[geocentrism] Re: Further on Aspden
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 07:32:48 +1000
I am only interested in the physics as it relates to understanding aether,
gravity, planetary motion and such not "free energy" extraction...... allen
Seriously now Allen, a lot of people base their faith in Einstein on the fact
that he proved relativity, when they produced the free energy of the bomb. ,
which he allegedly predicted..
Now we may theorise about the aether till domesday, asserting Aspdens model, R
Bennetts Model, or yours truly, yet no amount of rational thiinking proves
anything.. Now if the AdamsAspden motor produced over unity free energy, as
predicted, that goes a long way to at least equalling Heinstein.
Of course MS will merely say it is the return energy that went down the black
hole , returning via warps in space. The aether and God, are off the agenda,
and despite Pauls affirmation of the integrity of science, thats final.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 4:47 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Further on Aspden
I personally don't believe in "perpetual motion machines" or "free energy"
machines but the lessons of the experiments, regardless of anyones
"interpretations", here are about the mechanics of matter in/ with a aetheral
environment. What these experiments show again like the others is an aetheral
interaction along with the other O&E designed to detect and observe
aetheral/mass interaction/effects. All these were either designed or predicted
in aetheral physics.......... I am only interested in the physics as it
relates to understanding aether, gravity, planetary motion and such not "free
energy" extraction...... I'll leave that bit to the future for any who might
be clever enough to figure that out once the underlying physics of the universe
are more correctly understood.
Any implications these things might theoretically have on "free energy", I
just ignore. First, It is not the real or importaint issue here and second
even if it were possible i think our quest here must be solved first in any
case whether or not "free Energy" were actually possible or not... having said
that i lean toward the not anyway.J
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen I said earlier I would come back on the ucr article. I do not think
much will surface later from this experiment. Not unless they want to revisit
an aether..
Notice the wording on this from wiki.
Ampère's law consistent with conservation of charge in cases where charge
is accumulating, for example in a capacitor. He interpreted this as a real
motion of charges, even in vacuum, where he supposed that it corresponded to
motion of dipole charges in the ether. Although this interpretation has been
abandoned, Maxwell's correction to Ampère's law remains valid (a changing
electric field produces a magnetic field).
Even Ampere seemed to have had the Aspden idea of the aether as having
electrical charge components positive and negative.
In the normal sense, I would expect that Aspdens retentivity of energy in
the aether caused by the application of an electric field to the plates of a
capacitor, as being no more than energy supplied initially by the charging
source. That this charge may continue rotating is no more an indication of
free energy, than is the normal rotation of electrons displaced in any
dielectric of a capacitor. since there is no friction involved.
Of course, just as I can agree that the atom itself which has continuous
perpetual movement of electrons ; in the case of fusion or fission can be a
source of energy, I have no reason to deny that similarly but in a different
manner, the dipole charges in the aether may likewise be a source of energy
waiting to be tapped.
Why else would I give it a go? It won't be the first "perpetual motion?"
machine I have dumped over the last 50 odd years.
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 3:11 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Further on Aspden
Oh Yea.....Herold Aspden was the one who predicted this efffect some
years ago based on his other work...........
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Although this experiment was different its impact has the same net
effect.....it might save you some some work.........A Spin effect (spining
against somthing) was confirmed by Anders Wistrom of UC Riverside back in
03'... http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=548
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here is a request to the math professors here. To save me digging
into my ancient Duncan & starling, and considering I'm rusty on the capacitor
formula , without the hype jump to metric units,
within the vacuum structure of Aspden's aether, what would you
consider the capacitance to be if I used a gallon glass bottle, say 10 inches
OD and !2 inches high, guess 0.25 inch thick glass, the dielectric , the
constant of which can be anywhere between
Glass 3.8 14.5
air is 1 (so what is a vacuum) on which I paste an alfoil sheet,
and inside a connection electrode immersed in a strongly conducting solution of
say H2SO4 or maybe salt..
Before I go to the manufacturing stage.. If this is suitable, my
meter will give me the mfd ezactly.
Assuming Aspden is correct, and if I can ignore the glass, the aether
will begin to rotate if I connect an available 20kV DC to charge the thing. My
problem, not having a scope is to measure the total charge (energy watts)
component against that released on discharge.
However, if I were to connect a very low R inductance making a
parallel circuit that resonates at an available kHz frequency, If there was
negligible damping, which seems to be obviously impossible using an electrolyte
on one plate, we should see surplus energy if the oscillations are sustained
without further supply input.. or I could measure the temperature increase..
I have also to consider the effect this alleged aether rotation has
on the time constant which in the standard formula is only a factor of C and R.
Wouldn't this aether rotation also cause a sort of hysteresis
component of load were I to use Alternating current.
Finally the modern chart here seems to make the dielectric constant
of air 1 which I vaguely remember was considered to be that of a vacuum. It
cant be identical.
Now its getting complicated..
I await anybody suggestions.
Phil.
PS I am sure though , that if this aether is proven, we still cannot
accept that there is any aether drift that supports geocentrism (complete
immobility of the world) as Millers figures went more to support the opposite..
or we are left with the current position, the aether is moving and we are
stationary, or the reverse.. Still be nice though to upset their egos and
extract some of that ether magic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 6/07/2007
6:36 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 6/07/2007
6:36 AM
Other related posts:
