Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
UEF Theory

comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2009 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit

UEF Footnotes

Older Reality Jets Gyros Planets Eclipses
Newer Equivalence 'Levitation' Thresholds Earthquakes "Visitors"
Definitions Inertia etc. FTL Jets Gasses Fertility Anomalies
"FORCES" Rotation Pendula Gas proof interrupt Time

Some Old Theories

Einstein and Schrödinger

(their wishes fulfilled?)



Einstein's phrase "God does not play dice with the world" came from his basic unhappiness with probability problems of 'quantum theory' -

We say: it's not really a "theory" - merely observations joined-up by ad hoc arithmetical speculation, with no coherent theme.

Here's Prof. Brian Josephson (Nobel - Physics), speaking on `quantum theory' - "It is incomprehensible even to the scientists.  We can only make calculations and predict the results of experiments.  We don't have a clear mental picture of what is going on" and Richard P Feynman, on behalf of modern quantum theoreticians - "So not only have we no experiments with which to check a quantum theory of gravitation, we also have no reasonable theory"

Einstein later wrote "May the spirit of Newton's method give us the power to restore unison between physical reality and the profoundest characteristics of Newton's teaching - strict causality"

Ironically, Schrödinger, creator of some of these problems, was also unhappy with lack of causality in quantum theory.

In an exchange with Niels Bohr, Schrödinger said "If we are still going to have to put up with these damn quantum jumps, I am sorry that I ever had anything to do with quantum theory"

Einstein, maybe inadvertently, has the last laugh

He said "Quantum mechanics is very impressive.  The theory produces a great deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret" proposing that a "hidden variable" is the secret.

We say that's UEF - flux / force: undetectable except by first order (inertial) phenomena, by gyroscopics, or by use of a form of UEF detector

Roger Penrose commented "Can such a hidden-variable theory be consistent with all the observational facts of quantum physics? The answer seems to be yes, but only if the theory is, in an essential way, non-local, in the sense that the hidden parameters must be able to affect parts of the system in arbitrarily distant regions instantaneously! That would not have pleased Einstein."
In "The Emperor's New Mind" OUP 1989 (Vintage edition ISBN 0-09-977170-5)

Penrose knows his mathematics, although, as Ian Stewart reminds us "mathematical models do not correspond to the whole of reality"

That "instantaneous, non-local effect" spoken of by Einstein and Penrose, is the key to UEF theory (also shown by: "forbidden" symmetry of quasi-crystals)

Present-day models, needing magic "forces", simply don't correspond to facts of the real Universe

[ If we come over as `aggressive' in these pages it's hopefully allowable, We're fighting establishments of incompetent `elitist' science who pompously and defensively hide behind circular arguments, unreal decreed axioms and plain superstitions - i.e. those magic forces ]


Some Old Theories (continued)

Newton's 'Laws'


We'll agree wholeheartedly with the improvements - really tidying up - achieved by Newton, in an age when most folk, including the elites, weren't thinking scientifically about anything.

As opposed to recurring oppressive link01 times, like now, when only elites link02 aren't thinking clearly or scientifically.

However, let's examine that 'Law of Gravity' in view of Ian Stewart's quote "We are rightly impressed by Newton's inverse-square law".

Why?

If Newton - or Hooke - had wished, or realized, they could simply have said "all radiating phenomena necessarily follow an 'inverse square law".

As you see, light, gravity & an exploding ice-cream factory have "inverse square law" of distribution or radiation.


inverse square radiation


So at twice the distance we need four times the area (or mass) to catch the same amount of light, or `gravitational attraction', or ice-cream.

You can see that plain old geometry means we'll only catch a quarter of the candlelight or a quarter of the ice-cream if we're twice as far away.  And that does also apply to `gravity'.
[with no physical losses]





Unlike superstitious "Newtonians" Newton himself did not believe that magical 'action at a distance' caused `gravity'.

Here's Newton, in a letter to Bentley, expressing his dissatisfaction with what was being styled his 'law':-

"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."

[ philosophical matters = scientific reasoning ]



Thinking more about the nature of light - a reverse pulse in incoming UEF - and the nature of gravity - a 'shadow' in outgoing UEF, we can begin to answer Newton's and Einstein's questions

UEF is (most probably) decreasing over time - in fact we say that decrease is 'time' - so there's a hidden time-bias or `slope' to all energy exchanges

This is allows us to contradict pronouncements on thermodynamics and mechanics which claim

"any classical mechanical system is time reversible"

Incidentally, UEF effects also wreck claim of some astronomers that "Cosmic redshift always indicates recession speed"

UPDATE 2005 - See Conference critical of `Standard Model' of Cosmology - (maybe go Edit - Find for "red shift").

As Arp foretold, there is a physical reason for some 'strangely high' red shifts paired with low or medium red shift objects - from radiation

"Laws" - of Newton, Einstein and Quantum theory - can sound pretty convincing but if we examine them they're simply not correct

At low speeds and for short periods of time they produce answers that merely approximate reality.  But our scientists do not have an alternative concept enabling them to define "Laws" that are accurate.

So, like the infamous 'Gas Laws' - derived from 'Kinetic theory' - unreal concepts are misleading students and scientists.





Newton's Laws -

First Law of Motion

"A body continues at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line until there is a (resultant) force acting on it."
Not in this Universe!

UEF 'pressure', more or less constant and omni-directional, will eventually bring to rest any body moving in a straight line without a force acting on it.  This is beginning to be seen when bodies move at high speed for long periods of time - as NASA's maybe noticed.

But the very high speed (f.t.l) of omni-directional UEF means that most ordinary bodies' movements - at low relative speeds - seem to obey that `First Law'.

