Does anyone have any good references to the potential energy of the Aether? Is it even measureable? Right now, I assume it to be practically infinite, but I have nothing to base that on. Any ideas?
@bte
QuoteDoes anyone have any good references to the potential energy of the Aether?
I think the first question we should ask is what is the Aether, for thousands of years there was an Aether and then it was proven false through a single flawed experiment. Then the Aether was reborn under a new name we called dark matter which occupied every space not filled with tangible matter. Today it has a new name yet again we call Plasma or the fourth state of matter relating directly to EM energy.
Now if we want to know the potential we must consider the source(s), look upward on a calm clear night and what do we see?. We see billions of stars not unlike our own Sun and some of these stars are over 1500 times larger than our Sun. All radiate massive amounts of EM energy in every direction for hundreds of light years or more filling all space with incomprehensible amounts of energy.
Now the problem here is that when we ask what is the potential it is like asking a fish what is the potential of the ocean?. It is like asking a tree what is the potential of the Earth?, the potential could be very low or it could be extremely large depending on the extent of interaction with any forms of external energy. Therefore the Aether is not "something" it must be "everything" as it must be everywhere and everything we know is directly related to these various forms of external energy in some way.
AC
My view is that the aether is the molecular and atomic bonding. This bond can be manipulated. That is what Tesla, Bearden, Russell, Schauberger, Keely, Leedskalnin are talking about or have done.
We label the object by the event. This can go down a rabbit hole really fast...
I once read somewhere that there are many terawatts of electromagnetic radiation passing through the earth from our galactic center in the form of SUB-ELF waves, i.e. cycles per minute or cycles per hour. This is below where most charts show anything.
Trouble is hooking your antenna to it.
Interesting site for ELF:
http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html
@GK
QuoteMy view is that the aether is the molecular and atomic bonding. This bond can be manipulated. That is what Tesla, Bearden, Russell, Schauberger, Keely, Leedskalnin are talking about or have done.
We label the object by the event. This can go down a rabbit hole really fast...
I would have to agree because I believe we are speaking of the same thing in a slightly different context and at some point we have to ask the question where does this energy for molecular and atomic bonding come from?. My answer relates to nantenna technology whereby any singular particle of diameter X falling within a wavelength near 1/4X experiences a force causing it to oscillate and rotate within the context of the wavelength. Thus we have a simple mechanism whereby particles must absorb and radiate energy in descrete packets as an external wave function. Next we consider two particles of different diameters X and Y having different wave functions thus at distance 1/2X they may attract and at a distance 1/4X they may repel and due to the forces present each must find a position of balance within the wave functions and as they relate to one another.
The problem I see is that many are speaking of fields (E, B, G) which dictate the actions of pretty much everything in the known universe but have no understanding of what these fields are fundamentally. In one case they say Entropy dominates the universe then in the next state these fields are eternal through the conservation of mass and energy with no regard towards the reason they exist in the first place, why they exist despite the conservation of energy as energy must come from somewhere if Entropy rules. Then they say for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction however they do not apply this to the electric field of the electron and consider the field to be perpetual, never dissipating due to Entropy and having no fundamental cause in itself -- it just exists for no apparent reason.
In any case if we are looking for an answer they do have one but few are willing to disclose it because their answer is that these fields are virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parrallel universes which is a polite way of saying it works so long as we don't question it or have to think about it or have prove it in any way. The dirty little secret here may be that the fundamental cause of everything we know may be bound to energy from everywhere else in the known universe, we are not separate from it but an integral part of it. Every singular part of us and everything we know is bound to the rest of the universe which I find very appealing on various levels as well it makes the critics and their attitude appear very small by comparison,lol.
AC
I think 'The Higgs Field' is the soon to win contender for renaming the Aether C.C
QuoteBut how would you tweak the field, which is believed to be responsible for giving matter its substance?
We have witnessed this with Keely and Hutchison.
A good explanation for why the Micklelson Morley interferometer experiment didn't work is that the length of the apparatus contracted at the same ratio. This hypothesis was discarded, don't know why. After all, particles that compose matter exchange electromagnetic forces between themselves through the aether constantly, so they should get affected as well.
