Ralph Sansbury's Model

[junglelord]

Wilbert Smith Lecture, this is for you Webolife.

For one thing they told us that the velocity of light was not a constant. As a matter of fact they seemed to be rather pointed in their statements that light doesn’t travel, it is. And we told them that from our point of view it appeared to travel with a certain definite velocity of 186,000 miles per second. They said that’s the way it looks to you because you are looking at it from a region having certain conditions, certain influences, but they said if you were to go away from this region you would find that a different set of circumstances prevailed. Another thing they told us cast a great deal of doubt on our ideas of time. They told us that time wasn’t at all what we thought it was, namely what might be marked off with the ticking of a clock, that time was, in fact, a field function, the result of there being a universe. That is, something which was derived from the basic primordial concepts which brought this universe into being, and that it differed as you went from one part of the universe to the other. Also it could be altered, sometimes by natural means, sometimes by intelligently-controlled means in various parts of the universe. So that in any given interval, which incidentally is what our clocks mark off, our intervals, not chunks of time, in these intervals we can have all sorts of lengths of time. In other words if one of you checks your clock with me and finds that they are synchronised and I climb into a flying saucer and take a little trip out well clear of this earth and I watch my clock and, say, come back in three hours time, and we again compare clocks, maybe your clock says I’ve been gone an hour, my clock says I’ve been gone three hours. Both clocks are strictly correct. You’ve experienced an hour in the time that hand went around once; in that same interval I experienced three hours—and they were three real hours, not an illusion. The theory of relativity talks about this dilation. But this leads to a paradox and I think that anyone who is at all mathematically inclined and has taken the trouble to look at the relativistic time paradox is probably disturbed by it. According to the theory of relativity, if I climb into a spacecraft and start out from the earth, here, at a velocity very nearly the velocity of light and I go out to, say, Alpha Proxima, and then I turn around and come back, people on the earth say I’ve been gone something like 10 years. According to my clock I’ve only been gone a year. Now that is a result, apparently, of the time dilation in the theory of relativity in that the spacecraft was moving, relative to the earth at a velocity very nearly equal to the velocity of light. The paradox arises when you consider that relative to the spacecraft, the earth was traveling away at exactly the same velocity, so therefore, to the people on the spacecraft who are relatively stationary, 10 years should have passed and by the time the earth came back to them it should only have been away a year. So you can see right away the very premise on which the theory of relativity is predicated, namely, that if B is relative to A, then A must be relative to B, leads you to an impossible paradox. This paradox is resolved completely if you recognize the variable nature of time. As you move around from one part of the universe to the other, you encounter all sorts of values of time in certain given intervals. Now I find that this idea of the concept of the variable nature of time to be almost incomprehensible to most people because, as they say, a Swede is only a Norwegian with his brains beaten out, I think that that is what has happened to most of us. We were born with more intelligence than we have after we graduate from university because we’ve had it beaten out of us in the process. The very first thing that we learn when we are a very small child is that the feeding must be regulated by the clock. We don’t know about the clock, but regardless of how we feel on the subject we still get the bottle at a certain particular time, and this carries on right through our conscious life. Every time we do something we check with the clock. We become slaves to the clock to the extent that we believe that the intervals cut out by the clock are time itself. So we find it very difficult to readjust. Now I don’t propose to say anything more about this particular aspect, but I would like to say something on the subject of the craft themselves.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/2546/smith.html

[Solar]

Reminds me in a way of R.J. Boscovich, but I'll have to get back on that.

From the back,

""...nor, I assert, can [the law of gravitation ] be deduced from astronomy, that is followed with perfect accuracy even at the distances of the planets and the comets, but one merely that is at so very nearly correct, that the differences from the law of inverse squares is very slight." But , he argues , for phenomena on the atomic scale, Newton's "classical" law breaks down altogether, and the forces of attraction are replaced by an oscillation between attractive and repulsive forces.

Theory of Natural Philosophy

That's a pretty interesting correlation in light of the proposed/supposed/theorized "neutrino oscillations" (change of "flavors") and:

But what is the æther? In the vacuum of space, each cubic centimetre is teeming with neutrinos. And since neutrinos are resonant orbiting systems of charge, like all matter, they will respond to the electric force by distorting to form a weak electric dipole aligned with the electric field. The speed of light in a vacuum is therefore a measure of the delay in response of the neutrino to the electric force. - Plasmacosmology.net Holoscience.com [Incorrect attribution of source corrected: FORUM MODERATOR 05-06-08 1050hrs]

And Sansbury:

"As the electron speed is increased, so is the speed of, m*, increased to v*+(some value) and a wider elliptical orbit is produced and so the internal kinetic and then the internal potential energy of the electron is increased (to a smaller negative value as the average distance between the core and the orbital particle is increased).
The resulting charge polarization in the electron is manifest as an increase in the response of the electron to an applied magnetic field. As the speed of the electron is increased to values above ninety percent of the speed of light there is a noticeable decreasing rate of increase in the response of the electron to the applied magnetic field. From this point on, the increase of internal energy of the electron is interpreted as a conversion of the outer energy of the electron (its mass times its velocity squared) into mass. That is the increase in the force producing the velocity does not continue to produce the same increase in velocity or magnetic responsiveness of the electron. When the electron is at rest there is no elliptization of the orbiting part but there still is the energy of the orbital system which could be regarded as the binding energy of the electron.
The subsequent small increases in the internal energy of the electron, as the electron moves at a greater velocity, are ignored or attributed to magnetic energy radiated away and absorbed in the aether and surroundings. As the electron approaches the speed of light and the electron mass increases to values noticeably different from m0, to m0/(1-v2/c2)1/2 , then this energy is recognized as it is transformed into mass." - Ralph Sansbury

And:

"...I think the word 'neutrino' was invented to avoid referring to the 'aether'. - Harold Aspden

[webolife]

Interesting comments all. JL, who are Wilbur Smith's "they", classicists? relativists? The remainder of the Smith quote regarding time reminds me of a little experiment I got from "my "(Robert Archer) Smith: Take an eggtimer, tie a string around the full end, swing it around your head for a minute or more until the chamber has emptied. The egg is not done, and the twin paradox is undone! At nowhere near "relativistic speeds" time dilation "works" in reverse, as the 3-minute time period is cut in half! Not a fair trial, you protest? Einstein himself included hourglasses in his list of clocks that should obey the theory of relativity. Time dilation is simply not real. All other explanations presuppose the movement of light then circularly conclude [insert your alleged evidence here ] as proof. Einstein's "Problem of Simultaneity" enters here, as well as considerations of what must happen as huge amounts of energy are converted to moving a clock rapidly through/across an electrical vector field at whatever scale, and I don't think anyone has enough assumption-free evidence to conclude that light moves, let alone that relativistic time dilation effects are occurring.

[junglelord]

"They" are ET.
Wilbert Smith got his theory from Contactees...Who got it from ET.
But, that, is "They", and thats who "They" are, He also calls them "the boys upstairs"

[Solar]

We discuss later in the section on radiation and induction, using Maxwell’s equations and the hypothesis of charge polarization inside atomic nuclei and inside electrons, the way in which a longitudinal sine oscillation of charge inside atomic nuclei of a receiver produces a transverse oscillation of charge within the nuclei that in turn produces a greater longitudinal oscillation of charge in the opposite direction. And subsequent oscillating forces from the source are weaker and too weak to change what is happening in these nuclei and start to act on other nuclei producing a subsequent oscillation of charge there. And that this process once started from some outside influence may continue for a time without additional outside influence. Also, as the amplitude of charge oscillation in a receiver increases in this way, successive, weak, sine oscillations at the same frequency and phase like those initially produced by the same oscillating outside force, are given a boost by the previous buildup of charge oscillation. This is the familiar resonance effect. - Gravity Magnetism and Light by Ralph Sansbury

Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't this the same 'resonant bouncing' that Tesla was doing with the magnifying transmitter?

[StevenO]

Sansbury's was a thousand dollar experiment using 10 nanosecond long pulses of laser light, one pulse every 400 nsec. At some distance from the laser was a photodiode detector. But in the light path, directly in front of the detector was a high speed electronic shutter (known as a Pockel cell) which could be switched to allow the laser light through to the detector, or stop it.

Now, light is considered to travel as a wavefront or photon at the speed of light. Viewed this way, it covers a distance of about 1 foot per nanosecond. So the laser could be regarded as sending out 10ft long bursts of light every 400ft, at the speed of light. The experiment simply kept the Pockel cell shutter closed during the 400ft of no light and opened to allow the 10ft burst through to the detector.

What happened?

The detector saw nothing!!!

Hi EU fellows,

I have a few points of criticism on Ralph Sansbury's experimental setup as shown in his document.

1. The light propagation speed through Pockels cells is only about one sixth of light speed. A 9.5" Pockels cell will thus add about 5ns propogation delay to the light path.

2. Fast switching of Pockels cells requires very high currents. E.g. for a 3ns switching time one will have to supply about 40A. No specification is given in his document on this. So, this switching will also add a few ns to the propagation delay.
Since the scope signals are taken at the inputs of the "mod" boxes they do not show the actual switching signal on the Pockels cells. If the delay through each Pockels cell is in the order of 7.5ns total, the light output of the second cell to the photodiode has 15ns delay wrt. to the pulse and we would indeed get no light at step 2 as he describes.

