[Physics] Universal Background Frequency

[Arend Lammertink]

Hi Koen

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Koen van Vlaenderen
<koenvanvla at gmail.com> wrote:
> Books about UFO technology are 100%  disinformation.

With all due respect, this is of course an untenable statement.

For instance, any book will contain the name of the author, the
publisher, etc.  So, it's virtually impossible to write a book that is
100% disinfirmation. It may be 1%, it may be 99.999% but not 100%
disinformation.

> BTW, I am out of here.

As the saying goes, "one can take a horse to the water, but one can't
force it to drink".

And no, I don't mean to suggest you should consider taking in "UFO
technology" information hook, line and sinker.

What I mean is that discussion and open exchange of ideas between
peers is the most important tool we have in the pursuit of gaining
knowledge about the Universe we live in.

Quite frankly, taking a position whereby you rule a possibility, no
matter how improbable, out without investigation is unprofessional and
non-scientific, IMHO. The difference between 99.999% and 100%
confident in your considerations is the difference between being a
scientist and being religiously dogmatic.

Now let's discuss the UFO thing a little bit further.

As a person, I believe, like Dr. Coen Vermeeren, that there is ample
evidence which suggests the UFO phenomenon is real and that, at the
very least, spacecraft utilizing anti-gravity propulsion have been
observed flying trough our skies. One of the best sources to support
this view can be found in the testimonies given by various people in
Dr. Greer's "disclosure" event:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkswXVmG4xM
"On Wednesday, May 9th, 2001, over twenty military, intelligence,
government, corporate and scientific witnesses came forward at the
National Press Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of
UFOs...."


As a scientist, specialized in aether theory and electromagnetics, I
cannot say much about whether or not UFOs are real, BUT I can ask the
question:

"Suppose anti-gravity propulsion systems are possible, how could that work?"

Well, I think the best documented possible mechanism which could
explain anti-gravity propulsion is the "Biefeld Brown" effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect

Sure, pretty recent experiments suggest this effect is merely an "ion
wind" and that the phenomena does work in vacuum.

So, I ask the question: Does the experimental data provide conclusive
evidence to support the conclusion that this effect is nothing but an
ionic wind?

Well, of peculiar interest regarding this phenomenon, is the fact that
an asymmetric capacitor is required to obtain the effect, whereby the
capacitor plates are charged to very high voltages.

So: is it reasonable to expect asymmetric capacitors are required if
the effect is caused by an ion wind?

I think the answer to that question is: No. It may be helpful, so that
only at one of the plates you would get plasma formation, but other
than that, I see no reason why asymmetric capacitors would be
required.

Then we have Paul Stowe's suggestion of considering gravity to be the
gradient of the electric field, essentially it's "steepness". As you
pointed out, in vector theory this makes no sense at all, because you
can only compute a gradient for a scalar field and not for a vector
field.

However, the more fundamental idea that the gravitational force is an
effect caused by the electric field [E] involving some kind of
"steepness" or "derivative" relation, could explain the need for
asymmetric capacitors in order to create the actual Biefeld-Brown
effect instead of a similar effect caused by ion winds.

In other words: my conclusion so far, as a scientist, is that the
recent public experimental data is inconclusive and that we can gain
further knowledge by considering how the actual effect, if it exists,
could be explained theoretically, along the hypothesis that the
gravitational force can be derived mathematically from the
electromagnetic fields.

In our considerations,  we start out at "G = grad E", which does not
make sense in vector theory, as you pionted out.

So, we adapt the equation analogous to our definition of the electric
field, and introduce a gravitational potential field as an
intermediate step, and gravity would become:  [G] = grad div [E].

However, it seems illogical to assume gravity to have no rotational
component, so we better expand our hypothesis to:

[G] = grad div [E] + curl curl [B]

This definition could perhaps also explain how the "Nazi bell", if it
existed, could have worked, since that is rumored to have contained
two fast spinning, counter-rotating, highly charged bubbles of
mercury.

So, as scientists, we have thus come to a hypothesis, which could
explain what gravity and anti-gravity is in such a way that we can
undertake further experiments, starting with "lifters", with which we
can increase our knowledge and eventually either accept or reject the
hypothesis, regardless of whether or not the UFO phenomena is real or
not. And that's pretty much where I'm standing at this moment in time
in my considerations regarding the subject of gravity.