But no matter what you call it, it is a medium and it supports electromagnetic wave propagation with doppler shifts when velocity changes.
So if you launch a wave, and move in its direction to compress it, would you feel some sort of push back? I mean, is there a way to absolutely determine how the aether flows?
I often wonder, have they measured the speed of light from a moving platform, by sending a pulse of light towards a stationary platform with a mirror on it to reflect it back to the moving platform? Such an experiment will tell if the speed of light is constant or not. I know they measured the speed of light in all sorts of reference frames and it is constant, but the real insight will be gained by a difference in velocities between the reflector and source of light. Will the light choose a speed that is a compramize between the two velocities? We know there will be doppler but what about the speed?
EM
Quote from: ION on 2013.01.22, 19:26:04
...
Interesting site for ELF:
http://www.vlf.it/kurt/elf.html
This site is the best that I know about VLF. About the ELF page:
The power grid carries many ELF/VLF signals from the industry that are not at the mains frequency, not even at harmonic nor sub-harmonic frequencies. Many kinds of electrical equipments (motors, rectifiers...) can create the "strange" signals detected by Kurt Diedrich. Only a test made deep in the countryside could indicate natural phenomena.
Kurt wonders why a horizontal coil gets stronger signals than a vertical one, meaning that the horizontal magnetic fields are stronger. I also. Its explanation with earth currents is not satisfying. The earth currents can't be the cause of a signal because horizontal currents create transverse but also horizontal magnetic fields, not crossing through the surface of a horizontal coil. So the mystery remains. But did the coil catch only magnetic fields? It's too bad that Kurt didn't shield its coil. A not shielded coil can also easily detect electric fields.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.01.22, 19:58:40
...
Then they say for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction however they do not apply this to the electric field of the electron and consider the field to be perpetual, never dissipating due to Entropy and having no fundamental cause in itself -- it just exists for no apparent reason.
...
The reason of existence of anything is outside the domain of science. The science describes what is observed and explains how it works.
An electron with its field constitutes a single observable reality. An electron is an object including the field. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and this applies also to the electron.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.01.24, 02:49:03
...
I often wonder, have they measured the speed of light from a moving platform, by sending a pulse of light towards a stationary platform with a mirror on it to reflect it back to the moving platform?
...
Leon Foucault led a similar measurement in 1862. You should update your knowledge.
;)
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.01.24, 09:16:07
Leon Foucault led a similar measurement in 1862. You should update your knowledge.
;)
You should read my statement more carefully. Leon Foucault did not perform the experiment I'm suggesting, sorry.
Here's the experiment that that he performed and is known for: Similar experiments are done in Physics 101 classes at most universities.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~pavone/particle-www/teachers/demonstrations/FoucaultDemonstration.htm
My experiment requires a MOVING mirror (translating), not stationary. There will be a Doppler shift as well. It is a harder problem because one needs to know the mirrors velocity and location at a precise moment in time with a high accuracy, so that the velocity of light can be calculated accurately.
@Exn
QuoteThe reason of existence of anything is outside the domain of science. The science describes what is observed and explains how it works.
An electron with its field constitutes a single observable reality. An electron is an object including the field. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and this applies also to the electron.
Your argument is invalid.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.01.24, 14:05:30
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013-01-24, 10:16:07
Leon Foucault led a similar measurement in 1862. You should update your knowledge.
;)
You should read my statement more carefully. Leon Foucault did not perform the experiment I'm suggesting, sorry.
Here's the experiment that that he performed and is known for: Similar experiments are done in Physics 101 classes at most universities.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~pavone/particle-www/teachers/demonstrations/FoucaultDemonstration.htm
My experiment requires a MOVING mirror (translating), not stationary. There will be a Doppler shift as well. It is a harder problem because one needs to know the mirrors velocity and location at a precise moment in time with a high accuracy, so that the velocity of light can be calculated accurately.
A "rotating mirror" is a "MOVING" miror. It is not stationary.If you wanted to say "translating" instead of "moving", then you should have said it. Nevertheless I had guessed it, that is why I said "similar" measurement.
(http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~pavone/particle-www/teachers/demonstrations/FoucaultDemonstration_files/image002.jpg)
Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.01.24, 20:11:38
@Exn
Your argument is invalid.
