First Post!

9/12/2011

Start blogging by creating a new post. You can edit or delete me by clicking under the comments. You can also customize your sidebar by dragging in elements from the top bar.

62 Comments

Gabriel Arthur Petrie

2/14/2012 09:05:38 pm

I'm so glad you came back online! I had a copy of your old website presentation, with the really beautifully presented graphic laying out the interactions of all of these physical laws and how your theory places them in the context of gyroscopic force. Is that illustration going to be in your book? It looked sort of like a panel from Star Trek or something, it was very sleek.

When the site went offline I was shocked. I started looking you up to see if you could be contacted about your theories. I saw you submitted a couple of principles to a scientific journal. Glad to see you're back!

Willie Johnson Jr. link

2/23/2012 11:20:30 pm

Gabriel
Thanks for your kind comments and for being the first to post on my site. Sorry to say that I updated the chart you speak of and that version is in the book. Not as near as colorful but more precise. I will try to post both versions of the chart on this site in the near future. Again thanks for the kind comments.
Willie

Steve Wilson

3/26/2012 06:59:43 am

Hello Willie, I am comforted by your GFT and also believe you are on the right track, I don't profess to understand everything you have written, but would very much like to buy your book and ask a few theoretical questions if i may, if Gyroscopic Force did exist, and was able to impart a thrust on to orbital particles thus giving them an artificial mass would this explain the Higgs Boson field effect? and if the imparted force/thrust was equal & opposite there would be no loss of energy, would that scenario calculate out to be an acceptable equation in the standard model?
Regards Steve

Willie Johnson link

4/3/2012 10:01:00 pm

Steve
Thanks. Email me at [email protected]. I may be able to arrange getting you a book without payment in exchange for a bit of honest critiquing. Give me a bit of time to think about the Higgs Boson Field effect and see how the GFT relates to it.

Willie Johnson Jr. link

4/4/2012 02:46:04 am

Comparing and contrasting tenants of the GFT and the Standard model become a bit tricky. I have tried to maintain some of the same terminology in terms of particles as the standard model, but quite frankly, they may or may not be equivalent.

First off the GFT has proposed several schemes by which we may form fundamental and elementary particles; the two most prominent being quaternions via a trigonometric scheme and the basis blades of geometric algebra (GA). Now the standard model proposes that it is the ±W and Z0 bosons that form the basis of particle formation. The GFT also proposes that it is at the sedenion level where “the” basic particle is formed and that this most fundamental of particles is the q1234 basis blade. Actually this blade can take on two forms and two antiparticles. The GFT proposes that the electron and photon are identical particles just 90 degrees out of phase. At this level they are equivalent and correspond (roughly) to ±W and Z0 where Z0 would have an antiparticle and correspond, roughly, to the photon version.

The GFT proposes that “mass” is a consequence of curvature of space time. Now here is where it gets tricky. At the sedenion level there is technically no curvature of space (despite the presence of k=curvature) because at this level we are allowed only a single dimension. However that dimension must inherently contain curvature or vorticity via the equation
Ψ=κ+τ=C=√enstrophy=√(E/V)=√(F/r^2 )=η
where
Psi=the wave function, kappa= curvature, tau= torsion, C=centrode, E=energy, F=force, eta=vorticity.

Go to the beginning of the site and note the cover of the book. This illustrates the trigonometric construction of deuterium (the structure in the top left corner). Its nucleons are formed along the triangles leading up to its formation. Those nucleons formed along the hypotenuse are neutral and scalar. Those along the legs are charged and vectors or versors. At the sedenion level we are only allowed the presence of the hypotenuse. But note that the hypotenuse of any right triangle must inherently be composed of the two right angled legs. (We prove via the definition of a dual that there can never be a true single dimension.)

Note that on the sedenion level, by the above equation, the only physical quantity allowed to exist is vorticity or the square root of force in a single dimension. (the square root of force is undefined) There is no mass at this level. However once we factor Psi by its conjugate we square the terms yielding
Ψ^* Ψ=E/v=F/r^2 =ma/r^2 =η^2=enstrophy

Mass is formed or rather issues forth by evoluting the q1234 particle into the octonion level and the legs of the hypotenuse are made manifest. This is where the leptons and photons are formed and presumably the Higgs boson. The GFT predicts several mass particles in the range of the Higgs boson mass . It is undetermined if any of those masses predicted by the GFT correspond to that of the Higgs particle.

Lastly, given the tenants of the GFT there is no need to invoke forces such as color or strong forces. The inherent precession of quarks (rooted in the most fundamental of physical qualities- vorticity) provides all the force and means necessary to achieve atomic and molecular bonding.

So if we see the gyroscopic force as being a manifestation of vorticity and precession then yes, it could well account for the mass of the Higgs boson. Indeed, it must account for this mass if this particle truly exists.

Serwis laptopów wrocław link

7/17/2012 02:57:04 pm

I dont think Ive seen all of the angles of this topic the way youve pointed them out. Youre a true star, a rock star man. Youve got so significantly to say and know so much about the subject that I believe you must just teach a class about it

Michael Stallings

10/30/2012 03:52:47 am

I am glad to see you are back on the web and still continuing your work. In Chapter 26 (the only chapter I have been able to find) you state: "Indeed, the GFT posits that electric induction can occur if and only if electron precession is executed." This being so, is there a means to inudce current without convnetional methods of changing a magnetic field?

How may I obtain a copy of the book with updates? Also, some of your old papers realted to GFT and TC have interesting abstracts, but are not obtianable through the many soruces that list them. Is this material covered in your book?

Best REgards,

Mike Stallings

Willie Johnson

11/4/2012 04:49:30 am

In the original Word formatted form of the book I had this short chapter but decided to not include it in the latest publication. My Law of Dimensions would indicate that precession, is precession, is precession no matter the source so theoretically this should work. The figure, which will not print here, simply shows a precessing disc with current being drawn from the edge.

