Magnetic levitation and the Halbach Array explained

[D_Archer]

Hi,

I made a paper about magnetic levitation and the Halbach array.

It is published on the Miles Mathis website > http://milesmathis.com/halbach.pdf

And Miles made additions.

Miles explains the field lines in the mainstream diagrams are not magnetic field lines but E-lines, or lines of current and current is the linear movement of physical photons.

In EU it is always stressed that actual magnetic field lines are not physical entities, but now with the charge field we do have a physical explanation of them, they are the spin of the photons.

Regards,
Daniel

[Nonafel]

So, in laymans terms...

If you could somehow forcefully spin of the local photons and/or hold enough photons in place and spin them in reverse, you weaken or better the effect of gravity on whatever has those photons spinning in reverse?

Or do I have this wrong somehow (as someone with no real background in this field easily might)

[crawler]

So, in laymans terms...

If you could somehow forcefully spin of the local photons and/or hold enough photons in place and spin them in reverse, you weaken or better the effect of gravity on whatever has those photons spinning in reverse?

Or do I have this wrong somehow (as someone with no real background in this field easily might)

Here is an email i sent a while back.

Hello **********,
Thanx for alerting me to Hilgenberg & Krafft. Today i have been googling & reading their stuff. Some pages of their books are available online.

https://www.scribd.com/document/2394790 ... ick-Krafft
(1) On page 8 Krafft's cause of redshift is similar to your own. Krafft says ..........
............. It appears that the red shift can be accounted for in a more reasonable manner by assuming that each train of light waves during its journey through space will undergo a slight expansion......... ............. it would require only an extremely small difference of velocity between the waves at the front and rear ends of the train to produce the observed red shift. (Popular Astronomy, Vol 39, No. 7, p.428.)

(2) And Krafft's non-nuclear atom is similar to Miles Mathis's atom, altho MM doesn't mention Krafft's ether, MM's glue is the spin-flow of charge (MM's charge being a kind of slow photon i think).

(3) On page 31 Krafft says.......
..........The reason why it is the protons rather than the electrons that act gravitationally is because the ether which flows throo a proton follows a converging path, entering at the equatorial periphery and leaving at the poles, where it will have maximum velocity...........
That micro subatomic theory is very similar to my macro centrifuging of aether theory where aether is inertially drawn in near the Equator of a spinning (or orbiting) object & then the aether is spat out axially at the two poles (ie driven out by the entering aether). The acceleration of this aether inflow outside the object must have a 1/R relationship (because the streamlines converge in 2 dimensions), & must give a 1/R pseudo gravity effect (whereas proper gravity is 1/RR)(the inflow streamlines converging in 3 dimensions).
The axial outflow is unlikely to have much acceleration or produce much pseudo gravity outside the object, but there must be an internal acceleration (& some pseudo gravity) due to the bent trajectory of the veering aether.

(4) Podkletnov, on youtube & in papers, mentions experiments re spinning discs & gravity-shielding & gravity-beams, including three results that appear to relate to centrifuging of aether.
Wt-loss …………………… An object sitting above the (vertical) spin-axis lost wt (i don’t believe this).
Time-loss ………………… An accurate wrist-watch sitting above the spin-axis lost time (ok).
Smoke-movement ….... Tobacco smoke was whisked axially upwards (ok).

DePalma too mentioned a loss of time, near a spinning wheel i think.

(5) It would i think be an easy University project to test for time dilation effects near the axle of a spinning disc. The axle should be aligned north-south parallel to Earth's axis, or even better if aligned exactly parallel to the 500 kmps aetherwind (allowing for time of day & season of the year)(RA 4:30 hr i think on average). Ticking should slow at the north end (wind=V+v) & fast at the south end (wind=V-v) compared to ticking elsewhere in the lab (wind=V).

(6) Ticking would in theory show the V kmps of the local aetherwind & the v kmps of the centrifuged aether exiting the poles, by a clever use of the Lorentz equation for gamma.

However the Lorentz equation for ticking dilation might be ok for atomic clocks, but i dont believe that it applies to macro clocks (eg the quartz wristwatch used by Podkletnov). I believe that the quartz crystal suffers length contraction & that this then affects the ticking by virtue of the standard vibrational equation for a tuning fork. Here for a spinning disc experiment the watch should best be orientated so that the LC affects the length of the tuning fork.
I have used Excel to calculate the affect of LC on the length & width & thickness of a tuning fork crystal (ie for the 3 possible major orientations), & i used Excel to calculate the change in ticking for each of these 3 modes.

