99.85.1 W and Z subatomic bosons and gravity (Iuliano)

Page 85

Sections List- 99 Electrons and Mythologies
Impossible Correspondence Index

Subject: W and Z subatomic bosons and gravity
From: JerryIuliano@aol.com
To: rgrace@rgrace.org
Date: Mon, July 26, 2004 1:09 am

Sir:

The values of the W and Z sub-atomic particles are functionly a factor of the Newtonian classical gravitational constant Gn. The carrier particle strangely and simply!!!..is the electron in million electron volts. It interacts with the bifurcation points as scalar lengths between bifurcations ...Fd... from the chaos to order to chaos to order wave functions....

Letting ....

emev = electron million volts = .510998918mev....(2002 NIST)
Zgev = Z-bosonic particle electroweak = 91.20272669gev..(2002 N IST..91.2gev)
Wgev = W-bosonic particle electroweak = 80.4gev.....(2002 NIST)
Fd = Feigenbaum delta constant = 4.669201609...exact
Gn = gravitational constant = 6.674201104 * ( 10 ^ - 11 )...(2002 NIST=6.6742)

...then it can be demonstrated:

10 ^ (( 10 ^ ( emev ^ 2 )) - 12 ) = Gn

....such that the electron is defined as:

( emev ^ ( Zgev / Wgev )) * 10 = F = 4.669201609....

( F / 10 ) ^ ( Wgev / Zgev ) = emev

....since the gravitational constant is a double log function of the electron:

log(logGN+12) = emev^2

then the derivation of the Newtonian gravitational constant is functional through the electroweak parameters...the W and Z sub-atomic nuclear particles:

10 ^ (( 10 ^ (( F / 10 ) ^ ( 2 * Wgev / Zgev ))) - 12 ) = Gn = 6.67421104 * ( 10 ^ -11 )

J.Iuliano

...references to the W and Z subatomic bosonic particles as follows:

W and Z bosons

(Redirected from Z boson)
In physics, the W and Z bosons are the elementary particles that mediate the weak nuclear force. Their discovery at CERN in 1983 has been heralded as a major success for the Standard Model of particle physics. The W particle is named after the weak nuclear force. The Z particle was semi-humourously given its name because it was said to be the last particle to need discovery. Another explanation is that the Z particle derives its name from the fact that it has zero electric charge.

_____________________________

99.85.2 Newtons Solomons Temple (Iuliano)

Subject: Newtons solomons temple
From: JerryIuliano@aol.com
To: rgrace@rgrace.org
Date: Sat, July 24, 2004 11:55 pm

MP:

A while back I told you I discovered Newtons meaning behind the drawing of King Solomons temple. I found a copy on the internet. I hope it sends in toto. I discovered the meaning behind the cubit measurements drafted by Newton's own hand....

Alchemists were also involved in secular politics and the urge to explore and dominate nature. Medieval monarchs such as Henry VI, Edward IV and Henry VII of England; Charles VII of France; and James IV of Scotland; employed alchemists at their courts. This partly reflected their search for gold. However George Ripley and Thomas Norton, were also concerned with political power, applying alchemical philosophy and myths to foster the evolution of the body politic and to create the soul and spirit of the nation from the nigredo of the Wars of the Roses. Alchemists were also employed at the court of Elizabeth I, the most famous being the mathematician, John Dee, whose activities were satirized in the plays of Marlowe, (Dr Faustus); Jonson (The Alchemist); and Shakespeare (The Tempest).

By the seventeenth century alchemy was supposed to have come under attack from the scientific revolution; but the founder of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, born Christmas Day 1642, spent much of his life studying alchemy.

This did not emerge until private papers released in 1936 revealed that he owned alchemical manuscripts amounting to over 650,000 words. He was also the author of an alchemical recipe, Clavis, which uses iron nails and employs the allegory of Jason and the Golden Fleece - the storyline of the film is also a quest, in which the term Clavis plays a vital role. Newton, as an alchemist and mathematician, had much in common with the Babylonian and Sumerian magicians. He regarded the whole world as a riddle to be solved through numbers. According to his nephew, for six weeks every spring and autumn he would never venture out of his laboratory. Alchemy for him represented an underground stream of knowledge and numbers held the key to discovering the divine unity in nature represented by the hidden word of God and the dimensions of Solomon's Temple. His writings focus on the Apocalypse in works such as Interpretations of the Prophecies.

....this is the drawing I used to decipher the lengths of the floor plan drawings...from the book,"The Last Sorcerer" by Michael White...J.Iuliano...it translates to a torus cross section of the Fermat Last Theorem form. kinda complicated but it works!!