( UEF 'pressure' also compels rotation of collapsing masses - from jets.)





Second Law of Motion

"The acceleration of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on it"

Again this seems to be true at low velocities.

UEF arrives from all directions at f.t.l speed so a body moving at velocities presently achievable will feel almost equal resistance from fore and aft

However at higher velocities acceleration becomes more difficult - and the rate of increase of difficulty will increase sharply at very high velocities.




Old Theories (continued)

"Principle of Relativity"



First formally stated (we are told) by Newton - who said "The motions of bodies included in a given space are the same amongst themselves, whether that space is at rest or moving uniformly forward in a straight line"

This Einstein brought up to date with his mathematical amendments to Maxwell's equations

So now the "Principle of Relativity" says - paraphrased from Feynman - "no on-board experiments can show whether a spaceship is moving in a uniform straight line at some velocity or if it is at rest - short of looking outside"

Wrong!



OK -

we know what you're thinking - it's easy to say "Wrong !"

How about proving it?


working gyro



Fine - this is a gyroscope - more detail in para below

The 'rotor' - the spinning bit, is that central silver puck shape.  It spins in line but also rotates

Browser should show it rotating anticlockwise.  That's 'precession' - which the conventional scientists can describe but can't explain.  Here's an outline and real explanation

Noticeable "precession" happens when a force is acting on the gyro.  Above, there is a weight hanging from the axis, that makes the gyro 'precess' anticlockwise

To disprove "Principle of Relativity" -

let's put at least three gyros - two might be made to work but three is better - on board our spaceship -

we suggested the gyro's use (to prove UEF theory) to NASA back in July '99 and it looks like they're going for it - quietly! See messages to / from NASA <Subject: Re: an eccentricity? Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:25:05 +0100> and much later their subsequent public announcement at gyros.txt
[have cut names to save NASA's blushes]

- then we think this gyro threesome will indicate not only velocity but the amount and direction of it [because a free gyro is very sensitive to UEF and a gyro also intercepts more UEF than a static equivalent mass]

Here they are :

three gyros


We'll go through the sequence below, but the trick is that the 'control gyro' shields - and therefore limits the effect of UEF on - the RH-side of No2 gyro and the LH-side of No3 gyro

Depending on whether ship's motion is forwards or backwards one of the gyros will have augmented readout while the other will decreased readout.  And the amount will depend on the velocity

Let's say the ship is VERTICAL - front's upwards

Gyro no. 1 is 'control gyro' - driven at a fixed rate and held in the plane shown

Gyro's 2 and 3 are 'reference gyro's' and have readouts to measure forces acting on them - just like gyro's in a plane or ship

If the ship is moving forwards then gyro 2 will show more force than gyro 3, if moving backwards then 3 will show more than 2 - or vice versa of course

And the force will be proportional to the ship's velocity (in deep space)

Note: as we say elsewhere, inertia is a first order effect of UEF and most readily demonstrates its presence.  However the defensive `scientists' - clinging onto `authority' - are reduced to circular argument, saying that any inertial effect exists "because it does"

The "Principle of Relativity" is untrue, and is being proved untrue, as you read this, by results from long-range inter-planetary spacecraft (and, to be, by Gravity Probe) - but NASA will not want to reveal those results!

Mainstream science remains trapped by superstitious concepts of magical "Forces".

These are supposed to be somehow 'intrinsic' to our universe, but science cannot explain - or understand - why.

So when scientists speculate on early events they have to assume the presence of these magic entities -

In Infobeat/Associated Press story of 10 February 2000 where mainstream scientists from several countries

Professor Luciano Maiani from CERN, others from the United States, Europe, Japan and India - i.e. Johanna Stachel, a physicist from Germany's Heidelberg.University, Dr. Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago seem to agree on a party line -

"The widely accepted Big Bang theory holds that at the beginning of time, all matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny ball held together by incredibly strong gravity.  The ball eventually burst apart, sending the matter that would eventually become stars and planets hurtling into space"

without pausing to wonder where this "incredibly strong gravity" could come from at the "beginning of time".

In reality there was no `gravity' in the early universe - only an explosive pressure of UEF expanding / pressing outward against either a void or something more substantial, a claustrum

If there was a `first instant' of our universe, there was no gravity - for a while.  Then a short pulse of [now unknowably strong] weird outward `gravity' traveled to the edge of the universe - and REBOUNDED

Subsequently a pulse of [now unknowably strong] weird inward `gravity' bounced back into the universe - almost immediately becoming ubiquitous - giving all-round UEF pressure and resulting in the more familiar effect we call `gravity'

That's when TIME actually began and MATTER got a chance to begin.
For time as we know it is not a dimension but a progressive change in the universal intensity of UEF - forming `space-time'.

Matter only began to exist when 'spent' UEF energy-points were forced together under all-round UEF pressure

Matter accretion then became one of the reasons for that progressive change in UEF intensity that we know as TIME.

But most scientists can't abandon quaint superstitions about 'Forces', Time, Matter etc.

Mainly because that would be seen as an admission that big science, and its high priests get it wrong - continually.

SMT for a somewhat light-hearted talk-thru




Radiation

A simple explanation is at radiation



Radiation = electromagnetic radiation (e.m.r.) - heat, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, soft X-rays, X-rays, gamma-rays etc.




"Forces"



There are supposed to be four "Forces" - which we now see to be only 'effects' - increasing in power from:-

`gravity' - a secondary 'effect' - a radiated shadow or gradient in the compressive (and expansive) force of UEF
)see Abolish)
(`gravity' is given by the spatial gradient of UEF intensity)

"Weak interaction" - or weak nuclear
(see below on this - it's about the difference between 'real' matter - hadrons, and UEF reaction patterns - leptons

"Strong interaction" - or strong nuclear
Now known to be one form of the compressive (and gravity-causing) effect of UEF intensity

Inside the maximum - nucleus-sized - matter density threshold, (see below) and so the most powerful effect.




UEF


Consider UEF as a radially compressing and expanding force, acting at foci everywhere in the Universe

UEF's interaction with matter gives us inertial, electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational phenomena.  On the macro scale it dictates rules of mass, motion and momentum.  On the micro scale UEF defines the density and dimensions of `particles' and `molecules' - any and all accumulations of matter

But theoretically, at the very edge of the Universe, when facing outwards - away from all matter - it's expected that UEF acts solely as 'expansion' - a one-way push

A potential problem there: if matter is propelled out to the edge faster than UEF expands the universe then the universe's matter is being evacuated into a void.  At the `edge' of the universe binding energy would exist only on the `inward' side of a particle of matter

Unless our universe is somehow enclosed by a denser or more repelling substance or entity?

Which we can't know or find out - att.






UEF theory has immediate implications for mass and energy in the universe

Matter increases and UEF depletes at a related rate.

Absolute energy available in the universe decreases.

The so-called "Forces" weaken

You can see by "E = m.c2" the time-asymmetry of UEF's effects in the universe.




Mass


Why `equivalence'

If a body happens to have 1 kg worth of inertial mass *note1 below we then say with geocentric chauvinism that the body must have 1 kg of gravitational mass*note2 below, (measured on Earth at sea-level)

( *note1 - in the near vicinity of Earth.  In outer space the inertial mass of a unit volume of any substance will be slightly higher because all round UEF intensity is slightly higher - remembering that inertial mass is given by iUEF

As iUEF is the prime cause of nuclear and molecular bonding, in outer space any object is slightly more dense than in Earth's shielding)

CHECK THE ABOVE WITH N.A.S.A. - we don't have the wherewithal - AN EASY CHECK IN OUTER SPACE IS TO GIVE 'WEIGHT' TO A UNIT VOLUME OF MASS BY CENTRIFUGING; IT WILL BE FOUND THAT THE MASS WILL 'WEIGH' SLIGHTLY MORE THAN THAT UNIT VOLUME SHOULD BY EARTH STANDARDS

[But don't forget that increase in density.  So a unit mass will 'shrink' slightly when taken from an Earth environment to an outer space environment]

BUT IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR NASA TO COUNT THE R.P.M VISUALLY AND TO TIME THE PROCESS FROM EARTH, SINCE ALL MECHANISMS, INCLUDING THE HUMAN BRAIN, WORK AT A DIFFERENT RATE IN SPACE, DUE TO THIS INCREASED DENSITY)

(*note2 - a resident of the Moon should say it weighs 1/6 kg, or has 1/6 kg of gravitational mass - remembering that gravitational mass is given by diUEF.




Actually that Moon resident would have grown up thinking that 1/6 kg was 1 kg or are we confusing ourselves?)

Why equivalence in reaction or:-

why differing masses fall at the same rate (Einstein's question)

"This experience, of the equal falling of all bodies in the gravitational field, is one of the most universal which the observation of nature has yielded ; but in spite of that the law has not found any place in the foundations of our edifice of the physical universe" by A. Einstein - translated from "Über den Einfluss der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes" Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.

Answer:- Although a 'heavier' body has more gravitational mass (given by diUEF) so that we could intuitively feel with Einstein that it should respond more readily to `gravity' - it also must have identically more inertial mass (given by iUEF) and is therefore precisely that much more reluctant to respond to `gravity'.

Or - a gradient or differential in UEF intensity [diUEF] gives gravitational mass and will impel an inertial mass to move, at the same time all-round UEF intensity [iUEF], which confers basic inertia, resists movement in direct proportion to that inertial mass value.




A body would possess no MASS in the absence of UEF - it would not exist as a body

Luckily UEF is everywhere in our universe so all bodies seem to have some mass.  But mass can be increased (or 'decreased') by change in motion relative to the UEF field - see below.




UEF demonstrated in Rotation, 'Levitation' and Jets



Review of physics of rotating bodies and frames at PhySci#rotate

UEF in Rotation - why?

We could describe events realistically but will begin in the language used by modern physics.  Let's start with a loose collection of matter - a cloud of dust or particles in deep space

Two conditions must apply to all matter in all locations in the universe:-

a) the inertial mass of the cloud must - to some maybe tiny degree - be asymmetric about its 'centre of gravity;

b) a 'gravitational field' - [a differential of UEF intensity] - must exist across the cloud, in all planes, but greater in one plane.  So our cloud must be in motion - no matter how slight - in the direction of greatest 'gravitational pull' - [least UEF intensity];





From these conditions we see that:-

the cloud begins to collapse by reason of mutual 'gravitational attraction' - [UEF shielding];

and if you remember the magic terms 'conservation of angular momentum' & 'Coriolis force' etc you will anticipate that an asymmetric collapsing mass must begin to rotate around an axis pointing to greatest 'gravitational pull'

[ Here's a diagram showing why greatest UEF interaction, and therefore greatest 'inertial effect' and 'gravitational effect' happens along the equatorial plane and is multiplied by rotation rate.



multiplying effect



As you see transmission or reception of information through the sphere, say for 1 sec., involves passage through 10 atoms - (in the plane of the equator, less elsewhere)

But if the sphere rotates at 1 rev / sec the information has to pass through 320 atoms.  At 10 revs / sec. the maximum impedance is 3200 atoms - in the plane of the equator ]

[ `Perceptions' note: Ratios are real, numbers might not be.  Some readers will remember the ratio of circumference to diameter is pi.
So the calculation = diameter × pi × rotation rate. ]





The matter initially forms a spindle shape until its central mass coheres sufficiently to acquire an 'equator', which then generates a plane of equatorial gravitational attraction - [plane of greatest UEF shielding - from footnotes2 pageand jets page and notes above and below]



lens formation



This enables the formation of a 'lens' - visible if there is enough material remaining after a central sphere is formed

Jets of 'radiation and plasma

1. Why a revolving mass (of sufficient density and speed) - say a vortex of electrons and ions in a thundercloud, a neutron star or even a galactic core - will produce axial jets of radiation or even plasma (or matter).

