lake 300,000 km wide in one second. It simply means the ribbon is 300,000 km long - the bouncing would shorten the distance the pebble actually travelled. If the lake was 300,000 km wide - then surely it would take longer for the shorter wavelengths to cross the lake, than it would for the longer wavelengths?

Is there a way of getting the pebble across the lake with one clean throw, and without having to make it skim? Well, imagine if we could sit the pebble on the surface of the water, and then make the water roll-up as a standing wave. We could send the pebble across the lake, sitting on top of the wave. Just like our waterlily leaf beetle larva as it strains in the water to generate its own wave to combat the meniscus, then we too shall generate a boat made out of the water itself!

These are only a few thoughts. Nothing to be taken too seriously. But if EMR are tranverse waves, this standing wave would be a longitudinal wave. The pebble could cross the lake faster than the speed of light. It could cross the lake without having to skim the water. It would basically have no frequency whatsoever. Interestingly, DC electricity, as produced by batteries, etc, is percieved as having zero frequency (0 Hz).



http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-experiment/app7.html
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=68239&in_page_id=2
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/5961
http://kr.cs.ait.ac.th/~radok/physics/k9.htm
http://www.johnkharms.com/GTR.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe40.pdf
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-2/cuny-final.htm
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/28582/history/crayexp.htm

Paddlewheel


Crookes' paddlewheel tube, from his 1879 paper On Radiant Matter
Crookes put a tiny vaned turbine or paddlewheel in the path of the cathode rays, and found that it rotated when the rays hit it. The paddlewheel turned in a direction away from the cathode side of the tube, suggesting that the rays were coming from the cathode. Crookes concluded at the time that this showed that cathode rays had momentum, so the rays were likely matter particles. But in 1903, J. J. Thompson proved that the paddlewheel wasn't turned by the force of the cathode rays hitting it, but by the radiometric effect. When the rays hit a paddle, they heated the side they hit. The air next to that side of the paddle expanded, pushing the paddle away. All this experiment really showed was that cathode rays could heat objects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_tube

Tuesday, 19 May 2009

Water-Balloon



Previously, I have said that the aether field is stretched by matter, rather like a cannonball rolling across a blanket would cause the fabric to stretch. Heavier elements, such as uranium, stretch the aether field a good deal more than lighter elements, such as hydrogen, which might be imagined as a dimple on the surface of the aether. With the aether field being stretched in this way, and knowing how much the fluid of the aether prefers equilibrium, then one would assume that the fluid is therefore filling the void created by matter, in its attempts to smooth things over and level the field. Something happens though. The electric fluid does not simply get dumped in the dent made by matter - the electric fluid is induced to flow through the atomic causeway of matter, and in such a manner that makes it impossible for the aether to restore equilibrium - the fluid keeps on flying in and flying out.

Where the aether field is stretched more by heavier elements, we would expect to find that a greater amount of the electric fluid is being induced. Uranium might look something like a water-balloon - with it's outside being stretched to contain large amounts of fluid, and looking fit to burst. Hydrogen, on the other hand, might be a water-balloon containing decidedly less fluid, and looking far more stable, and far less likely to go off in your hands before you even get a chance to throw it.

Before the creation of space-time, the most popular theory was that space was full of waves of energy, the aether, and almost all materials were completely transparent to this sea of radiation, but some elements, such as radium, polonium and uranium absorbed some of this energy and re-emitted it.
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/rays_and_particles.html

I think a prism suggests the existence of an aether field. I think the reason the shorter wavelengths of the visible spectrum take longer to pass through the glass is because the aether field is being stretched inside the prism. This stretching could be done by any number of atomic vortices which belong to the structure of the glass, and sit in position in the aether field. Perhaps then, the greater the amount the aether field is stretched, then the shorter shall be the wavelengths of EMR emitted by matter.

Apparently, a glass prism absorbs the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light - a quartz prism is needed to refract UV light. Are we then saying that quartz has a greater capacity for stretching the aether field? Does the glass really absorb UV light - or is the case that glass simply does not emit UV light, whereas quartz does? (This is something more of a note to self - but the ozone layer is also regarded as absorbing the harmful UV rays in the atmosphere - is it at all relevant?).

