Theory of Gravity by Cotterell

[RedDog]

Sunspot expert Maurice Cotterell was recently on Coast to Coast with George Noory, and there was a few minutes where he snuck in his new work on gravity.
http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html

Here is a recording of a that segment of the conversation
Watch "Maurice Cotterell on Gravity"

Poor George was really lost in dialogging with Maurice, as the numbers and data came at him so fast.

[junglelord]

Awsome link.

Geometry makes the universe go round.


Coils, inductors, spiral vortex coils, flat spirals, cone spirals, the geometry of the copper winding makes all the difference in the world. This is a wonderful addition to the vortex solution.

[RedDog]

Most of Maurice's work goes over my head, but the graphics help me understand the common thread between his theories and those that came before him that were also shunned.

[kevin]

Great graphics that make it compelling, but,
I consider He is half right, sort of stuck between the truth and the present accepted.
I suppose thats to be expected seeing as where we are at the present?
We are about to go through the spiral point.

He's stuck with light and heat coming in linear fashion, thats where He is stuck in the present, light and heat are field consequences, the heat is local to the surface as is the light, it is not a big heater or torch the sun, it's a huge bloody planet.
this IS an electrical universe, and everything is a consequence of that.
this planet, and all of them?, are most probably hollow, with a central sun that is an electrical point/s.
That point will not be hot, the lava we experience will be fairly local to the surface , and be the result of been positioned where huge opposites meet and cross, the volcanos will be net emittance points that errupt upon alignment with their opposite, the hurricanes will be the opposite to that.
Good link though cheers.
kevin

[RedDog]

Great graphics that make it compelling, but,
I consider He is half right, sort of stuck between the truth and the present accepted.
I suppose thats to be expected seeing as where we are at the present?
We are about to go through the spiral point.

He's stuck with light and heat coming in linear fashion, thats where He is stuck in the present, light and heat are field consequences, the heat is local to the surface as is the light, it is not a big heater or torch the sun, it's a huge bloody planet.
this IS an electrical universe, and everything is a consequence of that.
this planet, and all of them?, are most probably hollow, with a central sun that is an electrical point/s.
That point will not be hot, the lava we experience will be fairly local to the surface , and be the result of been positioned where huge opposites meet and cross, the volcanos will be net emittance points that errupt upon alignment with their opposite, the hurricanes will be the opposite to that.
Good link though cheers.
kevin

That was very observant about Maurice's thoughts on the universe. One of his recent emails to me put it bluntly:

I believe, based on present data, that apart from height, width and length (space) there are only 2 dimensions; time and temperature. This is because information can be stored in time [I can fire a radio signal into the galaxy and ensure its return in say 3,500 years, like a boomerang] so information can be stored with respect to time and distance. All of our laws are subject to temperature. Take away temperature and it appears that everything stops (there is no gravity). Hence, in regard to the hierarchy of physics, God comes first, then follows temperature, and then time and then distance (space).
So let's forget the nonesense about paralell universes etc. All the best. MC

What I like is your point on the Hollow Earth theory. That fits with with what Neil Adams proposed in his expanding earth model, and with what Brooks Agnew has talked about in his books and his upcoming expedition to the North Pole to search for the opening to the hollow earth. I was stuck on how lava and volcano's could form (Hawaiian Island chain) in a crust that was 800 miles thick, or Oil or other things. It is a model that is so far removed from the common paradigm of planetary geology, it is hard to stay open to it. I like it though.

[nick c]

sort of stuck between the truth and the present accepted.

Yes.
I cannot accept Cotterell's explanation as to the origin of the Earth's magnetic field, it is the internal dynamo once again. He is missing out on the possibilities of electric currents in space.

nick c

[junglelord]

Replace the heat and light with the Gforce and we might be able to make more sense of his idea.

[altonhare]

The author claims a physical explanation of gravity. The conclusion of the author is that the hydrogen atom generates "helically polarized EM radiation" from "polar regions". This radiation bombards another atom and draws it in. This bombardment induces a mirror effect in the bombarded atom causing it to generate "helically polarized EM energy".