As you may have seen - from radiation.html - a fast moving (or a 'splitting') particle allows UEF pressure to equalize across it.  If that happens quickly enough a 'step' or pulse (of UEF pressure), which we call an x-ray or a gamma ray, is allowed to pass at right angles to the line of movement (or split)
.




2. Why a revolving mass affects its own (and nearby bodies' ) inertial and gravitational masses.



force within a rotating body



Any revolving mass experiences a continued inwards acceleration (or the mass would fly apart) in addition to the steady tangential force

We know that motion increases inertial mass (given by iUEF), as you would now expect, since the motion increases the body's interaction with all-round UEF intensity

The outer layer has most angular momentum, since it interacts with most iUEF (which gives inertial effects like momentum), but it is also thereby absorbing (or shielding ) some UEF intensity which otherwise would have reached the central region.



inertial mass changes in rotating body



The end result is that a central region 'loses' inertial mass, as iUEF has decreased there, although dUEF is unchanged

[ Eric Laithwaite was TWICE right in his assertion that a gyroscope 'loses' weight'

a) if by 'weight' we take him to mean inertial mass, that happens to the central region;

b) the inner region, becoming slightly less dense by virtue of shielding, also loses gravitational mass]

[An April 2000 note: a reference to Professor Laithwaite's projected experiment in Arthur C Clarke's "By Space Possessed" (ISBN 0-575-05596-0) reminds us that Tsiolkovski, Goddard and Oberth all claimed, in their younger days, that "spinning weights could produce a lift"

That claim, while nearly excusable in the light of our UEF evidence, is a misunderstanding of mass's interaction with UEF (i.e. with the space-time reference frame)

An ad-lib 'Law of Conservation of UEF Interaction' (below) forbids 'a lift' being generated simply by increasing UEF interaction

Ad-lib Law : "Of a spinning Mass" - increased interaction with UEF (increased association with the local reference-frame) increases 'gravity' in the equatorial plane;

exactly equal decreased interaction with UEF (decreased association with local 'frame') decreases 'gravity' along the line of the axis - this decrease takes the form of opposed 'jets' of repulsion

In short words - a spin reduces 'Weight' but does not necessarily push 'up' since, all other things being equal, the equatorial plane is more deeply embedded in the local frame.  See jets.html & nblckhls.html]





3. Why a fast rotating body - say, a neutron star or a galactic core - can generate jets (of radiation, plasma and even hard matter)

We have seen half of the answer in 1. above, but we now need to look at the diagram above, but from the front.



UEF shielding (gravity) within rotating body



We see the "top" is rotating towards us and can also see that the maximum amount of matter able to react with iUEF

(and thereby give inertial mass, and hence momentum and kinetic energy)

- is that region we can call the equatorial belt of the body

It can be seen from 2 above, that differential shielding takes place.



resulting nuclear effects in a rotating body



This has inertial and gravitational effects but we first only need to see that the nuclear bonding force will be weakened in proportion to the amount of shielding, allowing a lessening of density, at first in the core but eventually along the axial line

In concert with the increased mass of the equatorial belt, its increased kinetic energy and the simultaneous emission of intense jets of radiation along the axial line, we can expect the less dense material to be ejected (possibly at f.t.l speed - see note below).

It is expected that when the body is rotating at a critical rate the mass of the equatorial belt will form a 'perfect' UEF shield, at which point the axial 'tunnel' will break down under the (very high) UEF pressure

It is anticipated - from UEF theory - that the UEF "speed" is much faster than light, therefore the axial core of less dense material will be ejected, either in alternate pulsed polar jets or in simultaneous inner and outer bi-polar jets, at relativistic speeds, giving intensely high energy levels to the radiation and matter thus 'emitted' - from radiation

Note: The increased interaction - of the equatorial mass with iUEF - generates a radiated 'shadow' (in the UEF) outwards in the plane of the equator.  This is 'extra gravity' in that plane [ hence planetary 'rings', solar system ecliptics etc. and the anomalous 'extra gravity' experienced by some NASA interplanetary probes] - from footnotes2




Pendula and Gyros


pendulum clock


Mainstream physics calls the pendulum 'an example of harmonic motion' and notes that its period of swing is determined by the bob weight and suspension length

Among others, Ernst Mach decided that the tendency of a free pendulum to swing in a fixed plane, potentially regardless of the Earth's rotation (at the North or South poles), was due to its motion being ruled by "the fixed stars"

This view, called 'Mach's Principle,' Einstein attempted to bring into his theory of General Relativity.  We think he failed as the scientists fail who simply label various effects as "harmonic oscillation," "Coriolis force," "precession," etc. without being able to explain a cause.




Actually modern physicists remain confused on this issue, one wrote recently - in paraphrase - 'Must we say when I accelerate my car I feel a push in my back because my body 'knows' it is moving faster relative to the fixed stars?'

[We think he was querying Mach's Principle.  If so he was wrong see below.]






