the hutchison effect - john hutchison's & mel winfield's role · · 2009-11-21the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
archived as http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Hutchison_02.pdf
more related articles at http://www.stealthskater.com/Science.htm#Hutchison
note: because important websites are frequently "here today but gone tomorrow", the following was
archived from http://www.spacetelescopes.com/john-hutchison.html on April 16, 2008. This is
NOT an attempt to divert readers from the aforementioned website. Indeed, the reader should
only read this back-up copy if the updated original cannot be found at the original author's
site.
the "Hutchison Effect" - John Hutchison's & Mel Winfield's role It was solely through Dr. Winfield's theories and work that the "Hutchison Effect" was developed
by John Hutchison (proper scientific term - Nucleonic Energy)F.
by Mel Winfield ([email protected])
Mel Winfield - Biography
Graduated with senior matriculation at 17 [Equivalent to first year U.B.C.].
Earned electrician certificate and certificate as operator of special engineering equipment while in
the army. Held Corporal Acting Sergeant rank until discharge at 19 after which he attended U.B.C.
The next 7 years were spent in mining promotion. 3 properties were developed from over 100
examined. The first -- diamond drilled by Mel Winfield -- had valuable Gallium ore blocked out and
now saleable in quantity. This is the only commercial deposit in the World and is still available. The
second site operated as a mine until the Trail Smelter's rates were raised. The third was diamond drilled
by Mel Winfield who also put in a road and a camp. This mine was then sold out to a New York
millionaire for one-half of the venders shares of a public stock company listed on the Toronto Stock
Exchange.
Over the next few years, Mel Winfield built and operated an indoor motion picture theatre near Trail,
B.C. After 1 year of operation, the management of this theatre was turned over to an associate at which
time Mel Winfield returned to Vancouver.
On his return to Vancouver, he successfully opened and operated a sales agency, later being sold to
facilitate the freedom to pursue a more creative life work.
Winfield Industries Ltd. -- with its wholly-owned subsidiary, Northwest Engineering Ltd. -- was
established. This encompassed a machine shop, foundry, and pattern shop operated with a staff of 16.
The operation was streamlined -- operating at a high degree of efficiency when control and management
-- and then transferred to Charles H. Nelson of Marine and Industrial Supply Ltd. The end of 1960 saw
the formation of Winfield Invention and Research Ltd.
Mel Winfield - Inventions
With this company, prototypes of several of his inventions were developed and an electro-
mechanical timing device put on the market. He then designed, manufactured, and marketed (with his
2
17 employees) a new shoring jack for the construction industry. This jack proved superior to any other
jack on the market.
At the same time, a division was created with 2 additional employees to manufacture and install a
new, springless, overhead garage door. The garage door business carried on for 12 years with up to 8
employees. He specialized in 2 unique door systems of his own design suitable for local installations
and later expanded into the metal forming business of construction products.
He thus brings to the Company 35 years of business management experience as President of the said
manufacturing companies as well as the previous occupations mentioned in mining promotion,
construction, theatre management, and sales company management.
Mel Winfield - Science
In the field of Science, he has made several scientific breakthroughs and has written books which
have outlined new ideas. The first book published in 1977; the second in 1983; and the third -- which
incorporates the scientific portions of the first two plus very much more -- in 2000. He is presently
President of a scientific corporation developing the applications arising out of them.
Mel Winfield - Nucleonic Energy
A brand new technology has been developed by him and has been further developed by him and his
associates. This technology is the greatest humanitarian and environmental advance in the history of the
World. It is, by far, much greater than that of electricity.
He has called it "nucleonic energy" because it is obtained by tapping into the angular (or rotational)
energy of the proton and neutron (known as nucleons) that make up the nuclei of all the atomic
structure. The technology reverses the spin axis of the nucleon or directs its orientation to any direction
desired to produce all forms of motion.
Presently, the spin axes of all nucleons are oriented so as to produce motion towards the Earth
center. This is know as "gravity". This is fully explained in the book The Science of Actuality by Mel
E. Winfield and has been proven by mathematics and by experiments which include dropping
experiments and actual levitation of objects and of many materials up to 60 pounds or more.
Mel Winfield - Summary
Mel Winfield's theoretical work has been the result of a lifelong study in the field of Physics and
Astronomy. He feels more qualified than most scientists in heading a scientific team and is confident in
bringing the Project to fruition.
Stanford-Binet tests and the AGCT General Intelligence and Mental Ability test, civilian edition
(originally developed for the army and now widely used in trade and vocational schools) rated him in
the top 1% of all testees.
Mel is married to Yvonne (1979) and has a son Ray from a previous marriage. Yvonne has a
daughter Ruby from a previous marriage.
for more, go to http://www.nucleonicenergy.com/
3
The first experiments with Nucleonic Energy were started in 1979 after Mel Winfield met John
Hutchison, who attended one of Mel's lectures. He wasn't interested in John Hutchison's work as John
Hutchison had never indicated that he had ever carried out any levitation. But John had made equipment
for the purpose of duplicating Tesla's transmission of electricity through the air.
Mel Winfield recognized that it could be applied to his work. He lent John Hutchison a piece of
equipment to go with it -- without which efficient levitation could not take place nor could John
Hutchison have ever efficiently accomplished The Hutchison Effect without it. Subsequently, John
Hutchison phoned and said that he had operated all the equipment together and was very surprised that a
heavy bar of plastic had flopped over. It was hard for John Hutchison to believe it until further
experiments verified it.
It was solely through Dr. Winfield's theories and work that the "Hutchison Effect" was developed by
John Hutchison (proper scientific term - Nucleonic Energy).
I, Mel E. Winfield, hereby swear that the foregoing and the following are completely true. I am not
saying that John has not spent a lot of time on this project trying to make it work on demand. He won’t
be able to do this without some changes in his equipment. I’m only claiming to have originated the
theory behind it and to have urged John to combine our equipment to accomplish it. Whether he had
thought about trying to do this prior to 1981 -- or even had anything unusual happen due to his electrical
discharges -- is beside the point. True efficient levitation could not happen before our equipment
arrangement. He didn’t believe it was possible before this (as he had told me). And he didn’t
understand it afterwards as he told the C.B.C. who photographed a sponge rising 15 feet or more into the
air.
John has issued me a challenge to put his letters and the contract with him on the Internet along with
pictures and commentary of the levitation of a can of tuna and including my equipment. He says that he
doesn’t remember the contract or the letters.
First, I am not about to publicize any levitation or equipment at this time. This is not a game. I have
the moral obligation to my shareholders to keep most of the details confidential. But I will say this
much.
An important aspect of the development of this technology is control. The levitation must take place
at the time that one flicks on the switch -- not after an hour or several hours of fooling around. I have
accomplished this with small objects everytime of any material. I have been waiting for further
financing to purchase some modern equipment that will enable me to do the same with larger objects.
Then there is further development after that. In the meantime, I have perfected my theory.
When we first started, my theory was in its infancy. However, it was close enough to enable me to
know what equipment was necessary to accomplish levitation. The combination of John’s equipment
and mine did it. He could not have done it before 1981 when I added my portion even if he had thought
about it (he never told me he had). It was my idea to combine equipment based on my theory then.
I brought Alex Pezarro into it (my mistake). Alex was only associated with levitation. So when the
letter from John (below) says he is preparing the experiment for Mel and Alex, he is referring to an
experiment re. levitation. The contract that he is referring to is a signed partnerhip agreement (below).
Even though the experiments in levitation arose from my ideas, I was generous enough to make him
a partner in the project. I thought he was a friend. And since I had approached him with the idea
because he had some equipment that I knew could be a part of that needed and he had apparent electrical
4
knowledge, I thought that a formal partnership agreement would make things work more smoothly (my
second mistake). He agreed to it when read over the phone and again when he signed it.
This agreement was dissolved when John decided (or was persuaded to decide by Alex) to claim the
whole idea for himself. His lawyer declared that “the terms of this agreement are of no further force and
effect” on the grounds that John was naïve and didn’t understand it. That is ridiculous because John is
very knowledgeable electrically and has a very high I.Q. that is equal to my own (even if he is thought
by some to be eccentric at times).
However, at this time, I thought it best to part company. And since we hadn’t talked much about the
theory, he doesn’t know how to proceed with development. A large part of my theory of gravitation is
given on this website under both gravitation and epilogue. It speaks for itself. I left out the theory of
how to levitate. Access by clicking, above, one and then the other. The letters from John (minus
technical reports) and the contract follow as he had requested. The letters are in his own handwriting.
[StealthSkater note: these letters are at http://www.spacetelescopes.com/john-hutchison.html ]
NUCLEONIC ENERGY EXTRACTED
As previously mentioned, we are tapping the energy of the moving nucleon (i.e., essentially the
angular momentum) in the nucleus of the atom. We are not tapping the energy of a “vacuum”. Just as
the energy waves from the structure of the Earth cause the nucleon to absorb energy (which causes an
increase in centrifugal force and thus a movement “downwards” in an object above the Earth as
described), energy directed from any other direction at a particular frequency according to the material
penetrated will cause a motion toward the source of such energy.
The energy of this motion is what we use for our purposes. It is a small part of the total angular
energy of the nucleon. The total energy is huge when multiplied by all the nucleons in a small amount
of matter. This is demonstrated by an atomic bomb when it is exploded.
When we control the direction of this usable energy (by orientation of the spin axis of the nucleon),
it can be used for every form of motion. For example; the nucleons around the rim of a wheel can be
made to exert force at a tangent so as to rotate the wheel. This can turn a generator to produce
electricity, a small portion of which is used to maintain the orientation of the nucleon. Thus no fuel is
necessary.
Email received from John Hutchison on December 10, 2004 (thanks John) originally acknowledging
Mel Winfield as the discoverer of the "Hutchison Effect" now known as Nucleonic Energy:
From: "Corinne Tysson & John Hutchison"
Subject: From John
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:57:40
mel you will love this show please let aerielle know that your the discover of the effect ok aerielle
please let mel know hes realy special hs a very kind man jerzy hi mel is on 20 th december please dont
miss the show dec 20 lou gentile iam so happy that you are getting media that you desrve aerielle mel is
a honest professional man i have known a long time thank john
John Hutchison & Corinne Tysson
www.hutchisoneffect.com
5
Email received from John Hutchison on March 5, 2008 (thanks John) acknowledging Mel Winfield
as the discoverer of the "Hutchison Effect" now known as Nucleonic Energy (all spelling
mistakes are John's own):
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
mel dearest friend iam impressed with your work looking over your site its great unfortunatly for me
i just demoed this effects for tv folks for aslong as i can remember as well as to military;folks;;;
http://www.nucleonicenergy.com/ your website i was shareing to others i myself do not lay claim to
anything as in my opinion its natures energy. you have the gifts of seeing this in mathamatics that is
accepted more so then me;; i see in other realms you use math i use visions iam proud of what you have
accomplished threw math and dilegance persitance i never wanted any glory or recognition in the
scientific world but if iam doing it for the kids hobbits i call them its worth it for the young generation to
follow and build there creative inner resources if i have saved one kids life from drugs it was worth it;;
yes i worked for alexas pexaro and hundreds of others but i think of what i learned from this; of life and
times amazeing things are possable; nothing is impossable i did impossable things you did impossable
things your way i have the visions of building things you have your path mel i am happy that things
went well in reality. in not meeting you i would have never met alex or george plus the hundreds of
others so in saying i thank you over all this time again i say it can i get you on coasttocost
www.coasttocoastam.com your book would sell lots more and get the scientific recognition you so
desire ; i desire hey john good demo for the common folks i got my own ideas on this engineering tuaght
to me by many folks like you as well as others i claim nothing its not for me to claim. my engineering
skills and visions guide me into other things as well not just the hutchison effect but other impossabe
projects folks like;;; you can put it into math equations that is accepted in the scientific community
wheras me i cannot put into logical math for study ;;on there terms yes scientist to look at;;;; along with
my nature few take it seriuos as i dont keep notes i understand the machines and sciences but on another
level in engineering precise machineing and guided to do it right iam in doubt i ask ;;;; i have visions of
the subatomics and interactions and machinery built right to naval standards precision values the right
stuff ; and get results; its up to you scientists to put it into the physical reveiw letters not i;; you have my
permission to publish this letter if you want cheers john hutchison
Mel Winfield - Science of Actuality (236 8 1/2 X 11 pages)
The Science of Actuality is a unified theory which -- for the first time -- actually unifies all of the
phenomena of the Universe from the subatomic to the whole Universe itself, which is a system of
vortexes within vortexes. It has been verified through the explanation of the experiments of others and
by the replacement of formulae of Einstein and Newton and the extension of those of Kepler. It has also
explained the 11 greatest unanswered questions of the Universe given in Discovery magazine, Feb. 2002
magazine.
