Archive for August, 2008

Consequences of Discarding Torsion

August 30, 2008


Subject: Consequences of Discarding Torsion
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:09:22 EDT

The neglect of torsion is the arbitrary assumption (initially made for convenience):

T = 0 – (1)

So the Cartan geometry of the previous note reduces to

D ^ q = 0 (2)

R = D ^ omega (3)

D ^ T := R ^ q = 0 (4)

Without going into any details, it is seen that this is a drastic assumption, and there is no justification for it. The Bianchi identity reduces to

R ^ q = 0 (5)

an equation that was first given by Ricci and Levi-Civita. For some reason it is known in the standard physics as the “first Bianchi identity”. All of Einsteinian general relativity is based on this incorrect geometry. The correct Bianchi identity is given by Cartan:

D ^ T := R ^ q (6)

and neither side of eq. (6) is zero in general. During the course of development of ECE theory (2003 to present) two more identities have been highlighted. These both derive staightforwardly from eq. (6). They are:

1) The dual identity

D ^ T tilde := R tilde ^ q (7)

2) The derivative identity

D ^ (D ^ T) := D ^ (R ^ q) (8)

Here tilde means the well known Hodge dual transformation in four dimensions. The geometry used by Einstein is:

R tilde ^ q =? 0 (9)

and

D ^ R =? 0 (10)

Eq. (10) is known in the standard physics as “the second Bianchi identity”. It is however an incorrect equation, so the =? sign is used in eq. (10). Eq. (9) is also incorrect. The Einstein field equation merely claims that the incorrect eq. (10) is proportional to a quantity in physics. So the whole Einsteinian general relativity is irretrievably incorrect. This has actually been suspeced for ninety years bu tis shown with great clarity by eq. (7) (see papers 93, 95, 100 and 117, and “Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation”). The ECE theory derives all the equations of physics using the correct geometry due to Cartan. All this is easy to understand, and this major progress in modern physics is being deliberately ignored by the standard faction, who are merely transient dogmatists of no real significance in the history of science.

Civil List Scientist

Counter Gravitation with Spin Connection Resonance

August 30, 2008


Subject: Fwd: AW: Counter Gravitation with Spin Connection Resonance
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:47:31 EDT

You are right, the gravitomagnetic field is so small that only SCR effect are plausible for countergratitation. There are some more people who pretend to be able to use mechanical acceleration forces, for example Coriolis force, to gain energy. I have heard from Russian patents for satellite drives. If you like I will make two or three sketches and we can discuss these effects in detail. All this should be explainable by classical mechanics, but it is sometimes quite tricky to see the errors in the models, and possibly the concepts are even right.

Horst

—–Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht—– Von: EMyrone] at [aol.com [mailto:EMyrone] at [aol.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 29. August 2008 13:43 An: ted] at [annis.org; fdamador] at [comcast.net; sean] at [somewhere.ws; dave] at [annexa.net; HorstEck] at [aol.com; geesquared] at [gmail.com; kp.phys] at [btinternet.com; karel.jelinek] at [gmail.com; thenarmis] at [yahoo.com; J.Dunning-Davies] at [hull.ac.uk; aje] at [warfplc.com; anthony.fucilla] at [btinternet.com; live-ste] at [online.no; rpmc_6] at [hotmail.com; jackiandoli] at [googlemail.com Betreff: Counter Gravitation with Spin Connection Resonance

This is the only plausible mechanism for counter gravitation in my opinion. Similarly for energy from spacetime. This is a well developed subject by now. The ECE gravitational equations give this phenomenon.

