Recent Discussions

Hi Ray, Nice paper, but it needs proper formatting. Please insert the text of your paper into the template file at http://www.worldsci.org/pdf//proceedings/proceedings_templatefile_2.doc. Then use "Format Painter" to properly format each section. That' the only way to get it right. Thanks a bunch.

Mike, Thanks for an interesting paper. However, the formatting needs some help. Please insert your text into the template file (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf//proceedings/proceedings_templatefile_2.doc), and then use "Format Painter" to properly format each section. You will have to separate out the sections that include the single-column tables.

Hi Lyndon. Great paper, but a few formatting concerns. The page 1 header is missing, the abstract margins are too wide and the equation numbers are not left justified. Please copy the formatting from the template. Better yet, copy your test into the properly formatted template and use "Paint". Thanks.

Ref: 1/21/2012 E-mail Subject, Laser light shields gravity ?? , http://www.gravityforces.com/ Gentlemen of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, The first e-mail on this subject provided the news that Rancourt’s experiments indicate that Laser light shields the force of gravity. This follow on news highlights two of his experiments that indicate: 1) Incandescent light (non-coherent) also shields the force of gravity. 2) A laser beam experiment demonstrates shielding of electrostatic forces. The results of Professor Rancourt’s work is available at: http://www.gravityforces.com/ In a message dated 5/14/2012 louisrancourt@gmail.com writes: QUOTE Hi Good news on gravity experiment again. Since the last time I send you a word, I have tried different variations of the experiment. This one is probably the best result to show that light does block gravity without doing anything to the mobile mass. A 100 watts projector lamp sends a bright light inside a stainless steel box. The box is placed on the north side of the mobile mass. The pendulum arm is in an east-west direction. The mobile mass is at an average distance of 1 cm from the metal plate of the box. No light is going to the mass. The mobile mass has been without interference for the whole weekend. The small laser light on the mirror shows that the mobile mass is moving slowly north. As soon as the light is activated, the mobile mass is pushed about 3 mm toward the metal box. That means light has blocked something coming from the north side. That something was going through the metal plate of the box before. We know that gamma rays, neutrinos and gravity can go through metal plate. There were no gamma rays from the light source. Electric field does not penetrate the metal plate. That means the light constituent did not affect directly the metal atoms of the mobile mass. Any theory to explain the effect will have to disregard any electro-magnetic influence directly on the atoms of the mass. Another experiment was done with a fixed mass close to the mobile mass at one end of the pendulum. A static electric charge from a big capacitor was given to both mass and the laser beam sent between them. The attraction was increased immediately for both when the two masses had a positive charge and when they both had a negative charge. When one was positive and the other one negative, the laser light did not change the attraction of the masses. If someone would like to pursue that research, I would be glad to help. If someone can give a logical explanation on the nature of gravity and of the nature of light that could also explain the facts, it would be great. Lee Smolin and Einstein repeated often that theory had to explain facts. We cannot ignore the facts if they go against theory. The theory has to be modified. Have a good week and fun in physics… Louis P.S. You can communicate with me at my Google e-mail. louisrancourt@gmail.com You can follow these new results on my web site: GRAVITYFORCES.COM UN-QUOTE The fact that incandescent light appears to interact with gravity allows many more labs to participate in researching gravitational and electrostatic interactions. Please distribute this information as widely as practicable. The author’s content in this message is granted to be in the public domain. Cheers, Stan sbyers11@comcast.net Ph. 510 651 0368 42823 Lido Park Court Fremont, California 94538 Gravity and Inertia via Radiation, web site http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/index.html