Conventional description

The 'precession' of the free pendulum can be described with the conventional labels of physics, using a pendulum hung above the North Pole -

A swing from point 1 would be intuitively expected to cross the Pole (the 'equilibrium point' of the pendulum) but, due to conservation of angular momentum is forced to pass to the right of it, toward point 2

[Remember the ice-dancer draws her limbs in towards the axis in order to spin faster]



precession of a 'polar' pendulum



Reason - as the bob moves inward to the Pole it has more angular momentum than the Earth it is passing over and so moves eastward (to right of Pole), ie. faster than the Earth turns -

then, on passing the Pole and moving South (outward) it begins to pass over Earth's surface which has increasing angular momentum so the pendulum continues to move to the right, now turning westward - slower than the Earth beneath it.




This action is repeated on the return swing and so on, resulting in a figure that in practice will have many more than three 'points,' i.e. it will take many swings to turn through 120 degrees as that one seemed to do

[Swing is "positive" and "negative" - if we check on the diagram, the first swing's return brings us to point 3.  Therefore the plane of swing has moved westward ]

But all that talk of "Conservation of Angular Momentum" did not give an explanation of "Why" - just a set of labels for "What" happens.






The reality is:- ( much more simply ) -

1) the physicist's body (in his car) was given a single sense of position - and the position of nearby masses - relative to UEF, by a 'push' to his inertial mass;

[ A body, say a physicist's in his accelerating car, receives a push from the direction of increased UEF interaction - the front, which temporarily gains a minor 'UP' attribute - enabling him to feel a push from the BACK - from his seat.  There is - effectively - one nearby mass, the Earth, so he stays on his seat, being given a predominant, major 'DOWN' by the existing UEF gradient (dUEF) caused by Earth's shadow or shielding effect. ]




2) the pendulum, when moving towards axis of rotation (Pole) has same momentum but experiences less UEF opposition / interaction; when moving outwards from Pole it meets more

Ie. It has sense of position, but is additionally given repeated senses of changes of its position - and changes of the positions of nearby masses - relative to UEF, by accumulated 'pushes' to its inertial mass

[ In the plane of motion the oscillating pendulum bob receives zero net increase in UEF interaction since 'positive' and 'negative' pushes balance out

It does receive cumulative lateral pushes towards least UEF intensity, normally to the westward, proportional to the amount of UEF gradient, these being maximum at the poles - and balanced, or zero net push at the equator

This results in precession

The 'period' of swing can be changed by any interception of UEF - which will effectively decrease the gravitational mass of the bob.  Placing a gyroscope nearby would be one method of intercepting UEF (see below).  Another method would be to organize a fully aligned solar eclipse at a time when we are passing through the Sun's equatorial plane in December or June. see jets.html & nblkhls




Does it get any more complicated? Only a little - in a Gyroscope



working gyro



The conventional scientists can only manage to say what happens.  They can't say why
They speak of "torque" without saying where it comes from, and of "Coriolis" acceleration as if a "description" were really an explanation

This is very noticeable in the case of precession - here is an outline and the real cause

[a gyro is only a "spinning-top" turned thru 90 degrees, or you could say it's also a 360 degree "super-pendulum" - as NASA had to agree in this hastily discontinued correspondence with `Perceptions']

Reality (continued), much more simply -

1) the gyroscope has sense of position, and change of position, but is additionally given continual senses of rate of change of its position - and the position of nearby masses - relative to UEF, by sustained pushing to its rotating inertial mass.

[ In the plane of rotation the rotor receives continuous pushing, accumulating with each half cycle, from the directions of increased UEF interaction, -

2) balanced (in a free gyroscope) tangential pushes around the circumference opposing its direction of rotation - increasing stability, in this plane, relative to iUEF.  An attempted tilting or turning of the rotor increases the effect of the tangential push on the upper or lower, or left or right half of the rotor, proportional to the rates of change of UEF gradient





3) balanced (in a free gyroscope) radial pushes out from the axis - which becomes more 'UP' while the circumference becomes more 'DOWN'

Laterally, or perpendicular to the plane of rotation, the rotor receives a continual vector push in the directions of least iUEF, proportional to the rates of change of UEF gradient

These give the rotor reactions - precession and torque - to any rate of change of UEF gradient.  On Earth this would normally take the form of a constant push on the equator side of the rotor and would be balanced if the rotor is situated at the Equator ]


Changes are expected in the behavior of pendulums (pendula?) and gyroscopes under conditions such as a fully aligned solar eclipse, or when we are passing through the Sun's equatorial plane in December or June. see precess jets& no black holes

Working here




Thresholds



Most of the confusion in physics has been due to seeing 'effects' as 'Forces

However, dramatic differences in UEF's compressing / expanding / attracting / repelling behavior when acting on various groupings of matter within various density thresholds has not helped our somewhat conformist scientists' comprehension

From discussion in radiation page we can see maximum compression at proton level.  Less compressed is the atomic unit, but still enough to maintain atomic identity (in most circumstances)

Yes, this probably does mean that when UEF intensity was greater there were more atomic identities - that is, more elements That gives us a clue to nature of "time"

Moving upwards we can see that UEF can act to mutually repel molecules.  I.e of gases.  Within thresholds the direct effect of UEF on a unit of matter will be either compressing/attracting or expanding/repelling (and combinations of either for secondary or tertiary effects).  Dramatic differences occurring at thresholds are the main reason for modern 'scientists' to superstitiously cling to a concept of separate 'magic Forces' acting within those thresholds


UEF's action on combinations of atomic complexity - (shape / size / density / internal movement [temp.] ) - creates the "pulls" and "pushes" which determine whether a gas, liquid or solid entity exists in given surroundings.  I.e. solids (see crystal) - show UEF acting increasingly compressively on more complicated atomic groupings, up to the 'unstable' or 'heavy' elements.

