That’s a surprising and ironic observation, if you consider that it comes from the very same person who has two Mathis threads currently running.Chromium6 wrote:
It must give you some truly weird "pleasure" to focus so much on MM.
Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
-
David
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
-
Sparky
- Posts: 3517
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/ ... le-photon/
But, they have a method that they all, well most all, understand. Here is a story of misunderstanding within the standard model.
David, don't you find the snide remarks directed at you tiresome?
These people make the same mistake that MM does, relative frame of observer.A photon's angular momentum can generally only take on two values: +1, and -1. These values tell us about the behavior (or polarization) of the electric field of the photon. Imagine that you're standing in the path of a stream of single photons and that you can see the electric field of each photon as it passes by. For some photons, the electric field rotates like the hand on a clock: these photons have an angular momentum of +1, termed "right circular polarization." For others, the direction of rotation is reversed—"left circular polarized," or an angular momentum of -1.
But, they have a method that they all, well most all, understand. Here is a story of misunderstanding within the standard model.
David, don't you find the snide remarks directed at you tiresome?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
-
LongtimeAirman
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/ ... le-photon/Sparky wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/ ... le-photon/These people make the same mistake that MM does, relative frame of observer.A photon's angular momentum can generally only take on two values: +1, and -1. These values tell us about the behavior (or polarization) of the electric field of the photon. Imagine that you're standing in the path of a stream of single photons and that you can see the electric field of each photon as it passes by. For some photons, the electric field rotates like the hand on a clock: these photons have an angular momentum of +1, termed "right circular polarization." For others, the direction of rotation is reversed—"left circular polarized," or an angular momentum of -1.
But, they have a method that they all, well most all, understand. Here is a story of misunderstanding within the standard model.
David, don't you find the snide remarks directed at you tiresome?
Researchers: Forget old experiments, let’s reinvent the wheel
A proposed experiment unintentionally tests conservation of energy.
Sparky,Spinning photons and rotating electric fields
Spinning photons! QM is definitely looking up. A big difference with MM though, spinning photons result in a pre-magnetic field, not a rotating electric field.
If I wanted to learn about QM I would go to your thread. Why do you bring QM here?
REMCB
-
Chromium6
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
I second that LTAM.
---------------
A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics
and a dismissal of the Quark
by Miles Mathis
If we apply the spins to photons or electrons, we can explain the mysteries of quantization and superposition very easily and quickly and transparently. But if we apply them to hadrons, we can begin to explain the composition of nuclei, without any need of quarks. This is because the number of the degrees of freedom we achieve with such an analysis matches the degrees we achieve with quark theory [see just below], and the symmetry also matches current quark theory. Stacked spins replace the current quark quantum numbers, as well as explaining mechanically many things that have so far gone unexplained. Chirality and symmetry are given a physical basis, among many other things.
So these are the fundamental changes we have so far:
1) The mediating photons of charge are not virtual or “messenger.” There is no attraction. All charge is repulsive. Charge is mediated by B-photons, by straight bombardment. Not all particles must have charge, since not all particles must emit B-photons. Among particles with charge, this charge is a function of surface area. Therefore if we give the proton a charge of 1, the electron no longer has a charge of -1. It has a charge of about 1/1836 or .000545. The B-photon is also not mass-less and is not point-like. It has a calculable mass and radius, both of which are about G (6.67 x 10-11) times the mass and radius of the proton. That is, the B-photon is eight million times smaller than the electron.
2) Gravity is a measurable force at the quantum level. It has been hidden in the mis-defined and mis-applied charge field. The total E/M or charge field we now measure at the quantum level is not a single field, but a unified field. Once we un-unify it, or separate it, we find the gravitational field as a major player once more. As at the macro-level, we find that gravity is strictly a function of radius. Mathematically, it may be treated as a straight expansion of the sphere of any given particle. Along with the new positive charge field, this explains relative attractions, orbital distances, and unification.
3) We have four possible spins on every quantum. A quantum may have all these spins, or only some of them. A quantum that loses an outer spin will seem to change from one quantum to another.
4) No strong force. No weak force. No gluons. No bosons.
Here is a list of possible spin states of a baryon.
