This is a paper that was first published in PESWiki but it certainly deserves to be widely known. It is based on a deep re-thinking of current physics and models the aether as a substrate for all things physical.
While the new model is fully developed in a book: Secrets of the Aether that was published in 2004, authored by David W. Thomson III and Jim D. Bourassa, the paper gives a good description of the basic features and lots of detail about how the new model compares with contemporary physics.
Sterling Allan of PESWiki says about it:
"The Aether Physics Model quantifies quantum structure within an Aether/angular momentum paradigm (as opposed to the mass/energy paradigm of Einstein). It is destined to merge with Quantum Mechanics and provides the means for tapping Zero Point Energy."
Abstract
"Modern physics describes the mechanics of the Universe. We have discovered a new foundation for physics, which explains the components of the Universe with precision and depth. We quantify the existence of Aether, subatomic particles, and the force laws. Some aspects of the theory derive from the Standard Model, but much is unique.
A key discovery from this new foundation is a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. Other fundamental discoveries follow, including the origin of the fine structure constant and subatomic particle g-factors, a slight correction of neutron magnetic moment, a geometrical structure for charge, the quantification of electromagnetic charge as separate from electrostatic charge, a more precise meaning of spin, the quantification of space-resonance in five dimensions, and a new system of quantum units.
The Aether quantifies as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields with electromagnetic, electrostatic, and gravitational dipole structures. Subatomic particles quantify as angular momentum encapsulated in a quantum, rotating magnetic field. All quantum, atomic, and molecular processes can be precisely modeled, leading to discrete physics with new understandings and insights."
Money follows, like everything else here on this physical plane, the principles of yin and yang. There is "hard" (yang) money and there is "soft" (yin) money. At this time, the world is dominated by yang money. My purpose with this article is to convince you that we need to find a better balance in matters of exchange and economics.
Do we need money at all?
There are two systems that have historically been used and that are - to varying degrees - still in use today, that allow us to exchange the fruits of our toil and those we appropriate from nature, without the use of money.
There is the gift, which does not require an immediate return. Actually, it's nuanced. Some gifts are freely given without any expectation of return, but if we are talking about a "gift economy", usually the expectation would be that everyone, in some way or another, plays ball. That means, you can't just be a freeloader. Even in a gift economy, there is some expectation for all participants to pull their weight, meaning to participate in the giving. People who only receive and never give will find themselves marginalized, and rightly so. Flows do need to be balanced. If you only inflow (receive) and never get to the outflow part (the giving), things tend to get stuck. The inflow will stop sooner or later. The point is that, even in a gift economy, the principle of exchange cannot be violated with impunity.
Then there is barter. In a barter economy, we also need no money. The exchange is direct. The needs of one are matched with the offerings of another. It is rather cumbersome at times to find a match, and it isn't always successful, but barter has been with us throughout history. It has served us well where money was not available or its use was not practical. Today, there are various initiatives to revive the barter economy. Computers allow us to provide better tools to match offerings and needs. Some of those tools merely let you choose from a larger number of diverse offerings. Others extend the barter concept from a one-on-one exchange to a circle of linked exchanges. A gives to B, who gives to C, who gives to D, who in turn gives to A. Circle closed. Barter has one big problem though. It generally has no time dimension. It is not easy, in a barter economy, to receive something today and to give maybe next week, or to provide your fruit to someone today when you actually don't need anything of theirs right away. That is where money comes in...
Florian Ion Petrescu, an engineering PhD and senior lecturer at the Bucharest Polytechnic University in Rumania, has written about a variety of subjects including physics, mechanical engineering, and the development of flight. His books are available through LuLu publishers at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/petrescuflorian
One of those books, TURN ON THE LIGHTS! describes how the process of particle annihilation, the destructive interference between a particle and its anti-particle, could be used to obtain comparatively cheap and perfectly renewable energy.
Although using the energy of sub-atomic particles, the process would neither necessitate nor create radioactive particles. It would also be much cheaper and simpler to realize than atomic fusion and present-day atomic fission reactors.
Here is a summary, slightly edited, from a communication printed in the January/February 2012 issue of Infinite Energy Magazine.
The video linked here shows experimental proof of the existence of a magnetic vortex. The direction of rotation changes when magnetic polarity is reversed.
Usually, we see magnetic field lines shown as bending straight back from one end of the magnet to the other. Correctly, what should be shown is magnetic lines of force in a vortex configuration, with flow spiraling into the magnet (or out of it) in a right-hand or left-hand turning motion, depending on the magnetic polarity.