OK thanks, this will be an interesting intellectual exercise. As a working hypothesis I would say that the only way to understand teh claim by Tajmar et al. is through spin connection resonance increasing cap omega of paper 117 by orders of magnitude. As usual with these claims however, we await experimental reproducibility. Until that happens, the theoretician must be very careful

General Relativity

August 29, 2008


Subject: General Relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:41:42 EDT

In general relativity there are two cornerstones: the constancy of the speed of light and the principle that the equations of physics retain their form under the general transform of coordinates. Special relativity is regained in the limit of the Lorentz transform. The metric is generalized from the flat or Minkowksi metric to a metric in a spacetime with curvature and torsion. The curvature and torsion are described by the connection. The additional idea of general relativity is that the fundamental basis of physics is geometry. This idea is also present in special relativity, but the connection in special relativity is zero. The geometry of special relativity is encapsulated elegantly by Cartan, through two structure equations which lead to the Bianchi identity. In 1915 Einstein arrived at a field equation based on a drastically simplified geometry which threw away torsion. Eventually, in 2007, it was found in paper 93 of the ECE series on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) that this leads to a fundamental geometrical self inconsistency, as it is bound to do. Cartan’s structure equations are:

T = D ^ q; R = D ^ omega

where a shorthand notation has been used to reveal the basic structure of the geometry. Here T is torsion (spacetime spinning), D is a kind of derivative, q is the tetrad (a kind of unit vector), R is the curvature (spacetime curving) and omega is the connection. These two equations tell us all we need to know about the geometry upon which all physics can be derived (ECE theory, 2003 to present). They lead to the Bianchi identity: D ^ T := R ^ q

where := means “identical to”. The equations of both classical electrodynamics and dynamics come from the Bianchi identiy and the structure equations with one additional hypothesis (made by Evans in 2003):

A = A(0) q

where A is the electrodynamical potential and cA(0) is a primordial voltage in the universe. Then all of physics follows, plus a lot of predictions about new physics. All of physics is unified by geometry, a claim that has been tested experimentally in many ways (_www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) ).

Origin of Special Relativity

August 29, 2008


Subject: Origin of Special Relativity
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:17:10 EDT

To Kerry: Special relativity is most easily understood as a frame transformation in tensor analysis, using the Lorentz transform. This is described for example in Jackson, Marion and Thornton and Carroll. There are many variations on the theme of special relativity, not just one story. In fact the results of the Michelson Morley experiment are disputed by some scientists. What is true however is that the mathematics of the Lorentz transform have been well tested experimentally in many ways, so special relativity is the most precise subject in physics, not QED (which was heavily criticised in paper 85 on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) ). The subject appears to have been started by my predecessor Heaviside, in correspondence with Fitzgerald. There were many scientists who contributed to special relativity. I advocate studying the mathematics of the Lorentz transform as given in Jackson, “Classical Electrodynamics” (third edition). The most important difference between special relativity and Newtonian mechanics is that time is treated as a coordinate, so the dimensions of a vector are increased from three (X, Y, Z) to four (ct, X, Y, Z). The latter is called spacetime. The most important idea is that the tensor equations of physics retain their form under the Lorentz transform. To understand this one needs to understand tensor analysis. This principle was augmented in 1905 by the principle of the constancy of the speed of light, due to Einstein. So these two ideas are cornerstones of relativity. From the Lorentz transform the whole subject is built up. For example the relativistic momentum is p = gamma m v. From this equation comes E = m c squared. In order to understand this properly one has to learn contravariant covariant notation and the Minkowski metric. Playing around with words does not really give any understanding, it tends to confuse people, leading to irrational rejection. Once one learns a few rules of mathematics, the subject is not all that difficult. If one can understand the metric in the Minkowski spacetime, then general relativity follows by adjusting the metric. The proper time tau in special relativity is essentially the shortest time, and we have what is called an infinitesimal line element. As you can see in paper 93, the line element is the start of the calculation in general relativity. From it one gets the metric as a matrix. Relativity is counter-intuitive, and can only be understood if one makes the effort to learn the mathematics. This should be possible for fourteen or fifteen year olds in a good school.