+a+x+y+z
-a+x+y+z
+a-x+y+z
-a-x+y+z
+a+x-y+z
+a-x-y+z
-a+x-y+z
-a-x-y+z
+a+x+y-z
-a+x+y-z
+a-x+y-z
-a-x+y-z
+a+x-y-z
+a-x-y-z
-a+x-y-z
-a-x-y-z
Notice that we have 16 independent states. That this doubles the so-called “eightfold way”** of chromodynamics is no accident. In the matrix equations of Gell-Mann, also known as SU(3), we have 17 non-zero entries in the matrices (the last matrix had three entries). This is also not a coincidence.
http://milesmathis.com/quark.html
<-- Every rebuttal MM link will now have a "Happy Face". Like why not?
---------------
A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics
and a dismissal of the Quark
by Miles Mathis
If we apply the spins to photons or electrons, we can explain the mysteries of quantization and superposition very easily and quickly and transparently. But if we apply them to hadrons, we can begin to explain the composition of nuclei, without any need of quarks. This is because the number of the degrees of freedom we achieve with such an analysis matches the degrees we achieve with quark theory [see just below], and the symmetry also matches current quark theory. Stacked spins replace the current quark quantum numbers, as well as explaining mechanically many things that have so far gone unexplained. Chirality and symmetry are given a physical basis, among many other things.
So these are the fundamental changes we have so far:
1) The mediating photons of charge are not virtual or “messenger.” There is no attraction. All charge is repulsive. Charge is mediated by B-photons, by straight bombardment. Not all particles must have charge, since not all particles must emit B-photons. Among particles with charge, this charge is a function of surface area. Therefore if we give the proton a charge of 1, the electron no longer has a charge of -1. It has a charge of about 1/1836 or .000545. The B-photon is also not mass-less and is not point-like. It has a calculable mass and radius, both of which are about G (6.67 x 10-11) times the mass and radius of the proton. That is, the B-photon is eight million times smaller than the electron.
2) Gravity is a measurable force at the quantum level. It has been hidden in the mis-defined and mis-applied charge field. The total E/M or charge field we now measure at the quantum level is not a single field, but a unified field. Once we un-unify it, or separate it, we find the gravitational field as a major player once more. As at the macro-level, we find that gravity is strictly a function of radius. Mathematically, it may be treated as a straight expansion of the sphere of any given particle. Along with the new positive charge field, this explains relative attractions, orbital distances, and unification.
3) We have four possible spins on every quantum. A quantum may have all these spins, or only some of them. A quantum that loses an outer spin will seem to change from one quantum to another.
4) No strong force. No weak force. No gluons. No bosons.
Here is a list of possible spin states of a baryon.
+a+x+y+z
-a+x+y+z
+a-x+y+z
-a-x+y+z
+a+x-y+z
+a-x-y+z
-a+x-y+z
-a-x-y+z
+a+x+y-z
-a+x+y-z
+a-x+y-z
-a-x+y-z
+a+x-y-z
+a-x-y-z
-a+x-y-z
-a-x-y-z
Notice that we have 16 independent states. That this doubles the so-called “eightfold way”** of chromodynamics is no accident. In the matrix equations of Gell-Mann, also known as SU(3), we have 17 non-zero entries in the matrices (the last matrix had three entries). This is also not a coincidence.
http://milesmathis.com/quark.html
<-- Every rebuttal MM link will now have a "Happy Face". Like why not?On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
-
Chromium6
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
I second that LTAM.
---------------
A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics
and a dismissal of the Quark
by Miles Mathis
If we apply the spins to photons or electrons, we can explain the mysteries of quantization and superposition very easily and quickly and transparently. But if we apply them to hadrons, we can begin to explain the composition of nuclei, without any need of quarks. This is because the number of the degrees of freedom we achieve with such an analysis matches the degrees we achieve with quark theory [see just below], and the symmetry also matches current quark theory. Stacked spins replace the current quark quantum numbers, as well as explaining mechanically many things that have so far gone unexplained. Chirality and symmetry are given a physical basis, among many other things.
So these are the fundamental changes we have so far:
1) The mediating photons of charge are not virtual or “messenger.” There is no attraction. All charge is repulsive. Charge is mediated by B-photons, by straight bombardment. Not all particles must have charge, since not all particles must emit B-photons. Among particles with charge, this charge is a function of surface area. Therefore if we give the proton a charge of 1, the electron no longer has a charge of -1. It has a charge of about 1/1836 or .000545. The B-photon is also not mass-less and is not point-like. It has a calculable mass and radius, both of which are about G (6.67 x 10-11) times the mass and radius of the proton. That is, the B-photon is eight million times smaller than the electron.
