[NewCandle] More spacecraft velocity anomalies

[Horace Heffner]

On Mar 2, 2008, at 9:43 PM, Keith Nagel wrote:

> Horace writes:
>> This means, as I and I think
>> others have have speculated, if the effect is indeed due to such a
>> gravimagnetic force, that the alignment of particle spins due to the
>> earth's magnetic field causes a substantial increase in the
>> gravimagnetic field strength.
>
> I agree Horace, the gravimagnetic relative permeability of the  
> earth must be
>> 1.

This I assume is essentially true, because EM fields overwhelm  
gravimagnetic fields.


> The resulting gravimagnetic wave speed through the earth should then
> be less than C. LIGO users beware (grin).

Not much.  Since the permeability is near 1 so is the index of  
refraction, and thus the speed of gravity remains near c.


>
> Materials can be magnetic in many different ways
> ( diamagnetic, paramagnetic, ferromagnetic to name but three)
> and I think gravimagnetic fields will also be found to be generated
> by several different mechanisms.


None of these concepts appear to me to be relevant.  The spin  
alignment is due to a magnetic field, combined with planetary  
rotation which forces precession and thus nuclear radiation combined  
with spin alignment to the rotation axis. This effect is limited in  
magnitude and duration by the misalignment of the earth's magnetic  
and rotation poles, and the very slow rotation speed and field  
strength.  Given the rotation speed is easily increased by a factor  
of 3x10^7, and magnetic field by 10^4, it should be plenty feasible  
to do accelerometer measurements.


> As you say, ferromagnets
> like the earth seem to show a small effect, so the generating
> mechanism is mostly electron and a small nuclear spin.

It is essentially *all* due to particle spin, with less than 1%  
contribution due to earth's rotation, if I have it right.


> Quite different
> from the superconductor where the effect is due to
> electron pairing.

This is not directly true.  The paired spins oppose, and thus produce  
no gravimagnetic field at all, except through vortex action when they  
are in a magnetic field.

I think the coherent action of the electrons on the nuclei helps  
increase the probability of nuclear spin alignment.


> Then there is Wallace's observations of
> manipulating pure nuclear spin to achieve a gravimagnetic
> field.

I'm not sure to what this refers.  Tampere?  I'm having a senior  
moment maybe?   Could you expand on this?


>
> We need to get the gravimagnetic permeability

This does not seem to me to be a useful concept. Gravity is just too  
weak.  Magnetic permeability, high magnetic field strength, plus high  
rotation rates can be put to use to achieve the high gravimagnetic  
field intensity.  Alternatively, high field strength in a  
superconductor, plus high rotation rate, can do the same job. In  
fact, without any of these things, ordinary thermal disruptions,  
phonons, are sufficient to disrupt gravimagnetically induced spin  
alignments, i.e. gravimagnetic permeability.  EM overwhelms gravity.  
Therefore pure gravimagnetic permeability above 1 is essentially not  
existant in our earth environment. Not true perhaps in neutron or  
quark stars, or even colliding black holes.  If you've read my  
gravimagnetics paper you know I think virtual photons do not couple  
with gravitons, and thus black holes exhibit magnetic fields.  There  
could be quite a dance between EM and GK field effects upon spinning  
black hole collisions.


> up
> to where desktop mass experiments using FOG's

What are FOG's?

> can produce
> a result. With numbers in the 100-1000

What kind of numbers?  You don't give units.  Are you referring to  
relative gravimagnetic permeability?

> range that's still
> not practical. But it's a start. We might well profit
> from engaging more of the mass of each atom than
> just the electron.


I don't think the electron is the principle source of the  
gravimagnetic field, nor will it be in experimental systems.

Examining spin, mu, and NMR sensitivity, we see some stellar metallic  
candidates for spinning disks emerge:

Elm.  Abun.  I     Mu    Sens.

93Nb  100   +9/2  +6.171 0.488
51V   99.75 -7/2  +5.149 0.384
59Co  100   -7/2  +4.63  0.278
27Al  100   +5/2  +3.642 0.207

Various flourides may be great too:

19F   100   +1/2  +2.629 0.834

Electrons screen nuclei from external B fields.  However, cobalt is  
magnetic, thus on balance its electron fields must add to the imposed  
field.  Similarly, Nb is used in magnets, so may also have an  
advantage with regard to negation of or at least coordination with  
shielding electrons.  At any rate it looks like the major nuclear  
candidates can be boiled down to Co, Nb, V, Al, and possibly various  
flourides.  Of these cobalt still looks to be the best all around due  
to being magnetic, though a Nb alloy magnet might be good too.   
Vanadium steel may be a prospect.   Aluminum has the advantage of low  
density, thus a high spin rate.  Magnetic permeability is not so  
important if a high field strength, say from a superconducting  
magnet, is used.

A highly cooled, high spin rate cobalt in a high B field, or even an  
aluminum disk in a very high B field, or any of the select elements  
in superconducting form, might provide some good results.

All that said, I don't think gravimagnetics has much practical to  
offer except through the use of gravitronics for viewing and  
understanding the universe, and possibly communicating. However, if  
negative gravitational mirror matter exists, as predicted here (and  
other earlier papers):

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CosmicSearch.pdf

then gravimagnetics might play a practical role after all. I've  
looked for the mirror matter in glacial silt that drifts down on my  
rooftop, with no luck.  However, I may have found a rock that shows  
very limited promise, but it is way too soon to tell. I hope to get  
back to it after doing taxes, and my procrastination from taxes via  
participating in this list. 8^)

I expect coupling to vacuum inertial effects to be of far more  
practical use than gravimagnetics.


Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/