Lion of Scotland

August 29, 2008


Subject: Lion of Scotland
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:35:27 EDT

While spinning a 2p coin to investigate its Eulerian precession,I found that the single golden lion rampant of Rhys ap Gruffydd is the same as the golden lion of Scotland on the coin. So next time Scotland play Wales I will be strictly neutral – would not like to be caught between a dragon and a lion. I think that this is the lion of Robert the Bruce, but not sure.

Interesting Comments from Barry Hunt

August 29, 2008


Subject: Interesting Comments from Barry Hunt
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:25:31 EDT

I am a happy heretic really, at Aberystwyth I survived on stakes and computer chips. These are very interesting remarks from Barry Hunt – especially in regard to Laithwaite’s conjecture that electrodynamics and dynamics have the same structure. Barry Hunt’s work on the Genesis paradigm is also rigorously correct. Isaac Newton’s ideas are only a small part of the whole, and I am profoundly shocked at what happened to Laithwaite, even given his transient lack of care in dynamics. I wonder how many FRS’s in teh audience could instantly solve a problem out of Marion and Thornton and out of their wigs on the lagrangian treatment of a constrained and spinning symmetric top? This is the Laithwaite problem. If one spins a coin on a table for example, the actual trajectory of the point on the table is complicated, it does not stay in the same place. The unconstrained spinning symmetric top does not stay in the same place. Eulerian dynamics, hydrodynamics, lagrangian dynamics, hamiltonian dynamics, fractal dynamics, non-linear mechanics, quantum mechanics, relativistic mechanics were unknown to Newton. Anyway this is a very interesting comment historically as well as scientifically.

Myron and fellow heretics,

I met and talked at length to Eric Laithwaite in 1974. Note that he is credited with the invention of the linear induction motor. His understanding of e/m was profound, but unfortunately he made a fool of himself through his lack of understanding of standard mechanics. He told me ahead of time that he was going to “let the cat out of the bag” at a forthcoming lecture at the Royal Institute of Mechanical Engineers in Birdcage Walk, London. He walked onto the stage with a sack in hand, opened the sack, and the cat, which had fallen asleep inside, promptly fell on its head on the stage. When the laughter had subsided, he explained that normally a cat would spin and land its feet, “thus violating conservation of angular momentum”. He made similar claims for a trampolinist or a diver performing somersaults despite initially having zero angular momentum. The point he was missing, and for which he was deservedly?ridiculed, is that the cat?paddles its legs rapidly in the air, and its body counter-rotates to preserve zero overall angular momentum. A similar effect can be re-created by sitting on a low-friction swivel chair while holding a heavy object connected to a (spinning)?electric drill. The angular location of the sitter changes without the transfer of any mass outside the closed system (chair, sitter, drill). This can be called propellantless rotation.

Laithwaite’s more interesting claims were in regard to changing spatial location without transfer of mass outside the system (propellantless propulsion), and this is what Alex Jones was on about. He told Laithwaite he had had a dream in which a gyroscope on a low-friction (ice) table would translate across the table. Laithwaite tried to repeat this on live television (Tomorrow’s World, with Raymond Baxter, I think) but the gyroscope failed to move. Shortly after this he did the BBC Children’s Christmas Lectures in the TV program you have referred to. His demonstrations were spectacular but?meaningless. They can be explained by standard mechanics.

The reason I was interested in what Laithwaite was saying was that at BAC (as BAE was then called) we were developing a model of a jet-in-crossflow for possible application to vertical-takeoff aircraft. When a jet emerges vertically from a hole in a horizontal surface, with a wind flowing along that surface, the jet bends. What is more interesting is that a pair of contra-rotating vortices appear inside the jet, parallel to its curved axis. This effect can be observed routinely with smoke emerging from a chimney in a crosswind, or simply in smoke from a cigarette in a gentle breeze. Each particle moving along the vortex thus has rotation about two separate axes. We found that when we tried to solve the equations using standard mechanics, in an attempt to predict the jet trajectory, the predicted trajectory was far removed from the one observed experimentally. This suggested to us that for such motions (compound accelerations), extra forces must be present. In thinking about t his problem, I generated the first seeds of the GENESIS paradigm that you recently became familiar with [in which curl(F) — torsion — is inextricably linked with div(F) — compression — for an arbitrary vector field F].