Now let me share two quotes by Maurice, which I found interesting to consider:

http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/2016-December/000258.html
"The greatest omission of classical physics is  the failure to deal
with rotations.  Because rotations are non-linear, physicist wrote
simplified linear relationships to deal with them.  They failed to
consider that rotations add 4 more dimensions to all the laws of
physics (3 rotations in space and one rotation in time).  The physics
we were taught compresses 8 dimensions into 4 dimensions, resulting in
strange and unexplained behavior, such as quantum mechanics."

http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/2016-December/000262.html
"Think about the physics, not the math.  What is the structure of time
and space?  Once you can create a model of how it works you can then
apply the math.  Then you can give it to the engineers and build
incredible machines."


>
> Op 15 dec. 2016, om 20:21 heeft Master Inventor <mdaniel at masterinventor.com>
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Physics Enthusiasts,
>
> I have read in a number of books concerning UFO technology that there is a
> universal background frequency of 435 Mhz.  Is anyone aware of this number
> appearing anywhere in physics?  Just as there is a universal constant for
> velocity (the speed of light) there should also be a universal constant for
> frequency.
>

Well, I'm not aware of 435 MHz phenomena, but I am aware of the 1420
MHz hydrogen "line":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line
"The hydrogen line, 21-centimeter line or H I line refers to the
electromagnetic radiation spectral line that is created by a change in
the energy state of neutral hydrogen atoms. This electromagnetic
radiation is at the precise frequency of 1420405751.7667±0.009 Hz,
which is equivalent to the vacuum wavelength of 21.1061140542 cm in
free space. This wavelength falls within the microwave radio region of
the electromagnetic spectrum, and it is observed frequently in radio
astronomy, since those radio waves can penetrate the large clouds of
interstellar cosmic dust that are opaque to visible light."

Let's consider the possibility that 435 MHz might be a harmonic of
1420 MHz and the two frequencies could be related in that way.

Let's first remember that there is a theoretical relation between the
propagation speed of longitudinal waves and transverse waves of
sqrt(3):

>>> print math.sqrt(3)
1.73205080757

Let's first compute the transverse wavelengths at 435 and 1420 MHz:

>>> print 30000.0/435
68.9655172414
>>> print 30000.0/1420.0
21.1267605634

And the longitudinal wavelengths as well:

>>> print math.sqrt(3) * 30000.0/435
119.451779832
>>> print math.sqrt(3) * 30000.0/1420.0
36.5926226951

We can play a bit with these numbers and this relation is insteresting

>>> print  36.5926226951 / 68.9655172414
0.530593029079
>>>

The longitudinal wavelength at 1420 Mhz is about half of the
transverse wavelength at 435 Mhz.

This suggests that 435 MHz may indeed be (harmonically) related to the
1420 MHz hydrogen line, which is considered to be caused by the
"hyperfine structure" of the hydrogen atom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_structure

It may be interesting to take a look at what's out there at 435 MHz. I
have contact with one of the radio amateurs who has access to the
1950's built radio telescope at Dwingeloo with which they perform
moonbounce communications at the 70 and 23cm amateur bands:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwingeloo_Radio_Observatory
"Paul Boven (JIVE, CAMRAS), along with radio amateurs and amateur
astronomers, use the telescope for projects, one being
Earth–Moon–Earth communication, also known as moonbounce, which allows
for people on different parts of Earth to communicate via the Moon. In
this technique, radio wave signals are aimed at the Moon by one
location, bounce off the Moon's surface, and are detected by an
antenna at a different location on Earth."

Note that 435 Mhz falls right in the middle of the 70 cm radio amateur band:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70-centimeter_band
"The 70-centimeter amateur radio band is the 420 to 450 MHz portion of
the UHF radio spectrum."

IIRC, the dish is currently equipped with suitable antennas to cover
the 21cm hydrogen line as well as the 23cm AND 70 cm radio amateur
bands. IIRC, there's two feed horns, one designed for 23cm and one for
70cm, whereby the 23cm one also performs well at 21cm.

In other words: as far as I can tell, all it would take to take a
look, is to aim the dish at the sky and see what comes out at the
receiver. So, just out of curiosity, they _might_ be willing to get us
some data.

All I can do, however, is ask kindly, which I will do. I'll keep you
guys posted.


Best regards,

Arend.