VI:27:5 The Gravitational Effects on the HPG:
Simulation of the Magnetic Field Through Precession

At the outset of this chapter it was posited that the electrons in the HPG are forced to precess in a type of planar precession, even as the gyroscope itself is restrained from doing so. This constitutes magnetic induction of a current. It has also been stated that magnetic induction is electron precession, therefore we may substitute the physical precession of the disc with the effect of the magnets.

This proposition can be easily tested by the setup in Figure 27l. In the same circumstances suppose we allow a two-piece HPG to function as a spinning top or gyroscope, allowing it to precess under the full influence of gravity. This additional precession is equivalent to an enhancement of the radial current. Lenz’s law will oppose this influx of current and thus the degree of precession will be less than that of a non-magnetized top. We can use this to our advantage. If we were to draw current from the HPG we would normally develop a back torque, however we can counteract this by allowing the gyroscope to precess under the influence of gravity. The gravitational influx of current will offset the ensuing back torque caused by the current drain.

Willie Johnson

11/4/2012 11:17:17 pm

Michael
I just added a Figure 271a to the site. It is listed under the Tovacian Chemistry section and is entitled Gravity Induced Current in an Acyclic Generator. It is essentially a spinning top and would have very little practical application but it should be a nice demonstration of proof of concept.

Willie Johnson Jr.

11/4/2012 11:26:51 pm

You know it just occurred to me. If gravity induces precession and precession induces a current and a current induces a magnetic field then it must be the case that the earth's magnetic field is due to the gravitational precession of the earth around the sun.

Michael Stallings

11/6/2012 05:05:56 am

Interesting deduction. That would apply to other orbiting bodies as well. Earth also has a conductive ocean.

What other forces cause precession?

Willie Johnson Jr.

11/6/2012 05:41:08 am

Again. It is not so much what other forces causes precession. The law of dimensions says that force, is force, is force. Doesn't matter what type. It only matters their orientation.

If an object has at least two forces acting on it at right angles then it will precess. The converse is also true. If an object is precessing then it must be under the influence of at least two orthogonally acting forces. So Coulomb force, Coriolis force, gravity, ocean currents, you name it it should all work in theory.

Michael Stallings

11/6/2012 10:31:50 pm

So, any two orthogonal forces that act on electrons should induce a current. This reminds me of the "guiding center" page on wikipedea which shows orthogonal forces resulting in electron drift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiding_center
In a conductor, the electrons are not entirely free to move. If I have an electric field orthogonal to gravity, such as placing a piece of wire in front of a CRT screen, a current is not induced. Is relative motion always required to induce current in a conductor?

Willie Johnson Jr.

11/7/2012 02:05:59 am

It is true that the electrons in a conductor are not entirely free to move. But by precessing the conductor you necessarily precess the electrons contained within thus, theoretically, you should induce a current.

By "placing " a piece of wire in front of the screen I am assuming that the wire is being held in place. If so then this nullifies the effect of the gravity.

Relative motion is needed to induce a current but you have to be certain as to what it is you are moving the electrons relative to. Basically there really is no contradiction between Faraday's law of induction and the behavior of the homopolar generator. Both function due tot he application of yank, i.e., the change in force or F/t or Ei.. We could succinctly sum up Faraday's law of induction as saying: yanking electrons will induce a current. The corollary to this is that any precessing particle will be under the influence of some form of yank.

In Faraday's law of induction when we move the wire relative to the magnet or vice a versa we are are simply changing the status of the static electron from being acted upon by an electrostatic force to an electromagnetic force. We change the force thus we apply a yank thus we induce a current, By changing the magnetic flux we by definition change the force being applied and thus exert a yank. In the homopolar generator moving the magnet and not the conductor disk doesn't induce a current because the electrons of the conductor disk remain under the influence of an electrostatic force. Rotating the magnet changes neither the electrostatic force nor does it change the strength of the magnetic field nor the direction of the field. However once we rotate the conductor disk we then change the electrons from an electrostatic to electromotive stance creating a yank which induces a current.

Michael Stallings

11/7/2012 09:22:16 am

Great response! You explained induction very well.

CoffeeEveryDay.com link

5/13/2015 10:56:55 pm

yeah....you are right

Michael Stallings

11/8/2012 12:01:38 am

How does electron precession occur during conduction?

Is there an aspect of a conductor that allows precession to occur when there is a potential difference between two locations?

Why is a closed path required?

Willie Johnson Jr.

11/8/2012 02:53:02 am

How does electron precession occur during conduction?

Remember conduction, designated as the current i, is simply an electron moving (actually being accelerated) through some medium that possesses some quality called resistance, R. That medium is the conductor. The best example of demonstrating how and why electron precession occurs during conduction is shown in the homopolar generator. I’m not quite sure what figure it is that this is demonstrated in in the old Chapter 26 but on the homopolar generator conducting disk it would mathematically look like (Exi) x (E*xi*) which is equivalent to (Ei*)x(E*i) = Yank x yank, where E is force per charge and i, the current, is charge per time.

Is there an aspect of a conductor that allows precession to occur when there is a potential difference between two locations?

Absolutely. There is a section in the book that covers deriving induction equations entitled The GFT Electromagnetic Equations of Inductions. The equations can all be simply derived using dimensional analysis applied to the Lorentz force equation while treating each variable of the equation, F, qv, and B as quaternions. In so doing we may derive an electric force induction equation defined by (B/t)x(qr)=E.
where B is the magnetic field strength per charge, t is time, q is charge, v is velocity, and E is force per charge. We have already explained in a previous post how a changing magnetic field, (B/t), creates precession. So we have the precession aspect. What about the potential difference aspect? This we may get through Ohm’s law where V=iR where V is voltage or energy per charge and R is the resistance of the conductor. V is also equivalent to Er where r is distance. So we may express Ohms law as Er= iR. Taking (B/t)x(qr)=E and multiplying both sides by r yields Er= (B/t)x(qrr)= V.

