Attention to all Gravity and Aether Researchers

[Harvey]

@Harvey:

What if the earth was held stationary, what would be the m/s2 for Jupiter? Also, if jupiter was held stationary and the earth is allowed to move, what would be the m/s2 for the Earth?

Do you think by comparing the results between these 3 different hypotheticals, it may shed a little more light into the properties of gravity?

GB

Gravity of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



we get 9.8(6378000 / 77,875,

[Aaron]

rotating mass, aether, etc...

Hi Harvey,

With time and space, I think that the only true vacuum is any region
that lacks aether. So space with distance, etc... is not a true vacuum.
For faster than light speed travel for instance, invisibility, "teleportation",
it is a very simple concept having nothing to do with a necessity of a
worm hole.

Take a conductive shell (saucer shape whatever). One one point have
very high frequency high voltage + and an opposite point with negative.
The ship will move in the direction of the +. It isn't moving by pusing into
the direction but by getting attracted to the direction. The positive
charge of the aether is repelled by that + and is deflected around and
attracted to the - at the other end causing a squeeze on the
back end of the shell pushing it forward while simultaneously, the + on
the ships leading front is attracted to the negative charge of the
aether. It should go from point a to point b instantaneously without
inertia because the very aether that causes inertial resistance or push
on the mass is deflected around the mass so essentially the shell
is slipping through and deflecting the aether around it. That means it
traveled no distance, had no inertia, was invisible since there is nothing
to propagate light from it or on it, etc...

I found out my idea about the direction of doing this to a shell was
actually proven by T. Townsend Brown and I found that out in the last
year or two. Only the part about which way the shell moves with the
high voltage arrangement.

I'm just mentioning the above concept in my model because the shell
would be in an area lacking the aether, and therefore, it is not moving
through any space at all, which the aether is responsible for defining.
The "place" where the ship is, is devoid of all aether, so no aetheric
push on the protons that makes up the ships mass so no inertial. No
aether to supply the source potential to light movement, etc... meaning
that space is something that has a distance and there is no distance
at all in a true vacuum. So the ship would be at one point, may start
moving or not and would instantly reappear at another point instantly
and WITHOUT TIME DILATION. So we could move to another galaxy and
explore around and come back with this method and not only would
everyone not have aged so old they are long gone, WE would actually
have aged a bit more than the people on the earth because they are under
some aetheric pressure and their time was ticking SLOWER than ours since
we were under to aetheric pressure or at least much less and probably
with some technology to control it so we don't age to dust in a moment.
That is the opposite of leaving and coming back to find everyone long
gone.

Harvey, have you given any thought to a neutral particle theory? I know
a few people that have been in the "free energy" field for many years and
they lean in that direction. Possibly neutrinos, whatever.

What is your interpretation of this from your perspective in the
simplest terms:

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

And where does this potential come from? To me, it is the endless
river or dynamic potential instead of static from a conceptual viewpoint
and not mathematic.

If space is a medium or not, depends on definition of space. If there is
aether, there is space, which has dimensions. Without the aether,
I doubt any space as it would be a vacuum or void in the truest sense.

In the last year, I came across some vague reference to an experiment
that showed the particle and wave were observed simultaneously. Not
sure if you heard of a reference to that and I don't know the whole story.
But I think consciousness itself is the answer. I have an entire model for
it and of course it makes sense to me lol, but it does seamlessly connect
with my variation of the gravity/aether model.

I think Tesla is seeing it for what it is and Einstein talking about curved
space is only talking about an effect not knowing the real cause. It is like
a boat zipping by causing waves to spash on the beach. Tesla is discussing
the boat while Einstein is mesmerized by the waves splashing on the beach.

The "curved" space concept never sat right with me because it doesn't
explain anything and doesn't have enough dimension to see what is
going on. But with an aetheric displacement model, mine at least,
and we're in this thread to showcase our models, hopefully related to
the aetheric topic or close enough, mass displacing aether and causing lighter to higher
density aether towards the surface is like Occam's Razor for me -
no unnecessary convolution.