Throughout its history as a science, esoteric philosophy and secret religion whose most important principles were never written down but handed down by word of mouth from a single adept to a solitary pupil, alchemy has fascinated with its promises of earthly power and gold, the creation (palingenesis) of life (the homunculus) out of dead matter, and the harnessing of hidden powers and transformation. In the twentieth-century scientific progress in the exploration of the collective unconscious (which was directly inspired by Carl Jung's alchemical reading), nuclear fission, and genetic engineering, have shown how prescient were the medieval alchemists' intuitions concerning the exciting and terrifying power of nature.

by Dr. Jonathan Hughes, Research Fellow
Wellcome Unit for History of Medicine
University of East Anglia

Joseph Caezza, Hermeticism and the Golden Fleece
Gareth Roberts, The Mirror of Alchemy Alchemical Ideas and Images in Manuscripts and Books, (The British Library, 1994).
Alexander Roob, Alchemy & Mysticism (Taschen 1997), a beautiful pictorial exploration of the history and philosophy.
Betty Jo Dobbs, The Foundations of Newton's Alchemy or the Hunting of the Green Lyon, (Cambridge, 1975)
Mark Haeffner, The Dictionary of Alchemy (Harper Collins 1991).
Carl Jung, Psychology and Alchemy (Routledge, 1953).
Frances Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (Paladin, 1975)

_________________________________

99.85.3 Cosmological Constant and 288 (Iuliano)

Subject: Cosmological constant and 288
From: JerryIuliano@aol.com
To: rgrace@rgrace.org
Date: Sat, July 31, 2004 11:51 am

The Cosmological Constant

Sean M. Carroll, University of Chicago

This is a short article I wrote for the Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics (Institute of Physics). See also The Preposterous Universe, or related reviews, lectures, and talks.

(Note: Blah, blah......Skip down to Iuliano's formulae if you heard it already.....it's the old 6 page argument, "Is the universe expanding or is it a static, Steady State which looks like it's expanding"?)

Cosmological Constant

The cosmological constant, conventionally denoted by the Greek letter , is a parameter describing the energy density of the vacuum (empty space), and a potentially important contributor to the dynamical history of the universe. Unlike ordinary matter, which can clump together or disperse as it evolves, the energy density in a cosmological constant is a property of spacetime itself, and under ordinary circumstances is the same everywhere. A sufficiently large cosmological constant will cause galaxies to appear to accelerate away from us, in contrast to the tendency of ordinary forms of energy to slow down the recession of distant objects. The value of in our present universe is not known, and may be zero, although there is some evidence for a nonzero value; a precise determination of this number will be one of the primary goals of observational cosmology in the near future.

The Cosmological Constant and Vacuum Energy

We live in an expanding universe: distant galaxies are moving away from us, such that the more distant ones are receding faster. Cosmologists describe this expansion by defining a SCALE FACTOR R(t), which specifies the relative distance of galaxies as a function of time. (If two galaxies are twice as far away at time as they were at time , we have .) The behavior of the scale factor is governed by the curvature of space (which can be positive, negative, or zero) and the average energy density of the universe (which is thought to be positive, although we should be open to exotic possibilities). Imagine taking a region of space and removing from it all of the matter, radiation, and other substances we could conceivably remove. The resulting state is referred to as the "vacuum" -- a somewhat stricter use of the word than that applied to the space in between planets and stars, which is actually filled with trace amounts of matter and radiation. The vacuum has the lowest energy of any state, but there is no reason in principle for that energy to be zero. In the absence of gravity there is no way of measuring energy on an absolute scale; the best we can do is to compare the relative energies of two different states. The vacuum energy is then arbitrary, unobservable. In GENERAL RELATIVITY, however, any form of energy affects the gravitational field, so the vacuum energy becomes a potentially crucial ingredient. To a good approximation (see below), we believe that the vacuum is the same everywhere in the universe, so the vacuum energy density is a universal number which we call the cosmological constant. (More precisely, the conventionally defined cosmological constant is proportional to the vacuum energy density ; they are related by , where G is Newton's constant of gravitation and c is the speed of light.)

The Cosmological Constant in Cosmology

The scale factor R(t), spatial curvature, and energy density of the universe are related by the FRIEDMANN EQUATION, which says that a positive energy density contributes positively to the curvature, while expansion contributes negatively. For simplicity, consider a flat universe -- zero spatial curvature -- so that the energy density and expansion are in perfect balance. As the universe expands, the matter within it becomes increasingly rarefied, so the energy density in matter diminishes. If matter is the dominant component of the energy, the expansion rate (as measured by the HUBBLE CONSTANT) will correspondingly decrease; if on the other hand the cosmological constant dominates, the energy density will be constant, and the expansion rate will attain a constant value. In a potentially confusing but nevertheless appropriate piece of nomenclature, a universe with a constant expansion rate is said to be "accelerating".

This is because, while the amount of expansion undergone in any one second by a typical cubic centimeter in such a universe is a constant, the number of centimeters between us and a distant galaxy will be increasing with time; such a galaxy will therefore be seen to have an apparent recession velocity that grows ever larger.

In a universe with both matter and vacuum energy, there is a competition between the tendency of to cause acceleration and the tendency of matter to cause deceleration, with the ultimate fate of the universe depending on the precise amounts of each component. This continues to be true in the presence of spatial curvature, and with a nonzero cosmological constant it is no longer true that negatively curved ("open") universes expand indefinitely while positively curved ("closed") universes will necessarily recollapse -- each of the four combinations of negative/positive curvature and eternal expansion/eventual recollapse become possible for appropriate values of the parameters. There can even be a delicate balance, in which the competition between matter and vacuum energy is a draw and the universe is static (not expanding). The search for such a solution was Einstein's original motivation for introducing the cosmological constant, as the data at the time did not indicate an expanding universe, but his solution was both unstable to small perturbations and unnecessary once HUBBLE'S LAW was discovered.