One book was sent to the International Centre for theoretical physics, Trieste, Italy -- a cultural and
scientific division of the United Nations and is an International Atomic Energy Agency. They thought
enough of it to place it in their library "for the benefit of their visitors". The Random House of Canada
stated: "Your work clearly shows a wealth of information and careful study".
These are testimonials that clearly show Mel Winfield's work is NOT pseudo science but is
composed of real scientific breakthroughs.
6
Partial Contents
People who believe that great scientists such as Newton cannot make errors, or get on the wrong
track, or not be complete enough in their theories are very naive. These scientists are only human.
An example of changes that I've made is that of the gravitational formula of Newton's F=GMm/r. It
contains the gravitational constant G -- one of the least accurate constants. I've eliminated this by
replacing G times the prime M with a prime constant.
The book explains this much more fully. But briefly I use a fact that I have discovered which is that
the orbital velocity squared times the orbital radius of every planet is identical to several decimal places.
The orbital radii are made more accurate by my extension of Kepler's formulas. This gives me a
constant for the Sun. The constant for Earth is determined by the V-squared R of all the satellites
including the Moon and all the artificial ones.
One of the satellites gave me data that makes Earth's constant very accurate. The Earth's constant
divided into the Sun's constant is the ratio of the 2 masses. The gravitational force between the Sun and
a planet is the Sun's constant times the planet's mass divided by the orbital radius squared. This is much
simpler and much more accurate than Newton's gravitational formula. Other important data can be
determined from this such as the Sun's orbital radius around the galactic center.
There are many other discoveries of mine in this book such as the mass of the Earth determined from
the constant of the hydrogen atom, thus showing that the laws of the Macrocosm are the same as those
of the microcosm. No criticism will stand up to the study of these works.
A new cosmic principle was found that showed that space is not curved. It is the movements of
particles and bodies that curve due to spin. In the case of the Earth, the Sun's field of pressure waves
moving faster than the Earth and striking the Earth's sun side causing it to spin, in turn creates a
curvature of its motion around the Sun. To prove this, orbital data was used to calculate the spin of the
Earth.
It has been said that the whole subject of applied theoretical Relativity is simply the application of
the Lorentz transformation 1/[1-V2/C
2] to the ½ power. This is now known as the relativistic factor
(pages 83-88). It has been proven herein that this factor is based on a gross error. Einstein's own "mind
experiment" (i.e., the boxcar experiment) that shows how the factor was derived is used to show this
error.
In summary, an observer in a railway boxcar that is moving past a station shines a light to a mirror in
the ceiling which reflects down to a sensor. The observer in the station sees the light move up at an
angle and down at an angle due to the movement of the boxcar. The lightbeam therefore has a vertical
component and a horizontal component. The boxcar observer is unaware of the horizontal component
"because he is moving with it" and only measures the vertical component.
The factor is the ratio between the 2 observations and is said to show that time is different to the 2
observers. However, the reality is that the boxcar observer is in error because his measurement was not
complete. Just because he thinks that the beam time is accurate, it does not make it so any more than a
watch running fast has a correct time.
Gravity is explained and proven by experiment and mathematics. Different materials up to 60 lbs.
were levitated up with a certain type of electrical field by tapping into the angular momentum of the
7
nucleons which also can be used to generate electrical power without outside fuel when the movement is
changed to rotary motion.
More funding is now required. A 20-year cycle of light velocity measurement is explained. The
origin of the Solar System and galaxies from standing waves is explained and demonstrated. The
capture of the Moon is explained. A new model of the Universe is presented. A report of what was
found about the Universe billions of years ago. Time, electricity, magnetism, inertia, and more than 50
other subjects are explained in a new way.
This book can be ordered here. Order Science of Actuality by Mel Winfield
GRAVITATION
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
(The following is part of the explanation of gravity given in Mel Winfield's book The Science of
Actuality)
Although gravitational acceleration applies to both protons and neutrons in any object, let us
examine a proton orbiting within a nucleus in an atom in an object near the Earth's surface. The
behavior of a neutron is similar. Since there are waves of energy emanating from all the nucleons
contained in the Earth (the average distance of which would coincide at Earth center), the proton would
spin naturally with a horizontal axis in the manner of a ping-pong ball on a jet of air and would maintain
this attitude like a gyro as it orbited within the nucleus. Whether or not the nucleon orbits within the
nucleus or just revolves with the nucleus, it still follows an orbital path.
The preceding study on nuclear structure brings us to emphasize 2 important facts. First, its orbital
axis and its spin have the same orientation so consequently its orbital plane is vertical relative to the
Earth's surface. Second, it rotates in the same direction as the atomic vortex. It could not be in any
other way for these 2 arrangements since -- in a vortex -- the outer layers are orbiting faster than the
inner. This would rotate all the particles in the same direction as the vortex as it is shown in Fig. 2.
Energy waves coming from the Earth strike the proton on the underside and -- because of its spin --
are forced around it. The result is a difference of pressure between each side of the proton. This
phenomenon is known as the "Magnus effect" from the name of the German Chemist Heinrich Gustav
Magnus who described the effect in 1852.
This process is analogous to a baseball when thrown with a spin that forces the air to one side
causing a lessening of pressure and thus a curving of its path. By replacing the ball with a proton and
the air with the moving etheron field, we get the same situation at a smaller scale. The proton would be
accelerated to the side where there is a greater velocity of the stream carried by the Earth waves. This is
depicted in Fig. 2 in contrast to Fig. 1 which would be the case if the proton was not spinning.
ORBITS
We must consider 2 half orbits. The first is starting from the 9 o'clock position, through 6, and
arriving at 3. The top half is from 3 to 9, passing through 12. When we say "acceleration", we say an
increase in velocity.
Since vortex density and centrifugal force hold the proton from reducing its radius -- to much extent
-- at the 9 0'clock position as depicted in the drawing, the total pressure is perpendicular to the orbital
8
path and is applied against the whole vortex structure (i.e. the atom). As the proton moves towards the 6
position, more-and-more of the pressure is applied to accelerate it along its orbit -- the amount of which
varies from 0% initially to 100% finally, in accordance with curvature of its path.
Since the average direction from 9 to 6 is 45o from the horizontal, the accelerating pressure is 50%
of the total. Fig. 3 depicts the average direction vectors. “-“ represents opposition to the pressure, thus
decreasing velocity. “+” represents momentum in the direction of the pressure and thus an increase of
velocity. The numbers represent clock positions. P represents Magnus effect pressure.
From 6 to 3. the orbital velocity of the proton is subtracted from the stream velocity rather than
added as it was from 9 to 6, due to the fact that it is traveling with the stream coming up from the Earth
rather than against it. When it travels against the stream, a unit volume of the stream passes it at a faster
rate than if it was stationary -- which is the equivalent of a faster stream. Therefore the 2 velocities are
added. When it travels with the faster moving stream, its velocity is subtracted from that of the stream
to obtain the relative velocity.
Such is the case from 6 to 3 and from 3 to 12 which is the opposite of that from 12 to 9 and from 9 to
6. The change in the relative velocity, in turn, affects the downward velocity. The peak of acceleration
was at 6. This is the peak of the downward velocity due to maximum centrifugal force in this direction.
It meets this position a little lower in the orbit, if nothing prevents it from doing so -- i.e. without any
resistance (such as from the Earth). From 6 to 3, acceleration decreases to zero at 3. The orbital
velocity and radius are still increased -- over average -- though less and less until at 3 they are at an
average.
The pressure is again perpendicular to the orbit with the full pressure being outward to the right on
the proton. Pressure on other nucleons and on the vortex as a whole is in the same direction. Since all
the atoms in the Earth are oriented in the same direction by the outward moving wave stream towards
lesser density (hence the Earth's magnetic field), they all move to contribute to the rotation of Earth.
Further explanation of this contribution to Earth rotation is given shortly.
9
Coming back to the movement of the proton within the nucleus, it is moving against the pressure as
it goes from 3 through 12 to 9. Which decreases the velocity. It is the exact reverse to the bottom half
and thus velocity is brought back to the low point at 9. The decrease lowers the centrifugal force.
The maximum decrease in the rate of deceleration is at 12 since the proton is meeting the pressure
head on and the slowing effect thereof is at a maximum. From this point, the effect decreases to zero by
the time it reaches 9 and the pressure is perpendicular to the orbit. At 12, the reduced centrifugal force
is at a maximum, thus reducing the orbital radius equal to the increase at 6 and thereby moving the entire
nucleus downward.
Whatever the proton position in the orbit may be, the stagnation point is always on the left of the
proton because it is always rotating in the same direction. Consequently, the direction of the pressure is
mainly directed continuously to the right. The difference in centrifugal force between the top and
bottom of the proton orbit (together with lower starting positions in each case) drives the proton
downward.
Naturally, the same effect applies to all the other protons and neutrons in the nucleus. They each fall
so that the whole atom -- and any mass of which it is a part -- falls at the same rate. A more massive
body than the Earth would emit more forceful waves and the gravitational push would be more
important.
10
This is what "gravity" is on Earth and -- by extension -- universal gravitation between bodies in
space. This is a pressure phenomenon from a purely mechanical origin which has long eluded physicists
by not having been united with the other fundamental forces of Nature.
GRAVITATIONAL FORCE
According to this description, we can easily imagine why the gravitational force is so weak since this
is the consequence of a velocity differential relative to the ongoing wave. Then we will no longer be
surprised to notice that it is 10-40
times the strong force (vortex forces) in strength. Its range is long,
contrary to this last force which directs its force inwards because these are radiant energy waves
propagating outward with a force proportional to the inverse square law. They move through space at
the same velocity as that of light according to the medium density. In the case of the Earth, for example,
they do not move as fast because they are impeded by the numerous atoms and their fields within the
Earth.
In fact, the carrier of the force wave is the etheron or more precisely a collection of etherons. This is
what has been called a "gravitational wave" which has never been detected and this is not without
reason! It would be difficult to detect movement of etherons in the Aether except possibly by
temperature as has been the 3K particle -- or "kaytron" as it is called herein -- which is called
background radiation.
Gravitational force has been determined to be 10-40
less than the binding energy for medium
elements which is about 8 MeV (8 million electron volts) per nucleon (proton and neutron). This is
because most of the energy of gravitation lies in the nucleons of the atom.
A nucleon has the same structure and method of producing a field of waves as does the atom except
that instead of nucleons in orbit (as in the atom), the orbiting particles are the basic etherons. The
volume of a proton is 10-15
times that of an atom. The energy of the orbiting particles in the nucleon is
also of this ratio. Since etherons contain equivalent energy to one another, less etherons by volume
means the same reduction in energy.
However, a wave is produced within a nucleon by a revolution of the orbiting etherons of an inner
vortex in the nucleon. Hence the number of waves -- or the strength of the field of waves -- emanating
from a nucleon is dependent upon the velocity of these orbiting etherons.
In an article called the "Spin of the Proton", Scientific American, May 1979, Alan D. Krisch states
that "in Newtonian Mechanics, the kinetic energy of a moving particle is proportional to the square of its
velocity". Thus the strength of the field is reduced again since the velocity is proportional the square
root of the nucleon energy.
If we multiply [10-15
]2 by the strong force of the atom, we bring the field strength of the proton down
to 10-30
. However, the force of the waves at the surface of the proton -- which have been emitted from
the inner vortex at the center of the proton -- also depend upon its radius which is 10-5
times that of the
atom because the gravitational effect is proportionate to the square of the radius. Thus the total
gravitational effect of the nucleon is [10-5
]2 x 10
-30 which equals 10
-40 times the strong force of the atom.
THEORY BEHIND EQUIPMENT TO PRODUCE LEVITATION
11
The Magnus effect has been shown to be the mechanism that is responsible for what is known as
"gravity". Levitation can be accomplished by reversing the nucleonic spin so as to reverse the effect of
the waves of energy emanating from the Earth that creates gravity.
The key piece of equipment is an electron generator (in our case. a Van der Graaf generator) that
fires electrons at a target that we intend to levitate. It is said to produce a static charge which, by
definition, is static or stationary.
However, as the charge builds up on the sphere, electrons are emitted due to mutual repulsion.
These can be detected at a distance from the sphere. Once emitted, these electrons are independent of
the sphere. When they strike the target, their energy is absorbed by the nucleons near the surface of the
target. The nucleonic spin axis is reversed due to the direction from which the electrons come (similar
to a ping pong-ball spinning on a jet of air).