It appears to me that the separation of magnetic poles, and the tension that is created by this stable distancing of two opposing poles, creates rotation which, incidentally, is the seed of all matter.
The work was done by Pedro Alexandre Lino Silva, a Portuguese free energy researcher. His site is http://linoavac.no.sapo.pt/
Indian engineer Paramahamsa Tewari, who is not unknown to readers of this site, is experimenting with what he calls a Reaction Less Generator. Measurements taken by Tewari show that the generator is edging towards useful over unity production of electricity.
Ever since the discovery of electromagnetic induction by Faraday and the invention of electrical generators based on these principles, any efficiency higher than unity obtained from these machines has been ruled out due to the Law of Energy Conservation (LCE) and the Lenz's Law. But, through a new Reaction Less Generator (RLG), under development for some time, efficiency much higher than 100% has been achieved.
Tests are now being performed on a small Motor-RLG set which has a DC Motor coupled to an AC RLG. The test results show the graphs of input power to the drive motor and the output from the RLG.
The lowest graph (violet) shows the actual input to the RLG from the coupled motor with 0.8 efficiency. The next higher graph (green ) shows the input to RLG without taking motor efficiency into account. The highest graph (blue) shows the output from the RLG. Even at the moderate speed of 1750 r/m, at which the set is run, the ratio: Output from RLG / Input to RLG is 160% (from the lowest and the highest graphs). With extrapolation it can be shown that at 3000 r/m, the efficiency of the M-RLG set will reach 275 %.
Notes on the graph:
1. Power to electromagnets is not taken into account, as these can be replaced by permanent magnets.
2. Entire power produced in the armature circuits has been taken into account. When higher voltages are induced in each circuit, suitable load resistors can be placed in series with the shunt
3. Drive-Motor efficiency is 80%.
While the test results are encouraging, we aren't quite there yet. The research is still preliminary and useful over unity production of electricity, although seemingly within grasp, may still be off some time into the future. I hope to be able to report more news soon.
For now, development is in progress. Speed is being raised, says Tewari, and detailed tests are continuing.
RLG experimental set-up
The explanation to this new RLG phenomenon, says Tewari, comes from the principles of Space Vortex Theory. That theory goes deeper into creation and stability of the electron, the flow of electrons from atom to atom, as they form a current in a conductor, and the creation of the field structure of electrons. All these arise from the absolute vacuum or space (mass less, nonmaterial fluid).
The positive terminal of a DC generator has a shortage of electrons, while the negative terminal has more electrons. This is because the electrons in the atoms of the armature conductors in rotation are interacting with the magnetic fields that strip them of their orbital electrons and pushes [displaces] them to form the negative terminal. When the positive terminal of the generator is connected to the external stationary output circuit, the electrons of the neutral atoms of the circuit, now in contact with the positive terminal, are pulled by the positive generator terminal and this is a continuing process. The negative terminal supplies the electrons that are pulled from atom to atom -- the process starting from the positive generator terminal. Though the atoms of the circuit conductor do work in pulling the electrons from the negative terminal and up to the positive terminal, their structural energy remains intact without any loss. This is because the electrons as well as the atoms are vortices of a mass less, continuous, non viscous, vacuum. The vortices continue to retain their structure despite their continuing interactions.
In a RLG, by a specific configuration of the armature conductor and the magnetic field, a torque that supports the motor torque is created. This way the armature reaction is nullified and Lenz's law is bypassed. There is no creation of energy from any source. There is no applicability of the Law of Conservation of Energy.
We have erred, though unknowingly, in our design of electrical generators and have remained in error for more than two centuries.
May 26 2011 - This is an appeal for cooperation from G. Edward Griffin (see his Reality Zone Site) which I would like to make available here ... perhaps one or the other of my readers is interested in the chemtrail phenomenon and would like to contribute to ending any uncertainty that still surrounds this "painted skies" mess.
Image: Chemtrails over Rome - December 29, 2010
INVESTIGATORS WANTED
Can Chemtrails be proved?
It seems that the die-hard skeptics refuse to believe what they see with their own eyes. No matter how many laboratory tests we collect, they always seem to come up with a theory that, no matter how far fetched it is, would explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium as merely due to some climate condition or error in preparing the chemical sample or some unintended human interaction.