The book goes into this in some detail but briefly it must be stated that any moving charge is an accelerated charge. And any accelerated charge (electron) is a precessing charge. Indeed, any charge, no matter its ostensible state of motion, static or otherwise, is a particle of constant precession and thus is always precessing. Intrinsic electron spin is actually electron precession a quality every electron possesses and which is a quality that cannot be removed thus every electron is a particle undergoing constant precession. This is an irrefutable fact. Thus even a static electron is a precessing electron.

Why is a closed path required?

Having shown that we may express Ohm’s law in terms of precession or in terms of a changing magnetic field then any standard explanation of a closed path electrical circuit should answer this sufficiently.

Michael Stallings

11/9/2012 03:58:36 am

Is there a way to simulate the movement required for induction, or to move "space" relative to the conductor/force?

Willie Johnson Jr.

11/9/2012 05:24:58 am

“Moving space”. That’s an interesting concept. I don’t know if this addresses what you mean but if we can think of ”moving space” as expanding , or shrinking space then perhaps. Let’s go back to that equation in the previous post Er= (B/t)x(qrr)= V. The more common expression of this equation is emf=vBl . You can find an explanation of this in any standard text book on induction and motional emf. Now generally it is stated that given emf=vBl , the magnitude of the induced emf can be increased by increasing the strength of the magnetic field, moving the bar faster, or using a longer bar where l represents the length of the bar. But let’s look at this dimensionally. Dimensionally we would have emf=(rBl)/t. Since both l and r are lengths we would have then have emf=(rrB)/t=(AB)/t where A=area. Notice that in this arrangement we are free to vary either the magnetic field or the area through which it passes. Thus through a dimensional determination we can say the magnitude of the induced emf can be increased by increasing the strength of the magnetic field or increasing the area through which it passes. So if we “move space” by expanding the area then we can induce a current. But this is wholly equivalent to changing the magnetic flux (by changing the area) or moving a conductor (the bar) in a magnetic field. It’s all equivalent as it must be.

Michael Stallings

11/12/2012 11:16:43 am

How about "other" means of inducing current? We established above that two orthogonal forces and relative motion or change induce current.

What if we applied a time-dependent electric field (not a sine wave but a positive pulse) orthogonal to a static magnetic field? If our conductor is a loop and we positioned a ring of emitters (for lack of a better term) that applied the electric impulse, we could trigger the emitters sequentially.

We then have a rotating time-dependent electric field of positive polarity, orthogonal to a magnetic field. Would this work at all or only at certain pulse rates?

I have read a little about electric fields like this studied in plasma physics, but always sine waves or high or low frequency, and always a plasma. Interestingly, the electric field force is attributed to the Ponderomotive Force rather than the Lorentz Force.

Michael Stallings

1/9/2013 01:59:48 am

You stated above:
"My Law of Dimensions would indicate that precession, is precession, is precession no matter the source so theoretically this should work."

"The law of dimensions says that force, is force, is force. Doesn't matter what type. It only matters their orientation."

What is the "Law of Dimensions"?

Can you post a page on the "GFT Electromagnetic Equations of Inductions"?

Best Regards

Willie Johnson Jr.

5/21/2013 12:54:21 am

I have just made the book available to the general public at cost for a limited time. I will not make a penny from this initial offering. It goes straight to Lulu. It just isn't practical to list chapters and several pages on the site. The book would be a much better source.

There are 2 versions. The complete version is in color but is relatively expensive. The abridged version is in black and white and costs about 28 dollars. I urge you to purchase one of the books. Be unmerciful in your critique. Any mistakes, typographical errors, gramatical errors, misstatement of fact, incoherent passages or concepts, please let me know. Again my main goal is to get this right so be unflinching in your critique.

fat loss factor review download link

3/13/2013 10:13:17 am

Pretty component of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to assert that I get actually loved account your blog posts. Any way I will be subscribing to your augment or even I success you get right of entry to persistently rapidly.

Poker Stars link

3/30/2013 03:28:56 am

I have been functioning with pcs for yrs, but I usually search on the net to see if there are any sources readily available to me.|A different element you have to have to contemplate no matter whether you can manage the value which charged from you.

Poker Stars link

3/30/2013 10:33:17 pm

You could certainly see your skills in the paintings you write. The world hopes for more passionate writers like you who aren't afraid to mention how they believe. All the time go after your heart.

Willie Johnson Jr.

5/21/2013 12:46:21 am

Thank you for the kind sentiments

Willie Johnson Jr.

5/21/2013 12:59:53 am

To my gracious readers:
I have just allowed the purchase of the Gyrosopic Force Theory to the genral public for a limited time at cost. My hope is to induce a small group of readers to purchase the book at a reduced rate, thus securing a small group of interested readers who will give me feedback and criticisms concerning the book. Please be brutal and unflinchingly honest in your critiques. You may contact me here with your critiques or at [email protected].

Michael Stallings

9/23/2013 07:24:17 am

In the abridged copy of your book, you list equations for induction of electric current, one of which is: ExB=qr/t

How can you cause a change the scalar electric field?

Willie Johnson Jr.

9/24/2013 10:06:04 am

Just curious. Did you purchase a copy?

I asked because I'm not sure if I should post the section if you already have it in the book. The pertinent chapter is 25.12.

I must admit, making something flow that is ostensibly static does seem nonsensical but Tesla proved that this is indeed what occurs;

http://journal.borderlands.com/2010/the-broadcast-power-of-nikola-tesla-part-2/

Again, the law of dimensions is always correct as has just been demonstrated by Tesla. (I derived these equations well before I knew of any of the work in this area by Tesla) Our job as scientists is to decipher and determine what are the physical analogues to the dimensional expressions.