The Magnus effect is now reversed and causes the target to move towards the electron source
direction, which is the generator sphere. If this sphere is stationary, the target will stop at its closest
approach. If the sphere was attached to the target, the motion of the target would move the sphere which
--if it continues firing electrons -- would continue to move the target from the force of the targets own
nucleons in the direction of the sphere. If the sphere is above or even partially higher than the target, the
target will levitate.
If the generator were the only piece of equipment, the electrons would only penetrate the skin of the
target and would not be able to reach over 50 percent of the nucleons in the target that is necessary to
have the target free of the Earth's gravitational effect. However, it would lose weight. This is shown in
a video where the target is on a balance scale. Both sides of the scale are affected. But with one farther
away than the other, there would be more electrons affecting the closer one due to the inverse square
law. The difference between the two levitates the closer one towards the sphere showing a loss of
weight. This takes place consistently every time the generator is turned on.
To accomplish full levitation, the next key piece of equipment is a special coil that emits a pure
electrical field without a magnetic component. This field is composed of spiraling energy waves emitted
from the coil. These waves add energy to drive the electrons from the Van der Graaf with much greater
force which -- when it is great enough -- will cause the energy to reach over 50 percent of the targets
nucleons, past the electron barriers around each atom, and thus cause full levitation.
Of course, frequency also plays an important part and a special unit has been built to control this.
The electrons must strike the nucleon at a particular point in their orbit around the nucleus so as to
accelerate it rather than retard it. Thus the frequency of the electron pulses should equal the period of
the atomic vortex. Levitation occurs when the electron wave phase is adjusted so as to strike the
nucleon in its position where acceleration can take place.
The frequency can also be set on the harmonics of the main one. For example, the electron pulse
could strike the nucleon every second time around. However, the closer it is to the prime frequency the
faster and more powerful is the thrust.
In the future -- especially when electrons are replaced by finer particles such as X-rays -- the World's
energy requirements will be met at minimal cost. This author has already designed an electrical
generator powered by nucleonic energy that will change the World due to minimal cost as long as
leasing fees (especially in the third world countries) are kept much below standard energy supplies.
12
MAGNUS EFFECT
For the quantitative approach to demonstrate the Magnus effect on a proton, we must refer to the
Fluids Mechanic field. According to the analysis of ideal fluid flow around a cylinder[17], the formula
for the lift force at right angles to the free streaming fluid where the 2 stagnation points come together at
the bottom of the cylinder -- with the 2 streamlines making an angle of 60 degrees with the tangent to
the cylinder -- is FL = ρBUT. ρ = density of the undisturbed stream, U = steady flow of uniform
velocity of the undisturbed stream, B = length of the cylinder, T = the circulation and equals 4πRU. R =
the radius of the cylinder (proton). The maximum peripheral velocity of the flow is 4U at the top.
In our case, the cylinder becomes the proton with B being its diameter. The application is valid
since it is said[17] that it applies not only to the circular cylinder but also to a cylinder of any shape
including the lifting vane or air foil. Also, it has been applied to a baseball which is spherical. There
may be a slight difference in the case of a solid sphere since in that case, there are different angles of
deflection of the approaching wave.
In the case of a proton, there are smaller particles that make up the vortex of which it is composed.
It is structured in the same manner as is the Sun. The waves strike these smaller particles head on
without deflection, regardless of the curvature of the vortex. They strike them as if they were on a flat
surface. So therefore the cross sectional area of the sphere is receiving the effects of the force. This is
the area of a circle which is used in the next calculations.
The formula as applied to the proton is F = 4πr2U
2. Since in our model, the proton is descending on
the left side of its vertical orbit counter-clockwise while rotating counter-clockwise (an observer on the
opposite side would see the opposite), the Earth wave stream rising vertically strikes the proton and
turns into it like a water wave striking the shore an angle and then progressively turning parallel to it.
As each minute portion of the wave in turn meets the shore, its direction of motion turns at 90o to the
shore line. Which is why the water molecules move a short distance, in this direction, on to the sands.
Thus the full dynamic (velocity) force of the wave is transmitted to the proton which -- by its rotation --
carries it around to its right side. The stagnation point is now at the 9 o'clock position with the force
difference -- known as lift force -- being applied horizontally to the right.
There is no force pushing back from the right because the wave stream has sufficient momentum so
that centrifugal force holds it away from that side. Since the proton is essentially traveling at 45o to the
horizontal by moving from the 9 o'clock position of the orbit to the 6 o'clock position, this force of the
Magnus effect is divided into the horizontal and vertical directions. Thus the full force drives the proton
or neutron.
The Magnus force accelerates the proton from zero acceleration at the 9 o'clock position to its
maximum downward acceleration at the 6 o'clock position of the orbit. The average change in velocity
V thus takes place over 1/8 of the circumference of the orbit. The radius of a nucleus is given as 1.2 x
10-13
x [mass no.]1/3
cm.
If Iron is used as an example, the mass no. is 56 and the radius is then 4.591034839 x 10-13
cm.
Since there are 56 nucleons in an Iron nucleus that are orbiting, an average radius of orbit will be taken
which is the radius from the axis to where all of the mass would be located if it was at a point or on a
circumference line. The formula for this radius is [2/5 r2]1/2 = R. R would equal 2.903625382 X 10-13
cm. which is the orbital radius of the average nucleon in the Fe atomic nucleus. The circumference of
this radius would be 1.824401634 x 10-12
cm.
13
The proton spin angular momentum is given by [3]1/2
x h/4π which is 9.13300574 X 10-28
gm. cm.2/s
which = Iw. The neutron spin angular momentum is 0.684926602 times this which is 6.255438586 x
10-28
gm.cm.2/s. The 26 protons and 30 neutrons added together = 4.251213068 x 10-26
gm.cm.2/s.
They are added together because it has been shown herein that the neutron is a proton with a third
vortex revolving in the opposite direction around it with an electron between. At least it is opposite
relative to the vortexes within it as would a slower orbiting one which would also stop the angular
motion of any waves emanating from the inner structure. The proton -- making up most of the mass of
the neutron -- will revolve in the same direction as the bare proton. Therefore all angular momentum
should be added together with the third vortex of the neutron subtracting(by counter-acting) almost one-
third of the angular momentum from its proton. This agrees with accepted data.
Now, the mass of the Fe atom derived from its atomic weight is 55.847u - 26 electrons X .00055u
(which is .0143u) = 55.8327u. Multiplied by 1.66057 X 10-24
gms per u = a total of 9.271410664 x 10-23
gms. which is the mass of the nucleus.
Angular momentum of the atom = mvr so if 4.251213068 x 10-26
is divided by the mass of the
nucleus and by R, the average velocity of 1.579161219 x 109 cm/s for the orbit around the nucleus is
obtained. The mass of the average nucleon = 9.271410664 x 10-23
gms / 56 = 1.655609047 x 10-24
gms.
The nucleon period in the atom = R x 2 / 1.579161219 x 109 cm./s = 1.155297896 x 10
-21 s. The full
velocity increase from zero to maximum takes place over 1/4 of the orbit. Thus the full time is the
period divided by 4 which = 2.88824474 X 10-22
.
To verify that the average velocity ύ increase is one-half of this, F = ma can be used where a = g.
The value of ģ will be shown to be 982.9514643 in "Section II - Cosmology". g = v/t or t = v/g.
During the interval of the full time, the Magnus force drives the nucleon downward through a
distance of ½at2 which equals 0.5 x 982.9514643 cm/s
2 x [2.88824474 x 10
-22]
2s = 4.099869758 x 10
-
41cm. = 4.099869758 x 10
-41 cm in 2.88824474 x 10
-22 s = 1.419502198 x 10
-19 cm./s.
t for this average velocity = /g = 1.419502198 x 10-19
cm/s /982.9514643 cm/s2 =1.44412237 x 10
-22
s. The average force = 1.655609047 x 10-24
gms x 1.419502198 x 10-19
cm./s /1.44412237 x 10-22
s =
1.627383337 x 10-21
dynes.
To compare this with gravitational force, an altered version of Newton's formula shall be used which
is Gm/r2 = F. Gcircle will be defined in PART II - Cosmology and is equal to 3.989644343 x 10
20
cm3/s
2. The mass is that of the average iron nucleon which is 1.655609047 x 10
-24 gms and r = the
average radius of the Earth as determined in Part II of 637090389.9 cm.
The result is 1.627383338 Xx 10-21
dynes. This is an exact correlation. Note: The top and bottom
half of the orbit around the atom can be treated separately because they have separate time intervals and
are identical in result even though the effect at the top half is the result of deceleration rather than
acceleration.
EARTH WAVE FORCE
Next, it has to be determined how this amount of force is provided by the Earth waves. This is
dependent upon the radius of the proton. Though the radius of the nucleus has been experimentally
established[2], it appears that the proton radius was established by calculating a volume for the nucleons
14
that fitted into the volume of the nucleus according to the current theory of a nucleus with nucleons
stacked within it.
At the Argonne Laboratories, Dr. Krisch found that the proton had a hard core about 3 times smaller
than the proton in cross-section[4]. Since the accepted radius of the proton is 1.2x10-13
cm, it can be
determined from this that the hard core radius is 6.92820323 x 10-14
cm. Let it be suggested hat this is
the real proton radius and that this proton is surrounded by an atmosphere of etherons due to its rotation,
such as that which has been described.
The energy waves emanating from all the nucleons in the Earth (the strength of which is divided by
the Earth's radius squared) are traveling through the etheron medium -- as in space -- but impeded by air
molecules at the Earth's surface. Below the Earth's surface, there should be more impedance due to
more obstacles creating a longer path for the wave to follow. The velocity of light through air will be
taken as the velocity of Earth's gravitational waves which is 2.9970254 x 1010
cm/s. The rotation of the
waves as they rise from the Earth's surface (thus moving at right angles to the forward motion) could
manifest as the magnetic field.
As mentioned, the formula for the Magnus effect is 4πρr2u
2. If this is to be equal to the force of
1.627383338 x 10-21
dynes (determined from the nucleon's angular momentum and g) that has been
shown to be gravitational force, ρr2 has to equal 1.301060145 x 10
-43 gm.cm
2 per cm
2. The density ρ
would then equal 2.710541969 x 10-17
gms/cm3
. r = nucleon radius. In this formula, u is the combined
velocity of the wave and of the proton moving against it. The latter was derived from its angular
momentum.
Before attempting to determine the force of the gravitational wave, its mass has to be established that
is directly involved in striking the area of the nucleon receiving the force. This would be the cross-
sectional area of the proton. For example, thus ρ -- which is in gms/cm3 -- has to be multiplied by the
said area.
Next, the penetration depth of ρ -- which is per cm2 x 1-cm. in depth -- has to be defined as the
proton diameter since that is the length [depth] of wave that covers the proton or nucleon. The wave
velocity and the nucleon orbital velocity combined [u] is 3.154941522 x 1010
cm./s which moves
6.92820323 x 10-14
cm. [the proton radius / the combined velocities] that it takes for the proton radius to
encounter the wave.
Average t [t/2] is one-half of the total t that it takes to cover the whole diameter along the proton's y
axis because the force starts at zero and doesn't become a full force until the diameter is covered. This
makes the average force equal to that upon coverage of the radius.
The mass of the Earth wave striking the proton is ρ times the cross-sectional area of the proton X the
proton diameter [the depth] which equals 5.663668952 x 10-56
gms. To verify the density value, it could
be derived by using a volume of the wave covering the proton, this being r2 x d of the proton which =
2.089496868 x 10-39
cm3. ρ = m/vol =2.710541969 Xx 10
-17 gms./cm
3 which is the same result.
To find the average force from the momentum [mv] of the Earth wave, the formula average force =
mv/t is used. t = the stopping time by the proton while the semi-diameter of its cross-section encounters
this portion of the wave. t = 2.195984674 x 1024
s. The force is continuous as the proton encounters the
next portion of the wave and so on. Average force = 5.663668952 x 10-56
gms x 3.154941522 X 1010
cm/s divided by t which equals 8.136916689 x 10-22
dynes.
15
Multiplied by 2 (since this calculation is for coverage of one half of the nucleon in average time by a
portion of the wave whereas the full area of the nucleon is covered at all times due to the expanse of the
Earth field), the full force = 1.627383338 X 10-21
dynes.
This is an exact correlation to the 1.627383338 x 10-21
dynes of the known gravitational force and it
shows that the Magnus effect is the true cause of gravity.
A final method is to go directly to the Magnus formula itself which is 4 ρr2u
2 = F. ρ r
2 =
1.301060145 x 10-43
gm-cm2/cm
3 and u = the combined velocity of 3.154941522 x 10
10 cm/s. By this
formula, the force of the Magnus effect = 1.627383338 x 1021
dynes.