EMR is emitted from all matter with a temperature above absolute zero. Normally atoms and molecules emit light at more or less random times, and in random directions and phases. All light created in normal light sources, such as bulbs, candles, neon tubes and even the Sun is generated in this way. Higher frequency EM vibrations or waves (shorter wavelength) carry more energy than lower frequency vibrations or waves (longer wavelengths). Radiation on the short wavelength end of the EMR spectrum - UV, X-rays, and gamma rays - are known as ionizing radiation.

It is supposed that ionization is the physical process of converting an atom or molecule into an ion by adding or removing charged particles such as electrons or other ions. I have wondered in previous posts if ions are actually dissolved gases trapped inside a substance. Wavelengths of EMR longer than UV are often referred to as non-ionizing radiation, and that is that they do not carry enough energy per quantum to ionize atoms or molecules. Instead of producing charged ions when passing through matter, the EMR has sufficient energy only for excitation. In other words, is it possible to say that ionizing radiation emitted by matter is the release of invisible dissolved gases?

Wavelengths shorter than UV tend to be emitted by energetic processes, and therefore belong to more unstable, heavier elements. Gamma rays are produced in the disintergration of radioactive atomic nuclei, and in the decay of certain particles. Gamma rays are not so much as emitted by matter - they are perhaps the breakdown of matter as the fluid of the aether pours in and out of the atomic structure. Has the balloon, so to speak, been filled with too much water?

X-rays have smaller wavelengths and therefore higher energy than UV waves. X-rays were first observed and documented in 1895 by Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, a German scientist who found them quite by accident when experimenting with vacuum tubes. Simply put, an X-ray tube is a vacuum tube that produces X-rays. A high voltage power source is connected across cathode and anode to "accelerate the electrons" inside the tube. But electricity cannot pass through a vacuum - it is the vacuum - the electric fluid of the aether. Electricity needs to be induced by matter, and you won't find matter in a vacuum. Electricity will pass through the glass of a vacuum tube before it even considers passing through the vacuum. Roentgen appears to have thought it was the glass of the vacuum tube which radiated the X-rays. The following is taken from his paper "On a New Kind of Rays" read before the W├╝rzburg Physical and Medical Society, 1895.

"It is known that Lenard, in his investigations on kathode rays, has shown that they belong to the ether, and can pass through all bodies. Concerning the X-rays the same may be said... X-rays, which are not deflected by a magnet, cannot be regarded as kathode rays which have passed through the glass, for that passage cannot, according to Lenard, be the cause of the different deflection of the rays. Hence I conclude that the X-rays are not identical with the kathode rays, but are produced from the kathode rays at the glass surface of the tube.....

A kind of relationship between the new rays and light rays appears to exist; at least the formation of shadows, fluorescence, and the production of chemical action point in this direction. Now it has been known for a long time, that besides the transverse vibrations which account for the phenomena of light, it is possible that longitudinal vibrations should exist in the ether, and, according to the view of some physicists, must exist. It is granted that their existence has not yet been made clear, and their properties are not experimentally demonstrated. Should not the new rays be ascribed to longitudinal waves in the ether?"
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/roentgen.html

Cathode rays are streams of electrons observed in vacuum tubes. Cathode rays are so named because they are emitted by the negative electrode, or cathode in a tube. I'm repeating current theory here, but basically, when the cathode is heated it creates a cloud of electrons in the vacuum near the surface of the cathode. Most of these electrons will stay near the cathode. But a few will have energy to leap far enough from the cathode to be able to cross the vacuum and strike the anode. German scientists Eilhard Wiederman, Heinrich Hertz, and Goldstein believed they were "aether waves", some new form of EMR.

Adding to the debate was JJ.Thomson, who in 1897, measured the mass of cathode rays, showing they were made of particles , but were around 1800 times lighter than the lightest atom, hydrogen. Therefore they were not atoms, but a new particle which he originally called "corpuscle" but was later named electron. He also showed they were identical with particles given off by photoelectric and radioactive materials. It was quickly recognised that they are the particles that carry electric current in metal wires, and carry the negative electric charge of the atom.