Michael Stallings

9/26/2013 03:12:37 am

Yes, I purchased the b/w abridged version, and hope to purchase the color version later this year. I'll take a look at chapter 25.12

Your work is one of many things that has inspired me to return to school. Keep it up!

Willie Johnson

9/26/2013 05:32:57 am

Thank you Michael for both the purchase and the kind words. Lulu offers coupons monthly anywhere from 10 to 20 percent off so if you do decide to purchase the color edition try and use one of the coupons to defray the cost. The color illustrations really shine in the chapter dealing with the creation of the periodic chart, and particle structure. The b/w illustrations just do no do them justice.

As you can see the book is very broad and covers a several areas. Each section could very easily be expanded into its own separate book. I hope the book proves to be stimulating and if you have any questions or see anything that needs correcting please let me know.

Michael Stallings

9/28/2013 02:59:37 am

Looking at page 364, section 25.12 of the abridged version, you describe that the E field is regarded as the moving centrode and B as the fixed space centrode. Then you explain that even though qr may have zero velocity and though E may be fixed, qr is still effectively transferred from one location on the space centrode to the other, provided E and B are circular.

Is qr actually "moving" in a physical sense? You use the term "transfer" rather than "move", so I am not sure if qr moves or is some change in state.

If qr moves, then does qr possess momentum and inertia?

If qr can be moved, can we push against it?

Willie Johnson

9/28/2013 09:42:37 am

Michael,
These are all really great questions. I must confess, I too find it rather confusing trying to express the character of qr. What is it? What is it doing? How can static quantities flow? I struggled with this concept when trying to grasp the implications of the Poynting vector. I looked it up again for review and sure enough qr and the Poynting vector seem to be related via S=1/u0(ExB )where S is the Poynting vector. An excellent discussion of the Poynting vector can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-bDprTsnfo
Also when studying quaternions we get a slightly different view of vectors. Our conventional notion is something with magnitude and direction. But quaternionically we get an additional insight. It sees a vector as “A vector is the representative of transference through a given distance in a given direction.” This notion of transference or matriculation is crucial in this instance. Once we ascribe to qr a vector connotation it by definition moves or flows from point a to point b in a certain direction. How one describes the actual physical movement is where it gets tricky? obscure? unknowable? complicated? It also characterizes a scalar as a sphere and rotation or change of positioning upon the surface of that sphere creates a vector. Arc distance along a surface of a sphere is by definition a quaternion which in turn is a vector.
Lastly keep in mind that these are induction equations. Even if E and B are static and or scalar ( I’m pretty sure that E=F/q has to be a vector even though its considered as being an electrostatic field) they never the less quaternionically induce a flow. The quaternions say this must be the case. Remember, a vector is the representative of transference through a given distance in a given direction. How is this accomplished physically? That requires more research. The video describes the Poynting vector as being the energy per unit time per unit area. So qr is some form of flowing energy moving at the speed of light. Therefore qr definitely has momentum and inertia. Therefore we can push against it and it against us.
Here is a quote from another site:
“Is there any experimantal proof that electromagnetic wave exert pressure?
Yes, there is. Now, it's a little hard to see this in our everyday, ordinary life, because the pressure exerted by light waves (or radio waves, or X-rays) is very small compared to other common pressures: due to wind, or currents of water, or gravity pulling a box down onto a floor, etc. However, if we could eliminate all those other effects, we would be able to see macroscopic objects pushed around by the pressure of light.
A good way to eliminate other sources of pressure is to into space. With no air, and no water, and very little matter at all, objects are so isolated that the small pressure of sunlight can take over. Scientists have designed "solar sails" to take advantage of this isolation. Solar sails are basically large, very thin pieces of reflective foil. If they are placed into space so that one large, flat side faces the Sun, then electromagnetic waves from the Sun will strike the foil and bounce back, towards the Sun. As Newton's Third Law states, if the foil exerts a force on the photons (bouncing them backwards towards the Sun), then the photons exert a force of equal size but opposite direction on the foil (pushing it away from the Sun). These forces are small, so they don't produce large accelerations -- they are very much smaller than the accelerations of ordinary rocket engines. But they do require no fuel, just sunlight, and that's free. So for some purposes, these solar sails could be used to ferry material around the solar system. You can find a good reference page describing sails at
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~diedrich/solarsails/ “

Hope this helps.
Willie

Willie Johnson

9/28/2013 09:47:42 am

Michael
To further expound upon qr and its relationship to S....
tExB=qr
ExB=qr/t
ExB=u0S
u0S=qr/t
tu0S=qr
The video describes the Poynting vector as being the energy (e) per unit time per unit area.
so
u0(e/A)=qr
So qr is still some type of energy though it is not ostensibly moving at c. It seems to be some form of a static representation of the Poynting vector. But again, as a vector quaternion it possesses an inherent flow, translation, transference, matriculation.

Willie

Michael Stallings

9/28/2013 01:46:51 pm

I remember Dirac's comments on the Poynting Vector and how energy flowed out of the source, and into the load, making no sense what so ever, and it doesn't tell you "how" it occurs.

Is there some sort of medium that is moving? Dirac and Tesla believed that empty space was actually filled with "something", Tesla believed in conductive carriers surrounded by a dielectric, and Dirac termed the "Dirac Sea" of virtual photons.

Here is the big question related to both: how do gyroscopic forces affect virtual entities? Since they spin just as physical entities do, they must follow the same rules.

How could we determine if qr is a physical movement or a transference of a condition? If you had a field of spinning tops and you made a circular pattern of them spin faster, it is not the same as if the circular pattern is actually rotating as a whole. The fact that qr can be moved so easily, is profound since it can in turn move something else and appear to cause a greater affect, but in actuality, we just used the spin which is provided freely.

I'll take a look at that video.

