Oceans charge up new theory of magnetism

[Breaking News Breaking News]

From The Sunday Times
June 14, 2009

A radical new idea may revolutionise our understanding of one of the most vital forces on Earth

Jonathan Leake

Earth's magnetic field, long thought to be generated by molten metals swirling around its core, may instead be produced by ocean currents, according to controversial new research published this week.

It suggests that the movements of such volumes of salt water around the world have been seriously underestimated by scientists as a source of magnetism.

If proven, the research would revolutionise geophysics, the study of the Earth’s physical properties and behaviour, in which the idea that magnetism originates in a molten core is a central tenet.

Earth’s magnetic field is vital for life, extending tens of thousands of miles into space and protecting the planet against radiation that would otherwise burn away the atmosphere and oceans.

However, its origin was a mystery until early last century when Albert Einstein said understanding the phenomenon was one of science’s most important tasks. This provoked a debate which concluded with scientists agreeing that magnetism must originate in the Earth’s core.

“Everyone accepted this, but in reality there has never been any proof,” said Gregory Ryskin, associate professor of chemical and biological engineering at Northwestern University in Illinois. “It is just an idea we have accepted for a long time without questioning it enough.”

His research suggests that Earth’s magnetism is actually linked to ocean movements. The salt in seawater allows it to conduct electricity, meaning it generates electrical and magnetic fields as it moves.

The findings, published by Britain’s Institute of Physics’s New Journal of Physics, will cause a fierce scientific debate.

Existing theories explain Earth’s magnetism by suggesting that the centre of the planet comprises a white-hot solid iron ball about 1,500 miles in diameter, surrounded by an outer shell of liquid metal a further 1,400 miles thick.

As the liquid iron in that shell is heated by the inner core it becomes less dense and rises upwards, to be replaced by cooler material from above.

The resulting swirls of molten metal create electric currents that in turn produce the planet’s magnetic field, the conventional theory suggests.

The big problem with this idea is that it is almost impossible to obtain experimental evidence because the Earth’s core is so inaccessible. Indirect approaches, such as computer modelling, have thrown up many inconsistencies.

Ryskin approached the problem differently, by looking at the way Earth’s magnetic field undergoes constant changes, growing stronger in some regions and weaker in others. This phenomenon, known as variation, also sees gradual shifts in the locations of the north and south magnetic poles.

Scientists have always linked variation with turbulence in the outer core, but Ryskin suggests it actually correlates with changes in ocean circulation. In the north Atlantic, for example, changes in the strength of currents were matched by sharp changes in magnetic fields.

One idea is that changes in ocean circulation may explain the curious reversals shown by Earth’s magnetic field, in which the north and south magnetic poles suddenly flip over. This last happened 780,000 years ago.

This could also be linked to tectonic plate movements that have shifted the world’s land masses around the globe, forcing ocean currents to adopt entirely new routes.

If Ryskin is right, then climate change, predicted to alter the strength and course of ocean currents, could also alter the planet's magnetic field.

Ryskin emphasises that such suggestions need much more research, but some other physicists have been quick to recognise its implications. Raymond Shaw, professor of atmospheric physics at Michigan Technological University, said it could make “the ruling paradigm of geophysics irrelevant”.

Others are sceptical. Andrew Jackson, professor of geophysics at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich, Switzerland, and an expert in planetary magnetism, said the magnetic fields generated by moving seawater would be thousands of times smaller than what is observed. “I think the calculations are wrong,” he said.

Kathy Whaler, professor of geophysics at Edinburgh University, would not comment directly on Ryskin’s work as she had not read it.

However, she said the idea that the Earth’s molten core produced its magnetic field was “well founded”. She said: “We know from seismology what the Earth’s structure is, and that it is likely to contain molten iron at high temperatures flowing around a solid core.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...493481.ece

[AndrewX]

This is ridicules. 

Ocean currents produce our magnetic field? LOLOLOL Magnetism exists in the entire universe, everywhere, where are the oceans out in between planets?  A distance of thousands of light years apart and there is an abundance of magnetism there, what ocean does that come from? LOLOL  Even the Moon that has no molten core and no oceans has a magnetic field. 

