Re: Living in a Dyson Sphere.

John Berry ( antigrav@ihug.co.nz )
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 04:40:50 +1200

The aether is the medium that supports matter and light (energy), there is
evidence to prove it. Einstein believed in it.
Because of what I know I must answer that it is not theoretical although
convention do not believe in the aether generally although quantum physics
does say there is an aether.

I do not want to prove it to you, I have in the past posted evidence but my
knowledge is being kept secret for good reason, although as far as the basic
qualities go it's a fluid (super fluidic sometimes) which can be at varying
densities and it's density effects permativity permativity (after all that is
what the aether is the medium of electric and magnetic fields)

Convention (except for quantum) does not use nor need an aether with their
wrong understandings. because they do let the permeability and permativity of
space change with a gravitational field it does not effect my theory too much
except that gravity would need to be greater the further down you go.

shrinking of matter in a higher permeability permativity medium is
conventional, convention allows the permeability and permativity to change via

either gravity or relative motion.

am I spelling permativity correctly? anyone know? I don't have a dictionary
and would like to know if I'm making a fool of myself every time I talk about
it.

John Berry

Thomas Buyea wrote:

> What is aether ?
> It is not in any of my dictionaries.
> Isn't it some theoretical condition that may not exist ?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Living in a Dyson Sphere.
> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 03:46:07 +1200
> From: John Berry <antigrav@ihug.co.nz>
> To: interact@Keelynet.com
> References: <19990926142822.13199.rocketmail@web601.yahoomail.com>
>
> This whole thing can make sense if we realize that the earth acts as a
> capacity for aether, when the aether is denser and so the permeability
> and permativity of space changes and the size of the atom would change,
> with greater density aether it would contract.
>
> If you put down two parallel shafts and build a tunnel as was done at
> the bottom matter would be denser so there would be over that distance
> more matter, so in effect I'm saying that the absolute distance is say
> one mile, but because of the distortion of the permeability of space it
> take more than 1 mile of matter as matter has shrunk and we find we are
> an inch short in this example.
>
> why would this not be? it actually almost agrees with relativity even
> though it is wrong (agrees with LAT/LET). We also know that the speed of
>
> light does change in a vacuum. (as found by the 1 mile long vacuum tube)
>
> And of course we know that if permeability of space changes matter will
> shrink as per Lorenz length contraction. (it is really just like length
> contraction really)
>
> Further lets look at other anomalies (sorry Jerry my theory says the
> opposite to keely's) such as no white light photographs in space.
> It always has to have an atmosphere, I understand reich claimed that
> light was induced in the planets atmosphere. (both of the above
> according to Tom Brown)
>
> Why would that be? What if aether only existed where matter is and in
> it's field (so a vacuum tube in the field of the earth should have
> aether in it)
> But it makes sense of that.
>
> Tom Brown also claims that the light from stars didn't take any time to
> get here. If we accept all these things which he has researched rather
> well then why would this happen? What if there was no (virtually) aether
>
> density?
> We would find light would travel at speeds so great, and where it drops
> to zero permeability there would be no delay. (instantaneous)
>
> (Tom Brown is Thomas James Brown formerly of borderlands)
>
> I will say that I don't agree with aether flow is gravity or any push
> gravity theory as there is undeniable proof that gravity is not push
> (now I'm just starting arguments for fun ;)
>
> John Berry
>
> Jerry Wayne Decker wrote:
>
> > Hi Slavek et al!
> >
> > Slavek Krepelka <slavek.krepelka@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > I did run into these experiments before and the
> > > solution to the problem PROBABLY lies in the like
> > > electrical charge of the two bobs, or some