The electron, or cathode ray is therefore found in a vacuum. I don't think these electrons are emitted by the cathode, I think they belong to the vacuum. I think the potential difference between the cathode and the anode forces the aether to flow between the two terminals. Cathode rays apparently travel in straight lines, and I am at once reminded of how the magnetic lines of force between two opposite poles of a horseshoe magnet, once given a dusting with iron filings, also appear as straight lines. I think the high voltages used in the vacuum tube generate a strain which, without the distractions of any matter, visibly affect the aether field. Are cathode rays an intense, pressurized flow of aether?

It's interesting that cathode rays move in only one direction - from the cathode to the anode. I've always suggested magnetic lines of force flow from pole to pole, and not simply from one pole to the other - but here we have cathode rays moving in only one direction. Also, cathode rays themselves do not appear on the EMR spectrum, that is not until they interact with the glass of the vacuum tube and thus become X-rays. There are some notable differences between cathode rays and X-rays. I borrowed the following re-cap from here:
http://home.att.net/~cat4a/modern_physics-IV.htm

"Differences and similarities between cathode rays and X-rays.

Both cathode rays and X-rays were discovered when discharges from a discharge tube were studied in details. But the rays are completely different from each other.

Differences :

Cathode rays are charged particles. They are negatively charged electrons. X-rays on the other hand are electromagnetic radiations. X-rays have no charges.

Cathode rays emanate from the cathode itself. X-rays are emitted when high-energy electrons are stopped.

Cathode rays have low penetrating powers. X-rays have high penetrating powers.

Cathode rays travel at the speed given by the potential difference between the anode and the cathode. X-rays always travel at the speed of light.

Cathode rays are deflected by electric and magnetic fields. X-rays are unaffected by both the electric as well as the magnetic fields.

Similarities :

Both rays are capable of ionizing materials though which they pass, especially gases.

Both rays cause fluorescence when they strike any fluorescence material such as zinc sulphide.

Both rays affect photographic plates."


So, it appears EMR does not take shape until it is emitted by matter - it has to be emitted by matter. The higher the pressure of the flow of the aether, then the higher the frequency of the EMR that shall then be emitted by matter. If an atomic dipole sucks down the aether from both ends, and emits EMR at its equator - how and why is all this happening at the constant speed of light?



Many thanks:
http://library.thinkquest.org/28383/nowe_teksty/htmla/3_7a.html
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electromag/electricity/generators/index.html
http://homepage.mac.com/dtrapp/eChem.f/labP17-Luminescence.html
http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Perrin-1895.html
http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/xrays.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation
http://www.orau.org/PTP/collection/xraytubescoolidge/coolidgeinformation.htm
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/part9/page1.html
http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/rainbows/layouts/U2/U2.3.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1905/press.html
http://worldscibooks.com/medsci/etextbook/p141/p141_chap1_1.pdf
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/classroom_activities/ritter_bio.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D02E7DF1738E233A25756C0A9649C94679ED7CF

Sunday, 17 May 2009

Hurricane



The fact that water-striders use dipolar vortices to move across the surface of the water has intrigued me. These vortices make up half a toroid shape, or one half of a bundt cake, in the water - it's interesting, non? The importance of the toroid structure, and it's significance in the Universe is something to be mulled-over, from the macrocosm to the microcosm. Maxwell thought that atoms were dipolar vortices and that these were responsible for, amongst other things, the dipolar character of the lines of force, and the induction of electric current. Maxwell placed much emphasis on "stress" and "pressure" when dealing with the electromagnetic field; "It appears therefore that the stress in the axis of a line of magnetic force is a tension, like that of a rope..... Excess of pressure in the equatorial direction arises from the centrifugal force of vortices, or eddies, in the medium...."

Pressure, and how it relates to the aether is new to me. I'm trying to think where I can plainly see an example of where all these factors mentioned above are involved. At least I didn't have to look too far for an answer - I had only to look up. It just happens to be Britain's favourite pre-occupation - the weather.

Dipolar vortices are basically a system where two vortices work together - like two spinning discs - one vortex spins clockwise, and it's partner vortex spins counter-clockwise. This is played out in weather systems where air flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure in order to reach fluid equilibrium. These winds move in a spiral: inwards and upwards in low pressure systems, downwards and outwards in high pressure systems. High pressure areas are generally larger and move more slowly than low pressure systems.