[irony on]
We are very impressed by the strength of your argument. So many detailed points supporting your thesis attract admiration and respect. ;D ;D ;D
[irony off]
[Circus on]
I wonder how many clowns get out of the Volkswagon this time?]
[Circus off]
Sorry, I should have been more detailed. If it's possible to tap into Aether energy, what would the potential maximum amount of energy be per unit of space? (Say, per square centimeter)
If it drives everything else, then it should be enormous, but still no numbers to go by. Steven Mark's device seems to indicate that there's a ton of useable, convertable power available, but what is the limit? If you feed one of those device back into itself and measure the power output, I wonder if there would be a top limit?
@bte
QuoteIf it drives everything else, then it should be enormous, but still no numbers to go by. Steven Mark's device seems to indicate that there's a ton of useable, convertable power available, but what is the limit? If you feed one of those device back into itself and measure the power output, I wonder if there would be a top limit?
That is good question and I have given some thought to this, the upper limit is not defined by the energy as we could have virtual components. That is the device could be very small physically but produce a very large field involved in the extraction of energy. Thus the upper limit is not defined by the field but by the limitations of the components within the device itself.
It does not matter that there could be 10,000 watts of power available if the components of the device can only handle 100 watts.
AC
Does anyone have any good reference material for learning more about the Aether? (The standard theory of the time, an equation or two, etc...)?
This is a futile question. Potential is a measurement of difference between two qualities, therefore no one thing can have a potential, it must be relative to something else. Since the aether is thought to be the "placid lake" which centers all movement and bodies, (and many argue that all material is made of it) then it has in and of itself many "potentials" all with different relationships to each other. The way you phrase it makes it sound like it has a static potential relative to something else. what would the "else" be? where is the universe outside of our universe? If it is static how could it possibly be of use? As reaction to change over time is the second order event which drives all. If a car drives at constant speed we feel nothing, as soon as it accelerates or decelerates we are aware. As a magnetic field changes its intensity over a given time, we induce a current, if the current is steady we get nothing. Many argue that static fields are in fact in motion, but I have seen no real evidence yet, there always needs to be relative motion, and every measurement is relative to something else.
Quote from: Armagdn03 on 2013.01.25, 23:19:26
Many argue that static fields are in fact in motion, but I have seen no real evidence yet, there always needs to be relative motion, and every measurement is relative to something else.
Hi Armagdn03
Go outside on a clear night and look up-there is your answer-motion.
Everything is made from atom's,and atoms are always in motion.
There is nothing that exist that is static-everything is in constant motion.
The reference point of measurment is what is at fault.
Example-if you stand still you think that you are not moveing,but in reality you are traveling at around 600,000 meters a second.
Every single atom has both a positive and negative charge-there is your potential difference.
And this potential difference is alway in motion.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.01.26, 06:53:38
...
The reference point of measurment is what is at fault.
Example-if you stand still you think that you are not moveing,but in reality you are traveling at around 600,000 meters a second.
That is why Armagdn03's post makes good sense while the question of "potential maximum amount of energy be per unit of space" means nothing: there is no absolute potential.
Quote
Every single atom has both a positive and negative charge-there is your potential difference.
And this potential difference is alway in motion.
A "potential difference" of what? Energy? Voltage? What are you talking about? A charge is not a potential. You may even have separated positive and negative charges and no potential difference between them. "Potential" means "capable of being but not yet in existence". A "potential difference" is not a physical object that we could pretend to be in motion.
Hi everyone, I'm going to jump into the lions den ;D
This is my 2 euros worth C.C
Lets take an atom of gas, any gas, it has electrons and photons - and +, when it is a stable gas it is in balance, like a seesaw not moving, and does not have any energy. It may have potential energy, but until there is an alteration to that atom of gas to make it unstable there is no potential difference.
Now if we introduce an outside potential we can upset that balance, lets say by ionisation, we move some of those low orbiting electrons away from there warm cosy dormant atom. That atom now has an in balance and has become awake, it does not like being awake, it becomes agitated, it has gained energy, that dormant potential has now become real potential until it can get back the electron or electrons it has lost.