Thanks

Mike

Willie Johnson

10/2/2013 07:06:23 am

Tesla and Maxwell and Faraday believed in the aether, Einstein space-time, modern contemporary scientists will laugh and ridicule the concept of an aether (bad science and crackpot theory) but they doggedly promote zero point energy and virtual particles. It's actually pretty amusing especially since Tesla quite clearly and definitively proved the existence of an aether or rather the existence of electrostatic impulses that permeate space. Bottom line; nobody believes in a completely empty space. Even Einstein gave this empty space physical characteristics.

People will construct Tesla coils and play with the streaming "lightening" emanating from the coil not really realizing that this is an electrostatic as opposed to an electromagnetic event. I'm speculating here but I see qr as being similar to that "lightening" being generated from a Tesla coil. Again, in generating streaming discharges from his coil, Tesla assiduously purposefully eliminated all alternating current. He purposefully generated only one way none oscillating electrical impulses and got rid of the electromagnetic characteristics of the current and only generated electrostatic impulses. Again we bump up against that seeming oxymoronic: electrostatic impulses. It is this aspect of his work that has gone almost completely unnoticed and unappreciated. Euler’s equation of quaternions, as well as GA as well as contemporary electrodynamics theory clearly shows, indeed, imposes that there must be a scalar expression of electrodynamics every bit as valid as there is of the vector/electromagnetic nature. Scientist and engineers are rooted in the vector/electromagnetic side ignoring the scalar side.

The GFT does not support the existence of virtual particles as currently described in contemporary electrodynamics. The GFT promotes unwaveringly the sanctity and inviolability of the law of the conservation of energy. Contemporary virtual particle theory does not. However the GFT does support the seamless transitioning of a particle/quaternion from one of pure vector to one of pure scalar. It is this transitioning that accounts for the peculiar behavior of "virtual" particles. qr could certainly be classified as being a scalar particle or entity.

Here is an excerpt from my second book, Po Pi Phi Psi. The second book delves into vortex based mathematics and its connection to quaternion mathematics. It was through this connection that I was able to see exactly what virtual particles were and how and why they behave as they do.

"We may easily provide a more reasonable classical interpretation of virtual particles via the algebra of quaternions and the rules of magic square construction...This is the essence of virtual particle behavior. We may consider virtual particles as being scalar particles of -1. They are directed scalars. They have a sense of direction. A sense of matriculation. Indeed, a quantum of direction. Real particles are vector particles. Tangible particles. They stay on the grid. Virtual particles or more accurately scalar particles (admittedly a contradiction in terms) go off grid. Real particles are vector particles and are tangible but are represented by the imaginary complex numbers. Virtual particles are scalar entities that are non tangible and are represented by real complex numbers. In terms of the complex numbers vectors are imaginary where scalars are real."

"How could we determine if qr is a physical movement or a transference of a condition? If you had a field of spinning tops and you made a circular pattern of them spin faster, it is not the same as if the circular pattern is actually rotating as a whole. The fact that qr can be moved so easily, is profound since it can in turn move something else and appear to cause a greater affect, but in actuality, we just used the spin which is provided freely."

This is quite profund and insightful. In fact what you have just described is precession. Again if you spin a top clockwise it simultaneously spins conterclockwise via precession. It still blows my mind trying to reconcile this self contained opposing spins and they not cancel each other out. (This is the basis of my countercurrents and conformers which in the beginning I couldn't come to grips with even though the math and physics kept saying that this had to be the case.)

It seems qr both moves and can be moved. I can't recommend enough that you research Tesla's electrostatic impulses to try and get a more in depth understanding of the static,scalar, impulse (which connotes movement) behaviour of charge. I've just scratched the surface on this subject. There is so much more that requires a tremendous amount of research.

bedding link

9/29/2013 02:33:33 am

What is the best site to start a blog on?

Willie Johnson

9/30/2013 07:46:02 am

I really can't speak to that. I'm sure there are several that will suit your purpose for the right fee or use a free site like Weebly.

Straightening Machine link

10/1/2013 06:23:24 pm

I really can't speak to that.

Michael Stallings

10/2/2013 01:51:56 am

What are the units for qr?

Willie Johnson

10/2/2013 05:59:13 am

coulomb meter

Michael Stallings

10/2/2013 09:13:46 am

coulumb-meter ?

that the same units as an "electric dipole moment"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_dipole_moment

When qr is time dependent, as listed in your previous post, there is a fluctuation, or change, in the charge density.

Per page 13, here: http://uni-leipzig.de/~energy/pdf/freume3.pdf

There is an attractive or repulsive interaction with neighboring molecules. I'm not sure that both apply in this case, as this is way over my head.

It appears, to me at least, that this attraction or repulsion caused by the changing qr yanks the electrons in a conductor, which are also affected by the static magnetic field per 25.12 in the book. This causes the electrons to precess, producing a current.

Is Tesla the only person that discovered and utilized this form of induction? I'm not sure how to search for it in literature, maybe something like induction by change in charge density.

Willie Johnson

10/5/2013 12:33:42 pm

You bring up, once again some excellent points. I didn’t realize that qr was the electric dipole moment. That however clears up a lot of things and we can make predictions (assumptions) based on the dimensional analysis. Note that in chapter 9.2 I explain the mechanism of gravitation and its reactionary force, inertia, via Ida’s law where V=uB cos theta. In this case u is the magnetic dipole moment and must therefore have units of qvr since V=Er and E=qvB. I do however recall the electric and magnetic dipole moments as having the following characteristics: A static electric dipole subjected to an applied electric field will precess about that field. The same is almost true for a magnetic dipole, i.e., a moving charge subjected to a perpendicularly applied magnetic field will precess about that field. Note that all charges behave as if they are miniature bar magnets thus their magnetic polarity and thus their dipole (magnetic) nature. Both follow similar rules. For the electric dipole torque =uxE cos theta=qrxE cos theta. For the magnetic dipole torque=uxB sin theta=qrvxB sin theta. Note that in the electric dipole case qr is static but in the magnetic dipole case qr has a velocity,v, i.e., it moves. So what qr is and how it behaves has been clarified, and the excellent chapters you provided on the subject can be easily (well, justifiably) applied to the subject. (the site Hyperphysics makes the reading a lot more clearer if you start with their explanations and definitions first)