Note: Forces have been expressed here as dynes simply because the units commonly used are the
CGS units (i.e., the centimeter, gram, and second). Recall that 1 dyne = 1 gm-cm-s-2
= 10-5
Newton.
GYROSCOPIC ACTION
To show that gyroscopic action does not change the gravitational calculations of the Magnus effect,
the following analysis shall be given. A brief -- but clear -- explanation of gyroscopic motion is given in
Physics, a textbook for colleges, 4th
edition, by Oscar M. Stewart, 1944 [herein called Fig. 4] as follows:
"In Fig. 105 the wheel, WW' is rotating about the line AA as an axis. The linear velocity of a point
O on the front side of the outside edge is represented by the vector OB. Imagine that the wheel is given
an impulse which tends to move the upper end of the axis AA toward the eye. This impulse will give to
the point O a linear velocity which will be downward [represented in Fig. 105 by the vector OC].
The resultant motion of the point O is represented by the vector OD, which is the vector sum of OC
and OB. In order that the point O may move in the direction OD, the axis of the wheel must shift to the
position A'A' which lies in the plane of the paper. In this case, a force is applied which tends to pull the
upper end of the axis out toward the eye instead of moving in that direction, it moves at right angles to
the force."
At first glance, there seems to be a similarity since there is a spinning mass, an external force, and a
resulting vector force. However, they differ as to the point of application of the force and therefore of
the result. The gyroscope has a force applied to the end of its spin axis attempting to change its axial
orientation. The proton has the force applied evenly at right angles to one side of its perimeter at 9
o'clock thereby moving the whole particle at once.
16
GYROSCOPIC WEIGHT REDUCTION
Reference is now made to the Physical Review letter by Hideo Hayasaka and Sakae Takeuchi
Volume 63, Number 25, December 18, 1989. The abstract states: "The weight change of each of three
spinning mechanical gyroscopes whose rotor masses are 140, 175, and 176 gms has been measured
during inertial rotations -- ". "-- the right rotations [around the vertical axis] of each gyroscope always
cause weight decreases of the order of milligrams, proportional to the frequency of rotation at 3,000 to
13,000 rpm.
The weight reduction occurs for both normal and reverse attitudes. -- [here reverse attitude of a
gyroscope means merely upside down attitude, or orientation]. On the other hand, the left rotations of
each gyroscope yield zero weight change for all frequencies of rotation and both attitudes. --The
experimental results cannot be explained by the usual theories."
The result of this experiment can be accounted for by the explanation of gravity contained herein.
The attitude of the gyroscope would not make any difference because the constituents (within its atoms)
of neutrons and protons (nucleons) would always spin with a horizontal axis due to the Earth's vertically
rising waves, just as does a ping-pong ball on a jet of air. In this attitude, the nucleon is naturally forced
towards the source of waves (i.e., the Earth) by the Magnus pressure as described. If the Magnus
pressure was from any other direction, this is the direction of any object's motion.
Ordinarily, nucleons in matter will spin with a horizontal axis (as previously mentioned) as the
waves from the Earth move upward and drive etherons against them. In the Earth's field, they are
generally spin-aligned end-to-end, creating the Earth's magnetic lines of force.
In the case of a spinning rotor, as in this experiment, this horizontal attitude is not changed by other
forces. The nucleons still have a horizontal axis. With respect to the rotor, the nucleon always spins in
the same direction but as the rotor rotates 180o the axis rotates 180o to the observer above or with
respect to the Earth's field without [i.e. its orientation in space]. The torque on the nucleon's axis by the
Earth's field and its own gyroscopic resistance to reorientation in space are both offset on the opposite
side of the rotor.
nucleons in rotor
The nucleons are drawn in the diagram as wheels on an axle. The dot is the point of a rotation arrow
coming up out of the paper. The plus sign is its tail entering the paper. The rotor is in a horizontal plane
with a view from above.
When the gyroscopes were spun clockwise as viewed from above, the researchers found no change
in their weight. When they were spun counter-clockwise, they appeared to lose weight. As the rotation
17
of the rotor (as shown) carries the nucleon with the dot end into the etheron field, etherons are forced
over the nucleon by its spin, causing a pressure beneath that lifts.
In the opposite direction with the plus sign end leading, the rotor etherons are carried below which
would cause a downward pressure. In the direction shown, the etherons are moving up and over on the
dot side which causes an upward force at the bottom that works against the acceleration of the nucleon
towards the Earth.
When the force is with the nucleonic orbit in the same direction as spin as shown, the lift is
manifested and this subtracts from the downward force exerted by the Earth wave, thus causing a weight
loss.
When the force is in the opposite direction to the nucleonic orbiting (as in opposite rotor rotation),
the force cannot accelerate the nucleon. Thus in this direction of the rotor rotation, there is no change of
weight of the nucleons or of the rotor which is composed of them. Due to this concept that explains the
result of the said experiment in detail, a weight loss occurs when the rotation of the rotor does not cause
an opposition to the orbital rotation of the nucleon and not in the opposite direction.
The Physical Review letter states "a rotor is composed of various materials and domains". Due to
this, one can only approximate the values of the average nucleon in the rotor including its radius of
gyration. To calculate the latter, the use of its actual radius is probably more accurate than the
calculated equivalent radius.
Variations in the materials composing the silicon steel rotor can be reduced by using the aluminum
rotor which is said to have had "nearly" the same weight loss even though it has one gram less mass.
Any aluminum alloy should have a greater proportion of aluminum than that of iron in the silicon steel
rotor. No mention is made of the composition of the rotor shaft.
The mass of the average nucleon in the Aluminum atom can be calculated from the atomic weight of
26.9815 u. When the mass of the electrons [13 x .00055u =.00715 u] is subtracted, the mass of the
nucleus = 26.97435u. Multiplied by 1.66057 x 10-24
gms., the mass = 4.479279638 x 10-23
gms. When
divided by 27 nucleons, the average mass of each nucleon is 1.658992459 x 10-24
gms.
The radius of gyration R for the Aluminum atom -- and the radius at which the average nucleon
would be located -- equals the sq.rt. of r2 x 2/5. r varies from 1.4 x 10
-13 for the light elements to 1.2 x
10-13
for the heavy elements times the mass number to the power of one-third. 1.3 Xx 10-13
x 271/3
will
be used. Thus R = 2.466576575 x 10-13
cm.
The angular momentum of the atomic nucleus would be the sum of that of the 27 nucleons. Protons
have an angular momentum of 9.13300574 x 10-28
gm-cm2/s and neutrons have 6.255438586 x 10
-28 gm-
cm.2/s. 13 protons and 14 neutrons total 2.063052148 x 10
-26 gm-cm.
2/s. Angular momentum = mvr.
From this v of the average nucleon is found to be angular momentum divided by atomic mass
[4.479279638 x 10-23
] divided by R = 1.867271322 x 109 cm./s.
The only concern is the nucleon's horizontal movement into the etheron field where it meets etherons
to force them over it by its rotation. If the atom was stationary, the nucleon would not meet new
etherons. Thus the rotation of the rotor is essential to a reduction of weight.
The speed of the rotor is so low in comparison. It adds or subtracts very little velocity to or from the
nucleon. It is mainly to bring the nucleon into the field and to orient the spin axis at 90o to the flow of
etherons. Waves from the horizontal motion do not interfere with waves from the Earth because past a
18
critical angle, waves pass through each other without distortion. 2 forces can also act in different
directions at once such as those of the sun and moon when acting on the Earth.
Only the forward side of the nucleon can encounter the etherons. The lower quadrant is occupied by
the Earth stream. So this leaves only the upper quadrant. The nucleon motion is vertical at the
equatorial position and 100% horizontal at the polar position. The average horizontal motion between
0% and 100% is 50% of this distance, which is 1/8 of the circumference. If the nucleon is covering in
horizontal distance only 1/8 of the circumference each time that the nucleon goes around the orbit, the
equivalent velocity is 1/8 of 1.867271322 x 109 cm./s which equals 2.334089153 x 10
8 cm./s.
The rotor radius is 2.9 cm. 1/2 r2 = R
2 so R = 2.050609665 cm. The circumference x 13,000 rpm =
2791.611447 cm/s. If this is subtracted from the above velocity (since etherons are moving in the same
direction), the relative velocity is 2.334061237 x 108 cm./s.
If the Magnus formula F = 4πρr2u
2 is used where ρ = 2.710541969 x 10
-17 gms/cm
3, r = proton
radius = 6.92820323 x 10-14
cm, and u = 2.334061237 x 108 cm/s, then F = 8.907005689 x 10
-26 dynes.
The density p of the Earth wave can be used for the Magnus formula for Aluminum as well as for any
other element because it only relates the nucleon to the Earth stream.
The Earth's gravitational force on the average Aluminum nucleon equals F = m/r2 = 1.72279986 x
10-21
dynes. This would make Al fall faster than Fe as will be shown in the dropping tests. F for Iron
was only 1.627383338 x 10-21
dynes.
To calculate the percentage of weight loss there is, the Magnus force x 100 divided by Earth's
gravitational force = 9.134030291 x 10-21
dynes = .00539%. This is nearly equal to the experimental
result of .00678% of weight loss for the silicon steel rotor as it was said in the said Physical Review
letter. It is nearly equal despite a possible slight error due to the constituents of the rotor (as mentioned)
or the average Earth's gravity due to location of the experiment.
However, at Japan it is hardly noticeable. There is a change in weight loss in proportion to the
change in rotor speed. The ratio of low to high speed = 3,000/13,000 = .23. The ratio of low-to-high
weight loss is 2.6/11.9 = 2.18. The reason for this is that with increased speed, the number of etherons
encountered by the nucleon increases for the same distance across the nucleon. Thus the density p
increases which creates greater Magnus force. A greater Magnus force due to the density increase by
rotation would most likely increase the percentage to that of the experiment.
The more neutrons relative to protons there are in an atom, the less angular momentum -- and thus
velocity -- there is for the average nucleon. Consequently, the slower the element will fall as shown by
the dropping experiment. If one calculates the velocities of the average nucleon within the atom at the
radius of gyration, one finds that the velocity is greater in the Silicon atom, for instance, that has 14
protons and 14 neutrons than it is in the Iron atom that has 30 neutrons and 26 protons.
This is because that when the Earth wave meets the nucleon moving downwards the 2 velocities are
added to get the relative velocity. Thus the silicon nucleon has a faster stream moving on one side of its
surface than that of the Iron nucleon and this produces a greater force which, in turn, causes a greater
gravitational acceleration and the silicon will fall faster.
In the case of Aluminum, the nucleonic speed around the average orbit was calculated to be
1.867271322 s 109 cm/s. For Iron, it was calculated to be 1.579161219 x 10
9 cm/s. The flow is faster
on one side of the Al nucleon (when added to the Earth flow) than on one side of the Fe nucleon. The
faster flow produces greater Magnus force, and thus the Al falls faster than Fe.
19
Anomalous Gravitational Acceleration To the Sun by Spacecraft
In a similar manner to that of the previous experiment, a solution is now offered( utilizing the
Magnus formula) to the following problem:
According to John D. Anderson et al in the Physical Review letters, 5 October 1998, Volume 81,
Number 14, data from Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Galileo, and Ulysses indicated an apparent anomalous,
constant, acceleration towards the Sun acting on the spacecraft with magnitudes of 8.09x10-8
cm/s2 [Ap]
and 8.56x10-8
cm/s2 for Pioneers 10-11 respectively and 12x10
-8 cm/s
2 for Ulysses. The Pioneers were
launched in 1972 and 1973. Their orbit determination program analysis of unmodeled accelerations
began in profile with distance. The conclusion was that Ulysses was subjected to an unmodeled
acceleration towards the Sun of 12x10-8
cm/s2. It is said that no plausible explanation was found so far.
It was said that no magnitude variation of Ap with distance was found with the Pioneers. But there
was a difference between 10 and 11 (which were structurally the same) and with Ulysses, though the
difference was small. Since they were moving through different areas of space, a difference in density
of medium particles could account for this small discrepancy.
It has been stated herein that a medium of etherons could account for the transmission of
electromagnetic energy waves with a greater density causing a greater velocity. It has also been shown
that such etherons [kaytrons] could be the "dark matter" that provides the 90% of the mass required by
our galaxy now deemed to be missing. And that such density causes the average velocity of light in our
galaxy to be 6 times that measured on our Earth.
The density of etherons would be at a maximum between stars as the stars [suns] and planets drive
etherons away from them by the emission of energy waves. As energy waves move outward, they
decrease in energy according to the inverse square law. And thus etheron density will gradually increase
with distance. The etherons moving outward would be replaced by others entering the center of the
vortex of etherons orbiting the sun or planet en masse just as our atmosphere moves at one with our
planet as it rotates. The etherons enter the vortex center just as the electrons etc. from the Sun enter our
atmosphere at the poles. Also, just like our atmosphere, it will contain currents and slightly different
velocities over different areas.