> > > other fairly common phenomenon.
> >
> > I don't think so since one of the experiments did take
> > into account electricity as a cause. Its that
> > willingness to discard an anomaly that misses
> > something interesting and possibly useful. T
> >
> > The original paper talked about the experiments being
> > done around 1901 in France and they did not mention
> > any electrified bobs, nor is electricity mentioned in
> > the Tamerak Mines experiment. Just to check, I dug
> > out the file CENTER1.ASC. Here are excerpts from the
> > file that was posted on the BBS from April 20th, 1991;
> >
> > http://www.za.spiritweb.org/KeelyNet/UnClass/center1.asc.html
> >
> > It should be obvious to the reader that since the
> > plumb bobs point AT THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, lines
> > projected TO the center of the Earth WOULD MEET AT
> > THAT CENTER, and likewise, lines projected into space
> > would continually move FURTHER APART.
> >
> > Sometime prior to 1901, the French Government, wishing
> > to determine more accurately the ACTUAL SIZE OF THE
> > EARTH, so that they could revise and refine their
> > calculations regarding the DISTANCE TO THE SUN, hit on
> > a way to measure the difference in distance apart at
> > the top of two lines perpendicular to the surface of
> > the Earth and the bottom of those same two lines.
> >
> > They wanted a pair of lines long enough to give them
> > an appreciable measurement. Obviously they could
> > not erect two parallel poles a mile high, but they
> > did feel they could SUSPEND two plumb bobs A MILE
> > DEEP INTO A MINE SHAFT, and thus be able to MEASURE
> > THE DISTANCE APART AT THE TOP AND THE DISTANCE
> > APART AT THE BOTTOM, which WOULD BE SLIGHTLY LESS (at
> > the bottom). They wanted to know exactly HOW MUCH
> > LESS.
> >
> > Two mine shafts were selected, and plumb lines EXACTLY
> > 4,250 feet long were suspended IN EACH MINE.
> >
> > At the end of these lines a SIXTY POUND BOB was
> > hung. In order to PREVENT MOVEMENT THROUGH A
> > HORIZONTAL DIRECTION, each bob was suspended in a tank
> > of oil placed at the bottom of the mine shafts.
> >
> > In this way, it was reasoned, MAGNETIC FORCES COULD
> > NOT AFFECT THEM.
> >
> > The lines used to suspend the bobs were No. 24 piano
> > wires. For twenty-four hours the lines were allowed
> > to hang, so that there would be NO POSSIBILITY OF
> > MOVEMENT from putting them in place still remaining in
> > the lines. The measurements were begun.
> >
> > It was then that it was discovered that the French
> > Geodetic engineers had NOT MADE A MISTAKE. Careful
> > re-checking proved that the lines, CONTRARY TO
> > EXPECTATIONS, were FARTHER APART AT THE BOTTOM THAN AT
> > THE TOP!!
> > --------------------
> > The Calumet mine tests also did not use electrified
> > pendulums or bobs, though earlier tests at Tamarack
> > did compensate for air currents and magnetism. Here
> > is the relevant Calumet excerpt;
> >
> > This time TWO ELEVATOR SHAFTS into the mine were
> > used INSTEAD OF ONE, those numbered two and five.
> >
> > These two were 4,250 feet APART, and were also 4,250
> > feet DEEP. They were connected at the bottom by a
> > perfectly straight transverse tunnel.
> >
> > Now, plumb bobs were hung in each shaft, and
> > measurements were made. This time it was found that
> > the plumb lines were 8.22 inches FARTHER APART AT THE
> > BOTTOM of the pit than at the top.
> >
> > It did not take the Tamarack engineer long to discover
> > that this figure exactly represents the DIVERGENCE
> > THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE A 360 DEGREE
> > SPHERICAL CIRCUMFERENCE.
> >
> > (in other words, a SHELL OF FORCE AROUND THE EARTH)
> >
> > There was only one difficulty - as expressed by the
> > plumb lines, it would be the CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE
> > INSIDE OF A SPHERE AND NOT THE OUTSIDE!!
> >
> > ...Further, the center of gravity, as expressed by the
> > angles formed by the plumb lines, would be
> > approximately 4,000 MILES OUT IN SPACE!!
> >
> > The center of gravity, according to the plumb lines,
> > was a SPHERE'S SURFACE, some 16,000 MILES IN
> > DIAMETER!!
> >
> > ANY PLACE, 4,000 MILES UP, WAS THE CENTER OF GRAVITY!!
> >
> > > On the other hand, along the same line of
> > > reasoning, the people quarter of the globe away
> > > from the experiment should fall off the earth.