So when a light beam moves towards a large enough mass to make
a difference, it isn't following a "curved path", it is simply moving through
aether that is pushed towards the surface from it rebounding to where
it was displaced from and moving through aether that is slightly more
compressed than away from the mass and by the time it is away from
the mass, it is on a slightly deviated trajectory. That is at least what
my model suggests is happening and why light "bends" near masses.

If it could be measured precisely enough, I would also predict that the
light speed slows down a bit near that mass then speeds back up to
its normal speed away from mass. Because the higher density of aether
is compressed enough that the light is forced to propagate through it
a bit slower until it is back to normal density aether.

Tesla and Einstein are naming the two things but Tesla names the cause
while Einstein notices an effect in my opinion.

Would that be zork 1, 2 or 3?
I was an infocom junkie at one time.

Thanks for the Lagrangian points reference. It is related to that magnetic
domain switching critical point mass concept I mentioned based on the
concept that Arm mentioned in a thread he started. And I don't mean
literally about little points all lining up in a moment or pulse, just the
concept of the nature of hitting a critical point.

I just didn't know there was a name for it.

In my model, it actually perfectly explains why that happens and as
you know is an "aetheric model". Between the Earth and Moon like in
my diagram for gravitational attraction it is the point at which the
reduced aetheric rebound towards each mass is at the minimum amount
for each mass. If moving in the direction of the moon, once it crosses
that point, it will start to be pulled in by the moon as the dominant
attractor.

So in my gravitational attraction diagram, a line could be drawn
between them that math can actually describe. The math could describe
the point at where that aetheric rebound is the lightest between the two
but of course it wouldn't describe what the actual cause is.

With the DePalma paragraph, I would like to bring up the distinction again that
I believe the curved space and aether isn't the same. The aether is the
cause while curved space is a lesser "dimensional" way of Einstein looking
at is like an effect and not cause. If mass curves it, it isn't by pulling it
in but pushing it out, which I think logically shows that displacement is
the obvious answer - therefore, Tesla is seeing the whole elephant
while three blind men are describing the leg, trunk and tail.

With a rotating mass like a solid ball of steel or whatever, it is known
to the best of certain people's knowledge that a rotating sphere will
pull the aether to it just a bit stronger than when it is sitting still.

LOL, Matsushi ta got censored. I apologize for that but this forum
is open to all ages and that's why.

Here is what my model predicts with rotating masses - lets say we have
a rotating disc - I have done some experiments over the years, I don't
discuss much of them but some are in alignment with what DePalma
talks about.

By the way, Peter and I just released these vids and hardly anyone has
ever seen the DePalma one! He basically recaps his entire life's work
in 2 hours A secondary demo added to the end is cut off but the
main lecture is 100% completely there. Free Energy Videos

So if we have a rotating disc, any material and it is lying flat on the ground.
Let's say we elevate it on a vertical shaft with bearing and rotate it at
100,000 rpm.

The aetheric positive potential moving down and pushing on the protons
that make up the mass of the disc is deflected at an angle by the
protons moving perpendicular or close enough to the direction of
the downward river of aether. Some is
deflected directly over the surface of the disc, which then immediately
moves down past the edge causing a densified area of aether around
the perimeter of the disk. And some aether makes it through the atomic
matrix of the disc. Also, as the densifed aether makes it past the edge,
the "ambient" aetheric pressure seeks equilibrium and to balance out, it is
pushed back under the disk. That means that there is higher pressure
aether under and lower on top as well.

The radial deflection reduces the amount of direct
downward push and therefore causes the rotating disc to reduce "weight".
At least that is what my model would predict would happen.

So I wouldn't say gravity is also pushing up. Gravity is attraction and it
pushes down. But the centrifugal nature of the planet trying to fling things
off of it that is normally counted by a slightly stronger centerpital push of
the aetheric rebound is reduced. So the anti-gravity is the centrifugal
force of the momentum of the object being pushed away from Earth is
allowed to overcome the centripetal gravity push downwards when the
downward pushing aether is deflected by the rotating mass.

With the energy mass equations, it is still under the premise that there
is a conversion of one to the other while I see dissipation and the
establishment of new potential differences to allows new potential to
enter the system.