The average energy density in the universe is often expressed in terms of the DENSITY PARAMETER , defined by , where H is the Hubble constant. The density parameter is directly related to the spatial curvature; space is negatively curved for , flat for , and positively curved for . We may decompose the density parameter into a sum of contributions from different sources of energy; we therefore speak of the density parameter for matter, , for the cosmological constant, , and so on. The figure indicates the spatial curvature and future history of expanding universes as a function of and , under the plausible (but by no means necessary) assumption that matter and vacuum energy are the only dynamically significant forms of energy in the universe today.

Figure: Geometry and evolution of universes with different amounts of matter and vacuum energy, as parameterized by the density parameters and . The diagonal line represents spatially flat universes. The circle centered on , represents very roughly the region favored by current observations of distant supernovae, the cosmic microwave background, and the dynamics of galaxies.

Note that a nonzero of the same order of magnitude as is in a sense quite unnatural, as the relative abundance of matter and vacuum energy changes rapidly as the universe expands. Indeed, since the energy density in matter decreases as while that in vacuum remains constant, we have . To have approximate equality between these two numbers at the present era would thus come as a great surprise, since the situation in the very early or very late universe would be much different.

Observational Prospects

The existence of a nonzero vacuum energy would, in principle, have an effect on gravitational physics on all scales; for example, it would alter the value of the precession of the orbit of Mercury. In practice, however, such effects accumulate over large distances, which makes cosmology by far the best venue for searching for a nonzero cosmological constant. Most of these effects depend not just on the vacuum energy but on the matter energy density as well, so a number of independent tests are necessary to pin down and separately. There is insufficient space available to do justice to all of the ways in which we can constrain , and the reader is encouraged to consult the references.

A paradigmatic example is provided by the statistics of GRAVITATIONAL LENSING. A positive cosmological constant increases the volume of space in between us and a source at any fixed redshift, and therefore the probability that such a source undergoes lensing by an intervening object. Limits on the frequency with which such lensing occurs can therefore put an upper limit on ; current data suggest that cannot be too close to 1, although upcoming surveys will provide much better data. A relatively new method for constraining various cosmological parameters, including , is the analysis of temperature anisotropies in the COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND. Such anisotropies have a distinctive power on any given angular scale which can be predicted, in any specified theory of structure formation, as a function of these parameters. Observations to date have provided some preliminary evidence in favor of an approximately flat universe, if currently favored theories based on adiabatic scale-free primordial perturbations are correct. (Most versions of the INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE scenario robustly predict that is extremely close to 1.) Coupled with dynamical tests, which consistently indicate that , this can be construed as evidence in favor of a nonzero cosmological constant; once again, however, these conclusions are tentative, and will soon be superseded by a new generation of more precise data.

Perhaps the most direct way of measuring the cosmological constant is to determine the relationship between redshifts and distances of faraway galaxies, known as the HUBBLE DIAGRAM. Nearby galaxies have redshifts which are proportional to their distances (Hubble's Law), but galaxies further away are expected to deviate slightly from this strict proportionality in a way which depends on both and . Measuring the distances to cosmological objects is notoriously difficult, but important progress has recently been made by using Type Ia SUPERNOVAE as standard candles. (In fact it is not necessary to get absolute distances, but only the relative distances to supernovae at different redshifts.) Supernovae are rare, but the number of distant galaxies is very large, and two independent groups have discovered dozens of high-redshift supernovae (as of late 1998) by carefully observing deep into small patches of the sky. The results of these studies thus far can be approximately expressed as ; it must be stressed, however, that our understanding of the physics underlying supernova explosions and the environments in which they occur is very incomplete at this stage. Nevertheless, there is an impressive consistency between this result and those of the microwave background observations and dynamical measurements of the mass density, with agreement achieved for a universe with close to 0.3 and close to 0.7. Confirming or disproving this possibility is one of the foremost ambitions of contemporary cosmologists.

Physics of the Cosmological Constant

The value of the cosmological constant is an empirical issue which will ultimately be settled by observation; meanwhile, physicists would like to develop an understanding of why the energy density of the vacuum has this value, whether it is zero or not. There are many effects which contribute to the total vacuum energy, including the potential energy of scalar fields and the energy in "vacuum fluctuations" as predicted by quantum mechanics, as well as any fundamental cosmological constant. Furthermore, many of these contributions can change with time during a phase transition; for example, we believe that the vacuum energy decreased by approximately kg m during the electroweak phase transition. (A change in the effective cosmological constant during a phase transition is a crucial ingredient in the inflationary universe scenario, which posits an exponential expansion in the very early universe driven by a large vacuum energy.)

From this point of view it is very surprising that the vacuum energy today, even if it is nonzero, is as small as the current limits imply ( kg m). Either the various contributions, large in magnitude but different in sign, delicately cancel to yield an extraordinarily small final result, or our understanding of how gravitation interacts with these sources of vacuum energy is dramatically incomplete. A great deal of effort has gone into finding ways in which all of the contributions may cancel, but it is unclear what would be special about the value ; a vanishing vacuum energy could be demanded by a symmetry principle such as conformal invariance or supersymmetry, but unbroken symmetries of this type are incompatible with what we know of the other forces of nature.

