jbw

From the previous Post: In Part 3 of my postings I calculated an equality of equivalent galaxies burned up per year in our Observable Universe vs the number of new galaxies ejected into that same universe per year by the mechanism determined by Arp. Such an equality of galaxies constitutes a cycle wherein material mass and energy mass is constantly being recycled and, so, provides for an eternity of existence. Continuation: Note that the birth of the new galaxy takes place in a very brief period of time, whereas the ejection of a galaxy-equivalent by the burning of stars requires many billions of years. It is believed that within the asymmetry of these activities lies the mechanism that makes possible the (effective) constant increase in aetheal (energy) density that generates the cosmological redshaift without runing into problems. Recall that the redshift is the result of a compounding over distance, e.g.,: Observed Freq. = Source Freq. (1+R)^t, with R bing the rate of change and t being the distance of travel, in 1 sec. increments. Effects of such an energy on Earth. IF the energy has the properties as proposed earlier, there should be corresponding and observable effects in electronics. The property of particular interest is its negativeness, to which I add self-repulsiveness and compressibility (characteristics implicit it its increasing density in space). Consider a two-plate capacitor with plate separation of two inches and plate area of 100 inches, which we charge to 10,000 volts, all in a vacuum jar. A negative aether-energy will be attracted to the positive plate and repelled by the negative plate, forming a volume of increased density aether around the positive plate and of decreased density aether around the negative plate. Between the two plate there will be an aethereal density gradient which becomes a part of the capacitor's charge. The two plates will be attracted towards each other, of course. On the outside of the negative plate there will be repulsion between the outlying aether and the negative plate. On the outside of the positive plate there will be an attraction between the outlying aether and that plate. The net force on the capacitor, as a whole, will tend to push it in the direction that the positive plate is facing. Some will recognize this as the Biefeld-Brown Effect. My tests of this Effect, using a ~45 Sq. In. capacitor made of balsa wood and aluminum foil did give me deflection in the direction that the positive plate was facing (with a force porportional to the voltage use) but I could not be sure that the movement was not due to ion winds. One test result that was totally unexpected was: By keeping the voltage constant at about 10kv and gradually separating the plates the deflection force increased! ???? The actual charge on the capacitor declined, of course. (The capacitor was suspended with two long threads, and the wires used to apply the voltage were very fine and arranged so as not to affect the movement.) A second capacitor analysis has to do with the permeability and permittivity of the aether. The above 100 sq. in. capacitor will have a certain capacity when placed in a vacuum. If we add air the capacity goes up by about 1.0005, and when we realize that the aether is still there (99.999%) it appears that the air contributes only the 0.0005 and the aether still contributes the 1.000. Do the same with Teflon, which has a relative dielectric constant of about 2.0. Again the aether is still present within and between the atoms of Teflon, so the Teflon's contribution is only 1.0 and the aether the second 1.0. The dielectric's are not taking the place of the aether, which is seemingly as real as the dielectrics. Consider an antenna, a dipole with electrons surging from end to end. How will a negative aether react to this oscillation of charge? And, finally, consider the electron flow through the coils of an electro-magnet. Again, how will a negative aether react? Jim Wright