[Aromaz]

[TanTric]

it seems that everybody is achieving coinsciesness and evolving!! but you, are allways the same!!

wake up PAIN BODY!!

all the "crap" that you talk about is still here!

I am happy to see parts of Energetic is back on track with intelligent brainstorming and sharing; not all that crap that has been here a few months ago.

[Matos de Matos]

My theory of gravitation is an extension of Einsteins work, however I have an added coefficient that makes unification possible, explains why gravity is the lesser force and provides an identity for the strong nuclear force.

In a nutshell, my theory views gravity as the displacement of space by matter at the subatomic level. Furthermore, matter itself need not be a contiguous particle to cause this displacement and inherit mass. It can be a two dimensional skin wrapped into a hollow 3D shape - if you can imagine a skin with zero thickness . So the material itself need not have substance to have mass. All that is needed is a property to displace space and keep it outside of the interior. Imagine an air bubble forms in the ocean bottom and displaces the water around it. Now imagine the surface of the bubble is frozen solid and the interior evacuated and you have a close approximation of a 2d surface enclosing a 3D sphere with nothing in the middle.

So of the four fundamental forces, this model describes 3 of them as variants of Gravity; Gravity itself, The Strong Nuclear Force and the Weak Nuclear Force. While the Fourth force, Electromagnetism, is described as a characteristic of the action that produces Gravity.

So there is the crash course of my theory that Aaron alluded to earlier in the thread

Hogan’s Noise - Science News

This illustrates the ripples?

File:Wavy.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you
David

[Aaron]

Gustav LeBon

I imagine if Le Bon were alive today, he would have solved this for us already as he was on the right track but didn't have all the stuff to work with that we have today. C'est la vie.

So there is the crash course of my theory that Aaron alluded to earlier in the thread

Thanks for shaing that Harvey! Borderlands has material on LeBon:
Alternative Science

[Aaron]

atom in perpetual motion

There is no explanation as to why the Proton will rotate and the electron orbit around the proton for infinite time without losing its energy, speed and frequency.

The interesting part in all of this is that experiments has it that the Atom gets an energy boost when it absorbs or captures a photon; as if that is not good enough, the atom also gets another speed boost when it expels or release a photon.

Aromaz,

I think perpetual motion is a requirement of nature. And that when a mass
is in motion there is NO REQUIREMENT that something else "must" act
in opposition to it. Any interaction can be used to assist the movement
right along like jujitsu. Taking an oncoming motion and contributing a bit
so it keeps going in the same direction.

I think the atom and it's ingredients polarizes and therefore breaks the
symmetry of the aether and this is the source potential to keep an atom
in perpetual motion.

If conventional thermodynamics applied or were valid in the least bit,
there would be no universe and matter could not exist.

According to the basic conventional way of looking at energy, potential,
etc..., a certain amount of input was put into the mass of the atom and
it would put it into kinetic motion and then it would only be able to sustain
off that initial push then would wind down to a stand still and would
simply dissipate into nothingness.

The mass is very small in any atom - small as in small scale and putting
any work into pushing this mass into motion would only sustain just so long.

It is feeding on the dual positive and negative charges of the source
potential by breaking the symmetry of it to establish a potential difference
so that the source potential can enter the atom at those points.

The atom is breathing in and out constantly just like any other living thing.

And I think the action of the atom mimics large scale gravity by the
same displacement effects at the atomic and subatomic level. They are
mirror images of each other in my opinion. A single "electron" displaces
the entire universe by its own mass and the entire universe pushes back
on that electron appropriately.

Biological organisms - just people - big organisms - expend MORE work
than can ever be accounted for by caloric intake alone. We are fed by
light, heat, aether, etc... as much if not more than the actual food
"potential" that we ingest. This is the nature of all natural systems -
they are built to delay complete entropy by having a constant influx of
potential so they don't come into equilibrium.

[Cloxxki]

Sorry if this was posted on before.

Based on posts especially by Aromaz, I currently hold the understanding that Aether is counter-rotational. The 1000ft and 20,000ft initial height items, although being viewed from the surface as stationary before drop as stationary, of course in the aetheric context, are spinning along with the earth.