The solar wind would be one big influence in this respect as it would partially interact with the
Aether (the collective name). This explanation involves only the orbital velocity of the spacecraft and of
the etheron field. The solar wind -- which is nearly radial -- would have some orbital component which
would coincide with that of the etherons. The radial velocity is perpendicular to the orbit and so does
not enter into the following calculations. Any Magnus effect laterally from this radial velocity would be
minimal because it is too slow to affect the energy waves from the Sun travelling at light speed in the
same direction.
The orbital velocity of the etherons minus that of a spacecraft is the relative velocity that would be
the only other influence on radial acceleration besides the Sun's waves. First, the orbital component of
the velocity of the Aether -- which would be similar to this component of the solar wind -- will be
determined. The orbital velocity at the sun's surface shall be the escape velocity since the particles have
to leave the Sun before orbiting around it.
Escape velocity from Earth is usually given as [2GM/r]1/2
. [GM/r]1/2
is the velocity of an object
when there is a balance between gravitational force and centrifugal force. GM is Gcircles, calculated in
Section II as 1.33440816x1026
cm3/s
2.
20
If 1.2 is used instead of 2 as the lowest escape velocity from the Sun, the result is 4.782841x107
cm./s. The formula [2GM/r]1/2
is given for the escape velocity for Earth with the 2 inserted to make sure
that it doesn't settle back into a balanced orbit. The Sun is much more massive than the Earth and thus
radiates much stronger nucleonic waves as well as creating strong light pressure. This extra pressure
would extend well beyond the Sun's surface and would tend to ensure continuous escape. Thus the
reduced escape velocity from the Sun -- given herein -- is logically within reason.
This escape velocity should not be confused with the explanation for a stable orbit of a planet (given
later). The planets were born in an orbit where centrifugal force was greater than gravitational force.
When they were freed, they moved out to the balanced position. Momentum would carry them past
where the forces were reversed which drew them back. Oscillation would take place until they settled
in.
In this case, particles leave the balanced orbit -- no doubt due to the said pressure and emission by
the sunspots and continued pressure by the faster light waves is maintained. The extra velocity given to
a spacecraft from Earth ensures that it escapes Earth's gravity until the Sun's gravity becomes stronger
and takes over.
Next, the velocity at the craft's orbit rb needs to be determined. There is a relationship in the ratios
of the orbital velocity and the orbital radius evident in the movements of the planets. This could be
expressed as r is proportional to 1/v2 or 1/v
2 [orbit b] / 1/v
2 [orbit a] = rb/ra.
The following ratios are an example:
Planet r [Earth = 1] 1/v2 [Earth = 1]
Earth 1 1
Mars 1.52647478 1.52647479
Jupiter 5.201003829 5.201003831
Saturn 9.538003703 9.538003705
[The planetary data was taken from calculations in Section II with v =
circumference divided by period].
PIONEER 7
The Sun's radius is 7 X 1010
cm. But before using the above equation, the craft's orbital radius has to
be determined. The most accurate data of such radius would come from Pioneer 7 which was launched
to study the Sun's radiation. When a craft is launched, it follows the arc of a parabola. But after a
million miles, the Sun's influence takes over and its orbit becomes a heliocentric ellipse. It will be
assumed that the gravitational anomaly calculated for Pioneer 10 will also apply to Pioneer 7.
It is given that the perigee P of Pioneer 7 is 1.010 AU which -- when multiplied by 1.4959787x1013
-
- = 1.510938487x1013
cm. The apogee A was 1.125 AU which = 1.682976038x1013
cm. The period
was 3,4810,560 s. [P+A] /2 = the semi-major axis = 1.596957263x1013
cm. = a.
a - perigee [P] = 8.6018776x1011
cm. which is the base y of a right triangle with the
side x which is the semi-major axis b of the ellipse.
21
r = hypotenuse of triangle which = a. y/r = sine θ = [a-p]/a = 5.38641690x10-2
. y = a-p. y/b = tan θ =
.053942479. Therefore 8.6018776x1011
/ 0.053942479 = b = semi-major axis = 1.594638912x1013
. The
sum of two focal radii = 2a. Therefore, when equal, one radius = a = hypotenuse.
e = [a2- b
2]1/2
divided by a = 0.0538642077
Circumference of an ellipse C = 2a [1-e2/4 - 3e
4/64 -45e
6/2304]. C= 1.002669639x10
14 cm. C/2 = r
= 1.595798293x1013
cm. which is the average radius.
Going back to the equation 1/vb2 divided by 1/va
2 = rb/ra, vb/va = 228. 1/vb
2 = 228 x 1/[4.78x10
7]2.
[1/va2 was previously determined to be 4.78x10
7]. 1/vb
2 = 9.978816898x10
-14 cm
2/s
2. vb = the velocity
in the orbit of Pioneer 7 = 3.165632x106 cm/s which is the orbital velocity of the etherons encountered
by Pioneer 7.
The velocity of Pioneer 7 in the same direction is 2πr divided by the period which is
2.880360554x106 cm/s. The relative velocity is (when this is subtracted from the etheron orbital
velocity) 2.85271x105 cm/s. This is the velocity at which the etherons strike the nucleons of Pioneer 7
from behind (since they are moving faster than the craft).
The orbital velocity of the solar wind and etherons would not be the same as that of Earth as
suggested by two University Astronomy professors because the Earth is in a relatively stable orbit. If
one uses the said equation with Earth's orbital velocity, it is found that at the Sun's surface the velocity
would have to be that of a stable orbit which is [Gcircle s/ rs]1/2
. All particles of the solar wind would
have to have a greater velocity to escape. Measurement of its velocity in Earth's orbit shows that they
are still in the escape mode and therefore must move a little faster than the Earth.
If b represents Earth velocity, then using the Sun surface escape velocity, 1/vb2 divided by [1/ 4.8 x
107]2 = 1.4959787x10
13 cm
2/s
2 divided by 7x10
10 cm
2 and vb = 3.283428416x10
6 cm/s. This is a little
faster than the Earth velocity, which is determined by Section II data to be 2.986631488x106 cm/s.
The etherons in Pioneer's orbit strike its nucleons from behind and sweep by on the sunward side.
This would cause the nucleon to align its axis vertically and rotate clockwise as viewed from above.
This would mean that the etherons striking the nucleon from behind would be rotated to the sunward
side, thus adding to the acceleration towards the sun due to the Magnus effect.
If Pioneer 7 showed an anomalous acceleration of 8.09x10-8
cm/s the same as Pioneer 10 -- and if its
components from Iron to plastic had nucleons of the average mass of Aluminum (which is
1.658992459x10-24
gms each) -- the force involved [ma] = 1.342124899x10-3
1 dynes on the average
nucleon.
By the Magnus formula, this force = 4πρr2u
2 as previously expressed. The only uncertain value is
that of the density ρ which was previously determined to be 2.710541969x10-17
gms/cm3 here on Earth.
r is the radius of the nucleon which is 6.92820323x10-14
cm as previously determined. U is the
aforementioned velocity of 2.85271x105 cm/s.
ρ shall now be calculated to see how close it is to the Earth calculated value when the anomalous
acceleration value is used. It should be fairly close because light speed varies in different densities. Bt
this would become apparent in areas not too far from Earth if there were any extensive errors in distance
due to this. Earth waves drive away etherons, lowering the density. But so do the Sun's waves outside
22
of the protective magnetic envelope around Earth. This envelope is also the reason that planets would
not exhibit the anomalous acceleration that shows up with the spacecraft.
It is expected that etheron density would be greater near the spacecraft than near the Earth's surface.
Gravitational force [m/r2] on the craft [63,049 gms.] was 187 times stronger on the Earth than that of the
sun in space. This would mean that waves from the Earth would have more force to drive away etherons
than the Sun would in space, thus allowing a greater density in the solar area. The amount of greater
density would depend upon the interaction of the large particles of the solar wind with the etherons and
kaytrons.
The calculation is as follows:
1.342124899x10-31
/ 4π[6.92820323x10-14
]2 [2.85271x10
5]2 = ρ
ρ = 2.73417673x10-17
gms/cm3. This is close enough to the 2.71x10
-17 gms/cm
3 as determined for
the density of etherons on Earth to verify the accuracy and the reason for the anomaly and to once again
show that the Magnus effect formula can be effective in calculating gravitational acceleration.
DROPPING TESTS
Now the dropping tests conducted by this author in 1981 and 1983 will be examined.
Atoms of different elements -- because of the different forces from different neutron-proton
combinations -- would have slightly different acceleration. The amount of element does not matter
because each atom in the element is forced downward at the same rate as its neighbor. It is only
different elements that would show different accelerations.
If such could be shown to be the case, it would be demonstrated by experiment that gravity is due to
nucleonic force. Different elements should fall at different rates according to the neutron proton
composition per equivalent mass. This premise was proven by experiment in the years above stated.
In the dropping analysis following, only the experimental drop ratio is given since it would not
matter if the timer's base time was accurate, slow or fast. All the drops would be timed by the same base
time. Thus their ratios to one another would be accurate. The calculated gravitational force will be
given in terms of proton force. The gravitational effect of a neutron is 84.24633% of that of a proton as
explained herein. In the example of the Iron atom, 30 neutrons are equivalent to 25.273899 protons. If
we add 26 protons, we have the equivalent of the force of 51.273899 protons.
Each element's drop rate is calculated by the amount of nucleonic force per unit mass. It is
determined for that element by its neutron-proton ratio which establishes the force, which is then divided
by the mass of the neutrons and protons (or atomic weight in mass units) to determine the force per unit
mass.
It should be explained why the force is determined per unit mass. If forces exerted on different
substances to create accelerations are to be compared, their masses must be normalized or in other words
made equal. Whatever the substances (whether atom, molecule, etc.), the masses of each kind can be in
terms of one amu or one proton mass (whichever is the easiest to calculate) or any other mass as long as
they are equal.
Whatever calculation is done to the mass of a substance such as dividing by an equal amount to
bring it to unity or multiplying by a factor so as to bring it equal to another mass, the same must be done
23
to the force associated with it because the force varies with the mass. Only then can the forces of both
substances be compared to see which is the greater to drive the substance faster towards a larger body of
matter. When then compared with the known acceleration of another substance, the acceleration of the
first substance can -- by ratio -- be determined.
Generally, the denser the element, the less force per unit mass there is pushing down since the
neutron excess usually increases with density or atomic weight. However, there are exceptions if two
elements have the same neutron excess such as Beryllium and Aluminum which each have one neutron
excess.
When the force is calculated for each in units of one proton force (the amount of force exerted on
one proton) with a neutron force being calculated as a fraction of a proton force, it is found that the
Aluminum has more push downward (instead of less) and so will drop faster than the Beryllium.
In the case of the horizontally suspended ring composed of one-half of each of these metals,
designed and tested in an experiment by University of Washington physicist Paul Boynton[18], the
aluminum should (as it did) turn towards the mountain in front of which it was hung.
This is contrary to Fischbach's idea[13] that all elements with greater atomic mass would be forced
away by some "fifth force" emanating from the Earth. Boynton's experiment did validate Fischbach's
observation that different elements exhibited different accelerations. But disputed his explanation of it.
This author's experiment consisted of dropping Al, Fe, Cu, and Pb through 2 laser beams one below
the other, spaced 4 feet apart. The distance covered enabled a slight difference in accelerations to more
greatly influence the difference in velocities and thus create large differences in the time dropped.
Each element dropped any number of times within its own distinct time range zone with no more
than 0.145% variation. The release of the weights was consistent. The air pressure on the tapered
1/4x1¼-inch knife edge bottoms was consistent. The lengths of the weights were adjusted to eliminate
air turbulence.
The bottoms of the weights were suspended 0.025 inches above the top laser beam by a fine wire
from the weight to a horizontal pin, the end of which was inserted through a loop in the end of the wire.
Though the pin was made to move vertically by means of a screw thread, all wires were made to
accommodate the different lengths of weights so that the vertical adjustment did not have to be used.
The periphery light from the laser light -- striking the bottom of the weight -- cast a shadow line on a
paper beside the sensor which coincided with a line on the paper. The height of each weight was thus
checked and was accurately the same within thousands of an inch.
24
The pin was drawn back by an electromagnet that was well away from the weights, causing the
release of the weight which fell through a three inch diameter tube [to minimize air movements] cutting
both beams one above and one below the tube. The breaking of the first beam started the timer and the
second stopped it. The drop time differences were in the area of the thousandth and ten-thousandths of a
second. But because the timer showed numbers to the ten-millionth of a second, the averages of the
drop times for each element became a very accurate value.