(One suggestion is to invoke the "anthropic principle", which imagines that the constants of nature take on very different values in different regions of the universe, and intelligent observers only appear in those regions hospitable to the development of life. It is unclear, however, whether different regions of the universe really do have different fundamental constants, or what values of the cosmological constant are compatible with the existence of intelligent life.) The alternative, that our understanding of the principles underlying the calculation of the cosmological constant is insufficient (and must presumably await the construction of a complete theory of quantum gravity), is certainly plausible, although the vacuum energy manifests itself in a low-energy regime where it would have been reasonable to expect semiclassical reasoning to suffice. Understanding the smallness of the cosmological constant is a primary goal of string theory and other approaches to quantum gravity. If the recent observational suggestions of a nonzero are confirmed, we will be faced with the additional task of inventing a theory which sets the vacuum energy to a very small value without setting it precisely to zero. In this case we may distinguish between a "true" vacuum, which would be the state of lowest possible energy which simply happens to be nonzero, and a "false" vacuum, which would be a metastable state different from the actual state of lowest energy (which might well have ). Such a state could eventually decay into the true vacuum, although its lifetime could be much larger than the current age of the universe. A final possibility is that the vacuum energy is changing with time -- a dynamical cosmological "constant". This alternative, which has been dubbed "quintessence", would also be compatible with a true vacuum energy which was ultimately zero, although it appears to require a certain amount of fine-tuning to make it work. No matter which of these possibilities, if any, is true, the ramifications of an accelerating universe for fundamental physics would be truly profound.

Popular Expositions:

Goldsmith, D 1997 Einstein's Greatest Blunder? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press)

Technical Reviews:

Carroll S M, Press W H, and Turner E L 1992 The cosmological constant Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 30 499
Carroll S M 2000 The cosmological constant Living Reviews in Relativity in press
Weinberg S 1989 The cosmological constant problem Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 1

Web pages for supernova groups:

Supernova Cosmology Project http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/
High-Z Supernova Search Team
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/oir/Research/supernova/HighZ.html

Sean Carroll
Mon Dec 14 16:40:19 PST 1998

****

The cosmological constant derived by Einstein ,"self-admitted greatest blunder", has been making a comeback as of late. Defined by the equation:

Cc / Pv = 8 * Pi * Gn / 3 / ( c^2 )

where:

Cc = cosmological constant
Pv = vacuum energy density
Gn = gravitational constant newton = 6.67420114 * ( 10^-11 )exact
c = speed of light = 299792458 m/s

...if Gn is considered a function of the electron...emev = .510998918 mev:exact

10 ^ (( 10 ^ ( emev ^ 2 )) - 12 ) = Gn

....then the right side of the cosmological constant is a rational integer !!!

Gn * Pi * 8 / 3 / ( c^2 ) = 168024000 / ( 288^14 )

...note the 14 ...( strong force = a(s) = 14 )... powers of 288 in the denominator. This integer 288 can feed back into the cosmological constant equation through the gravitational constant Gn:.... x = -2.88001077

(((( 8 / 3 ) ^ x ) ^ x ) ^ x ) = Gn

(((( Gn ^ ( 1/x )) ^ ( 1/x )) ^ ( 1/x )) = 8 / 3

...such that:

Cc / Pv = (((( Gn ^ ( 1/x )) ^ ( 1/x )) ^ ( 1/x )) * Gn * Pi / ( c^2 )

Cc / Pv = h * (((( Gn ^ ( 1/x )) ^ ( 1/x )) ^ ( 1/x )) / 2 / c / ( Mp^2 )

h = Planck's constant = 6.62606874 * ( 10 ^ - 34 ) J...exact
Mp = Plank mass = 2.17645023 * ( 10 ^ - 8 ) kilograms...exact

...a deeper mystery is the possible meaning of Beta (.37 ) through the omega-density parameter equation: H = Hubble constant:

Omega / Pv = 8 * Pi * Gn / 3 / ( H^2 ) / ( c^2 )

..of which from the article above there are two types of omega parameters:

omega m = .3 = the density parameter for mass--vacuum
omega Cc = .7 = cosmological constant parameter

...this formula translates to Beta (.37)

( omega m ) + ( omega Cc / 10 ) = .37

.....from the article....( impressive consistency between this result and those of the microwave background observations and dynamical measurements of the mass density, with agreement achieved for a universe with close to 0.3 and close to 0.7. Confirming or disproving this possibility is one of the foremost ambitions of contemporary cosmologists )......

J.Iuliano

Note:

...if Gn is considered a function of the electron...emev = .510998918 mev:exact

10 ^ (( 10 ^ ( emev ^ 2 )) - 12 ) = Gn

....then the right side of the cosmological constant is a rational integer !!!

Gn * Pi * 8 / 3 / ( c^2 ) = 168024000 / ( 288^14)

HOLY COW!! >>>> You confirmed mathematically, that expanding, centrifugal, macrocosmic gravity has something to do with Phi (168024000), as I previously expected (08/24/04 Correction: It's not exactly Phi, is it...I'm seeing what I want to see again.), and with exponent (^14) of the strong force which gravity, some say, is the strong force, which I had heard of, and with double light (288), which I also expected by observing the forward/backward bifilar windings of a torus!! MP.

I never expected that the "gravitational constant is a double log function of the electron". I considered it to be the 4th or 0th dimension. However, I don't know what "double log function" really means. MP.