Ref: 1/21/2012 E-mail Subject, Laser light shields gravity ?? , http://www.gravityforces.com/ Gentlemen of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, The first e-mail on this subject provided the news that Rancourt’s experiments indicate that Laser light shields the force of gravity. This follow on news highlights two of his experiments that indicate: 1) Incandescent light (non-coherent) also shields the force of gravity. 2) A laser beam experiment demonstrates shielding of electrostatic forces. The results of Professor Rancourt’s work is available at: http://www.gravityforces.com/ In a message dated 5/14/2012 louisrancourt@gmail.com writes: QUOTE Hi Good news on gravity experiment again. Since the last time I send you a word, I have tried different variations of the experiment. This one is probably the best result to show that light does block gravity without doing anything to the mobile mass. A 100 watts projector lamp sends a bright light inside a stainless steel box. The box is placed on the north side of the mobile mass. The pendulum arm is in an east-west direction. The mobile mass is at an average distance of 1 cm from the metal plate of the box. No light is going to the mass. The mobile mass has been without interference for the whole weekend. The small laser light on the mirror shows that the mobile mass is moving slowly north. As soon as the light is activated, the mobile mass is pushed about 3 mm toward the metal box. That means light has blocked something coming from the north side. That something was going through the metal plate of the box before. We know that gamma rays, neutrinos and gravity can go through metal plate. There were no gamma rays from the light source. Electric field does not penetrate the metal plate. That means the light constituent did not affect directly the metal atoms of the mobile mass. Any theory to explain the effect will have to disregard any electro-magnetic influence directly on the atoms of the mass. Another experiment was done with a fixed mass close to the mobile mass at one end of the pendulum. A static electric charge from a big capacitor was given to both mass and the laser beam sent between them. The attraction was increased immediately for both when the two masses had a positive charge and when they both had a negative charge. When one was positive and the other one negative, the laser light did not change the attraction of the masses. If someone would like to pursue that research, I would be glad to help. If someone can give a logical explanation on the nature of gravity and of the nature of light that could also explain the facts, it would be great. Lee Smolin and Einstein repeated often that theory had to explain facts. We cannot ignore the facts if they go against theory. The theory has to be modified. Have a good week and fun in physics… Louis P.S. You can communicate with me at my Google e-mail. louisrancourt@gmail.com You can follow these new results on my web site: GRAVITYFORCES.COM UN-QUOTE The fact that incandescent light appears to interact with gravity allows many more labs to participate in researching gravitational and electrostatic interactions. Please distribute this information as widely as practicable. The author’s content in this message is granted to be in the public domain. Cheers, Stan sbyers11@comcast.net Ph. 510 651 0368 42823 Lido Park Court Fremont, California 94538 Gravity and Inertia via Radiation, web site http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/index.html

Dear Jeff, I have seen you mentioned the last FQXI-Contest. I think the next FQXI-Contest could be a good possibility to enrich the NPA-Website. I posted this to the dashboard: "The Foundational Questions Institute organizes an essay contest (almost) every year. It is like a race to truth. Every participant is consciously looking at the Community Rating as well as the Public Rating. Both scales are running from 1.0 to 10.0. In 2012 the winner of this race B. Dribus got a Community Rating of 5.7 (i.e. 59 ratings) and a Public Rating of 5.0 (16 ratings). In 2013 the FQXi will be announcing a new Essay Contest again. It would be a nice idea of monitoring this race with respect to NPA Members as far as they are part of it – a possibility that is not out of reach. I participated the last three years. In my 2012-Essay I presented the thesis: Is the Speed of Light c of Dual Nature? http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1453 . I got a Community Rating of 3.9 (17 ratings) and a Public Rating of 5.7 (7 ratings). Among the last three essay contests it was the most interesting one. That is at least my opinion. It concerned the foundation of modern physics. It was asked: What tacit or explicit fundamental assumptions of modern physics are ripe for rethinking? The Advisory Council commented this contest in a spirit that sounds very similar to the NPA-Philosophy: “Looking back over the history of physics a number of places can be identified where thinkers were stuck and had to let go of some cherished assumptions to make progress. Often this was forced by experiment, an internal inconsistency in accepted physics, or simply a particular philosophical intuition.” I’ve no doubt that monitoring the next contest of the FQXI is a good possibility to strengthen the link between the NPA and the Mainstream Physics, because the FQXI is a sort of bridge between the two. Its goal is the same as for the NPA. They want to expand the purview of scientific inquiry to include scientific disciplines fundamental to a deep understanding of reality, which are currently largely unsupported by conventional grant sources. Kind Regards Helmut By the way: If one can relate all participants of the FQXI-contests to the database of the NPA Members it might be very easy to check who of us participated already on these contests." What do you think about this idea?

I have a new paper out in Progress in Physics that would be of interest to any members interested in relativity, GR, Lorentzian Aether, repulsive gravity etc... I would love to have a video conference but not sure if it is too late for this time around of the Gravity Group. It can be found at: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2013/PP-32-04.PDF Comments and advice most welcome.

I was looking for information about your theories and found that your original web site has been taken down when geocities went away. But, you can still find your web site on archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20050306185310/http://ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/ Anyone interested in finding out about your theories before your videoconference can follow this link.