2) Gravity is a measurable force at the quantum level. It has been hidden in the mis-defined and mis-applied charge field. The total E/M or charge field we now measure at the quantum level is not a single field, but a unified field. Once we un-unify it, or separate it, we find the gravitational field as a major player once more. As at the macro-level, we find that gravity is strictly a function of radius. Mathematically, it may be treated as a straight expansion of the sphere of any given particle. Along with the new positive charge field, this explains relative attractions, orbital distances, and unification.
3) We have four possible spins on every quantum. A quantum may have all these spins, or only some of them. A quantum that loses an outer spin will seem to change from one quantum to another.
4) No strong force. No weak force. No gluons. No bosons.
Here is a list of possible spin states of a baryon.
+a+x+y+z
-a+x+y+z
+a-x+y+z
-a-x+y+z
+a+x-y+z
+a-x-y+z
-a+x-y+z
-a-x-y+z
+a+x+y-z
-a+x+y-z
+a-x+y-z
-a-x+y-z
+a+x-y-z
+a-x-y-z
-a+x-y-z
-a-x-y-z
Notice that we have 16 independent states. That this doubles the so-called “eightfold way”** of chromodynamics is no accident. In the matrix equations of Gell-Mann, also known as SU(3), we have 17 non-zero entries in the matrices (the last matrix had three entries). This is also not a coincidence.
http://milesmathis.com/quark.html <-- Every rebuttal MM link will now have a "Happy Face". Like why not?
----
Oh, btw, don't ever forget David that this entire thread was actually, with particular purpose, created for "you" (with your tag-along similies )! This was to be the place for you to "lock" and not the other MM thread. I guess you need a room full of photon radiating mirrors to feel comfortable.
---------------
A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics
and a dismissal of the Quark
by Miles Mathis
If we apply the spins to photons or electrons, we can explain the mysteries of quantization and superposition very easily and quickly and transparently. But if we apply them to hadrons, we can begin to explain the composition of nuclei, without any need of quarks. This is because the number of the degrees of freedom we achieve with such an analysis matches the degrees we achieve with quark theory [see just below], and the symmetry also matches current quark theory. Stacked spins replace the current quark quantum numbers, as well as explaining mechanically many things that have so far gone unexplained. Chirality and symmetry are given a physical basis, among many other things.
So these are the fundamental changes we have so far:
1) The mediating photons of charge are not virtual or “messenger.” There is no attraction. All charge is repulsive. Charge is mediated by B-photons, by straight bombardment. Not all particles must have charge, since not all particles must emit B-photons. Among particles with charge, this charge is a function of surface area. Therefore if we give the proton a charge of 1, the electron no longer has a charge of -1. It has a charge of about 1/1836 or .000545. The B-photon is also not mass-less and is not point-like. It has a calculable mass and radius, both of which are about G (6.67 x 10-11) times the mass and radius of the proton. That is, the B-photon is eight million times smaller than the electron.
2) Gravity is a measurable force at the quantum level. It has been hidden in the mis-defined and mis-applied charge field. The total E/M or charge field we now measure at the quantum level is not a single field, but a unified field. Once we un-unify it, or separate it, we find the gravitational field as a major player once more. As at the macro-level, we find that gravity is strictly a function of radius. Mathematically, it may be treated as a straight expansion of the sphere of any given particle. Along with the new positive charge field, this explains relative attractions, orbital distances, and unification.
3) We have four possible spins on every quantum. A quantum may have all these spins, or only some of them. A quantum that loses an outer spin will seem to change from one quantum to another.
4) No strong force. No weak force. No gluons. No bosons.
Here is a list of possible spin states of a baryon.
+a+x+y+z
-a+x+y+z
+a-x+y+z
-a-x+y+z
+a+x-y+z
+a-x-y+z
-a+x-y+z
-a-x-y+z
+a+x+y-z
-a+x+y-z
+a-x+y-z
-a-x+y-z
+a+x-y-z
+a-x-y-z
-a+x-y-z
-a-x-y-z
Notice that we have 16 independent states. That this doubles the so-called “eightfold way”** of chromodynamics is no accident. In the matrix equations of Gell-Mann, also known as SU(3), we have 17 non-zero entries in the matrices (the last matrix had three entries). This is also not a coincidence.
http://milesmathis.com/quark.html
<-- Every rebuttal MM link will now have a "Happy Face". Like why not? ----
Oh, btw, don't ever forget David that this entire thread was actually, with particular purpose, created for "you" (with your tag-along similies )! This was to be the place for you to "lock" and not the other MM thread. I guess you need a room full of photon radiating mirrors to feel comfortable.