We see UEF acting decreasingly compressively overall on larger mass groupings.  We can also see its secondary effects switching from attraction to repulsion to attraction [and back again at thresholds]




Gas behavior



James Clerk Maxwell was a country boy and a practical physics genius.  In 1849, at the age of 18, he showed how all the colours can be obtained from primary red - green - blue.  Twelve years later he produced the first colour photograph, using the three colour process

In between he proved the consistency of Saturn's rings (ie. not solid or fluid) and had already begun work on his theories of 'fields'.

Here he began to use purely mathematical modelling to link electrical and magnetic `fields', eventually, with his four famous field equations (originally eight) showing not only how light could propogate but also that such waves ('light' is only a small visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum), were bound to travel at a certain speed - in a vacuum.

At the time he, like most scientists, believed the medium (the `ether') in which all such waves traveled through space was probably like an invisible static sea.

[This belief has led to misunderstandings ever since, most famously as to the meaning of the Michelson-Morley experiment.]

However, Maxwell and Katherine Mary Dewar (his wife) also worked on Gas Theory, again by experimental and statistical methods.  They were led - by the math - to speculate that gas molecules repelled each other, which described some gas behaviour more accurately.  But you still find descriptions of collisions - elastic or not - in text books.

[And n.a.s.a. says they still believe this - see their description of "collisions" at nasa.gov/Education/wcosray.html]

This was caused by the science establishment - then as now - demanding controllable attributes to explain gas pressure.  The Maxwells did not make the final realization: that within the 'gas thresholds' - of molecular density, size and complexity - UEF acts as a strongly repelling force, enabling not only the speedy dispersal of gas molecules but also the pressure within the walls of a container - all without a single 'collision'.





Note: The 'kinetic ideas' seem to date from c. 1827 and Robert Brown's observations of random movements of small particles in water: "Brownian motion"
He first believed the particles (pollen) were mobile & alive but then checked with particles of inanimate dye.  The hypothesis then developed that this movement is proof that they are being knocked about by 'kinetic movement' (and 'collisions') of molecules of the medium (water, in this case)

Is that true? Well - not really.

The reality is that as we descend through size thresholds we approach a scenario where UEF pressure is seen as non-uniform in its observed effects


[This micro-region is often wishfully called "the quantum level" - as if such a label solved unexplained problems!]

And UEF pressure affects masses (moves them around) according to their size, shape and density and the resulting instantaneous shielding each confers on the other (as it does, on the macro-level, to the Solar System's planets and the wider Universe).

First PROOF

Proof ? Easy:- do a check for 'Brownian motion' - but with very fine particles confined in free-fall, in a vacuum !

You'll find that motion is still present - but without any molecules to do any 'moving' or 'colliding' !

Just UEF !







Today's scientists are forced to go 'shopping' among a mess of assorted / different gas equations - "TRY THEM IN TURN / USE ONE THAT NEARLY FITS / TEMPORARILY" - Proof that 'Kinetic' theory does not describe or explain real-life gas behaviour

But UEF theory does.

The local intensity of UEF determines whether a given amount of matter - containing a given amount of energy or heat - exists as plasma or gas, or liquid or solid

Ie. where UEF intensity is least - at the centre of a large body - there matter can exist as a plasma, almost regardless of pressure and temperature.  See above

[Note - in loose terms rate of change of UEF intensity directly determines the amount of energy thus transmitted.  See radiation.html and above.]

The Basic Gas Law:-

Within specific thresholds of UEF intensity a material will exist as a gas.  Its molecules are mutually repelled with a force dependent on the shape and size of those molecules and on the precise local UEF intensity







Second PROOF

To check UEF's effect on gas molecules here is an experiment that - according to "Kinetic theory" - should not affect a gas in any way

Have a container of a gas surrounded by rotors of a dense material.  Measure the pressure and molecular consistency of the gas when the rotors are operating (a very high speed will be needed) and when they are not.


a conclusive (UEF effect) gas experiment


Confirm by putting various gases, vapours, liquids in the container.  Change the environmental parameters to each's critical point and monitor (without rotors operating)

Operate rotors and observe the change of critical point

All critical phenomena will change - including spectroscopic emission and absorption phenomena

[Note the UEF field can be diminished or distorted by use of a dense rotating mass, but even more efficiently by use of a rotating magnetic field

However the magnetic field presents problems of radiation, which are yet to be measured and allowed for - we don't have a laboratory.




Tectonics and 'Visitors'



First, a quote from UEF notes previously circulated [note:- CBGR = UEF]

If `gravity' were an unchanging Force, planetary surfaces should not be as they are today.  A continental crust, although possibly buckled by the planet cooling and shrinking beneath it, would still be a complete surface over a planet.  However `gravity' is caused by CBGR [UEF] which is possibly decreasing in intensity, and we find that planets and moons look as if they have split their continental crusts by expansion, pushing the split skin apart in large or small fragments.

Both Earth and Mars have split their crusts deeply and spread the fragments at differing rates, with the continents of Earth spread more widely.  (Earth is more dense than Mars and has expanded more with CBGR [UEF] decrease.)

Mars has spread its crust about halfway (like the moon) with the Syrtis Major and Valles Marineris regions in the "open" hemisphere, centered on 340 degrees longitude.  Opposite, at 160 degrees longitude, the Tharsis Region is solid crust and, compressed by the spreading, bulges outwards by about 9 km at its center.