SKI SLOPE THEORY
When we released our documentary, What in the World Are They Spraying, we included snow samples taken from Mt. Shasta in Northern California, which contained toxic levels of these metals. Since snow is merely frozen rain water, it was clear that this came from the sky and not from the soil or water run-off from some toxic waste dump. Nevertheless, an Internet debunker challenged our conclusion by claiming that people ski on Mt. Shasta, and skis are made of aluminum. Therefore, the tested aluminum probably came from the skis! Nothing to worry about after all.
Of course, this was all made-up nonsense. People do ski on Mt. Shasta, but it is a big mountain, and there has never been any skiing in the area where the samples were taken. Even if there had been, that would not explain the high levels of barium and strontium. These metals are not used in the construction of skis. Our debunker never bothered to check on any of that. He was merely looking for some plausible explanation in order to plant doubts into the minds of casual readers. If people are confused by seemingly plausible explanations that even remotely could explain away the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium in snow and rain water, they will back away from coming to a conclusion and align themselves with the prevailing view.
DUST-BOWL THEORY
Another debunker contacted me a few days ago and claimed that a plausible explanation for the chemicals in snow on Mt. Shasta is that the samples were taken in a year with early snow melt which, according to him, means there was a lot of bare earth exposed at the time, and the wind must have blown dust from the earth onto the snow. Furthermore, he claims that the soil on Mt. Shasta contains the same metals as found in the samples; so, you see? Here is another perfectly plausible explanation. Once again, nothing to worry about.
We are planning to respond to this gentleman as soon as we can find the time to carefully examine his claims about the early snow melt, the amount of bare earth exposed, the composition of the surface soil, and especially the rainfall and moisture levels of the soil during this period. I expect to find that, even if there had been an early snow melt, the soil on Mt. Shasta would have been far too moist and covered with moss, ferns, or other ground cover to make the "dust-bowl" theory even remotely plausible. But it will take a little time to pull the facts together.
Meanwhile, we must not just play defensive and spend our lives answering the debunkers. We must take the initiative and obtain new data and information that will be impossible to dispute. The on-going collection of new snow and rain samples is part of that strategy. After we have literally hundreds of such chemical tests, I think our critics will run out of plausible-denial theories.
PLANE FINDER
One of the most promising technologies to generate hard evidence of chemtrails is the Internet tracking of planes in flight. There are several computer programs and devices that track commercial flights in real time and show, not only their location, but also their flight number, type of aircraft, origin, destination, speed, and altitude. The cost for this App on an iPhone is about $4, and on a computer, it is free. This is amazing technology, and the programs actually are fun to use. They work by receiving what is called ADS-B plane feeds, which are radio signals transmitted by commercial and private aircraft. Military aircraft and those on classified missions do not transmit this signal.
I'm sure you already see where this is going. It is theoretically possible to identify every commercial plane you see overhead either by pointing your iPhone camera at it or locating it on the screen of your computer. If the debunkers are correct, we will find that planes spewing a trail from horizon-to-horizon will all be identified as merely commercial craft and what we see are merely normal contrails after all. On the other hand, if we find that commercial craft do not leave streaks from horizon to horizon but the ones that do are missing from the system ... well, even the most die-hard skeptic would have to take a serious look at that.
As we realize that nuclear energy is fraught with dangers difficult to reliably predict and almost impossible to control, that carbon based energy progressively pollutes our world and that it is difficult to scale existing alternatives to levels of production needed to satisfy our appetites for energy, we tend to overlook some fundamental physics that might help us realize the dream of clean, abundant energy.
Engineer Tom Bearden says - a bit like Viktor Schauberger did more than half a century ago on the subject of physical motion - that we are missing some important basics.
Tom Bearden with John Bedini
Bearden says Tesla already showed the way and he explains what we should be looking for, in a recent missive he sent to the US Department of Energy. Question is - will they listen?
I hope Bearden's message may help us shake loose from a substantially immobile position that is keeping research from looking in the right direction. As an example of real, ongoing research that does look in the right direction, of course without any official funding, here is what's going on in the Philippines. Inventor Ismael Aviso is looking beyond established EM theory as he runs an AC motor on DC - a feat we difficulty explaining. Aviso Runs AC Motor on DC and Aether
But let's see what Bearden has to say.