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
-
David
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
No; not at all. One can only imagine the terrifying prospect of having the shoe on the other foot, so to speak; saddled with defending the indefensible (pi=4, stacked-spins, calculus redefined, and so on).Sparky wrote:
David, don't you find the snide remarks directed at you tiresome?
The handful of individuals who have taken up the task, should be commended for their efforts; they fought tooth and nail. But it simply wasn’t enough. The casket has been sealed and lowered; metaphorically speaking. All they can do now is pray for a second coming, while we throw dirt on the grave.
-
JeffreyW
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
- Location: Cape Canaveral, FL
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
I have a proposition for the next person to investigate:David wrote:No; not at all. One can only imagine the terrifying prospect of having the shoe on the other foot, so to speak; saddled with defending the indefensible (pi=4, stacked-spins, calculus redefined, and so on).Sparky wrote:
David, don't you find the snide remarks directed at you tiresome?
The handful of individuals who have taken up the task, should be commended for their efforts; they fought tooth and nail. But it simply wasn’t enough. The casket has been sealed and lowered; metaphorically speaking. All they can do now is pray for a second coming, while we throw dirt on the grave.
http://vixra.org/author/florentin_smarandache
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
-
LongtimeAirman
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
David, Wow, a Snide Dirge.David wroteNo; not at all. One can only imagine the terrifying prospect of having the shoe on the other foot, so to speak; saddled with defending the indefensible (pi=4, stacked-spins, calculus redefined, and so on).Sparky wrote:
David, don't you find the snide remarks directed at you tiresome?
The handful of individuals who have taken up the task, should be commended for their efforts; they fought tooth and nail. But it simply wasn’t enough. The casket has been sealed and lowered; metaphorically speaking. All they can do now is pray for a second coming, while we throw dirt on the grave.
.
-
seasmith
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
@
Miles Mathis Unmasks Himself
Is it something in the solar aether, or is "Intelligence" having eyes everywhere ?
http://mileswmathis.com/hanco.pdf
disturbing...
Miles Mathis Unmasks Himself
Is it something in the solar aether, or is "Intelligence" having eyes everywhere ?
http://mileswmathis.com/hanco.pdf
disturbing...
-
Chromium6
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
Actually seasmith, it sounds like he found Gnostic Media and has been catching up with Jan Irvin's interviews:seasmith wrote:@
Miles Mathis Unmasks Himself
Is it something in the solar aether, or is "Intelligence" having eyes everywhere ?
http://mileswmathis.com/hanco.pdf
disturbing...
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/frater-x-mi ... r-culture/
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
-
LongtimeAirman
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
.
At http://milesmathis.com/updates.html Miles has released:
NEW PAPER, added 9/7/14, The Cause of the Solar Cycle. I do the unified field math, showing the cycle is caused by charge and magnetic influences from the four large planets.
http://milesmathis.com/cycle.pdf
Miles begins with a link sent to him by a reader, an article which contains “wonderful new data from NASA”, Researchers Discover New Clues to Determining the Solar Cycle, https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/re ... index.html. The article includes a description of, “Bands of magnetized solar material – with alternating south and north polarity – march toward the sun's equator. Comparing the evolution of the bands with the sunspot number in each hemisphere over time may change the way we think about what's driving the sun's 11-year sunspot cycle”. These bands were observed to begin at +/-55deg on the sun’s surface.
Miles writes, “So why isn't the Solar cycle exactly 11.862 years? Because Jupiter isn't the only cause. To calculate the cycle in any given year, we have to track all four of the Jovians (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune). Basically, when Jupiter and Saturn are on the same side of the Sun, their E/M fields stack, giving us a maximum. When Jupiter and Saturn are opposite, we should get a minimum. The full maximum would be when all four Jovians are on the same side of the Sun”.
Miles makes two detailed predictions:
At http://milesmathis.com/updates.html Miles has released:
NEW PAPER, added 9/7/14, The Cause of the Solar Cycle. I do the unified field math, showing the cycle is caused by charge and magnetic influences from the four large planets.
http://milesmathis.com/cycle.pdf
Miles begins with a link sent to him by a reader, an article which contains “wonderful new data from NASA”, Researchers Discover New Clues to Determining the Solar Cycle, https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/re ... index.html. The article includes a description of, “Bands of magnetized solar material – with alternating south and north polarity – march toward the sun's equator. Comparing the evolution of the bands with the sunspot number in each hemisphere over time may change the way we think about what's driving the sun's 11-year sunspot cycle”. These bands were observed to begin at +/-55deg on the sun’s surface.
