The gravity modification principle explained in the other thread was based on photons enclosed by a superconductor that are rotating at a rapid rate.
All these requirements are included in the NiH reactor: widespread superconductivity, photons at extreme densities and just to cover all the bases degenerated vacuum and intense magnetic fields. Your posit does not include photons imbedded in superconductivity. On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:43 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would have thought that relative motion to an electric field would > probably create the observation of a magnetic field, both in SR (that I > reject) and in an aether model. > > But I am starting to question that, I would appreciate any answer to the > following: > > Take a long piece of dowel, apply charges to it's surface either directly > or with foil segments, making a monopole capacitor. > > Because it is long, the field expand outwards decreasing close do the > distance squared if I am correct, so at 2 meters the electric field is > almost half that measured at 1 meter. > > Now if we set the dowel into rapid rotation, the electric field will be > moving, very slowly close to the dowel axle and very swiftly out several > meters. > At 2 meters the linear velocity of the electric field would be double that > of the velocity at 1 meter. > > So now I ask, IF rotating such an electrically charged dowel (which I will > propose is infinitely long for calculation) is calculated, how would the > strength of the observed magnetic field (assuming it exists at all) be > calculated to fall off? > > Because as far as I can see, it wouldn't?! Leading to an infinite width > magnetic field. > Of course an added anomaly is that such an electric field would soon > exceed the speed of light (if you go way out) if possible for it to do so > if we assume the field keeps on going. > > And if it doesn't, then what would happen to the electric field when it > tries to move too fast? Produce photons? (but certainly not normal ones) > Would the electric field just disappear? > > Am I making a major error in these assumptions anywhere? > > John >