The Real Cause of the Energy Crisis and How to Quickly Solve it
by Thomas E. Bearden
The rigorous technical cause of the energy crisis was and is the DELIBERATE SYMMETRIZATION of the Heaviside vector equations in 1892 -- by Lorentz as elicited by the infamous J. P. Morgan -- and the continued use of these modified Heaviside vector equations which are a horribly mutilated and mangled tiny version of Maxwell's actual theory -- and indeed even of Heaviside's original vector subset of Maxwell's theory.
Let me put it this way: For a total of 200 million dollars and three years time, the world energy crisis can be solved forever. The necessary team of physicists and scientists to do this is already forming here in Huntsville, Alabama and is seeking the funding to do it. I'm fervently praying that they succeed in attaining the necessary funding and then get on with this task which has so desperately needed doing since 1892.
In 1891 Nikola Tesla -- who gave us AC electric power, the rotating magnetic field that makes modern motors and generators possible, and radio -- had already discovered how to take all the EM energy one wishes directly from the seething "active medium" -- i.e., in modern physics terms, from the active vacuum. He was already briefing technical societies that this could be done at will.
For rigorous proof that Tesla had actually done it with real systems he had already built, Dr. T. W. Barrett did a rigorous quaternion EM analysis on some of Tesla's actual patented circuits that Tesla had in 1891. Dr. Barrett rigorously and mathematically proved that Tesla had indeed done what he said -- take and use real excess EM energy directly from the "active medium" (in today's terminology, from the active modern virtual state vacuum). See T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits as one wishes, and also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal. He shows that Tesla's patented circuits did exactly this. So Tesla's special circuits could dissipate power where he wished in his circuit, powering different parts of the circuit independently. [The paper is carried at internet link http://www.cheniere.org/references/TeslaOSC.pdf. ]
Please note that Dr. Barrett is one of the co-founders of modern ultra wideband radar, and he is a higher group symmetry electrodynamicist of world renown.
Quoting Nikola Tesla:
"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel... We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians... Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." [Nikola Tesla, in a speech in New York to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1891. Quoted from back cover of his biography, Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man Out of Time, Simon and Schuster, 2001].
"Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels." [Nikola Tesla].
"We have to evolve means for obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any material whatever. I now feel sure that the realization of that idea is not far off. ...the possibilities of the development I refer to, namely, that of the operation of engines on any point of the earth by the energy of the medium..." [Nikola Tesla, during an address in 1897 commemorating his installation of AC generators at Niagara Falls, thus giving us the kind of electric power that could be transmitted for long distances down transmission lines.].
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material." [Nikola Tesla, 1900].
Catastrophic nuclear accidents are just about impossible, we need not worry about them. That is what the nuclear experts and the lobby for nuclear power production are telling us. Yet, an earthquake and a tsunami in Japan, and the subsequent loss of control over nuclear reactors at the Fukushima power plant teach us a different lesson. What is happening there reminds us that "impossible" is not something we can really put any stock in.
An explosion destroys reactor number 1 at Fukushima nuclear power plant
The nuclear catastrophe following a destructive earthquake and tsunami at Japan's eastern coast is still unfolding. No one knows yet what the ultimate consequences will be for the people of Japan and the world. What we do know is that nuclear power production is based on a highly unstable reaction that must be actively controlled if the fuel is not to overheat and blow up in our face.
People are getting uneasy about the 'nuclear option', promoted as the needed replacement for carbon, oil and gas based energy, as global warming takes its toll. Leaving aside for the moment the discussion on climate change and anthropogenic global warming, which is far from resolved, I do agree that we need to change our energy policy. Not because of CO2 but because we pollute the environment, making it inhospitable to humans and other life, by continuing on our current course. Coal, oil and nuclear are not options for the future.
Yet in discussions about the necessity of changing over to a different mode of energy production, we are told that renewables could never replace conventional energy, and that the only choice is between coal/oil and nuclear power plants.
That is a rather bald-faced lie. The fact is that by concentrating the sun's rays, great quantities of high grade thermal energy can be obtained, sufficient to run the industrial machines needed to uphold present levels of civilization. We can produce steel and aluminium with the electricity a concentrated solar thermal plant supplies. The steam turbines and generators that are today being run by coal and gas or by nuclear can just as well be driven by ... the sun's rays.