This is a plot by the illuminati to divert the commons attention from the true source of all magnetism; free energy throughout all space and vacuum.  They're scared that too many people are starting to realize that FREE energy is a FACT and not a fiction.  Once the masses realize how they have hidden it and WHY they have it'll rain havoc on these lying criminals. 

The term "free energy"[/b] is considered to be the net E.M.F. yield or energy differential between the input to an electromagnetic unit or system and the output E.M.F. produced by it. Some electromagnetic machines produce an output only slightly above unity, while others have produced outputs of about three-to-one. Lately the output ratios have been rising, with a recent unit providing about five-to-one. The prospects are quite good for a continuing and steady increase in these input/output ratios. 

The concept of electromagnetic "free energy" should not be considered to be the same as natural free energy sources such as solar, wind, hyrdo or geothermal energies, because these new Electro Motive machines usually require an input energy in order to obtain an increased energy output, which the natural sources do not require. 

Several years ago there were only a few "free energy" devices which appeared to offer hopeful opportunities for development, but today there are at least five significant individual projects which are operating at varying degrees of over-unity output. While these various machines or devices in both rotating and solid state classes are based on classic Faraday/Maxwell principles, they achieve their over-unity output by the enhanced electromagnetic activity within the unit or system. 

It must be noted that some senior physicists, in an attempt to discredit some free energy researcher's projects are proposing the discarding of Maxwell's mathematics with their new theories and operating machines. After a thorough review of each researchers work it was found that rather than the discarding of Maxwell's equation principles, these various machines actually supplement or enhance the electromagnetic functioning in each case, based on Maxwell's Second equation. Since this attempted discrediting has occurred in two distinct cases it appears to be a planned and contrived approach to putting down "free energy" efforts. 

One of the major reasons that establishment physicists resist the concept of "free energy" is that the tachyon field concept goes against the Special Theory of Relativity which limits particle speeds to the speed of light. The tachyon concept (fast particles) has been proven valid based on the findings of Professor Gerald Feinberg at Columbia University in 1967. Several of these new over-unity output machines have established the reality of the tachyon field, as witnessed by the individual researchers. 

In addition to Professor Feinberg's findings on the fast particle concept, a U.S. Naval research team which was running various experiments during the 1950's recorded a spot indicator moving across a CRT scope screen at a speed of 202,000 miles per second, which could not be explained. These tests results were noted as the interaction of particles moving at about 16,000 miles per second. Aware of the constant of 186,000 speed of light standard, these experimenters rechecked their test setup, but again recorded the same results of the 202,000 m.p.s. particle speed. Since none could offer an explanation of these findings, the test results just went into limbo and were noted as unexplained phenomena. 

The result of the "Saganac Experiment" in 1913 also has never been satisfactorily explained by contemporary physicists. In this experiment two simultaneous light sources were sent in opposite directions around a closed path, and photographic plates recorded the impingement of the light sources. If the basic beliefs of relativity were correct, both light signals would have traveled these equal closed, circular paths (equal to the distance around the earth's surface) in identical times. The results disclosed that they did not!! We must conclude that a modification to Special Relativity is needed. 

Since major breakthroughs in the physics of non-conventional energy generation and energy conversion have already been made in several countries, it seems appropriate to present the main points of the ongoing changes in research in a convenient Question and Answer format which allows a selective overview of the highlights of newly established facts and observations. 

Please remember that big name, long established companies have long abdicated the main part of their research initiative to government planners and we no longer can look to them for leadership. 

Question:[/b] "Where does the energy potential for the operation of the new "converters" actually come from?"
Answer:[/b] The energy is extracted from the G-Field, formerly known also as the Ether-Field, identifiable today as a real acceptable, sub nuclear and sub-quantic medium. In the past, this medium was given various names, such as PRANA, by the Indians; ORGONE, by Dr. Wilhelm Reich; ODIC FORCE, by Baron Von Reichenbach; ANIMAL MAGNETISM, by Franz A. Messmer; MUMIA, by Paracelsus; BIO-COSMIC ENERGY, by Dr. Brunler; ELOPTIC ENERGY[/b], by Dr. Hieronymus; X-FORCE, by Dr. Eeeman (U.K.) 