_________________________________

99.85.4 RE1: Earth's Non-Rotating Field (Vanja)

Subject: RE1: Question? Non-rotating field
From: Janezic Vanja, Janezic.Vanja@cgp.si
To: rgrace@rgrace.org
Date: Fri, July 30, 2004 1:32 am

### Earth's Non-Rotating Field

(Hi again, I'm reading now and will go very slow with comments in bold because I want to document this and put it on my website if it turns out to be stunningly correct. Here we go... MP)

Hi Robert!

It is very simple indeed. You see, you can rotate magnet on two axis. One would be the rotation OF polar axis. That is, you rotate magnet so, that you change the position, or orientation of N-S polarity. This is the case, when we speak on rotating magnetic field in ordinary electric motor.

(OK this I understand as putting the N where the S is and the S where the N is. One kind of rotation- axis. MP)

Now. You can also rotate the magnet ON its polar axis. !!! ON its polar axis. That is, you rotate the magnet, but not the axis of polarity. Imagine simple bar magnet. In shape of short stick. If you rotate the magnet around its longitudinal axis, you would not change the orientation of the N-S polarity. Right? Now.

(OK this is where the N stay N and the S stay S so the magnet spins. The second kind of rotation- longitudinal. MP)

Exactly this is what I'm speaking about. You do not rotate the magnetic field by that! Now. It may be obvious to lay person. But, alas, it is not so to scientific community.

(I assume you did an experiment and it shows the field does not rotate. MP)

To have a induction, you need moving electron and magnetic field. Be it rotation or any other movement. Be it that the magnetic field moves or the electron. It is the same relation. Important part is relational movement of electron versus magnetic field.

(To have induction, yes, you need...either...a moving....electron or...a moving magnetic field..agreed here. MP)

Now so. If the magnetic field does not rotate ON its polar axis (polar axis!!!), when we rotate the source of the field on the same axis, then this planet moves in relation to its own magnetic field. Inductive process must take place then. Is it not so?

(You are saying IF the magnetic field does NOT rotate ON its polar axis...obviously it's the magnetic field of the earth, since you add the subject of earth....then you say the earth moves "in relation" to its own magnetic field....two statements....I assume "in relation" means "relative to" its own magnetic field. Now, the question...Is it not so? I find this a hard question to answer right now since I have presumptions in my mind, plus your hypotheses plus your IF question which makes it hard to formulate so far..lets skip this for now ok. MP)

I understand it is hard to believe that such simple fact escaped the knowledge and notice in science. Yet this is simple truth.

(Explain what is the simple truth about earth and its field please. MP)

Then, we should again recalculate things like weather, geophysics, .... In fact. Every cloud on the sky is part of this huge homopolar dynamo system. Every moving particle on this planet (or stationary to observer on the ground), moves with the planet in this planets magnetic field. There - you have induction!

(May I add the poles have to be perfectly opposite for the earth to act like a dynamo...However the poles wander and are hardly ever perfectly opposite, so my presumption is that spatial information comes into the center of earth like TeslaŐs button lamp, heating the core and subsequentially forms the magnetic and electric fields plus the D1, F1 and F2 layers (Vogt). MP)

Key question here is. Can magnetic field be axially rotated on its own polar axis?

(Can it or can it not...good question.....If you mean, by "axially on its own polar axis" ... my answer is similar to my first response as follows..."OK this I understand as putting the N where the S is and the S where the N is. One kind of rotation- axis." .......then I know that earth, every 750,000 yrs or so changes its polar alignment ...axially...N becomes S and S becomes N. I assume, after each polar change like this, the magnetic field still operates like it used to....

However, let's say the earth never rotates axially, N becoming S or S becoming N, but it just flips the field longitudinally. This is the same problem isn't it.

The next question to ask, if we can dismiss both these or ignore them for a moment is....if we can assume that the earths magnetic field stands still like you assert, then the spin of the earth furnishes the moving electrons that move thru the stationary field.....

This is if we assume that under no circumstance does the magnetic field move...Is this what you believe, that the field never, ever moves? This question includes that you don't believe the magnetic field rotates east or west, north or south, spins, flips or moves in any way. MP)

To me, truth is what I see and experience with my own eyes. On the basis of simple clear logic. In spite common belief and scientific authority.

Remember. Before Columbus, there was no America, to scientific authority.

best regards
Vanja

_____________________________

-----Izvorno sporocilo-----
Od: rgrace@rgrace.org [mailto:rgrace@rgrace.org]
Poslano: 29. julij 2004 21:04
Za: Janezic Vanja

Sir,

I'm Robert Grace, from the US.
I noticed your input at the Russian Physics Forum and had previously learned that a motor works because the magnetic field is supposed to rotate, thereby rotating the armature.

However, you say that the field does not rotate.

Therefore, can you tell me how a common electric motor works if the armature is not dragged around by the rotating magnetic field?

******************

99.85.5 RE2: Earth's Non-Rotating Field (Vanja)

Subject: RE2: Question? Non-rotating field
From: Janezic Vanja, Janezic.Vanja@cgp.si
To: rgrace@rgrace.org
Date: Fri, July 30, 2004 1:32 am

THE ROTATION OF MAGNETIC FIELD

The question I asked and searched for an answer is: Does the Earth's magnetic field rotate with the planet?