I can't wrap my head around the oceans not flowing the polar ice to the equator (although, there's ice's density lower than water), despite the rotational speed at earth's surface somewhere between a normal jet liner and Condorde. A counter-rotational aetheric force would neatly explain it. And also a too-quick drop rate from higher location. Although, does it?
Oh, the consistent G number between the poles and the equator seems to be more easily understood this way as well, at least to me.

[Harvey]

What is your interpretation of this from your perspective in the
simplest terms:

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

And where does this potential come from?

Whittaker's paper really does not need an interpretation because he states very clearly what the purpose of the paper is - namely "...the solution of Laplace's potential equation"

Laplace Operator which is an Elliptic Operator .

In simple terms, Laplace provided a way to analyze the value of a potential at some distance from a potential source where the field itself is some gradient between the potential and non-potential.


Whittaker provided a solution to the equation by breaking the system into three separate parts that could be analyzed separately through partial derivatives. Imagine for example, that you shoot an arrow at a target but the flutes are not properly aligned so the arrow travels in a spiral that gets wider over distance and has a reduction in velocity due to air drag and a curved trajectory due to gravitation. Now imagine that you want plot a graph of that arrows path in 3 separate charts, (1) looking at it from behind - that is a straight line from the source (bow) to the target; (2) a side view where on the left we have the source (bow) and on the right we have the target; (3) a top view organized as (2). Every point that needs to be plotted in each chart can be ascertained by using that method of partial derivatives and as a whole if combined gives a reproduction of the actual path of the arrow along with the velocity at that point.

Whittaker's approach treated a potential as a force-component for a given direction and evaluated the source potentials as undulating and sectioned them into plane waves in various directions being propagated with constant velocity. The interference of these plane waves result in disturbances (nodes and antinodes) that are time independent and can be identified simply by their coordinates. He goes on to state that using this solution gravitational force in each constituent field will be perpendicular to the wave-front which has an equipotential along its surface. This means that gravity waves will be longitudinal according to his analysis. He then states:

"But these results assimilate the propagation of gravity to that of light: for the undulatory phenomena just described, in which the varying vector is a gravitational force perpendicular to the wave-front, may be compared with the undulatory phenomena made familiar by the electro-magnetic theory of light, in which the varying vectors consist of electric and magnetic forces parallel to the wave-front."

He then concludes:
"Of course, this investigation does not explain the cause of gravity; all that is done is to shew that in order to account for the propagation across space of forces which vary as the inverse square of the distance, we have only to suppose that the medium is capable of transmitting, with a definite though large velocity, simple periodic undulatory disturbances, similar to those whose propagation by the medium constitutes, according to the electromagnetic theory, the transmission of light."


Interestingly, regarding the Potential Theory, Wikipedia states: "Nowadays, we know that nature is more complicated: the equations which describe forces are systems of non-linear partial differential equations such as the Einstein equations and the Yang-Mills equations, and the Laplace equation is only valid as a limiting case."

So while the rest of the world was struggling with understanding the potential itself, Albert Einstein was working on the root cause of the potential. He wanted to know what the root source of this potential was and the answer had to satisfy both mass gravity and inertial gravity which are indistinguishable from each other to the observer. Ask any fighter pilot and he will tell you that pulling eight g's is about as real as you can imagine. Here is a video of Bob Hoover pouring liquid 'up' against Earth's gravitational force in an inertial gravitation demonstration. The demo is toward the end of the video:YouTube - Bob Hoover in his Aero Commander Shrike. Einstein understood this concept and realized that there must be a fundamental root cause that equates acceleration to gravity and it was the searching for the actual cause that led him to his theories of relativity and his field equations known as EFE.

In order to describe this work, Einstein had to take the mathematics above and beyond that of partial derivatives like those in Whittaker's paper. He had to 'go back to school' so to speak and learn Tensor mathematics so he could use those to describe what he had developed and he even used his own notation known as Einstein Notation. The beauty of using tensors is that he could now use completely different 3D systems and relate the them to each other while allowing the internal functions to operate locally.

But how exactly do these Tensor curvatures explain gravity?