After talking to Laithwaite, a then-BAC?colleague of mine, Brian Darbyshire ( a double-first in mathematics from Cambridge) wrote out Newton’s equations for linear acceleration and separately for angular motion in generalized tensor notation, and found nothing unusual. He then did the same for a combination of these motions, and found that extra terms appeared, outside Newton mechanics. When we communicated these findings to Laithwaite, he failed to respond. Although I am better-versed than most in vector mathematics,?I did not (and still do not) understand generalized tensors. I did not retain a copy of Brian’s equations, and I lost touch with him over 30 years ago.

I do remember Laithwaite saying that in the gyros so far developed, we have had only two degrees of freedom; if a 3rd degree of freedom is introduced (rotation about a 3rd axis, or more generally any acceleration of a standard gyro), the standard equations no longer apply. He made a very strong point that the equations of mechanics should parallel those of electromagnetics, though at that time he was referring to the common-or-garden variety of Maxwell-Heaviside.

I tried to locate Laithwaite in late 1997, only to find from Ron Evans, then heading up “Project Greenglow” at BAE, that he had just died. Oh well.

Regards,

Barry

—–Original Message—–

Sent: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 8:17 am
Subject: [AIAS] Fwd: Artifacts in Counter Gravitation

?

Attached Message

From:

EMyrone] at [aol.com

To:

ted] at [annis.org; fdamador] at [comcast.net; sean] at [somewhere.ws; dave] at [annexa.net; HorstEck] at [aol.com; geesquared] at [gmail.com; kp.phys] at [btinternet.com; karel.jelinek] at [gmail.com; thenarmis] at [yahoo.com; J.Dunning-Davies] at [hull.ac.uk; aje] at [warfplc.com; anthony.fucilla] at [btinternet.com; john.shelburne] at [navy.mil; johnshel] at [knology.net

Subject:

Artifacts in Counter Gravitation

Date:

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:17:23 EDT

I would need more information on this type of experiment, otherwise there is the great danger of applying ECE to artifact. My point is that Laithwaite should not have been treated as he was under any circumstance. Similarly the experiment of Tajmar et al. will need study until?I am satisfied that artifact has been removed.?If one attaches a particle such as a tennis ball to a string, and the string to a weight, then swinging the tennis ball around will lift the weight, even though the latter is much heavier than the tennis ball. This is due to the ordinary outwardly directed centrifugal force omega x (omega x r), it has nothing to do with changing g of course.?The gyroscope is essentially the usual precession?
dL / dt = omega x L. The
kinetic energy in the system is (1/2) omega dot L. This is?the usual theory. ?

?

The new ECE equations give:

?

?????? partial g / partial t = c squared (curl?cap omega – (4 pi G /? c squared) J)????????????? ————- (1)

?

?????? curl g = – partial cap omega / partial t??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ————– (2)

?

?????? del g = 4 pi G rho??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ————– (3)

?

?????? del?cap omega = 0??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? —————– (4)

?

All the usual gyroscope dynamics come from eq. (3) and the laws of conservation. The big problem with the claims of Tajmar, de Matos and Laithwaite is immediately clear, because cap omega is of order c times smaller than g.?Tajmar et al claim a cap omega many orders of magnitude larger than that given in paper 117, and this claim?has not yet been reproduced.?If I fall into the trap of applying ECE to artifact there will be a gleeful mudfest from the standard faction.?We had already rejected the falling gyroscope claim – about two years ago. At present I need to study the Laithwaite claim to see if has been found to be artifact. The Biefeld Brown and Naudin claims were all found to be artifacts, although Naudin still tries to make his claims. Websites in this area of counter gravitation are wholly unreliable.?So the only information available about gravitomagnetism is the LAGEOS claim, Gravity Probe B having been a fiasco if truth be said. ?