(This is an email sent to Glen Baxter about his recent teleconference asking him to clarify how the anti-neutrino works and contrasting it with my own work) Thanks for your recent NPA videoconference. I did have some questions. Looking at your abstract, your anti-neutrino model is supposed to better explain a great many phenomenon. My questiions have to do with how it explains these things using the anti-neutrino. I can see that you may have some explanations about what goes on during fusion and fission, but not the other topics. Radioactivity - what triggers radioactive decay? How is this made clearer by the anti-neutrino? Electromagnetic radiation - Just what is this and since it happens outside of the nucleus, how is this related to the anti-neutron? Gravity - you explain 3 different types, but doesn't appear to be at all related to the anti-neutrino Electric force - What makes a positron attracted to an electron and what does the anti-neutrino have to do with it? Magnetic force - Just what is different about the space containing a magnetic field and one which doesn't. I don't think you mentioned this force in the paper I read. Strong force - does the anti-neutrino better explain how it is protons can be held together at short distances? I think these are all critical questions which conventional physics cannot answer, so I think anyone who thinks they can address the issues you mention in your abstract is well worth a look, but I am not understaning how you address these issues. I am a fellow "mad" scientists and I have been looking at these issues as well. I think you might be interested in what I have come up with since I have an atomic model which takes an entirely different view which is based upon the premise that our basic assumptions about the size of the atom based on the Rutherford experiment are completely wrong. My theories can be found on my website: http://franklinhu.com/theory.html My theory is basically an aether theory which assumes that the only fundamental particles in the universe are the positron and electron and the only force is the electrostatic force. http://franklinhu.com/quarks.html I address some of the issues raised in your abstract as: Radioactivity - this is not caused by a weak force, but is directly caused by collisions of the atom with neutrinos. There is no weak force. Electromagnetic radiation - the aether is composed of positron/electron dipole pairs. EM is just waves in this medium. http://franklinhu.com/aether.html Gravity - this is directly caused by the electrostatic force. The Earth is a positively charged ball and all neutral matter is attracted to it. http://franklinhu.com/whatisgravity.html Electric force - I have one of the few explanations for how charge actually works and how it gets the energy to generate an attractive force. http://franklinhu.com/electrostatic.html Magnetic force - The magnetic force is present when the dipoles of the aether are aligned in a particular direction. This is the actual nature of the magnetic field and we have gotten the direction of the field wrong. http://franklinhu.com/magfield.html Strong force - There is no strong force. The view at the atomic nucleus is a tiny positively charged speck is as wrong as the Earth centered universe. Rutheford's crude experiment done 100 years ago, hardly proved the planetary model of the atom. He basically assumed the very thing he was trying to prove - which in this case is comletely inappropriate. My cubic atomic model has protons and electrons in a checkerboard pattern which completely neutralizes the charge and requires nothing but the electrostatic force to hold the atom together. http://franklinhu.com/atmpics2.html Please see my video attached to this page, it provides a simple introduction. I hope you will be able to better explain how your anti-neutrino addresses the issues raised in your abstract and I hope you have some fun looking at some of my explanations and contrasting those with your own. -Thanks Franklin Hu

Dr Su has suggested scaling down of de Witte's method from microwaves to HeNe laser wavelength. The measuring length can be very short and the equipment can be mounted on a platform and direction of measurement can be changed. This method can detect first order effect of the rotation of our planet and also vertical ether wind. This method is very easy to do and is also very unambigous. See Ref. C C Su, J C Eur Phys21, 701-715 (2001), Dig Obj Ident (DOI) 10.1007/s 100520 100759 (Also on my personal NPA page) Regards___________John-Erik Persson

Rather than send three separate emails to the participants, i am posting this here in the hope that you all keep your eyes open while driving through where stood deep water. 3dzp There is much evidence for the presence of several immense lakes rinvaling and adjacent to the Great Basin. It is said that that basin was filled by glacial run-off but that view emerges from gradualism and over-looks catastrophic causes. Consideration of the great basin lake as a post catastrophe lake opens a number of possible avenues of thought for the typography and formations of all the adjacent areas and reveals an incredible inland body of water. From Hopi lake to Mono lake we might better understand what remains today by contemplating that the existence of Grand Lake and Hopi Lake offers us a glimpse at the size of a former body that occupied (temporarily) areeas west of the continental divide. That water was trapped there when the crust folded up through it. The mechanism behind that folding is multi-faceted but it happened quickly by human standards. So as you look at the remains of such a large body of saltwater that got capped over by fresh water, then rapidly drained to the level of Grand and Hopi Lakes, keep your eyes open for the high falls, conduits, and sacred places where survivors recorded the events of the catastrophic period, and while you are driving across the Wasatch Mountains keep your eyes open for a south west facing alcove off the road from Spanish Forks Rt (6/89). It is a telling feature that should not be missed. A dried up water fall from before valley drainage was established. dzp