Many of you will say, of course it does. But beware, before you make quick conclusions. Some findings and facts explained on this site may be new to you. So come along with me in finding an answer to this simple question.

In 1832 famous scientist Michael Faraday performed some very interesting experiments with magnets and conducting disks. Since then in most schools teachers speak of these important experiments, which started the modern era of electricity, communication and Internet. Without Faraday's discovery of electromagnetic induction, none of this would be here now.

But! It took me years before I realized, that teachers in school did tell me but just a fragment of truth about this experiments. Why?

There is one experiment that Michael performed that puzzled him and everyone in scientific community since then. It is even today called Faraday's paradox. And teachers do avoid this subject, if they know about it, for it is rather puzzling to explain.

Let us repeat those Faraday's experiments. Since seeing is believing I suggest you do the experiments yourself. It is very easy. And takes just simple materials and instruments as permanent magnet, metallic disk, and voltmeter, drilling machine. A nylon string, glue, stick, and some adhesive tape.

Let us do the experiments.

We are all very familiar with the fact that a voltage is induced in conductor moving in magnetic field.

There are three experiments need to be done at first step.

1. Experiment
Take a permanent magnet and put it on table. Than take a metallic disk. Any conducting disk is fine. Attached this disk to some sort of rotating mechanism. You will need some sort of axes thru the centre of disk. I usually do this by attaching a metallic disk to some stick or short round bar with the glue. With for the glue to dry. Then put one end of the bar or stick in drilling machine. Now, you can rotate the disk around its axis.
Put the disk over the magnet, so that the axis of magnetic field of permanent magnet and the axis of rotation of disk coincide.
Rotate the disk over the magnet and measure the voltage between the rim and the axis of the disk. Induced voltage will be detected.
2. Experiment
Now you have to reverse rotating object. In this experiment you will have to rotate the magnet and have the disk stationary. Prepare the magnet as you did prepare the disk in experiment 1. Then put the magnet over disk so that the axis of magnetic field of permanent magnet and the axis of disk coincide. Now rotate the (disk. Correction: magnet.)
One would expect that the induced voltage would be measured. Yet it is not so. No voltage is induced in the disk. Even that you apparently have a relative motion between the magnetic field and the conductive disk.
3. Experiment
Let us make third and last experiment. Glue together magnet and conductive disk. Of course the axis have to coincide. And rotate them both. An induced voltage is measured between rim of the disc and it's axis. Yet there is no relative motion between magnet and the disk.

These three experiments performed by Michael Faraday were puzzling. Why?

There are two possible explanations of the phenomena. We know that if we have a relative motion between the conductor and magnetic field, voltage is induced in conductor. But these three experiments suggest something different. So we have two possible explanations. Keep in mind that we have actually three elements in these experiments. And we have to take in consideration relative motion between all three elements. Yet we have three experiments with three observed facts. So a definitive conclusion cannot be made.

First possible explanation is that in exp1 voltage is induced in disk, while we do not have relative motion between voltmeter and magnet. In exp2 voltage is not induced in disk and voltmeter. Yet both voltages are of same sign so the voltage difference cannot be measured. And in exp3 voltage is induced in voltmeter, because it has relative motion to magnet, while disk does not.

And there is also another possible explanation. The magnetic field cannot be rotated around its magnetical axis. We can rotate the magnet as much as we want, yet all we do rotate is the magnet not its magnetic field. In fact we must conclude that magnet does create or bear magnetic field. But we must also state that magnetic field and magnet are not one and the same reality. Like the colour of the ball. One red ball has it's own colour. And colour is a property of the ball. Yet if you rotate the ball, do you rotate the colour? Can you rotate or move the property of the object with the object? Everyone in right mind knows that the question does not make sense and cannot be answered.

But this did not satisfy me. I needed answer to this puzzle. And it was horrible revelation to me that some prominent 'scientist' tried to answer the question by repeating and repeating the same three experiments in well equipped laboratories, tried to measure some difference. It should be simple known to anyone that we have a riddle of three elements and three results. It cannot be solved like that. Even more saddening is the fact that this very same people used very complicated mathematical formulas to support one or the other answer. Yet it looks to me that they know how to calculate, they lack simple logic.

Like in all good things in life simple questions require simple solutions. I wasted a lot of time myself thinking of this Faraday's riddle. But after some time a solution to the question was formed in my mind.

The key question here is the relativity of conductor and magnetic field. So we have to dispense one element to gain conclusive decision. In our case this has to be measuring instrument, voltmeter. But by such constitution we have no longer ability to detect the presence of induced voltage. Or..?

Here I used the reality. We can never have a perfect disk with perfect roundness or a perfectly uniform magnetic field. And we can never put disk and magnetic field perfectly in line of the same axis. This fact can be used in our new experiment. Let us do two more experiments.