Miles writes, “So why isn't the Solar cycle exactly 11.862 years? Because Jupiter isn't the only cause. To calculate the cycle in any given year, we have to track all four of the Jovians (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune). Basically, when Jupiter and Saturn are on the same side of the Sun, their E/M fields stack, giving us a maximum. When Jupiter and Saturn are opposite, we should get a minimum. The full maximum would be when all four Jovians are on the same side of the Sun”.
Miles makes two detailed predictions:
I predict all people predicting 2019 or 2020 will be wrong. The maximum won't occur until 2021, since the approaching Neptune will help the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction…So not only can I predict a delayed maximum, I can predict a very long maximum—as both Saturn and then Neptune pass through their conjunctions with Jupiter. What will probably happen is that they will report the next cycle arriving in late 2020, but that will turn out to be premature. So don't pay any bets early. The highest point of the maximum won't arrive until many months after the first reports of it, and the cycle will remain in this strange extended maximum for more than year and a half.
REMCBBut a much more subtle prediction involves predicting something that no one even knows is predictable—or even variable. … an angle of 53.6 degrees.
-
LongtimeAirman
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
I saw this reported by Huffpost ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/sol] this past week, and even waded into the pdf paper http://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10 ... X.4.031043 . I intended to do a mention here as a possible Mainstream step in the right direction, but no, the quantum is stacked too high. Better, Miles came out with his own paper on it: http://milesmathis.com/solidlight.pdf . He interprets the complete lack of data and describes his own consistent, even simple, model of superconductivity:Researchers at Princeton University have begun crystallizing light as part of an effort to answer fundamental questions about the physics of matter. The researchers are not shining light through crystal – they are transforming light into crystal. http://scienceblog.com/74321/solid-ligh ... e-problems As part of an effort to develop exotic materials such as room-temperature superconductors, the researchers have locked together photons, the basic element of light, so that they become fixed in place. "It's something that we have never seen before," said Andrew Houck, one of the researchers. "This is a new behavior for light."
If you take the time, you can see that the current state of quantum 'mechanics' is awash within a probabilistic cloud of virtual decoherence and a maze of gobbledygook. There is no science (report the experiment with data and interpretation), only another confirmation of QM. Only it's not.NEW PAPER, added 9/19/14, Solid Light? No, just another bad interpretation of the Charge Field. I analyze the recent paper from Princeton, claiming solid light, stopped light, or blended light. In doing so, I am able to explain high-temperature superconduction mechanically, including showing the physical cause of the Meissner Effect. My analysis includes a full nuclear diagram of a Copper-Oxide ceramic, showing how charge is channeled through the architecture. This destroys BCS and RVB theory, Cooper pairs, polaritons, dimer math, and the rest of the fudged pseudo-explanations of solid-state physics. http://milesmathis.com/updates .
REMCB
-
Lloyd
- Posts: 4433
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm
-
Chromium6
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
Related to the most recent MM paper:
-------
The first metamaterial superconductor: One step closer to futuristic physics-defying contraptions
By Sebastian Anthony on August 22, 2014 at 11:59 am
55 Comments
Meissner Effect (superconducting magnetic levitation)
In the realms of electronics, magnetism, and quantum mechanics, superconductivity has an almost mythical status. Some materials, when cooled to a critical temperature, electrical resistance instantly drops to zero and magnetic fields are completely ejected (see video below). Superconducting magnets are already used in MRI machines and particle accelerators like CERN’s LHC, and are being considered for advanced maglev trains. Zero electrical resistance means that a current can flow around a superconducting coil indefinitely (at least 100,000 years) without any applied voltage — a feature that could completely revolutionize power distribution, power storage, electric motors, computers, and more.
The problem is, the hottest superconductor yet discovered still needs to be cooled to around -140 Celsius (133 Kelvin, -220 Fahrenheit) — and cryogenic cooling just isn’t feasible for everyday use. Now, however, some US researchers may have unearthed the secret of room-temperature superconductors: Building your own metamaterial superconductor from scratch.