Today, it is commonly referred to by one of the following definition NEUTRINO SEA, by Prof. P.A.M. Dirac; RADIANT ENERGY, by Dr. T.H. Moray, FERMI SEA; PRIMARY ENERGY; TACHYON FIELD, Prof. G. Feinberg; ZERO POINT ENERGY; GRAVITY FIELD ENERGY; or G-FIELD; SPACE ENERGY, all merely euphemisms...what Aristotle once chose to call "ETHER". 

Question:[/b] "What is the magnitude of this field energy potential?"
Answer:[/b] The energy content of the G-Field was calculated as (1) 1033 cm3 by Sir Oliver Lodge, England, 2) 8.8xl08 volts/cm by Prof. S. Seike Japan, 3) 250 billion Joule/ml by Rene L. Vallee, France. 

To repeat a popular conversion figure published in Switzerland, the energy content of One Liter SPACE is about equal to the energy of 5000 Liters of gasoline. A remarkable confirmation of the claims of Nicola TESLA who, more than 100 years ago, expressed his belief that "before many generations will have passed," mankind will be able to extract unlimited power at any place."

 

Question:[/b] "Which scientists of repute (Nobel Prize winners) are, or were in favor of the "ETHER"[/b] (G-FIELD)?"
Answer: Some of the world renown scientists who affirmed their belief in the existence of a universal ETHER or Forcefield are: JAMES CLERK-MAXWELL: "A material substance of a more subtle kind than visible bodies, supposed to exist in those parts of space which are apparently empty." Prof. Paul DIRAC, N.L. 1951, and deBROGLIE, N.L. 1959, MICHELSON: "Even if relativity is here to stay we don't have to reject the "ETHER." Sir OLIVER LODGE: "The Ether is a physical thing... we can only get it electrically" STARK, N.L.; ARRHENIUS, N.L.; A. H. COMPTON, N.L., P.E.A. LENARD, N.L.; H. UUKAWA, N.L.; F. SODDY, N.L.; Albert EINSTEIN: "There are weighty arguments to be adduced in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view... .According to the General Theory of Relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the General Theory of Relativity space without ether is unthinkable..." 

The above quote by Dr. Albert Einstein was published in 1920, based on Einstein's speech at the University of Leiden, Holland (May 5, 1920). The publication was in German, and translated by Sir Oliver Lodge into English, quoted from his book, "Ether and Relativity" (1925). However practically all textbooks in physics omit this fact. Einstein himself has gone on record stating on his 70th birthday: 

"Now you think that I am looking back at my life's work with calm satisfaction. But, on closer look, it is quite different.  There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm and I am not sure if I was on the right track after all."
Question: [/b]"What about conservation of energy law pertaining to the operation of cosmic energy converters and motors?"
Answer:[/b] ...every emission or absorption of a virtual particle is already accepted to totally violate conservation of energy. That is, emission represents the sudden appearance of extra energy in the ordinary universe, and absorption represents the sudden disappearance of some energy from the ordinary universe. Every charged particle in the universe constantly does both processes. Even the neutron is continually breaking into different virtual, charged particles. So every piece of mass in the universe, ACCORDING TO ORDINARY PARTICLE PHYSICS[/b]—is already violating conservation of energy on the micro level...

...a strong magnetic pole represents an additional stress in space-time, (the G-Field, R.S.) as does a strong static electric charge. Either of these situations warps and twists space-time itself. This in the region of a magnetic pole or of a strong static charge, conservation of energy need not apply. Specifically, for large, massive atoms of some heavy elements, violation of ordinary "linear" magnetism—and hence of the linear conservation of energy law—has already been noted.  This is particularly interesting since, with a permanent magnet, one can apply spatiotemporal (G-Field) stress in a locality without any further input of energy. The entire business of using this to produce a free energy device depends simply on the cleverness of the inventor. It is also possible to time the applications of both effects—static electric stress and magnetic monopolar stress - with an ordinary electromagnetic rotary device to produce seemingly "Free" energy.  And so the potential is there for free energy. To the question, “Can it in principle be done?” we must definitely answer, "Yes, if we believe our present physics." The second question, "How difficult is it to do?” can be answered in several ways; possibly the best is: "If one is clever and gets back to absolute, simple fundamentals, it may be possible to do it cheaply and in a straightforward, practical manner." 