?

?

???

Attached Message

From:

horsteck] at [aol.com

To:

EMyrone] at [aol.com

Subject:

Re: Laithwaite Experiment

Date:

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:19:08 -0400

The Laithwaite experiment seems to describe a similar effect as Sean mentioned: falling gyroscopes decrease in weight. Perhaps an additional torque on the rotation axis leads to further effects, the equations should show this.

HOrst

—–Original Message—–

Sent: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:58 am
Subject: Laithwaite Experiment

Thanks to John Shelburne and Charles Kellum for bringing my attention to this very interesting experiment. It was?initially carried out at a Royal Institution evening discourse at the invitation of Sir George Porter, PRS. Prof. Eric Laithwaite was a leading engineer involved in the development of the hovercraft and so on and worked at Imperial. In the evening discourse he?spun a motocycle wheel on a three foot pole with a low friction bearing and an electric motor. This was a heavy gyroscope weighing about half a hundredweight (fifty pounds or so, about 25 kilograms). It was found that the gyroscope?became much lighter. This phenomenon was found to be in accordance with?Newtonian dynamics, and patented later?by Gyron. Laithwaites’ own explanation is that the gyroscope does not produce the full amount of centrifugal force on its pivot.

?

This seems to be a clear and unequivocal demonstration of an important new effect, which has actually been patented. This experiment can be tried at home.?For some inexplicable and outrageous?reason, Laithwaite was ostracised and the evening discourse censored. He was not awarded an FRS, a Gold Medal or Knighthood because?it was thought by the establishment that the device violated Newton’s laws. This is despite brilliant service to engineering. So the establishment can behave in a manner that greatly harms science – the opposite of its purpose. It was found later that the device does not violate the Newtonian laws but is still unexplained. He died in 1997. He was a blunt talking Lancastrian so alienated the stuffed shirts of the Royal Institution. The latter is where my predecessor Faraday worked, and this censorship would have outraged Faraday himself.?My guess is that this important experiment has also been censored from the standard journals but there is actually a patent field on it by Gyron.

?

I will have a fresh look at the dynamics of the gyroscope and see if some light can be shed on the Laithwaite experiment with the new ECE laws of gravitation:

?

?

????????????????????????????????????????? del omega = 0

?????????????????????????? curl g + partial omega / partial t = 0

??????????????????????????????????????????del g = 4 pi G rho

????????????? curl omega – (1 / c squared) partial g / partial t = (4 pi G /? c squared) J

?

Only one of these, number three, was known to Isaac Newton.

?

????????????

Civil List Scientist

Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices & More!

Manage your list subscription at http://lists.somewhere.ws/mailman/listinfo/aias

Disestablishment in science

August 29, 2008


Subject: Disestablishment in science
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:14:42 EDT

One should follow Lloyd-George’s lead an pass a disestablishment act for science. I see no purpose in an establishment that harms science. In the last analysis they cannot prohibit thought itself, the aim of many an orwellian regime. I know very well that Lloyd-George had glaring weaknesses – mainly selling of honours and peerages, but he did achieve a great deal. I think that Davies of Llandinam was one of those who bought his peerage, having milked the coalminers to live in luxury. Recently I heard a politician say that the era of cheap energy was over – as if we didn’t know. this politician consumes more energy in campaigning than a hundred voters. There are is also silly talk of starting a new cold war etc. by people who do not have the majority of any vote, and whose terms are unrestricted. Do they really know what war means, especially nuclear war? Bertrand Russell was clear minded enough to know. It transpired recently that in the 62 missile crisis the politicians had built a bunker for themselves off the M4 near Bristol. At least that is sound proof. The population was not a factor in building the bunker. A cold war with global arming and no energy is what the politicians have in store for us.