The more interesting result is the GFT induction equation where tExB=qr or (E/omega)xB=qr where t=1/omega= 1/frequency. Frequency implies spin or precession. Again, I stress implies not proves. However if that is the case look at what the equation implies. If we apply a magnetic field perpendicularly to a spinning or precessing electric field then we induce the creation of qr or polarized charge. This sound very similar to what I predicted for the homopolar generator (see 11/04/2012 12:49 reply) VI:27:5 The Gravitational Effects on the HPG: Simulation of the Magnetic Field Through Precession. In that case we simulated a magnetic field by precessing the disc. In this case we simulate torque by rotating the field thus inducing qr, the electric dipole, as polarized charge. I actually found an article that supports this: http://phys.org/news113146441.html. Note that the article says
“At first glance it is surprising that the spin can be rotated by an electric field. However, we know from the Theory of Relativity that a moving electron can ‘feel’ an electric field as though it were a magnetic field. Researchers …forced an electron to move through a rapidly-changing electric field…they showed that it was indeed possible to turn the spin of the electron by doing so.”

The bottom line is the dimensions will always be correct and will always lead you to the correct physics no matter from what point of view you start from. I wasn’t aware qr was the electric dipole moment but I knew it was real and had to behave in a certain manner because the algebra and the physics it demanded said it had to be. This is what is so fascinating about the GFT. By following the algebra it will always take you to the correct physical destination. The problem is understanding what that destination is physically.

Willie Johnson

10/6/2013 10:48:14 am

I played around with the tExB=qr induction equation dimensionally some more. Note: tE=tF/q=F/i or force per current.

However the more exciting expression is tE=tF/q which is equivalent to tFr/qr=tU/qr=h/qr=S/qr where U is energy and h and S are action. This ties us right in with the least action principle. I will be exploring this aspect more in the future.

Michael Stallings

10/7/2013 02:02:49 pm

Yes, the old GFT Homopolar chapter (was it 29?) is how I found your work a few years ago.

"Force per current"?

I'll take a look at that article on spin.

We simulate torque by rotating the field - exactly!

What does this do concerning the back-torque that a typical homopolar generator exibits? My guess is that we take very little away from rotation when we induce current this way.

Michael Stallings

10/8/2013 02:42:57 am

On a separate note, moving objects might cause detectable changes in the space around them that could be detected. However, I have no idea how the changes might manifest or how to detect them.

Willie Johnson Jr.

10/9/2013 09:36:06 am

Sounds like the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Michael Stallings

10/16/2013 01:09:12 am

Do you have any suggestion for experimentation with GFT Induction?

Michael Stallings

10/30/2013 04:39:32 am

I don't have the book with me, but I think it contained an explanation of what other perceive as dark matter.

Article on latest experiment that didn't dark matter:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lux-dark-matter-null-result

get more link

10/30/2013 11:49:30 pm

Incredible quest there. What happened after? Take care!

Willie Johnson Jr.

6/7/2014 11:38:20 am

Michael
I ran across the following while browsing the web:

“To justify the need of a theory using the electron precession, the paper is begining with a lie: "The results of this experiment [Faraday disk] have never been satisfactorily explained".
This is false. The Faraday disk is perfectly explained by the Lorentz force and relativity. There is a paradox only for those who don't understand what is going on. The idea of a relative speed between the magnetic field and the disk is a non-sense. No reference frame can be attached to a field, a field is just a local condition specified by scalars or vectors, therefore it has no speed.

Once again, the speed vector V in the Lorentz force F=q*VxB is only relative to the observer. If you are rotating with the disk, you see no voltage between the center and the rim of the disk because V=0. If you are an external observer, which is the case of a voltmeter at rest connected through sliding contacts, V is not nul, then the Lorentz force applies and forces the electrons to flow in the external circuit. The conventional theory of electromagnetism perfectly explains the functionning of the Faraday disk, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Okkham's razor rules out any exotic and uselessly complicated theories such electron precession.”

Dear Michael. I just happened to run across this blog Over Unity Research and from there Just Thinking Aloud TPU. The above quote was in response to a poster named Grumpy. I wasn’t certain how or if I could register to rebut but it’s a moot point. I’d like you to understand my approach and then I will dismantle the above quote.
Make no mistake that my work will be marginalized and dismissed. This is important to those who rely on the group rather than independent thinking. Everyone reading my work should of course be skeptical. I state that forthrightly in the book. But to base any dismissal of the work on the so called experts saying I can’t know what I’m talking about because of my academic degree is not true science. It’s gossip. It’s fealty to dogma.
I always ask those who are critiquing my work to first observe two things.
a. Is it algebraically correct? Is the math correct? Point out to me where the math is wrong. In a book this broad there will be some mistakes. I accept that and will correct the errors but I’m confident the final outcome will be the same. If not I will admit my error and hopefully learn from it.
b. Show me where I have violated the laws of classical physics. Note I said classical and not quantum mechanical. Again, this is a classical theory and I must obey all the classical laws of physics.
If they cannot demonstrate the violation of these two parameters then I am on firm ground physically. The debate then can only concern my interpretation of the physics that result from that math. This puts both me and the skeptic at a common point of departure from which to discuss the work and avoids the “mind virus” as Dollard so affectionately calls it. Again, this is not to say there are no mistakes in this theory but to say it is wrong based on group think is just pointless to try and debate.

Now for the above quote:

“To justify the need of a theory using the electron precession, the paper is beginning with a lie: "The results of this experiment [Faraday disk] have never been satisfactorily explained".