Tom Bearden, "WHY FREE ENERGY IS POSSIBLE" in PEGASUS, VOL. @, Ed. 1, January 1984, ASGFE.

Question: [/b]"Operation of such a G-Field or Tachyon Field energy converter would be in violation of the scientific fact that a perpetuum mobile is clearly impossible. Any comments?"
Answer:[/b] This applied only to so-called "closed systems" in our technology, like turbines, combustion engines, steam engines, etc.  Nature shows that the movement of electrons around the atomic nuclear, planets around the suns, etc. are indeed all genuine "Perpetuum mobiles" since they represent "open systems," interacting with various fields of electrical, gravitational etc. nature. 

Examples of Perpetuum Mobile Actions are, among others: A) the Bessler Wheel (1712 to 1717), B) The Foucalt Pendulum (France) both are powered by the rotation of the earth. "The earlier, original concept of perpetual motion refers merely to any device that does work in excess of its energy input. This does not exclude an unseen energy source (such as the G-Field!) as the input to a perpetual motion device. It is this that separates practical perpetual motion from the laws of thermodynamics!" 

Quoted from:[/i][/b] Earth Rotation as a Source of Free Energy" by Martin Ruderfer, published in PROCEEDINGS of the First International Symposium of Non-Conventional Energy Technology, October 23-24, 1981, University of Toronto, Canada.
Question:[/b] "Why are permanent magnets so important in connection with design of G-Field converters?"
Answer:[/b] Permanent magnets act as "cosmic energy pumps" or "gravitational diodes." The space energy or G-Field can be concentrated, focused, magnified and compacted by strong magnetic fields. The development of very strong magnets, so-called "Super-Magnets' (NIB's) made from exotic alloys, makes G-Field converters and generators possible. 

QUOTE:[/b] "I think it is possible to utilize magnetism as an energy source. But we science idiots cannot do this; this has to come from the outside. " (Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Laureatus as quoted in the book: "Energie im Uberfluss" by Hilscher, 1981.) 

Question:[/b] "What are the prerequisites for successful R & D efforts leading to mass production and licensing of G-Field converters?"
Answer:
[/b]1) Identification and refinement of the best developed most economical, most promising conceptual approach.

2) Close international contacts to assure a flow of up to date information about all new developments in this technology area in order to avoid dead-end approaches.

3) Follow the newly developed super-magnet technology in all countries, with special emphasis on samarium-cobalt and neodymium compounds (neodymium-iron-boron) and other new materials.

4) Application of vortex-technology within the known laws of fluid-dynamics and nuclear dynamics.

5) Sufficient long-term funding for success by attracting venture capital, by offering of tax write-offs plus an inflation-proof potential return. (As a tax write-off, it can be more attractive to an investor than giving to a favorite charity. Note: Over 100% in the U.S.A.)

6) In general, logical thinking and ethical handling of the project in question by all partners, will assure success.

(Note: In reference to Item 5 above): Since the IRS vrs SNOW case of 1974, it is held that a new limited partnership organized for the purpose of financing the development of a new process or product is entitled to deduct research, experimentation and development costs.  It is of course extremely difficult to put a price tag on the results of R & D in an area of revolutionary technology. 

However, there is no doubt whatsoever about the feasibility of the technology as such... Dr. R. Schaffranke, h.c.
 

Quotations: 

1)" There isn't any energy crisis. It's simply a crisis of ignorance." - R. Buckminster Fuller [/b]

2) "It is amazing that in the sub-micro world of the atom, quantum physics requires the perpetual motion of particles both as to spin and orbital motions. In the macro world, science is based on the law that a perpetual motion machine is absolutely impossible.  This is the state of today's science??? - [/b]John W. Ecklin [/b]

3) Scientists aren't used to thinking how things would be/seem/feel Within a CAPACITOR; they Fail to Recognize "MAXWELL'S DISPLACEMENT CURRENT" when they are IMMERSED in it!! Instead, they call it GRAVITY!!  - William Whamond-Canada[/b]