1. Suspend the disk over the magnet on thin string, so that disk can be spun over the magnet and that it can move of the vertical axis. Now spin the disk. It can be done by simply twisting the string. You will observe that after some time, disk tends to escape the magnetic field. It will start to spin around the magnet. Off the vertical axis. Reason for this is obvious. There are induced voltages in the disk. This produces eddy currents in the disk. The current as we know produces it's own magnetic field, that is just inverse of induced current. In perfect world with perfectly uniform magnetic field, conductor and mathematically exact position of both axes in the same line, all induced currents in the disk would be same. And they resultant of them would be null. Also the resultant of Biort Savart force between original on induced magnetic field would be null. Yet we live in imperfect world. So we can see by change in the position of rotating disk according to vertical axis the fact that voltage is indeed induced in the disk. As we would expect.
2. Now. For second experiment. Do not change anything. Make sure, disk is in its rest position and that it can spin and deflect from vertical axis freely. Now spin the magnet. If the magnetic field would spin on it's magnetic axis with the magnet, the same effect should be observed.
It is not so. The disk neither spins neither is deflected from vertical axis. And we have the same imperfection of elements and positions as before.

By this simple experiment I solved Faraday's riddle in December 2002. The magnetic field CANNOT BE ROTATED ON ITS POLAR AXIS.

I know many experiments were done on Faraday's paradox. Some even solved the problem. But none of these experiments were simple to perform and were not so conclusive as mine. And I do not know of anyone who did the same experiment as I did.

Now let us come to the basic question.

Does the Earth's magnetic field rotate with the planet?

If the magnetic field of simple permanent magnet is not rotated with the magnet? What about Earth's magnetic field. I mailed my discovery to some experts in the field of geomagnetism a month after my solution to Faraday's paradox. Most of them didn't reply. Some of them were not even aware of the existence of Faraday's paradox. I told you before, that teachers avoid the subject for lack of explanation. The rest concluded that Earth's magnetic field rotates with the planet in spite of fact that magnetic field of a simple magnet can not be rotated.

I will avoid repeating reasons they offered for their belief. Let us just say I never ever in my life heard of so stupid and ingenious claims.

One, best of them, to my opinion, was that Earths magnetic field is much more complex than magnetic field of bar magnet.

Is it?

I do not think that complexity of this planets magnetic field is simple. But as we all know even the smallest bar magnet has a magnetic field that is just the result of many many small magnets constituting the bigger one. So even the smallest magnet is composed. One can find this simply by breaking the magnet. If you break the magnet you do not have separate poles. You have two magnets.

Obviously magnet is composed of many smaller magnets.

It should be noted here, that none of physics I know ever used simple but effective logic of Lucretius, by which he explained the existence of atoms. For if you can divide something, you must have the one that divides and the one between. This is just my hint to all people who still search for aether. J

Think. For our mind and logic is the best laboratory ever constructed. You do not need complex machinery to explore the nature and it's laws. All you need is clear mind, logic and a bit of fantasy. So if you can divide a magnet and the result is two magnets and two magnetic fields, you can question yourself, did you divide one magnetic field in two? And if so, what is that, that Lucretius would call »the one between«?

Fact is. This planet's magnetic field does not rotate with the planet. For even if it would be the most complex magnetic field in universe, it would still be obedient to the laws of nature. And the law of nature is that magnetic field cannot be rotated on it's own polar axis. Sic! Simple or complex. It does not rotate.

And if we accept this simple fact, we should know by now from all these simple experiments, that we do rotate in Earth's magnetic field, and some induced voltage must be present by that.

For all those scientist, who searched for reasons of telluric currents and explanations of geodynamo process that is creating Earth's magnetic field, please take this fact in consideration. It is of utmost importance. Feel free to forget all theories and hypothesis you know. Just perform these five simple experiments and conclude by your own mind and reason.

To me conclusive experiment is more than any even so beautiful theory. Facts are facts.

We do leave in sea of energy. Free energy. For if we would be able to construct a simple coil in which only one half would be sensitive to induction and other half noninductive, we could gain almost limitless quantities of electrical energy just from fact that we rotate and move in Earth's magnetic field.

Please do not confuse the rotation of magnetic poles around rotational axis of Earth. Earth's magnetic poles relation to any point on the globe does not change with the rotation of the planet. Position of poles rotate of course. But the magnetic field does not.

With these I conclude my first paper in the series of exploration. Feel free to e-mail me and comment these lines. But if in any doubt. Please do perform these experiment's yourself before you jump to conclusions and attack me for heresy.

Vanja Janežič

Slovenia

Email: Vanja.Janezic@cgp.si

_____________________________

Subject: RE: Question? Non-rotating field
From: Janezic Vanja, Janezic.Vanja@cgp.si
To: rgrace@rgrace.org
Date: Tue, August 3, 2004 2:08 am

Hi, Robert!

Help me here, please. I checked the web site. Now. How I see the things. You started very good, by filling in complementary explanations. Yet. You complicate the thing, after first time I mention planet Earth. There is no need for that. Let us go back, to the very basic question. (I may repeat myself here, to be more clear)

The fundamental question is, can magnetic field, any magnetic field, be rotated on its polar axis? In my article at terella1 in described a century old paradox, named Faraday paradox. Michael Faraday performed a series of experiments with magnetic fields and inductors. Paradox was in the possibility to interpret results in two different ways, and so to come to two different possible conclusions. I don't want go in details here.

Fact is, that by simple experiment, we can resolve this riddle. (check the article) Result is very simple indeed. Magnetic field, can not be rotated on its polar axis. In fact. Magnetic field is something that does not exist by itself. It is just a human description of some elementary fact. Do not get me wrong here. It is like a force between a stone and ground, the stone rests upon. In fact, there is no force there. It is just a helpful tool for us to describe physical nature.