Let's follow the typical logic of someone trying to understand curved space:

First let's look at a comparison of some problems associated with Newtonian Gravity and how Curved Space addresses those problems: Gravity as Curved Space: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

So Newton tells us there is a force that acts on mass and accelerates it, but Einstein tells us that force is an illusion caused by a different type of acceleration. We know that a change in velocity (acceleration) results in a pressure or force. This is true if either one or both of the constituents of velocity are changed, that is the speed or the direction. So if you change your speed in a straight line, or change your direction at a constant speed, a force will exist. Like velocity, force is a vector and has magnitude and direction. The direction of the force produced by a straight-line acceleration is opposite to the direction of acceleration. A dragster accelerates and you feel like your back is gravitationally attracted to the seat. We call this force 'g' force. The direction of force for curved line acceleration is still opposite the direction of acceleration, but there is a deviation between the acceleration vector and the trajectory or path of the object being accelerated. We call this force Centrifugal Force. Einstein reasoned that Newtons Gravitational 'Force' must be similarly created in some way and that all three must be caused by the same thing as they are the same thing with different names: Inertial Force, Gravitational Force and Centrifugal Force. But how is Earth accelerating so that the 'outer' surface has this force on it? Spinning the Earth is just the opposite effect - so that's not it. The Earth is accelerating in so much as it's velocity changes around the Sun due to the change in direction, but that only creates a force on the dark side of the Earth - so that's not it. So what is this acceleration we call Gravity and how is it linked to matter and curved space?

We have already discussed the effect of changing a direction in space with regards to matter and how this produces a force in some outward direction from the surface of the matter. Theoretically, to get such a force from a material action, the material would have to be going through a constant accelerated expansion for the force to be observed as an inward force. So again, that is not it. Even if we imagined everything getting bigger in unison, at some point the expansion would be infinitely exponential and preposterous to consider.

Let's disassemble acceleration: Acceleration is a change in velocity. Velocity in turn is a change in position. As mentioned already, velocity is made of two components - speed and direction.

Let's disassemble speed: Speed is a change in position with respects to time. Ah... there it is, buried inside acceleration we have time. Now we all know, that if something does not change position regardless of how long it sits there its speed is zero. So we can change time all we want and if there is no change in position there is no speed. But change position even an infinitesimal amount and now time becomes critical. If time changes between those two points, then speed changes. If time is zero and distance is traversed even the smallest conceivable distance, then speed is infinite. Therefore, if we change time we change velocity and if we change velocity we change acceleration where distance is traversed.

So how would we need to change time (see: Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime: Scientific American )in order to get an inward force or negative inertial gravity? Could a differential in time across a mass lead to this force? Now that could lead to some complex structure, but eventually time would have to stop, because to get a positive acceleration the time between points must be continuously reduced. Unless we want to delve into negative time and that could be complex and never ending as well. So again, this solution does not seem to fit.

Well now, what if we curve space? In other words what if the distance we move through space is not linear? Again, this poses a one sided result that is not gravito-centric. In other words, only one side of the planet would have gravity based on its path through that curved space. And if the curvature is only surrounding the planet itself and moves with the planet, then how does the planet move through the curvature? Where is the force originating from? If the Earth is following the shortest path through curved space around the Sun and this is supposed to cause the gravitational force on the Earth, then where does the Sun get it's gravitational force? The same question would be there for any isolated body (if such exists). Do all things have this force simply because the Black Holes at the center of their Galaxies curve space around them? If so, how?

Wouldn't it be cool if we could ask NASA? Well, four years ago someone did:
Gravity as warped space-time

That is not a very satisfactory answer to a very direct and simple question.

Why does that logic fail us?

(continued in next post)

[Harvey]

(. . . continued)

Why does that Logic Fail us?

Because of our relative position within the environment. The reality is that the force of gravity is a centripetal force. Note the explanation here:Warning: This Is An Advertisement. I am not endorsing this sites advertisement, but the explanation is helpful for getting to the answer we seek. Ponder that for a bit.

