Unified Field; Gravity Generator

The following pages can be found with the graphics displayed on the
following index page
http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/index.html

The Gravitational Field Turbine Generator

http://www.awitness.org/unified/page.../gturbine1.gif



I have been considering various ideas involving using bar magnets (or
other forms of magnets) to construct a crude turbine generator, in
order to light a light bulb, or even make a light bulb constantly
flicker (the purpose of the experiment being only to justify a
concept, and so therefore leaving some light bulb to flicker for days,
weeks, or months would be perfectly sufficient for my purposes).

In the image above I have been considering what might happen if an
array of bar magnets were attached to a rotor which would then turn a
standard coil generator to generate a current to light a light bulb.
Now let's assume that such a rotor device would spin. It would light
the light bulb. Let's suppose it is unstable and oscillates all the
time. It would make the bulb flicker.

I have also been considering methods that could be employed to
distribute the repulsive forces in such a way that the rotor would be
certain to spin. This would involve spacing the magnets in such a way
as to have uneven repulsive forces always present at one pole (one
pole is always ‘more repulsive' than the opposite pole, giving that
pole ‘more push'). In keeping with the same idea it might be possible
to include attractive forces (one side is always more repulsive than
the opposite side is attractive, and vice versa). The idea here is to
distribute the forces in such a way as to ensure that the rotor keeps
spinning perpetually, which turn the coil generator and light the
bulb. Even if the speed of the revolutions was uneven this would be
sufficient (the bulb would brighten and dim). People would then need
to ask what the power source was that was lighting the light bulb.

I have also been contemplating a more sophisticated design, which
involves creating a rotating fly wheel incorporating polarity
switching magnets (which I envision then creating a steady and
consistent rotation of the rotor, providing a consistent rotation to
the spinning coil generator).


http://www.awitness.org/unified/page...cs/swrotor.gif



The Environmental Impact of the Gravitational Electrical Generator


If we convert the 'kinetic energy' (which is to say, the momentum) of
the earth into joules, we arrive at a figure of


2,652,664,284,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules

If we assume that 'space' is an energy field and that it is this
energy field (manifesting as a warped space field as we percieve
things) therefore encapsulates this quantity of energy.


If we assume that most of the field energy is clustered closest to the
center of the field, then my rough calculations indicate that one
cubic meter of three dimensional space encapsulates about 2 trillion
joules (based upon a sphere with a volume encapsulating about 1.28E21
cubic meters).

The entire world is projected to require 562 quadrillion BTU (5.9E20
joules) by 2015. Working with this figure we find that it would take
four and one half trillion years to deplete all of the energy
encapsulated in the earth's warped space field. If we assume that
humans increased their energy usage by ten times, and never recycled
energy (energy can never be destroyed, only transferred) then it would
take about 400 billion years to deplete the field.

Upon consideration of this matter it becomes obvious that the
environmental impact of this technology is negligible and that it
therefore represents a vast improvement over the harmful energy
technologies (based upon burning up matter) that exist today.




The Speed of a Photon

http://www.awitness.org/unified/page...4172-1_250.jpg

In the image above we see just a few wavelengths of light which was
photographed as it traveled through a cloud of neon gas. (The
technique involved using excited electrons in the neon cloud to
generate ultraviolet light which could then be photographed to trace
the movement of the light wave through the cloud of gas).

http://www.awitness.org/unified/page...aphics/pht.gif

In the image above we see two wavelengths of light, one longer and one
shorter with a higher frequency of these undulations through the
field. The lower frequency of light possesses ‘less momentum' (it is
less energetic) while the higher frequency of light possesses ‘more
momentum' (it is more energetic). Both light waves are detected by a
detector and the result is always that both wavelengths reach the
detector at exactly the same time (both waves are traveling at the
‘speed of light').

This causes me to ask some questions concerning the ‘speed of a
photon', for it would appear that a more energetic photon, which
possesses ‘greater momentum', must be traveling through the field at a
speed greater than the speed of the wave form itself. The reason for
this is that the photon must follow this undulating path through
space, and cover a greater distance, while still reaching the detector
at the same time as a photon with ‘less momentum', which must cover a
lesser distance, while still reaching the detector at the same time.
Both waves travel through the field at the same speed, but this does
not appear to be true of the photons within the wave. If a photon was
to travel at ‘the speed of light' it would seem that the frequency
would have to be approaching zero (the wave function would be a flat
line).

This idea does make sense, for if a photon possesses ‘greater
momentum' we would expect a photon to move with increased velocity.
It would seem reasonable to assume that ‘the speed of light' is no
speed limit at all, for almost all photons regularly ‘break the light
speed barrier' as they travel through the field.

The Large Hadron Collider accelerates subatomic particles to within
one millionth of a percent of the speed of light (99.999999%). It
would seem to me that one of the most important experiments this
collider could perform would be to kick some particle up over top of
this so called ‘speed limit'. It would mark the end of an era in
physics, and it would be one of the most important experiments ever
conducted in the history of that science.


Relative Field Acceleration

http://www.awitness.org/unified/page...hics/elipo.gif


The earth follows an eccentric elliptical orbit around the sun, which
has been exaggerated in the image above. It follows from this that
the earth's velocity around the sun is faster during the closest
transit to the sun and then the earth's velocity decreases as it moves
through the furthest portion of its transit around the sun.