That atom will try all it can to gain back what it lost so as it can go back to sleep ;D it will get back it's own electron or grab another atoms electron even if the other atom was a different gas, and share an electron, two in the same bed ;D and make a new molecule, like making babies C.C
Now if we keep the atom sufficiently agitated that it can't stabilise, that atom will eventually split apart to go in different directions to try and stabilise itself in two halves :D
to do that the potential has gone nuclear :D Nasa we have a power station in the building ;D
So what do we have, when the atoms are stable there is NO energy, NO potential difference, when it is unstable we have energy, the atom is unbalanced, there is a potential difference within the atom structure.
Two distinct and different states of potential, of course depends on ones apprehension of potential, the word C.C
Mike 8)
Starting at 23:50 we see the agitation or action at a distance where a new electron is added and the whole valence accumulation adjusts like a ringing bell or ripples in water.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2013.01.26, 12:04:26
...
Lets take an atom of gas, any gas, it has electrons and photons - and +, when it is a stable gas it is in balance, like a seesaw not moving, and does not have any energy.
...
That's false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy
Thanks for clearing this up guys. Any good books on this subject?
@GK
QuoteStarting at 23:50 we see the agitation or action at a distance where a new electron is added and the whole valence accumulation adjusts like a ringing bell or ripples in water.
As well if each electron when jumping from atom to atom could cause a wave like disturbance or oscillation then the whole of the object could oscillate not unlike the phenomena of the Barkhausen effect. If these fundamental oscillations then coupled to external EM oscillations then the external interference pattern could easily be interpreted as a "field". It would be nice to have a rational explanation for the primary fields instead of magical particles popping in and out of existence from other parallel universes. In fact if this were the case then most of the complex phenomena we see could be explained in a simple manner that actually made sense.
This is the model I am working on however I can't see it ever being accepted because it may be too easy and realistic, we can't have just anybody understanding everything or all those scientists would be out of work.
AC
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.01.26, 16:46:07
That's false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy
Disagree
Gibb's free energy is the
"available" energy and not the actual energy
without change it is not until you change it that it developes the energy
Quote
the greatest amount of mechanical work which can be obtained from a given quantity of a certain substance in a given
initial state, without increasing its total volume or allowing heat to pass to or from external bodies, except such as at the close of the
processes are left in their initial condition.[3]
Regards
Mike 8)
@ Giantkiller
Nice video O0
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2013.01.26, 18:18:17
...
Gibb's free energy is the "available" energy and not the actual energy without change it is not until you change it that it developes the energy
...
;D
That's always true. "Potential" means that there is nothing until the realization of the potentiality!
But this potentiality is as a reservoir. That's why what you said is false: "the atoms are stable there is NO energy, NO potential difference, when it is unstable we have energy". E=M*c². The fact that you don't use it, doesn't mean "NO energy". E=M*c² is a potential energy of matter that you can extract by disintegrating it. You can get energy at a given time, only because it was stored somewhere in some form.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.01.26, 20:26:30
;D
That's always true. "Potential" means that there is nothing until the realization of the potentiality!
But this potentiality is as a reservoir. That's why what you said is false: "the atoms are stable there is NO energy, NO potential difference, when it is unstable we have energy". E=M*c². The fact that you don't use it, doesn't mean "NO energy". E=M*c² is a potential energy of matter that you can extract by disintegrating it. You can get energy at a given time, only because it was stored somewhere in some form.
OK hands up we are splitting words here and I did write it badly, usually a problem of mine :-[, I should have said no energy materialised until an event takes place, it's a store of energy but sleeping until we can unbalance it and not that there is no energy ;D C.C what an idiot I am.
Mike 8)
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.01.26, 11:10:17
That is why Armagdn03's post makes good sense while the question of "potential maximum amount of energy be per unit of space" means nothing: there is no absolute potential.
A "potential difference" of what? Energy? Voltage? What are you talking about? A charge is not a potential. You may even have separated positive and negative charges and no potential difference between them. "Potential" means "capable of being but not yet in existence". A "potential difference" is not a physical object that we could pretend to be in motion.
SO are we after the meaning of potential or potential difference?Two different meaning's.
Potential is as you say,but potential difference is simply this
:potential difference is the difference in energy of two location.
The atom has an electrical,chemical and magnetic potential difference.