Something is pinning us to the Earth because of centripetal force? What is it? Take a look at this diagram:Centripetal force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. There we see a car, a road and a force that exists making the car turn toward the center of the curve. Now lets make an analogy: You are the car, the road is curved space and the velocity of the car is time. Notice that the road has two forces associated with it, a normal force and a gravitational force. Surely we cannot include such a force to describe itself (and this is one of my pet peeves with regards to all of those bowling ball on a trampoline explanations out there). So let us change the car to a ball, put the ball inside a hollow toroid and give a specific velocity to the ball and put the toroid out in the far reaches of space where no gravity can be found. Back to our analogy, you are the ball, the toroid is space and the velocity is time. Because time must follow a curved path a centripetal force develops which we call gravity. The mass of the Earth curves the space around it causing time to curve within its proximity. But from our relative perspective we are motionless on the planet. And to us, time appears to be moving in a straight line. And so we see this force as an abstract that pins us down to the planet. But in reality, we are being pushed against space just as the ball was being pushed against the inner surface of the toroid. The farther we get from the Earth, the bigger the toroid, the less the arc and the lower the inward centripetal force. But shouldn't there be an equal and opposite centrifugal force? Sure, that's what pins us (and time) against that curvature. And we see that as a form of inertia. When we change from one spatial radius to another, or we force a straight path in a curved space we feel the effects of the changes in force.

At least that is how Einstein viewed things.

But there are some problems with Einstein's theory. While it reduces very nicely and accurately models our reality in Newtonian terms, and perfectly predicted the orbit of Mercury where Newton could not, and it precisely adjusts for the time differentials in GPS, it still has some issues.

Here are some anomalies and discrepancies which cannot be adequately addressed using EFE. Perhaps Einstein was wrong when he thought he made a mistake by including the The Cosmological Constant. It could be that this coefficient is not a constant at all but rather should be further developed into a derivative itself of something greater, something even recursive, something that modifies itself and diverges into a state of balance for the geometry involved. Perhaps this should be the duty cycle of material oscillation in space-time. And then, perhaps, all of the various questions would be fully answered.

But then again, perhaps this new formula already does that:Einstein's Theory 'Improved'?

Now that would be something to read.

[Harvey]

Anything is possible.

What if our yardsticks are wrong? What if when we measure the mass of the electron and the proton we keep getting the wrong data? If the proton is not 1836 times the mass of the electron then perhaps there is some type of gravitational attraction there. But for now, according to the vast quantity of experiments involved, the mass of these atomic parts is well accepted and the orbits cannot be from gravity alone. Also, by using the mass and observing the forces between them, reasonably accurate values have be obtained for the electrical attraction and repulsion involved. This is why it is believed that the electron orbit is primarily due to electric charge attraction.

It has been known for quite some time that electrons themselves absorb photons and eject photons. But interestingly, that absorption and emission does not change the mass of the electron per se. Instead, it changes it's velocity. As the velocity increases, the orbit increases and the electron moves out to another shell. This how the atom absorbs energy. Remember too that infra-red photons often associated with thermal energy are absorbed the same way. When an electron drops from a wider orbit to a smaller orbit, it must give up energy and it does this by ejecting a photon. So when photons leave an atom, the atom loses energy. When photons enter an atom, the atom gains energy.

You can research this under photo electric effects.

[gravityblock]

Excellent stuff Harvey.

What if the aether is a type of "electric fluid". In electricity there is a negative charge and a positive charge. In physics we have protons and anti-protons, mesons and anti-mesons, electrons and anti-electrons, matter and anti-matter. On Earth we only find matter, yet it is possible to create anti-matter.

Further, if we could make our own etheric fluid inside a spacecraft, and by changing its polarity so as to oppose that of the Earth, we will be repelled from the planet at a speed corresponding to the difference in polarity between the spacecraft and the Earth. It just may be that the magnetic field is made up of the "electric fluids' of the planet. If we "manufacture" an electric fluid which differs from the terrestrial etheric envelope, the magnetic field of the Earth no longer affects us, and we can enjoy complete freedom of movement

Let's assume an electron is an integration of electro-magnetic waves. But an electro-magnetic wave can be of positive or negative polarity. If we were to send electro-magnetic pulses between magnets, the waves thus produced would create an ether different from that on Earth. A variation in the distance between the plates would bring about a modification in the ether produced.