Our Moon has split its crust, with the gaping areas - the marias - turned towards Earth.

The really large hole in the crust of Mercury - the mare called Caloris - was so named because it is turned toward the primary - the Sun - at its closest approach.

The one major feature of Proteus - the Southern Hemisphere Depression - permanently faces Neptune, the primary.

Iapetus is a "two-tone" moon with one dark and one light side, one is thought to be permanently facing Saturn.

Ariel, Europa, Ganymede and Miranda also show signs of splitting crusts, but to a lesser degree, in line with their lesser densities.

The planets and satellites all turn the "area of spread" towards the direction of least CBGR [UEF] compression, i.e. the average direction of their primary.

Earth, which has the highest relative density, seems to have expanded most; and the others have expanded in proportion to their relative densities.  All of this is to be expected if CBGR [UEF] has decreased in intensity during planetary lifetimes.

[UPDATE 2007 - Check this video - it seems to be saying same thing.]

Although we would postpone discussion of change of overall universal UEF intensity - from the the above we can see that varying UEF intensity is due to mutual 'shielding' -

[note at FERTILITY and also at foot of FULLMOON refers to the probable efficiency of this shielding]

- and that mutual shielding of, by and between solar system's masses, is likely the main driver of tectonic activity on Earth and other 'geologically' active planets and moons.






From `Fertility' page we can see that short-term variations in cellular activity (i.e. - "fertility") result from UEF shielding by solar system masses.

Therefore `fertility' on Earth is directly linked to seismic / volcanic stimuli, and indirectly linked to the Sunspot stimuli referred to below







EARTHQUAKES
Seismic / volcanic events are caused by two factors:-

TRIGGER:-
alignments of masses (normally within Solar System).  I.e. - full moon, new moon, eclipses.  Also by Moon - Earth alignment with a nearing / departing Mars, Venus), & wider planetary alignments.

POTENTIAL:-
accumulating pressure (indirectly from UEF shielding by all Solar System masses).  Possibly added to by nearby masses external to Solar System.



SOLAR EVENTS
Solar events - sunspots (cycles & peaks) and flares - are caused by:-

ALIGNMENT of masses with the Sun.  See below.



FORECASTING
We - anyone - can reasonably predict seismic trigger events
using the appropriate software tools.

Only Gov'ts have resources for accurately checking accumulated tectonic pressures.







2000 CE: Shielding effects to be expected, with associated fertility effects:-

[ Further info. on the forecast in fertility.html Although birthrate will be UP around 17 May and 1 June 2000 (due to August '99 eclipse and then Venus alignment), conception rates will be DOWN for the same period - see below ]

March - Venus can exert amplified shielding (and is at its brightest) by virtue of its position at an angle to Earth - Sun link.

May / June 2000 sees most planets more or less aligned on far side of Sun.  In addition 2nd June the new Moon is aligned with the Sun and therefore the Earth (especially the 'nightside') will be more than usually unshielded.







Interrupt
Late News 5 May 2000 : Jacqueline Mitton, speaking for the Royal Astronomical Society, of Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1V 0NL, has stated flatly (on BBC Radio) that there will be "no physical effects of the May 2000 planetary line-up"
Wrong on two counts : -
1) although not immediately verifiable, the line-up means that Earth is more unshielded than at any other time = lower fertility, decreased cellular activity, including mental suppression.  See fertility.html.
2) shortly to be verifiable, the line-up - by UEF theory - means that the Sun will be affected by most UEF shielding on its far side.  A fine crop of sunspots are shortly expected to rotate around to face us.

[ Due to present minimal shielding of this side of Sun, there are almost NO sunspots visible now - 7 May 2000 ]

[ PASTED REPORT
NASA Science News for May 9, 2000 "The Sun appeared nearly featureless this weekend as the sunspot area dropped 10 times below its average value. ]
Just wait - by the FIRST WEEK of JUNE 2000, the Sun will have livened up a lot - entry date 10 May 2000
---
PROOF
Mar 2001 Sorry for delay - Forgot to put PROOFS in.
Here's combo of the subsequent TWO REPORTS (from N.A.S.A. & N.E.C.)






In early/mid June we pass through the Sun's equatorial plane and thereby Earth's 'dayside' will experience more UEF shielding (or 'gravity') from the Sun. above & jets.html

[That 'increased gravity' in the plane of the solar equator is responsible for the average orbital plane of the Solar System, including detritus, many meteorites and even comets.  When we pass through it around June & around December we are statistically more likely to see - and sometimes meet - more 'visitors' from the sky]






Clearly there is a possibility of tectonic reactions to large or unusual imbalances of UEF shielding (this may be much stronger than mere 'gravitational attraction' - also see `Perceptions' note at foot).

To predict planetary alignments, Earth/ Moon /Sun alignments, forecast earthquakes and sunspot activity - checkalign page





Fertility & Eclipses

UEF shielding increase (directly increasing fertility) is caused by closer approach to and alignment with large masses.

For example, a New and a Full Moon gives SMALL increase, Partial Eclipse gives LARGER increase, Total Eclipse gives LARGEST increase - all depending on proximity.  Tectonic effects normally occur from the time of alignment and can persist for several days or more.

A close, fully aligned Eclipse has a tight "shadow-track" which can act as a concentrated force on Earth's crust - much as a 'glass cutter' weakens a sheet of glass.

[Example: August '99 Eclipse's "shadow-track" and its subsequent trail of tectonic activities for several months (with tragic results in several countries:- Greece, Turkey, Central Eurasia, Japan, Taiwan, Pacific Rim) - these effects probably lengthened and augmented by the Venus alignment almost immediately following the eclipse.]
See fertility.html.