This is false. What I have written is neither a lie nor false. Saying that it’s a lie to justify a theory of electron dynamics being based upon electron precession is like saying that any theory of water based upon it being wet is a lie. This is a completely absurd proposition. Electron precession is an inherent trait of any and every electron. It’s obvious the poster is ignorant of this fact.
The Faraday disk is perfectly explained by the Lorentz force and relativity. There is a paradox only for those who don't understand what is going on.

Certain aspects of the Faraday disc are certainly explicable via the tenets of the Lorentz force and Relativity. Spinning the conductor disc between two magnets is perfectly explicable via the Lorentz force and Relativity, and Faraday’s law of induction. However it is obvious that the poster is completely oblivious as to why the homopolar generator /Faraday disc has caused such a controversy. These explanations seemingly fail when the disc is both the conductor and the magnet. Spin the conductor between the two magnets and Faraday’s law of induction and Relativity explain it quite well. Spin the magnets and keep the disk stationary and Faraday’s law of induction seemingly fails. This would seem to be an ostensible violation. The most puzzling aspect of the disc is manifest when instead of having two magnets and a single conductor we spin a single conducting magnetic. This yields a current confounding both Faraday’s law of i

Willie Johnson Jr.

6/7/2014 11:43:34 am

Michael',
Seems the prior post was truncated. I'm posting the rest:
This yields a current confounding both Faraday’s law of induction and Relativity.
“The idea of a relative speed between the magnetic field and the disk is a non-sense. “
Seemingly nonsense, and only in the third case where the magnet is magnet, rotor, and conductor. But there is indeed relative speed between the two magnets and conductor in the 1st two cases.
“No reference frame can be attached to a field, a field is just a local condition specified by scalars or vectors, therefore it has no speed.”
This is complete and utter nonsense. Of course we may ascribe to the field any velocity we choose including zero velocity as long as we ascribe to those elements moving within it their analogous velocities. Again the poster demonstrates an almost complete lack of knowledge regarding the principles being applied and expressed.
“Once again, the speed vector V in the Lorentz force F=q*VxB is only relative to the observer. “
Nonsense. The novelty and wonder of Faraday’s law of induction is predicated upon the magnet moving relative to coil or coil moving relative to magnet. Even if one were completely ignorant of the physics of the situation one can plainly see, just by the algebra, that the very fact that it is represented as a cross product and thus is dependent upon orientation or direction completely nullifies the poster’s argument. The cross product imposes and demands that we MUST view the velocity of q relative to B .
“If you are rotating with the disk, you see no voltage between the center and the rim of the disk because V=0. If you are an external observer, which is the case of a voltmeter at rest connected through sliding contacts, V is not nul, then the Lorentz force applies and forces the electrons to flow in the external circuit.”
Again. This is false though not as outlandish as some of the above statements. One has to describe just what one is using to measure the voltage. Is it a voltmeter powered by batteries or is it a voltmeter powered by another type of homopolar generator? If it’s the former then the statement is absolutely false. If it is the latter then this requires a much more in depth analysis. In any case it is moot. The Sagnac effect proves whether the measuring device moves or is stationary it will detect the movement of electromagnetic waves.

“The conventional theory of electromagnetism perfectly explains the functioning of the Faraday disk, both qualitatively and quantitatively.”
This statement is almost correct although you back into while all the time, making false claims to justify it. The behavior is based upon first generating a change in the electric field which generates a magnetic field which induces magnetic precession which is equivalent to the induction of an electric current. Conventional theory misses that initial change in the electrostatic field. . Remember the charge has to first be moving before one can apply F=qv*B. Conventional theory concentrates more upon the effects of changing the magnetic field or cutting the lines of magnetic flux. This approach isn’t wrong but it is incomplete.
One must realize that according to my Law of Dimensions the Lorentz force may be expressed as
a. F=q*vxB
b. F=qv*B
c. F=qr*B/t
d. F=q*(Br)/t
e. F=ir*B
f. F=i*rB
g. F=qvB
All seven of these equations are algebraically equivalent and all seven, via the tenets of the law of Dimensions must find physical expression. (I’m pretty sure there are actually even more algebraic expressions of this law.) Suppose we start with equation g. Note the absence of the asterisk thus denoting the absence of a cross product thus a scalar or electrostatic product. This denotes we impart a velocity to charge even though the B field and the velocity vector are parallel. However in such a rotating disk every v vector represents a radius and therefore every v vector will have an orthogonal counterpart. Thus for every g equation there is and MUST BE a corresponding b equation. Note equation b is induced in the sense it exists primarily because the quantity qv, the change, (v), of the electrostatic field, (q), of equation g was generated first. One may be quick to assert that if F=qvB is electrostatic then it has to be the Coulomb force and equation g clearly does not present algebraically as the Coulomb force. But I prove quite conclusively that the Lorentz force and the Coulomb force are indeed equivalent. I can derive one from the other quite easily. It’s listed in the book. Indeed there is and must be an equivalent expression of the Lorentz force or Coulomb’s law along all three axes, x,y and z. Indeed that 3rd force is Newton’s gravitational force law and once again I demonstrate in the book how Newton’s gravitational force constant, G, can be expressed in terms of Coulomb’s

Willie Johnson Jr.

6/8/2014 02:22:31 am

Indeed that 3rd force is Newton’s gravitational force law and once again I demonstrate in the book how Newton’s gravitational force constant, G, can be expressed in terms of Coulomb’s constant and how Newton’s gravitation force law is equivalent to Coulomb’s
law.

Now one may indeed take issue with my interpretation of the algebra. But what one cannot do is say that the algebra is incorrect or that I have violated any laws of classical physics.
“Okkham's razor rules out any exotic and uselessly complicated theories such electron precession”.