We need to manufacture an artificial etheric atmosphere to break the shackles which binds us to this planet. When one's eyes are accustomed to seeing the terrestrial ether, the artificial ether appears luminous.

Just a different perspective on what the aether may actually be, an "electric fluid", while the earth's magnetic field is made of this "electric fluid".

GB

[Harvey]

Hi Gravityblock,

Yes it does seem that for any real particle there is an antiparticle. For the electron it is the positron and PET machines rely on the anti-matter matter collision of the positron and electron to emit the needed gamma photon required for the tomographic recordings.

The two particles are considered to be destroyed or annihilated when they meet up with each other giving up their combined energy in the form of the gamma photon. They are considered to be destroyed because there is no mass left after the collision.

From Einstein's perspective, this is just a natural conversion between matter and energy which he viewed to be the same thing in different forms.

One thing I find interesting is that all photons have a dual charge and a dual magnetic field. The only factor is time. Depending on when you look at it it may be positive or negative or somewhere in between. And the same is true for the magnetic field it produces, it could be North or South or somewhere in between. The most interesting thing I have discovered in this regard is that both of these expressions of energy are in sync. When the photon is positive, it has a North magnetic field, and when it is negative it has a south magnetic field. Technically speaking it exhibits a monopolar action in time. The thing that makes this most interesting is that the charge and magnetic field must both pass through a node where they are both zero simultaneously.

The Long, Long Photon:

[gravityblock]

Hi Gravityblock,

Yes it does seem that for any real particle there is an antiparticle. For the electron it is the positron and PET machines rely on the anti-matter matter collision of the positron and electron to emit the needed gamma photon required for the tomographic recordings.

The two particles are considered to be destroyed or annihilated when they meet up with each other giving up their combined energy in the form of the gamma photon. They are considered to be destroyed because there is no mass left after the collision.

The positron was the first evidence of antimatter and was discovered when Anderson allowed cosmic rays to pass through a cloud chamber and a lead plate. A magnet surrounded this apparatus, causing particles to bend in different directions based on their electric charge. The ion trail left by each positron appeared on the photographic plate with a curvature matching the mass-to-charge ratio of an electron, but in a direction that proved its charge was positive.

My interpretation of the above is if these particles are bending in different directions based on their electric charge, then a positron will bend in a different direction than the electron. An electron is a charge, and a moving charge induces a magnetic field. A changing magnetic field moves a charge. The same should be true for a positron. A magnetic field induced by a positron should move a charge in a different direction than a magnetic field induced by an electron. What kind of magnetic field could be created by a positron instead of the electron? A magnetic field that is reversed relative to the earth's magnetic field? There will be a repulsion instead of an attraction. We will be repelled from the planet at a speed corresponding to the difference in polarity between the spacecraft and the Earth. This is one interpretation of how this "electric fluid" or aether can be manufactured to create an artificial aether atmosphere.

The other interesting thing, is the photon is it's own anti-particle and is the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. What kind of forces would be at play if we had a magnetic field which has a force in the opposite direction to the magnetic field of the earth? We would be deflected in a different direction than if we had a normal magnetic field.

If you allow radioactivity to pass through a magnetic field you will get alpha, beta and gamma rays. The first are helium nuclei, the second are electrons and the third are gamma rays which are similar to ultra rays in their electro-magnetic content. These three components of radioactivity are related.

The ultra rays, or gamma rays, on passing close to helium nuclei, bring about a deformation of space, which will illuminate the air when the deformed space turns itself back into primordial space, and give birth to electrons until their wave energy is expended (energy is the transition between deformed and primordial space). Thus when gamma rays pass through an acid solution saturated with helium nuclei, the newly created electrons gyrate around the nuclei, but the acid prevents them from joining up with the nuclei, and they are collected on plates at the bottom of the apparatus. This provides an inexhaustible supply of energy which requires nothing more than a little acid solution and some helium nuclei.

GB

[gravityblock]

Billions of particles of anti-matter positrons created in laboratory

GB