Re: "Visitors"

Ancient Sumerians, followed by the Babylonians, had advanced astronomy.  They have been reported as using "omen astrology" - because this is the modern archeologists' easiest way of dismissing the anomalous Mesopotamian science.  The truth could be different.

The Babylonian `Enuma Anu Enlil' (wiki ref), is an encyclopedia recording information gathered maybe from much more than 6,000 years ago and is said to be "concerning the beginning of the heavens and the Zodiac" - the constellations in the plane of the solar system.  From `The Cosmic WInter'

Those Mesopotamians had knowledge of an earlier 'visitor' from space.  The comet or very large meteorite devastated a large area of Earth's surface, causing a sharp degradation in the climate for up to two hundred years.  See "The Little Ice Age" by J. Grove and also Lamb's "Climate: Present, Past and Future".

Interestingly, the astronomers paid great attention to the Moon (Sin) and Venus (Ishtar), regarding them as generally of bad omen.  Recent work on `solar system alignments' might mean they were quite right!

The priests of Marduk, in addition to using mathematical predictive astronomy, also collated reports of birth-rates of sheep and noted anomalous births & deformities.  This is now dismissed as superstitious omen divinination (wiki ref).

From notes above and at `fertility page', it can now be seen that fertility and mutation increases when the Earth is being influenced by, or is drawing closer to, a sizable mass.  From evidence of ancient China and elsewhere it seems some civilizations knew of this phenomenon.

Marduk's priests, lacking fruit-flies by which they could have measured fertility and mutation rates on a really 'fast' scale, may have been doing all they could to check if their land were threatened by another catastrophe.

[ Links : disasters & visitors ]

Later note - from Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, Uriel's Machine Century 1999 ISBN 0-7126-8007-1

paraphrase - "If a comet is diverted by Jupiter into Earth crossing orbit they could get 18 months to 5 years warning" - ie. half the orbital period of Jupiter family comets.

From "The Cosmic Winter" by Victor Clube & Bill Napier - ISBN 0-631-16953-9 - for an overview of comet / meteorite incidence and probable repercussions.

NB - Clube and Napier calculated a collision impact of several megatons is expected (somewhere on Earth, most probably ocean) once every 200 years, and at least one of 100 to 500 megatons in the last 5,000 years.

Also - Clube & Napier cite that US geologist Shoemaker used Moon impact craters to estimate that in last 5,000 years there were - on Earth:- 17 impacts up to 12 megatons; 7 impacts up to 30 megatons; 1 impact up to 800 megatons;

Note 1: average strategic nuclear missile warhead has 0.5 (one half) of a megaton.

Note 2: here's Barringer Crater in the Arizona desert, 1.2 km across, aged 40,000 yrs.  The impactor was mainly of iron and gave impact of 5 to 15 megatons.  There's a small town (of sorts) down there in the center of crater, and another community up there on the right-hand edge.
There are other craters being found which are larger, some are also more recent.





Late note: 4 Jan 2000 - Available shots of Europa - see nasa.gov/galileo/news8.html - show all the signs of "ice-tectonics" with newly aligned upwellings overlaying older systems (each system having its own alignment).

And ast09sep99_1.htm#thera gives the impression that "Thera" and "Thrace" are "maria" type openings in the old ice structure of the moon.  This should mean that they are - recently - facing the average direction of Europa's primary: Jupiter.  This would agree with signs of "tectonic" activity on all other moons and planets, in line with UEF theory as discussed above.




Re: Anomalies:-

gravitational, geomagnetic, and 'chronic'


If our Earth were pristine, as it might have been originally 'created', then it would have only one perfectly spherical metallic core - and there would be no gravitational or geomagnetic anomalies on record.

But it seems that at least one very large meteorite or even comet - and maybe many smaller ones - has impacted our Earth.  And its core seems to be still causing significant distortion to the magnetic and gravitational field of Earth.

There are two very large gravitational and geomagnetic anomalies which appear to be the products of an intruder's North and South poles.

The depth of the intruder can be calculated by drawing an imaginary line through the two anomalies.  [Yes - one of them happens to be the "Bermuda triangle" one]

Interestingly, although we are not encouraging wild speculations along sensationalist lines, a look at time.html seems to hint that an "extra" pair of poles might give us an extra 'time' slope.  In addition to - and maybe conflicting with - the 'normal' time-slope existing between our own North and South poles.

But we are not saying that such a 'time' wrinkle would be large enough to force a ship or plane - or any artifact - 'forward' or 'back' in time.

See "civilization wreckers" at westward page




Time's Arrow



Is UEF intensity increasing or decreasing?

If we find that UEF intensity is increasing or decreasing with time as UEF theory indicates - it is amusing and confusing to think that all material objects are becoming slightly more dense or more ethereal each day.

Present `radioactivity' : a clue
We said at 'thresholds' that UEF intensity / pressure controls directly the number of atomic identities permitted in the Universe.  It seems to us that present `natural' radioactivity - breakdown of most complex / dense atomic units - is a sign that UEF intensity is decreasing.





And that this change in one of the parameters of space gives us our perception of Time and its direction.  [see time.html ]



[ Google ]


Perceptions MAIL

can we

take off the blindfolds?


WEB-MASTERS
Visit W3Schools
NEW PAGE TIPS
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor



happy?

struggling editor ?

`Perceptions'

HOME


broken link? - please tell
mail Perceptions

Copyright © 2009 Ray Dickenson

this page
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/footnotes3.html



PRIVACY POLICY

Map IP Address



Share This

FACEBOOK TWITTER GOOGLE+ TUMBLR PINTEREST REDDIT EMAIL