Another gem provided to me by Matt:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...rickbrown.html
Quote:
|
So to summarize, Morgan's experiment seems to be the first independent confirmation on record of the existence of Wallace's kinemassic field!!! He used a half-integral spin nuclei material (Lead) that is apparently better for demonstrating the kinemassic field due to its higher nucleon number than what Wallace used (mostly Copper) and so he was able to use airgaps about 160 times wider and did not have to confine the field to a closed circuit. He used high angular velocity (95% of Wallace's) which caused a strong spin polarization of the powered flywheel. Morgan's experiment seems to be genuine proof of the existence of Wallace's kinemassic field, and is a much simpler way to test for its existence than Wallace's method. Since it demonstrates that Lead is a superior material for demonstrating kinemassic fields, it seems clear that this is what should be used as well in gravitational experiments related to the kinemassic field (such as [5]), as it is durable and not prohibitively expensive.
|
Independent confirmation of Wallace, eh?
Other than now having a better understanding of what Wallace meant by "kinnemassic" field, it would seem that the most interesting part of this is the possibility for the lay person to replicate the results.
As well, in the context of this:
Quote:
|
Morgan basically seems to have observed a gravitomagnetic version of something called the Einstein-deHaas effect, in which a freely suspended body begins to rotate on being magnetized [6]. The Einstein-deHaas effect is the inverse of Barnett's effect, in which uniform rotation of a body causes a magnetization which is proportional to its angular velocity [6]. In the gravitational Einstein-deHaas effect, a freely suspended body would begin to rotate on being spin polarized by a gravitomagnetic field.
|
Would this imply that the rotation of the planets might be due to where we lie in a gravitomagnetic field?