What, physically, is the radiation? The author implies, when he says the radiation "bombards" another atom, that it is an object. Is the atom spitting out physical threads as it spins? Are these threads the fundamental constituent or are they made of smaller objects? Why does the atom spit them out? Are atoms just constantly spitting out threads in every direction as an assumption of the theory? If so, where do they come from and is there a way to know how large an atom's supply of thread is? Why do they form a helical screw rather than a corkscrew? I think this has something to do with "polar regions" which I think has to do with "charge". If so, what is charge? What object or group of objects is one referring to when they say "charge"? Surely a + is not a charge nor is a -, they are symbols for something else. Why does the helical "EM radiation" induce "EM energy" instead of more "EM radiation"? What's the difference? This question itself may be in error, for I must ask "what is energy?" first.

The author describes the mechanism as similar to "water drawn along the length of an Archimedes screw" but this cannot be correct. An Archimedes screw functions conceptually as a static intermediary between the fluid at location A and location B. The screw spins in place and thus the water is compelled to sit on the screw blade as it turns, forcing it upward. However the "EM radiation" is not a static intermediary but a projectile, by contrast to the Archimedes screw it is conceptually a dynamic intermediary. Perhaps the author fails to mention that the helical thread bombards the atom and stops right there, but continues to spin in place as the atom it emanated from continues to spin. This could, with the right architecture, induce an Archimedes Screw like effect. If so, why does it come to a dead stop right there and not simply ricochet off? Only two atoms and a helical thread of very specific arrangement could be imagined to allow the helical thread to come to a dead spot conveniently right on the target atom. An object spinning a connected HELICAL OBJECT in place is a physically different phenomenon than a thread projected from a spinning object forming a helical PATH.

The author says that the planetary model is a failure because the electron should plummet into the nucleus and the nucleus should blow apart. Why is this? Objects do not interact unless they collide or are connected somehow and pull on each other. Again there are pictures of +'s and -'s but these are just symbols for something else. I must know what "charge" IS. There is no fundamental reason that objects A and B should attract each other without touching or that A and A should send each other flying away without ever touching. However, the author attributes this behavior to charge, which he does not define or explain physically.

I think the new model of the atom is a clever bit of brainstorming, however I must disagree with it. The electron, I understand, is still presumed a particle as it always has been as are the proton and neutron. However the neutron is a somewhat elongated particle composed of three more fundamental particles. The model does indeed appear to balance out the coulomb forces involved to keep the electron from plummeting and the nucleus from exploding if I remember my freshman physics right. Despite being completely unable to visualize why the +'s repel other +'s through empty space and likewise for the -'s, I will grant this inconceivable effect for the sake of argument. The new atom seems a precarious arrangement. Indeed if all the particles are perfectly stationary there is an arrangement that will perfectly balance the coulomb forces and result in a stable atom. This appears a precarious position, though. It is a highly ordered arrangement. Any disturbance will push an electron in toward the -neutron region. Assuming the antineutrino is a "perfect insulator" (whatever that means) the disturbed electron will rebound very forcefully from the -neutron region. The -neutron region would seek to stabilize its extra negative charge by moving toward the +neutron regions of its adjacent neutrons. The neutron would become slanted. This would cascade through all the spikes until they all collapse flat, end to end, +'s against -'s on the outside of the nucleus. The atom is statically stable but collapses when ionized or otherwise disturbed appreciably. Atoms of this ordered arrangement simply could not maintain this kind of structure for very long.

Finally, the antineutrino cannot be a perfect insulator if it is to keep the proton and electron on either end of it held tight. In fact, it must be a fairly poor insulator because a neutron requires some muscle to separate into constituents. In this case the arrangement is even more precarious since a disturbance in an electron will disturb the the neutron appreciably which will disturb the proton core. I am compelled to ask, what is the fundamental difference between protons/electrons and antineutrinos? Why should one group of billard balls interact so strongly while the other one does not? What is charge?

[junglelord]

The radiation is EM radiation.


Says so right in the pictures and in the explanation.


He is describing a Scalar Wave of EM.
Scalar Wave is all Tesla work.
That is his theory of gravity.

The thought that the electron should just orbit the proton with out flinging out or falling in has NEVER been explained by modern physics. To assume that it is, is uninformed. Therefore the material he presented lead to a series of threads by myself. The hydrogen atom offers much more then most understand.