The calculated and the experimental drop time ratios are given in Table 1. The Cu mass number is
69.09% of element #63 and 30.91% of #65. After subtracting the number of protons from the mass
number, the average number of neutrons in Cu is 34.6182. It will be seen that the experimental and the
calculated drop time ratios -- in round numbers to the 3rd
decimal place -- are exactly equal.
The force ratio for each of the 4 metals in terms of proton force and the comparison with
experimental drop time ratio is calculated as follows:
Table IA
Wt. Neutrons x 0.8424633 + protons = Total P.F. / Atomic Wt.
[unit mass]
Ratio
Al 14 11.7944862 13 24.7944862 0.9189950408 1.001013655
Fe 30 25.273899 26 51.273899 0.9180644405 1.
Cu 34.6132 29.16456301 29 58.16456301 0.9154007398 0.9970985689
Pb 126 106.1503758 82 188.1503758 0.9081054868 0.989152228
Table IB
Wt.
Contin.
Calculated
Ratio Inverse
Experimental drop time ratio
[Average of 20 drops each] Fe = 1
Al 0.999 0.999
Fe 1.000 1.000
Cu 1.0029 1.0029
Pb 1.010 1.01
25
It was previously mentioned that it is known that the angular momentum of the neutron is
68.4926602 % of that of the proton. It was shown that if the neutron is really a proton with a counter-
rotating vortex around it, the vortex would have an angular momentum of half of the remaining
31.5073398% which is negating the other half.
The portion of the neutron's angular momentum in the direction of the proton spin is 68.4926602
plus one-half of the remaining 31.5073398 -- or 84.24633% of that of the proton. Angular momentum
of the proton within the neutron has been reduced by the outer vortex by 15.7536699%. Ad the counter-
rotation of the outer vortex reduces it further by an equal amount relative to the environment.
Thus, angular momentum inside the vortex is still 84.2463301%. This percentage was used in
determining the proton force of neutrons in the foregoing table. By dividing by the atomic mass to bring
all elements to unit mass, it is leaving a ratio of angular speeds since speed times mass equals
momentum.
It is nucleonic angular speeds that match the ratio of dropping times. And it is these that bring the
changes in the Magnus force effect. The outer neutron vortex has only approximately 15% of the
neutron angular momentum and is therefore only a small deterrent to etherons, moved by waves of
energy from the Earth, reaching the inner proton in an object above the Earth. Here the angular speed of
the neutron's inner proton together with the angular speed of the free proton determine the accelerating
force from the Magnus effect to create the gravitational acceleration. The results obtained from the
dropping experiments substantiate the concept of gravitation being due to the Magnus effect as well as
verify that different elements fall at different rates due to their different neutron proton ratios.
The denser an atom, the greater is the neutron excess over protons. This is usually a rule. In these
cases, the proton force and the neutron equivalent per unit mass becomes less and less with increase in
density. Less force means slower spin, less frequency, and longer wavelength in atomic emission.
Higher frequency is thus related to greater energy. This is proven when high frequency power is
supplied to fluorescent lights and more light is created.
Conversely, power is saved for the same light level. Transmutation of elements from one to another
has taken place in our experiments by a change in the number of electrons around the nucleus and hence
the energy level of the atom and its frequency. Nucleons (i.e., protons and neutrons) thus can change
their energy level which would result in a different spin rate and a different gravitational acceleration.
Different gravitational accelerations were evident in the drop tests.
The following photographs [taken with this author's camera] are the first experiments in levitation
achieved by using a special kind of a moving electric field. The method and results substantiate the
theory herein:
26
Copyright © 1977-2008 Mel Winfield. All rights reserved.
This page last modified March/2008.
One concept in modern Physics -- superstrings -- is making a comeback. It is thought that it may
unite Quantum Mechanics and the theory of Relativity. There are pros and cons in this regard. The idea
that basic energy units are minute ringlets of energy and straight line units is getting closer to the
concept herein that etherons are basic particles moving in a spiral path with circular and linear
components [mass and size are calculated on page 6]. Etherons are described herein as forming the first
double vortex capable of emitting pressure waves that can join to other vortexes (particles). This first
particle is called herein a "kaytron" (i.e., a 3K particle recently measured to be 2.7 degrees K). It has
been shown herein to be the "dark matter"or the "missing mass" of the Universe.
It has also been shown herein that energy is nothing more than motion. Motion is nothing in itself.
It is only a characteristic of a particle. When one particle strikes another, motion is passed on from one
to the other. That which is passed on by one is subtracted from it and added to the other. Thus motion
in the Universe is constant as a whole.
Thus the concept of "energy being indestructible" holds true. And the concept herein that there is a
basic particle in motion (containing energy) is the most logical. The idea that these basic particles
become organized by forming vortexes (one within the other)right up to the Universe itself -- and that
these vortexes connect to one another by means of spiraling pressure waves emanating from an inner
vortex precessing around within an outer one to create standing waves that cause a pattern of vortexes to
become more complex particles -- answers a lot of questions. This includes how vortex flow can
provide the force necessary (i.e., known as the strong nuclear force) to maintain the position of the
protons within a nucleus and provide an explanation for inertia [p. 45].
27
It is stated in Introduction to Physics by Bueche [p815] that nuclear binding energy (the strong
force) equals the difference between that of free and of bound nucleons. In a vortex, the linear velocity
of the vortex flow -- or of the particles within the flow -- is the speed-of-light c because that was the
speed when they were part of the medium.
The total energy (kinetic plus potential) was found to be [p123] equal to mc2 or mv
2. This energy --
behind the force of the vortex flow, directed inward by the curvature -- holds the etherons or nucleons in
place. This is the "strong force". It is less than the total energy of the free nucleons because part of the
energy is used to maintain the curvature of the nucleon orbital path from the normal straight line motion.
(i.e., it has gone into the spin which creates the curvature of its path when spin energy becomes greater
than linear energy.)
Superstrings are also said to contain a multitude of frequencies. This is another similarity to
etherons and groups of etherons that travel in a spiral path which creates wavelengths between wave
crests and thus frequencies. Frequency is also applied to the constituents of a vortex that orbit a number
times-per-second and emit spiral pressure waves of this frequency due to the oscillation of its core.
Superstrings are said to require 11 dimensions with 10 of them space dimensions. However, the
dimensions are not plausible as being rolled-up minutely unless curled-up strings of energy are thought
of as being emitted from a particle in the form of a vortex (i.e., pressure waves spiraling outwards).
Then just as our Universe is composed of vortexes one within the other with the waves of energy
making up our electromagnetic spectrum, other Universes (or dimensions) may be vortexes that are
above or below our spectrum and that are either too big or too small to detect or measure.
Dimensions are described herein [p188-189] as extensions of the electromagnetic spectrum of
frequencies. We and our instruments can only measure a certain distance down and about the same up
before the waves become either too large or too small to measure. This is our octave of frequencies.
The next octave up would be of a higher energy and shorter wavelengths. Any being at the center of this
octave would see a different Universe. Everything would be too minute for us to see or measure. But to
beings in this octave, everything would be as large (compared to them) as this one is to us. The high
energy in the next octave would compact the etherons into very dense (relative to us) particles that
would be very minute.
The down side to the idea of the string theory uniting the theory of Relativity to Quantum Mechanics
is at least twofold. First, it is assumed that everything in Relativity is correct. It has been shown herein
(i.e., the boxcar mind experiment) that this is not the case. Secondly, the string theory is said to cancel
the infinities [e.g., 1/0] of previous attempts at unification of Quantum Mmechanics and Relativity.
It has been shown herein that 1/0 does not produce infinity but only nonsense such as the example
given that 2 = 1. The expression or equation that contains 1/0 just does not apply to the problem at
hand. The one used to show that light speed is a limit to velocity, for instance, is not applicable and the
one given herein should be used. E = mc2 -- a variation of that used -- and is thus shown to be in error
except for at light velocity or for a particle at rest (vortex velocity at light speed).
Explanations for many experiments, for gravity, for the 20 year cycle for light velocity measured on
Earth, etc. substantiate the premises herein. The replacement of Newton's gravitational formula and the
extension of Kepler's formula greatly improves the accuracy of planetary distances and Solar System
mass relationships and thus is an added bonus. The explanation and proof of how the Solar System was
formed from an interaction of waves was another bonus.
28
The atom is shown to be a vortex [p. 120] that abides by the same laws present in the mechanics of
the Solar System or vice versa. Another verification that the microcosm and the Macrocosm are both
made up of vortex systems is the fact that in the same system -- in either -- the square of the orbital
radius of one satellite divided into the square of the radius of another is equal to the ratio of one
gravitational force to the other -- i.e., [r2/r1]2 = F1/F2.
Also in the same system (in either), the orbital radius times the velocity is a constant for any single
satellite regardless of its orbital radius [p. 120] which is one of the characteristics of a free vortex. This,
in essence, unifies Quantum Mechanics and the laws of the Cosmos as outlined herein. The common
denominators are the vortex and gravitation. This is the Grand Unification that has been strived for
without success until now.
Gravitational force is said to be 10 to the 10-40
times the strong force. Since a particle (like the
neutron) is a vortex, the angular flow should have the force called the strong force. V2r for each planet
is found to be identical. It is called, herein, Gcircle of the Sun. For the Earth, the Moon, and all satellites
have identical v2r's thus providing a Gcircle of the Earth which is 3.989644343x10
20 cm
3/s
2 [p 128].
It has been found by this author that the ratio of the mass of any planet to its v2r (of any satellite
around it) is identical. And thus M/v2r of any planet equals that of any other planet. This is logical
since M is responsible for v2r. This is analogous to vr being equal at any radius in a vortex. And it is
said that the angular momentum mvr remains constant in any isolated system. These formulae might
also be important at the microscopic level.
One more proof that the laws of the Macrocosm apply to the microcosm is that the hydrogen
molecule or atom (an electron orbiting a proton) can provide a close approximation for the mass of the
Earth. On p750 of the Introduction to Physics for Scientists and Engineers by F.J. Bueche [1980], it
states that the velocity of an electron in various orbits within Bohr's model for the Hydrogen atom equals
V = [2.2x106 m/s] / n. An atom of Hydrogen with a single electron is usually in ground state. So n = 1
[p753]. Therefore, V = 2.2x10 6 m/s = 2.2x10
8 cm/s. r of the first orbit = 0.53 Angstroms = 0.53x10
-8
cm. [p750]. The mass of the proton = 1.672652307x10-24
gms.
v2r = 2.5652x10
8 cm
3/s
2. Multiplied by 4.35x10
-40 [the ratio between the strong force and
gravitational force within the hydrogen atom] the v2 [Gcircle] due to gravitation = 1.115862x10
-31 cm
3/s
2
= Gcircle[proton].
The ratio of the Gcircle's equals the ratios of the masses. Therefore Gcircle[Earth] x M[proton] /
Gcircle[proton] = M[Earth].
6.673x10-4
cm3/s
2 / 1.115862x10
-31 cm
3/s
2 = 5.98x10
27 gms for the mass of the Earth. Earth mass is
calculated (using the present value for G) to be 5.979145075x1027
gms.
The above result is close enough to say that all of the laws of the Universe are unified. If the ratio
between the strong force and the force of gravity within the hydrogen atom could be obtained more
exactly, the mass of the Earth would then be more exact and then the gravitational constant could be
calculated more exactly since Gcircle[Earth] divided by Earth mass = G.
Pages 31 to 34 [Gravitation] are extended as follows:
With respect to Paul Boynton's experiment consisting of 2 equal weights of Aluminum and
Beryllium in a disc that was hung on a wire beside a mountain [p32], it may be thought that the
29
nucleonic force (herein calculated as proton force) equates with gravitational force because the nucleons
are responsible for the gravitational effect.
It does not. It was shown by this author's dropping tests [p33] that Aluminum drops faster than Lead
because there is more nucleonic force downwards on the Aluminum atom despite Lead having a greater
weight. Weight -- a measure of gravitational force -- is not a measure of nucleonic force. Nucleonic
force is due to the nucleonic angular momentum as the nucleon orbits within the atom.
If there are more neutrons in excess of protons, there is more mass and with respect to the total mass,
the less angular momentum since the angular momentum of the neutron is only a percentage of that of
the proton. It is the nucleonic angular momentum or velocity that determines the acceleration of the
atom downwards due to the Magnus effect. The total effect is on the entire mass. Thus, 2 masses of
equal weight but different composition can have different nucleonic forces which alter their
accelerations.