Adrian: I meant no insult by my "Crawl out of yor box." comment, and I do fully appreciate your intelligence and integrity. When I talk with Muslim's or devout Christians I discover that they can't conceive of a world without a God. The same seems true when I talk with many scientists--they seemingly can't (or won't) bother think "outside the box" in which their learning has put them. "Conventional Wisdom", I think it's called---not to be challenged. Halton Arp has been ostracized by acedemia for daring to challenge the status quo. It seems that most of his contemporaries are literally afraid of being linked to him! Objectivism has it's own version. If you dare to question Piekoll, et al, you are no longer welcome What I am doing (or trying to do) is to identify the problems that I see all around me and to look for answers that are plausible, at least more plausible than those given. Interestingly, the tentative solutions devised always seemto present new problems. It started when I rejected The Expanding Universe (substituting an infinite and eternal Existence, with these terms meant literally) and was faced with the question of how the Cosmological Redshift was formed. This called for a medium in space which supported the transmission of electro-magnetic waves and which was effectively increasing in density at a constant rate. This raised two questions, what could such a medium possibly be made of, and if it were constantly increasing in density, given an eternity of activity, why had it not become a solid an eternity ago? Etc., etc., etc. Some fifty years ago I read a report by a scientist who had been involved in the atomic tests at Los Alamos who spoke of a strange and massive assymetrical inrush of negative charge concurrent with the blasts. This was generally dismissed as part of the EMP and apparently not investigated further. My attempts to find any references to such an "inrush", or to it's part in the EMP, have been futile (seemingly much that was learned was later classified). In thinking about it I surmised that the blast, in some way, consumed negative charge and carried it away. This possibility led to the realization that the Sun, being an atomic furnace that converted mass into energy, might also be consuming negative charge and, if so, would drive itself positive. This would cause the solar winds to be positive (not just a neutral ionized mixture of protons and electrons) and that, in turn, they would draw electrons off the planets, leaving them all positively charged. If so, the direction of the planet's rotation would determine where it's North/South would (should) be. The fact that few of the planet's magnetic fields are precisely aligned with their rotational axis is annoying but if one realizes that the size of the magnetic field, if not too far from alignment, can still be used to roughly calculate its electrical charge and its polarity, and to compare this result with the "should be" charge of the earlier hypothesis. It is important to look at the whole picture, not just the Earth, and to realize that, in this study, all the planets are immersed in a solar wind atmosphere that has the same potential as the planets, and that a Faraday Cage effect should be expected. If a planet did not rotate it would have neither an electro-magnetic nor electro-static field. Returning to the energy leaving the Sun, we have already accepted that it has a mass component, and now add (for argument sake) that it carries a negative charge, not as a charge, per se, but as an intrinsic negativeness. If this energy (this aether) is adding to vast amounts of such aether already in space, we have a medium which is constantly growing in density, and one which will support electro-magnetic wave propagation, giving such waves their transverse characteristic. In Part 3 of my postings I calculated an equality of equivalent galaxies burned up per year in our Observable Universe vs the number of new galaxies ejected into that same universe per year by the mechanism determined by Arp. Such an equality of galaxies constitutes a cycle wherein material mass and energy mass is constantly being recycled and, so, provides for an eternity of existence. Adrian, I would like to invite you, and/or others who may be following this exchange, to look at the problems that I identify and, if they are real, propose your own solutions to them, or follow my lead and tell me where I am wrong. Jim Wright

Adrian: You’re rejecting my hypothesis in re the magnetic fields of our planets too quickly. First of all, a moving charge is necessary to produce a magnetic field and, whether the location of the charge is in the iron core or on the surface of the planet, such a charge must exist. Secondly, my basic premise is true, i.e., that “if the planets were charged they would, as a result of their rotation, produce a magnetic field“. It is also true that a simple electro-magnetic field would coincide with the rotational axis of the planet, but suppose that there were a primordial magnetic field impressed on the Earth when it was cooling down and remaining in place since then as a permanent magnet with it’s poles about 16 degrees beyond our present magnetic field and 32 degrees from our rotational axis? Would not this (semi?) permanent magnetic field and the present electro-magnet field add together to produce the magnetic field to which our compasses point? The advent of asteroids could easily have shifted the Earth’s rotational axis a number of times, ending up with the 32 degree difference. With Mar’s, the story is the same, except the rotational axis would have been shifted by a net of about 180 degrees causing near total cancellation of fields, leaving no good way of calculating it‘s field strength. With Venus, there is no problem except that it’s rotational rate is 243 Earth days and it’s field should be expected to be about that much smaller than Earth’s. If the energy leaving the Stars is to be recycled, it obviously must be more substantial than simple photons. Can you not conceive of an energy medium in which the electro-magnetic waves move and which, being negative, generates the transverse movement that we see? Why would not the rotating Earth be a effectively a single-turn solenoid subject to the H = 0.2 x pi x I/R formula? We already have H and R. Crawl out of your box, Adrian. You might find it to be exciting, and not at all Kleenex and spit. Jim Wright S Objectivist Forum 4-1