As we’ve covered before, metamaterials are human-made materials that have alien, not-seen-in-nature properties. The most common example is negative refraction: In nature, every known material has a positive refractive index (it always bends light a certain way) — while metamaterials can bend light in the opposite direction. These materials have led to some interesting applications, such as invisibility cloaks. Now, researchers at Towson University, the University of Maryland, and the Naval Research Laboratory have done the same thing with superconductors: They’ve tweaked a compound in the lab, metamaterial-style, to raise its critical temperature. This empirical, deliberate approach is very different from usual superconductor research, which is mostly bested on educated guesswork. [arXiv:1408.0704 "Experimental demonstration of superconducting critical temperature increase in electromagnetic metamaterials"]
Various superconductors and their critical temperatures
Various superconductors and their critical temperatures
In theory, this is a very big step towards creating one of the most powerful, valuable, and elusive materials in the world: a room-temperature superconductor. While superconductors are already used extensively in science and medicine, the fact that they need to be kept at cryogenic (below -150C) temperatures makes them very expensive and unwieldy. A lot of work is being done into so-called “high-temperature superconductivity,” but the best anyone has managed is a critical temperature of -140C — HgBa2Ca2Cu3Ox (HBCCO) in case you were wondering.
In practice, the researchers still have a long way to go: Their metamaterial-like approach was able to raise the critical temperature of tin by 0.15 Kelvin. Still, in the realm of quantum mechanics where almost nothing is known about why or how superconductivity exists in the first place, it’s big news. We especially know very little about high-temperature superconductors – we think the “layers” of these complex compounds act like the electron equivalent of optical waveguides, steering electrons through the material with zero resistance. This new research might help us understand these high-temperature superconductors a little better, and maybe also to tweak them to move the critical temperature ever closer to room temperature.
Nexan superconducting power cable thing, cooled by liquid nitrogen
A prototype superconducting power cable — awesome, but commercially unfeasible as it requires constant liquid nitrogen cooling.
If we can eventually master superconductors — and there’s every reason to believe that we can — then we can expect many facets of life to change very rapidly. Superconducting power lines could save billions of dollars in transmission losses — or allow for the building of world-spanning super grids. We could replace every transport system with cheap, super-fast maglev trains. It might even allow for cloaking devices… and I assure you, that’s just the beginning!
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1884 ... ntraptions
-------
The first metamaterial superconductor: One step closer to futuristic physics-defying contraptions
By Sebastian Anthony on August 22, 2014 at 11:59 am
55 Comments
Meissner Effect (superconducting magnetic levitation)
In the realms of electronics, magnetism, and quantum mechanics, superconductivity has an almost mythical status. Some materials, when cooled to a critical temperature, electrical resistance instantly drops to zero and magnetic fields are completely ejected (see video below). Superconducting magnets are already used in MRI machines and particle accelerators like CERN’s LHC, and are being considered for advanced maglev trains. Zero electrical resistance means that a current can flow around a superconducting coil indefinitely (at least 100,000 years) without any applied voltage — a feature that could completely revolutionize power distribution, power storage, electric motors, computers, and more.
The problem is, the hottest superconductor yet discovered still needs to be cooled to around -140 Celsius (133 Kelvin, -220 Fahrenheit) — and cryogenic cooling just isn’t feasible for everyday use. Now, however, some US researchers may have unearthed the secret of room-temperature superconductors: Building your own metamaterial superconductor from scratch.
As we’ve covered before, metamaterials are human-made materials that have alien, not-seen-in-nature properties. The most common example is negative refraction: In nature, every known material has a positive refractive index (it always bends light a certain way) — while metamaterials can bend light in the opposite direction. These materials have led to some interesting applications, such as invisibility cloaks. Now, researchers at Towson University, the University of Maryland, and the Naval Research Laboratory have done the same thing with superconductors: They’ve tweaked a compound in the lab, metamaterial-style, to raise its critical temperature. This empirical, deliberate approach is very different from usual superconductor research, which is mostly bested on educated guesswork. [arXiv:1408.0704 "Experimental demonstration of superconducting critical temperature increase in electromagnetic metamaterials"]
Various superconductors and their critical temperatures
Various superconductors and their critical temperatures
In theory, this is a very big step towards creating one of the most powerful, valuable, and elusive materials in the world: a room-temperature superconductor. While superconductors are already used extensively in science and medicine, the fact that they need to be kept at cryogenic (below -150C) temperatures makes them very expensive and unwieldy. A lot of work is being done into so-called “high-temperature superconductivity,” but the best anyone has managed is a critical temperature of -140C — HgBa2Ca2Cu3Ox (HBCCO) in case you were wondering.
In practice, the researchers still have a long way to go: Their metamaterial-like approach was able to raise the critical temperature of tin by 0.15 Kelvin. Still, in the realm of quantum mechanics where almost nothing is known about why or how superconductivity exists in the first place, it’s big news. We especially know very little about high-temperature superconductors – we think the “layers” of these complex compounds act like the electron equivalent of optical waveguides, steering electrons through the material with zero resistance. This new research might help us understand these high-temperature superconductors a little better, and maybe also to tweak them to move the critical temperature ever closer to room temperature.