In the northern hemisphere, winds circulate around the centre of a high pressure system in a clockwise, 'anticyclonic' movement (in the southern hemisphere the direction is reversed). The winds are generally weaker than those around a low pressure, especially in the centre. High pressure systems tend to cover a greater area than lows, they move more slowly, and have a longer atmospheric lifetime.



In a low pressure system the wind moves in a counter-clockwise, 'cyclonic' direction. As warm humid air spirals upwards, it cools and clouds form. These may be thick enough to give rain or snow. In these low pressure systems the air spirals inwards at the Earth's surface. If the pressure is very low, these spiralling winds may reach storm or hurricane force. In a cyclone, low pressure, denser air is drawn in at low level to replace rising, less dense air.



The winds which we experience in our everyday lives are horizontal flows of air; they are perpendicular to the motion of the air rising and falling from the vortices of the pressure systems. Horizontally, at the Earth's surface, wind always blows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure (vertically, winds move from areas of low pressure to areas of high pressure). Wind strength depends on the difference in pressure between the high and low pressure systems, and the distance between them; this is called the pressure gradient; the steeper the gradient, the greater the changes in air pressure, and the stonger the wind. With a high-pressure system, one might conclude that energy is induced vertically, while energy is distributed on the horizontal, while on the other hand, a low-pressure system induces energy horizontally and emits energy on the vertical.

A nice example of dipolar vortices working in tandem is a "bow echo". A bow echo is a term meteorologists use to describe a line of thunderstorms which has a distinct convex shape, like a backward "C", pointing into the direction of movement. The formation of a bow echo requires a strong elevated rear inflow jet at mid-levels. After the rear inflow jet has bowed the storm system, much like an archer's bow, book-end or line end vortices develop on either side of the jet. Due to the small size of the bow echo, the vortices help enhance the mid-level flow between them. This strengthens the rear inflow jet. The strongest gusts, or more rarely tornadoes, thus occur just behind the centre of the bow echo, and are generally comprised of straight line winds which are perpendicular to the bowing segment.



The movement of the bow echo is a reminder of the parabolic shape of the flow of water in an open channel. The current is faster in the middle of a straight stretch of river because there is less friction there than against the banks. This faster current in the middle might be compared to the faster wind in the centre of the bow echo. It might be worth noting that the main current of a river doesn't follow a straight line and the thalweg (the river's "fast lane") meanders from one side to the other even when the river itself runs straight. In the same way perhaps that air moving from high to low pressure does not follow a straight line path, and indeed, follows a spiralling route.

Hydrostatic pressure also varies with depth, where the pressure that exists at any place in a body of fluid due to the weight of the fluid above, so that the fluid at the bottom moves downhill a little slower than the sheet immediately beneath it. Water is much heavier than air, and therefore water at even a moderate depth in the ocean has enormous pressure. This pressure, in turn, creates a buoyant force that pushes upward.

While conducting experiments with liquids, Bernoulli observed that when the diameter of a pipe is reduced, the water flows faster. This suggested to him that some force must be acting upon the water, a force that he reasoned must arise from differences in pressure. Specifically, the slower moving fluid in the wider area of pipe had a greater pressure than the portion of the fluid moving through the narrower part of the pipe. As a result, he concluded that pressure and velocity are inversely related - in other words, as one increases, the other decreases. The fluid pressure is lowest in the centre where the velocity is greatest.... hang on, that sounds familiar. You'll have to exuse me a mo', but I need to make a quick re-cap on smoke rings....

A smoke-ring is a spinning-doughnut-shaped mass of air (a "torodial vortex") spinning in an inside-out kind of way, so the air in the middle of the ring is always being blown forwards. The fluid pressure in a vortex is lowest in the centre where the speed is greatest, and rises progressively with distance from the centre. When air exits the hole, friction with the rim retards it, causing the air in the centre to move forward faster than the air at the edge. Friction causes the torus to tractor itself forward. The energy that is used to move it forward and keeps the vortex rotating is taken from the inertia of the rotating air in the vortex. Inertia is the tendency of anything in motion to keep moving. Only thing is, matter does not hold potential energy, this energy is a property of the aether. Inertia is really describing the induction of energy from the aether field; this energy being an electrical fluid.