Charge is a state of relationship between primary angular momentum and aether.
The reason the antineutrino binds weakly is due to the fact it is inbetween two folded aether units.

[junglelord]

To get a proper idea of the path a hydrogen electron takes please go here.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=1084
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=1097

Platonic Solids & States of matter:
What's so important about them?
http://blazelabs.com/f-p-solids.asp

An excellent read on how standing waves in the shape of platonic solids is the best way to understand distributed charge.
Pretty cool as I finally figured that out today as I was messing around with my Stator and Rotor idea.


This would be a real simple yet profound fractal idea. The entire universe is electric motor fractals with standing waves of distributed charge in the geometry of platonic solids, nestled one in another. Thats how I see it now. Nestled electric motors, each one driven by a pump, ie a push/pull. The primary push pull would be the Gforce which we can see as we look at the orbit of the hydrogen electron. It makes I believe pointed vertices and not perfect circles or curved radius, but rather immediate change in height based on the effect of the Gforce.

On Geometry and Advanced Energy Conversion
http://www.padrak.com/ine/ONGEOMETRY.html

A cool forum discussion on Plantonic Solids, Vortex Implosion, Standing Waves and free energy with water.
http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/lof ... t7716.html

[altonhare]

The radiation is EM radiation.

- Junglelord

The radiation is radiation! What have we learned?

What is the radiation's shape? Is it a ball, a figure-eight, an inner tube, a pyramid, a lumpy blob, what? Is it three dimensional? Can it be broken? These are the physical questions imbedded in the question "What is X?" The author draws it as an elongated thread that is emitted by the atom as it spins. The spinning causes the thread to make a helix. By this I assume it is an elongated three dimensional object like a cylinder or a thread. I must assume because the author does not make the shape of the thread explicit, i.e. he does not draw us a 3-D figure of it. If its shape is unspecified then certainly the author can get this malleable entity to do whatever is desired. I do not think the author is trying to cheat or anything, I just wish he made the shape explicitly clear. As the paper stands I interpret its structure as an elongated three dimensional thread or rod. However this is a subjective assumption since it was not explicitly stated or illustrated.

He is describing a Scalar Wave of EM.
Scalar Wave is all Tesla work.
That is his theory of gravity.

- Junglelord

So gravity has something to do with a wave of the radiation. This begs the question "what is waving?". Is the radiation (thread or rod I assume?) waving up and down? Wave is a verb, not a noun. You cannot say, for instance, "Run pulls the two men together". You say "The two men run toward each other." You cannot say "Kick knocked the man down", you say "The ninja kicked the man down". A sentence must have a noun.

Assuming the structure of the radiation is inherently thread-like or rod-like, I see a bigger problem. The more fundamental issue is how does the author reconcile the permanent intermediary of the Archimedes screw mechanism with the dynamic and transitory projectile illustrated? The Archimedes screw functions precisely because it does NOT change location i.e. does NOT translate. The Archimedes screw transfers water because it spins IN PLACE. The water moves, the screw does not. If the screw moves (translates), the water does not. If the screw does not spin in place it is worthless for moving anything else. The projectile radiation illustrated in the paper does not spin in place. It cannot function by an Archimedes screw mechanism. It cannot both BE an Archimedes screw and NOT BE an Archimedes screw.

The thought that the electron should just orbit the proton with out flinging out or falling in has NEVER been explained by modern physics. To assume that it is, is uninformed. Therefore the material he presented lead to a series of threads by myself. The hydrogen atom offers much more then most understand.

Of course modern physics has never explained why the electron should NOT plummet into the proton. Modern physics has never explained why the electron SHOULD plummet into the proton! It's like saying "Nobody has ever explained why Santa Claus doesn't show up on Christmas Eve". It begs the question "Why WOULD Santa Claus show up on Christmas Eve?" The reason modern physics has not answered these most basic and simple questions is that they have never explained PHYSICALLY how a proton and an electron interact.