Boynton's experiment which used the side of a mountain to gravitationally attract the disc
horizontally (which would not be affected by the Earth's attraction because that is acting vertically and is
counteracted by the supporting wire) would have greater acceleration from the Aluminum than the
Beryllium side. And thus a torque would be created to turn the Aluminum towards the mountain.
If the force of neutrons is multiplied by 0.8424633 [p33], it equates with the force of protons and
thus the force of both nucleons can be expressed as proton force. It was shown on p33 that since the
neutron has 68.4922602% of the angular momentum of the proton, one-half of the remaining
31.5073398% negates the other half due to the third vortex around a proton. Even though the effect on
emanating waves is negated, it is still there and has to be taken into account when calculating the spin
velocity of the average nucleon from which the orbital velocity is calculated. It is the orbital velocity
that controls gravity, the ratio of which matches the ratio of dropping times.
The proton force can be thought of as the total spin angular momentum of the proton (even though
part of it cannot be measured) which becomes a force through the Magnus equation when it meets
resistance. Continuous force becomes gravitational acceleration
When an element's nucleonic force is calculated in terms of proton force per unit mass, it can be
expressed by this author's equation:
F = [qN + P]/m
where q is the calculated factor equal to 0.8424633, N the number of neutrons, P the number of protons,
and m is the mass in terms of amu or atomic mass units [atomic weight]. If it is to be compared to the
ratio of drop times, F must be inversed,as in Table 1 [p32 & 33] because a greater force results in less
dropping time.
The Orbital Curve of Matter in Motion- A New Cosmic Principle, Found by this Author, to Explain
Planetary Spin
With reference to p183 and Sun's rotation p159
Since the Sun's gravitational field, its etheron field, and its particle field are accompanied by waves
of energy radiating outward through these fields as well as revolving around with the spinning Sun --
and because they penetrate to every atom of every planet -- they cause the planets to orbit the Sun. The
30
Sun revolves faster than the planets in orbit and thus its fields sweep and carry the planets in the
direction of its spin.
At this point, an important principle is evoked. The balance between gravitational and centrifugal
force maintains a curved orbital path for the planet around the Sun. Now, when a planet is forced to
travel this curved path a point on the outer side (i.e., away from the Sun), it is forced to move faster than
a point on the inner side because it has a longer orbit to travel in the same time.
In the absence of any greater forces in opposition, this causes the planet to spin because the force
attempts to make this point revolve around the one on the inside. Of course, the next point in line is
subjected to the same force once the spin commences. The amount of force depends upon the diameter
of the planet (i.e., the distance between the orbits of the inside and outside surfaces) and thus the
difference of their orbital lengths. The smaller the planet, the longer the spin period because there is less
force. This is true of the planets in the Solar System from Earth outward, thereby providing evidence for
this concept.
The gravitational field of the Sun does not consist of gravitational waves of specific parameters but
just simply waves of any description (primarily the finer waves) that emanate from the Sun that create
the Magnus effect in the nucleonic structure of the bodies being affected. Because of the inverse square
law, there is a greater concentration of waves near the prime source and thus a greater gravitational
effect.
In nearby bodies such as Mercury and Venus (to a great extent) near the Sun and in the Moon next to
the Earth, gravitational force is greater than the spin force. Thus the spin is counteracted as gravitational
force tries to direct the satellites towards the center of the prime source -- against the momentum -- like
a ball on a tether. From the Earth outward, the spin is less and less affected by the Sun's gravity. But
the spin force also decreases due to a spreading of the waves. This latter is offset by the outer planets
being larger and the arc of their orbit being flatter.
The orbital length of the outer point on any planet divided by the orbital length of the inner point is
the exact same ratio as the orbital velocity of the outer point divided by the orbital velocity of the inner
point. The outer orbit is longer so the outer point moves faster in orbit than the inner point. Relative to
the planet, the inner and outer points travel at the same velocity but in different solar directions as the
planet spins. Part of the inner velocity forwards along the orbital path would be canceled by its
backward motion.
Let us examine this principle using Earth as an example. The following data is used for Earth from
Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, 5th
edition and from calculations herein with new formula by
this author.
Equatorial circumference = 4,007,516,119 cm. Equatorial radius = 63,7816,000 cm.
Equatorial velocity = 46,518.96873 cm/s. Orbital radius = 1.49597870x1013
cm. Orbital period =
31471949 seconds. Rotational period = 23.93 hours [mean sidereal day].
Since the orbital radius is to the Earth's center, the orbital radius to the inner point is this minus one-
half of the diameter. And to the outer point, it is this plus one-half of the diameter. The orbital radius to
the inner point = 1.495914918x1013
cm. and its circumference is 9.399110633 X 10 to the thirteenth cm.
To the outer point it is 1.496042481 X 10 to the thirteenth and its circumference is 9.399912135x1013
cm..
31
The orbital circumference divided by its orbital period equals its orbital velocity. The outer velocity
= 2,986,758.823 cm/s. The inner velocity = 2,986,504.14 cm/s. The inner velocity (relative to the
Earth) is 2,986,504.14 cm/s minus 46,518.96873 cm/s (Earth's present average velocity of rotation
backward along the orbit) which is 2,939,985.171 cm/s.
The difference between the two is 46,773.652 cm/s which is the surplus of the outer that is greater
than the inner, after the two are equalized by Earth. This surplus goes into the rotation of the planet. By
dividing the Earth's circumference by this surplus, we obtain the Earth's rotational period, the result of
which is 85,678.9228 seconds. This equals 23.8 hours. Since we are now seeing this from the orbital
point of view, we compare this to the mean sidereal day (or one revolution) of 23.93 hours. This
difference of only 7.8 minutes is small.
However, there is another force involved. These calculations were applied to an isolated Earth in the
absence of other forces, which means before the Moon was captured by the Earth, passing close to it,
while they both were in orbit in the same direction around the Sun [p.159 within the section titled "The
Origin of the Solar system" p.147].
For a period after capture, it would only affect the Earth periodically as it came close in its orbit and
then went way out. It would not much affect the slowing of Earth's rotation until it settled into a more
circular orbit. Astronomers calculate that the gravitational effect of the Moon is increasing the Earth's
rotational period by 1.5 milliseconds per century.
The 7.8 minutes above can be accounted for by the Moon if it finally reached this more circular orbit
by about 30 million years ago. This is one-half of the time since the extinction of the dinosaurs which
would have occurred during the first close encounters. The more circular orbit at 30 million years ago
seems reasonable.
On p156, it is mentioned that Dr.Ovenden (head of the Astronomy Dept. at U.B.C. Vancouver,
Canada) with the help of a computer had determined that the area now occupied by the asteroid belt had
contained matter 90 times the mass of the Earth that suddenly disappeared 16 million years ago. This
was undoubtedly captured by Jupiter as described.
The oldest rocks on Earth are three billion years old. If the planets took this long to form in the
standing wave nodes before clearing the area between them so that they could move to balance gravity
and centrifugal force and thus capture moons etc., then it is not improbable that the Earth captured our
moon 60-to-70 million years ago as described along with the evidence thereof and which would have
occurred a little earlier in time. This close correlation establishes this new Cosmic principle.
Contrary to Einstein's theory, it is not space that is curved but only the paths -- within space -- of
particles or bodies that are forced to follow them by the combination of gravitational and centrifugal
forces.
In summation, when viewed from above, a planet will curve to the left when orbiting in the direction
of the s=Sun's rotation. This causes a spin of the planet of a like rotation as outlined and proven by
using orbital data to calculate the spin of the Earth.
However, if a planet or particle is caused to spin such as by collision, a reverse orbit would occur
with the arc curving to the right in the absence of other forces. If there is still a gravitational force
emanating from a focal point, the object would either orbit in the reverse direction (as some planetary
satellites) or else counteract some of the gravitational force thus changing the orbital radius or else
tilting the planet's spin axis (as that of Uranus).
32
In the case of particles in a cloud chamber, their spiral, or corkscrew, path is explained by this
principle.
Spin Curvature - A new name, herein, for the new Cosmic Principle
The laws of the macrocosm can again be demonstrated to apply to the microcosm. In the process
Spin Curvature can again be established.
For example, let us examine a group of etherons (the medium of the Universe) which form the
lowest energy electromagnetic particle by making up the first vortex particle capable of emitting field
waves. This particle is known to be part of what is called background radiation with a measured energy
of 2.73oK. It was called the 3K or 2.73K particle. It is called herein the kaytron.
From this energy, it was calculated [p.10] that its wavelength is 0.177 cm. (at the bottom of the
infrared spectrum). And its energy in terms of ergs equals 1.122303723x10-15
ergs. Planck's constant h
used in these calculations = 6.626176x10-27
erg-seconds. Velocity (from E = hv/wavelength) equals
2.997925x1010
cm/s which is light speed as measured on Earth.
Its mass can also be calculated. On page 6, the mass of the etheron was derived to be 7.372615x10-
48 gms. Since energies are proportionate to masses, if kaytron energy is divided by 6.626176x10
-27 ergs
(which is the energy of an etheron close to Absolute Zero) and made equal to the kaytron mass divided
by the etheron mass, it is found that the mass of the kaytron is 1.2487313x10-36
gms. This can also be
verified by E = mc2 (the conversion equation for matter at rest or at light speed).
Its radius can also be calculated. 1.2487313x10-36
gms.[kaytron] / 7.372615x10-48
gms. [etheron] =
0.1693743x1012
= the number of etherons in a kaytron. Etheron radius [p7] = 9.983x10-23
cm. The
volume of the etheron = [9.983x10-23
]3 x 4/3π = 4,167.463671x10
-69 cm
3.
The volume of the kaytron = 4167.463671x10-69
x 0.1693743x1012
= 7.058612421X10-55
cm3.
When divided by 4/3πr3 = 1.68.5119587x10
-57. r for the kaytron = 5.52344765X10
-19 cm. which is over
1,100 times smaller than that of the electron.
Since the kaytron has a wavelength of 0.177 cm. and travels in a spiral or coiled path (as do all
particles) -- with this wavelength being the measure between adjacent points on the coil -- after once
around the coil, the wave has an amplitude. The wave energy is known to be proportionate to the
amplitude squared. A table was found on the Internet which gives 5 examples of energy and the
corresponding squares of the amplitudes found by them as follows shown by the numerical values.
Energy Amplitude Squared
2099.66 100
8441.44 400
19,058 900
33,727.2 1600
76,101.9 3600
If the energy is divided by the amplitude squared, the 5 examples have an average ratio of 21.1. If
the energy [ergs] of a kaytron is divided by 21.1, this = the amplitude squared which = 5.31897x10-17
.
The wave amplitude is thus 7.2931269x10-9
cm. The direct circumference of this amplitude = 2πA =
4.5824068458x10-8
cm.
33
When the wavelength 0.177 cm. is added to this, the total length of travel over the spiral wavelength
= 0.1770000458 cm. Propagation through space near Earth is 2.997925x1010
cm/s. If this is divided
into 0.177 cm. the period is obtained which = 5.09040836579x10-12
. The spiral wavelength velocity =
C/P = 3.47712861289333x1010
cm/s. The spin curvature principle can now be applied.
The radius of the innermost point = 7.2931269X10-9
[A] - 5.5234479X10-19
cm. =
7.2931268994X10-9
cm. Its circumference = 4.5284067778X10-8
cm. + 0.1770000458 cm. When
divided by P, V = 34,771,295,130.9749 cm/s. After subtracting the retrograde spin velocity of
2.997925X1010
cm/s, its velocity along its orbit is 4.7920361289333x109 cm/s.
The radius of the outermost point = 7.2931269x10-9
cm. + 5.5234479x10-19
= 7.2931269006X10-9
cm. The circumference = 4.5824067785x10-8
cm. After adding 0.1770000458, it equals .1770000916
cm. After dividing by P, it equals V which = 34,771,295,130.9749 cm/s. The outer V - the inner V =
2.99792590020416x1010
cm/s which is the surplus velocity that goes into spin.
Though the inner and outer radii and circumferences are different, the calculator couldn't handle any
difference in velocities. But the calculations show that the surplus outer velocity was essentially that of
light speed for the spin of the kaytron -- equal to that of propagation speed or showing that kinetic and
potential energies are equal as outlined herein. We are not attempting to determine the rotation rate
from the surplus velocity of the outer point since we need to know this before determining the surplus.
We are verifying the rotation rate with the orbital data to show that orbital curvature is responsible for
the rotation rate or -- possibly in some cases -- it is vice versa.
The Gravity Probe B Experiment
William M. Fairbank with Schiff, Cannon, and Everitt started the investigation that we now call the
"Stanford Relativity Gyroscope experiment" and helped bring it to the point that put it into orbit as
NASA's Gravity Probe B. Its purpose is to test the theory of Relativity by detection of the drift of the
spin axes of 4 gyroscopes if it interacts with a curved space-time continuum.