With these pressure systems, I think there is a lot more than meets the eye. You start to get the feeling that the forces inside the atmosphere work as a seething, infinite mass of invisible toroidal knots. Moisture not only helps to feed these systems, it also helps them to become visible. Even the wind is invisible - we only notice it when we get to feel it against our skin, or see it interact with other objects like the leaves on a tree, or dust blown from the ground. These effects are much more noticeable as the weather conditions grow more extreme.

Vortex motions in an invisible fluid medium like air are in themselves invisible; nevertheless, parts of a tornado funnel become visible due to moisture condensation in the core and dirt and debris caught up in the swirling winds. Tornadoes start as a horizontal column of air that rotates, and for whatever reason, some of these turn vertical. A horizontal column of air that rotates? That's a smoke ring, right? Meteorologists have known that the long swift river of air called the jet stream has helped breed tornadoes in conjunction with masses of warm air and of cold air. Tornadoes are caused by the rapid dropping of a cold air through a lighter warm air mass - a sinkhole.



On a larger scale, hurricanes and their counterparts the typhoon or cyclone, are large swirls on the move attempting to equalize air pressure. With hurricanes, moist air gets sucked into the low pressure region at the centre, rises and condenses into clouds at the eyewall, and is expelled outwards at the top into high cirrus clouds. In the eyewall, large changes in pressure create the hurricane's strongest winds. These winds can reach nearly 200 miles (320 kilometers) per hour. Damaging winds may extend 250 miles (400 kilometers) from the eye. In the eyewall, warm air spirals upward, creating the hurricane's strongest winds. The speed of the winds in the eyewall is related to the diameter of the eye. Just as ice skaters spin faster when they pull their arms in, a hurricane's winds blow faster if its eye is small. If the eye widens, the winds decrease.

In the largest and most intense hurricanes (like Hurricane Katrina in 2005), the strongest winds are located in the eyewall that surrounds the nearly calm eye. If the hurricane is stationary (spinning, but with no forward motion) the field of winds is shaped like a torus, with a calm center and the fastest winds forming a ring around the center. Concentric rings of incrementally weaker winds are analyzed outward from the core of strongest winds.

While the wind just above the ocean surface spirals anticlockwise toward the center, the air at high altitudes blows outward in a clockwise spiral. This outward flowing air produces thin cirrus (feathery) clouds that extend great distances (thousands of kilometers) from the center of circulation and the presence of these clouds may be the first sign that a hurricane is approaching.

With the high-pressure and low-pressure weather systems, we've seen it work as dipolar vortices. These dipolar vortices expose the wind system as being part of a vortex ring, which for the most part remains invisible. The position of the dipolar vortices reveal the torus as moving over the face of the planet with the ring in the vertical position - in the same way a smoke ring moves across a room. However, with the tornado or hurricane, we are seeing the vortex ring adopt a horizontal position -more like a flying saucer, or frisbee.

With the tornado, or hurricane, we're seeing the low pressure system wreak havoc at ground level. The strongest vertical, or nearly vertical, up-currents developed in the most unstable air require a system of converging horizontal wind currents at the ground to supply them. Horizontal winds speeds as great as 50 - 100 m/sec (100 - 200 knots) and more, may be briefly attained in the ring of fastest moving air 5 - 50m or so from the centre. These horizontal winds are referred to as secondary flow. The secondary flow is toward the centre of the tornado and is then drawn upward by the significantly lower pressure several thousands of feet above the surface.

If the funnel of the tornado is seen as the primary flow, and the intake of air at ground level being known as the secondary flow - is it possible these then make up the double cone of a torus? It could look like one cone was being stretched, and elongated reaching from the ground to the clouds. The other cone, which makes up the other half of the double cone, is a vortex which appears to be virtually flattened-out, almost as if it has been steam-rollered into something like a pancake over the surface of the land.



