Instantaneous Transmission of Electric Force

Experiments being conducted by ISUS, primarily on "alternative" systems that the RS provides an explanation for.
hugh
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:12 am

Good stuff

Post by hugh » Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:23 am

Congratulations on a brilliant replication of Allen's experiment. Very thorough work, scientifically correct and a nice result.

Interesting that you think it but a reflection. A bit disappointing as regards the infinite speed idea. I'll have to look into your conclusions.

One other possibility than the coulomb is that pure magnetic flux rings could be travelling FTL: See my attached sketch.

NOTE: I did some calculations a while back and calculating magnetic field strength and rate of change of flux, could estimate roughly what the induction should be.

I found it matched Allen's values quite well.

So yes - this could be FTL induction! Check it out.

Code: Select all


PS: Did I understand that reflection might be a possibility because the same cable connected transmission and reception scopes? To rule that out, completely separate systems should be used. Timing could be compared afterwards by transferring data by usb stick or similar. You would first calibrate to know exactly what time offset there was initially and after the experiments, so times could be matched during it.
Attachments
dipoles.jpg
dipoles.jpg (59.9 KiB) Viewed 1298 times

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Reflections

Post by bperet » Sun Nov 30, 2014 2:38 pm

PS: Did I understand that reflection might be a possibility because the same cable connected transmission and reception scopes? To rule that out, completely separate systems should be used. Timing could be compared afterwards by transferring data by usb stick or similar. You would first calibrate to know exactly what time offset there was initially and after the experiments, so times could be matched during it.
We had some HAM radio guys there, that knew a LOT about antenna propagation, and their thought was that it was reflection from the ground, buildings (which we did prove as the case at one time--we had the setup parallel to the barn, in which a big, metal-sided RV was parked), or the atmosphere. Apparently, it does not take much to reflect the signal, even a small metal stand, like on a tower, will do it.

To test this theory, we introduced a grounded sheet of metal between the axial antennas, which would block any transmitted Coulomb force.
KingReflector.jpg
KingReflector.jpg (53.48 KiB) Viewed 3012 times
That's author and lecturer Moray B. King "reflecting" upon the situation. End result--no change in the measurements. We still picked up that same FTL signal, which appeared to be bouncing around the shield. We also tried running the metal sheet on the sides of the antenna, which had a considerable effect, shifting the phase all over. The antenna is not transmitting orthogonal to its length, but more like a conic. The strongest reflected signal was the one nearest zero phase at the shortest distance.

In the Reciprocal System, all scalar effects (magnitude only) appear to be instantaneous because there is nothing actually being transmitted between the objects--it's an artifact of the "observer principle" that translates scalar motion into a coordinate system (as described in the initial post with the cars heading for each other). Anything that is transmitted would have some finite velocity, either sublight or FTL, depending on the resulting net motion.
So yes - this could be FTL induction! Check it out.
Magnetism, like the Coulomb force and gravity, would also be a scalar effect and instanteneous. Gravity is the oddball situation because, in the RS, gravity has two, distinct sources in an atom--the atomic rotation (instantaneous) and the rotational vibration of isotopic mass (finite speed--the "graviton"). So with gravity, you get a mix of both instant and finite effects. The larger the isotopic mass (the mass above twice the atomic number), the larger the finite effect.
Every dogma has its day...

hugh
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:12 am

Nice extra tests

Post by hugh » Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:59 am

Of course reflections from buildings does not explain how you get FTL. Those are good experiments with the shield. I suspect that the conical transmission could indeed be magnetic flux rings, which as you also agree, could be also FTL - i.e. only the mix of EM waves from accelerating charges is at light speed.

Was it completely ruled out that there was any pickup on the measurement system? I.e. were you using just 1 scope and 2 channnels or independent scopes for transmitter and receiver?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Phase shift cancellation

Post by bperet » Fri Dec 12, 2014 3:50 pm

Of course reflections from buildings does not explain how you get FTL.
Actually, it does. We were measuring the speed by phase shift from a reference signal. If you are moving FTL, then the transmitted signal will arive before the reference signal--but with one problem. We are looking at waves, so there is no way to tell which peak of the reference signal matches which peak of the transmitted signal. By sliding the antenna along the pole, you can watch how the phase shift changes and make some assumptions about speed. Since the length of the reference signal wire is constant, if you have instantaneous communication than the phase shift is zero (or some fixed amount, depending on the initial phase of the wire). So if the phase doesn't change as you vary distance, the connection appears instantaneous.

The problem with reflected waves is that the reflected wave reverses the phase shift. So if I had a +5ns phase shift going out and it bounced off something about half-way between the antennas (like the ground or building), the reflected wave would have a -5ns phase shift that cancels out the non-reflected phase shift of +5ns, always giving it a zero result, making it appear as instantaneous.

We were using a 400mhz 2-channel scope that had a built-in phase comparator so it would display the phase shift in nanoseconds right on the screen.

We have not done more on this yet, as our equipment guy was Dave Faust, and he just died from cancer. We did obtain some fiber optic equipment, so after the holidays I"m going to take a look at it again. I think the optical approach is better, as it does not have the EM noise problems and you get a cleaner reference signal. I also want to use the one-shot approach, rather than a wave, so there is a clear representation of transmitted and received impulses.
Every dogma has its day...

hugh
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:12 am

Phase shift cancellation

Post by hugh » Tue Dec 16, 2014 1:50 am

Sorry to hear of the passing of Dave Faust. If this turns into Nobel stuff, let his name be included in the citations.