Now we will interpret this to mean that the momentum of the earth is
relative. The earth conserves momentum at all points, but since
momentum is relative and the velocity expressed is dependant upon the
density of the surrounding field, the earth experiences relative
acceleration as its elliptical orbit takes in transit through a denser
part of the sun's energy field. Here we are once again assuming that
energy and three dimensional space are equivalent and that a three
dimensional space field is just one more manifestation of that
chameleon known as ‘energy', so that a certain number of joules would
be equivalent to one cubic meter of three dimensional space. We
assume that the earth experiences a relative increase in acceleration
for the same reason that an object moving towards the surface of the
earth experiences relative acceleration while at the same time
conserving momentum. Therefore the earth decelerates at the greatest
distance in its orbital transit for the same reason that the Pioneer
Spacecraft decelerate (the relativity of momentum).

More energy is equivalent to more space. The Inverse Square Law
describes the density distribution of this energy that composes space,
with the density increasing nearer the center of the field. If we
wish we could say that as energy density increases, space dilates,
which is to say that there is more space near the center of the
field. This describes a geometry consistent with General Relativity
(the idea of some bowling ball being dropped onto a trampoline and
then ‘stretching' the trampoline). If we adopt the perspective of a
fictional objective observer then we could say that one square meter
near the center of the field is ‘smaller' than one square meter
further out in the field (you would need a microscope to see it, or,
better said, a telescope).

We assume that momentum is a density function, and that as an object
moves into this dense portion of the energy field, its field energy
does not dilate, but rather becomes more dense as well. (We could
therefore think of this apparent dilation of space as being a kind of
perceptual illusion, and we will concern ourselves not with ‘physical
perceptions' but rather with the underlying manifestations of the
energy field itself).

We assume that as the earth transits this denser portion of the energy
field, the field of the earth ‘shrinks' (not that anyone notices, for
when everyone shrinks alike, no one shrinks very much). The result is
a relative increase in the density of the momentum field and therefore
a relative increase in momentum.

One way to test certain assumptions concerning relative black holes
would involve dropping objects through a vacuum at various times as
the earth makes its transit through the surrounding energy field. We
would expect the earth's gravitational force field to remain constant,
being dependant upon only the absolute mass of the earth (which is to
say this is the result of a balance between impedance generated by
strong quantum forces in the atoms of the earth and the ‘g force'
which we locate in the energy field itself, so that the same relative
increase in momentum that increases this ‘g force' (the rate of
acceleration of a moving object in the field) is balanced by an
increase in this quantum impedance, with the result being a constant
gravitational force field experienced by a motionless object sitting
upon the surface of the earth).

But what of an object falling through a vacuum. We assume that the ‘g
force' which produces relative acceleration in a gravitational field
is dependant upon only the field itself and is not a pulling force
originating from the center of the earth but rather a pushing,
expelling force originating in the energy field itself. For this
reason I have been considering the possibility that an object dropped
in a vacuum when the earth is closest to the sun would experience a
slight increase in relative acceleration, this being a product of the
slight increase in field density (the field has decreased slightly in
size resulting in a relative increase in momentum and an increase in
velocity around the sun, with the same relative increase in density
causing a dropped object to accelerate slightly faster as it travels
through the field when the earth is closest to the sun).



The Acceleration of Galaxies



Most evidence I have seen for the existence of ‘dark matter' can be
interpreted as evidence that momentum is relative.

It has also been suggested that galaxies are ‘accelerating' when we
would expect gravitational attraction to cause deceleration, and this,
it has been suggested, indicates the existence of some kind of ‘dark
energy' which possesses a repulsive force, and somehow has managed to
elude even our most sensitive detectors.

Let's assume that space and energy are equivalent, and that therefore
a three dimensional space field is just one more manifestation of that
chameleon known as energy, and that a space field is an energy field.
Now let's also assume that a black hole were to eat some mass or
another. Would it also not be true that at the same time the black
hole would also be eating the momentum field energy of that mass.
Would not all this eating cause a black hole to gain momentum energy
(‘dark energy' as its called) at the same time as that black hole was
gaining mass. Would not the result be acceleration of that black hole
and therefore continuous acceleration of the galaxy which is in the
orbit of that blackhole?

On Mar 26, 10:05*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

* *This poster would benefit from a bit of self-education about the
* *Laws of Thermodynamics as well as relativity theory.

Hey, but if relativity's just a _theory_... a pet argument of
creationists could be applied to it.

I do not think the poster is necessarily competent to educate himself
about these things, given that his previous attempts have presumably
been what produced the notions in his post.

John Savard

Sam Wormley:

bkh99 wrote:

[snipped most of the crap]

The Large Hadron Collider accelerates subatomic particles to within
one millionth of a percent of the speed of light (99.999999%). It
would seem to me that one of the most important experiments this
collider could perform would be to kick some particle up over top of
this so called ‘speed limit'. It would mark the end of an era in
physics, and it would be one of the most important experiments ever
conducted in the history of that science.

If the poster (from Canada) understood physics, he or she would
understand how much additional energy is required to accelerate
a particle from 0.99999999 c to 0.999999999 c.

According to Leonard Susskind (and others) the accelerator would need
to be about the size of our Galaxy. That's the easy part. Turns out
there probably is not enough energy in our Galaxy to power such an
accelerator unless we could somehow get the word out to
everyone/everything in the galaxy to turn off their air conditioners,
toasters, and waffle irons just at the right moment. Bummer.

Davoud

This poster would benefit from a bit of self-education about the
Laws of Thermodynamics as well as relativity theory.

Physics FAQ: A Physics Booklist: Recommendations from the Net
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic.../booklist.html

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...periments.html

Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._booklist.html


--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com