From the document there is clearly to little information to make any conclusions about light speed. Also I am missing reference measurements, for instance the delay at the output of Pockels cell 1, the input of Pockels cell 2, etc.

Does anybody have any better documentation on this experiment or maybe somebody who has repeated the experiment?

Steven

[Solar]

Solar, your "volume of the affected space or area", and "point volume" concepts are almost a precise paraphrasing of my field concept, based in the geometry of hexagons, based further on trisogons (equilateral triangles), interacting concentrically with orthogonal geometry of squares.
Negative/positive point volumes and "volumetrically polarized regions" picture the unidirectional vectoral dimension...
The "lattice" is the exigent result of interacting/competing points of polity, or centroids of adjacent field systems... the crystalline aspect arisng from the overlapping of "ideally spherical" punctual fields yields structures at every scale reminiscent of the double octahedral structure of the local universe, the hexagonal structures so prevalent in mineralogy, the LaGrangian and octavian aspects of the solar system, as well as the hexagonal geometry inherent in the periodicity of the elements.
Interactivity of punctual fields (EM...) results in the movement of matter and charge across the system, but does not depend on movement of EM across the field, with or without an intervening aether, but on the centropic force field.

Webolife, you might be interested to read:

"Magic numbers derived from a Variable Phase nuclear model - by Ing. Xavier Borg (1.2Mb PDF)"

SteveO, I don't think Sansbury's experiment has been replicated unfortunately. I remember asking about this some time ago in general because the implications would seem to warrant it. It's just kind of sitting there, as is, unless anyone would care to correct me on that.

[lizzie]

Gravity & Magnetism - A Common Cause? - Mountain Man's Usenet Archive
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_f.html

Electromagnetism
http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/local/physical/mi_5.html

The rules of special relativity demonstrate that the magnetic force is in fact just the electrostatic force under a relativistic transformation.

[Lloyd]

- I just started reading this thread, so I'm returning to an earlier post in which Webolife said I have been trying for months to determine if an aether fits into "my" unified field theory, with no conclusive finding either way. Instantaneous light, gravitation, electrostatic field transmutation (eg a voltage drop), simply do not require an aether as a propagating medium.
- I don't know if you found the need for a propagating aether medium yet, but, as I just mentioned at another aether thread I think, Steve Rado was able to calculate the distance between adjacent aether particles using the sound frequency formula [Is it frequency x wavelength = distance?], which can be used to calculate the distance between adjacent atoms in a gas, liquid, or solid, and substituting the frequency of the highest known frequency gamma rays in place of the sound frequency. If he's right, then there can't be EM radiation without an aether, just as there can't be sound without a gas, liquid, or solid.

[junglelord]

basic point to be learned by Lloyds post, you cannot have a function without a structure.


The archetype structure is the vortex. It is the geometry of the non material dimensons of charge.

Notice in this press release that the initial form to be structurally exhibited is the vortex.

Physicists Create Universe Smaller Than a Marble
At Lancaster University, they’re unraveling the secrets of how to build a universe. In fact, they have already formed one, or something very much like it. This scientific breakthrough lies in the bottom of a chamber no larger than your pinky finger, filled with helium and cooled to 0.0003 degrees Fahrenheit above absolute zero.

By placing helium in a state which most closely resembles the form it held at the beginning of the universe, scientists have created an opportunity for the gas to go through several low-energy evolutions. These defects in space-time, are represented by tiny whirlpools in the helium, which are created by the rapid expansion, and equally rapid slowing of the expansion; something that it’s believed our own universe did at the big bang and in the moments thereafter.

How, then, did our universe go from whirlpools that could fit in a thimble to galaxies larger than our imaginations can properly comprehend?

http://www.theweirdpost.com/wordpress/2 ... -a-marble/

I will tell you how, because that is the implicit geometry of the charge dimension.That is non material geometry becoming evident in material. One must ask what is real....

Is the material that we see more real then the dimensions that make it? I think the first level of reality is the dimensional level. This level of reality in the non material is the template from which all functions derive based on its geometric structure. To manipulate the non material functions with material constructs one must use the same geometric shape.

Hint. Tesla made a longidutinal transmitter called the Impulse Magnifying Transmitter...Meyl made a soild state one. Both have a spiral coil. You cannot transmitt or receive longitudinal current without a spiral longitudinal form.

You will never see a longitudinal transmitter that does not have a spiral coil....This is because the geometry of the non material dimension of charge is the vortex, that is the scalar longitudinal structure....To manipulate the functions of these forms, we need to recreate their structure in the material...that is what electronics is all about.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=545


Structure and Function cannot be seperated. You never have a function without a structure, both in the material and the non material reality. The non material structure in material form will control the same function.

[trevbus]

I have been reading Ralph Sansbury's subtron theory

http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/book03.htm

I have a question, if anyone can help me with it.