In fact, if the electron and the proton are indeed particles (i.e. discrete objects) there is no reason the electron bead SHOULD plummet into a proton bowling ball. Discrete objections explain repulsion by definition because they cannot occupy the same location. To explain attraction there must be a PHYSICAL intermediary between two objects. Is the proton bowling ball spinning while swinging whips at the electron and reeling it in like Indiana Jones? One hypothesis is that the proton has countless whips/rods rigidly attached to its surface extending outward. When a rod collides with an electron bead it wraps around it, just like Indiana Jones' whip. The electron's path goes from rectilinear to curvilinear under the pull of the whip. The electron's angular momentum pulls outward on the whip and it slowly unwinds, freeing the electron, which can then be caught by another whip. The number density of whips drops off markedly when traveling from the surface of the proton outward. This explains the weakness of the attraction at large distance and the strength of the attraction at short distance. If the velocity of the electron is very large it will free itself from a whip without deviating appreciably from its rectilinear path. At large velocity the probability of being caught by a whip is also lower. This kind of physical mechanism is what is missing from modern physics theories. This hypothesis follows the scientific method:

Hypothesis (assumptions): Proton and electron are discrete particles. I show you a bowling ball and a bead. The proton's surface is covered with rigidly attached rod or whip like structures. I attach whips to the surface of the bowling ball.
Theory (conceptualization): The whips wrap around the electron and pull it in. Their number density fundamentally decreases as the distance from the surface of the proton increases.
Conclusion (explanation): The phenomenon described by Coulomb's law is qualitatively (physically) explained by a discrete electron bead and a proton bowling ball with whips rigidly attached to the proton's surface.

Unfortunately this theory does not actually pass the conclusion phase. It does not fully explain Coulomb's law because it does not explain why protons should repel other protons from a distance. Repulsion is fundamentally an effect of collision (touch). Protons obviously repel each other without physically touching. The same goes for electrons. Although this is a failed theory in the sense that it does not explain all observations, it at least attempts to provide a physical mechanism/explanation for why the electron should be attracted to the proton. One must first explain WHY the electron SHOULD be pulled toward the proton before asking WHY it is NOT pulled toward the electron.

Charge is a state of relationship between primary angular momentum and aether.
The reason the antineutrino binds weakly is due to the fact it is in between two folded aether units.

-Junglelord

Charge: A relationship between primary angular momentum and aether

Primary angular momentum is a concept as I understand it. What is the relationship among objects that you call angular momentum? Then you have a clear definition provided you can define the term aether.

What is aether? Is it a concrete object? Is it a concept? If it's a concept what concrete objects is it a relationship between?

[junglelord]

The secret of gravity lies in the relationship of the hydrogen atom (80% of the universe) and its radial transverse EM waves vs its tangential longitudinal EM waves and the relationship between radiating and none radiating waves.

Introduction
A major difference between radiating and non-radiating fields is that the level of a nonradiating
fields decreases with the third power of the radius (volume), while the level of a
radiating field decreases with the first power. The analysis presented here provides
evidence as to how and why this occurs. The conclusions are somewhat surprising. It has
been accepted as fact that waves cannot move faster than the speed of light. However, it
is only the propagation of signals in the radial direction that is limited to the speed of
light. Tangential waves travel much faster. Electromagnetic waves are not seen to “break
away”, but to vary with the high tangential velocity of the field, producing a compression
of the wave and a corresponding time delay with distance.

4. It has been argued that the propagation of waves through space occur by virtue of the
electric field creating an electromagnetic wave, which in turn creates a subsequent
electric wave, similar to the action of an oscillating L-C circuit. However, in the far
field, both the transverse electric wave and the electromagnetic wave peak at the same
instant of time whereas exactly the opposite occurs for an L-C
circuit.

5. The (1 – v2/c2) term in equations (16), (17) and (18) appear in various mathematical
models of physics and engineering. The Irish physicist, G. F. Fitzgerald proposed that
objects grew shorter in the direction of their absolute motion, due to the pressure of the
“ether wind” [4]

The Fitzgerald contraction was analyzed by the Dutch physicist, H.A. Lorentz, who
deduced that mass increases inversely with the Fitzgerald ratio. Einstein argued that time
decreases in proportion to the Fitzgerald ratio in his General Theory of Relativity. A new
model of the hydrogen atom, analyzed as an electric circuit, showed that the forces acting
upon the electron are proportional to (1 – v2/c2), and other substantiating evidence for the
above assertion of the bending of electromagnetic waves was also presented [5].