If there should be success -- even in a small way -- scientists should be cautious about attributing it
to proof of Einstein's concept of curved space when there are alternative and more plausible
explanations such as that described herewith.
An addition to page 186 just before the heading "The Ultimate Universe" is as follows:
According to the Canwest News Service, Dr. David Crampton (an astronomer at the Federal
Government's Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics in Victoria, B.C., Canada) said that Canadian
Astronomers peered billions of years back in time to when they thought the Universe was only 3-to-6
billion years old and were amazed to find hundreds of billions of stars already clustered into huge
galaxies in what was supposed to be an "infant" Universe. This is one more proof that the "Big Bang"
never happened and that the Universe has always existed and is in a dynamic steady state as expressed
herein.
Addition to p131 after the first paragraph is as follows:
If we now use the textbook data for the speed of the Sun through space of 220 km/s [Cambridge
Encyclopedia of the Sun 2001, p34] and the diameter of the galaxy of 25,000 parsecs and a mass of
about 1011
times that of our Sun [Cambridge p33 and Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia 1995], we
can calculate the orbital radius of our Sun around the galactic center.
34
On page 131, the mass of the Sun is given which was calculated from that of the Earth since the ratio
of the v2r's equals the ratio of the masses. (v
2r was found herein to be the same for every planet [p130]
which gives the value for the Sun and all Earth satellites give it for the Earth.) Likewise, the Galactic
v2r can be determined from the Galactic mass divided by the Sun's mass [which is 10
11] which is the
same ratio as the Galactic v2r divided by the Sun's v2r.
Once we know the Galactic v2r cm3s
2, we obtain the Sun's orbital radius by dividing 220 km/s [in
cm/s] squared. The result is 2.757041322x1017
km. Divided by 3.0857x1013
, it equals 8,935 parsecs.
According to the above-mentioned Cambridge Encyclopedia [p33], the Sun's orbital radius around the
Galactic center is 8,500 parsecs. 8,935 parsecs should be more accurate providing the Galactic mass is
reasonable.
Of course, if the Sun's velocity or the distance between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy [by
which our galaxy's mass was determined] altered due to a different measurement of the speed -of-light
or a different medium density in some areas -- which might throw off the parallax method similar to a
star's position seen near the edge of the Sun -- all of the dimensions could greatly change.
Kaytrons (the term used herein for the 2.75oK particle mistakenly referred to as the background
radiation from the Big Bang) have been shown to be the 90% of our Galaxy that is termed "missing".
From the energy and density of his mass, it was shown [p13] that the average speed-of-light in our
Galaxy was 6 times that which was measure here on Earth.
An explanation was given. The relativistic factor [p83] was shown to be only a ratio between 2
observations -- one of which was in error because the observer was travelling with part of the motion
and thus was unaware of it. It thus does not apply to any limitation of the speed-of-light.
The medium in the Galaxy could contain currents and density changes in an area because more
matter in the area would drive the kaytrons and etherons away. Thus there would be less density near
the Galactic center than there would be near the its extremity.
In a disk like the Galaxy, the radius of a point where all of the mass could be assumed to be located
is R2= 1/2r
2 R = 0.707r = 0.707x12,500 = 8,837.5 parsecs. This is quite close to that calculated for the
orbital radius of our Sun. This figure would also be the location of the average density of the medium
within the Galaxy and thus the average light velocity. If this actually is 6 times that measured on Earth,
this would change our measurement of the Sun's velocity and thus a great change in the mass of the
Galaxy and in the Sun's orbital radius.
Effects of Motion -- the New Cosmic Principle
Another way of looking at the red shift is that when receiving radiation from the Universe, we are
receiving energy which are waves of motion. A receding star emanating waves of motion towards us
has the motion from us subtracted from this. And thus we receive less energy than we would if there
was no recession. The amounts of energy received are seen by us as colors. Red is of a lower frequency
or lower energy than other colors.
However, recession is not the only cause of lower energy. As radiation travels through the Universe,
it encounters other waves of motion. The farther it travels, the more it is retarded by them and the less
energy we receive. Thus, the color does represent distance away from us. But this distance is not
necessarily the same all the time nor the same in other directions, but is subject to the amount of other
waves encountered that is in opposition to it.
35
Now we look at the basic emission of energy waves. If we examine a cubic meter of space, we see a
certain amount of energy passing through per second. At different elevations on a planet or in different
areas of space, the amount of energy will be different. If we judge this volume by the fact that kaytrons
[3oK particles] have been found to be constant in all parts of the Universe and assume that these areas
would be of the same energy, if the velocity of the waves passing through was the same, then the
difference in energy in different areas would be due to different velocities.
The velocities would be greater from denser content such as a rock versus an area of air. The denser
material would exert a greater velocity to the pressure waves generated from the atomic nuclei because -
- being crowded -- they would be driven to the areas of lesser energy such as from inside the Earth
outwards. The greater velocity would create a greater motion of other matter towards it due to the
Magnus effect. Thus greater mass creates a greater gravitational effect.
We saw -- under the "New Cosmic Principle" heading -- that a particle moving in a curved path will
cause the particle to spin. Thus atoms carried around by the Earth's rotation will be caused to spin.
Spinning atoms, in turn, cause the nucleons to spin. Their spin axis will be parallel to the Earth's spin
axis, thus lining up all the particles along "lines of force". As mentioned, waves of energy are emitted
from the Earth's nucleons outward to the points of least resistance and they cause -- by the Magnus
effect -- the particle to move inward as described. Gravity, then, is an effect caused by a combination
of an applied cosmic principle and the Magnus effect.
Levitation
Levitation is rising (rather than falling) of objects -- the opposite of gravitation. It has been shown
that gravitation is due to the spin of nucleons. If they spin in the opposite direction with respect to the
Earth, levitation will occur.
When electrons reach a nucleon after going through the electron barrier in an atom, they can -- at the
right frequency -- reverse the spin axis of the nucleon. If over 50 percent of the nucleons in the object
are reversed, the object will levitate away from the Earth's surface. If it is less than 50 percent, the
object merely loses weight.
The following movie demonstrates the loss of weight of an object on a balance scale. A plastic case
containing brass screws rises when the switch is 'on' and falls when it is shut off. It will repeat as many
times as the switch is turned 'on' and 'off' and instantly reacts.
The second picture shows a block of wood doing the same thing. These are placed close to the
electron source while the opposite side of the scale is further away and any effect on it is minimized by
the inverse square law. This, of course, goes down when the target goes up. Note that the 3 pointers are
even when balanced. And when the target gets lighter, its pointer goes up while its opposite goes down.
This reverses when the switch is shut off and they come to balance again. (They can be seen on each
side of the center scale.)
This is all done without the solid-state power supply, special coil, and other equipment needed to lift
heavier weights. The only power used was for a small 2½-inch diameter electric motor. The electron
generator in this demonstration is not powerful enough to drive the electrons farther than just shallow
penetration. But it is enough to show that levitation can be accomplished on demand which is necessary
to be able to harness it.
Once equipment is used to drive the electrons further so that they penetrate deeply enough into the
atom, weight will have no limit since the force comes from the angular momentum of the nucleon itself
36
(just as gravitation causes objects to drive themselves down). And so the more weight, the more
nucleons there are and thus the more force to lift the extra weight -- a minute fraction of which is enough
to maintain the spin orientation of the nucleon.
The third picture shows the same 2X2 wood block on a different scale. It goes up and towards the
electron source. It stops about ½-inch or so after rising because it is as close to the source as it can get.
In the first picture, it stopped because that was the limit of the scale. In case someone thinks that the
electrons are driving the electrons in the wood to the opposite side leaving protons [positive] which try
to move towards the source, it should be remembered that it is electrons that move towards protons
[which are called holes]. Not vice versa.
Electrons should repel the electrons in the atoms of the wood but these are attached to protons in the
nucleus of the atom by standing waves. Thus the whole block of wood should be repelled by the
electrons from the source. Electrons do dislodge atoms from the surface of material.
The only way that electrons from the source can cause material to move towards the source is
through the Magnus effect (described under Gravitation), which must overcome the repulsion effect by
electrons. When sufficient force is applied to reach over 50% of the nucleons in an atom and thus over
50% of the atoms in the material, that is when the atoms in the material can continue to levitate the
whole material at once towards the electron source. If the source stays ahead of the motion by being
attached, the motion is continuous.
It is not the source attracting the target. It is the nucleon in the target that is pushing itself in the
direction of the source due to the Magnus effect of the independent electrons from the source. A
baseball pitcher is not applying force to curve a baseball. The ball is curving its own path by spinning
and forcing the air molecules to go to one side like that of an airplane wing lifting because the stream of
air forced over the wing causes a lower pressure than that underneath [Bernoulli equation].
Attraction of one particle to another is not a drawing of it towards it. If the other is not spinning,
firing smaller particles at it (as is the common theory) would not draw it. It would repel it.
If spinning, the Magnus effect takes place as described herein. These references to the attraction due
to the Magnus effect do not apply to those particles that attract due to the standing waves set up between
them because they have the same wavelength and frequency or the harmonics thereof.
In Scientific American, May 2007, it is stated that a German-Dutch team has provided direct proof
that powerful electric fields can supply energy to the electrons in an atom to weaken the bonds between
protons and the surrounding electrons enabling the electrons to escape from the field of the protons in
the atom.
This would explain how electrons fired at atoms in our levitation experiments [see Gravitation] can
break through the electron barrier to reach the nucleons. The beam of electrons would first allow
electrons in the barrier to escape and thus leave a gap for further electrons to get through to reach the
nucleons. At this point, the Magnus effect takes place at the nucleons as described. The team produced
the powerful field with a laser pulse. But we have accomplished this by an alternative method.
Effects of Motion - the New Cosmic Principle and Spin Curvature [p189]
To be placed at the end of summary [p88]:
37
The density of etherons determines energy. Particles (or etherons) at the speed of cosmic rays are
not spinning. All energy of cosmic rays is kinetic. Particles at rest mass are spinning at maximum. (i.e.,
all energy is in the spin.)
Mass is total energy [kinetic plus potential{spin}]. It is not matter. E=mc2 or mv
2. Kinetic energy
is 1/2 or 1/2 mv2. Potential energy (spin) is the other half. The total energy is the same for a particle at
rest or a particle at cosmic ray speed.
(Total energy) x (v2)
is the same also since a particle at rest still has constituents traveling at
nonspiral etheron speed only in a circular orbit [see section on inertia] rather than a linear path. In
between rest mass and etheron speed energy, the average velocity (speed of motion) is 50% of the
etheron speed. The other 50% is the speed of spin of the constituents.
This average is at the frequency at which our eyes react and we call it "light". Cosmic ray speed
(close to etheron speed in space) is thus twice that of what we measure as light. That is why it has such
penetrating power. The relativistic factor was proven in this book (boxcar experiment) to be invalid.
This allows velocity to be anything that the energy of the area allows.
To be placed on p 200 at the end of Part II
The idea has come back recently that the forces of the Universe are electrical. This book defines
electrical forces as a function of the flow of waves of energy.
As mentioned herein, an electrical current is not a flow of electrons down a wire but rather the force
of impact of one electron on another, each one in turn down the wire. Each one only moves the distance
between it and the next one. Like a row of billiard balls, each separated by a small distance, the time
taken is very small.
If they were all touching, the transfer of energy to the end ball would be instantaneous just as one
end of a stick will move at the same time as the other. Each atom contains a core that spins off center
relative to the motion of its constituents, and thus sends a compressional spiral wave of energy outward
to interact with the field of waves of others in the manner outlined herein in the section on the formation
of the Solar System and in the manner of how the Galaxy is formed.
Like electricity, all motions in the Universe are the result of the motion and the interaction of waves
and in this sense it is an electrical Universe. The Universe has thus been depicted in a manner that
seems to answer all questions. Details can be added, but the general picture seems to leave no doubt as
to its accuracy. However, full understanding must come after reading the whole book [perhaps more
than once] in order to combine the scattered explanations into one.
View Mel Winfield's Levitation Video Clips
NOTE - To view these clips, you need to have to have Windows Media Player installed. It's
recommended that you enlarge the movies to full screen size. You can download and install it
from this location: Download Windows Media Player
Levitation Video Clip 1
Levitation Video Clip 2
Levitation Video Clip 3
38
if on the Internet, Press <BACK> on your browser to return to
the previous page (or go to www.stealthskater.com)
else if accessing these files from the CD in a MS-Word session, simply <CLOSE> this
file's window-session; the previous window-session should still remain 'active'