Felipe: This was written a few months ago to the WhyIslam.org Forum, but may be of interest to your readers. If There Were a God. The Muslim's make much of Allah, as the one and only God. The Jew's have Jehovah, the God of Abraham, the God of the Ancients. Then comes Jesus and Christianity with their True God. These religion's, and most others, agree on there being but One God, and, given His unique position it seems logical that they all are right on that one point. There can be only one God, in that more than one would confuse the issue, no end. So, what must be the attributes of this one God? First, He must be Omnipotent and, so, be able to create the Universe and all that there is out of nothing. Second, He must be Omniscient, knowing all that there is to know. Third, He must be Eternal and be aware of all that ever was, and all that is, and all that ever will be. (Time does not exist for Him.) Fourth, He must be Infinite, hovering over all that we can see in the Heavens, to infinity in whatever direction we choose to gaze. Fifth, He must have always existed, being exempt from having had to be created (of necessity, the one exception). Finally, He must have been terribly lonely and quite desperate to have brought into being such a motley assembly of creatures that Man has turned out to be. For what reason would God have created Man and then set him one against another? A quick review might start with the spread of Islam, in the Centuries following the Prophet Mohammed, from Spain to the Philippines, by bloody conquest, with the cry being "Kill the Infidel". Then there was the "Kill for Christ" cry of the Crusades, again a period of bloody conquest, an activity accompanying the thousand year Dark Ages, when Christianity was in charge. This was followed, despite the so-called "Enlightenment", by a series of more secular Wars, such as our Wars against England, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War's I and II, the Korean War, the obscenity of the Viet Nam War, and, now, our grotesque War against Iraq and the Terrorists. One might be forgiven for asking, "Why would an all-knowing God have created Man with such a penchant for murder?" He obviously knew, as He was putting together the Plan for Man, that these creatures would immediately become engaged in killing one another, culminating with the current irrationality of a Muslim World of one billion souls being given the responsibility, via the Jihad of the Prophet, of killing the remaining nine billion residents of Earth, unless they embrace Islam! Something's amiss. There is another thing common to all religions---they are, without exception, the product of an exercise of Faith in the Unknowable. Thus they are, of necessity, built on the ideas of their originators, with the various Rules and Regulations being written down by a succession of Priests, each supposedly in response to instructions received during a personal visit by God, or, at least, by a Prophet of His. Unavoidably, however, there were Rules put into the various Holy Books that were more calculated by the priests to enhance their power over their followers than to express the Will of God; Rules that an Almighty God would seemingly not need, nor be too interested in. No self-respecting God would possibly have created the mess we see around us. To impute to Him such an Effect is to bring Him down to the level of man, and to insult the very concept of God. Could it be that we are all the unwitting victims of a collective hoax, started by the witch doctors of pre-history and continued through the ages by the various priests that followed, as a pretty good scam? The logic of this answer is pretty obvious. Only those programmed from birth could be sufficiently gullible to accept such fantasies, most without so much as a raised eyebrow, and to even give their lives for it. James B. Wright May, 2004 (Fixed quote block - softwareNerd)

Dave: In my "Curved space is invoked" I did not mean that Objectivism was the source of the statement. Binswanger, in an interview, made the statement that "There is no beyond beyond." in respect to our current Universe. Others assert that if one takes off in one direction and travels long enough he/she will will arrive back home from the other direction. Still others claim "curved space" to be the mechanism at work, which is pure nonsense, of course. In re "Creation" and the "Big Bang", most Cosmologist believe in an Expanding Universe caused by a Big Bang. Most also, if privately, resign themselves to an act of creation, having no viable alternative. The same scientists are basically atheistic, and although some may toy with the mystical that doesn't enter into this. By accepting the present idea of a Universe, as currently defined by Cosmologists, some Objectivists are, implicitly, accepting the Expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang and, neccessarily, an act of Creation. Ayn Rand, in answer to a question, states that Existence is an existent. However, I intend to prove that Existence is much more than our obervable universe, or an existent, but is instead an infinite and eternal State of Being, within which existents exist. In no way does this refute Miss Rand's axiom "Existence Exists.", but it does describe a far more respectable Existence. And please, Dave, put your arrogance on the back burner. Jim Wright

Ayn Rand begins her philosophy with the axiom that "Existence Exists.". Astronomers/Cosmologists define existence as the Observable Universe, comprised of some 200 billion galaxies with average sizes similar to the Milky Way, embedded in a space (Universe) that is supposedly expanding, as determined by the red-shift in the light from these galaxies. Extrapolating backward some 15 billion years indicates that all these galaxies would have been in one place about then and that a monstruous explosion (The Big Bang) occurred at that time which sent the primordial mass (The Primordial Egg) on its way to form the galaxies we see today. Scientists rationalize a bit but their fundamental conclusion is that a Creation event occurred at that time, Creation defined as getting something from nothing. Our Objectivist philosopher's, in answer to the question "What lies beyond the Observable Universe?" quote the non-answer "There is no 'beyond" beyond." Curved Space (?) is invoked. All seem content with the notion of an Expanding Universe but none are willing to go back to the Big Bang era when, if we accept the current scientific dogma, an act of creation occurred. Objective Reality precludes creation of something from nothing, of course, and even precludes the notion of no "beyond" beyond the edge of the Observable Universe. To so claim is to envision galaxies galore and suddenly, after a bit of travel, reaching a place of "Nothingness", i.e., a place where Something is juxtaposed to Nothing. The axiomatic concept of "Esistence" does not allow for non-existence, a state of nothingness. There can only be Existence. "Non-existence" and "Nothing" are meaningless anti-concepts. But we find our Objectivist leaders blithely accepting the mysticism of the scientists where, instead, they should be pointing out the contradiction. Obviously, the error must be in the current hypothesis of an expanding universe and big bang, and in the belief that our observable universe has an edge. Non-acceptance of these notions allows us to conclude that the Universe is infinite and has existed for an eternity. The physicists of Cosmology should set about to discover it. ????? Jim Wright