I have attached a diagram showing the arrangement of dipoles around the radius of two current-conducting wires, with the the currents going in the same direction (I am not sure if the current should be going in to or out of the page)

It is based on the following

This produces charge polarization along the radius of the circular wire and perpendicular to the plane of the circular wire. The direction of charge polarization is opposite on diametrically opposite points on the wire. But the interaction of one such circular wire with a parallel coaxial wire is one of attraction if the currents in each are in the same direction due to the stronger attraction between pairs of parallel segments closest to each other. Similarly for the case of circular wires with antiparallel currents that repel each other.

First, given this arrangement, I can see why the two wires would be attracted to each other. It is a rather neat explanation of magnetism.

However, what causes the dipoles to arrange themselves so the wires are attracted? What causes them to arrange in a ring around the radius? If they were incoherent, then we could expect them to orient so as to create an attractive effect; so if the currents run in opposite directions, what causes the dipoles to be flipped around in one of the wires, causing repulsion?

[trevbus]

I have attached a diagram showing the arrangement of dipoles around the radius of two current-conducting wires, with the the currents going in the same direction (I am not sure if the current should be going in to or out of the page)

To be clear, the diagram is of the cross-sections of two parallel wires, carrying currents in the same direction.

[trevbus]

Here are a number of possible transverse dipole orientations in cross-sections of current-carrying wires.

You can see that charge imbalances would arise unless the dipoles were arranged in a counter-clockwise or clockwise manner.

One question is why the orientation would not be incoherent - random. This would avoid large-scale charge imbalances, but would cause local imbalances, suggesting it would resolve into a more stable orientation.

The remaining question is why the orientation would be clockwise or counter-clockwise. This would seem to depend on the direction of motion of the electrons, meaning the Right Hand Rule is a consequence of the direction that subtrons orbit each other.

[trevbus]

But a magnetic field must be exhibited by a sole moving charged electron. Hence it is not a collective effect.

One such arrangement would involve the dipole rotating off-center: Imagine a record on a turntable. Draw a straight line across part of the edge, say between 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock. Mark 12 o'clock positive and 1 o'clock negative.

Now as the record turns, the dipole is closest to you when the +ve charge is to your right and the -ve charge is to your left. When it is furthest away (ie weaker), the opposite is the case.

If the record turns fast, the next effect is a dipole which, no matter where you stand, always has +ve to your right and -ve to your left.

This would be an elegant explanation of magnetism.

Though it does require a rather sophisticated orbital dynamic to achieve an off-centre dipole. Perhaps it could be achieved with multiple eliptical orbits. But why would this complex arrangement arise naturally? And why only when the particle is in motion?

[bdw000]

Sansbury's was a thousand dollar experiment using 10 nanosecond long pulses of laser light, one pulse every 400 nsec. At some distance from the laser was a photodiode detector. But in the light path, directly in front of the detector was a high speed electronic shutter (known as a Pockel cell) which could be switched to allow the laser light through to the detector, or stop it.

Now, light is considered to travel as a wavefront or photon at the speed of light. Viewed this way, it covers a distance of about 1 foot per nanosecond. So the laser could be regarded as sending out 10ft long bursts of light every 400ft, at the speed of light. The experiment simply kept the Pockel cell shutter closed during the 400ft of no light and opened to allow the 10ft burst through to the detector.

What happened?

The detector saw nothing!!!

Hi EU fellows,

I have a few points of criticism on Ralph Sansbury's experimental setup as shown in his document.

1. The light propagation speed through Pockels cells is only about one sixth of light speed. A 9.5" Pockels cell will thus add about 5ns propogation delay to the light path.

2. Fast switching of Pockels cells requires very high currents. E.g. for a 3ns switching time one will have to supply about 40A. No specification is given in his document on this. So, this switching will also add a few ns to the propagation delay.
Since the scope signals are taken at the inputs of the "mod" boxes they do not show the actual switching signal on the Pockels cells. If the delay through each Pockels cell is in the order of 7.5ns total, the light output of the second cell to the photodiode has 15ns delay wrt. to the pulse and we would indeed get no light at step 2 as he describes.

From the document there is clearly to little information to make any conclusions about light speed. Also I am missing reference measurements, for instance the delay at the output of Pockels cell 1, the input of Pockels cell 2, etc.

Does anybody have any better documentation on this experiment or maybe somebody who has repeated the experiment?

Steven

I remember reading similar sorts of complainst years ago. I'm not really qualified to sort it all out. After reading SevenO's post, I'm feeling like this particualr experiment might not hold up very well.

No one else has ever tried to repeat this experiment? Has anyone here ever heard of someone else doing the same experiment? Of course, if they followed Sansbury's specs, StevenO's complaints could still apply.