Objectivism Online Forum

# jbw

Regulars

10

• Website URL
http://

## Previous Fields

• Country
Not Specified
Not Specified

0

2. ## Existence: an expanding Universe w/a big bang?

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

4. ## Existence: an expanding Universe w/a big bang?

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