> >
> > I'm a bit puzzled by that one.
> >
> > > In that intance, a piano wire was used. No matter
> > > what the bobs might be made off, the wires
> > > themselves would introduce thermocouple current
> > > with its magnetic field. There is the unavoidable
> > > possibility that the first experiment was also
> > > influenced by a like charge, and the revission by
> > > another phenomena, i.e. magnetism or local
> > > gravitational anomaly.
> >
> > Granted, a logical conclusion about like charge but
> > three different tests at three sites could not be a
> > local gravitational anomaly and magnetisms was not a
> > factor...another quote from the CENTER1 pape;
> >
> > USING PHOSPHOR BRONZE WIRES instead of piano wires,
> > and LEAD BOBS for iron bobs. The Tamarack engineer,
> > delighted to clear his mind of its confusion, followed
> > these instructions to the letter - and came up with
> > PRECISELY THE SAME MEASUREMENTS as before..
> >
> > > By the way, there would also be the centrifugal
> > > force of the earth spinn to be accounted for as
> > > well as the south north orientation in the case
> > > of the revission.
> >
> > The centrifugal force is a possibility but if its not
> > magnetic that discounts the north/south magnetics.
> >
> > > If the centre of gravity lied on a sphere, its
> > > geometry would stil be strictly centripetal. You
> > > can draw this in two D on paper.
> >
> > The earlier excerpt from the CENTER1 article indicates
> > some kind of energy shell 4,000 miles from the
> > surface.
> >
> > > This means that we are dealing with either a known
> > > phenomena, or an unknown one, or a combination of
> > > a few, but the gravity is not likely to be involved
> > > as the sole force.
> >
> > I have to agree with that, however, they did discount
> > electric currents with phosphor bronze wire, magnetism
> > with lead bobs and air currents by being immersed in
> > oil.
> >
> > So that leaves us with the centrifugal force of the
> > spinning earth and what else?
> >
> > If you refer to the Wesley Gary claims of having
> > discovered a 'neutral zone' very close to the edge of
> > any magnet that could be a similar effect on a macro
> > scale with the earth. Now all things are magnetic to
> > some degree since they all consist of eletrons
> > rotating around atoms. So if the magnetic flux
> > density of our solar system is extremely high but we
> > can only sense deviations FROM THAT LEVEL, then
> > cancellation of that field as in the Gary 'neutral
> > zone' might well affect mass that is considered non
> > magnetic, check out the excerpt from;
> >
> > http://www.keelynet.com/energy/gary.htm
> >
> > Now let the iron be gradually lowered toward the
> > magnet; the nail drops off at the neutral line, but it
> > clings again when the iron is lowered below the line,
> > and now its point is turned outward, or away from the
> > magnetic pole below.
> >
> > In this way Mr. Gary proves that the polarity of an
> > induced magnet is changed by passing over the neutral
> > line without coming in contact. In the experiment
> > strips of paper are placed under the soft iron, or
> > induced magnet, as shown in the figure, to prevent
> > contact.
> >
> > The neutral line is shown to extend completely around
> > the magnet; and a piece of soft iron placed upon this
> > line will entirely cut off the attraction of the
> > magnet from any thing beyond. The action of this
> > cutoff is illustrated in Fig. 2.
> > ---------------------------
> > 'Neutral line extends completely around the magnet'
> > ...yep, that should apply to the earth since it too is
> > a big magnet.
> >
> > The whole thing is puzzling, why the bobs would move
> > apart like that in three different experiments at
> > three places on the earth surface, all supporting each
> > other.
> >
> > I think the Gary effect might have something to do
> > with it.
> >
> > Despite the interesting ideas, I find it very
> > difficult to believe that we could be living inside a
> > hollow sphere, however if you read the book Etidorpha,
> > the claim is that the earth is hollow and there is a
> > zone of attraction which pulls matter toward it from
> > the outside in and from the inside towards it. That
> > means this attracted matter will form a shell around a
> > nucleus kind of like a meson or the Dyson Sphere.
> >
> > The formation of that attractive energy shell is