Inside the tornado the low rain clouds rotate counter-clockwise and the high cirrus clouds at the peak rotate in a clockwise direction. To me, the change in direction signifies the existence of another torus. This high level outflow in the upper troposphere occurs where the centrifugal forces of the cyclone meet the centrifugal forces of an opposing anticyclone. One would assume that this anticyclone belongs to a seperate system. We've now got two toroids reacting with one another; it's one donut piled ontop of another, and apparently sucking energy from either end. Are we now looking at a dipole?

High pressure systems are steered by upper-level winds in the stratosphere. Do these high pressure systems then in turn activate low-pressure systems so that they appear to act as some type of "idle wheel"? Is the tropopause defining a boundary where the behaviour of systems in the troposphere are mirrored by systems in the stratosphere? There's a very important engine at work in here somewhere - now to find it. And did anyone else notice that I never mentioned the Coriolis force?



Many thanks:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/hurricane2.html http://www.flickr.com/photos/cgandolfo/296822045/http://www.singularvortex.com/UVS%20on%20clear%20air%20vortex.htm
http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Chemistry-Vol-3-Physics-Vol-1/Fluid-Mechanics.html
http://hurricaneclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/physical-geography-of-hurricanes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_echo
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/cloud1.htm
http://www.milli-bar.com/wsoldani/Katrina/Katrina6.htm
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Dust_devil
http://www.sciencestorm.com/award/0233178.html
http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/basicgeol/windes/windes.html http://www.whoi.edu/science/AOPE/people/tduda/isww/text/apel/apel.htm
http://www.eeb.ucla.edu/test/faculty/nezlin/PhysicalOceanography.htm
http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/searchdetail.asp?num=16893http://www.theweatherprediction.com/radared/radarfaq2/
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/figsonly/207/22/3945
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12dec_1.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPPMaDH7L7I
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/hurricane_worldbook.html
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMIZFM5NDF_index_1.html
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2002/07/27/Massive-research-effort-eyes-high-clouds/UPI-38211027749600/








Thursday, 7 May 2009

If I see a pillow–reaction wave pair, does this mean that there's a souse hole between the waves?

Possibly, Ric—though this isn't always true. When fast water rushes over a barely-submerged rock, the downstream eddy often takes the form of a "hole" in the river—the water level drops noticeably. When the drop is dramatic, water flows into the hole from all sides. The result is a "souse hole", and the reflux flow at the downstream margin of the eddy will take the form of a "stopper"—or, even more evocatively, a "keeper"—a large, backward-curling standing wave that breaks UPSTREAM. This combination of hole and stopper can trap an unlucky swimmer for several anxious seconds (or even longer) before he's flushed out. Skilled boaters, of course, see holes as opportunities to play the river—they often surf the upstream faces of the stoppers. This is a trick that's best practiced in company, of course, and both boater and boat should be prepared for a wild ride.

OK. Let's go back to mid-river rocks for a minute. There'll always be an eddy below a rock, won't there?

Right, Ric. There's an "island" of relatively quiet water, or eddy, below every obstruction, large or small. In gentle rivers, an eddy may be nothing more than an all but invisible "slick," with a barely-perceptible circulation. In steep, powerful rivers, however, the water in eddies often flows forcefully upstream. These eddies aren't "quiet" at all. You can even find secondary eddies upriver of rocks located within them.

Eddy-lines are sometimes hard to spot in slow-moving rivers, but in big water, eddies often become holes, and eddy-lines are marked by dramatic "steps" in the river. You can't avoid noticing them then!





http://www.paddling.net/sameboat/archives/sameboat117.html

http://www.cosmiclight.com/imagegalleries/stars.htm

Wednesday, 6 May 2009


The Chaiten volcano erupts during storms in the middle of the night on May 3, 2008 in Chaiten, Chile. The Chaiten volcano, located some 800 miles south of the capital Santiago, was considered dormant since it had not erupted for hundreds of years. Thoursands of people have been evacuated from the area. (UPI Photo/Carlos Gutierrez)http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/gallery/Chile_Volcano/246/?section=1
December 12, 2000 -- After reaching a record-breaking size in mid-September, the ozone hole over Antarctica has made a surprisingly hasty retreat, disappearing completely by November 19, NASA scientists said.