Modern better watches now use a solid crystal, & are much more accurate, but might not be as sensitive to LC, ie an old fashioned tuning fork crystal might give better (bigger) results.

(7) Note that Einstein said that any balance clock will be affected by his time dilation equation. But Einstein was wrong. As we all know the Lorentz equation appears identical to Einstein's but the V is the aetherwind whereas Einstein's V is the relative velocity (or relative speed actually, if talking about TD)(velocity only applying to LC).

But Einstein & Lorentz are both wrong. The ticking of macro clocks will/might depend on lots of things including .......
(i) the equation governing the ticking (eg pendulum)(eg tuning fork)(eg balance wheel), &
(ii) the effect of LC on the Length or Width or Thickness in that equation, &
(iii) the effect of LC on the density (mass does not change but the distribution of the mass might), &
(iv) the effect of LC & (iii) on the strength & stiffness (ie Young's Modulus), &
(v) the velocity of the aetherwind, not speed, because (ii)(iii)(iv) depend on direction.

(8) Re length contraction, i believe that the Lorentz equation for gamma needs upgrading. I believe that the speed of light is slowed near mass, due to photaeno-drag. I think that Einstein's GR equation might be correct or very nearly, ie the speed of light near mass is slowed by gamma, the V in the equation for gamma being the escape velocity at that location. Gamma approaches zero as the escape velocity approaches c, ie as V/c approaches 1 (c being the maximum possible speed of light in vacuum)(if well away from any other mass including other photons & photaenos)(photaenos being em radiation).

Therefor the speed of light in the laboratory will be say c' (if in vacuum) which is less than c. Therefore the equation for gamma for LC in the laboratory should involve VV/c'c' not VV/cc.

And when calculating the value of c' we need to use the escape velocity V in the V/c in gamma. But in the case of a laboratory on Earth that escape velocity would need to be the sum of all escape velocities, ie including the Sun & Earth & Moon etc. Not the nett escape velocity. We need to use the total because photaeno-drag is due to the total photaeno flux fighting for the use of the aether, & this flux is additive.
For example the nett gravity halfway tween two identical stars is zero, but the photaeno flux at that point is double the flux due to a solitary star.

I would appreciate any comments, if u have time, no hurry.
A few of the above would be a shocking revelation to physics.
Thanx,

[D_Archer]

So, in laymans terms...

If you could somehow forcefully spin of the local photons and/or hold enough photons in place and spin them in reverse, you weaken or better the effect of gravity on whatever has those photons spinning in reverse?

Or do I have this wrong somehow (as someone with no real background in this field easily might)

Almost, but you could say it simpler. If you spin something that already naturally recylces more photons, it would then start to recycle (or suck in) even more photons, the increased photon density below that something would interact more readily with the field of photons that is coming from below, creating hits at the tangent, thus pushing itself up.

'weaken gravity'

With the charge field (ie real photons going up), gravity is explained as being the binding energy of matter, ie how much of those up going photons is recycled by for instance a brick, that determines how much it is pushed down, if the brick was not recycling it would go up because it would be pushed up all the time with no side or down forces acting upon it. So if you would spin an aluminum disc and you could somehow weaken the recycling or influx of photons (from the top and sides) you would indeed weaken the hold of gravity on that object. The halbach array spin setup does not work like that as it actually forces in MORE photons from the top, the effect is only just above a surface, you can not suspend it in mid-air as would be possible with a real anti-gravity device.

[Nonafel]

So if I have the understanding correct, you can weaken the pull/push of gravity but not fully negate it?

[D_Archer]

So if I have the understanding correct, you can weaken the pull/push of gravity but not fully negate it?

Fully negate is indeed not possible (in all likelihood) as all matter recycles charge (photons) but you can push against it. There are also materials like aluminium that recycle less charge (or better said, reflecting more photons at the surface than absorbing them) at the surface because of their atomic structure , yt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHED5xSnnM8

Regards,
Daniel

[Nonafel]

Interesting to see
Normally when you see such a thing depectied in fiction, there's emitters or other parts that have a glowing effect to them.
Would a free floating object using this method then have no glowing effect, or if it does do we have any idea what color it/the photons would be in the visible spectrum?