So. Even by its definition, magnetic field can not be rotated on its polar axis. For there is nothing to rotate. Remember. Magnetic field is described by magnetic forces. Vectors if you like. Even thinking about rotation of magnetic field on its polar axis, would be like thinking about rotation of mathematical plane on the axis perpendicular on its plane. :-) That is paradoxical on its own.

Good analogy to magnetic field is a shadow. You take a pointed source of light and ball. When you enlighten the ball, the ball casts a shadow. Now. If you rotate the ball, do you rotate the shadow? And if you rotate the source of light (around the vector pointing to the ball) do you rotate the shadow? You may notice change on the shadow if your light source is not uniform or if ball is not round enough. But shadow can not be rotated. It is nonsense. By definition, like with magnetic field, it can not be rotated.

1. Now. We can prove and confirm that it is the nature of magnetic field, any magnetic field, that it can not be rotated on its polar axis.

2. Therefore. Rotating the material source of magnetic field (magnet, coil, ...) on the polar axis of its magnetic field, is a relational movement between magnetic field and material particles of the source.

3. Induction takes place every time there is relational movement between magnetic field and electron.

4. It is well known fact that this planet Earth, has its own magnetic field. And the orientation of the polar axis of this field does not coincide with the axis of rotation of the planet.

5. Regarding all facts above we can conclude. It is not possible for Earths magnetic field to rotate with the planet. (The polar axis of the field does rotate with the planet as well as polar points rotate with the planet. But you should not take the rotation of axis or axial rotation of magnetic field for one and the same.) Therefore every material particle on this planet moves within this planets magnetic field. We have a relational movement. Induction is present!

I have received many intelligent and even some less intelligent comments on the material discussed. Some say, that we can not compare or take for same the huge and complex magnetic field of this planet and magnetic field of 'simple' bar magnet. - It is not so. Even the simplest bar magnet is yet in its size very complex. Remember. Cutting or breaking bar magnet. The magnetic field of bar magnet is complex magnetic field 'composed' of several tiny magnetic fields. You can go down to atom size. And you will then notice the complexity of its nature.

Some people confuse the rotation of polar axis and rotation of magnetic field. You can put for example a bar magnet in a plastic ball. When you rotate the ball, you will notice, that bar magnet rotates with it. Even if you make the axis of magnet slant to few degrees to the rotation of the ball, it is the same. Now. Pick up any point on the surface of the ball. An rotate it. Does the angle and distance of that point towards the magnetic field of bar magnet changes by rotation of the ball? No! You have to know and understand the difference between the movement of polar axis and movement around the polar axis. On this planet we move with polar axis and not around it.

Some people even go so far to put the so called magnetic polar flips in the story. I repeat. This is not the subject of this discussion. It is the subject of some other discussion somewhere, some place. What we want to know here is just the answer to: can magnetic field be rotated on its polar axis?.

Only two people I know so far, concluded correctly, that if the induction is going on all over and inside this planet, then the planet would stop rotating after some time. This would be correct, if there would not be external force present to keep the rotation on. This source of energy is our Sun and its electromagnetic wind. Yet. We are again out of the subject of this discussion.

_________

Now. Looking at all above text, it looks to me like I'm complicating things now. :-) Well. English is not my first language, so I have problems to express myself sometimes. Now. You mentioned somewhere: What I believe...? Well. It is what I know. In its foundation, this is science. We have to relate to facts, not what we believe. Between you and me, I had serious problems to accept facts on this subject.

I still do not know how far you are in this. I know you have some questions and doubts. But. Please go and do experiments by yourself. Do not take my word on this. Do it on your own, then think about it. It is very simple indeed. Only then you will know the truth.

_____________________________

(Jan,

Right away I see that in Experiment 2. there seems to be an error as follows: "Now rotate the disc". Since the first experiment was to rotate the disc, I'm assuming that you meant to say, in the 2nd experiment, to "rotate the magnet"? Seeing that you didn't catch this error, I wonder if you rotated the disc in both experiments? Yes or no?

Aside from that slight correction, here is what I recommend in two other experiments........rotate the disc and the magnet the opposite direction as you did in these experiments. In other words, if you already rotated the moving magnet clockwise over the stationary disc, rotate the magnet counterclockwise this time. This also applies to the disc of Experiment 1.

1. Magnetism is said to be the universal carrier wave of information and is about half of the frequencies of iron. (Vogt, Reality Revealed)

2. The magnecrystallic force was puzzling to scientists of Einstein's day, Newton and Faraday in their time. They also ignored this like the plague because it didn't fit their theories. It ignore polarities of + and - and aligns crystal cells (atoms) so those atoms go right to the proper place in a crystal formation, aligning perpendicular to magnetic field. (Vogt, Reality Revealed)

Could the magnecrystallic force or the magnetic carrier wave be similar or the same as a stationary magnetic field?

I have to admit, I have no information on a magnetic field being stationary.

I only have the first question for you again?

What makes a common motor armature rotate if it is not by a rotating magnetic field?

Robert)

Page 85

Sections List- 99 Electrons and Mythologies
Impossible Correspondence Index