Concluding Remarks
The plots of the radiation equations show that rotating or lateral motions of an electric
field wave must bend with its tangential velocity. If the rotating waves didn’t bend, then
the transfer of information through space would be instantaneous. Topological analysis
allows a visualization of electromagnetic waves in space that are not always obtainable
by the methods of abstract mathematics. This can lead to a better comprehension of the
process by which radiation occurs. In this case, the issue of the change in dimensionality
of a radiating wave becomes clear. There are new systems that are being designed at the
molecular level, which are potentially important in the future of science. Such designs
may involve treating atoms as tiny electrical circuits. The radiating and non-radiating
fields surrounding equations atoms and molecules will consequently be of concern.
http://www.science-site.net/RadiationArticle.pdf

[junglelord]

The secret of gravity lies in the relationship of the hydrogen atom (80% of the universe) and its radial transverse EM waves vs its tangential longitudinal EM waves and the relationship between radiating and none radiating waves. I have several papers from the IEEE that state the same thing I put in my gravity thread.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=1084

The hydrogen atom and its relationship is a very special clue to how the universe works. After all its 99% plasma made of 80% hydrogen. The more you know about plasma and hydrogen the more you will understand the big picture and the little picture.

Introduction
A major difference between radiating and non-radiating fields is that the level of a nonradiating
fields decreases with the third power of the radius (volume), while the level of a
radiating field decreases with the first power. The analysis presented here provides
evidence as to how and why this occurs. The conclusions are somewhat surprising. It has
been accepted as fact that waves cannot move faster than the speed of light. However, it
is only the propagation of signals in the radial direction that is limited to the speed of
light. Tangential waves travel much faster. Electromagnetic waves are not seen to “break
away”, but to vary with the high tangential velocity of the field, producing a compression
of the wave and a corresponding time delay with distance.

4. It has been argued that the propagation of waves through space occur by virtue of the
electric field creating an electromagnetic wave, which in turn creates a subsequent
electric wave, similar to the action of an oscillating L-C circuit. However, in the far
field, both the transverse electric wave and the electromagnetic wave peak at the same
instant of time whereas exactly the opposite occurs for an L-C
circuit.

5. The (1 – v2/c2) term in equations (16), (17) and (18) appear in various mathematical
models of physics and engineering. The Irish physicist, G. F. Fitzgerald proposed that
objects grew shorter in the direction of their absolute motion, due to the pressure of the
“ether wind” [4]

The Fitzgerald contraction was analyzed by the Dutch physicist, H.A. Lorentz, who
deduced that mass increases inversely with the Fitzgerald ratio. Einstein argued that time
decreases in proportion to the Fitzgerald ratio in his General Theory of Relativity. A new
model of the hydrogen atom, analyzed as an electric circuit, showed that the forces acting
upon the electron are proportional to (1 – v2/c2), and other substantiating evidence for the
above assertion of the bending of electromagnetic waves was also presented.

Concluding Remarks
The plots of the radiation equations show that rotating or lateral motions of an electric
field wave must bend with its tangential velocity. If the rotating waves didn’t bend, then
the transfer of information through space would be instantaneous. Topological analysis
allows a visualization of electromagnetic waves in space that are not always obtainable
by the methods of abstract mathematics. This can lead to a better comprehension of the
process by which radiation occurs. In this case, the issue of the change in dimensionality
of a radiating wave becomes clear. There are new systems that are being designed at the
molecular level, which are potentially important in the future of science. Such designs
may involve treating atoms as tiny electrical circuits. The radiating and non-radiating
fields surrounding equations atoms and molecules will consequently be of concern.
http://www.science-site.net/RadiationArticle.pdf

http://www.science-site.net/index.html

That is exactly what I just discovered! The standing wave or non radiating stator and the radiating or traveling wave rotor paradigm. The hydrogen atom makes one microvolt as the electron spins at 3x10^6 miles an hour around the nucleus. If you can identify the true electron shell configurations (Platonic Solids Tetrahedron, Octahedron, Cube) the rotor and you can over lap that with the molecular stators then you immediatley see why the hexagon is so powerful verses the cube when working with a material like common graphite. Harmonic resonance always involves equal amounts of structure and function.

[altonhare]

So it's settled, then, this theory fails the conceptualization stage because the author proposes an Archimedes screw mechanism when, in fact, it does not operate as such.