Thanks you for explaining about the reflections. I see the problem now. And I quite agree about the idea of one sharp pulse which can be traced with certainty and no danger of spurious aliasing. I had thought of that myself: you can get pulse generators not too expensive these days.

I also had an idea to avoid cross-talk problems between scope channels. You could have a low power light bulb attached to the transmitter and another to the receiver. You then place a high time-resolution video camera exactly half way between transmitter and receiver and offset about 10m or so from the line joining the 2 dipoles. If you have at least sub-micro-sec accuracy on the video, it should be clear if there is a delay in the receiver pulse or not.

Or even in the normal AC sinusiodal transmission, if you programmed a ceries of bulbs of differnt colours to fire for successive cycles on transmitter and receiver, you could maybe eliminate ambiguity of aliasing.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare PDF on Coulomb Force

Post by bperet » Tue Dec 16, 2014 3:25 pm

Looks like a nuclear energy lab is saying that "yep, it is infinite."
In late 2012, experimenters of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, at the Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati in Frascati, Rome performed an experiment which indicated that there was no delay in propagation of the force between a beam of electrons and detectors. This was taken as indicating that the field seemed to travel with the beam of electrons as if it were a rigid structure preceding the beam. Though awaiting corroboration, the results indicate that aberration is not present in the Coulomb force. The experiment, which was repeated in 2014, confirmed the results from 2012.
Link to PDF of experiment: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.2913, "Measuring Propagation Speed of Coulomb Field" (Sep 11, 2014)

23 pages of math and graphs; going through it now to see what they did and how they did it. Interesting date of publication... 9/11.
Every dogma has its day...

hugh
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:12 am

Coulomb Force speed

Post by hugh » Thu Dec 18, 2014 2:11 am

Yes - I saw the first of their reports even before I saw the papers on Allen Robnett's experiments - where they planned their experiment. Later they did it and though they are very cautious in their wording, it seems they also got an essentially instantaneous effect. They refer to a 'rigid field' being push in front of the uniformly moving electrons. In a way theirs is even more a test of the Coulomb force speed as the electrons in the beam are indeed moving with constant velocity, while in Allen's radio tests the electrons are accelerating, which complicated the issue with those reflections etc.

duane
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

hi Bruce,

Post by duane » Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:15 pm

hi Bruce,

in the article, they first talk about instantaneous gravity

but the experiment uses a electron beam and concludes that the electron beam pushes the coulomb field ahead of it

are we then to assume that stars, planets, etc also push the coulumb field ahead of themselves producing gravity? or something that leads to it?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1392
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

There is no gravity, the Earth sucks

Post by bperet » Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:22 pm

are we then to assume that stars, planets, etc also push the coulumb field ahead of themselves producing gravity? or something that leads to it?
In the RS, there is no exchange of fields or particles (virtual or otherwise) between bodies that makes them attract (or repel) each other. The motion is within the mass, itself (see the original post with the cars pointed at each other). When you have scalar motion, the only choice is inward or outward. Outward is always present via the progression of the natural reference system. Inward is due to the rotating systems of the atoms involved.

Consider two masses, A and B. The progression will be trying to push them apart (outward) while gravitation is trying to pull them together (inward). If progression wins out (outward is larger than inward), then A and B just proceed on their independent courses. If gravitation wins (inward is larger than outward), then the A and B get closer to each other.

A simple analogy would be: take two vacuum cleaners and bring the ends of the hoses near each other. If the suction is strong enough, the hoses will pull together and hit each other. If too weak, then not much happens. Those "absolute locations" on the natural reference system is analogous to the air between, but in the scalar sense, you are "sucking in" locations, not atoms--the grid is shrinking.

A "mind problem" to think about would be to take two model trains on a single track, moving in opposite directions, each with a balloon attached that can be inflated. Start the trains moving (the progression) and start inflating the balloons at the same time (gravitation). Depending on the speed of the trains and the diameter of inflation, three things can happen... 1) trains win and the balloons move apart. 2) train is moving apart at the same rate as the diameter of the balloons expand, keeping the edges of the balloons exactly the same distance apart. 3) the balloons are inflating faster than the train is moving them apart, and they hit each other. Try visualizing that in your mind and you'll see that there are no "forces of attraction" involved. That's a 1-dimensional version of scalar motion. For the Universe, you have to think like that in 3D, which is a little more difficult.
Every dogma has its day...

duane
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

Ihi Bruce

Post by duane » Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:03 am

Ihi Bruce

" are we then to assume that stars, planets, etc also push the coulumb field ahead of themselves producing gravity? or something that leads to it?"

I guess my question was really to the authors of the papers. Do they think gravity and the effects of the electron beam are the same?

"A simple analogy would be: take two vacuum cleaners and bring the ends of the hoses near each other. If the suction is strong enough, the hoses will pull together and hit each other. If too weak, then not much happens. Those "absolute locations" on the natural reference system is analogous to the air between, but in the scalar sense, you are "sucking in" locations, not atoms--the grid is shrinking."

http://www.amazon.com/The-Final-Theory- ... 1599428660

a similiar thinking here

stuff keeps getting larger, but space doesn't

so it appears that things are attracted (gravity)

Post Reply