That potential difference is there to use,when you can work out how to use it without destroying the atom itself.
Only just now have they worked out how to split the atom and then put it back together.
And there is no pretending about motion,everything is in motion.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2013.01.26, 20:59:55
OK hands up we are splitting words here and I did write it badly, usually a problem of mine :-[, I should have said no energy materialised until an event takes place, it's a store of energy but sleeping until we can unbalance it and not that there is no energy ;D C.C what an idiot I am.
Mike 8)
Not a question of splitting words, Mike. This thread is about "
potential energy" and it's indispensable to correctly handle the concept.
When you know that "potential" means nothing real, the underlying implication is that "potential energy" is not a physical reality, unlike the electron or the electric field. It's just our idea of a condition, a state of physical objects, that could possibly produce a work, or not at all if we have not the means to use it.
I often hear "free energy is real because there is energy everywhere" and I always think that this statement is particularly stupid: the problem is not that of the potentiality of the "everywhere" energy that nobody denies, but of its transformation into usable work. It's a truism to say it, however it is obviously not understood by those saying "free energy is real because there is energy everywhere".
Quote from: tinman on 2013.01.27, 01:36:37
...
The atom has an electrical,chemical and magnetic potential difference.
That potential difference is there to use,when you can work out how to use it without destroying the atom itself.
...
These are banalities. There are thousands of transformations from a state of matter to another one that could provide a usable work, see the condensed matter physics.
The first question is how to do it.
But there is another one. A work done by a change from potential A to potential B is the same as from potential B to potential A (except the sign). Therefore the process can't be self-looped. So after having answer the question of how to get work by changing from potential A to potential B, the second question is either 'how the potential A could be restored from the potential B in order to repeat the cycle' (for instance input from the ZPE, the heat and so on...) or 'what potential couple A, B could be used at will without having to care the inverse transformation' (because in very in large quantities).
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.01.27, 14:17:15
These are banalities. There are thousands of transformations from a state of matter to another one that could provide a usable work, see the condensed matter physics.
The first question is how to do it.
But there is another one. A work done by a change from potential A to potential B is the same as from potential B to potential A (except the sign). Therefore the process can't be self-looped. So after having answer the question of how to get work by changing from potential A to potential B, the second question is either 'how the potential A could be restored from the potential B in order to repeat the cycle' (for instance input from the ZPE, the heat and so on...) or 'what potential couple A, B could be used at will without having to care the inverse transformation' (because in very in large quantities).
I think if we could answer the(how to do it bit)then we would have a way to use that potential.
But you are right-that is the hard bit.
But i guess that if we were the ones to tell others 100 years ago that we could turn the suns rays into electricity,we would have been seen as wacko's.
But the solar pannel is now a main streem free energy device-in the sence that we dont have to pay for the energy that it can deliver.
I guess it is only a matter of time until we can convert this free energy into a usable energy.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.01.27, 13:48:58
Not a question of splitting words, Mike. This thread is about "potential energy" and it's indispensable to correctly handle the concept.
When you know that "potential" means nothing real, the underlying implication is that "potential energy" is not a physical reality, unlike the electron or the electric field. It's just our idea of a condition, a state of physical objects, that could possibly produce a work, or not at all if we have not the means to use it.
I often hear "free energy is real because there is energy everywhere" and I always think that this statement is particularly stupid: the problem is not that of the potentiality of the "everywhere" energy that nobody denies, but of its transformation into usable work. It's a truism to say it, however it is obviously not understood by those saying "free energy is real because there is energy everywhere".
Exactly on what you have written I am 100%. Of course there is energy everywhere, it is like the phrase, water water everywhere and not a drop to drink, I for one don't have much of an ego, the ones that do are the ones who normally try to shoot me down. I am now giving information of many years of work to a small group who are replicating and finding there way with the replications and opening their minds to what they see. What I give is the basics, no claims, the claims they can make themselves afterwards, what is in the future for me "been there done that and it is my living at the moment on an industrial scale" but they are in the learning curve and it is not an easy one to learn. Involved in my work is chemistry and physics as well as electronics to make the thing run, but I am an industrial engineer and my knowledge has a limit in each but is gold when combined O0
Mike 8)