Mirrors concentrate the sun's rays and direct them on a heat exchanger located on a central tower
Long troughs of parabolic mirrors with a heat exchanger at their focal point are another way of harvesting the sun's heat
Mirrors can also take the form of a "satellite dish" and concentrate the sun's rays on a generator driven by a stirling motor
"Fifty Island" or "Isla Cincuenta" is a tale of economics by Francisco Ortega Martinez - a small island economy, based on human values and a continuous re-distribution of money. The story, in two parts, tells us about the economic life of the island community and their hypothetical experiment in finding a new way of living together. It is made in the form of a powerpoint presentation, (Chapter I and Chapter II) which can be downloaded either in English or in Spanish from this page:
Axiology, of course, is the philosophical study of value - a study of human values based on aesthetics and ethics. ( Axiology )
The story is an explanation, in simple terms, of a real experiment Francisco Ortega has developed, and for which he wrote a program (in php) that can be installed on a server and made accessible to any group of participants wishing to do the experiment. The program, and some information about it, can also be found on the "Fifty Island" page as linked above.
Both the story and the program are based on a paper by Kenneth E. Boulding titled "The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth".
Boulding states that our human economy is part of, and must exist in the context of, the ecology of its surroundings. The ability of those surroundings, the ecosystem in which we live, to provide inputs of material and energy, and to absorb outputs of pollution, is limited by the fact that planet earth is a sphere with finite capacities of regeneration. It is as if - borrowing Buckminster Fuller's concept - we lived on a spaceship and while traveling on our common journey had to make do with the resources that are available on the ship.
According to Boulding, humanity is due to take an evolutionary step away from the "cowboy economy", the free-for-all of production and consumption, towards what he calls the "spaceman" economy, where production and consumption give way to continuous reproduction.
The paper by Boulding, discussing an ecological approach to economics, is an very interesting read, and I found it here on the site of dieoff.org:
I have brought a copy of that paper here to this blog, to have it available for easy reference and also to correct some of the typos that crept in when the paper was scanned...
Italian engineer Andrea Rossi and Professor Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna announced in January 2011 that they have mastered an energy catalyzing technology that produces heat from a reaction between hydrogen, nickel and some other - so far secret - ingredients. Their press conference on 14 January 2011 was preceded by an invitation-only demonstration of the reactor attended by press and scientists.
They are careful not to describe their reactor as a "Cold Fusion" generator - probably because the term has become so controversial it is almost impossible to have a serious discussion about its practical application. Sterling Allan has been reporting on this development in PESWiki:
Rossi has been into alternative energy for many years. It was in the 1970s and 1980s that Rossi was busy building garbage disposal facilities that burned household garbage and utilized the recovered heat. During that period, he found out how to not only recover heat from burning garbage but also to turn garbage into fuel. His company, Petroldragon, had a valid garbage-to-fuel technology that could turn household waste into combustible oil, coal and gas. Production had started and reached some 20 tons of fuel oil a day in 1989, when corrupt bureaucrats started to attack.
The first step was to tax his process just as if he was producing alcohol, making the resulting fuel ridiculously expensive. When he opposed the unjust tax, the next step was a challenge that proved more difficult: the bureaucrats asserted that the garbage stocked and ready to be transformed in his production facilities wasn't raw material for his process but was an illegal and fraudulent attempt to hide and "treat toxic garbage" for which he had no license.
Andrea Rossi in front of an early (1970s) prototype of his garbage-to-fuel reactor
Rossi was imprisoned on trumped up eco-charges for trying to produce an ecologically sustainable fuel that did not come from petroleum deposits, and after one of his companies was forced into bankruptcy, he was again imprisoned for not paying his creditors ... great government support for alternative energy technologies, one might say. That whole sad story is well documented on Rossi's website:
But let's get back to "cold fusion" and its first real commercial implementation.
As we have seen, Rossi is a serious industrialist and not one to give up easily. His announcement of a new energy technology, based on a catalytic process involving hydrogen, nickel and a few other elements has made waves in the blogosphere, but strangely, the mainstream media have stayed away from the story. It is almost as if they were afraid to repeat the disaster of the Fleischmann and Pons revelations about their "cold fusion" discovery, where glowing press reports had brought every skeptic on the face of the earth out of lethargy, "proving" that such low energy nuclear processes were just not possible - as if forbidden by the laws of physics we know.
No matter that the Pons and Fleischmann process has since been replicated hundreds of times with several variations, and been described in what must be thousands of published articles (see collection of papers on lenr-canr.org), that numerous experimenters and theoreticians have been working on lifting low temperature fusion's secrets and explaining the transformation of certain elements observed during the experiments, no matter that we now have an actually workable and controllable implementation of the principle ... there is a great silence of the media that are supposed to inform us.