> > caused by an interference between radiated energy from
> > the inside 'sun' colliding with incoming energy from
> > space, as in two forces which collide to form a
> > spherical bubble. The Etidorpha story claims if you
> > jump off a cliff from the outside, you will fall
> > downward with increasing acceleration until you reach
> > this zone of stillness. Your inertia will carry you
> > past the zone and into the the now attractive region
> > from the inside force radiating outward. Ideally your
> > angle will let you land somewhere on the other side,
> > so that you are not captured in this zone of
> > stillness.
> >
> > So you have the pushing pressure from outside which
> > intensifies as it butts up against the pushing
> > pressure from inside...a gradient would be established
> > where the closer you get to this 'neutral zone' from
> > either side, the greater would be the push
> > (gravity)...when they completely cancel, you have the
> > neutral zone.
> >
> > If this neutral zone shell is true AND the
> > measurements are true about a center of gravity
> > existing 4,000 miles above the planet all around us,
> > then it makes for a fascinating argument that we could
> > be living inside a hollow sphere.
> >
> > 'For the earth is hollow and I have touched the sky'
> > is an early Star Trek episode where the people were
> > travelling through space in a hollow planet, but they
> > had been there so long they forgot it was a
> > colonization ship. The computer went bonkers and
> > setup a religion that punished anyone for thinking
> > beyond specific limits so that no one questioned
> > anything.
> >
> > I'd like to think there is some end goal here, as in a
> > machine we could build that would let us use the
> > phenomenon. The closest I can come up with is the
> > Gary motor since this 'neutral zone' is claimed to
> > exit in any magnet. Though he had a working self
> > running version, the extension of value was when he
> > did this;
> >
> > A prominent electrician, who was one day examining Mr.
> > Gary's principle, asked if in the change of polarity
> > he had obtained electric sparks. He said that he had,
> > and the former then suggested that the principle be
> > used in the construction of a magneto-electric
> > machine, and that it might turn out to be superior to
> > anything then in use.
> >
> > Acting on this suggestion, Mr. Gary set to work, and
> > within a week had perfected a machine which apparently
> > proved a marvel of efficiency and simplicity.
> >
> > In all previous machines electricity is generated by
> > revolving a piece of soft iron in front of the poles
> > of a permanent magnet. But to do this at a rate of
> > speed high enough to produce sparks in such rapid
> > succession as to keep up a steady current of
> > electricity suitable for the light, considerable power
> > is required.
> >
> > In Mr. Gary's machine, however, the piece of soft
> > iron, or armature, coiled with wire, has only to be
> > moved across the neutral line to secure the same
> > result.
> >
> > Every time it crosses the line it changes it polarity,
> > and every time the polarity changes, a spark is
> > produced. The slightest vibration is enough to secure
> > this, and with each vibration two sparks are produced,
> > just as with each revolution in the other method. An
> > enormous volume can be secured with an expenditure of
> > force so diminutive that a caged squirrel might
> > furnish it.
> >
> > With the employment of one of the smallest of the
> > magnetic motors, power may be supplied and electricity
> > generated at no expense beyond the cost of the
> > machine.
> > ----------------------
> > Now that is something we can use in the real world.
> >
> > =====
> >
> > =================================
> > Please respond to jdecker@keelynet.com
> > as I am writing from my work email of
> > jwdatwork@yahoo.com.........thanks!
> > =================================
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
> > with the body text: leave Interact
> > list archives and on line subscription forms are at
> > http://keelynet.com/interact/
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
> with the body text: leave Interact
> list archives and on line subscription forms are at
> http://keelynet.com/interact/
> -------------------------------------------------------------