On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 13:34:47 -0600, "Jerry W. Decker"
<jdecker@keelynet.com> wrote:
>Phase conjugation will allow us to speed up the aether influx into mass,
>thereby making it heavier and over time, DENSER....by reversing the
>phase, we can slow down the aether influx so that the mass becomes
>lighter and even repels (levitates) and over time, will cause the mass
>to disintegrate....if the phase is adjusted to resonate perfectly and
>this one I'm still working on, the mass balances. I am of the opinion,
>partially confirmed by Keely's writing that the influx is bi-directional
>in the sense that aether flows INTO mass but also OUT of mass through
>some kind of heretofore not understood hyperspace connection.
>That relationship, aether in (that goes where?) is what is balanced by
>the proper phase. By that I mean when the aether influx matches the
>aether outflux, the mass is 'balanced' and essentially not subject to
>change. There is a possibility this would produce temporal phenomena
>where the mass becomes separate from the time field since according to
>Keely, 'time is gravity'.....halt the gravity flow, you halt the time
>associated with it.
Let me give you my opinion about aether, energy, flux, gravity, the
Hubble redshift and the (lack of a) big bang. In the harmonics theory
energy is always moving to smaller scales because of the formation of
harmonics which happen most rapidly where the non-linerarity is
greatest. That is, near the centre of "particles". So energy is always
moving to smaller scales and any given wave is always transferring
energy to its harmonics which are always smaller than it. The resulting
absorption of energy by harmonics increases the mass of all particles
over time.
The rate at which this process happens is known to us as the Hubble
constant and has a value of about 1 part in 1.3*10^10 per year or 1 part
in 4*10^17 per second. It is very tiny! These figures are derived from
the observed Hubble constant which is known only to +/-20% or so. In
other words the distant galaxies are NOT racing away from us, they are
simply sitting still and have all their atoms operating at lower
frequencies (i.e. redder) because that is how all atoms were way back
then.
So if it is true that matter absorbs energy and this causes the Hubble
redshift relationship we should be able to use this data to also
calculate the strength of gravity. Gravity is primarily due to nucleons
(protons and neutrons) which make up 99.9+% of all mass. The Compton
wavelength and radius of nucleons are about 1.3 fm (1.3*10^-13 cm). The
inner radius is the pace with most of the energy and so that is where
most of the absorption of energy takes place. The time it takes light
to traverse the inner radius is about 4*10^-24 s. We know from above
that the absorption rate is 1/(4*10^17) per second, so in 4*10^-24 s the
proportion absorbed will be (4*10^-24)/(4*10^17) = 10^-41. In other
words the rate of absorption of the energy flux through a nucleon is
that only 1 part in 10^41 of the flux is absorbed.
So when we understand that particles are spherical standing waves of e/m
we know that there must be an inwards and an outwards wave. The
outwards wave is simply the same wave as the inwards after it passes
through the centre, and it is 1 part in 10^41 weaker. So gravity really
does suck, but only 1 part in 10^41 of all the energy that is available.
If it sucked all the energy then it would be as strong as the nuclear
(strong) force which is the naked force of energy /aether.
How does this estimate, derived as it is from the Hubble constant,
compare to the facts? We do know that gravity is 3*10^39 weaker than
the coloumb force. I think that the coloumb force is about 15 or 137
times weaker than the strong force, but I am not sure about this.
Anyway, the answer is pretty close to right. The accuracy is limited by
the assumptions about where the absorption occurs which really needs to
be an integral.
So the "normal" rate of growth of mass with time is incredibly tiny and
to make antigravity or such effects needs just a little modification to
that.
To answer the question about where does the aether go I will first
answer the question of where does the energy go. It doesn't go
anywhere, it simply increases the mass of the particle exponentially
with time (or tries to). There is no need to have an extra dimension to
"pipe it" off somewhere else because the rate is only 1 part in 10^10
per year.
Now about the aether as related to energy. Some people think of the
aether in different ways. I will try to accomodate all of these. Some
think it is a continuous fluid, some a particulate fluid and some like
me) a tensile medium (more like a bendy solid). In all cases the
concentration of energy is associated with a LOWERING of the density of
the aether. If you have a vortex then the density is lower inside.
Therefore when energy flows INTO a particle or mass, aether flows OUT.
As particles get more massive with time they are becoming greater and
greater aether vacuums. For those into ancient writings there is one
about the "negative ocean of light which comes not from a centre but
concentrates a centre" which describes this correctly.
Have fun! Ray
-- Ray Tomes -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm --
Cycles email list -- http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/cyc.htm
Boundaries of Science http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/af/scienceb.htm