Nexan superconducting power cable thing, cooled by liquid nitrogen
A prototype superconducting power cable — awesome, but commercially unfeasible as it requires constant liquid nitrogen cooling.
If we can eventually master superconductors — and there’s every reason to believe that we can — then we can expect many facets of life to change very rapidly. Superconducting power lines could save billions of dollars in transmission losses — or allow for the building of world-spanning super grids. We could replace every transport system with cheap, super-fast maglev trains. It might even allow for cloaking devices… and I assure you, that’s just the beginning!
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1884 ... ntraptions
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
-
Chromium6
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm
Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field
Mathis' Solar Cycles paper reminded me of Ray Tomes' paper on Planetary Cycles.
------
Part 2: Cycles Background
Back in 1977 I was using computers to try and predict various economic variables for corporations in New Zealand. In the course of doing this I found that many aspects of the economy showed quite clear cycles. After designing a method to search out the most consistent cycles they turned out to be ones with periods of 4.45, 5.9, 7.15 and ~9 years. These worked well for making forecasts.
After a while I noticed that the periods that I was using were all very near exact fractions of 35.6 years. Also, other cycles existed at other fractions of this period such as ~12 years and a fraction under 4 years. The literature showed that there were other shorter cycles known as well as longer ones. I acquired some weekly data to look for shorter cycles and found that there were similar patterns at shorter periods and that often they had proportions of 2 and 3 in them.
Then it struck me. These fractions of 35.6 years were in fact frequencies of 4:5:6:8 which is exactly a major chord in music. Also, the shorter cycles turned out to be exactly in the proportions of the just intonation musical scale plus a couple of back notes (E flat and B flat if we are in the key of C).
35.6/8=4.45 35.6/6=5.93 35.6/5=7.12 35.6/8=8.9 years
I realised that the Kondratieff cycle of about 54 years also fitted in that 2*54 is very near to 3*35.6.
There was of course the question "Why 35.6 years?" and the answer almost surely had something to do with causes from beyond the earth. For Jupiter's orbital period is 11.86 years which is very close to 35.6/3 and the node of the moons orbit takes 8.85 years to travel once around the earth. There are other astronomical periods which fit also.
This was very weird and for some time I didn't tell anyone because I was sure they would think I was weird.
However, I heard about a place called the Foundation for the Study of Cycles in the late 1980s and visited there in 1989.
Edward Dewey had formed the Foundation in about 1940 and had unfortunately died before I got there. He had left behind an enormous legacy of research into cycles. In one of his articles I was to find the following diagram. Dewey found many relationships with proportions 2 and 3 in cycle periods starting from a period of 17.75 years, in an enormous variety of different time series. His table of periods in years is:-
142.0 213.9 319.5 479.3
-----
71.0 106.5 159.8
-----
35.5 53.3 x2 x3
---- ---- \ /
17.75 \ /
-----
5.92 8.88
---- ---- / \
1.97 2.96 4.44 / \
---- ---- ---- /2 /3
0.66 0.99 1.48 2.22
---- ---- ----
0.22 0.33 0.49 0.74 1.11
---- ---- ---- ----
Underlined figures are commonly occurring cycles.
Interestingly Dewey, using data from different countries, different time periods and different fields of study had arrived at a table which included a very good match to my figures. There was 35.5 years looking at me along with 4.44, 5.92 and 8.88 years. Although this table didn't show 7.12 years, his catalogue of reported cycles showed a clear concentration of reports at this figure.
The above table shows several of the periods, such as 142, 53.3 and 17.75, 5.93 years, similar to those found by Chizhevski in the cycles of war, namely 143, 53, 17.7, 6.0 years. However it doesn't show the 11 and 22 year cycles and some others. To find these it is necessary to introduce a ratio of 5 just as was done by Galilei to Pythagoras' music scale. For 22.2 years is 5 times 4.44 and 11.1 is 5 times 2.22 years. When the above periods are multiplied by 5 they also produce many other commonly reported cycles such as 178 years which is found in the alignment of the outer planets, in solar activity and in climatic variations.
It is worth mentioning that these cycles have been found in every aspect affecting life on earth. Wars, economic fluctuations, births and deaths, climate, geophysics, animal populations, social variables, stock and commodity prices. We literally live inside a giant musical instrument which is playing notes, chords and scales in such slow motion that only the Gods could hear it.