Civil List Scientist

Some Discussions with Mansel Davies on the meaning of FRS

August 29, 2008


Subject: Some Discussions with Mansel Davies on the meaning of FRS
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:19:20 EDT

Mansel Davies was my Ph. D. supervisor and could be candid and radical. He was one of the scientists consulted for a Nobel Prize nomination. He mentioned to me that he nominated Enrico Clementi of IBM for a Nobel Prize and that my B(3) and several other things deserved Nobel Prizes by any standard. To me the Civil List Pension is much more meaningful than a Big N. He was well known in Cambridge circles and was a member of the Faraday Society, later part of the Royal Society of Chemistry. He had no part in nominating me for the Harrison or Meldola, and no part in my D. Sc. I wished to win them on merit and not on undue influence. He himself never lobbied for FRS or a Nobel Prize as so many people do all the time. He told me that he had been offered an FRS three times but had refused because he thought it meaningless. He admired Bertrand Russell and Aldous Huxley for example, radical thinkers of a slightly older generation than his. He was born in the same year as Dylan Thomas and R. S. Thomas. neither Mansel or I were part of the rather boring and unintellectual, stuffed shirt and anglicised Aberystwyth scene, being both Welsh speaking Baptists and radicals like Lloyd-George. I am a native speaker and he learned the language. Mansel thought, fundamentally, that advancement in science ought to be on merit only and that too much of the establishment was counter-productive. He was however firmly part of the establishment himself. Sometimes one could talk to him in quite an interesting way, sometimes he was on his high horse and foreign. As far as I know the FRS scene now requires two nominations. I was already nominated by the RS for the Civil List Pension, which is rare and therefore a higher honour than FRS. To get elected FRS needs a two thirds majority at a meeting, two nominations having been received. Peter Atkins, my sometime Oxford colleague has now been elected FRS, and fully deserved. For a long time there was a peculiar attitude towards him, because it was said in a wholly empty headed manner that he did no research, “only” producing textbooks. I have produced about 800 papers and books, compared with about 60 for Mansel adn about this for the average FRS. So there is no correlation between FRS and work produced. I suppose that I would be told that I publish too much. In other words there is a large element of who you know, are you in the right circles of society, are you safely conservative, and so on. In the States the system is just as conservative. I recall that by the time I was first a post doc I had already been told that I published too much several times, but never by Mansel to his credit. The scientific test is to read a paper by an FRS and a non-FRS, without knowing which is which, and guess who is the FRS. These are the kind of negative factors that arise when the practice of science is administered too conservatively. There is certainly no purpose in a Laithwaite type censorship. There is tremendous prejsudice against me at Aberystwyth now, as is obvious to all. This is due to my science, so the claim of that place to be a university apparently rests on whether you cannot do science. In fact AIAS cans every physics department in Wales out of sight.

Counter Gravitation with Spin Connection Resonance

August 29, 2008


Subject: Counter Gravitation with Spin Connection Resonance
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:43:01 EDT

This is the only plausible mechanism for counter gravitation in my opinion. Similarly for energy from spacetime. This is a well developed subject by now. The ECE gravitational equations give this phenomenon.

BBC Documentary on Laithwaite

August 29, 2008


Subject: BBC Documentary on Laithwaite
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:38:45 EDT

There was shown a BBC documentary on Laithwaite which reconstructed the expunged RI lecture. Laithwaite appears to have claimed that he could lift a spinning gyroscope easily. There is nothing unusual in this, I have seen another TV programme where someone attached a tennis ball to a string, the other end to a weight and showed that the weight was pulled up. The centrifugal force is outward, but via a pulley for example can pull up on the weight. This is seen by attaching a string to a weight, over a pulley, and pulling horizontally on the pulley. Of course, the weight is pulled up, an everyday ordinary thing. Again, an ordinary spinning top moves around, its point does not stay in one place. This may have been the effect that the inventor Alex Jones showed to Laithwaite. In a text such as that by Marion and Thornton, the force free motion of a symmetric top is discussed on page 390, and is one cone rolling on another. The motion of a symmetric top with one point fixed was first worked out by Lagrange in Mecanique Analytique.