Herein lie the true tragedy of the poster’s argument. Electron precession IS Occam’s razor! No electron can and does exist without it. Indeed, the GFT posits the electron is a fundamental unit of precession. Doesn’t get any simpler than that.

Michael. If you are so inclined please pass this on to the posters on the mentioned site. I'd really appreciate it. For some reason the my site was having problems allowing me to post thus all the multiple postings. Just disregard those belong I will delete the multiple posts later. Again thanks for the support and follow the science and not the scientists.

Willie Johnson Jr.

6/7/2014 11:50:26 am

Michael
Having problems posting the entire post in one post. I'm submiting it piecemeal:
This yields a current confounding both Faraday’s law of induction and Relativity.
“The idea of a relative speed between the magnetic field and the disk is a non-sense. “
Seemingly nonsense, and only in the third case where the magnet is magnet, rotor, and conductor. But there is indeed relative speed between the two magnets and conductor in the 1st two cases.
“No reference frame can be attached to a field, a field is just a local condition specified by scalars or vectors, therefore it has no speed.”
This is complete and utter nonsense. Of course we may ascribe to the field any velocity we choose including zero velocity as long as we ascribe to those elements moving within it their analogous velocities. Again the poster demonstrates an almost complete lack of knowledge regarding the principles being applied and expressed.
“Once again, the speed vector V in the Lorentz force F=q*VxB is only relative to the observer. “
Nonsense. The novelty and wonder of Faraday’s law of induction is predicated upon the magnet moving relative to coil or coil moving relative to magnet. Even if one were completely ignorant of the physics of the situation one can plainly see, just by the algebra, that the very fact that it is represented as a cross product and thus is dependent upon orientation or direction completely nullifies the poster’s argument. The cross product imposes and demands that we MUST view the velocity of q relative to B .
“If you are rotating with the disk, you see no voltage between the center and the rim of the disk because V=0. If you are an external observer, which is the case of a voltmeter at rest connected through sliding contacts, V is not nul, then the Lorentz force applies and forces the electrons to flow in the external circuit.”
Again. This is false though not as outlandish as some of the above statements. One has to describe just what one is using to measure the voltage. Is it a voltmeter powered by batteries or is it a voltmeter powered by another type of homopolar generator? If it’s the former then the statement is absolutely false. If it is the latter then this requires a much more in depth analysis. In any case it is moot. The Sagnac effect proves whether the measuring device moves or is stationary it will detect the movement of electromagnetic waves.

“The conventional theory of electromagnetism perfectly explains the functioning of the Faraday disk, both qualitatively and quantitatively.”

Michael Stallings

7/10/2014 12:47:17 pm

Hello Willie,

I am "Grumpy" on the message board where you found those comments. I'll send the site admin your name and email so they can contact you with information to register on the forum. That forum is one of several around that discuss and pursue alternative energy. The goal being to develop a device that produces more energy than it apparently consumes. At first glance this sounds hokey, but consider that all particles spin and have for billions of years. Couple to this spin in a way that induces a current and you convert the spin to current, but it appears that the device generates more energy than it consumes. Aside from Tesla's own writings, and a handful of other sources, most of what you will find on the subject of alternative energy is pure fiction. One device, the TPU (Toroidal Power Unit) appears to be very real and the inventor said that the US Gov seized it and put a gag order on him. After several years of searching, someone came forward claiming to know how this device worked and shared a cryptic explanation about aether moving to induce current. I cross-referenced the fine details of this explanation to determine how the device might really work and this led me to GFT induction - an explanation that makes sense.

There are some smart people on that forum, and not all are as closed-minded as the ones you read in that thread.

Email me your email for that forum and I'll send it to the admin.

I'll post your comments this weekend.

Best Regards

Michael Stallings

7/10/2014 12:46:36 pm

Willie Johnson Jr.

7/15/2014 01:00:44 pm

Thanks Mike. When it comes to overunity there seems to be two extreme camps . There is a middle ground. I personally do not think there is overunity. Just unity. However, I think mainstream science is only playing with half the deck. There is another side to electromagnetism (scalar) that gets completely ignored. So I do believe we can take advantage of the scalar nature of electromagnetism. This isn't wishful thinking or crackpottery. Tesla demonstrated experimentally and Steinmetz described it mathematically. Of course so did Maxwell but nobody could understand that portion of his work. Steinmetz uses versors which just reconfirms my use of quaternions. In addition to that we can just make machines more efficient.

Michael Stallings

7/16/2014 12:33:49 am

Any help along the lines of increased efficiency and taking advantage of the scalar nature of electromagnetism is welcomed.

Jimster41

5/8/2015 02:37:59 am

I found your website via google after a couple of bad experience just asking if you can see a double helix in the diagram on the wiki page on Euler's Formula. The reaction is "total coincidence" which is a strange concept, and clearly hard to apply to this case IMHO.I am now curious about how energy conservation, hierarchical periodicity and discrete scale in-variance are implied in this observation - which also, happens to help me understand what the heck e^i "does" in a way I will not soon forget.

Willie Johnson

10/18/2016 08:05:12 am

Jimster41
I can most definitely see a double helix in the diagram on the wiki page of Euler's formula. THIS MUST BE THE CASE. Euler's formula is THE wave equation and is and must be applicable to all forms of waves including the double helix. In fact if you click on the Tovacian Chemistry section here in this site and then click on "Forming Double Helix DNA From Euler's Formula" it graphically demonstrates the sine and cosine functions of the double helix which mimics the red resultant wave shown in the diagram on the wiki page. (on this site the resultant wave is in green)The 3-5 prime and 5-3 prime are tovacian conjugates of one another.

Rafael Loudd link

2/16/2018 01:32:22 pm

WEBSITE LOCATED USING BRUTE FORCE

----- http://bruteforc3.weebly.com -----

First Post!

Leave a Reply.

Willie Johnson Jr.

Archives

Categories