The attention-grabbing behavior of this year's hole -- both the record size and the quick disappearance -- can be largely attributed to the influence of an atmospheric phenomenon known as "planetary-scale waves," Newman said.

"Just think of (a planetary-scale wave) as being a big low pressure system that almost straddles the entire Southern Hemisphere," Newman said. "These lows and highs ... are so big that you can't see it on a regular weather chart. That's why we call them planetary-scale waves."

These vast pressure waves influence ozone destruction in several ways, but for explaining this year's ozone hole, the most relevant impact of the waves is on the size and stability of the massive jet stream encircling Antarctica called the "Antarctic vortex." The vortex is a fast-moving whirlpool of air that encircles Antarctica during the winter and early spring, effectively sealing it off from the rest of the atmosphere.

The isolation provided by the vortex prevents warmer, ozone-rich air surrounding Antarctica from flowing toward the pole, which would help replace the destroyed ozone and raise temperatures over the continent. Instead, the ozone-rich air -- which is carried toward the pole by the action of the planetary waves -- builds up at the edge of the vortex, forming a "ring" of high ozone concentrations around the continent that can be seen in the satellite images.



Above: Image of the record-size ozone hole taken by NASA satellites on September 9, 2000. Blue denotes low ozone concentrations and yellow and red denote higher levels of ozone. Notice the ring of high ozone concentrations formed when the Antarctic vortex blocks the southerly migration of ozone formed in the tropics. [More images and credits]

Without the warming effect of these waves, the air inside the vortex drops to extremely cold temperatures during the winter's perpetual night. These low temperatures set the stage for ozone destruction, since the chemical reactions that lead to ozone destruction are catalyzed by icy clouds that only form in very cold air.

This year's unusually weak planetary waves allowed the vortex to expand to a greater size. The larger vortex amounted to a larger arena for the destruction of ozone, resulting in the record-size hole.

When the strength of these waves picked up in mid-September, they exerted a force on the vortex which blew it apart earlier than usual. As the vortex broke down, the surrounding warm, ozone-rich air mixed with the air over Antarctica, raising ozone concentrations above the threshold for an ozone "hole."
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12dec_1.htm



Across many future climate projections, Australia in winter shows the largest reductions of rainfall of any region in the world. However rainfall in south-western Australia has already decreased faster than predicted, suggesting factors other than those already identified are at work. According to Jones and colleagues, the clues lie 20 km high above Antarctica.

The Antarctic polar vortex is a natural, continent-wide 'tornado' of 200 kph, super-cold winds surrounding the ozone 'hole' from the stratosphere to the surface. It is created by the movement of the globe interacting with temperature differences between the pole and the rest of the Earth's surface. The vortex delivers the winter rain-bearing westerly winds called the 'Roaring Forties', which southern Australia relies on for its water supplies.

However Jones and team have found that global warming and ozone depletion are interacting to shrink and accelerate the vortex, dragging crucial ranfall towards the south pole, away from Australia's landmass.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_946924.htm

Tuesday, 5 May 2009

Gar' har

If I was a pirate, I suspect today would be a bit like arriving on the island which is shown on a treasure map. And then I'm stomping around the island digging-up holes all over the place.

"In Krafft's later works such as "The Mechanistic Autonomy of Nature", " Ether and Matter" and "The Ether and its Vortices," he outlined the three fundemental subatomic particles as being combined vortex rings: the electron is two rings taking ether in through the two polar openings and fluxing out the equator....

Two neutrinos impacting face to face will result in an electron. The name for the attractive action of two such vortices is the Bernoulli effect. The electron illustration makes evident that currents approaching from all directions push the two vortices together because the deflected stream of ether at the equator acts as a shield to currents which would push them apart. A neat example of this in the macroworld is to take a playing card and in the center pierce it through with a straight pin. Place a thread spool over this pin. Now holding the card with a finger, blow through the spool while facing the floor. Remove your finger. The card does not fall or blow away. The deflected air currents have succeeded in shielding the card from the impacts of the air molecules directly opposing the same impacts on the opposite side of the card. The air impacting the opposite side is exerting a one sided force greater than the slight angular impacts of the stream leaving the spool."
http://users.navi.net/~rsc/images/krafft.htm