Dewey wrote a very touching piece late in his life where he likened himself to Tycho Brahe who gathered and catalogued the information about the planetary motions. He said that he had so wanted to solve the riddle but was then very old and knew that he was leaving it for some later Kepler to explain.
In my next post I will stake my claim to being the Kepler or the Newton of Cycles and you can be the judge.
http://ray.tomes.biz/alex.htm
------
Part 2: Cycles Background
Back in 1977 I was using computers to try and predict various economic variables for corporations in New Zealand. In the course of doing this I found that many aspects of the economy showed quite clear cycles. After designing a method to search out the most consistent cycles they turned out to be ones with periods of 4.45, 5.9, 7.15 and ~9 years. These worked well for making forecasts.
After a while I noticed that the periods that I was using were all very near exact fractions of 35.6 years. Also, other cycles existed at other fractions of this period such as ~12 years and a fraction under 4 years. The literature showed that there were other shorter cycles known as well as longer ones. I acquired some weekly data to look for shorter cycles and found that there were similar patterns at shorter periods and that often they had proportions of 2 and 3 in them.
Then it struck me. These fractions of 35.6 years were in fact frequencies of 4:5:6:8 which is exactly a major chord in music. Also, the shorter cycles turned out to be exactly in the proportions of the just intonation musical scale plus a couple of back notes (E flat and B flat if we are in the key of C).
35.6/8=4.45 35.6/6=5.93 35.6/5=7.12 35.6/8=8.9 years
I realised that the Kondratieff cycle of about 54 years also fitted in that 2*54 is very near to 3*35.6.
There was of course the question "Why 35.6 years?" and the answer almost surely had something to do with causes from beyond the earth. For Jupiter's orbital period is 11.86 years which is very close to 35.6/3 and the node of the moons orbit takes 8.85 years to travel once around the earth. There are other astronomical periods which fit also.
This was very weird and for some time I didn't tell anyone because I was sure they would think I was weird.
However, I heard about a place called the Foundation for the Study of Cycles in the late 1980s and visited there in 1989.
Edward Dewey had formed the Foundation in about 1940 and had unfortunately died before I got there. He had left behind an enormous legacy of research into cycles. In one of his articles I was to find the following diagram. Dewey found many relationships with proportions 2 and 3 in cycle periods starting from a period of 17.75 years, in an enormous variety of different time series. His table of periods in years is:-
142.0 213.9 319.5 479.3
-----
71.0 106.5 159.8
-----
35.5 53.3 x2 x3
---- ---- \ /
17.75 \ /
-----
5.92 8.88
---- ---- / \
1.97 2.96 4.44 / \
---- ---- ---- /2 /3
0.66 0.99 1.48 2.22
---- ---- ----
0.22 0.33 0.49 0.74 1.11
---- ---- ---- ----
Underlined figures are commonly occurring cycles.
Interestingly Dewey, using data from different countries, different time periods and different fields of study had arrived at a table which included a very good match to my figures. There was 35.5 years looking at me along with 4.44, 5.92 and 8.88 years. Although this table didn't show 7.12 years, his catalogue of reported cycles showed a clear concentration of reports at this figure.
The above table shows several of the periods, such as 142, 53.3 and 17.75, 5.93 years, similar to those found by Chizhevski in the cycles of war, namely 143, 53, 17.7, 6.0 years. However it doesn't show the 11 and 22 year cycles and some others. To find these it is necessary to introduce a ratio of 5 just as was done by Galilei to Pythagoras' music scale. For 22.2 years is 5 times 4.44 and 11.1 is 5 times 2.22 years. When the above periods are multiplied by 5 they also produce many other commonly reported cycles such as 178 years which is found in the alignment of the outer planets, in solar activity and in climatic variations.
It is worth mentioning that these cycles have been found in every aspect affecting life on earth. Wars, economic fluctuations, births and deaths, climate, geophysics, animal populations, social variables, stock and commodity prices. We literally live inside a giant musical instrument which is playing notes, chords and scales in such slow motion that only the Gods could hear it.
Dewey wrote a very touching piece late in his life where he likened himself to Tycho Brahe who gathered and catalogued the information about the planetary motions. He said that he had so wanted to solve the riddle but was then very old and knew that he was leaving it for some later Kepler to explain.
In my next post I will stake my claim to being the Kepler or the Newton of Cycles and you can be the judge.
http://ray.tomes.biz/alex.htm
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests