http://www.softcom.net/users/greebo/spin.htm#det
QuoteEther Detection Experiments
In 1887, Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward William Morley published the results of an experiment which was the successor to a similar experiment which Michelson had performed in 1881. The purpose of the two experiments was to prove the existence of the luminiferous ether. It was supposed that light would travel at different velocities, according to the direction of movement of the earth's surface relative to the ether. A light beam, split to go in two directions at ninety degrees to one another, converged after taking paths of equal distance. When the beams converged they interfered with one another. By rotating the apparatus, a maximum interference was found which showed the difference in the velocities between the two parts of the split beam, and thus showed the presence of ether.
The difference between the light velocities was used to calculate an ether velocity relative to the earth's surface. However, the relative ether velocity that they found was much lower than anticipated. Through the years that followed, similar experiments were performed with much greater accuracy. The last was in 1932 (see Volume 7, Issue 38 of Infinite Energy Magazine, Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments - A Fresh Look by James DeMeo). In the most detailed experiments, a seasonally consistent low relative velocity was found. But rather than acknowledging the results of the experiments and moving on with the information provided, the lower relative ether velocity was considered a flaw in the experiment. The proponents of corpuscular theory later asserted that these experiments had found no relative ether velocity whatsoever, and the myth they started became dogma.
An experiment was performed in 1914 by Sagnac in which a light beam was split into two parts. One part moved along a path which was square in shape. The other part moved along the same path but in the opposite direction. The apparatus was set spinning so that, if there were an ether, the two parts of the beam would move at two different velocities. The interfering parts at the termination point would disclose the existence of the ether. And, in fact, that is exactly what happened. Furthermore, there was no strangeness in the magnitude of relative ether velocity. All was as it should have been. Other similar experiments followed which also proved the existence of the ether. There were no discrepancies between theory and results as had been the case with the Michelson-Morley type of experiment.
Unfortunately, relativity by this time was considered to be correct and many reputations (and egos) could be damaged by the disclosure of the existence of an ether. So the Sagnac experiment was suppressed as were all similar subsequent experiments. Einstein ignored Sagnac and his work.
Today, the same kinds of reputations and egos might be damaged, so physicists in general continue to ignore Sagnac. However, engineers use the "Sagnac effect" when they design their navigation systems for transoceanic aircraft, nuclear submarines, and communications satellites. Without this "effect" the navigation systems could not work properly. For more details, see two articles in Volume 7, Issue 39, of Infinite Energy Magazine, one by A. G. Kelly, and the other by the Correas.
Sagnac published 2 papers (in French) with the titles:
"The existence of the luminiferous ether demonstrated..."
http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2008-07.pdf
and
"On the proof of reality of the luminiferous ether ..."
http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2008-08.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation of Sagnac Effect:
http://www.phil-inst.hu/~szekely/PIRT_BP_2/papers/selleri_09_ft.ppt
Grumpy,
When I read your posts on this subject you are preaching to the choir ;)
I have seen and benefited from the use of devices based upon the Sagnac effect. This in no longer crackpot science (not for about a hundred years). Those trying to debunk it just need to get over it.
If folks would just accept and understand this they may make it to understanding the simplicity of gravity, contra to 'it is just bigger so it drags you in'.
it's frustrating
Mainstream science uses this credo.
When the facts do not line up with the theory, the facts must go!!
I see it happen all the time. I would much rather see facts than listen to someone's guess.
E=mc2 does not allow for ether. Or does it?
E=((m)(c/a))2
E= energy
m= mass
c= velocity of the speed of light
a= aether density
8)
Newton's second law of motion is F = ma, where m is the "inertial mass"
If I have a coil of wire, and I apply a pulse (F), this force will accelerate this mass. Will this result in a displacement of aether?
That is an interesting question! I could answer with a firm "Maybe" as I am not privy to HOW this force was applied.
If applied by "Voltage", I would guess yes. If applied by acceleration of the physical coil, then you have trouble. If the coil were "Shorted", and in the presense of a mag field (On earth?) then I would say yes. IF the coil were "Open" and you are on "Earth", then I would say yes, but at a different level.
In space, away from any propagating mag fields (OK, not possible, but in theory...) then without a "Seed" charge or field then I would say no. This could easily be incorrect, as there are charged items that make up the mass of the coil, and, for stupid example, if there were 1 free "electron", I would assume this could start an effect up. Now, how long the force would need to be applied and at what rate the effect would build up......
I guess what I say is, that could take a lot of thought to vet out all the possibilities, but, in general, I would think a yes covers more of the actual situations then no.
Of course, this is all uninformed opinion, on my part. (I, personally, think any normal mass in motion displaces aether, with no coil needed, but conventional EE's would probably disagree with me, if they would even discuss it. Above is for them. Rate of displacement is another thing, and that's a looooong discussion....)
If your pulse generates enough cooper pairs it will polarize the ether (sub-atomic particle universe).
:)
I am going to chime in here. Normally I stay in my areas of interest and only venture out of them once in a while. So today I am going to dabble into this aether business. I know that almost none of you are going to listen to the information that is in the links, but I am going to disseminate it anyways. You guys need to see the counter-balance once in a while, even if you are going to ignore it.
The truth is the conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that there was no convincing evidence for the existence of the aether. However, you can find junk/alternative science links on like that claim just the opposite. This is where you take science and turn it into some sort of a game of political spin. It's really the wrong way to go. You either accept what the main body of scientific research has come up with based on the experimental evidence or you don't. It's the same kind of business with respect t electric current and electrons. For some reason some people don't want to believe in electric current, even through there is overwhelming evidence it exists and circuit analysis relies on current and it's in agreement with experimental evidence. I suspect that the "current" business stems more from a desire to go against the grain than anything else. It shows that you have "alternative energy" "edge" or something.
Going back to the aether, if you do the Google search the vast majority of the information you find indicates that the experiments could not prove that it exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)
QuoteThe Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University. Its results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the theory of a luminiferous aether. The experiment has also been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution".
QuoteIn 1887 he then combined efforts with Edward Morley and spent a considerable amount of time and money creating an improved version with more than enough accuracy to detect the drift.[3] In their experiment, the light was repeatedly reflected back and forth along the arms, increasing the path length to 11 m. At this length, the drift would be about 0.4 fringes. To make that easily detectable, the apparatus was located in a closed room in the basement of a stone building, eliminating most thermal and vibrational effects. Vibrations were further reduced by building the apparatus on top of a huge block of marble, which was then floated in a pool of mercury. They calculated that effects of about 1/100th of a fringe would be detectable.
The mercury pool allowed the device to be turned, so that it could be rotated through the entire range of possible angles to the "aether wind". Even over a short period of time some sort of effect would be noticed simply by rotating the device, such that one arm rotated into the direction of the wind and the other away. Over longer periods day/night cycles or yearly cycles would also be easily measurable.
During each full rotation of the device, each arm would be parallel to the wind twice (facing into and away from the wind) and perpendicular to the wind twice. This effect would show readings in a sine wave formation with two peaks and two troughs. Additionally, if the wind were only from Earth's orbit around the sun, the wind would fully change directions east/west during a 12-hour period. In this ideal conceptualization, the sine wave of day/night readings would be of opposing phase.
QuoteAfter all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what might be called the most famous failed experiment to date.[4] Instead of providing insight into the properties of the aether, Michelson and Morley's article in the American Journal of Science reported the measurement to be as small as one-fortieth of the expected displacement but "since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity" they concluded that the measured velocity was approximately one-sixth of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in orbit and "certainly less than one-fourth." Although this small "velocity" was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was later said to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero.
About the Sagnac experiment:
QuoteWalter Ritz's emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source.[9] However it also led to several "obvious" optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If this was correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen.
The Sagnac experiment placed a modified apparatus on a constantly rotating turntable; the main modification was that the light trajectory encloses an area. In doing so any ballistic theories such as Ritz's could be tested directly, as the light going one way around the device would have a different length to travel than light going the other way (the eyepiece and mirrors would be moving toward/away from the light). In Ritz's theory there would be no shift, because the net velocity between the light source and detector was zero (they were both mounted on the turntable). However in this case an effect was seen, thereby eliminating any simple ballistic theory. This fringe-shift effect is used today in laser gyroscopes.
The quote from Grumpy's original quote about this goes as follows:
QuoteThe apparatus was set spinning so that, if there were an ether, the two parts of the beam would move at two different velocities. The interfering parts at the termination point would disclose the existence of the ether. And, in fact, that is exactly what happened.
The above statement is bullshit. The rotating apparatus would either create a longer or shorter path for the light and be detectable as shown in the highlighted section in the Wikipedia link above.
This other statement below from Grumpy's link is also nonsense.
QuoteToday, the same kinds of reputations and egos might be damaged, so physicists in general continue to ignore Sagnac. However, engineers use the "Sagnac effect" when they design their navigation systems for transoceanic aircraft, nuclear submarines, and communications satellites. Without this "effect" the navigation systems could not work properly.
The above quote plays into the usual "suppression" argument and it's not true. The effect is perfectly understood and it's used to make laser gyroscopes. The tone of the statement is right from the Tom Bearden school of writing.
MileHigh
What exactly is it that you want to say?
More info on the alleged aether:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html (http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html)
QuoteMichelson calculated that an aether windspeed of only one or two miles a second would have observable effects in this experiment, so if the aether windspeed was comparable to the earth's speed in orbit around the sun, it would be easy to see. In fact, nothing was observed. The light intensity did not vary at all. Some time later, the experiment was redesigned so that an aether wind caused by the earth's daily rotation could be detected. Again, nothing was seen. Finally, Michelson wondered if the aether was somehow getting stuck to the earth, like the air in a below-decks cabin on a ship, so he redid the experiment on top of a high mountain in California. Again, no aether wind was observed. It was difficult to believe that the aether in the immediate vicinity of the earth was stuck to it and moving with it, because light rays from stars would deflect as they went from the moving faraway aether to the local stuck aether.
The only possible conclusion from this series of very difficult experiments was that the whole concept of an all-pervading aether was wrong from the start. Michelson was very reluctant to think along these lines. In fact, new theoretical insight into the nature of light had arisen in the 1860's from the brilliant theoretical work of Maxwell, who had written down a set of equations describing how electric and magnetic fields can give rise to each other. He had discovered that his equations predicted there could be waves made up of electric and magnetic fields, and the speed of these waves, deduced from experiments on how these fields link together, would be 186,300 miles per second. This is, of course, the speed of light, so it is natural to assume that light is made up of fast-varying electric and magnetic fields. But this leads to a big problem: Maxwell's equations predict a definite speed for light, and it is the speed found by measurements. But what is the speed to be measured relative to? The whole point of bringing in the aether was to give a picture for light resembling the one we understand for sound, compressional waves in a medium. The speed of sound through air is measured relative to air. If the wind is blowing towards you from the source of sound, you will hear the sound sooner. If there isn't an aether, though, this analogy doesn't hold up. So what does light travel at 186,300 miles per second relative to?
There is another obvious possibility, which is called the emitter theory: the light travels at 186,300 miles per second relative to the source of the light. The analogy here is between light emitted by a source and bullets emitted by a machine gun. The bullets come out at a definite speed (called the muzzle velocity) relative to the barrel of the gun. If the gun is mounted on the front of a tank, which is moving forward, and the gun is pointing forward, then relative to the ground the bullets are moving faster than they would if shot from a tank at rest. The simplest way to test the emitter theory of light, then, is to measure the speed of light emitted in the forward direction by a flashlight moving in the forward direction, and see if it exceeds the known speed of light by an amount equal to the speed of the flashlight. Actually, this kind of direct test of the emitter theory only became experimentally feasible in the nineteen-sixties. It is now possible to produce particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second. In the last century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964).
Einstein's Answer
The results of the various experiments discussed above seem to leave us really stuck. Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed relative to some underlying medium. However, it is also not like bullets, with a definite speed relative to the source of the light. Yet when we measure its speed we always get the same result. How can all these facts be interpreted in a simple consistent way? We shall show how Einstein answered this question in the next lecture.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html)
QuoteMichelson and Morley were able to measure the speed of light by looking for interference fringes between the light which had passed through the two perpendicular arms of their apparatus. These would occur since the light would travel faster along an arm if oriented in the "same" direction as the ether was moving, and slower if oriented in the opposite direction. Since the two arms were perpendicular, the only way that light would travel at the same speed in both arms and therefore arrive simultaneous at the telescope would be if the instrument were motionless with respect to the ether. If not, the crests and troughs of the light waves in the two arms would arrive and interfere slightly out of synchronization, producing a diminution of intensity. (Of course, the same effect would be achieved if the arms of the interferometer were not of the same length, but these could be adjusted accurately by looking for the intensity peak as one arm was moved. Changing the orientation of the instrument should then show fringes.)
Although Michelson and Morley were expecting measuring different speeds of light in each direction, they found no discernible fringes indicating a different speed in any orientation or at any position of the Earth in its annual orbit around the Sun.
In 1895, Lorentz Eric Weisstein's World of Biography concluded that the "null" result obtained by Michelson and Morley was caused by a effect of contraction made by the ether on their apparatus and introduced the length contraction equation
Quotewhere L is the contracted length, is the rest length, v is the velocity of the frame of reference, and c is the speed of light. Although the main interpretation of Lorentz Eric Weisstein's World of Biography for this equation was rejected later, the equation is still correct and was the first of a sequence of new equations developed by Poincaré, Eric Weisstein's World of Biography Lorentz, Eric Weisstein's World of Biography and others, resulting in a new branch of physics ultimately brought to fruition by Albert Einstein Eric Weisstein's World of Biography in special relativity. Einstein's idea of space-time contraction replaced Lorentz's interpretation of the contraction equation, and once and for all relegated ether to the history books.
There is no aether.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.11, 22:40:12
There is no aether.
MileHigh
Can you tell me how it is possible that waves propogate through space?
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.11, 22:57:34
Can you tell me how it is possible that waves propogate through space?
Sure, for starters I think that you are mixing up sub-atomic particles with electromagnetic wave propagation. In your previous posting you are relating sub-atomic particles with the alleged existence of an aether and they are separate and distinct things.
Space has inherent properties of permittivity and permeability. I am not here to question where these properties come from or how they came into existence. It's just like I don't want to be questioned about what an electric field or voltage "really" is, or what a magnetic field "really" is.
The permittivity and permeability together act like a three-dimensional "carpet" that you can disturb and then electromagnetic waves will travel through that "carpet" with the energy oscillating back and forth being stored in the electric and magnetic fields. Just like when you disturb a real carpet, waves travel through it where the energy is oscillating back and forth between being stored in the tension in the carpet and the velocity of the mass of the carpet.
However, as the links show, this propagation of electromagnetic energy through space is not tied to a relative velocity with some kind of medium, the experiments show that's not the case. That's in contrast to the waves traveling through a carpet where the observed wave velocity would be a combination of the absolute wave velocity in the carpet itself and the relative velocity of the potentially moving fabric of the carpet relative to you as a stationary observer.
Even though there is nothing to "fix" the electromagnetic waves and their velocity to some sort of medium, there still exists the "media" of the permittivity and permeability of empty space that supports the transmission of electromagnetic energy through space. Then, as the links I quoted indicate, you have to look at Einstein and his theories to explain the nature of electromagnetic waves and related observations in greater detail.
Einstein's theories have been proven. They have put an atomic clock in a jet plane and found that it lost time relative to a stationary atomic clock on the Earth. What astronomers once thought were anomalies in the observed orbits of planets and observations of other objects in the Universe turned out to not be anomalies once they factored in relativistic effects and the curvature of space due to the presence of very large masses.
I can't give you the super low-level answers that a physicist could give you. What I am telling you is that there is no aether. It's an outdated obsolete concept with its roots in the 19th century.
MileHigh
No it's not and it's a very good concept actually.
Also there is enough reason to believe it exists.
I'm not mixing up anything and i like my current view better then the one you are trying to hang on my nose.
:)
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.11, 23:59:42
No it's not and it's a very good concept actually.
Also there is enough reason to believe it exists.
I'm not mixing up anything.
Okay, so you tell me how waves propagate through space.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 00:00:42
Okay, so you tell me how waves propagate through space.
I already did, they interact with sub-atomic particles.
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.12, 00:03:35
I already did, they interact with sub-atomic particles.
That's all you can offer up, five words and one sentence? Your current view has very little substance.
you posts have alot "substance" but they don't provide any answer close to my 5 words.
I suppose you could get educated in stead of copy&pasting old experiments.
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.12, 00:13:09
you posts have alot "substance" but they don't provide any answer close to my 5 words.
I suppose you could get educated in stead of copy&pasting old experiments.
I gave you a real answer. You are implying that I am not educated. Where should I get educated? "Education" is a relative term so I am curious where you got your education that you seem to think that I am lacking.
Like I said, I am showing the data that clearly shows that the Michelson-Morley and subsequent experiments show that the aether does not exist. I explained how electromagnetic waves propagate through space. You haven't rebutted either of those points.
Your five words say nothing. Sub atomic particles can be produced by smashing up atoms. Those types of particles normally don't exist in the environment, and they probably don't exist at all in empty space. Then there are fleeting sub-atomic particles with no mass that pop in and out of existence. Both of those things have nothing to do with the propagation of electromagnetic energy through space. You might believe that they do because you read it somewhere but that doesn't make it necessarily true. If you believe it then you should be able to explain the mechanism of how it actually works. For example, what sub-atomic particles are you talking about? Do you have any links to backup your argument? Note that Grumpy's copy/paste was filled with incorrect information.
If you can't make some points to back up your proposition then let's just agree to disagree and move on. Before I responded to this thread I knew that it wasn't going to change anything for a lot of people. It's still a good exercise to raise the points anyways.
MileHigh
let's move on.
MH,
So you didn't like the Sagnac post. Doesn't matter. Nothing will convince you of an aether any more than anything can convince me that there isn't an aether. Einstein stated that the M-M experiment did not disprove the aether and that it only disproved the form that they tested for. Proving God exist is a similar endeavor. However, many people who have died come back sure have changed!
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.11, 23:49:02
Space has inherent properties of permittivity and permeability. I am not here to question where these properties come from or how they came into existence. It's just like I don't want to be questioned about what an electric field or voltage "really" is, or what a magnetic field "really" is.
You will be hard-pressed to explain these things without a medium. Maybe this is why we do not have good explanations for "how" or "why" these things occur - just that they do. These unanswered questions plagued me just as they probably have plagued SM and many before us. I may never have the real answer, but I am a Hell of a lot closer than "it just does".
milehigh's comments are very healthy for this type of discussion, without a milehigh we would only be agreeing with each other and not really being forced to climb out of our box of thought.
I sincearly hope that this discussion can continue and perhaps become one of the main topics on this board, moreover that all of us remain civil and intellectual on this topic, don't view milehigh as the "party-pooper" for he forces all of us to excercise our intellect which is the reason we are here.
Grumpy:
It's open to debate if you are closer. I would assume that physicists have done serious research into permittivity and permeability that might explain how that works above and beyond their understanding of the relative permittivity and permeability factors for a given material that occupies a vacuum. The reason that I made the "disclaimer" statements is because the moment you talk about real scientific research and knowledge that goes against the "alternative" way of thinking the first that happens is that you are hit up with the "big" questions. I find that frustrating because the "big" questions never come up when alternative thinkers talk amongst themselves and they use exactly the same concepts of electric field, magnetic field, permittivity and permeability.
Do the real research and starting from Michelson-Morley and onwards there is no proof that aether exists. It's right there online, there must be hundreds of links. You can hang on to that one Einstein quote or your link, it doesn't matter. How electromagnetic waves propagate is understood and the alleged existence of aether has nothing to do with it. The microwave engineers that design waveguides and antenna and transceiver systems for communications satellites don't ever consider aether to develop their real-world applications.
I am not trying to convince you, but I am just making the point relative to the question posed in this thread. The real world of telecommunications and microwave theory and a myriad of other things all work without needing an aether model. The existing EM models and the related R&D and the practical applications all ring true and work.
MileHigh
That cannot be true.
MH
Every day men and woman all over the world get paid to attempt the impossible ,to seek out the unknown,
in every field of science!
To boldly go..... [so to speak],It is our nature,
And most definately one of our finest attributes!
Thank you for being here!!
Chet
Ps ,
is it the fact that we're not getting paid that makes us heretics??
I see this endless search for aether - and no actually discovery. It's need is mistakenly assumed to correspond to the availablity of limitless energy. We only need Einstein's mass/energy equivalence to find endless supplies of energy - and we only need the electromagnetic interaction to supply a never ending source of electric current flow. If the question is really 'what is aether' then it's just as appropriate to ask what is energy? What is the electromagnetic interaction - what is gravity - and so on? And we'd still be bereft of answers.
My own take is that the aether comes in different fields - being gravitational - electromagnetic or nuclear. And I sincerely propose that they can all be resolved by magnetic fields - in one, two and three dimensions. 1D and they control the electromagnetic force. 2D and they control the strong nuclear force. 3D and they control matter in what is seen as a gravitational field. In all field conditions they're invisible. And this, in turn is the aether. And I propose that it forms the background of all space - gross interstellar - and subtle atomic.
Just think about it. We can get a magnet on magnet interaction with ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTRIC FIELD. But we cannot get an ELECTRIC FIELD without evidence of a magnetic field. Surely that points to the magnetic force being a primary force?
Rosemary
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 02:32:58
Grumpy:
It's open to debate if you are closer. I would assume that physicists have done serious research into permittivity and permeability that might explain how that works above and beyond their understanding of the relative permittivity and permeability factors for a given material that occupies a vacuum.
MileHigh
Actually MileHigh you are WRONG. NO-ONE knows the actual condition of the vacuum. In fact it's doubtful that there is such a thing as a vacuum. Because there is no vacuum that is bereft of the influence of the forces. This means that the forces must also be inside the vacuum. Somehow. You seem to think that there are many more answers than are actually there. And it is entirely appropriate to question the make up of the vacuum. It's the obsession of string theorists and particle theorists and quantum theorists and indeed ALL ltheorists. And there are as many answers as there are theorists.
Rosemary
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 02:32:58
Grumpy:
It's open to debate if you are closer. I would assume that physicists have done serious research into permittivity and permeability that might explain how that works above and beyond their understanding of the relative permittivity and permeability factors for a given material that occupies a vacuum. The reason that I made the "disclaimer" statements is because the moment you talk about real scientific research and knowledge that goes against the "alternative" way of thinking the first that happens is that you are hit up with the "big" questions. I find that frustrating because the "big" questions never come up when alternative thinkers talk amongst themselves and they use exactly the same concepts of electric field, magnetic field, permittivity and permeability.
Do the real research and starting from Michelson-Morley and onwards there is no proof that aether exists. It's right there online, there must be hundreds of links. You can hang on to that one Einstein quote or your link, it doesn't matter. How electromagnetic waves propagate is understood and the alleged existence of aether has nothing to do with it. The microwave engineers that design waveguides and antenna and transceiver systems for communications satellites don't ever consider aether to develop their real-world applications.
I am not trying to convince you, but I am just making the point relative to the question posed in this thread. The real world of telecommunications and microwave theory and a myriad of other things all work without needing an aether model. The existing EM models and the related R&D and the practical applications all ring true and work.
MileHigh
I feel that both of our perspectives are necessary to further human development. They each have there purpose.
Rather than accept "it just does" or "take it on blind faith", I question the very mechanics of the universe. Until I know everything, I am perpetually entertained with unanswered questions.
What is electricity?
What is a magnetic field?
What is "gravity"?
What causes these things? Why do they work the way they do?
I suspect a link between a moving electric field and gravity. Wouldn't that be the "cat's pajamas"?
Unless God himself says "you can't do that" then I presume that I can - if I can.
If you read about the history of physics you will find that many physicist have believed in an aether and continue to do so. Paul Dirac, Lorentz, Helmholtz, Tesla, Thomson, Poynting , and many others believed in an aether medium and it is still an unsettled topic today.
Quote
Since the Miller experiment and its unclear results there have been many more experiments to detect the aether. Many of the experimenters have claimed positive results. These results have not gained much attention from mainstream science. Published authors claiming detection of the aether include Kantor, Marinov, Silvertooth, Torr and Kolen, Munera, and Cahill.[6]
You are correct that you do not need know anything of the aether to utilize electricity and magnetic field for our everyday devices. However, if you wish to do something that is out of the ordinary, it would behoove you to at least question the existence of other things.
I'm sure "the vacuum" has a reason for possessing the properties of permeability and permittivity.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.12, 03:31:17
Actually MileHigh you are WRONG. NO-ONE knows the actual condition of the vacuum. In fact it's doubtful that there is such a thing as a vacuum. Because there is no vacuum that is bereft of the influence of the forces. This means that the forces must also be inside the vacuum. Somehow. You seem to think that there are many more answers than are actually there. And it is entirely appropriate to question the make up of the vacuum. It's the obsession of string theorists and particle theorists and quantum theorists and indeed ALL ltheorists. And there are as many answers as there are theorists.
Rosemary
Actually Rosemary I am not "WRONG" at all. I merely stated that I assumed that physicists have done research into permittivity and permeability. That's all I said, will you please tone down your rhetoric, it's positively oppressive.
In addition, we were talking about permittivity and permeability and how that relates to a vacuum in the context of the existence of the aether, or not. The discussion is really about whether or not the aether exists as a medium for propagating electromagnetic waves. It's not about string theory or what really constitutes a vacuum or things along those lines. The existence of the aether was postulated in the 19th century as a means of explaining the propagation of electromagnetic waves through space because of the belief that you needed some sort of tangible or semi-tangible medium to do this. The logic for this was the example that sound waves must have the medium of air to propagate and as a result there are ways of detecting the presence of the air. That's why they did the testing with light beams and interferometers. That's what this debate is really about, does the aether exist as an explanation for the propagation of EM waves? Your comments would ideally be made with that thought in mind.
Microcontroller:
If you say that what I am saying "cannot be true," I would ideally like to know precisely what you are talking about and what your reasons are.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 04:54:21
In addition, we were talking about permittivity and permeability and how that relates to a vacuum in the context of the existence of the aether, or not. The discussion is really about whether or not the aether exists as a medium for propagating electromagnetic waves.
So am I discussing this. The difference being that I'm proposing that the primary magnetic waves comprise the aether.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 04:54:21It's not about string theory or what really constitutes a vacuum or things along those lines.
I did not bring up the subject of string theory. Again. I'm proposing that the vacuum itself comprises magnetic fields in varying forms depending on where that vacuum is located. Why do you persist in misunderstanding me MileHigh? You seem to think that my comments are entirely irrelevant to the subject. The fact is that you - Grumpy et al - are debating the existence of the aether. You have one take. Grumpy has another. I've got a third take. I'm proposing that the forces reside in the vacuum in the form of 1, 2 or 3 dimensional magnetic fields. It seems that whatever I say or contribute is denied by you and ignored by everyone else. And all this time - all these years - I've been saying the same thing. The aether and magnetic fields are one and the same. How can that be considered irrelevant to this topic? And for all that Grumpy looks and looks and looks - he evidently does NOT look to this possibility. I am not sure why this postulate must be excluded when all others are accepted. And I have the edge. I have proof that this postulate may be correct - because there's experimental evidence to substantiate it albeit that this evidence is also ignored or denied.
Rosemary
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 04:54:21
Actually Rosemary I am not "WRONG" at all. I merely stated that I assumed that physicists have done research into permittivity and permeability. That's all I said, will you please tone down your rhetoric, it's positively oppressive.
And if you want to know about 'oppressive' then try this. I keep telling you that Mainstream do not have the answers. And you keep implying that they do. Mainstream have measurements. Extraordinary, skilled amazing abilities to measure and to predict effects from measurement. But they absolutely DO NOT have the explanations. They have no 'reasons'. They can only tell you what those interactions are - the strength of the strength and type of interactions. And some have found that some of those interactions can be absolutely universally applied. Which makes their math that much more extraordinary. But they do not have answers MileHigh. And from what I read you are expecting US to supply answers that contradict mainsteam. There is nothing to contradict. It's an area of study that is almost entirely void of any kind of consistent explanation at all.
So. For you to expect an answer from Microcontroller is rather unreasonable unless you first get your explanation from mainstream. You'll probably find an explanation too. It's just you will NEVER find a self consistent explanation or a self consistent argument. I personally find it sad that you seem to think that there's a body of 'experts' who know everything that's needed. They only know how to use the forces MileHigh. And that use is limited to their understanding of the forces. And that understanding is bereft.
Rosemary
@Rosemary
Im not sure I would totally agree with your magnetism theory and one of the reasons is probably because I am biased towards Teslas thoughts on this matter that the forces may be electrical in nature. As well I have found in some experiments that a great deal of energy can be transported by low voltages with no detectable magnetic fields or current. Much of this revolves around a very simple premise that when something has an incredibly high rate of change and oscillation it appears as almost stationary to everything else. To be honest I am on the fence when it comes to the concept of an "ether" but I like this statement by milehigh---
QuoteThe permittivity and permeability together act like a three-dimensional "carpet" that you can disturb and then electromagnetic waves will travel through that "carpet" with the energy oscillating back and forth being stored in the electric and magnetic fields. Just like when you disturb a real carpet, waves travel through it where the energy is oscillating back and forth between being stored in the tension in the carpet and the velocity of the mass of the carpet.
The issue I have is that as soon as we start to state distinct particles or fields are responsible for everything else then we have to consider a "source" and this is usually when things take a turn for the worst. If there is one thing I have learned from nature and some pretty weird experiments is that it is never one thing it is many things acting together to give the illusion of one thing. I do however reserve the right to be completely wrong.
Regards
AC
This is all very interesting, but it ALL actually avoids the question that is the title of this thread. "Does IT exist?"
Come on, the first parameter required to ask that question is to define what "IT" is. No experimentation is of ANY use without knowing what you are looking for. THIS is where "Classical" aether searches will always fail, as if you aren't looking for the correctly defined object, than how do you expect to get results?
A LONG time ago, in school, actually, this was a heated topic, and physics was one of my favorite subjects. (The 2nd year collage course I was forced to take in junior year high school got me in trouble, but...) Why these same arguments always come up, I just don't know. I'll only comment this way. If you cannot do the test for yourself, or have not actually seen the test and parameters run for yourself, you are acting on "Faith". I don't care which side your on, nor what references you use, you are demonstrating your faith in what you have read, instead of what you have directly experienced. THAT is the problem with most science today. I've seen this argument between two physics professors, and both "Knew" they were right. (And of course, both could be wrong, too. This was within the last decade. I'm too old for this S***! :) )
Prime example, just to throw a wrench in the works, for both sides. What if, (This is already proven and documented, but not as an aether effect, so don't start the "Where is that from" stuff. Try thinking about examples, and do a test or two.) again, what if the aether is "Clingy" to the structure of matter? (Oppps, all data just got canned, but who can accept that truth?) That was simple, and I didn't have to give credit to the magnetic field basics concept, the dark matter concept, the lack of aether concept nor any other theory, as the attributes of what I was looking for prevent testing with matter present, unless that matter is taken into account by the test. (Try finding info that applies in this situation. Strange hole in research there. Why? I have no clue, but have hit it in other studies.)
Many "Normal" people claim that I am just "Sprouting BS"! Many aether people consider this concept "WRONG!". Take the simple test of the "Motor Inertia effect". (I'm avoiding names as that causes trouble. Faith, remember?) Spinning up a motor the first time takes more power than the second time, if done within the "Spin down" time of whatever the unseen force that has inertia, by definition. No one, that I know of, refutes this simple fact, and it's not really even hard to test. I'm NOT saying that relates to aether, but it DOES prove that this "Whatever" stayed in the SAME place, relative to the motor, which is moving relative to the sun, etc. etc. etc. Simple logical facts, eh? IF, and I will repeat that, for those that need it, IF this "Whatever" has ANY relation to a supposed aether, then not only is relativity a requirement, but ANY MASS must "FIX" this effect in that relative location. Can you see where I am coming from. Taking these "IF"s into account means that there could not be an aether wind, per se, so such could not be measured in a standard way, unless measured in a "True" spacial vacuum, with no mass present. (There are methods, but you would have to assume an aether first, in order to define the interactions, etc.) Try this experiment, but don't attempt to publish the results. (The result is self-evident.) Generate what you would consider to be an "aether distortion" and THEN preform the experiment with light..... This will be a LOT tougher, as ALL the other things come into play. RF, EM, RE, XYZ, etc. will now have to be taken into account for their possible effects. Again, the experiment is useless. Believe me, some have tried. (I'm offering no names as the "Faith" will always win out, unless you can have greater faith in your own physical work. Theory doesn't cut it here.) No matter the result, someone will be able to destroy the results, using their "Faith" knowledge.
OK, I'm jumping off the soapbox here, as the simple statement C is the maximum speed has already been disproven, but that concept is still necessary in using current day tech and EM theory. What does that simple fact say about the completeness of the theory? A LOT of things are in use that are not understood, and only an unaware person would be able to not accept that. There are a lot of such people out there, and quite a few here, as well. Put it this way, would anyone argue with the Faraday equations and theory about electrolysis? I would hope not, as they are proven accurate. (In a specific situation...) Does this mean that there is NO MORE to be understood in the process or that Faraday knew all there was to know about the process? Same situation.
There are many things that are beyond our ability to test, especially if we don't know enough about what we are testing. When will this be solved? I hope never, as what would be the use, once we know everything? How boring would the news from a complete utopia be? SO, who can offer up an accurate description of what to test for? Seems a catch-22 to me. Waves propagating in space as a concept? If you can't even define what the "Field" is, why waste time trying to explain it's propagation when you haven't got enough parameters to even know How to test it. I hope this makes sense, as all of us are operating on faith in what we believe to be true. That's why I stick to "I believe it when I SEE it, not when told it or when I read it." Is someone going to try to tell me the attributes of water by knowing how the waves operate? By it's effect on other things? It's all in asking the right questions, or the answers are meaningless. Ask the wrong questions, and all you get is a fight.
As always, this is just my opinion and not to be construed as claiming any real knowledge. That must be obtained on your own.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.12, 06:07:50
And if you want to know about 'oppressive' then try this. I keep telling you that Mainstream do not have the answers. And you keep implying that they do. Mainstream have measurements. Extraordinary, skilled amazing abilities to measure and to predict effects from measurement. But they absolutely DO NOT have the explanations. They have no 'reasons'. They can only tell you what those interactions are - the strength of the strength and type of interactions. And some have found that some of those interactions can be absolutely universally applied. Which makes their math that much more extraordinary. But they do not have answers MileHigh. And from what I read you are expecting US to supply answers that contradict mainsteam. There is nothing to contradict. It's an area of study that is almost entirely void of any kind of consistent explanation at all.
So. For you to expect an answer from Microcontroller is rather unreasonable unless you first get your explanation from mainstream. You'll probably find an explanation too. It's just you will NEVER find a self consistent explanation or a self consistent argument. I personally find it sad that you seem to think that there's a body of 'experts' who know everything that's needed. They only know how to use the forces MileHigh. And that use is limited to their understanding of the forces. And that understanding is bereft.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
You are doing a Straw Man argument with respect to me. I never said or implied that Mainstream has all the answers. Then there is the issue about expanding the debate beyond the scope of this discussion. I don't care how much you say we "don't know" because that's not the front and center issue being debated here. As I posted earlier in this thread I don't want to be hit up with the usual questions like, "What
is an electric field?" We are not having that discussion in this thread. It's a cop-out to go there because you can go there for almost any discussion you want to have.
I will remind you that you also freely indicate your lack of Mainstream knowledge. As a result you often find yourself in a situation where you don't know what you don't know. A case in point is when we discussed how a bar magnet works. You told me that what I said was wrong but in fact I was right. I can suggest that a better strategy on your part would be to do the research beforehand if you are in doubt.
It's commonly accepted that the Michelson-Morley experiment and more modern versions of it are the basis for detecting the aether because the argument goes that it can't be detected directly, it can only be detected indirectly. Grumpy states the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that the aether exists and I say that it doesn't. I would hazard a guess that 95% or more of the links that you could pull up on the experiment would conclude that the Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't demonstrate any evidence for the existence of the aether and the vast majority of the 5% that do are "New Age" related links. Again, that's just my guess.
Your argument that my expecting an answer from Microcontroller is unreasonable is ridiculous. I would like some real answers from Microcontroller if he is up to it. The burden rests on him if he wants to argue his points.
"I personally find it sad that you seem to think that there's a body of 'experts' who know everything that's needed." Again, that is a Straw Man argument about me and it's outside the scope of this discussion. "And that understanding is bereft." In my opinion the "New Age" understanding of the "forces" is 100 times more bereft than the Mainstream understanding. Plus the fact that you want to harangue Mainstream to question itself but I don't see you doing that to the New Agers.
For fun look at somebody like Marko Rodin. I remember Marko backing up Mylow all the way. A few years ago Marko was asking for $75,000 to build his own permanent magnet motor, he even had a clip showing the CAD files for it. In another clip from a few years ago Marko is being interviewed and he casually states to the interviewer that the "Rodin coil" is the solution to our energy problems. I can only speculate that Marko doesn't understand how a magnet really works and that he doesn't understand how an inductor really works. By the same token I would like to see Marko Rodin deliver at least one single tangible benefit that you can uniquely get from a "Rodin coil."
Bringing it back, we want to be discussing if the directly unmeasurable and directly undetectable aether exists or not. The commonly accepted means to do this is to look for indirect evidence of this by looking for direct evidence of changes in the speed of EM waves as the Earth changes it's velocity with respect to the alleged aether's frame of reference. This is done using interferometry. From what I see that is the anchor point for this debate. Also, I have made my points and pulled up my links backing them up so I am done here in this thread. I know that I probably have not convinced the majority of people that believe in the existence of the aether, and I doubt that any of them will challenge the links and the data brought forth in those links. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 04:54:21
Microcontroller:
If you say that what I am saying "cannot be true," I would ideally like to know precisely what you are talking about and what your reasons are.
MileHigh
I do not have time for lengthy discussions about this subject.
The Bose-Einstein Condensate interacts directly with what we call "Ether"
And in turn Ether interacts with solid bodies.
I call it sub-atomic particles but it is essentially the same thing.
If you want to know more i suppose you can always obtain:
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.12, 08:32:21
real knowledge. That must be obtained on your own.
:)
MileHigh let me quote you.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 02:32:58
Grumpy:
I would assume that physicists have done serious research into permittivity and permeability that might explain how that works ...
THEN
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 02:32:58above and beyond their understanding of the relative permittivity and permeability factors for a given material that occupies a vacuum.
From where I sit that seems to indicate that you DID assume that physicists had done serious research into the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum - and then you further assume that they have some kind of understanding of the factors of a 'material that occupies a vacuum'. SO. When you say this...
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 12:10:54You are doing a Straw Man argument with respect to me. I never said or implied that Mainstream has all the answers. Then there is the issue about expanding the debate beyond the scope of this discussion. I don't care how much you say we "don't know" because that's not the front and center issue being debated here. As I posted earlier in this thread I don't want to be hit up with the usual questions like, "What is an electric field?" We are not having that discussion in this thread. It's a cop-out to go there because you can go there for almost any discussion you want to have.
then clearly you're giving yourself rather wide editorial jurisdiction over what you actually said and what you deny having said.
Personally my own objection is that we haven't even defined what we mean by aether. Presumably - because it can't be detected - then it may be pure fabrication. I tend to agree with this. At it's least it should be measurable. And it's not. So. That makes it irrelevant to this or any discussion. But that makes none of us any the wiser. We still don't know how light propogates in a vacuum - and we still don't know what are the properties of electric current flow. And we still don't know about gravity. So. What the hell? And all you're personally prepared to allow anyone to discuss is the possible premittivity or permeability of the vacuum - assuming that it has such properties which, thus far are entirely speculative - and/or - the Michelson Morley experiments which, even according to Einstein - did not DISPROVE aether. All Einstein proposed is that he or we or whoever - don't need this aether.
The actual question - which you're all dodging - or as Grumpy manages - hiding behind more and more quotes and references - is this. How can anything at all be without a material structure if it can influence matter? How can something reach out through space - all over the place - and do SO MUCH that is tangibly evident - when it - the thing itself - remains invisible. Well. I've got a proposal. If you assume that a magnetic field has matter - if you make a leap of good faith into the unknown and then propose that the magnetic field may be structured from a simple magnetic dipole - then you can always find the explanation for the forces reaching through the vacuum and touching and moving all matter any and every which way - that we can measure the movement. The problem is this. It's an eccentric thesis and it has nothing to recommend it other than logic. It is WAY too simple for the complex reach that you all seem to think is required for scientific theory.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 12:10:54I will remind you that you also freely indicate your lack of Mainstream knowledge.
I do not UNDERSTAND mainstream knowledge because it's NOT BASED ON LOGIC. But I'm reasonably au fait with mainstream thinking certainly on the fundamental questions which we're discussing here.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 12:10:54As a result you often find yourself in a situation where you don't know what you don't know. A case in point is when we discussed how a bar magnet works. You told me that what I said was wrong but in fact I was right. I can suggest that a better strategy on your part would be to do the research beforehand if you are in doubt.
There it is again. That editorial reach into your selective memory. You absolutely did not give an answer. What you actually did was give us a quote from the Encyclopedia Brittanica - in the high hopes that such a ponderous reference would carry your thin argument. There is absolutely NO SUCH THING AS AN ATOMIC DIPOLE unless we are all to first re-invent the standard terminology in physics.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 12:10:54It's commonly accepted that the Michelson-Morley experiment and more modern versions of it are the basis for detecting the aether because the argument goes that it can't be detected directly, it can only be detected indirectly.
MileHigh. What force is there can be detected - directly? There is no such animal. They are ALL detected by inference.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 12:10:54Grumpy states the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that the aether exists and I say that it doesn't. I would hazard a guess that 95% or more of the links that you could pull up on the experiment would conclude that the Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't demonstrate any evidence for the existence of the aether and the vast majority of the 5% that do are "New Age" related links. Again, that's just my guess.
And that's another assumption. I don't know. I like to think that I'm 'new age' - and I certainly don't believe that these tests proved anything at all. Unfortunately NOR did they disprove the aether. That would have been a preferred result.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 12:10:54Your argument that my expecting an answer from Microcontroller is unreasonable is ridiculous. I would like some real answers from Microcontroller if he is up to it. The burden rests on him if he wants to argue his points.
Indeed. And the burden rests on you to explain what mainstream think. As of now - to the best of my knowledge - there is absolutely NO thesis that Mainstream has to explain ANY of the forces - or any fields that result from the forces. Whatever Microcontoller offers will be an improvement on that.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 12:10:54"I personally find it sad that you seem to think that there's a body of 'experts' who know everything that's needed." Again, that is a Straw Man argument about me and it's outside the scope of this discussion. "And that understanding is bereft." In my opinion the "New Age" understanding of the "forces" is 100 times more bereft than the Mainstream understanding. Plus the fact that you want to harangue Mainstream to question itself but I don't see you doing that to the New Agers.
I most certainly DO want questions MileHigh. It's the lack of questions and the endless stream of answers that get me down - whether they're from new agers or from mainstream. All the answers I've ever seen are pretentious or confusing or innately contradictory.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 12:10:54Bringing it back, we want to be discussing if the directly unmeasurable and directly undetectable aether exists or not. The commonly accepted means to do this is to look for indirect evidence of this by looking for direct evidence of changes in the speed of EM waves as the Earth changes it's velocity with respect to the alleged aether's frame of reference. This is done using interferometry. From what I see that is the anchor point for this debate. Also, I have made my points and pulled up my links backing them up so I am done here in this thread. I know that I probably have not convinced the majority of people that believe in the existence of the aether, and I doubt that any of them will challenge the links and the data brought forth in those links. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
Your anchor for this debate is what you want it to be. It's certainly not my anchor. But nor do I prefer anyone else's. The thread topic is 'does aether exist'. The evidence - quite frankly - is rather thin - if it's meant to be a 'hitherto' unknown field. Magnetic fields - on the contrary are everywhere - and they're a primary force. Therefore I personally substitute aether fields for magnetic fields. For me they're the same thing. And there's whole barrel loads of extra energy there. Certainly enough to defeat thermodynamic laws. Which is all I'm interested in.
Now. What I confidently expect to hear from you that 'you're done' with this argument. LOL. You actually don't argue anything ever. What you do is express your opinions - brook no argument - and then walk away in the smug delusion that you've 'won' that argument. Far be it from me to disabuse you of any such delusion MileHigh.
Rosemary
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 12:10:54
Grumpy states the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that the aether exists and I say that it doesn't.
I stated that the M-M experiment did not disprove an aether.
Aether wind (called convection at the time) was thought to exist but disproven. Lorentz and Poincare proceeded come to the conclusion that there is a contraction in the direction of movment of moving bodies (termed the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction). This lead to "relativity", initially by Poincare and Lorentz.
See third article in attached file:
For the sub Mass that think science has reached it's resolution on the matter of Aether, or A-ether, or ambient pressure, or Quantum Flux, science has at least come to conclusion that something exists to the tune of 74% of the perceivable universe, and this is mainstream science, so perhaps some of us are a bit out of touch in our small university lab, while the rest of us (while perhaps not so well funded) are at least "hanging" with the big dogs.. ^-^
Quote Physics.org:
" Through precise cosmological measurements, scientists know that about 4.6% of the energy of the Universe is made of baryonic matter (normal atoms), about 23% is made of dark matter, and the remaining 72% or so is dark energy. Scientists also know that almost all the baryonic matter in the observable Universe is matter (with a positive baryon charge) rather than antimatter (with a negative baryon charge). But exactly why this matter and energy came to be this way is still an open question. In a recent study, physicists have proposed a new mechanism that can generate both the baryon asymmetry and the dark matter density of the Universe simultaneously"
Quote Wikipedia.com:
"The nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. It is known to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is not very dense — roughly 10−29 grams per cubic centimeter — it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory. Dark energy can only have such a profound impact on the universe, making up 74% of universal density, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant. Both models include the common characteristic that dark energy must have negative pressure"
Quote Physics.org
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-physicists-mechanism-dark.html
The scientists, Hooman Davoudiasl from Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York; David Morrissey and Sean Tulin from TRIUMF in Vancouver, British Columbia; and Kris Sigurdson from the University of British Columbia, also in Vancouver, have published their new proposal in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. They've dubbed the new mechanism "hylogenesis" from the Greek words "hyle," meaning "primordial matter," and "genesis," meaning "origin."
"There are two problems in theoretical physics we are trying to address at once," Sigurdson said. "The baryon asymmetry (why do we have atoms but not antiatoms in the Universe?) has really been a problem since Paul Dirac proposed antimatter in 1928 and it was discovered in 1932. And what is the dark matter? Hints of dark matter have been around since Fritz Zwicky discovered missing mass in the Coma Cluster in 1933, but its identity is still unknown. This mechanism links the formation of atoms and dark matter and helps resolve the baryon asymmetry mystery, as the total dark plus visible baryon balance of the Universe is restored."
In this matter-formation scenario, a new particle X and its antiparticle X-bar (of equal and opposite charge) are produced in the early Universe. X and X-bar are capable of coupling to quarks (the basic components of baryonic matter, e.g., protons and neutrons) in the visible sector as well as particles in a "hidden" sector (so-called because the particles in it interact only feebly with the visible sector). In this scenario X and X-bar would have been produced when the Universe heated up after inflation, in the first moments after at the start of the big bang.
Later, X and X-bar would decay, partly into visible baryons (specifically, a neutron made up of one up quark and two down quarks) and partly into hidden baryons. As the scientists explain, X decays to neutrons more often than X-bar decays to antineutrons. By the same amount, X-bar decays to hidden antiparticles more than X decays to hidden particles. In this scenario, the quarks would be the baryonic matter that makes up almost everything we see, and the hidden antibaryons would be what we know as dark matter. Through this yin-yang decay pattern, the positive baryon number of the visible matter is in balance with the negative baryon number of the dark matter.
Quote from: clint3142 on 2010.12.12, 17:12:17
For the sub Mass that think science has reached it's resolution on the matter of Aether, or A-ether, or ambient pressure, or Quantum Flux, science has at least come to conclusion that something exists to the tune of 74% of the perceivable universe, and this is mainstream science, so perhaps some of us are a bit out of touch in our small university lab, while the rest of us (while perhaps not so well funded) are at least "hanging" with the big dogs.. ^-^
Hello Clint. Exactly how many of you in the 'sub Mass' do you think there are? I know of more than one theorist who even denies the evidence of dark matter. He's told me this - himself. Also. If dark matter was as widely accepted as you imply then by rights Ellis, Carroll et al would have been awarded the Nobel prize. Also - Kaku states and I quote
"Every text book on the planet says that the universe is made out of atoms and subatomic particles. Well. All those text books are wrong. When they hear about this invisible matter and dark mater they say 'bah humbug. But show me proof that dark matter exists'."
Also - Carroll, Ellis - Caltech - and Dan Bauer from Fermilab claim 10 times more dark matter than visible matter. This number varies. And while there may be one proposal that appears to resolve the question of the missing antimatter - there are NONE that resolve the question of light propogation through the vacuum nor even the type of particle that may qualify for this 'quantum flux' as you put it.
There is one truth. There are as many theories related to aether as there are theorists. Personally I subscribe entirely to dark energy from dark matter. And I agree that this is the aether. It's just that I also see this as being the same thing as magnetic fields. In other words - that dark matter is made up of a fundamental particle. And these magnetic fields are everywhere - throughout the universe. And what's more I propose that composites of these same little particles create all those stable particles that we know. Effectively therefore even the photon would be a baryon. LOL.
Rosemary
Seeing that I am "Out of Date" with respect to certain information I have a couple of questions for those more "Freshly" educated. These are dumb questions, but they lead into the discussion in a way that I cannot, at this time, explain.
Has the "Particle/Wave" debate ever been concluded? (I can still prove both..... Need not explain.)
Do photons have mass? (Mass / energy conversion not acceptable as an answer.. Again, need not explain.)
Those two questions relate to the concept of an aether, but in a slightly different context than what I have been reading here. This is turning into quite an interesting discussion, with quite a bit of revealing data, both in info and in beliefs. I ask the above questions, not to start a debate, but to see what the current "Belief" level is for the general public. My beliefs are already well known around here.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.12, 19:17:01
Seeing that I am "Out of Date" with respect to certain information I have a couple of questions for those more "Freshly" educated. These are dumb questions, but they lead into the discussion in a way that I cannot, at this time, explain.
Has the "Particle/Wave" debate ever been concluded? (I can still prove both..... Need not explain.)
Do photons have mass? (Mass / energy conversion not acceptable as an answer.. Again, need not explain.)
Those two questions relate to the concept of an aether, but in a slightly different context than what I have been reading here. This is turning into quite an interesting discussion, with quite a bit of revealing data, both in info and in beliefs. I ask the above questions, not to start a debate, but to see what the current "Belief" level is for the general public. My beliefs are already well known around here.
Loner, the wave/particle duality is an attempt to describe the 'weirdness' at the atomic level the basic tenet being that both the location and energy or velocity of a particle can never be known without some inherent degree of uncertainty. This isn't debated. It's a fact. Both relativism and Quantum mechanics are 'right' in the sense that their measurements and predictions are accurate. But they're also mutually exclusive.
And a photon has zero mass - a spin of 1 - has no anti particle and is considered to be stable into infinity. In view of the velocity and energy inherent in the photon I see a contradiction to Einstein's mass/energy equivalence. If E=mc^2 - and if the photon has zero mass, then zero x C squared or not - would not allow it all that energy to move it that energetically anywhere at all.
I'm not sure if this is absolutely 'fresh' as you ask. But I don't think that there are any variations to this.
Rosemary
I am not part of the "sub Mass", I do not believe science has reached the pinnacle of understanding in this debate, I am speaking to and about those who deny the existence of the "Aether, or A-ether, or ambient pressure, or Quantum Flux" based upon a lack of proof of it's existence. That's more of a fish's mentality denying the existence of planets, assuming a fish could ponder the question in the first place. :D
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 12:10:54
Your argument that my expecting an answer from Microcontroller is unreasonable is ridiculous. I would like some real answers from Microcontroller if he is up to it. The burden rests on him if he wants to argue his points.
MileHigh
If i have to write down all i want to say i need at least 15 years of your time (pherhaps more) and even then i am NOT sure the message is recieved in the way i ment it,and that is riddiculous and a waste of time to me.
As far as i can see you have your own view on this subject and it will stay that way unless you change it yourself.
I follow certain "brains" from certain experimenters aswell as the results they are getting.
Only a few days ago last month a Bose–Einstein condensation of photons in an optical microcavity was realized.
It's not that we are stuck with an old out dated model as you are sugesting.
:)
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.12, 14:20:28
Personally my own objection is that we haven't even defined what we mean by aether. Presumably - because it can't be detected - then it may be pure fabrication.
Rosemary
Offcource,
Milehigh is saying there is no water in the river, yet he can still see the waves when he throws a rock in it.
It cannot be true, the water/medium/Ether/sub-atomic particles whatever needs to be there or the rock will just hit bottom without giving birth to the waves we recieve.
My appologies it is the simplest example i can think of right now.
Certain people who are active in gravity modification research need sub-atomic particles to explain what they are seeing and it fits perfectly.
That is the reason for me to assume it's correct or at least to use it untill we find out more.
:)
Quote from: clint3142 on 2010.12.12, 19:55:48
I am not part of the "sub Mass", I do not believe science has reached the pinnacle of understanding in this debate, I am speaking to and about those who deny the existence of the "Aether, or A-ether, or ambient pressure, or Quantum Flux" based upon a lack of proof of it's existence. That's more of a fish's mentality denying the existence of planets, assuming a fish could ponder the question in the first place. :D
Sorry. I thought you were arguing that mainstream are endorsing aether but calling it dark energy. In other words the aether thinking was just different in its terminology. Certainly the Caltech group see this as a kind of aether. The joke is that they're looking for a meson - which is a big clumsy slow number. Anything that big would be visible to light. So how then would they explain its invisibility. It's very confusing. But at least they sort of kind of endorse the 'pervasive energetic field' which is already more even than our string theorists give us. They - in turn - want a rigid scaffolding. So. Roll on Caltech. It's just that fermilab have funded over 10 years of research trying to detect this particle and they've found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. That's an awfully long time and awfully expensive exercise to persist in with absolutely no shadow of evidence of that particle.
Rosemary
Well I think that many different viewpoints could be calling something from different observable functions the same thing, or perhaps there is more than one ether as Einstein related was occurring in his day, at an Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden, in Germany.
The only fact here is that we are exploring the theoretical possibilities, we are in newly charted territory, and I think all ideas are worthy at this point. The only thoughts I find non-productive are those that blindly dismiss without basis or basis because they think their right. Almost everyone here has many valid points, and are unquestionably intelligent, I choose to give all the respect of paying their viewpoint the respect it deserves, because there is one thing I know that cannot be refuted, as a intelligent animal, we know SQUAT> :D
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.12, 20:10:22
Offcource,
Milehigh is saying there is no water in the river, yet he can still see the waves when he throws a rock in it.
It cannot be true, the water/medium/Ether/sub-atomic particles whatever needs to be there or the rock will just hit bottom without giving birth to the waves we recieve.
My appologies it is the simplest example i can think of right now.
:)
Hi Microcontroller. I think that analogy is excellent. Perhaps improved if the waves also pulled/pushed the rock in the first place. I think the idea of aether is that it's the source of all energy. Certainly that's the way I see it.
Rosemary
Quote from: clint3142 on 2010.12.12, 20:39:04
Well I think that many different viewpoints could be calling something from different observable functions the same thing, or perhaps there is more than one ether as Einstein related was occurring in his day, at an Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden, in Germany.
The only fact here is that we are exploring the theoretical possibilities, we are in newly charted territory, and I think all ideas are worthy at this point. The only thoughts I find non-productive are those that blindly dismiss without basis or basis because they think their right. Almost everyone here has many valid points, and are unquestionably intelligent, I choose to give all the respect of paying their viewpoint the respect it deserves, because there is one thing I know that cannot be refuted, as a intelligent animal, we know SQUAT> :D
I don't agree with you here Clint. I think that the real problem is precisely because you guys are way too intelligent. You manage concepts that are indecently difficult to understand and impossibly difficult to explain. What gets me down is that I'm not sure all this complexity is actually needed. And I rather suspect that it's intended to hide a welter of confusions that are simply never admitted. Keep it simple stupid - is not a bad way to go. Occam's razor? But I'm with you when it comes to undue reverence for mainstream thinking. If New Age is confused - then Mainstream are more so. It's a rabbit's warren of twists and turns and qualifications and nonsense. But its all done with a kind of intellectual flourish. Very stylish. That's when they pull the rabbit out of the hat. LOL. But it takes some looking to find out where they first took the wrong turn.
Rosemary
From aetherevarising
QuoteBut it takes some looking to find out where they first took the wrong turn.
Bibhas De has some interesting thoughts on this in his : The Foundation Is The Frontier" series.
http://www.bibhasde.com/physicsindex.html
http://www.bibhasde.com/
Takes a bit to get into the meat of the website. Some very humorous writing and stories.
Rosemary,
I will not disagree with any of your points, because they are your points and valid, and that is my point. We are a team, a team of forward thinkers. We have to think of concepts that are "indecently difficult to understand and impossibly difficult to explain".
Don't let it get you down, we must pursue the unknown. Many times we must think ridiculously complex to find "KISS" :)
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.12, 21:20:11
From aetherevarising
Bibhas De has some interesting thoughts on this in his : The Foundation Is The Frontier" series.
http://www.bibhasde.com/physicsindex.html
http://www.bibhasde.com/
Takes a bit to get into the meat of the website. Some very humorous writing and stories.
many thanks for this Ion. What a treat. I've been rolling. Just read Sir Bilko and his Amazing Sequined Dreamcoat. I'm now going to read some more. Nothing nicer than a dose of pure irreverence. It clears the head.
Rosemary
It's interesting that people want to try to keep it simple, yet make everything so complicated.
Everybody understands how an electric field can store energy in a volume of space as in between the plates of a capacitor. The same thing for a magnetic field, energy is stored in the magnetic field around an inductor. Nobody is worrying about an aether in this case, it's something tangible that you can see an measure on a bench.
However, when you talk about taking that same energy that you can store in a volume, and now transmitting it through free space, where the waves are effectively doing what a capacitor or inductor does, storing energy within a volume, all hell breaks loose. People start looking for the most esoteric explanations.
Maxwell figured it out and investigated permittivity and permeability and the impedance of free space. Then he crunched some numbers and the expected velocity of the wave propagation was identical to the measured velocity of the speed of light. How about that? Then Einstein added some factors associated with relativity and mass distorting space and this explained some previously unexplainable phenomena associated with certain observations.
So, it appears that we have been able to make the intellectual leap from understanding static electric and magnetic fields storing energy to how they propagate in space and transmit energy to the strange things like gravitational lenses due to very massive stars. This understanding says that there is no aether required to sustain electromagnetic waves traveling through a vacuum. Experiments have been done to try to detect the presence of aether and they can't find any.
Now, that still does not rule out the existence of all other sorts of observed or unexplained or speculated upon phenomena, be it Dark Matter, antimatter, or whatever kinds of ideas are out there. However, I am totally uncomfortable with people seemingly "attaching" some other phenomenon to the alleged aether. The aether by the 19th century definition of it and the proposed experiment to detect it does not exist.
Then the argument that goes, "Well, we didn't find aether this go round but it still might exist" is simply nonsensical. There might be giant pink bunnies in another dimension responsible for the aether too, we just have to first find the bunnies with giant carrots made of photons and then the bunny turds will lead us to the aether. I heard it on Art Bell.
So again, all of the interesting cosmological ideas out there are very interesting and I am just a lay person and read the occasional article about that stuff. But I do not ascribe to the "flavour of the month" with respect to the alleged aether. There is the impedance of free space and how that free space interacts with static and dynamic electromagnetic fields and antenna geometry and frequency and wavelength, etc, etc. I can't prejudge anyone here, but I doubt that any of you could survive more than one hour in a college-level Microwaves 101 class, and that's the real deal.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 22:50:08
I can't prejudge anyone here, but I doubt that any of you could survive more than one hour in a college-level Microwaves 101 class, and that's the real deal.
MileHigh
I'm glad i did not go into discussion with you.
I made the right decision.
:)
milehigh, with all of the validated substance of your comments I thought you were above the 5th grade playground style disrespect for other viewpoints, whats up? Are we not supposed to debate the issue with out taking the others opinion personally? That's what a professional debate is supposed to consist of, if I was without your statement of being a "layman" , you would strike me more of a disgruntled University of Colorado at Bolder Physics Professor. :-[
Microcontroller:
Just say what you want to say without being cryptic. What do you mean?
Clint:
If you are worrying about the "pink bunny" statement that was just sarcasm and it was not directed at anyone nor was it intended to disprespect anyone. The point is that the "anything is possible" argument is not really debatable. You can look for signs of the aether forever like that. I am simply talking about the "19th century" version of the aether.
MileHigh
@Clint3142
QuoteThe only fact here is that we are exploring the theoretical possibilities, we are in newly charted territory, and I think all ideas are worthy at this point. The only thoughts I find non-productive are those that blindly dismiss without basis or basis because they think their right. Almost everyone here has many valid points, and are unquestionably intelligent, I choose to give all the respect of paying their viewpoint the respect it deserves, because there is one thing I know that cannot be refuted, as a intelligent animal, we know SQUAT
Well said, what I have always found quite comical is that it is usually the persons who understand the least who think we know almost everything while the smartest, the best and the brightest, are the ones who often state we just do not know all the answers. I should note that I am not referring to anyone here but the other 99% of the population not present who believe everything is just fine and that things will just take care of themselves. I have a great respect for everyone here for the simple fact that they have made an effort to understand and state their opinions when so many could care less.
As well if we really want to know how much we actually understand all we have to do is look at the general state of technology, we have a complete reliance on fossils fuels which are dwindling fast, all other resources are in decline, all food stocks are in decline, pollution is increasing, etc... , if we are so damn smart and understand so much then why is our modern civilization on the verge of collapse with no real solutions to anything important. As many here often say--- proof is required, I think we have more than enough proof judging from the state of our world to say that we do not have all the answers in fact we have very few that matter.
Regards
AC
MileHigh - If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you're waffling. Not that I mind. It's got a certain soporific value. And I really need that sleep.
Not sure how to say this without being 'oppresive' but you're not right. :o Which avoids the use of 'yw' words (ie 'you're wrong'). I don't believe that energy is stored in an inductor. On the contrary. I am entirely satisfied that energy is generated in an inductor. I have the data to prove this. Lots of it. And in any event what has 'stored energy' got to do with the transmission of energy through space? And that little summation of Maxwell and Einsteins' contributions to science is somewhat less than accurate.
Then the 'waffle' seems to get a life of it's own. It transmutes into porridge. Gravitational lenses are what? Presumably you mean lensing. In which case for dark matter that is seen through gravitational lensing - read 'aether'. It's describing exactly the same field condition. And far from saying that this dark matter does not need aether - it explicitly says that it does. It just calls it 'dark' energy. LOL It's exactly at this point that mainstream and new age marry. Mainstream call it 'dark' with all its 'dark' connotations - and new age calls it aether - with all it's light connotations. You know very well that we're all unduly optimistic and if there's a happy spin to put on something then we New Agers are more than ready to spread a bit of that sweetness and light. The only difference is that Mainstream adherents of this 'dark energy' are in the same minority as us poor aether enthusiasts. But we're talking about the same thing. And while these two concepts are the same - nor have they ever varied throughout history. The earliest and first concepts of aether was to explain something that moves the light - and it still is. If the energy is in the aether - or in 'dark' fields - then this is proposed to be the thing that moves matter through its fields. And while the Michelson Morley experiment did not prove the existence of aether - at about the same time they were doing that test - Zwicky was evaluating the evidence that 'dark matter' or 'aether' that was definitely in abundance and abundantly evident - in those galaxies that he could now see - for the first time - thanks to Hubble's telescope.
And if your standard of sufficiency is college-level Microwaves 101 class - then I wonder if the 'real deal' couldn't just as well be an elementary class in first year physics. And I too can't prejudge anyone here, but I'm not sure how well you'd last that first hour either. My best guess is that you'd interrupt the lecturer to tell him to 'stick to the point and stay on topic - For God's Sake'. Something like that. :o
Rosemary
@Rosemary
QuoteMainstream call it 'dark' with all its 'dark' connotations - and new age calls it aether - with all it's light connotations. You know very well that we're all unduly optimistic and if there's a happy spin to put on something then we New Agers are more than ready to spread a bit of sweetness and light. The only difference is that Mainstream adherents of this 'dark energy' are in the same minority as us poor aether enthusiasts. But we're talking about the same thing. And while these two concepts are the same - nor have they ever varied throughout history.
You have made some very good points and I always had an issue with this, first the aether was disproven and it was assumed there was nothing but some BS conception called "space-time" without substance which Einstein said could not be reconciled without an aether. Then out of nowhere comes "dark matter" which in no uncertain terms is the same thing as what was concieved as the aether hundreds of years prior. So we have come full circle in my opinion and started back at square one having accomplished very little if nothing of substance inbetween. It sounds reminiscent of a little ant running as fast as he can on a basketball, Oh he is making an effort and there is always the appearance of change and progress but he never really gets anywhere, lol. In retrospect one could ask what have we really accomplished in the last 40 years? If we had accomplished something then surely we would see some sort of tangible progress --- proof, something which drastically changes how we view and utilize energy, but this understanding and tangible progress is simply not present. I guess this may be why I like to keep busy with experiments and projects which have some substance to them, right or wrong at least I can see that something resembling progress has been made.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.12.13, 00:27:51
@RosemaryYou have made some very good points and I always had an issue with this, first the aether was disproven and it was assumed there was nothing but some BS conception called "space-time" without substance which Einstein himself later stated could not be reconciled without an aether. Then out of nowhere comes "dark matter" which in no uncertain terms is the same thing as what was concieved as the aether hundreds of years prior. So we have come full circle in my opinion and started back at square one having accomplished very little if nothing of substance inbetween. It sounds reminiscent of a little ant running as fast as he can on a basketball, Oh he is making an effort and there is always the appearance of change and progress but he never really gets anywhere, lol. In retrospect one could ask what have we really accomplished in the last 40 years? If we had accomplished something then surely we would see some sort of tangible progress --- proof, something which drastically changes how we view and utilize energy, but this understanding and tangible progress is simply not present. I guess this may be why I like to keep busy with experiments and projects which have some substance to them, right or wrong at least I can see that something resembling progress has been made.
Regards
AC
AC - here's the thing. The minute one subscribes to a force that is all pervasive - then one's also acknowledging a really plentiful source of energy. Just think about it. They've got the 'electron' assumed to account for the electromagnetic interaction and the 'graviton' assumed to account for gravity. Now. A rough guesstimate of the known material mass of the universe and they only need a prescribed manageable number of gravitons and electrons to take care of that matter. Then. Horror of horrors. Someone comes in from left field with evidence of a force that is roughly 10 times more plentiful than any of the known forces. Not only that but it's fields exceed the boundaries of the visible star structures and make up HUGE volumes of space. That's an awful lot of energy. And it does not appear to correspond to the material structures of the known universe except in an indirect way. Much - much more of this force available than is strictly needed. It's going to test those mass/energy equivalence theories that they've used to endorse their Thermodynamic delusions. The only decent reaction is to ignore this. Which they did until Caltech took up their cudgels. Now they can't ignore this entirely - but they can at lest deny all the evidence. Or they can simply close their eyes. This is a concept of aether but its now grown really big teeth and it's got a really nasty bite. The reaction is mixed. Even the dark energy experts are hoping to find a big sluggish particle that may belie all this promise of all this energy. But it's unlikely they'll find a canditate. They've tried MACHOS and Brown Dwarfs - a couple of neutrinos - Axions - I forget all. None of them fit. Which means what? They'll have to revisit that cumbersome structure called physics theory and re-write their text books. It's therefore intellectually offensive. Less than compelling. It contradicts the foundations of known physics. Then there are other interested parties who really would see very little if any point in funding or advancing research in these areas - as its likely to be seen as a market competitor. And all that leaves is us. Who else is going to try and promote the unpromotable? Speak the unspeakable? So. Articulate or otherwise - every voice counts - every piece of evidence counts - and every small step can only be a good thing. Which is why I waste all this time on these forums. And the number of people who grow in an understanding of this only need to be incremented - one at a time. Every bit helps. We've certainly come full circle. But this particular circle has brought us up close and personal not only with the facts of aether energies - but the disasterous consequences we face without it. It really, really matters.
Rosemary
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.12, 22:50:08
Everybody understands how an electric field can store energy in a volume of space as in between the plates of a capacitor. The same thing for a magnetic field, energy is stored in the magnetic field around an inductor.....
However, when you talk about taking that same energy that you can store in a volume, and now transmitting it through free space, where the waves are effectively doing what a capacitor or inductor does, storing energy within a volume, ...
'a volume' and 'a wave' of what?
You must be trying to keep it simple for us?
In most 'classicist' circles the difference between the two actions (energy storage in L or C vs. EM wave propagation), the stored energy can be returned with no losses and the radiated energy can not be returned (the perfect situation, null reflection, null receiver emissivity, etc.). This is further defined as two different types of fields, other than the MAGNETIC FIELD. These are designated the INDUCTION FIELD and RADIATION FIELD.
The induction field only exists close to the conductor and is considered to be the 'magnetic only'. The radiation field radiates only because the conductor, by design, gives rise to the field becoming 'detached' from the conductor (in the form of magnetic and electric). (Huh? Magnetic lines of force are said to always be connected and forming a permanent closed loop? Electric lines of force may only exist between points 'already' connected so that difference can be a difference?) Some argue these are the same as the 'Near' & 'Far' fields. Others disagree (fringe science not included).
No thanks. I had 'Microwaves 101', several numbers above that AND the inverted forms. It does sound like quite a few folks could use a brush-up :)
Too bad Heavyside isn't still around. He should be held after class for a 'do-over'. I trust the good Mr. Maxwell would have corrected his mistakes had he lived longer.
(Huh?) Reality check...
A radiated field travels as if it has momentum (with no mass) and may exist disconnected from the source but only if it consists of the electric and magnetic vectors.
So the rule about magnetic lines of force always in a closed loop is not always true.
Charge (potential difference) can only be a charge when there is a difference. Radiated fields indicate action at a distance? I thought that was ruled out.
Where are the Physics Police when you really need them?
Before these Police come knocking on my door... the standard disclaimer: The math works. This is the way it always works. If you do 'it' this way 'it' will always work. Don't be concerned about the details or the 'theories' where upon all of these 'Laws' are based. Just trust me. 'It' is all completely correct. ;)
If that doesn't work then just think of dem dar waves as Photons! Then, it will work!
First, figure out what a Photon is (on some other thread).
Personally, I'm not looking for results limited to 'it'.
Quote
Experiments have been done to try to detect the presence of aether and they can't find any.
Until we have an idea of what it may be, there is no point performing a test. Just as there was no point and no validity in the M&M experiment or the following variations. Until then, we are better off spending money on developing those carrots made of photons.
Why doesn't someone use the data from the Pioneer Anomaly as the experiment?
Forget that idea. We don't want to know that c isn't a constant because 'free' space has something in it that has a variation of density and shape.
I think the attempt to simplify with the result of over complication happened before the creation of this forum.
Quote
I heard it on Art Bell.
You waste time listening to that?
He interviewed a former 'coworker' of mine years ago. I only called to let Art know this guy was stretching the truth so badly it was giving us all (connected to that place of work) a very bad name. As soon as I began correcting the 'facts', Art hung up on me.
Now, there are people thinking I am associated with the 'Spoon Benders Club'.
Go figure :D
Great thread. Almost makes me believe that true "Wave Theory" will someday be properly investigated and accepted. (Almost.)
To Think, most of these arguments/opinions were talked about re-occuring in my school days, and now here they are. I'm still waiting for the textbook re-write that was known to be needed in the early 70's. Almost 40 years, and still waiting. It seems obvious that the thing with the greatest inertia is the human desire for no change. (Stability?)
I still await the "True Change". I hope I get to see it in my lifetime, as great things will be exposed. (I should say "Allowed to be...")
Make an LC tank that is lc'd to the resonance of the coil itself and shock it with a spark. The L will not be a vertical tube but a quoit. Then as it rings send a shock around again. The circumference will be the 1/4 wave length so the next kicker will be additive at 90 degree phase. The coil will burst outward with a magnetic field. When we shock it again at the 90d phase this hit will be inside the field. This starts to look like a Kunel device.
A comment was made by SM that I was the closest of anyone in the last ten years. Just relaying a statement that's all. I kept it simple. As far as complex goes the TPU is a Tesla coil but the top anode, the vertical coil and the primary are all wrapped on the same horizontal layer. The weak field around the device is the charge we force to break. The device goes thump, thump, thump. When you stand near a firing T-coil you can feel the discharge in the field.
So far humans have only seen the first and second phase of matter manipulation. 1: is mechanical, 2: is atomical, 3? Then say we manipulate or stress the space between atoms. This would be the pressure we attribute to aether. The power is from condensing or expansion. The return to balance is the shockwave.
Drink enough beer and you can float in the aether, or at least feel like you are floating..
:D
It's not always necessary to understand how things work.
Knowing how to use things is sometimes more important.
Take for example a car.
Anybody with a drivers licence should be able to drive a car, but how many of those people do actually know how it works?
And knowing how a car works does not mean your able to drive it.
In that case you understand how it works but you are unable to use it.
So on one side we have a person driving a car without knowing how it works, and on the other side we have a person that knows how a car works but he is unable to drive it.
Knowing how things work does not mean you can automatically use them.
Likewise using things does not automatically mean you know how they work.
There is more that we don't know then what we know.
What good is it to speculate seemingly forever about what we do not know?
Poynt it was you who said discussing things we don't know can lead to answers, but how is this possible if we just don't know?
Again it's best to stick with things we do know, or at least use things that work (even if we don't know how) and work around them so we can find hidden properties discovering more.
This has led us to where we are now and it is the only possible way to get more knowledge.
:)
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.13, 04:49:21
It's not always necessary to understand how things work.
Knowing how to use things is sometimes more important.
This has led us to where we are now and it is the only possible way to get more knowledge.
I can certainly agree if I only wish to drive the car.
:)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.13, 04:33:13
Drink enough beer and you can float in the aether, or at least feel like you are floating..
:D
Yes but the next morning it feels like you are being routed through the drain.
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.13, 04:49:21
It's not always necessary to understand how things work.
Knowing how to use things is sometimes more important.
Take for example a car.
Anybody with a drivers licence should be able to drive a car, but how many of those people do actually know how it works?
And knowing how a car works does not mean your able to drive it.
In that case you understand how it works but you are unable to use it.
So on one side we have a person driving a car without knowing how it works, and on the other side we have a person that knows how a car works but he is unable to drive it.
Knowing how things work does not mean you can automatically use them.
Likewise using things does not automatically mean you know how they work.
There is more that we don't know then what we know.
What good is it to speculate seemingly forever about what we do not know?
Poynt it was you who said discussing things we don't know can lead to answers, but how is this possible if we just don't know?
Again it's best to stick with things we do know, or at least use things that work (even if we don't know how) and work around them so we can find hidden properties discovering more.
This has led us to where we are now and it is the only possible way to get more knowledge.
:)
Microcontroller - I think what we're actually doing here is shaping the roads to allow all that traffic. No good if your car can't travel relatively smoothly. And the trouble with building a car first whether or not you can drive it - is that you may use two engines when one would work just as well. And you may be running off way more gas than is actually required. Knowing how to put that engine together has to factor in. And with the utmost respect - this is where you guys fall on your knees. You complicate that engine out of mind. Then you ignore the gas consumption - or you don't measure it correctly - or you find nuts and bolts that account for it - when it's actually courtesy some really good gear levers. I've seen whole ant colonies work with more efficiency than this. But it's like I said. If you were all a little less intelligent then I think you'd all find it a piece of cake. And the downside is this. It needs that intelligence to build that car in the first place. So you're with other builders. What you need is more people like me - dare I say it. Because we have very little intelligence - and when we see a gear work really efficiently then we see no need to use anything else. Then you can concentrate on shaping those roads - steep gradients deep dips - all. They just need to be mapped.
Rosemary
Here's a musical interlude followed by some brain food:
MileHigh - hopefully you've listened to that 'brain food' number you gave us. I suspect you need it more than any of us. I recognise that voice - Chris someone from the Naked Scientist. He banned me. LOL. Yet another. I took a snapshot of someone called - nilthoughts or nilabilitytothink. If I can find it I may just post it here. I thought it was rather good. But apparently Nothingtothinkwith - or -nowherewithallwithwhichtothink - whatever his name - rather took exception. I think he got alarmed that the general public would be able to identify him. He rather liked being anonymous.
Anyway - I've just had a quick look. I've still got to upload it from my files again. Somehow deleted it from photobucket. In any event. Chris- from the Naked Scientist was sent a copy of our TIE paper. And I've yet to get a comment. Not sure how 'open minded' he is. But his thoughts about this are exemplary. That's always a good start. And nota bene MileHigh. He suggests that that science rather depends on new ideas. LOL.
Rosemary
Ahhh. MH, The second video is all too factual. Applies to ALL of us. Just remember the "Human" credo.
"Consider the source." With the current level of information out there, with examples for both sides of almost ANY opinion, determining which piece of evidence is useful has become the hard part. THIS is where more open-mindedness is required today, as one could find evidence to support almost anything. (I.E. : 1 + 1 = 2 "This is always valid?" Try quantum physics....) Now I realize that is a weird and almost senseless example, but it was typed to make a point. Everyone ends up on both sides of that little video.
To see how that applies here. For a stupid example, what if the "Fan" was the aether? Anyone not "Seeing" the fan could easily make a determination of "Something" else moving the shade. Eventually, it could get complex, but fully figured as possible effects from convection from the heat of the lamp, or whatever. Finally, it would become a "Belief" and once the math was all laid out, there would be a "Law" defined to explain it. (I'm excluding any unrealistic "Supernatural" concept for this.) What happens when the fan is now exposed? I realize this is a terrible example, but it's just given to support the "Consider the source." statement. If you were personally there, to see the lamp, and investigated yourself, I doubt it would take long to figure it out. If you just "read" or studied others observations, what results do you think you would get if none of them saw the fan.
One should not fall into the trap of thinking that others must be smarter than you are, even if they were. Humans make mistakes, no matter how smart. (I'm an expert at mistakes, but this helps me as I still consider the source.) I hope I am being somewhat understandable, as you seem to have a great grasp of many concepts. Just remember to not believe everything you read, even in published papers, and certainly not here. We are all a long way from having all the answers. I disagree with many of the greats, and some of them agree with my disagreement. "But, As long as the math looks good...." I'm sure you've heard that quote before. (It's certainly not mine...)
While I accept an aether, I doubt my concept of it is anywhere near what others here define it as. A comment you made was "The 19th century ether doesn't exist." That is a fairly good example of "End of Discussion" as noted in the video. Actually, I could agree with that for my own personal opinion, but actually don't have enough good source info to accept it as yes or no. I never have been given how it was defined, or which version you mean. There are impossibilities in some versions, but they are sort of corrected in newer versions, and I"m certainly not going to start a semantics war. Do you accept that a "Neutron" is the combination of an electron and a protron. If I gave quotes from published papers would that change your mind, if they stated the opposite of what you know? Tough to know which to believe, without personal experience, and even then, do we know enough? I could refer you to the paper proving actual work, as defined by physics, can be produced from a voltage field, without any load on said field. Simple proof of the concept of OU. Does it, or has it changed any minds? (I can't express this better, as I'm not the best with words at times.)
As you mentioned, just a little food for thought.
uC, you hit a nerve with that "car" one. I have always been of the opinion that I won't use a device unless I am somewhat versed in it's operation. Just one of my personal problems. (One of many.) This is probably one of the main reasons I am the way I am with various techs, as new things come out all the time, and if I want to use it, it's back to the specs, etc. to understand the operation. I am still astounded, to this day, as to how applicable your example is. I am fairly well versed in automotive tech, from ABS algorithms to charge density, to syncro angles for shit lever force, etc. etc. etc. To be honest, none of the "Technical" information really helps during the actual operation of the vehicle. Sure, for mileage, or clutch wear, and the like, it can be of help in knowing how it should be used to greatest effect in many ways, but in a race, or emergency situations, it's all "Feel" and experience. This still bothers me, to this day, as it's one thing to understand it, and another to experience it, and I have learned that those two cannot be reconciled. Even learning a new system, and using that info to learn the most efficient way to get the most out of it, it really comes down to "re-training" the experience side. (See! I can't really explain this, even now, and I've been aware of the "2-sided" nature of this for my entire life. It's a hard concept.) So, while I can understand what you mean, I, for myself, could never just accept it. I even used to have many of the "Blocks" used in controller I.C.s memorized so I could understand the internal flows of data in dumb things like VCR's, and the like. (I could give an interesting history on just the development of clock setting interconnections from the two original clock blocks, that are still in use today, but any sane person would get bored to death....)
So, I must agree that, in one part, you are absolutely correct, and the the "Operation" of the device is MORE important than knowledge of the workings of said device, ONCE the device is working. With the level of tech today, it's rapidly getting to the point where the two jobs are too much for one person to handle. Take a race car driver. (A Good One.) He would not be the first choice for determining the valve seat angle for specific functions, where the designer that could might have trouble even getting the car around the track. I'm sure that the Designer COULD operate the car at a basic level. I'm not so sure about the other way around. I feel this applies to most complex or technical devices, as well. The one who can "fully" understand it, WILL be able to use it, in it's basic operation, but not up to the quality of an actual operator. (There are too many great examples. Think CNC equipment also. There, the designer would need the help of an operator to even test it.)
So while I completely agree with the "Separate" abilities, I "Feel" that the one who understands the complete operation of a device will be able to use it, albiet not as well as the person with experience with using the device. If it's something new, then you really see the difference. The "Knowing" person will slightly improve with experience. The "Operating" person will vastly improve and surpass the "Knowing" person's ability, probably in a very short period of time. So if the knowing can get it to work, even without all the knowledge of how it works, the operator will still be able to make full use of it. Here is my major peve, and the nerve you hit. Things have gone so far, so fast, that very few have ANY knowledge of how anything works. I'm sure you can see the problem I have with that. Here, in these areas, it's exactly the same. The Tech users need not know. The developers MUST. So what it comes down to, for me, is what is the object? Build improved device, and be a tech user, or build "New" device. I think that learning the hidden properties of existing stuff seems to be a very clear road, and certainly less work for greater results. That certainly puts me in the "User" group. Unfortunately, I am aware of no aether-based devices, so, for this thread, I have a little problem finding the starting point without slight "Flights of fancy", as it were. Think I've rambled enough for one night?
Remember Murphy's law: Design a device that any fool can use and only fools will use it. (One of the many "Laws") :)
Well I think this was all a healthy debate. The experiments did not back up the 19th century speculation for the existence of the aether. Subsequent to that Maxwell and Einstein explained electromagnetic wave propagation in a vacuum and the experimental results confirmed this. Where the problem arises is that this takes the "fun" out of so many free energy theories and it's more comforting to read the texts of the19th and early 20th centuries and "live the dream," and simply ignore the advancement of science when it suits you. To each his or her own.
If I didn't offer counterpoint to this thread then it would likely have all been one-sided back-slapping. It's healthy that I jumped in here.
Just to revisit a Rosemary issue that cropped up in this thread, Rosemary, you said this:
QuoteThere is absolutely NO SUCH THING AS AN ATOMIC DIPOLE unless we are all to first re-invent the standard terminology in physics.
When you say things like that it blows my mind considering how "magnetic field centric" your thinking is. Atomic magnetic dipoles are the basis for determining the permeability of a substance. We are talking about the most basic building blocks of magnetism in materials and you seemingly don't get it! You should do searches like "magnetic moment of iron" and stuff like that and get yourself up the learning curve.
A related issue that is a generic issue for all free energy forums is that "birds of a feather are afraid to disagree with each other." That is so incredibly unhealthy it's worth an entire thread in and of itself. The vast majority of people reading this thread know that some atoms have magnetic dipoles but seemingly no one wants to step up to the plate and correct you. As a result, in the general sense, sometimes you get threads that are so bizarre like the spirit of Salvador Dali possesses them. It causes a real malaise and is oppressive and counterproductive. It's a case of "tolerance to new ideas" and "open mindedness" going too far resulting in a mish-mash of disjoint and unfocused ideas where almost nothing being said makes any sense. Okay, I am stepping off the soapbox now.
Back to atomic dipoles, here is some information from a more layperson-oriented link:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/magnet3.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/magnet3.htm)
QuoteGenerally, electrons fill the atom's orbitals in pairs. If one of the electrons in a pair spins upward, the other spins downward. It's impossible for both of the electrons in a pair to spin in the same direction. This is part of a quantum-mechanical principle known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Even though an atom's electrons don't move very far, their movement is enough to create a tiny magnetic field. Since paired electrons spin in opposite directions, their magnetic fields cancel one another out. Atoms of ferromagnetic elements, on the other hand, have several unpaired electrons that have the same spin. Iron, for example, has four unpaired electrons with the same spin. Because they have no opposing fields to cancel their effects, these electrons have an orbital magnetic moment. The magnetic moment is a vector -- it has a magnitude and a direction. It's related to both the magnetic field strength and the torque that the field exerts. A whole magnet's magnetic moments come from the moments of all of its atoms.
In metals like iron, the orbital magnetic moment encourages nearby atoms to align along the same north-south field lines. Iron and other ferromagnetic materials are crystalline. As they cool from a molten state, groups of atoms with parallel orbital spin line up within the crystal structure. This forms the magnetic domains discussed in the previous section.
You may have noticed that the materials that make good magnets are the same as the materials magnets attract. This is because magnets attract materials that have unpaired electrons that spin in the same direction. In other words, the quality that turns a metal into a magnet also attracts the metal to magnets. Many other elements are diamagnetic -- their unpaired atoms create a field that weakly repels a magnet. A few materials don't react with magnets at all.
This explanation and its underlying quantum physics are fairly complicated, and without them the idea of magnetic attraction can be mystifying. So it's not surprising that people have viewed magnetic materials with suspicion for much of history. In the next section, we'll take a look at the powers ascribed to magnets, as well as what they can and can't do.
Finally, Rosemary, you made comments about posting a person's picture explicitly against their wishes. That's simply not acceptable.
MileHigh
Everyone's got their own ideas - perspectives. I see that Microcontroller does NOT want theory. Allcanadian only want's Tesla's theory. Grumpy wants any theory that isn't mine. MileHigh has a penchant for antiques. He needs everything to be classified over 80 years old and then he needs the full provenance. Poynty's happy with any theory but what he actaully wants is that the evidence can be repeated on his simulator. He's only really interested in algorithms. Wavewatcher wants the whole schebang. Old and new - but he's already streets ahead of us all. And Loner? I think all he's actually looking for is more ways of looking at more questions about those questions. Not that hooked on answers. And that's on one page of one thread. Think of the number of threads - and then there'll be that many different interests.
But here's my own tuppence worth. One little question to qualify the thread question 'does aether exist?' According to our astophysicists our galaxies have so little matter that they should, by rights unravel. But they don't. Somehow, somewhere, there's more energy in those galaxies than can be related to the amount of material in those galaxies. And this is the only thing that can account for the 'bound' condition of that galaxy. This was first proposed and then proved - through gravitational lensing.
So. In the same way - do atoms that are bound inside three dimensional objects hold more or less energy than a single unbound atom? Definitely not. The atom is inviolate - untouched. Light a stick that it burns and it'll give you back a whole lot of atoms in pristine condition. The only difference is that they'll become 'unbound' where previously they were bound. And it's not gravity holding atoms together. That bound state exceeds the pull of gravity. You only need to look at a picture hanging on a wall to realise this. If gravity dominated - then that picture would systematically shed it's atoms - downwards - that the picture would disappear. And that never happens.
What's been assumed is a complicated series of explanations based on the assumption that atoms themselves kind of adjust their valence condition into complicated crystalline structures - that they get a fair distribution of charge. And in this way they sort of plot out the neighbourhood that it becomes 'habitable' so to speak. Here's an alternate explanation.
We know - from our astrophysicists that galaxies are held bound by invisible matter - generally referred to as 'dark matter'. Could it be that the bound condition of our galaxies is some kind of gross evidence of the bound condition of all three dimensional objects? In other words - could it be that ALL matter is held bound by a force or a field that - until now has been overlooked. Is dark matter or some kind of aether matter - somehow responsible for the 'bound' condition of all matter?
So. If you can buy into this possibility - then here's another picture. Those fields are invisible. But given enough disturbance they can become visible. Then they get as hot and big and slow as they were first small and cold and invisible. Could they then somehow unravel those atomic structures? So. Here's the picture. Take some wood. Burn the wood. While it's burning put a ceramic pot on top of the wood. And put iron filings in that ceramic pot. Then. These small little fields would glow with warmth in the wood - would then spark alight - would then burn as flame - and would then systematically reach out from one localised position in space into the ceramic pot. But the ceramic pot is really tightly bound. And the flame is never hot enough to disturb that the material in that ceramic pot. So. These little fields move through that pot. Then they find the disassociated atoms in all those iron filings. Here's a whole lot of disassociated atoms that - potentially - could house these big flames made up of little parcels of hot slow 'things' looking for somewhere to go - somewhere they can re-establish that preferred field condition? All they want are more than one atom that they can hold them together. So they get busy. They move into those filings and gradually they join them - one atom to another - until it's a hot molten mess.
Then. The fire dies down. No more binding material coming from the sticks. No more binding material travelling through the pot. And now those binding fields get busy. They systematically align those atoms - one to one - and they position them as required - to make sure that - if there's disturbance in their valence condition - that they find the 'best charge balance'. Then they get smaller and faster and colder until they entirely disappear. They become hidden and 'dark'. The size of that molten puddle contracts in direct proportion to the reduction in mass of these tiny little objects - these little parcels or strings or packages of energy that have managed to move through space in real time - to become hidden in another dimension and probably another timeframe. Then. If this is half way true - there's been a complete conservation of energy in that exchange. And the best evidence is that the atoms have not been materially effected in that exchange. And they never are. It takes HUGE amounts of heat to change the atom. They have remained pristine and unviolated.
That's what I propose is just one one location in one small aspect of this dark energy - and it's been with us since we learned any kind of mastery over fire. And that's one aspect of the 'field' the 'aether' - that has been confused by mainstream as a 'chemical reaction'. It's really NOT that outlandish. And it certainly conforms to what's observed. All we've done is introduced a material property to the aether and given it a 'home' - an atomic abode.
MileHigh - it intrigues me that you referenced something that entirely omits the term 'atomic dipole'. If - what you were actually referring to was a valence condition then say that. I assure you - there is no such thing as an 'atomic dipole' except in the confusing parlance of those in mainstream who attempt to explain magnetism. And it absolutely CANNOT be explained in terms of mainstream concepts. It can only be explained if it's first given a material property. Otherwise the concepts are - of necessity - a mishmash of nonsense that only confuses mainstream science beyond its present state of confusion - if that's possible.
And there is nothing in that extract that satisfies me that it's a comprehensive explanation of magnetism. And I'm just too tired of this argument to do a detailed analysis. But if you really challenge me and if you're that interested - then I will.
MileHigh - I wish to God you'd get off my back. Your posts are getting that personal that I really find them offensive. I've gone to some considerable trouble to avoid the level of confrontation that you exercise against me. Please just ignore my posts. And I'll ignore yours.
Rosemary,
Wow. I'm not sure about all the rest of your post but I must say....
Now I have a weird aversion to cooked food. ???
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.13, 17:13:47
Rosemary,
Wow. I'm not sure about all the rest of your post but I must say....
Now I have a weird aversion to cooked food. ???
LOL WaveWatcher. I know it's an eccentric. But in my defense - it gives an explanation for the casimir effect which has been proved and is still without any kind of explanation. It introduces the concept of energy being outside the atom instead of in it - is all. And there's other justifications but then that would be my entire thesis. So. I justify this little expose because we were talking 'dark energy' which relates to the fact that galaxies are bound by something outside the visible material of the galaxy. But I do think that when we eat - what we're doing is injesting these little packages of energy that then do what they do best. And when we cook food all we've done is started the early 'unbundling' of all those molecules. Something to aid the digestion.
It actually conforms to what is observed. It just introduces the concept of an extraneous material that actually energises everything.
Rosemary
Rosemary, you caught me, better than I could have myself. Perfect description of my outlook.
In defense of myself, I was taught to be that way, before my teens, as people would trick me by asking questions without complete information being available. Then laugh at me for having an incorrect answer. (I Know. Poor me. Self pity and all that BS.) The whole thing was actually very emotional, and took me years to somewhat regain a sense of self-esteem, but I'll never have the level of even the weakest around here, as it's a little late now to build up my non-existent courage. Making a couple mistakes that were costly, while in my twenties, didn't help. I literally hide away in the dark fringes these days, hence my handle. (It's over 40 yrs old, and I have only one other.)
I didn't realize till right now that I was becoming so predictable and obvious. Thanks for the heads-up. I shall improve. I do assume that I have certain answers to some of the questions asked around here, but I doubt I'll ever be in a position that I could feel sure enough to stand up and say "This is what I think". And I actually thought I was starting to do just that. I must review my posts, and see how bad I am at this, and how to get better, as it would be nice, for myself, to be comfortable with such things. I envy your level of conviction.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.13, 17:58:05
Rosemary, you caught me, better than I could have myself. Perfect description of my outlook.
In defense of myself, I was taught to be that way, before my teens, as people would trick me by asking questions without complete information being available. Then laugh at me for having an incorrect answer. (I Know. Poor me. Self pity and all that BS.) The whole thing was actually very emotional, and took me years to somewhat regain a sense of self-esteem, but I'll never have the level of even the weakest around here, as it's a little late now to build up my non-existent courage. Making a couple mistakes that were costly, while in my twenties, didn't help. I literally hide away in the dark fringes these days, hence my handle. (It's over 40 yrs old, and I have only one other.)
I didn't realize till right now that I was becoming so predictable and obvious. Thanks for the heads-up. I shall improve. I do assume that I have certain answers to some of the questions asked around here, but I doubt I'll ever be in a position that I could feel sure enough to stand up and say "This is what I think". And I actually thought I was starting to do just that. I must review my posts, and see how bad I am at this, and how to get better, as it would be nice, for myself, to be comfortable with such things. I envy your level of conviction.
Golly Loner - it was NOT a criticism. We're all just the way we are. Nothing gooder or badder. Just what we are. Not intended as a value judgement. We're all a little eccentric. And frankly how boring would things be if we were all the same. In my book there's nothing needs changing. How boring would that be?
Rosemary, I wasn't taking it as critical of me, just a statement of fact. I am just being critical of myself.
Really, I just need a little more backbone, and I wanted to thank you for reminding me of that.
As to changing, I require as much of it in myself as possible, as I get bored far too easily. Only by talking with people different than I do I get any relief. (I wonder what my rambling has to do with the aether?) Gotta go fix an auto. Keeping myself busy and it's a good mental break. Strange effects occur in auto HV during wet weather. I gather info from as many situations as possible.....
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.13, 17:38:11
It actually conforms to what is observed. It just introduces the concept of an extraneous material that actually energises everything.
Rosemary
I see. Using those thoughts the experiment shows extraneous material proof at my waistline :(
Loner,
I take it your ignition systems is overcome with packed snow and ice.
Just spent the last 45 minutes digging snow from under my hood. Funny how those belts scream for mercy when the pulleys refuse to rotate.
A lesson in harmonics?
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.13, 19:11:22
I see. Using those thoughts the experiment shows extraneous material proof at my waistline :(
Well. That was really interesting on just so many levels. I've proposed an alternate explanation for fire. But the problem is that every self-respecting scientist knows EXACTLY what makes up the properties of fire. According to Wiki it's an exothermic chemical reaction depending on oxygen, fuel and heat. We know what oxygen atoms are. So. The next question is this. What is the fuel? Some compound's molecules 'burn' easy - other's not so easy. And atoms simply don't burn at all. So. Burn down your house - set fire to your table and chairs - cook your appliances - destroy whatever it is that you can - and you're left with all those atoms - eactly in the same condition that they started off. But not one of them is in the same bound condition that they were before that fire started. The only thing that has changed is their bound condition.
Then the next point. Suns burn. Hot, hot flames. Right through to the very heart of that structure there's evident FLAME. It's a nuclear fire. But there's not one evident oxygen atom required to sustain that burn. So. Why is it assumed that oxygen is required for 'fire'? The fact is that the sun is that hot that it can transmute hydrogen to helium and back again. But that tells us absolutely nothing about that 'fire' - only the level of heat in that fire.
Which brings one to the next point. What generates that heat? And where does it come from? Wherever else it comes from it's not from the atoms. They can't be touched - unless, as mentioned - it's that hot that it can alter the nuclear structure of the atom to change it. Otherwise the electrons - the nucleus - the inner and outer energy levels of the atoms simply IGNORE fire. If there's been an 'exchange of energy' then that 'exchange' has not been between the atoms.
I get it that this concept has embarrassed everyone. But - in the same way I'm embarrassed when I read the complicated, ponderous, technical explanations for what is KNOWN about fire. All those words - all those terms - all those signs and symbols - all that complicated math - all those chemical explanations - and not one simple direct explanation for the properties of 'fire' itself. I put it to you all that this has been the point at which science has learned to 'invent' explanations relying on terms that do not in fact carry any real description. It explains nothing.
And I challenge anyone to tell me where this concept - this fundamental explanation may be wrong. I've not invented pink bunny rabbits. I've carefully observed what I know about fire and proposed that it may be a form of magnetic fields - a state of magnetism - that's responsible for binding atoms together. But it's essential condition is fluid and it can move through space and then find a 'home' or an 'atomic abode' provided only that there are atoms in that space. And in its fluid state it is outside it's 'field' condition. And then we experience it - as heat - or flame - or fire - or spark. On the side of my argument - is that I've introduced a 'required' mass to amalgams or 3 dimensional structures that seems to be required - certainly on the scale of the very large. And I seriously propose that this is one small form - one single dimension - of the aether that just about everyone here subscribes to.
Rosemary
An electric field is primary to a magnetic field. (I thought this was common knowledge.)
Getting back the subject heading of this thread: "Ether - Does it Exist?"
It is apparent that "something" does exists, and we are still learning about it.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.13, 23:58:34
An electric field is primary to a magnetic field. (I thought this was common knowledge.)
Getting back the subject heading of this thread: "Ether - Does it Exist?"
It is apparent that "something" does exists, and we are still learning about it.
Well. Not sure who you're addressing here but I'll assume it's me. And I'm not sure why you say that an electric field is primary to a magnetic field. It's absolutely wrong. A changing electric field will ALWAYS produce a magnetic field. A changing magnetic field does NOT ALWAYS produce an electric field. When one permanent magnet interacts with another permanent magnet both magnets move through space - they change their positions - and it is or can be a really energetic movement. Yet there is absolutely NO MEASUREABLE ELECTRIC FIELD ASSOCIATED WITH THAT MOVEMENT. Show me one paper - any one study where this has been found to be wrong - and I'll glady admit the postulate is wrong. I've done a search and indeed did find a paper where the object was to prove whether a magnet on magnet interaction resulted in an electric field. AND it was published. And the results were inconclusive.
SO Grumpy. Why is it widely assumed that an electric field may be a primary force? On the contrary. It can ONLY be a secondary force. And why exactly did you ask the question in the first instance if the existence of aether was that 'apparent'? Is it determined by consensus - like your assumption of the primacy of an electric field? Or is this based on 'evidence'. And where then is that evidence? And if you're still learning about it - then are you telling me NOT to interrupt that learning process by discussing it?
Rosemary
added
Actually I've just realised that you're objecting to an apparent deviation from the thread topic. It's not a deviation at all. We may not be able to see aether in its field condition. But I'm suggesting that 'fire' is a form of aether and we definitely know that fire exists. So. I'm NOT off topic.
A magnetic field can not exist without an electric field creating it.
Every magnetic field in existence in the entire universe has a changing electric field creating it.
You can find a few nice articles where the authors claim that a moving magnetic field does NOT create an electric field and that the appearance of a moving magnetic field creating an electric field is actually the electric field of the magnetic field creating another electric field.
Also, a magnetic field is not required to create a static electric field.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.14, 00:45:13
A magnetic field can not exist without an electric field creating it.
Then where is the electric field in a permanent magnet?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.14, 00:45:13Every magnetic field in existence in the entire universe has a changing electric field creating it.
Really? You know this as a fact? Or is it assumed? And what then carries that electric field? Electrons? Are there streams and streasms of electrons running in the vacuum of space to create all those magnetic fields? Is this the aether that we're talking about?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.14, 00:45:13You can find a few nice articles where the authors claim that a moving magnetic field does NOT create an electric field and that the appearance of a moving magnetic field creating an electric field is actually the electric field of the magnetic field creating another electric field.
I have NEVER found any 'nice articles' on moving magnetic fields that do NOT create electric fields. On the contrary. I have only found articles that talk about the simultaneous 'electromagnetic interaction'. Or others on the baseless assumption that electricity is everything and everywhere.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.14, 00:45:13Also, a magnetic field is not required to create a static electric field.
So what? What does that prove? A moving electric field generates a magnetic field. ALWAYS. That's not open to debate. And static charge is NOT MOVING.
No-one is obliged to see a correspondence between dark energy, dark matter and aether. But the existence of dark energy and dark matter is not based on speculation it's based on fact. And it's known that dark energy is EVERYWHERE. It's conservatively assessed to constitute the material of more than 90% of the entire universe. What we don't know is this field's actual material construct. What particle belongs to this force - like the electron for electromagnetic interaction and the graviton for gravity and so on? The electron itself is entirely precluded as a candidate. It's just not that bountiful and that plentiful to qualify for such huge quantities of dark energy. Which also means that the electron or the electromagnetic force - is definitely out of the equation. But it may yet allow the magnetic force. No-one has yet proposed a particle for the magnetic field. And certainly if the magnetic field comprised particles they could NOT be the electron. The electron only has one charge. A magnetic field always has at least two charges. The electron can be shown to exist. The magnetic particle has never been seen.
The point being that whatever else makes up dark energy it certainly cannot be electric in it's fundamentals. So why this requirement to insist that electricity is everything and everywhere? It absolutely does not fit in with what is known.
Rosie,
I lack the necessary motivation and time to explain the universe to you, as I see it, especially to someone that insulted me for not wanting to "poisoning the wellspring of my mind" by reading their "theory".
If you want to understand things, then look them up. Read the views of past experts and present ones and try to understand the basis for their points of view. If at all possible, try experiments to gain a realistic understanding of what you read.
=============================================
Once again:
Getting back the subject heading of this thread: "Ether - Does it Exist?"
It is apparent that "something" does exists, and we are still learning about it.
@Rosemary
QuoteI get it that this concept has embarrassed everyone. But - in the same way I'm embarrassed when I read the complicated, ponderous, technical explanations for what is KNOWN about fire. All those words - all those terms - all those signs and symbols - all that complicated math - all those chemical explanations - and not one simple direct explanation for the properties of 'fire' itself. I put it to you all that this has been the point at which science has learned to 'invent' explanations relying on terms that do not in fact carry any real description. It explains nothing.
I think what we call fire is pretty easy to understand when put in the right context, first we should understand that most everything we see is an illusion. If we take a piece of wood having carbon in it and this wood is in the presence of oxygen nothing happens because the C and O atoms cannot interact. If however these atoms are excited by friction or heat which are not energy but forms of energy then this excitation can cause the C and O atoms to "snap" together producing further excitation and CO which further reduces or "burns" with O2 into CO2. We should remember that this is not chemistry as every aspect of what we call chemistry relates directly to electrical or "charged" states. The energy is in the charged states of the atoms producing motion and EM radiation which is all that "heat" is. As well what we see as "fire" is the excitation of atoms leading to light which is EM radiation, Heat which is atomic excitation producing EM radiation as well as ionization which is a charged state. Much of the confusion around this issue relates to mistaking heat,light,ionization etc.. as energy, they are not energy they are forms of energy relating to the condition of something and this condition of matter relates to the rate of oscillation and charged state which is the actual "energy" and not the effects of a condition of something.
I think this is why there is so much confusion regarding energy and forms of energy as many mistakenly call the effects of a condition energy when in fact it is the condition itself as it relates to other things which is the energy. Once we understand this I think everything becomes easier to understand, personally I think nature is quite easy to understand but we have to look past the illusion and the false assumptions we make based on what we see.
We could apply this same concept to the aether, does it have to be "something"?, is it something or simply an effect of something?. It is odd that the closer we look at things of supposed substance the less real substance we find they have, could it be that we have never really been correct about anything in any way as most all the facts we have would have us believe that everything reduces to what appears to be nothing but a "disturbance" in the media.
Speaking of the energy and matter here is something to consider, if all the electrostatic charges in a one centimeter cube of aluminum were separated how much force would these separated charges exert on one another? Well about 32 x 10^18 pounds or 32 million million million pounds of force.
Regards
AC
One of the characteristics of "old age" is often
the appearance of a "hard head" or a state of
mind "set." Some even describe it as being
"set in my ways" it is that strong.
As children we each enjoyed bountiful curiosity
and an incredibly open mind. As ego and pride
are "programmed" into us the open-ness of the
mind begins to close; as a door closing.
As we become firmly "set" in our beliefs and our
"rightness" we will defend them with extreme
vigor; the thought of being "wrong" or having to
admit "error" becomes a potential fate worse than
death itself.
I appreciate your perspective Rosemary. And the
possibilities you bring to the discussion.
I also appreciate what you're up against and wherefrom
it arises. It's an "institutional" thing. Kinda like protecting
ones' "turf."
Our "old minds" feel "young" but in reality they deceive
us. We've lost the "essence" of youth with our "blinders"
of age and "wisdom" and "education."
The question is necessarily broad in scope and requires
branching and detouring as the complexities under consideration
unfold into their fullness.
Are those who insist upon confining the limits of the discussion
to a narrow "ON TOPIC" path truly engaging in meaningful
examination or are they simply desirous of maintaining some
sort of "control?"
Yep, things do get a little "strange" from time to time...
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.14, 00:59:33
Then where is the electric field in a permanent magnet?
Really? You know this as a fact? Or is it assumed? And what then carries that electric field? Electrons? Are there streams and streasms of electrons running in the vacuum of space to create all those magnetic fields? Is this the aether that we're talking about?
I have NEVER found any 'nice articles' on moving magnetic fields that do NOT create electric fields. On the contrary. I have only found articles that talk about the simultaneous 'electromagnetic interaction'. Or others on the baseless assumption that electricity is everything and everywhere.
So what? What does that prove? A moving electric field generates a magnetic field. ALWAYS. That's not open to debate. And static charge is NOT MOVING.
Here. First one is on the House:
QuoteIn conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).
From the University of Texas:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node77.html
Dumped:
I'll take your last comments as being about me. Look, it should all be about agreeing what the term "aether" means and whether it exists or not based on experimental evidence. You have to find a common ground for any discussion.
From my perspective, the "aether" goes back to the 19th century quest to try to explain how electromagnetic waves propagate in space. That's what the M-M experiment and later more sophisticated versions were all about. I have made my points about that so there is no need to repeat them.
Now, that aether concept in itself is worthy of debating. If you ask the average person that is outside of the free energy realm and is knowledgeable about the aether debate, chances are they would say that the debate is indeed directly related to what I am suggesting it is all about.
On the other hand, if the meaning of the word "aether" is a free-for-all, then you can go off in a myriad of directions. Is it electric field based? Is it some universal magnetic field that supports various electromagnetic fields? Is the aether some kind of glue that we get from burning wood? Is it Dark matter and/or Dark Energy?
So, anyone is free to pursue the endless "broad in scope" definitions for the aether and it doesn't even have to be about the aether being a medium to support the transmission of electromagnetic waves. It can be anything, it can be like a big hippie Be-In in 1966 and anything is permissible and anything can happen. Throw of the "blinders!"
The only problem with all that is chances are it's going to get you nowhere. Not a very wise move if you ask me. People will start proclaiming "answers" but they will have forgotten the question.
So it's not about "control" as you put it, it's really about building up a knowledge base that makes sense and going onwards and upwards from there.
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.14, 00:45:13
Rosie,
I lack the necessary motivation and time to explain the universe to you, as I see it, especially to someone that insulted me for not wanting to "poisoning the wellspring of my mind" by reading their "theory".
Well. That's a new one for the books. It seems that i've been accused or am accusing all and sundry of 'poisoning my/their' minds - well sprung or otherwise. And that I have a 'theory?' That's rich. I've only ever claimed a thesis. And I'd be very glad if you did not ALL assume that I need to 'read' up more than I already have. I do indeed lack 'knowledge'. I lack math training and the logic of math. But that absolutely DOES NOT MAKE ME ILLOGICAL. And I assure you all - AC, MH, Grumpy - that I am entirely familiar with conceptual physics - clearly more so than the rest of you. And the ONLY way to understand physics is through CONCEPT. Otherwise one applies measurements. And measurements DO NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING. It only MEASURES.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.14, 00:45:13Once again:
Getting back the subject heading of this thread: "Ether - Does it Exist?"
It is apparent that "something" does exists, and we are still learning about it.
And AGAIN. WHERE does it exist? WHAT is your proof? You've done NOTHING but point everyone to a whole lot of references that DO NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING AT ALL. I, at least, attempted definitive proof of its existence. And all you did was IGNORE THAT EVIDENCE. I actually think that your intention is to control this discussion by implying a knowledge that you either do NOT have or are NOT prepared to share. Another thread doomed to DEATH for want of some honest exploration in the actual issues. What a crying shame. And this from someone who appears to be so anxious to promote our New Age concepts especially as it relats to aether.
'In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).'
What is being proposed here that is any different to anything that is on offer in our text books? And what does this to do promote our understanding of aether. Is it based on the implication that magnetism is the same as electricity? In which case? Does magnetism rely on the flow of electrons as you all assume electric current flows? Because you'd be wrong. Electrons cannot FLOW as a field. It's simply not possible. Nor has ANYTHING EVER BEEN SEEN OR MEASURED OR KNOWN TO FLOW INSIDE CIRCUIT MATERIAL. All those atoms - from start to finish - stay exactly as they were before the measured flow of current. No more or less ionised atoms. No more or less imbalance in their valence electrons. No repositioning in space. No changes. You cannot claim any variation whatsoever in the material properties of the atom itself. Not even in the 'alignment' of their electrons. If there is any kind of material exchange between those circuit atoms - then it has absolutely NOT changed those atoms - AT ALL. What does change is when current has completed its orbit. Then indeed 'it' the fields that DID flow - can rearrange the atoms / molecules - into a more balanced charge condition. But when it flows through circuitry it only imbalances the bound condition of the circuit material. NOT the atoms themselves.
Rosemary
ADDED
And AC when those two hydrogen atoms 'snap together' with one oxygen atom - or when two oxygen atoms snap together with two one carbon atom - and the rest - then - what makes you so certain that something - outside of those atoms actually couldnot first have been responsible for gluing those atoms together? Just because we don't see it doesn't mean that it's not there. We know that the forces work. But we don't see them. Do gravitons 'snap' atoms together and then pull them 'downwards'? Do electrons 'snap together' ever, to cause current flow?
And how about this. We can put hydrogen atoms inside a vacuum and they will NEVER create a sun. On the contrary. They'll move as far apart from each other as is physically possible within the constraints of any particular volume or area. YET - they've filmed whole suns - HUGE QUANTITIES of hydrogen that move out of our nebulae. What accounts for that accretion? Gravity? So where is the gravity in the vacuum that contains our small sample of hydrogen atoms? Can't it reach into that experimental apparatus? Suddenly for some arbitrary reason gravity first becomes localised? There is absolutely NO bonding of any atoms into any gross physical three dimensional object unless there is first an applied energy source. The atoms of themselves do not exchange any kind of interest in each other - the more so when they're alike. And how do you explain all that nuclear fire in a sun when there is absolutely not one single oxygen atom at all? Are you proposing that the condition of those purely hydrogen atoms in our younger suns are exchanging material properties with each other? If they were they would not be identifiable as hydrogen. The atoms always and only stay the same. Until they're transmuted into more complex structures. Then indeed their material properties are varied. But they do not first grow big and light up and pop like a balloon pops. Yet all around is on fire. What causes that fire?
My comments were as much about "me" as perhaps anyone.
I certainly cannot exempt myself from any criticism.
I too am learning to be "young" again and to re-capture the
enthusiasm and the idealism of earlier years. Though I may
look the part of the "ol' stuck in the mud codger" there isn't
any real need to continue the mind-set of a lifetime of acquired
pride and prejudice.
The mental freedom of childhood is exhilarating! The boundaries
of the mind are limitless! Fling that door open!
Perhaps the aether is more about what it isn't than what it is...
I suspect complete understanding will be a long time in coming.
We have a whole lot of "un-learning" to do first...
Dumped - from where I sit you're the only one who is prepared to entertain new ideas. Everyone else just gives it lip service. It's a rather brittle condition for membership anywhere. New Agers are as closed minded as Mainstream. It's just that their prejudices are from different sides of that same table. Frankly everyone will tolerate anything provided always that they share that perspective. Quite lonely in a way - if you don't share either view point. It seems that there's nothing quite as polarised as difference of opinion. And it seems that once that opinion is polarised - then it's stuck there - as fixed as the justification of a permanent magnet.
Rosemary
@Dumped
QuoteAs children we each enjoyed bountiful curiosity
and an incredibly open mind. As ego and pride
are "programmed" into us the open-ness of the
mind begins to close; as a door closing.
As we become firmly "set" in our beliefs and our
"rightness" we will defend them with extreme
vigor; the thought of being "wrong" or having to
admit "error" becomes a potential fate worse than
death itself.
Those are words of wisdom and very well spoken, I think all of us can relate to this and I have had similar thoughts for a very long time. I heard some good psychiatry quotes which relate directly to your post--- "If you do not think you have an ego problem then you obviously do" and "The only people with real psychological problems are the ones that believe they do not have any". On a personal note I can tell you I am guilty of all that you have mentioned above on more occasions than I would care to admit and am quite proud of the fact I understand this as I cannot change something I will not admit exists in the first place. I have done a great deal of research in this area of psychology and found that in fact all of us, every single one of us is in fact just plain weird,lol. Not because we have issues persay but because we usually always deny the fact that we do despite the facts.
Now some might say what does this have to do with the topic at hand? I would submit it has everything to do with any topic because what and how we think determines what we do. Imagine that, that somewhere in our mind we know things, things we have observed, measured and sensed but suppressed because they do not fit in with our reality at the time. Is it any wonder that some of the greatest discoveries have happened by accident, the fact that these accidents led to a reality that nobody had ever considered therefore thought impossible. If there is one thing I have learned over the years it is, never say never, because the odds are were probably going to end up looking stupid at some point in time. I think we can apply a similar thought to the aether in that what we find improbable if not impossible to understand today will be obvious at some point in the future. History has proven this time and time again and to think otherwise just seems a little crazy in my opinion.
Regards
AC
Rosemary, this is sort-of pointed at you. (Dumped, what can I say, I agree 100%)
In your concept of the "Magnetic" being a primary, as in possibly being directly related to the makeup of aether, I have another question which is really to see how what you "Think" is related to how I "Think". (I have my own "Opinion", but don't want to bias your answer yet, as a clean thought would be helpful to me.) Without getting into quantum theory, which I have quite a few problems with, do you consider the "Magnetic" force related to a "Particle"? You mentioned gravitons, which is really a convention for humans to work with digital concepts instead of analog. (I am sure many would argue that is a close-minded position, but I would argue the contrary.)
To put it in a more generalized form, would you consider an EM wave to actually be a stream of particles? I assume you see the relation to the concept of light, as currently defined. I just wanted to pick your brain for a bit.
To all, I assume the root cause for the phrase "Out of the mouth of babes...." has become obvious. Also the phrase "Too smart for his/her own good." WE all can fit in that second one, more often than not. (Again, I really appreciate "Dumped"'s words.)
Grumpy,
I believe the aether exists. The main problem with acceptance may be more to do with ones worries about staying employed in a science related position. Maybe now they can use the term 'Dark Energy' and keep there funding.
One reason I don't proclaim the existence is there is normally little reason for me to worry about it. The final analysis may show us that it does exist but there is much more to it than the early experimenters decided. We should face the fact that it was primarily a 'fudge-factor' to explain things unknown at the time.
Now that we are starting to see more unknowns we needed another fudge-factor and it is called Dark whatever. This dark stuff may wind up being the aether. I tend to think it will be, and much more. At least some folks, under the label of 'New Physics' are trying to explain the Voyager problems. This may well be the breaking straw for c or a new understanding related to time. I can't wait until the findings come in from new probes.
Can we use what we know about this poorly defined fabric? I don't know but have serious doubts about my capabilities to do so.
I will go out on a limb here, in spite of the tone of some of my previous posts. Even though I find apparent contradictions and some sloppiness in some old works, once you begin to understand how it all ties together there is no doubt the majority of the findings must be correct. The beauty of it all is to profound for any human artist. Unfortunately, this symmetry is like the best books. The meaning varies too much depending upon the reader.
I despise the way Heavyside butchered the works of Maxwell. I loathe the reasons for Maxwell using Gauss instead of Ampere. It pains me to see other such obviously correct and well defined experiments passed over as if they were nothing.
So, I experiment with the things that seemed to go unnoticed. At least it is fun to do :)
Maybe I'll figure out which came first. The chicken or the egg >:D
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.14, 07:23:15
Rosemary, this is sort-of pointed at you. (Dumped, what can I say, I agree 100%)
In your concept of the "Magnetic" being a primary, as in possibly being directly related to the makeup of aether, I have another question which is really to see how what you "Think" is related to how I "Think". (I have my own "Opinion", but don't want to bias your answer yet, as a clean thought would be helpful to me.) Without getting into quantum theory, which I have quite a few problems with, do you consider the "Magnetic" force related to a "Particle"? You mentioned gravitons, which is really a convention for humans to work with digital concepts instead of analog. (I am sure many would argue that is a close-minded position, but I would argue the contrary.)
To put it in a more generalized form, would you consider an EM wave to actually be a stream of particles? I assume you see the relation to the concept of light, as currently defined. I just wanted to pick your brain for a bit.
To all, I assume the root cause for the phrase "Out of the mouth of babes...." has become obvious. Also the phrase "Too smart for his/her own good." WE all can fit in that second one, more often than not. (Again, I really appreciate "Dumped"'s words.)
Hello Loner. Yes indeed. I've described it as follows - in our TIE paper.
I. INTRODUCTION
THE following tests were designed to evaluate a thesis that predicted anomalous heat signatures on an inductive resistor placed in series with a switching circuit. The thesis is developed from a non classical magnetic field model but a full description of this falls outside the scope of this submission. What is pertinent here is some overview of that thesis as it applies to current flow. The following paragraph is intended as a broad brushstroke description of this and is further clarified as described in the Appendix I.
The model proposes that charge has the property of mass with the material properties of velocities and thermal capacities associated with that mass. These particles do not conform to the standard model and remain hidden within three dimensional solid or liquid objects or amalgams. They are extraneous to the atom itself and only interact with the atomic energy levels that, in turn, comprise independent fields of the same fundamental particle. These extraneous fields are responsible for the bound condition of the amalgam. This interaction between the fields and the atoms' energy levels results in a balanced distribution of charge throughout the amalgam. Measurable voltage reflects a transitional state of imbalance throughout these binding fields that, subject to circuit conditions, then move that charge through available conductive and inductive paths to reestablish a charge balance. In effect the circuit components that enable the flow of charge from a supply source are, themselves able to generate a flow of current depending on the strength of that applied potential difference and the material properties of the circuit components. Therefore both inductive and conductive circuit components have a potential to generate current flow in line with Inductive Laws.
Classical assumption requires an equivalence in the transfer of electric energy based as it is on the concept of a single supply source. Therefore voltage measured away from the supply on circuit components is seen to be stored energy delivered during closed circuit conditions of a switching cycle. The distinction is drawn that if indeed, the circuit components are themselves able to generate a current flow from potential gradients, then under open circuit conditions, that energy may be added to the sum of the energy on the circuit thereby exceeding the limit of energy available from the supply. Therefore if more energy is measured to be dissipated at a load than is delivered by the supply, then that evidence will be consistent with this thesis. The experimental evidence does indeed, conform to this prediction. What has nothing to do with this experiment is that 'fire' is proposed to be the manifest particle out of the field condition. What may also be of interest is Harvey's description of the thesis in an addendum to that same paper.
The following exercise is intended as a broad brushstroke description of the non classical properties of current flow that was tested in the experiment described herein.
The classical approach to current flow recognizes that charge motion is predominately that of electric charge. The aspect of this thesis that is considered appropriate to this submission relates to current flow. It proposes that current flow comprises the motion of magnetic charge which, in turn comprises elementary magnetic dipolar particles. In classical terms, these particles would align with Faraday's Lines of Force and therefore the number of lines that exist through a particular real or imaginary surface, would still be represented as magnetic flux while the particles themselves, in distribution along those lines, represent the magnetic field.
It is proposed that these fields are extraneous to the atomic structure of matter and are thought to play a critical part in binding atoms and molecules into gross identifiable matter. Further, the particles obey an immutable imperative to move towards a condition of balance or zero net magnetic charge. Given a source material with an ionized charge imbalance which is measured as a potential difference, and given a closed circuit electromagnetic material path, these particles will return to the source material with the necessary charge to neutralize that imbalance.
Typical electronic circuits provide such material paths through the circuit components of which they are made which includes all conductors. During the passage of current flow through such closed circuitry it is proposed that the charge imbalance is transferred to those circuit components. The individual imbalances in each component and each conductor then seek balance according to that immutable imperative. In typical electronic circuitry, each component that has been 'charged' by this transfer, will either neutralize the charge internally, or influence a secondary current flow in anti-phase or opposite polarity to the first cycle.
While this is substantially in line with classical assumption as it relates to the transfer of charge, the distinction is drawn that the energy that is then transferred to such electromagnetic components, is able to regenerate a secondary cycle of current flow in line with electromagnetic laws. This energy is then not limited to the quotient of stored energy delivered during the first cycle and as presumed by classical theory. Instead it is dependent on the circuit component's material characteristics and the means by which those materials balance a charge put upon them. Therefore there is a real energy potential in the secondary cycle which would reflect in a measured improvement to the performance coefficient of the circuit arrangement. This enhanced performance coefficient may be at the expense of the bonding of the material in the circuit components. In a worst case condition, this energy may be released as is observed in an exploding wire that is put under extreme charge conditions due to excessive current flow. In a best case condition, the energy is released gradually over time and results in fatigue to those components. This paper addresses an application of the gradual release.Since the noisy fracture of our collaboration he DENIES understanding the thesis at all. But this dissertation somewhat belies that statement. In any event. I'm reasonably satisfied that NONE OF YOU have actually ever bothered to read the thesis or the any of the papers that related to these tests. And Poynty claims that the results are inconclusive. Not sure how he determines this when experts designed the protocols and no expert has denied these numbers. They won't publish though. It's too controversial. We were told to submit it to a physics journal. And physicists wont argue electric measurement - so we conveniently fall out of reach of both disciplines. Hopefully that's set to change. But the paper needs a rewrite and the data supplied by Glen has mostly been withdrawn from easy public reach.
Rosemary
What the thesis does manage is a perfect reconciliation of the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. Biut that in turn requires each particle to be a composite of of these fundamental bipolar particles. Actually. It explains just about every paradox that still needs an answer - including but in no way limited to the casimir effect. The downside of the thesis is that it's simple. I think everyone hopes for something that is impossibly difficult to conceptualise. But having said that - I'm not sure that it is that simple. It also seems to generate a certain amount of confusion.
In any event. That's my work on the AETHER for what it's worth. And unlike the most of you assume - there's ample experimental evidence and ample accreditation. It's just unfortunate that the attraction of the technology is sufficiently overwhelming that it's been subjected to an attack the likes of which has never been evident on any forum anywhere. More's the pity. I keep reading all you scholarly contributors talking over me and around me - or telling me to go and 'read' up what's on offer - and with the entire exception of Loner - NOT ONE PERSON had sufficient courtesy or interest to simply ask me to explain anything at all. I put it to you that my grasp of the aether and aether technologies is probably about as advanced as it's likely to get until a latter day Maxwell get down to the actual numbers. Meanwhile it's best rendered as a binary system. It's all that's needed. And like ALL PHYSICS it can only be understood through CONCEPT. When will you all begin to realise that conceptual physics is the ONLY WAY TO GO? There is absolutely NO OTHER WAY that it can be understood.
Sad really. The more so concepts are seen as a kind of infantile exercise and my efforts to promote understanding through concepts then satisfy you all that I must be as thick as pig shit and entirely unschooled.
Rosemary
Bringing it all back home.
From the search, "definition of the aether."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28luminiferous%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28luminiferous%29)
QuoteIn the late 19th century, luminiferous aether or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Aether (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Aether)
Quoteaether - a medium that was once supposed to fill all space and to support the propagation of electromagnetic waves
http://www.answers.com/topic/luminiferous-aether (http://www.answers.com/topic/luminiferous-aether)
QuoteThe 'luminiferous' aether was the medium that pervaded all space, and in which electromagnetic waves existed, postulated by 19th-century physics.
Ether became the subject of one of the more famous experiments in physics, by Albert Abraham Michelson and E. W. Morley. Their experiment involved the splitting and reintegration of a light wave in such a manner that the presence of ether would slow one of the waves. They disproved the existence of ether and brought America its first Nobel Prize for physics. The experiment also contributed to the development of Einstein's theory of relativity. The abandonment of ether by science led to its eventual abandonment by Spiritualists and Theosophists.
http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/aether (http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/aether)
Quotea medium that was once supposed to fill all space and to
support the propagation of electromagnetic waves [syn:
ether, aether]
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Aether (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Aether)
QuoteIn physics and philosophy, aether was once believed to be a substance which filled all of space. Aristotle included it as a fifth element on the principle that nature abhorred a vacuum. Aether was also called "Quintessence".
Oliver Nicholson points out that the older concept the aether (in contrast to the more well known luminiferous aether of the 19th century) had three properties. Among these characteristics, the aether had a non-material property, was "less than the vehicle of visible light", and was responsible for "generating metals" along with fostering the development of all bodies. [1] Robert Fudd stated that the aether was of the character that it was "subtler than light". Fudd cites the 3rd century view of Plontius, concerning the aether as penetrative and non-material.[2] Other 1800s views, such as James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, and Nikola Tesla, was of the disposition that the aether was more akin to it actually being the electromagnetic field.
This is the understanding of the meaning of the term that I have been discussing all along.
MileHigh
Wow five links in one post.
You have a new record.
:)
Now we say that "virtual photons" are exchanged to convey electromagnetic forces.
Call it what you want, but the vacuum isn't "empty".
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.14, 18:07:31
Wow five links in one post.
You have a new record.
:)
Yeah that's probably less than one link per incorrect definition of the word that's been discussed on this thread.
Extracts from an article by Paul Dirac, Nature, 1951, vol. 168, pp. 906-907
Quote"Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905,
notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and
the situation [about the scientific plausibility
of aether] has again changed. If one examines the
question in the light of present-day knowledge,
one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out
by relativity, and good reasons can now be
advanced for postulating an aether. . . .
We can now see that we may very well have an aether,
subject to quantum mechanics and conformable to
relativity, provided we are willing to consider a
perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not
attainable in practice.
From the experimental point of view there does not
seem to be any objection to this. We must make
some profound alterations to the theoretical idea
of the vacuum. . . . Thus, with the new theory of
electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an
aether"
'Nature abhors a vacuum' still stands as the basic start of everything.
Find an empty space and you'll break the laws of physics. I mean 'Really empty'.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.14, 18:50:59
Extracts from an article by Paul Dirac, Nature, 1951, vol. 168, pp. 906-907
Hi All,
If a vacuum was completely empty then nothing would travel through it. It would be a void. This is to me total bs, so something is there.
Looking into space there exist 3 dimensions, true if you only look inside of it. As there IS something else present WE ALL should ask some basic questions.
There is reported a total of 12 dimensions in physics. These are again reported as being grouped into 4 groups of 3. This to me is incorrect by virtue of our present discussion. Gravity itself is a perfect example. Its linked to electric charge/flow and is vectorially speaking at right angles to the centre of mass magnetic and electric fields. If the dimensional grouping is correct then the inherent parts of each group must be able to intermix forming a loose bond between themselves. TT Brown and others have examples of this. The Sweet unit required one winding energized for antigravity effects to take place. The stromerzeuger required a magnetic field from each flat spool although a flat copper plate is above each. All these have OU interests all these have some strange aspect in their construction utilising an extra dimension and reportedly all work.
If we start by agreeing there's more than 3dimensions at work then maybe something may be learnt from these more recent posts.
The only thing omnipresent is the ether, if we lived in Flatland observing everything in 2 dimensins and a 3d object passed Through our planes of existence it would be everywhere at the same time, think about it, that's very easy. Then try and step it up by one more dimension, that's wherre our physics gets above our understanding generally. Mathematically its easy and it fits so....
Steve.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.12, 03:24:05
IJust think about it. We can get a magnet on magnet interaction with ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTRIC FIELD. But we cannot get an ELECTRIC FIELD without evidence of a magnetic field. Surely that points to the magnetic force being a primary force?
If you truly believe this, then I suggest you find another hobby.
Grumpy - I'm not sure there's any point in repeating the question. But I'll give it a go. One magnet interacts with another magnet through space VERY ENERGETICALLY. It can move either one or both of those magnets that they move together - or for that matter - apart. When they do so - when they move through that space - as a result of their mutual interaction - then they are, effectively, magnetic fields 'CHANGING IN TIME'. Now. TRY as you might - use any methods of detection that you wish - speculate all that you want - THE SIMPLE FACT IS THIS. THERE IS NO EVIDENT ELECTRIC FIELD IN THAT MAGNET ON MAGNET INTERACTION.
Therefore. Changing electric fields ALWAYS induce changing magnetic fields. Changing magnetic fields DO NOT ALWAYS induce changing electric fields.
The concept of the electromagnetic interaction is BASED on the 'belief' that you can never separate these two effects. Maxwell even proposed that this was the mechanism whereby a photon was able to move through space. But no-one in the field of physics - that I know of - has actually addressed the fact that there's an entire dearth of an electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction. NO EVIDENCE. Therefore. If an electric field relies on a magnetic field before it can manifest - then a magnetic field DOES NOT rely on an electric field to manifest. Therefore - logically - a magnetic field would be the PRIMARY field.
I know perfectly well why you all need that electric field to be the cause and not the effect. It's to support the delusions that electrons are first required for any magnetic field to manifest. This inordinate love of that modest little particle. I'm not belittling the particle. But it's a MONOPOLE. It will NEVER NEVER NEVER move, of itself, into any kind of FIELD CONDITION.
And if you have any kind of respect for experimental evidence then nota bene - Grumpy. Whatever else comprises dark matter it absolutely CANNOT BE THE ELECTRON. If it were - then the entire world of mainstream physics would have that proof. Electrons are always tangibly evident. They've even PHOTOGRAPHED an electron. It would be visibly evident. IT WOULD NOT BE 'DARK'.
Rosemary
I give up trying to explain what a magnet is. Apparently you did not read the free link that I posted to educate you on magnets.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=220.msg7775#msg7775
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.15, 00:55:52
I give up trying to explain what a magnet is. Apparently you did not read the free link that I posted to educate you on magnets.
And apparently you did not read my own links or my posts for that matter where I pointed out that what you assume to be reliable educative material is all of it based on fallacy.
If we're to buy into an argument - then let the evidence and logic support it. I fail to find either the evidence or the logic.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.15, 00:49:01
Grumpy - I'm not sure there's any point in repeating the question. But I'll give it a go. One magnet interacts with another magnet through space VERY ENERGETICALLY. It can move either one or both of those magnets that they move together - or for that matter - apart. When they do so - when they move through that space - as a result of their mutual interaction - then they are, effectively, magnetic fields 'CHANGING IN TIME'. Now. TRY as you might - use any methods of detection that you wish - speculate all that you want - THE SIMPLE FACT IS THIS. THERE IS NO EVIDENT ELECTRIC FIELD IN THAT MAGNET ON MAGNET INTERACTION.
Therefore. Changing electric fields ALWAYS induce changing magnetic fields. Changing magnetic fields DO NOT ALWAYS induce changing electric fields.
Rosemary
Rebuttal:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c4 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c4)
QuoteFaraday's Law of Induction
The line integral of the electric field around a closed loop is equal to the negative of the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the area enclosed by the loop.
This line integral is equal to the generated voltage or emf in the loop, so Faraday's law is the basis for electric generators. It also forms the basis for inductors and transformers.
Changing magnetic fields DO ALWAYS induce changing electric fields.
And that's the way the cookie crumbles.
MileHigh
Quote from: szaxx on 2010.12.14, 21:54:44
The only thing omnipresent is the ether, if we lived in Flatland observing everything in 2 dimensins and a 3d object passed Through our planes of existence it would be everywhere at the same time, think about it, that's very easy. Then try and step it up by one more dimension, that's wherre our physics gets above our understanding generally. Mathematically its easy and it fits so....
Steve.
Hello Steve. I think that our string theorists propose groupings into three space dimensions with their own distinctive time dimensions. And - from what I've read - those dimensions can be as many as 34 and climbing. The point, I think, is this. Einstein and even our quantum theorists determined a 4th dimension that needed to be factored in - being TIME. And since it's observed that nothing exceeds light speed then time itself is relative to that speed. So. That's it. 4 dimensions max.
But here's the thing. If there's an aether and if it's all pervasive then it's also invisible. So. If it exceeds our detection then it must also exceed light speed. Now. Provided we structure in this new concept then, theoretically we suddenly have the potential of multiple timeframes that are no longer restricted to or relative to light speed. And space itself can then, theoretically be subdivisible to multiple levels of length/breadth and depth all operating within distinctive and separated time frames. Our string theorists play with these concepts. Effectively they're toying with concepts of aether but without using the word. God forbid.
Then as I've mentioned ad nauseum - the Caltech researchers and theorists proved the existence of yet another force. Dark energy from dark matter. Also invisible - also with the required particle that they have absolutely NOT been able to find. And this in all aspects relates to the aether fields that were early proposed to be the actual carrier of the electromagnetic interaction. But they're all still stuck. IF there is an aether or dark fields - call it what you will - then what exactly makes it invisible? But by rights what they should be asking is if there is gravity or if there is this nuclear force - then by the same token - WHAT makes THEM invisible? What they've depended on saying - thus far is that just as the electron is responsible for the electromagnetic interaction - there's a gravity particle and there's a strong force nuclear particle. Once you've got that particle then you're back to the 4 dimensional comfort zone. BUT THEY'VE NEVER FOUND THOSE PARTICLES. They're still looking. It's been an extraordinary search - spanning decades if not nearly a century. And they've found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Which means that they're now seriously considering that - just perhaps - there's a 'non standard' LOL particle that is fundamental to all these forces. This means that they're acknowledging - for the first time in this modern history of science - that perhas there are things that can, indeed, exceed light speed. And that's the confusion. And right now we're looking an one aspect of that general dilemma. It's to do with the fact that just perhaps they got electric current flow wrong too. Because it may very well be that this same INVISIBLE force is responsible for electric current flow as well. Perhaps it's got nothing to do with the electron being the cause of the electromagnetic interaction. And then they'll have to burn all those text books.
Rosemary
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.15, 01:46:29
Rebuttal:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c4 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c4)
Changing magnetic fields DO ALWAYS induce changing electric fields.
And that's the way the cookie crumbles.
MileHigh
I absolutely agree with this. No argument. But that's got absolutely nothing to do with my point. There is no electric field in a magnet/on magnet interaction.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.15, 01:55:37
I absolutely agree with this. No argument. But that's got absolutely nothing to do with my point. There is no electric field in a magnet/on magnet interaction.
Rosemary
There are changing electric fields in the air around the magnet on magnet interaction.
The atomic magnetic dipoles that create the magnetic fields associated with the magnets in the first place can sort-of be represented by a changing electric field. You can imagine a one-time expenditure of energy due to an imaginary electric field that had to "spin up" all of the electrons in the atomic dipoles in the first place. In some ways a magnet is like an emnergized superconducting inductor and it took some energy provided by something like an electric field to get it into the energized state.
No matter how you look at it, magnetic and electric fields are intertwined in both directions; electric fields are intertwined with magnetic fields. There is no asymmetry like you are trying to suggest.
MileHigh
Rosie,
Why do you say that "electrons" are the cause of electromagnetic interactions?
==========================================
The electron is a subatomic particle carrying a negative electric charge. It has no known components or substructure. Therefore, the electron is generally believed to be an elementary particle.
An electron in motion relative to an observer generates a magnetic field, and will be deflected by external magnetic fields. When an electron is accelerated, it can absorb or radiate energy in the form of photons.
==========================================
In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction and the basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.15, 02:18:04
Rosie,
Why do you say that "electrons" are the cause of electromagnetic interactions?
I don't say this. Never have. On the contrary. I go out of my way to deny this.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.15, 02:18:04The electron is a subatomic particle carrying a negative electric charge. It has no known components or substructure. Therefore, the electron is generally believed to be an elementary particle.
I know this. It's also got a mass of 1 a half spin, an antiparticle and it's considered to be stable into infinity. So what? I think we're all reasonably well versed in mainstream science. And I'm not arguing.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.15, 02:18:04An electron in motion relative to an observer generates a magnetic field, and will be deflected by external magnetic fields. When an electron is accelerated, it can absorb or radiate energy in the form of photons.
I also know this. So what?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.15, 02:18:04 In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction and the basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances.
Not sure of your point at all Grumpy. I think we all know what mainstream's take is on all of this. I thought we were discussing aether. And mainstream do not buy into aether concepts. Not yet - or not fully.
Rosemary,
I think you are missing the electron flow in an atom when you think of a permanent magnet. It is the electron circling the proton that gives rise to the magnetic field of the atom. It is not very hard to picture the electron or electrons circling the nucleus in a plane (like the solar system) especially in the ferrous metals. Which would produce a bipolar magnetic field, line all these little electromagnets up and you have a permanent magnet. So the moving electron comes first I would say. Electric field then magnetic field I don't see how it could be otherwise. ^-^
Hi,
Rosemary,
time isn't a dimension in my thoughts. It only exists so long as its changing. If stopped, any physical object can still be measured, x,y,z. What I was suggesting is add another dimension to these and therefore create an in or out vector. A classical interpretation of this is the proverbial ghost. (The most common example).
In field theory these seem to align at 90 degrees respect to each other so an underlying supporting construct which contains all of them could actually exist.
Imho this construct would have its limitations as to permit time as a function, restrained by a constant or limitation. Without this limitation everything would exist in all places simultaneously.
However there is a measurable limitation, so to speak, in a total vacuum. It HAS permeability and permativity therefore an impedance. This is around 440 ohms, (roughly) .
So if a wave can travel through a vacuum then while it exists this underlying construct must support its existence allowing it to travel. This is evident looking into distant space with telescopes.
There is also another theory that physical matter is standing waves, again this construct would support matter too.
Im sure you have read of the wave structure of matter as it fits with most if not everything in our known limited laws of physics.
Im interested if you have any comments on this as the construct may be better known as the aether.
Steve.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2010.12.15, 18:22:43
Rosemary,
I think you are missing the electron flow in an atom when you think of a permanent magnet. It is the electron circling the proton that gives rise to the magnetic field of the atom. It is not very hard to picture the electron or electrons circling the nucleus in a plane (like the solar system) especially in the ferrous metals. Which would produce a bipolar magnetic field, line all these little electromagnets up and you have a permanent magnet. So the moving electron comes first I would say. Electric field then magnetic field I don't see how it could be otherwise. ^-^
Room. Think of this. Take your average hydrogen atom and then make the proton at it's heart the size of an apple. Then circling that heart at a radius of about 8 kilometers is the electron. And if the proton is as big as your average Granny Smith - then that electron would be roughly the size of a split pea. So. ALL THAT SPACE? What's in there? Or is it just a vacuum - a great big empty black hole? IF it was nothing but space - then there would be nothing to prevent the electron from making a nose dive into the proton. They're oppositely charged and in a vacuum there'd be nothing to hold them apart. But clearly something is. So. Here's my proposal. WHAT IF? What if the electron itself is TRAPPED between two magnetic fields? But before you get there you'll have to propose that the magnetic fields are already there and that they've got a fundamental material property. The rest is easy.
We know that a magnetic field shares our space dimensions else it would not be able to influence anything at all. And it does. And in our dimensions of space we've got length, breadth and depth. That means that potentially there are three distinct possible dimensions to the magnetic field. Now. I've already proposed that atoms that are attached by this 'cosmic glue' are one dimensional magnetic fields. A single rope - a single line of only one of Farraday's lines of force. And this turns into a necklace which then orbits. And in orbiting it can neutralise the repellent valence conditions of two like atoms this based on the fact that one half of the orbit will always be opposite to the other. Therefore it has two optional charges. It can orbit as a figure 8 or it can orbit as a zero. And either way it can move into just about at any 'spin' or at any 'justification' as required to attach just about any charge - any valence condition - that could be around the outskirts of any atom at all.
So. To continue with that 'what if' thing. What if the hidden material properties of an atom are two dimensional magnetic fields. Length and breadth - and NO DEPTH. Then that shape would be 'like a saucer'. Then. Just perhaps the electron is trapped between these multiple ropes - a kind of 'choker' but with varying sizes in each concentric circle - that it takes the shape a simplified Elizabethan ruff.
Interestingly - if you then propose - as I've done - that all particles are structured from the fundamental magnetic particle - transmuted - but extracted from the quantum of magnetic particles in that 'saucer' - then - if the particles in this wide but hidden atomic field - were transmuted into more protons and neutrons and electrons - as each gained in complexity - then the more complex the atom - then. More particles would have been taken from that magnetic field and the atom would then be correspondingly smaller. And this indeed, fits with the fact. The iron atom is way smaller than our gas atoms.
Personally I find this a far more logical explanation than the manifestation of any field at all coming out of all that empty space - that 'black hole' around the atom - which is something you all seem to manage very well. And I've said it often. It's evident that you can all imagine a magnetic field resulting from nothing but the arbitrary directional spin of any electrons at all. I need to give it a material property or I can't manage it. I'm just not clever enough. It bends my mind out of shape. LOL.
Just one more thing - at the risk of making a long post even longer - as apparently I tend to do. There's this. We depend on identifying a magnetic field by being able to detect a distinct north and south pole. But we could never find any variation in charge in a pure magnetic field - assuming there is such a thing. Because each part of the field would be precisely balanced out by the other half. The only time we could find that charge difference is if there was some kind of separation of those orbits by matter. Something like a permanent magnet. Or something like our earth holding its own magnetic field - some of it outside and some of it inside.
Rosemary
Well Rosemary,
That is quite a theory, the biggest problem with theories is proving them. I have a number of theories of my own and I have to say they don't quite jive with yours. But it is interesting conjecture.
so. That's what I propose is the structure of the aether. And it's EVERYWHERE. Primary magnetic fields comprising a whole load of magnetic dipoles that only ever interact with each other. And then. Everything that we see - everything that we can measure - everything that moves at the speed of light - is actually being shaped and moved and arranged by these vast complex fields.
Here's the analogy. We're stuck in a room with a single window looking out at the sky. We've never felt wind. We don't know it exists. We know nothing about the properties of the atmosphere. We assume nothing's there. So when the wind blows the leaves across the sky - we think the leaves have their own energy to move across the sky. What would not necessarily occur to us is that first there's the wind and that the leaves do NOT in fact, have that innate energy to move anywhere at all. We've assumed that particles - those leaves - have their own energy quotient. What we've not allowed for is that they need that wind.
And the thing is this. IF those magnetic particles DO move at faster than light speed - then they definitely would not share our time frame. They'd be invisible - or DARK.
And I haven't even touched on the three dimensional field - the TORUS. But I'm entirely satisfied that like the one dimensional fields are responsible for the electromagnetic force - the 2 dimensional fields control the strong nuclear force - then 3 dimensional fields - that torus - would control the gravitational field. It simply moves all material bodies to the centre of that field. And that centre would be positioned exactly where every toroidal field is manifest. Gravity would be 'relative' to the size of the torus.
Just one thing guys. All we need is to assume that a magnetic field is made up of those little particles. And I personally think we see these particles every time we see a fire.
Rosemary
Edited. Sorry. I wrote 2 where I meant 3.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2010.12.16, 01:00:47
Well Rosemary,
That is quite a theory, the biggest problem with theories is proving them. I have a number of theories of my own and I have to say they don't quite jive with yours. But it is interesting conjecture.
LOL Room. There's plenty 'room' for conjecture. But - in my defense - I used our experimental evidence to prove the material property of a magnetic field. And it's not pink bunny rabbits I'm proposing. Both on the large and small scale - the evidence does seem to fit. But I don't expect anyone to buy in. It's just an enormous comfort to share the idea at all. Even if it's rather taxing on the time and the attention. So. Thanks for listening.
Rosemary
Rosemary I think all of us who believe in the ether think it is some very tiny particle or something and is probably able to move faster then the speed of light, it may be something that we can never really know because of where we are trying to observe it from. So lets just call it the ultamaton or something and go on from there. I believe this ultamaton is manifest in a magnetic field as the constituent of the magnetic field itself. And that works if you are right and the ultamatons are bipolar, like little magnets as they could be entrained by moving electrons. I don't think anyone believes the ether is electrons but if electrons can exert a force on the ether or ultamatons, then the ultamatons should be able to exert a force on the electrons and may actually have a hand in creating them somehow. If we learn how to manipulate this ether it doesn't matter if we can see it or prove it exists or even know what it is.
Quote from: szaxx on 2010.12.15, 19:23:32
So if a wave can travel through a vacuum then while it exists this underlying construct must support its existence allowing it to travel. This is evident looking into distant space with telescopes.
There is also another theory that physical matter is standing waves, again this construct would support matter too.
Im sure you have read of the wave structure of matter as it fits with most if not everything in our known limited laws of physics.
Im interested if you have any comments on this as the construct may be better known as the aether.
Steve.
Hello Steve. I nearly missed this post. Not sure that I could follow it all. Physical matter? Presumably you're referring to gross visible matter? Then if they're made up of 'standing waves' those waves are also variable and localised because that's the essential condition of visible matter. I just can't see the need for it. Yes I think that all apparent vacuums are absolutely FILLED with these fields of dipoles. And yes I think that they interact with matter. But I'm not sure about the 'wave'. What I actually need is an interactive moment of the particle with the field. Effectively all stable particles would need to decay back into the field - and then be re-energised and then move out of the 'reach' of the field. It would make the actual manifest particle 'discontinuous' flickering in and out of our measurable dimensions. Effectively it would decay and then become manifest. But so quick. Hardly noticeable.
Not sure if we're on the same page here.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.16, 01:07:34
LOL Room. There's plenty 'room' for conjecture. But - in my defense - I used our experimental evidence to prove the material property of a magnetic field. And it's not pink bunny rabbits I'm proposing. Both on the large and small scale - the evidence does seem to fit. But I don't expect anyone to buy in. It's just an enormous comfort to share the idea at all. Even if it's rather taxing on the time and the attention. So. Thanks for listening.
Rosemary
what experimental evidence is this that you speak of?
Quote from: Room3327 on 2010.12.16, 01:27:45
Rosemary I think all of us who believe in the ether think it is some very tiny particle or something and is probably able to move faster then the speed of light, it may be something that we can never really know because of where we are trying to observe it from. So lets just call it the ultamaton or something and go on from there. I believe this ultamaton is manifest in a magnetic field as the constituent of the magnetic field itself. And that works if you are right and the ultamatons are bipolar, like little magnets as they could be entrained by moving electrons. I don't think anyone believes the ether is electrons but if electrons can exert a force on the ether or ultamatons, then the ultamatons should be able to exert a force on the electrons and may actually have a hand in creating them somehow. If we learn how to manipulate this ether it doesn't matter if we can see it or prove it exists or even know what it is.
I like the name ultimatons. We use the word zipons - really to give the idea of 'zipping' matter together and then 'unzipping' it. But it's incidental.
I know why you all need the electron to 'entrain' as you put it, the magnetic field. It's because you all assume that this is the only possible means to 'exploit' the field. I fondly believe this is a misconception. Surely - if the thesis is half way right - then think of all that usable energy in the standard resistor - your household element - or your coils - regardless of the complexities of their windings. Effectively they would become an energy supply source. Imbalance their binding fields - and you create a supply source. That's what we do. We use the conductive properties of circuit material - specifically the resistor - to re-generate a cycle - but strictly in terms of inductive laws. What we're challenging is the concept that the energy from the supply is stored. If it was stored then let's suppose that the supply 'delivered' 3 watts. If 2 watts is measured to be dissipated as heat then one can only return 1 watt as stored energy back to the supply. But what is evident is that we can return 3 watts back to the supply AND dissipate 2 watts as heat. That means that the the material in the resistor has come into the equation as a supply source. Therefore? Why is there any assumption that this energy was stored? Now. Where does that vary from any classical requirement? It conforms to the principle of INDUCTIVE LAWS. And it conforms to Einstein's mass/equivalence requirements. AND it gives us MORE energy than was first delivered. That's got to result in something Over Unity. Very usable. And very scalable.
Rosemary
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.16, 02:27:40
what experimental evidence is this that you speak of?
Grumps? I apologise for upsetting you in my earlier posts. Clearly I was being 'high handed'. I'll try and do better.
We have our own experimental evidence that we published in Quantum magazine some 8 years back. (October edition 2002). Glen did a replication - but then denied that it was a replication - which effectively meant that he denied the thesis as its basis. Both tests widely accredited. I still am not sure if it's because he suspects I've got a valid patent or if it's because the numbers he got were subsequently disproved - or what. It's irrelevant. We're now doing our own experiments and, thankfully, this is on a CAMPUS - so when our report is out it will have considerably more respectability than has been managed thus far. And Thank God - the results are even better than any that we've managed before. In fact, right now, we're looking at COP INFINITY. LOL If and when the report is finished - then subject to some appropriate scrutiny - it'll be posted here. Actually - we'll probably go directly to the press as well.
Rosemary
There is a great deal to "induction" that is grossly unexplored. Technology just took off and many things were "glossed over" or entirely overlooked.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.16, 03:04:29
There is a great deal to "induction" that is grossly unexplored. Technology just took off and many things were "glossed over" or entirely overlooked.
I absolutely agree with this.
Rosie :)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.16, 03:04:29
There is a great deal to "induction" that is grossly unexplored. Technology just took off and many things were "glossed over" or entirely overlooked.
Can you offer up any examples Grumpy?
From my perspective if we just look at the "macro observations," for lack of a better term, induction and all of the other electromagnetic interactions that you can observe working on a bench are fully explored and understood. It really is a triumph of the application of reason, something that we should be proud of.
One of the "hurdles," I suppose, is that people doing experiments sometimes think that they are seeing unexplained phenomena because they are not experienced enough to distinguish the ordinary from what appears to be extraordinary.
I am not trying to pick on Rosemary but she has made allegations of "COP infinity." This is an error along the lines stated above. My interpretation of that is they measured no net power being delivered by the battery with the DSO captures, yet the load resistor was still dissipating a measurable amount of heat, hence the "COP infinity" allegation.
The first test to double-check that claim would be to swap out the battery for a large capacitor that was trickle-charged through a resistor. Then you run the test again and see if you have to trickle-charge the large capacitor to maintain a constant voltage across the capacitor. It would turn out that you would indeed have to trickle-charge the large cap, and then you could easily measure the power that had to be supplied to the circuit. The conclusion from that double-check test would be that there was no COP infinity. The second conclusion would be that the DSO data acquisition and/or the data analysis had a problem.
MileHigh
Electrostatic induction
We are told that induced current are always in a direction opposing the inducing current. That is not always the case. With electrostatic induction, current direction is based on the charge being balanced.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.16, 03:53:36
Electrostatic induction
We are told that induced current are always in a direction opposing the inducing current. That is not always the case. With electrostatic induction, current direction is based on the charge being balanced.
I am not quite sure that I am getting you. Are you sure that you aren't equating electrostatic induction and electromagnetic induction?
I would need to see a diagram illustrating your point but I am not asking you to do one. I have no fire in my belly about this at all. All that I can say is that I am not aware of any unexplained anomalies associated with electrostatic induction.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.16, 04:05:29
I am not quite sure that I am getting you. Are you sure that you aren't equating electrostatic induction and electromagnetic induction?
I would need to see a diagram illustrating your point but I am not asking you to do one. I have no fire in my belly about this at all. All that I can say is that I am not aware of any unexplained anomalies associated with electrostatic induction.
MileHigh
All fire for this is suppressed since birth, and it is going to stay that way.
If you have access to the works of Faraday, it is three volumes. He makes note of the direction of current when performing his induction experiments. Immediately at the closing of the circuit, the current in the adjacent circuit is the same direction as the primary circuit. This is during the rise of the voltage in the primary circuit and is attributed to electrostatic induction. Unfortunately, Faraday did not explore it further. This is not "unexplained", but rather "under explored".
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.16, 04:14:41
All fire for this is suppressed since birth, and it is going to stay that way.
Not if I can help it. LOL. The controls that can further validate this 'effect' are certainly NOT dependant on the application of a capacitor MileHigh. To generate the initial supply - that first cycle of imbalance - must come from a material that is innately imbalanced - such as an electrolyte. Because when it discharges it does not discharge to a zero volt condition. A capacitor does. How would you establish that resonating or rhythmical condition of resonance without a continual applied and opposing voltage? I've seen this argued - over and over. It makes me sick. A capacitor IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A BATTERY SUPPLY. All it does is stores charge and then it discharges charge. And if you put any capacitor in series with that circuit it would only probably manage to interfere with that required relationship between the source and the material in the resistor. In fact. I couldn't even be bothered to test this - it's that irrelevant.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.16, 04:41:01
Not if I can help it. LOL. The controls that can further validate this 'effect' are certainly NOT dependant on the application of a capacitor MileHigh. To generate the initial supply - that first cycle of imbalance - must come from a material that is innately imbalanced - such as an electrolyte. Because when it discharges it does not discharge to a zero volt condition. A capacitor does. How would you establish that resonating or rhythmical condition of resonance without a continual applied and opposing voltage? I've seen this argued - over and over. It makes me sick. A capacitor IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A BATTERY SUPPLY. All it does is stores charge and then it discharges charge. And if you put any capacitor in series with that circuit it would only probably manage to interfere with that required relationship between the source and the material in the resistor. In fact. I couldn't even be bothered to test this - it's that irrelevant.
Rosemary
You can believe whatever you want to believe Rosemary. I never said the capacitor has to discharge to a zero volt condition. I said the opposite, you would have to supply current to the capacitor with a bleeder resistor to maintain its output voltage. For the purposes of your test, the large capacitor would look like a "better battery." The large capacitor and the battery would look like essentially the same to the circuit, that being a source of potential difference to push current through the MOSFET switch and the load resistor.
In your blog you say this:
QuoteIt's the same circuit that we've always used - except that we're using a standard immersion element as our load resistor and we're driving the MOSFET with a functions generator. It seems to afford us much better control than the 555.
So if I understand you correctly you don't need a battery to establish a "resonating or rhythmical condition of resonance" anymore because you are using a function generator. Note the function generator is also supplying power to the circuit. I don't believe that there is a "required relationship between the source and the material in the resistor." You would have to provide some supporting evidence demonstrating that that statement is true.
If you really wanted to you could put a series resistor of something like 0.05 ohms between the large capacitor and the load to emulate the impedance of the battery you are using. You would have to measure the battery's output resistance beforehand to do that. You could check the waveforms between the two setups on the DSO and you could expect that they would be nearly identical. In all likelihood you would not be able to distinguish between the DSO waveform recordings for the capacitor vs. the battery-based setup.
The advantage to using a large capacitor for a measurement technique is that it eliminates the need to use a fancy expensive DSO to make precise power consumption measurements. Using a capacitor overcomes the inherent limitations of the DSO related to measuring very high-frequency signals including sampling errors, aliasing, and probe positioning. The large capacitor and the battery would "look" essentially identical to the MOSFET and load resistor, and the circuit would perform in an identical fashion for all practical intents and purposes.
Anyway, this is off topic, I will be waiting for the results of your testing. Just a reminder, if you don't summarize the power-in vs. thermal power-out measurements in your report like you failed to do last time then your report will have no credibility.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.16, 10:43:08
You can believe whatever you want to believe Rosemary. I never said the capacitor has to discharge to a zero volt condition. I said the opposite, you would have to supply current to the capacitor with a bleeder resistor to maintain its output voltage. For the purposes of your test, the large capacitor would look like a "better battery." The large capacitor and the battery would look like essentially the same to the circuit, that being a source of potential difference to push current through the MOSFET switch and the load resistor.
MileHigh. I can't argue with you because we're from profoundly different sides of this table. The analogy is this. I hit series of tennis balls across an open court. I then go around to the side where all the balls have landed - pick them up - and go back to where I started and hit all those balls again. The balls here represent DC current flow. But then I wise up. I decide to hit those balls against a wall that the wall can hit them back to me. I'm the battery. The wall is the conductive material in the load resistor. Now every time I hit the ball the wall sends it back to me. That way I just use one ball and can put in a whole lot of practice shots. And I can return those hits with the same level of force provided that I don't lose energy between hits. Thankfully every time the ball comes back to me from the wall - it also gives me that little bit of extra energy. A sugar high. A shot of adrenaline. The voltage spikes from 12 volts to >12 volts with each return of the ball from that wall. If I didn't 'recharge' after each cycle - if I didn't get it back with just that little bit more energy - then every time I hit the ball to the wall each hit would be with ever less force. A bad practice session. I'd hit it once or twice. That's it. Not enough force in my play. The wall just dribbles that ball back. No bounce. No force. Nearly as bad as that continual DC supply. That's what would happen if I used a capacitor. Interrupt the DC supply and introduce the 'wall' in it's path - the conductive material of the load resistor - and I can get that current back and some - that it's 'recycled'. Golly. I think that series of images may have got confused. But that's roughly what I'm trying to point to.
The point is this. The proposal is made that the current flowing from the battery has a material property - like a tennis ball. It's got properties of mass. When it moves through a circuit it simply 'goes back home' - to its source. All those balls only ever 'go back home'. They 'belong' to the source and they always head back there. In the same way - the load resistor has it's own supply of tennis balls. When they move away from their source - they're also headed 'home' but their home is back to the material of the resistor. The balls from the battery go clockwise through the circuit. The balls from the load resistor go anticlockwise through the circuit. That's the point. That's the 'aether' component of current flow. It's got properties of 'mass' that are related to the mass of it's source amalgam. It's intimately related to the number of atoms that are bound in that circuit material or the number of atoms and molecules bound in the electrolyte.
Now I know that this conflicts with mainstream concepts as the assumption is made that the source of a battery current flow is the negative terminal and the negative rail is thereby referred to as the source. I can't buy in. Because I know that when the second cycle of current - that current that comes from the load resistor - is introduced to the circuit it can ONLY find it's path through the intrinsic body diode - that little zener number in the MOSFET itself. That calls for an anticlockwise directional flow. And since this cycle is in direct opposition to the direction of the first cycle - I can see this over my shunt resistor - then the first cycle - the cycle delivered by the battery when the circuit conditions were closed - that must then be clockwise.
And I don't need the fancy expensive DSO to measure discharge recharge values - except that it certainly gives one a reliable measurement - a measurement that the manufacturer will hang his hat on. I need that specialised function in those fancy oscilloscopes where it can give me an instantaneous mean average voltage across my shunt resistor. Because this is what I use to 'tune' that resonating frequency. This is what shows me the required strength of the hit from that battery to the wall and back to the battery. That's what I look at when I'm trying to find the optimised switching condition.
And I have NEVER been associated with any paper or any report that did not give a summary of the results from the tests. Nor will I. But thanks for the advice anyway. And it's not actually off topic. The proposal here is that current flow is just another form of aether - this time magnetic fields moving through circuitry to establish charge balance throughout the circuit. But here - what we do is perpetuate the condition that it can't find it's balance.
Rosemary
Hi rosemary,
physical matter? Ok on that, poor choice on my part. Any element or elements from the periodic table.
There is a slow dissapearing effect in and out of our 3 dimensions reported with ORME's (orbitally rotating monatomic elements). If these are not some part of a researcher's joke then maybe your comment on speed can be addressed. They are found as a white coating on electrolysis plates, this is removed,dried in a dark location and when exposed to sunlight it dissapears with a flash of light. However if where it dissapeared from is cooled the white powder has somehow returned.
This sounds ........
Are you aware of this magic...lol.
steve
Quote from: szaxx on 2010.12.16, 19:53:01
Hi rosemary,
physical matter? Ok on that, poor choice on my part. Any element or elements from the periodic table.
There is a slow dissapearing effect in and out of our 3 dimensions reported with ORME's (orbitally rotating monatomic elements). If these are not some part of a researcher's joke then maybe your comment on speed can be addressed. They are found as a white coating on electrolysis plates, this is removed,dried in a dark location and when exposed to sunlight it dissapears with a flash of light. However if where it dissapeared from is cooled the white powder has somehow returned.
This sounds ........
Are you aware of this magic...lol.
steve
Hi Steve :)
Definitely never heard of this. Is there a link?
And another thing that I haven't covered is this. When the battery current kicks out that material from the resistor - it leaves a state of chaos in the resistor material. They were previously in there - holding those atoms in a condition of 'relative rest'. Now there are still parts of those fields remaning inside the resistor. And there's nothing to hold them apart and those remaining fields unravel. They've been destabilised. Their orbits have been interrupted. So. They lose their cold-fast-small state and get big and hot and slow. And we experience that unstable condition as heat. Hot enough - enough of an imbalance - and they'll absolutely leave that material forever. That's when wires short. The element burns. Actual flames. The resistor wire breaks. The 'light' goes out. The bound condition of that material is now compromised. Then the 'circuit path' for the flow of more current - is BROKEN.
BUT. The atoms that made up that material are still those same atoms. Nothing changed there. But the material that WAS there - those hidden fields that eluded detection - that WEIGHED NOTHING - they now leave that material.
Golly. I do hope that this is clear. I was sort of hoping to include this part in the previous posts and never did. And I also hope that anyone at all is still reading this thread. Seems like my thesis has done it again. Left everyone supremely indifferent to it. LOL.
Rosemary
ADDED
As a physicist, I have studied for many years the Lorentz-Ives Ether Theory (LET) vis-a-vis Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT). An American Journal of Physics article argues that there is NO crucial experiment as yet which is consistent with one theory and not the other -- and my own studies agree with that conclusion.
However, I have thought of a possible experiment -- it is just very difficult to perform this experiment since the effects involved are so small (defined by the term gamma in both theories).
Meanwhile -- I can say as a Physics Prof that the concept of the ether is still viable... you might hear it called "the vacuum" by today's physicists. It has definite properties and is not "nothing".
A special hello to Rosemary Ainsley -- I have been interested to read about your work and your struggles... I have had similar experiences in my fusion research... now retired.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.12, 03:24:05
I see this endless search for aether - and no actually discovery. It's need is mistakenly assumed to correspond to the availablity of limitless energy. We only need Einstein's mass/energy equivalence to find endless supplies of energy - and we only need the electromagnetic interaction to supply a never ending source of electric current flow. If the question is really 'what is aether' then it's just as appropriate to ask what is energy? What is the electromagnetic interaction - what is gravity - and so on? And we'd still be bereft of answers.
Why do we need more energy? We consider electricity to be a flow of energy, but is this energy actually consumed or just flowing? I don't think it is consumed, converted, but not consumed. so, why not just create the flow by a more efficient means?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.27, 04:04:36
As a physicist, I have studied for many years the Lorentz-Ives Ether Theory (LET) vis-a-vis Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT). An American Journal of Physics article argues that there is NO crucial experiment as yet which is consistent with one theory and not the other -- and my own studies agree with that conclusion.
However, I have thought of a possible experiment -- it is just very difficult to perform this experiment since the effects involved are so small (defined by the term gamma in both theories).
Meanwhile -- I can say as a Physics Prof that the concept of the ether is still viable... you might hear it called "the vacuum" by today's physicists. It has definite properties and is not "nothing".
A special hello to Rosemary Ainsley -- I have been interested to read about your work and your struggles... I have had similar experiences in my fusion research... now retired.
Hi Professor,
LOL I never thought I'd use that address on these forums. I'm actually very pleased with the way this thread went. It's the first time that I actually discussed any relevant aspect of that eccentric thesis of mine on this forum - and it was met with that familiar sense of 'disassociation' - where our members suddenly find themselves with a mouth full of teeth and the urgent need to move onto other matters. This most markedly shown in WW's posts. :) I'm knee deep in writing a report - which is an absolute pleasure to address as it's giving me an opportunity to discuss the merits and otherwise of open sourcing anything at all. I'm now of the opinion that Open source has more dangers associated with it than our media. And both only ever seem to pander to concensus opinion rather than logic. It's just that they both look at the issue from different sides of a very long table. Certainly both sides of that table enjoy the same level of conceit and 'fixed' opinion and both put an undue burden on our poor little electron. In any event - welcome. I won't actually be posting more about my experiments here. Poynty has outlawed the posting of my report until he's vetted it. And he requires us to use differential probes that are entirely out of reach. So. The good news is likely to remain unmentioned on this 'forum dedicated to researching over unity. Strange when you think that this is the first experiment that actually carries measured proof of anything at all. LOL.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.27, 04:31:13
Why do we need more energy? We consider electricity to be a flow of energy, but is this energy actually consumed or just flowing? I don't think it is consumed, converted, but not consumed. so, why not just create the flow by a more efficient means?
Grumpy? Here's the analogy. We look out of a window at the sky. But there appears to be nothing there. Then we see leaves being blown by the wind. And we can then logically conclude that leaves have their own energy supply - provided only that we know nothing at all about wind or atmosphere. In the same way - the assumption is made that particles have their own innate properties of energy and that they somehow provide their own wind. The proposal here is that the particle NEVER moves anywhere at all. It only decays. But when it decays it is then propelled by the field as it then reaches the 'mass/velocity' of the field that the field can move the particle. Then it 'slows down' and 'gets bigger' and then we can again see it in our dimensions. Then it expends that force - that interaction with the field. Then it agains decays - and so on. What is KNOWN is that particles are discontinuous. This is what is KNOWN. HERE's what an electron, for example, looks like. ****** They flicker in and our of sight.
If this is right - if it's the 'field' that moves the particle in the same way that our atmosphere moves the leaves - then we need to STOP focusing on the particle and look at the field that moves the particle. Where is it? What does it do? Where does it reside in space? And so on. The proposal is that one dimensional fields hold atoms together. If those atoms are conductive or inductive then we can use them to generate current flow. Then? What we're actually doing is moving those binding fields from one part of space to another. That's it. And in doing so we're changing the bound condition of those atoms. Fields move to establish a balance. An electrolyte is imbalanced. Therefore it moves to change the bound conditions of those atoms to establish a better balance. But when they move through conductive/inductive material they IMBALANCE that material. Then that IMBALANCE needs to adjust. So. Give it a chance. Break the flow of current from the battery. Then these fields move to re-establish the disturbance that resulted from the flow of current from the battery They've now become an energy supply source all on their own. They are not destroyed. They are simply moved through space - in this instance - our circuit. And in the same way that 'hot' condition of the resistor - those broken fields that remain - they also do not go anywhere unless and until the disruption is that extreme that they are forced out of the material itself in the form of sparks or flame. Then they're irrecoverable as they've moved to a different abode. This is an inevitable and systematic consequence of heat. It invariably compromises the bound condition of that material.
If - for instance - you apply spot welding to anything at all - then you are actually introducing 'fields' of particles, through space, to combine atoms together. You've actually added to the potential energy of that amalgam by ADDING these particles when they're in their HOT SLOW BIG state. Then they join up as fields - hidden - fast, cold. And they literally lose volume - in line with the shrinkage of that amalgam.
2 dimensional and 3 dimensional fields have different functions, different properties - but they all relate precisely to the known strong nuclear force and gravity It's really very simple.
I explained that very badly. Sorry Grumpy. Think of those fields moving through the circuit as if they're ball bearings on a conveyor belt. The belt moves in one direction - back to the source. Then a second conveyor belt moves other ball bearings in the opposite direction - back to itself. And so on. But when the electrolyte moves its binding fields it is first imbalanced - and looking to a better charge balance. These fields being imbalance find their path through balanced fields. They imbalance that field which, in turn, needs to re-establish it's balance. And so it goes.
rather than finding more ball bearings, build a better conveyor
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.27, 05:25:29
rather than finding more ball bearings, build a better conveyor
LOL. No. We can't improve on that conveyor belt. It's that sophisticated it moves at 2C. And we can't improve on that condition. If those belts are moving first away and then back to their source thereby perpetuating a charge imbalance - then we can use that 'resonance' for as long as we need it. The one side stays hot and the other side never finds that electrolytic balance. What could be better? We've effectively managed to keep those fields forever moving - forever forced to try and find a balance.
That's for the generation of heat. But theoretically then - provided it's hot enough to 'boil water' we would also then have a perpetual source of energy because steam can power a generator. And the only measurable loss to that system is then the 'bound state' of the resistive element. This will need to be replaced. Eventually. LOL.
We're looking at numbers now that absolutely give us infinite COP. i think this may be the proof that we're all looking for. One just needs to boil that water. But with 120 degrees centigrade measured on the resistor - then this is theoretically possible. It's not the force and fireworks that you guys keep looking for - and it does not come with a roll of drums and a tan tan tara. Just a subtle, modest little application that absolutely fits the bill. And it then speak VOLUMES about the field itself. We've hardly touched on its potential.
Regards,
Rosie :)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.11, 23:49:02
Einstein's theories have been proven.
I can't give you the super low-level answers that a physicist could give you. What I am telling you is that there is no aether. It's an outdated obsolete concept with its roots in the 19th century.
MileHigh
Not so fast, MH. I invite you to read the following paper which will explain your errors:
American Journal of Physics -- September 1973 -- Volume 41, Issue 9, pp. 1068-
The Rod Contraction-Clock Retardation Ether Theory and the Special Theory of RelativityHerman Erlichson
Department of Physics, Geology, and Astronomy, Staten Island Community College, Staten Island, New York 10301 map
Abstract
Full Text: Download PDF | Add to Cart (US$28) | View Cart
This paper is a historical and critical review of an ether theory which starts with rod contraction and clock retardation, and a comparison between this ether theory and the special theory of relativity. The two theories are generally equivalent since they both lead to the Lorentz transformation equations. The possibility of an experimental difference between the two theories may lie in a one-way experiment, and this subject is briefly explored with the tentative conclusion that so far it seems that no one has made a specific proposal for such a crucial one-way experiment nor has anyone conclusively demonstrated the impossibility of such a test.
© 1973 American Association of Physics Teachers
Unfortunately, the paper costs $28, but is well worth it -- or you can find it at a university library and make a copy. Well worth the read.
Here is the link to this paper:
http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v41/i9/p1068_s1?isAuthorized=no
I have studied the paper and used it in Physics classes during my university years. It is well written. I have communicated with the author and he stands by the paper, and well he should.
The Interconnected Universe (http://books.google.com/books?id=IVbgy42jB9EC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=%22The+Rod+Contraction-Clock%22&source=bl&ots=120grivw13&sig=46B78ksUlgVH8fjhCPkdG_tzP6k&hl=en&ei=m6EYTdSlGsSenQfF1JWnDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Rod%20Contraction-Clock%22&f=false)
Begin reading at the top of page 19.
.99
PhysicsProf:
Welcome to the forum. I won't be downloading the paper but thanks anyways. Nor am I an expert in these matters at all. What I can say is that my way of thinking with respect to stuff like this is to "go with the crowd." From what I can see scientists and physicists currently agree on the principle of relativity as postulated by Einstein. There may be legitimate scientific papers that can prove certain anomalies or things along those lines, but that doesn't mean that the main theory has been superseded by a new theory.
Not to question your link, but I am jaded in general with respect to people citing research papers on the free energy forums. Many times I can sense that they are just junk science. I have seen far too many papers that show "proofs" of over unity that on the surface appear to be legitimate. Whether they are legitimate science or junk science, I honestly can't follow all of the matrix transforms and partial differential equations anyways. You really have to be in that element and live it and breathe it like a true academic to be able to understand and appreciate it. I am willing to admit my limitations. You will find that on the free energy forums that people will sometimes "discuss" scientific papers that they can't understand because they have no background in science and mathematics. I won't do that myself.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.27, 16:25:11
PhysicsProf:
Welcome to the forum. I won't be downloading the paper but thanks anyways. Nor am I an expert in these matters at all. What I can say is that my way of thinking with respect to stuff like this is to "go with the crowd." From what I can see scientists and physicists currently agree on the principle of relativity as postulated by Einstein. There may be legitimate scientific papers that can prove certain anomalies or things along those lines, but that doesn't mean that the main theory has been superseded by a new theory.
How will we ever get to new knowledge if everyone is like you, just wanting to "go with the crowd"?
QuoteNot to question your link, but I am jaded in general with respect to people citing research papers on the free energy forums. Many times I can sense that they are just junk science.
...
MileHigh
[/quote]
Gave me a bit of a laugh, MH -- this publication is in the American Journal of Physics! highly reputable.
Again the reference, for those who are willing to go to a library and get the paper:
And you don't need to understand partial differential equations to understand this paper! algebra, yes.
QuoteAmerican Journal of Physics -- September 1973 -- Volume 41, Issue 9, pp. 1068-
The Rod Contraction-Clock Retardation Ether Theory and the Special Theory of Relativity
Herman Erlichson
Department of Physics, Geology, and Astronomy, Staten Island Community College, Staten Island, New York 10301 map
Abstract
This paper is a historical and critical review of an ether theory which starts with rod contraction and clock retardation, and a comparison between this ether theory and the special theory of relativity. The two theories are generally equivalent since they both lead to the Lorentz transformation equations. The possibility of an experimental difference between the two theories may lie in a one-way experiment, and this subject is briefly explored with the tentative conclusion that so far it seems that no one has made a specific proposal for such a crucial one-way experiment nor has anyone conclusively demonstrated the impossibility of such a test.
© 1973 American Association of Physics Teachers
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.27, 14:32:21
The Interconnected Universe (http://books.google.com/books?id=IVbgy42jB9EC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=%22The+Rod+Contraction-Clock%22&source=bl&ots=120grivw13&sig=46B78ksUlgVH8fjhCPkdG_tzP6k&hl=en&ei=m6EYTdSlGsSenQfF1JWnDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Rod%20Contraction-Clock%22&f=false)
Begin reading at the top of page 19.
.99
I enjoyed this reference, Poynt -- thanks.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.27, 19:06:38
How will we ever get to new knowledge if everyone is like you, just wanting to "go with the crowd"?
...
MileHigh
Gave me a bit of a laugh, MH -- this publication is in the American Journal of Physics! highly reputable.
Again the reference, for those who are willing to go to a library and get the paper:
And you don't need to understand partial differential equations to understand this paper! algebra, yes.
Hi Professor. I sort of feel compelled to come to MH's defense here. He's mission is to expose the fraudulent claim - especially if it carries some kind of monetary abuse. Much needed. The downside is that he's not really into theory. Which doesn't prevent him from commenting - at length. He's a relative stranger to the concept of an unanswered question. He'll tackle them all. Remarkably brave. And nor does he need to be right. He just needs to think that he's right.
Don't know why I'm defending anything at all. Certainly he won't appreciate it. It's just that it takes all kinds in open source. And you'll find out - in due course - those of us who are into theory and those who really, really don't give a damn. LOL. And I think MileHigh's opinions are really heavily entrenched. He's not likely to change - no matter the evidence. He also likes to remind us of this. Ad nauseum.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
I will remind you again about how incredibly rude it is to talk about someone in the third person. We've covered this before and here you are doing it again. Also, I have covered more theory during my education that you have ever been exposed to in your entire life, I am certain of that. I just don't pretend that I remember it all or that I can look at a complex equation and pretend that I understand it. I would actually have to review the material and go through it step by step.
You, on the other hand, are on a giant "flight of fancy" with respect to your "theories" and your MOSFET circuit. Your opinions about that are entrenched and you remind us about that ad nauseum. You did NOT present any data to back up your claim in your first go round at writing a paper. All that you did was point at squiggly-lines from a DSO and claim that they showed over unity. You refuse to try to measure the power consumption of your circuit using a large capacitor when there is not a single logical reason to not do that test. I think that you are afraid to do that test.
You claim that you are sometimes getting "COP infinity" where all the power supplied by the source battery is returned back to the source battery yet the inductive resistor is still dissipating heat. The reality is that is not true and it could be proven with the big capacitor test. It could also be proven with very careful measurements with a DSO done by an expert. When you are told this you blindly say that the equipment is first class and it can't be wrong. The fact is that the equipment CAN be misused by a non-expert when it comes to very critical high-frequency measurements resulting in the "garbage-in garbage-out" phenomenon. You seemingly don't want to accept this fact. If I had one week to work in a lab with good equipment I could perform the proper measurements on your circuit and show you clear and irrefutable data that the circuit is under unity.
PhysicsProf:
Like I said I am not going to read the paper but I stand by what I said: The 19th century definition of "aether" as a medium that is required to support the transmission of electromagnetic waves has been proven to be untrue. We understand how electromagnetic waves propagate in empty space and based on how we have defined our units we know the characteristic impedance of empty space. Just because there was one paper written in the American Journal of Physics in 1973 with some interesting ideas doesn't necessarily mean that our understanding about how EM waves propagate has completely changed.
There is indeed lots of room for further research into how and what the fields themselves actually are and so on. It doesn't change the fact that there is no "aether" as it was thought to exist in the 19th century.
MileHigh
:)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.28, 15:44:58
Rosemary:
I will remind you again about how incredibly rude it is to talk about someone in the third person. We've covered this before and here you are doing it again. Also, I have covered more theory during my education that you have ever been exposed to in your entire life, I am certain of that. I just don't pretend that I remember it all or that I can look at a complex equation and pretend that I understand it. I would actually have to review the material and go through it step bey step.
You may very well have been educated in theory MileHigh. It would be nice to be shown that evidence.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.28, 15:44:58You, on the other hand, are on a giant "flight of fancy" with respect to your "theories" and your MOSFET circuit.
Golly. Such strong sentiments. One could almost think that my flights of fancy matter. But you'd first need to read the thesis to understand it. And then you'd need to comment on where it is fanciful. Otherwise, with the utmost respect, your opinion here is as somewhat irrelevant.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.28, 15:44:58Your opinions about that are entrenched and you remind us about that ad nauseum.
Not true. I have only ONCE mentioned anything at all that is relevant to my thesis. And that was courtesy Grumpy's thread and not yours. But if that's your interpretation of 'ad nauseum' then it would be nice if you could follow my good example.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.28, 15:44:58You did NOT present any data to back up your claim in your first go round at writing a paper. All that you did was point at squiggly-lines from a DSO and claim that they showed over unity.
No MH. Also NOT TRUE. All you could read in that paper was, as you put it 'squiggly-lines from a DSO'. But that speaks to your abilities and NOT to the context of the paper.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.28, 15:44:58You refuse to try to measure the power consumption of your circuit using a large capacitor when there is not a single logical reason to not do that test. I think that you are afraid to do that test.
Of course I'm afraid to do that test. It will take away all the advantage of using a battery supply source. Here's the analogy. We generate steam from a pressure cooker. You now want me to take away the pressure cooker and generate the same force of steam. Not fair MileHigh.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.28, 15:44:58You claim that you are sometimes getting "COP infinity" where all the power supplied by the source battery is returned back to the source battery yet the inductive resistor is still dissipating heat.
Indeed. :)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.28, 15:44:58The reality is that is not true and it could be proven with the big capacitor test.
Not true. I've explained this above.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.28, 15:44:58It could also be proven with very careful measurements with a DSO done by an expert.
Many experts associated with this MileHigh.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.28, 15:44:58When you are told this you blindly say that the equipment is first class and it can't be wrong.
Also correct. If the equipment is duly calibrated and it has the required bandwidth capacity then the manufacturers themselves will guarantee those numbers within reasonable margins of error.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.28, 15:44:58The fact is that the equipment CAN be misused by a non-expert when it comes to very critical high-frequency measurements resulting in the "garbage-in garbage-out" phenomenon.
If you're that concerned that the equipment is misused then you must point out where.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.28, 15:44:58If I had one week to work in a lab with good equipment I could preform the proper measurements on your circuit and show you clear and irrefutable data that the circuit is under unity.
Very possibly. But you'd need to do this first. Else it just sounds like a another rather hollow boast. Perhaps one day you'll stun us all and climb out of that arm chair.
Meanwhile MileHigh may I pay tribute to your own remarkable reach at rudeness and crassness. I was only rather anxious to assure Prof that you're talents are not theoretical. It seems you've managed this yourself. And you've also managed to show all that talent for destructive and unwarranted cricitism and destructive and unwarranted advice.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
I read your fist attempt at publishing a paper in its entirety and nowhere in that paper do you demonstrate that you have conclusive proof of over unity. Myself and some others were shocked to read that paper and not see any data in it to back up your claims. That's why I told you that if you are going to do a new attempt at getting a paper published that it has to include real tangible data. I have also read your bizarre theories about magnetism and zipons and the amalgam and the whole nine yards many times. You make it a point to maneuver the discussion in that direction on many threads. I don't believe any of it. As far as I am concerned it's just a flight of fancy in your mind and nothing more than that.
QuoteIt will take away all the advantage of using a battery supply source. Here's the analogy. We generate steam from a pressure cooker. You now want me to take away the pressure cooker and generate the same force of steam.
Exactly, all that the battery does is supply voltage to the load. All that the large capacitor would do is supply voltage to the load, with the added benefit that you can measure the current consumption with a high degree of accuracy. The two are functionally identical. There is no "advantage" to using a battery. There is no logical reason to make this statement at all. Any energy returned to the battery would also be returned to the large capacitor.
I will just repeat that I think that you are afraid to use a capacitor because it will give you clear and unambiguous proof that the circuit is consuming power. When you compare that power measurement with the power derived from the thermal profiling of the resistor you will find that there is no over unity and it will be game over. The same measurement could be done with a DSO by a highly skilled person using differential probes.
The criticism is warranted Rosemary. Part of the function of a forum like this is evaluate claims of free energy. You are not the first person nor will you be the last to claim that a "magic inductor" can generate free energy. Bedini makes the same false claims using different catch phrases.
Meanwhile Rosemary let me pay tribute to your own remarkable reach at rudeness and crassness. That's the main reason you got booted off three other web site forums. Perhaps there are more than that.
MileHigh
And MileHigh the Michelson Morely test did not disprove the existence of aether. You may want to read this very excellent account in Wiki. The experimenters themselves were satisfied that they had not disproved the existence of aether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
Here's a quote from that article.
"Though Kennedy later also carried out an experiment at Mount Wilson, finding 1/10 the drift measured by Miller, and no seasonal effects, Miller's findings were considered important at the time, and were discussed by Michelson, Lorentz and others at a meeting reported in 1928 (ref below). There was general agreement that more experimentation was needed to check Miller's results. Lorentz recognised that the results, whatever their cause, did not quite tally with either his or Einstein's versions of special relativity. Einstein was not present at the meeting and felt the results could be dismissed as experimental error (see Shankland ref below). To date, no one has been able to replicate Miller's results, and modern experimental accuracies are considered to have ruled them out."
There is a common misconception that the famous 'Michelson-Morely' experiment disproved aether. It never did.
Rosemary
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.28, 15:44:58
PhysicsProf:
Like I said I am not going to read the paper but I stand by what I said: The 19th century definition of "aether" as a medium that is required to support the transmission of electromagnetic waves has been proven to be untrue. We understand how electromagnetic waves propagate in empty space and based on how we have defined our units we know the characteristic impedance of empty space. Just because there was one paper written in the American Journal of Physics in 1973 with some interesting ideas doesn't necessarily mean that our understanding about how EM waves propagate has completely changed.
There is indeed lots of room for further research into how and what the fields themselves actually are and so on. It doesn't change the fact that there is no "aether" as it was thought to exist in the 19th century.
MileHigh
Too bad that you can't be troubled to read the paper, MH. If you did, you would soon learn that the argument is not that the "19th century definition of "aether" as a medium that is required to support the transmission of electromagnetic waves " is being maintained today. I never said that, nor does the paper.
Indeed, you would find that physicist Herbert IVES contributed much to the original Lorentz theory and brought it to its present form -- which postulates that there exists an absolute reference frame (called an "aether") in which the Lorentz transformation equations apply.
That is the key: the Lorentz transformation equations, derived by Lorentz, are STILL TODAY an integral part of the Special Theory of Relativity -- even Einstein credited Lorentz for finding these equations.
The difference is that Lorentz (and Ives) postulated the existence of an absolute frame with certain properties, while Einstein said the aether concept was "superfluous" because one could not determine one's velocity with respect to the aether. I think experiments may yet
prove otherwise. In any case, so far, no one has performed the "critical experiment" AFAIK (and I try to keep up) between the two theories... And it is true, people generally hear about Einstein today and neglect the history of the TWO theories -- which, remarkably, have the same fundamental equations known as the Lorentz Transformations.
Can you admit, at least, that the Lorentz Transformation equations are an important part of today's Special Theory of Relativity?
Golly. I had no idea you'd actually tried to read the thesis. Very much appreciated MileHigh - even if you think it's nonsense.
Regarding the battery vs the capacitor. I really cannot use a capacitor as it discharges to zero. And the only way to prevent that would be to add yet more components and more confusions. MileHigh - we've got results here that beggar conventional understanding - on many levels. And right now I'm not sure that I'll even submit that report here on this or any forum. I've learned to my cost that open source is not necessarily the way to go. But it will be made public. I hope so anyway. Meanwhile - this thread is not about my tests. It's about the existence or otherwise of aether. And the existence of aether - I assure you - has NEVER been disproved.
And if I've been banned rather often from multiple forums - I think you share the same history. The difference between us is that I'm ACTIVELY advancing dark energy and you are ACTIVELY preventing the discussion of it. Both extremes are likely to be confrontational. And you REALLY need to brush up on your theory. It's wanting. On many, many levels. In the same way is my knowledge of math wanting. It's my only weakness. LOL.
Rosemary
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.28, 17:43:24
Indeed, you would find that physicist Herbert IVES contributed much to the original Lorentz theory and brought it to its present form -- which postulates that there exists an absolute reference frame (called an "aether") in which the Lorentz transformation equations apply.
That is the key: the Lorentz transformation equations, derived by Lorentz, are STILL TODAY an integral part of the Special Theory of Relativity -- even Einstein credited Lorentz for finding these equations.
The difference is that Lorentz (and Ives) postulated the existence of an absolute frame with certain properties, while Einstein said the aether concept was "superfluous" because one could not determine one's velocity with respect to the aether. I think experiments may yet prove otherwise. In any case, so far, no one has performed the "critical experiment" AFAIK (and I try to keep up) between the two theories... And it is true, people generally hear about Einstein today and neglect the history of the TWO theories -- which, remarkably, have the same fundamental equations known as the Lorentz Transformations.
Can you admit, at least, that the Lorentz Transformation equations are an important part of today's Special Theory of Relativity?
Golly Professor. I never knew this. Does that mean that Einstein subscribed to the aether as a basis for his theory? Persumably - if Lorentz first used it. I had no idea. That would mean that the Special Theory is based on aether - in a circuitous sort of way. Who would have thought it? And if so, then how was it envisaged? As a kind of 'wind'? with a fixed direction in space? Or just as something entirely static and everything moving through it?
QuoteDoes that mean that Einstein subscribed to the aether as a basis for his theory? Persumably - if Lorentz first used it. I had no idea. That would mean that the Special Theory is based on aether - in a circuitous sort of way. Who would have thought it? And if so, then how was it envisaged? As a kind of 'wind'? with a fixed direction in space? Or just as something entirely static and everything moving through it?
Not exactly -- here is a paper (among several) explaining the progression in Einstein's thought and writing on the ether:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3GRF.PDF
abstract:
QuoteAccording to conventional wisdom, Poincaré failed to derive a
relativity theory mainly as a result of his stubborn adherence
to the ether. In (1905) Einstein constructed a relativity theory
that was based on the assertion that the ether was superfluous.
In 1908 Minkowski formulated the theory of the "absolute
world". The nineteenth century ether no longer existed. A new
kind of ether (space-time) came into being. One could keep on
maintaining the ether, and at the same time strip it of the
notion of absolute rest. Einstein seemed to agree, and after
1916 he returned to the ether. In 1920 he combined
Minkowski's absolute world concept and Mach's ideas on
rotational movements: in order to cancel action-at-a-distance,
the inertial interactions between matter and fixed stars should
be mediated by a medium. Einstein called Mach's medium
"Mach's ether". In this paper I demonstrate that Einstein's
1920 reasoning hardly differed from the one Poincaré had
presented prior to 1905.
Dirac's aether is a sea of virtual particles.
(thanks PhysicsProf)
Good point, Grumpy.. Although I'd amend that to a sea of virtual particles, including virtual electrons, protons, etc.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.28, 19:13:54
Not exactly -- here is a paper (among several) explaining the progression in Einstein's thought and writing on the ether:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3GRF.PDF
abstract:
Very interesting indeed. It seems that the entire body of classical thinking depended on aether concepts. Right the way back to Newton. What intrigues me is that I see no difference between 'locality causes' and 'action at a distance'. If Einstein accepted the latter then - why not the former? And, as I understand it - that Einstein Podolsky Rosen effect number - that has been conclusively proved at CERN or somewhere. They proved the instantaneous positional change in some particle by only moving it's twin? Something like that. And that was at a distance of some 11 kilometers or thereby. Not sure of the details here Professor and would have to look it up again. What I'm trying to say is this. If gravity is able to communicate anything at all over a vast or any distance to move it - then? Is that 'message' delivered at the speed of light? It would be crazy. It would mean that there'd be a required delay before that message was received. Our entire universe would be moving 'out of kilter' - out of step with itself. And that's nowhere apparent. All is as steady as clockwork. So. Why not propose that this aether (or ether? not sure of the correct spelling) moves at superluminal speed. THEN. No question. All questions of locality are answered. I still think that the downside to classical concept is that they would NOT accept faster than light speed. And for that I think Einstein rather blocked the road. He's still my hero. I see him has forging just about everything in new physics. But he lost out there.
Rosemary
And Professor, may I say - publicly - what a pleasure it is to have someone of your calibre on Poynty's forum. Truly a very special honour. Hopefully we (I?) don't over tax you with questions. But personally I am much in need of guidance. And it's just so very, very nice to have someone to explain things.
Kindest regards and I hope your sojourn here will be long and not too demanding on your time.
Rosie
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.29, 05:02:04
And Professor, may I say - publicly - what a pleasure it is to have someone of your calibre on Poynty's forum. Truly a very special honour. Hopefully we (I?) don't over tax you with questions. But personally I am much in need of guidance. And it's just so very, very nice to have someone to explain things.
Kindest regards and I hope your sojourn here will be long and not too demanding on your time.
Rosie
Thanks so much for the warm welcome, Rosemary. I hope to contribute here as I have time -- and more generally to the community of free energy researchers. Still climbing the learning curve there. I really would like to see a breakthrough in the next year -- and maybe your device will be first, Rosemary!
I suspect that once one FE device breaks through and is confirmed, then others will soon follow. That seems to be the way of science throughout history. (One example -- superconductivity.)
A very nice forum, BTW -- thanks .99 and others!
Just thought I should throw in the "Junk" entries. Ignoring the "Makeup" of the aether, and just looking at the properties, certain things seem to be sitting in plain sight. It must have an affinity to mass. (Explains lots of measured effects.) The exact nature of this "affinity" is not so "Plain sight", but were I to even attempt to explain my thoughts, it would be considered "crazy" at this time.
This makes detecting certain attributes almost impossible, while in the proximity of mass. Makes it very hard on conventional thoughts. This does explain the known effect of the "Something" having inertia, without associated mass. (Requires a different concept of what inertia is, doesn't it...)
As far as speeds go, greater than C has been proven. (Noted many times around here.) This just means that "whatever" medium you wish to ascribe to has an all encompasing effect. Hard to explain in words, but easy to grasp, if one thinks along those lines. This is related to how to make use of electrostatic induction, as conversion from pure voltage to motion has already been accomplished and proven as well. Why is it so hard to imagine connecting to the actual base medium, not through an "agent", as having infinite velocity, from our point of view?
I really can't put this into words any better, so I'll just sit back, lurk and read, and learn what I can. My base vocabulary just isn't up to the task, as I know of no words that describe the concepts correctly. And one new piece of knowledge could change all of this, as I try to keep an open mind.
(To demonstrate how crazy I am, imagine if wave theory were correct, and therefore "virtual" particles were standard 3D standing waves, with an out of phase element. (This is where the aether comes in... What do you think is out of phase?) It would still be there, but not there. (Beardon looks at this from a dual-particle point of view. Yeah, Right.) Technically, there would be a lack of physical mass, while still having some of the properties of mass, depending on the phase mis-alignment. Obviously, there is more to it than that. I wish I could state this better. Most are already aware of what happens when you delay a signal, while feeding it and the original into bifilar winds that are connected at the end. No-one wants to make that connection... Tesla described this concept, originally, but in a different way. I'm certainly not going to be able to explain better, so ....)
Ok, enough of my insanity for this year.
Rosemary:
Here is what it says at the start of your Wikipedia link:
QuoteThe Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University. Its results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the theory of a luminiferous aether.
So you are cherry picking one paragraph. On the other hand if you do a generic search and start reading various links, you will fin that 95% of what you read states that various experiments throughout the decades of the 20th century solidified and confirmed that the the aether does not exist. As time went on the measurements got more and more accurate, putting nails into the coffin of the 19th century aether theory.
The other mistake that you are making is simply labeling anything that suits you as aether. That's simply nonsensical. We are discussing the 19th century speculation that electromagnetic waves needed a medium to propagate in. Akin to how sound waves need the medium of air. Any attempts by you to name any other effect or alleged phenomenon as aether should be discounted.
QuoteI really cannot use a capacitor as it discharges to zero.
This is the second time you are mentioning this. I have already responded twice. I will respond a third time: The capacitor does NOT discharge to zero because you are feeding it current through a bleeder resistor from a higher voltage source. Therefore the capacitor maintains its voltage and looks almost exactly like a battery. You can make a very accurate measurement of the current flow through the bleeder resistor and hence you can make a very accurate measurement of the power consumption of your circuit. Do you understand this Rosemary?
Quotedark energy and you are ACTIVELY preventing the discussion of it.
No I am not doing that. But what I will say is that you are cherry picking "dark energy" as a concept and alleging that it applies to your inductive resistor/MOSFET experiment. How you manage to make that connection is beyond me. At the beginning of my involvement in your project 1 1/2 years ago the term "dark energy" was never heard. Now you have "adopted" the term. There is not a single logical reason in the world for your experiment to manifest excess energy. Do you remember how you obsessed over the glass tube and it had to be the right width and have the right wire and use the right epoxy to manifest the "effect." You also needed to have a 555 circuit manifest "preferred quasi-random resonance" with the right "harmonics" or whatever terminology you used. Now you are using a signal generator and a conventional heating element that just happens to be formed into a spiral and not a peep out of you? What happened to all of the "secret sauce" elements that you were so sure that you needed to manifest the "effect?" It just so happens that the corkscrew form of a standard water heating element gives you a small amount of inductance so you probably get similar waveforms. Using a signal generator certainly does not give you "preferred oscillations." There was never any such thing as "preferred oscillations," that's just you inventing your own belief system to advance your cause. You also can't forget that using a signal generator injects AC power into the circuit and that has to be factored into whatever analysis you or someone else will be doing.
Sorry but your second go round at your absolute rudeness towards me prompted me to give you my true opinion of your ongoing "project" that has been running on a second wind for the past 1 1/2 years. You've got nothing, just a ringing inductive resistor from a switching MOSFET. Stripped down it's just a voltage source, a MOSFET switch, and a resistive load that has some inductance associated with it. Any notion that that setup can produce excess energy is pure nonsense. If somebody you work with makes the DSO measurements properly or uses a large capacitor in place of the source battery to make proper measurements, then the whole enterprise will finally come grinding to a halt.
MileHigh
Oh dear God. MileHigh. The wiki link states unequivocally that ALL tests on the aether gave ambiguous results due to the 'smallness' of the effect against the error margins associated with it. I am not prepared to argue this. Think what you like. But there have been NO conclusive tests that disproved the existence of aether.
I have known of the correspondence between my thesis and DARK ENERGY since I learned about dark energy some four or five years ago. It's that novel and that little recognised that it was not included in any of the layman's literature that I used to learn about physics. But there is very little correspondence between my take and mainstream's. I keep reminding you. They're looking for an 'invisible' particle. It's logically absurd. I've proposed that the particle is invisible in a field condition. I've ALWAYS proposed that. It's visible out of the field. I've ALWAYS proposed that. And it's got thermal properties as well as properties of charge, mass and velocity. These are ONLY measurable out of the field. They can only be inferred in a field. I've ALWAYS proposed that. And that absolutely DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO ANY THEORY I HAVE EVER READ.
Glen Lettenmaier and Harvey Gramm may have required precise measurements of their resistors. I have ONLY EVER INSISTED THAT THE REQUIRED RESONANCE is NOT related to any precise measurements. In fact, in my noisy defense of this matter throughout all threads I have insisted that any resistors could be used. What's needed is to find the resonance that is most effective to any particular resistor but that all have this potential. We used many different types of resistors to very good effect. The best was our final resistor which got us COP>17. Right now we're using a resistor that's giving us COP infinity. It's better yet. But by the same token I've used resistors where I've struggled to find COP greater anything at all. Do NOT confuse my own account of these tests and component requirements with either Harvey or Glen. They've got an awful lot to say about what's required. I suspect Glen was rather hoping to manufacture the cores out of glass as his son is able to do this. But I'm not sure that even he stipulated it as required. What was debated was the width of the core. And I have proposed that this may need to be 'as wide as possible' to allow for the collapsing fields. But that was never an insistance. It was only suggested that it be explored.
I wonder why you think that these kind of posts of yours are needed MileHigh? Is it because you think I am capitalising on this? Do you think that I'm exploiting the public and soliciting funds - or begging for money? Do you think that I'm that mad that I'd be spending every waking moment on progressing this knowledge because I'm madly deluded? Do you, from the general tenor of my articulate and reasonable writings - also read this as some kind of wild lunacy? Why would I waste my life, or what little is left of it - trying to progress this knowledge if I did not see merit in it. Surely you must appreciate that I'm not on a wild ego trip. I am passionately interested in something that I feel rather priveleged to have seen. I am MOST anxious to share these insights. I KNOW that they are essentially beneficial. But nor do I force them down anyone's throat. It's there for the picking - or not. I have not even TRIED to get the thesis published. I KNOW my limitations. If I'm a Faraday - then the thesis needs a Maxwell. I only want to progress an undestanding that I am entirely satisfied will benefit science generally. Whoever take the credit for those insights - well and good. I am happy to have my skills underestimated or entirely unrecognised. I am not out for fame or fortune. But I am not happy to have those many of you on this forum assume an entire dearth of knowledge of skill. And that's what you do. It's ALL you ever do. I ask you again. Please just ignore my posts. Clearly they are only ever read with undue and inappropriate antagonism. I DO NO-ONE ANY HARM with my thesis MileHigh. But you REPEATEDLY do me harm. And it is entirely abusive and entirely unjustified and your complaints are entirely inappropriate. Just leave me be - unless of course you can prove that I'm a poseur or a con artist or a scam artist or whatever you think I am then just leave me to share what I want and can as best as I can.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
I don't think that you are out to steal money, so that's good. But you are off on a wild goose chase, that's for sure. You are out of your element when it comes to electronics and making precise measurements and you only have a limited understanding of energy concepts in general. I recall several months ago when you posted a letter that you sent out to some professors in your attempts to drum up some renewed interest in the project. In the three or four paragraphs of the letter, you made about three huge technical mistakes that shot your credibility as an energy researcher down to zero. So here you are supposedly an energy researcher and you can't even compose a letter where you can properly articulate concepts about energy. That illustrates how you have a limited understanding in these matters and it's the harsh truth. You annoyed me after we had already been through the issue of your extreme rudeness by referring to me in the third person and I thought that we had resolved it. This was only a month or so ago, did you forget? So I got angry and told you in no uncertain therms that your project has no merit whatsoever. I have never changed my stance on your project and I haven't expressed my opinion about it strongly in a long time. So you got a good reminder. I am content to wait to see if you ever will post or publish a report. Make no mistake, the report that you attempted to publish with Glen and Harvey did not state your power in vs. power out measurements. I read the report and was totally baffled that a report that was supposed to be making a claim of excess energy production never actually showed power in vs. power out. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to claim that this is not true. Any reasonably astute person can read your report and they will come to the same conclusion as me.
The "Perendev motor" guy spent a few thousand dollars to make an impressive looking fake magnet motor. He put up some fake clips on YouTube that any reasonably astute person would question and yet he still managed to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from gullible people. He was busted and thrown in jail in Germany. His clips are still in circulation on YouTube and there are still people that want to believe. You are not stealing any money from anybody that's for sure. But you still deserve to be busted and swept into the dustbin of history. Your circuit does not produce any excess energy. You are doing a disservice to people by misleading them. I can only hope that real engineering students are analyzing your setup with the assistance of their professors and they make the right measurements with the right techniques and then this whole thing will finally be exposed as having no merit whatsoever, showing no production of excess energy. Your allegations of "COP infinity" are ridiculous nonsense, and hopefully that will be revealed by the students and staff at the university.
MileHigh
Well. Let history prove which one of us is right. Right now MileHigh you are ASSUMING. And you're making assumptions on NOTHING but your opinions. And your opinions are baseless and biased. I am well able to do power analysis. In fact, let me correct that. I have always done a mean average of the power across the shunt. I have now learned that it is preferred to do integral analysis. And thanks to Poynty's advices, I've finally got my head around this and am now well able to do this from our spread sheet data. So. Our numbers are based on even more stringent analysis than that which we applied earlier and the earlier analysis is itself considered to be sufficient by most power engineers.
And I would remind you. I am an amateur. Self confessed. Were I an expert then indeed my poor standard of presentation may be inexcusable. As it is - I am happy that there's no pretentions in my efforts. And I would remind you that Faraday was an amateur. And there were many amateurs who've made contributions to science. Even Einstein was an amateur when he published his first paper on Brownian motion. Indeed I've much to learn. But I attend to this as best I can. You deny that there's anything left that's worth learning. We're really from very different ends of an argument.
And let me finally and for all time put your problem regarding definitive measurements to bed. Our paper included reams and reams of spread sheet data deliberately intended to allow the reviewers the opportunity to VET the results for themselves. The paper explained HOW the measurements were taken. And the paper ALSO INCLUDED THE CLAIM THAT THE RESULTS WERE COP>4. The TIE paper also included the qualification that the COP>4 was the result of an averaging that was deliberately applied to give a conservative value. It's all there. You expected a SCHEDULE of results. We did not give a schedule. We gave the ACTUAL data. ENTIRELY ACCEPTABLE PROTOCOL and in the light of the contentious nature of the claim it's not only acceptable - it's preferable.
Rosemary
PhysicsProf:
QuoteCan you admit, at least, that the Lorentz Transformation equations are an important part of today's Special Theory of Relativity?
I only glanced briefly at some of this stuff. I'm sorry but I have to go back to the original frame of reference (no pun intended) where attempts were made do detect the alleged aether based on the idea that the Earth in orbit was moving through the aether and these tests failed to prove that this notion of aether exists.
You are making reference to two possible models to explain real-world observations and I just don't have the drive or the stomach to tackle the issue that deeply. Certainly I am aware that you can often use two different models to explain experimental results. To resolve these kinds of issues you have to keep on digging further.
I am out if gas with respect to the debate about the aether. About two or three weeks ago on this thread I posted links about the non-existence of the aether if anybody wants to read them.
Just from the Wikipedia reference I am concerned about the Apeiron journal as a reference for scientific information:
QuoteApeiron: studies in infinite nature (ISSN 0843-6061) is the name of a scientific journal and publisher of books on studies in infinite nature. It is a quarterly international publication started in 1987. Apeiron publishes theoretical and experimental work in a wide variety of fields within physics, but is especially noted for publishing alternative theories of cosmology, relativity, and quantum mechanics.
Apeiron uses a peer review system involving internationally established researchers, most of whom, however, cannot be regarded as mainstream. Apeiron has become a forum for "dissident" researchers and opinions not accepted by the conventional system. Apeiron has had notable contributions from authors involved in the early work of quantum mechanics and relativity such as Jean-Pierre Vigier.
Apeiron is not indexed by the Web of Science abstract and citation database.
It would appear that they are outside of the mainstream. I am not at all saying that everything they publish should be discounted, but certainly if you are following up on something it should be double and triple checked with other sources.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.30, 00:26:46
PhysicsProf:
I only glanced briefly at some of this stuff. I'm sorry but I have to go back to the original frame of reference (no pun intended) where attempts were made do detect the alleged aether based on the idea that the Earth in orbit was moving through the aether and these tests failed to prove that this notion of aether exists.
You are making reference to two possible models to explain real-world observations and I just don't have the drive or the stomach to tackle the issue that deeply. Certainly I am aware that you can often use two different models to explain experimental results. To resolve these kinds of issues you have to keep on digging further.
I am out if gas with respect to the debate about the aether. About two or three weeks ago on this thread I posted links about the non-existence of the aether if anybody wants to read them.
Just from the Wikipedia reference I am concerned about the Apeiron journal as a reference for scientific information:
It would appear that they are outside of the mainstream. I am not at all saying that everything they publish should be discounted, but certainly if you are following up on something it should be double and triple checked with other sources.
MileHigh
MileHigh - WHERE did Professor refer to wiki? Only I referred to wiki. Are you trying to insinuate that Professor is endorsing articles from the Apeiron journal? I only saw his reference to published papers.
An interesting comment on the ether by Feynman while discussion the "parton"; he refers to the ether as "an irrelevant complication..."
From the Book: Selected Papers of Richard Feynman"
;)
.99
;D I like this article (http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html), and this guy's style.
And this one (http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michelson.html) on the M&M experiment.
Interesting the tricks played to make nature conform to man's ambitions ;)
.99
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.30, 00:41:10
MileHigh - WHERE did Professor refer to wiki? Only I referred to wiki. Are you trying to insinuate that Professor is endorsing articles from the Apeiron journal? I only saw his reference to published papers.
Rosemary,
PhysicProf's link is to an Apeiron journal article:
QuoteApeiron, Vol. 8, No. 3, July 2001 19
© 2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
Einstein's Ether:
F. Why did Einstein Come
Back to the Ether?
MileHigh
UN-DOING MATH (http://www.aquestionoftime.com/undoingmath.html), and Einstein's constant.
.99
;D
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.30, 01:06:38
An interesting comment on the ether by Feynman while discussion the "parton"; he refers to the ether as "an irrelevant complication..."
From the Book: Selected Papers of Richard Feynman"
;)
.99
I think Feynman was right.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.30, 05:38:32
I think Feynman was right.
I would love to understand what actually goes on in these forums. It seems that it's enough for Poynty to post a transcript of an isolated conversation with Feynman - and then some spurious argument by Zwieg - for all to then conclude that any support of aether concepts is wrong. What intrigues me is this. Einstein himself did not need that aether. Not for his General Theory. But nor was that theory ever proven. It was his abiding and dying regret. And the other thing is that Zwicky - the guy who first found out about the need for 'missing matter' - he published at the same time as - in fact a little before - quantum theories were being forged. Why did everyone overlook his findings? My own take is because it simply was not popular. It would have contradicted both the classical and quantum needs. In effect - even our Greats eschew the evidence in favour of the 'belief'. What actually bugs me is that Zwieg claims that Einstein denied his dependence on Lorentz. Prof assures us he acknowledged this. And frankly it bothers me then that Zwieg is propagandising. Nor do I think that his runner messengers is an appropriate analogy. That was precisely the miracle of Einstein's constant. It was NOT relative to anything at all. Only space and time was relative. Once light 'hit' that vacuum - then regardless of it's 'speed of entry' it defaulted to that cosmological constant.
In any event. Beyond this endless debate about whether or not aether exists - is the simple fact that it is MEASURED TO BE THERE. Something fills the vacuum of space that has, hitherto, be undetectable. So? What do we do with that evidence? Ignore it? Quote long dead science greats and better still follow in their footsteps becasue they ignored it? May I remind you all. Dark matter is conclusively evident around our galaxies. Confusingly - it is also conclusively evident within the vacuum of space itself. All proved through the use of gravitational lensing. Conservatively it is measured to constitute a little more than 90% of all the matter in our universe. This is absolutely KNOWN based on proven evidence. What's debatable still is the particle that is responsible for all that matter. And it sure as hell needs to be really, really plentiful. So. What I'm saying is that the existence of Dark matter is not debatable. And it seems to have the required property of filling the vacuum of space and that's also not debatable. What's debatable is whether or not one calls this dark energy or aether which - in my book is immaterial. If it's there it must be doing something to influence the speed of photons that move through it. And it sure as hell is not frustrating that movement. If anything it seems to allow those photons to just keep moving.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.31, 02:02:29
It seems that it's enough for Poynty to post a transcript of an isolated conversation with Feynman - and then some spurious argument by Zwieg - for all to then conclude that any support of aether concepts is wrong.
Not why I posted a smiley. I did so to indicate my delight in seeing another document demonstrating how the math and the model didn't fit reality. Still, it solves.
Feynman was right. It was an irrelevant complication for the boundaries of those physics. Boundaries aren't my thing ;)
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.31, 02:57:28
Not why I posted a smiley. I did so to indicate my delight in seeing another document demonstrating how the math and the model didn't fit reality. Still, it solves.
Feynman was right. It was an irrelevant complication for the boundaries of those physics. Boundaries aren't my thing ;)
Nor apparently is logic. If an electron induces a magnetic field - what is that field? Wind? Then how does wind come out of nothing? In my book that's exactly the same thing as saying energy can be created from nothing. And I think that even mainstream rather outlaws that argument. For some reason the assumption is made that the electromagnetic interaction is a kind of magic. It's the genii giving Alladin his castles in the air. It produces it's 'magnetic moment' from nothing? And yet that moment can fill a lot more space than the electron itself? Then it kind of 'trails in the wake' of the electron or whatever. The photon. Any particle. And - because that concept - that particular piece of magic is difficult to accept - because it defies logic - then that precisely overqualifies it for being the correct answer? Because all we're actually trying to do is pretend that the Emperor is wearing anything at all? (LOL. That's got to be the most confusing series of mixed metaphors ever strung together. LOL. At least it's given me a laugh)
In any event. Quantum mechanics simply got out of the argument. They claimed that there was too much that could never be known. By the same token classicists climbed out of the argument by saying that they could do without the field. And not surprisingly neither side accept the implications of all that dark energy. They're really busy trying to ignore it. That Caltech team are having a hard time of it trying to get their colleagues to sit up and pay any attention at all. And none of them actually have any answers for us. Or. There are no answers that actually make any sense. The real joke is that you all take these partial explanations are absolute. Not even they do. None of them. Yet they've got this almost religious following of fanatics that quote them all over the place as if they actually do have answers. LOL. And then you justify all this indifference by misquoting them or by pointing at spurious argument - or by claiming adherence to the philosophies of those really bad philosophers. And so it goes. We're doomed as a species when so much ego gets in the way of common sense.
Rosemary:
I suggest that you try following this link:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C2CEECFD938FD494 (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C2CEECFD938FD494)
Get through all of the material in the above link and then you will be in a better position to discuss this stuff.
MileHigh
Aether...
It's not just for breakfast anymore.
Look at this way. During resonation there is an applied pressure to the atomic fields that stresses the natural, magnetic, electrostatic balance. Its like compressing gas to get fluid and then releasing the pressure. We simply connect with the fluidic pressure, the fluctuating space between the spaces. It is there because we made it. We use harmony to create harmony. If it doesn't move we don't see it. Yet. One day there will be a set of tools to measure or see it at its static presence. But for now we have to rock and roll it. :o
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 04:42:56
Rosemary:
I suggest that you try following this link:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C2CEECFD938FD494 (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C2CEECFD938FD494)
Get through all of the material in the above link and then you will be in a better position to discuss this stuff.
MileHigh
MileHigh - exactly WHAT is in those lectures that I don't already know? Except obviously that it lacks any kind of explanation for the field itself. If I didn't know better I'd think you're trying to educate me on mainstream confusions. But as you know, I'm well aware of them. I keep pointing them out. I don't need even more excuse to do so. It's you who need to look at those lectures and just keep looking. That way you'll never have to question anything at all - least of all the basis of all that confusion. LOL
What you actually need to do is find that link that explains dark energy. Then I'll look at that series of videos with great interest. The question is whether you will. I don't think you dare.
Didn't we have an agreement to ignore each other? Or was I just being hopeful? The trick is when you see the name 'aetherevarising' - then just move along. Don't read it. I'm of the opinion that you're that rigid that NOTHING will ever intrude on your sense of sureness. Like the Inquisition before you MileHigh - it only thrives on opinion - and the systematic abuse of anyone having an alternate opinion. And frankly I'm tired of all that abuse. And all that opinion. I think the time is long overdue when we actually just start asking a few simple questions. Much more wholesome. But absolutely NOT for the faint hearted.
NOT For your average intellectual coward.
Rosemary
ADDED
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.01.02, 04:54:43
Aether...
It's not just for breakfast anymore.
Look at this way. During resonation there is an applied pressure to the atomic fields that stresses the natural, magnetic, electrostatic balance. Its like compressing gas to get fluid and then releasing the pressure. We simply connect with the fluidic pressure, the fluctuating space between the spaces. It is there because we made it. We use harmony to create harmony. If it doesn't move we don't see it. Yet. One day there will be a set of tools to measure or see it at its static presence. But for now we have to rock and roll it. :o
Giantkiller:
I put some real effort into this thread so I will comment on what you said. The first thing that comes to mind you also should look at that link that I just posted. Of course there is a lot of material there so perhaps you could try to digest it in small chunks. The point is that it's the real thing. What you are saying above doesn't really make any sense. It's all very cool and New Age sounding but when you really dissect what you say above, there is nothing there. I am sorry if I am offending you but this is a serious issue. The more you learn the better off you will be.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 05:53:41
Giantkiller:
I put some real effort into this thread so I will comment on what you said. The first thing that comes to mind you also should look at that link that I just posted. Of course there is a lot of material there so perhaps you could try to digest it in small chunks. The point is that it's the real thing. What you are saying above doesn't really make any sense. It's all very cool and New Age sounding but when you really dissect what you say above, there is nothing there. I am sorry if I am offending you but this is a serious issue. The more you learn the better off you will be.
MileHigh
I seem to recall you saying that you're 'out of steam' or some such in arguing the aether. Pointing to mainstream opinion doens't cut it. You'd need to ignore the extraordinary measurements taken by Ellis et al that proves the existence of SOMETHING - whatever it is - that FILLS ALL OF SPACE? Do you just ignore this? Because like Al Gore's argument it's an 'inconvenient truth'?
Quite apart from which - you're very quick to advise us all on what to read. Don't you think you should get up to speed here yourself MileHigh? And if all this effort that you've put into this thread is centred on finding mainstream links - then don't bother. We've got whole LIBRARIES all over the world that - right now need to be re-written. And that's not my opinion. I'm loosely quoting Kaku. So. Showing us how much is written does not thereby prove that all that theory is even half way right.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.02, 05:43:12
MileHigh - exactly WHAT is in those lectures that I don't already know? Except obviously that it lacks any kind of explanation for the field itself. If I didn't know better I'd think you're trying to educate me on mainstream confusions. But as you know, I'm well aware of them. I keep pointing them out. I don't need even more excuse to do so. It's you who need to look at those lectures and just keep looking. That way you'll never have to question anything at all - least of all the basis of all that confusion. LOL
What you actually need to do is find that link that explains dark energy. Then I'll look at that series of videos with great interest. The question is whether you will. I don't think you dare.
Didn't we have an agreement to ignore each other? Or was I just being hopeful? The trick is when you see the name 'aetherevarising' - then just move along. Don't read it. I'm of the opinion that you're that rigid that NOTHING will ever intrude on your sense of sureness. Like the Inquisition before you MileHigh - it only thrives on opinion - and the systematic abuse of anyone having an alternate opinion. And frankly I'm tired of all that abuse. And all that opinion. I think the time is long overdue when we actually just start asking a few simple questions. Much more wholesome. But absolutely NOT for the faint hearted. NOT For your average intellectual coward.
Rosemary
ADDED
Rosemary:
You barely know any of the material in those lectures. So I suggest that you also look at them slowly in manageable chunks. They should be very helpful for you. Before you start branching off with new ideas, you are supposed to at least try to have a mastery of or at least an understanding of electromagnetics in general. That's normally how things work in both the arts and the sciences. It's up to you, I'm not twisting your arm. It would be wise on your part to bookmark the link.
I would be more than happy to read up more on Dark Energy and Dark Matter one day. I can tell you for sure it has absolutely nothing to do with your MOSFET-inductive resistor experiment.
Here's a few tasty tidbits, it really is a fascinating subject:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/dark-matter-mystery.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/dark-matter-mystery.html)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/massey-dark-matter.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/massey-dark-matter.html)
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 06:10:06
Rosemary:
You barely know any of the material in those lectures. So I suggest that you also look at them slowly in manageable chunks. They should be very helpful for you. Before you start branching off with new ideas, you are supposed to at least try to have a mastery of or at least an understanding of electromagnetics in general. That's normally how things work in both the arts and the sciences. It's up to you, I'm not twisting your arm. It would be wise on your part to bookmark the link.
I assure you that I understand everything in those links other than the equations to express the concept. But since he started off suggesting he was going to deal with the concepts and since I absolutely DO understand those concepts - then I do also understand his arguments. I just don't buy in - is all. His opening lecture points to the proton and electron in your average hydrogen atom and then concludes that there's nothing between the two of them except
(by implication)that attractive force. If that was all that was between them then WHAT then stops the electron nose-diving into the proton - is just the FIRST question? Do you know the answer MileHigh? If you do you must tell us all. There's no consistent explanation for this fact is mainstream. The best they can suggest is that the quark in the proton may repel the electron. But that only explains repulsion when the two particles are considerably closer together then they actually are. So you see MileHigh - MAINSTREAM DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.
Rosemary
Modified - all over the place.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.02, 04:17:59
Nor apparently is logic. If an electron induces a magnetic field - what is that field? Wind?
Huh?
A proof for a model that doesn't fit reality means the proof is useless.
Logic?
Wind?
I think I'll check out of this hospital for a while.
The answers to your questions are found at the MIT links provided by MH. Whether or not the information is correct is something you may decide after you understand it well enough to prove or disprove it.
I need to leave now. I don't think I have ever backed MIT for anything.
One of the easiest to digest docos on the subject is:
"Through the Worm Hole" with Morgan Freeman
Very up to date... released 2010
Milehigh check out the last episode, guy doing research in Hawaii. Will help you relate to these free energy thinkers.
Ozy
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.02, 06:18:06
His opening lecture points to the proton and electron in your average hydrogen atom and then concludes that there's nothing between the two of them except (by implication)that attractive force. If that was all that was between them then WHAT then stops the electron nose-diving into the proton - is just the FIRST question? Do you know the answer MileHigh?
Rosemary
I'm just going to give you a simple answer. Take a look at the example of the Earth in orbit around the sun or a satellite in orbit around the moon where there is no atmosphere. Let's focus on the satellite in orbit around the moon.
Assume the satellite is in a nice circular orbit 10,000 kilometers above the surface of the moon. There is no friction so it will remain in orbit forever. So if you could go up to the satellite and give it a nudge, you would change the orbit and it would go from a circular to an elliptical orbit but it would still orbit forever. You could try to nudge it over and over and over and it would still remain in orbit in some orbital path or other.
In theory you could make the orbit get so eccentric that it would crash into the surface of the moon. However, let's continue on our intellectual journey and reduce the size of the moon to a basketball, but still having the same mass and the same gravity field. Now you can try nudging that satellite almost forever, and you will never be able to stop it from orbiting the basketball-sized moon. The satellite will never ever hit the moon, it will always swing by the moon and remain in orbit.
That's what an electron looks like in orbit around a nucleus. It's in a vacuum, a frictionless environment, and nothing can "knock" it so that it hits the nucleus. The height of the satellite above the moon or the orbital shell an electron is in represents an "energy state." In a vacuum there are no forces to stop the satellite or electron from happily orbiting at its given energy state.
So, you say that you don't need to look at the MIT lectures on electromagnetics, yet you can't fathom how an electron remains in orbit around a nucleus. In the lecture series the properties of an electron in orbit around a hydrogen nucleus are discussed in detail, and they go through the calculations to determine the electron's equivalent linear speed and equivalent current. It's fascinating because the equivalent linear speed is something like 2/3 of 'c' (If I recall correctly) and the equivalent current it represents is almost one milliampere.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 06:49:09
I'm just going to give you a simple answer. Take a look at the example of the Earth in orbit around the sun or a satellite in orbit around the moon where there is no atmosphere. Let's focus on the satellite in orbit around the moon.
Assume the satellite is in a nice circular orbit 10,000 kilometers above the surface of the moon. There is no friction so it will remain in orbit forever. So if you could go up to the satellite and give it a nudge, you would change the orbit and it would go from a circular to an elliptical orbit but it would still orbit forever. You could try to nudge it over and over and over and it would still remain in orbit in some orbital path or other.
In theory you could make the orbit get so eccentric that it would crash into the surface of the moon. However, let's continue on our intellectual journey and reduce the size of the moon to a basketball, but still having the same mass and the same gravity field. Now you can try nudging that satellite almost forever, and you will never be able to stop it from orbiting the basketball-sized moon. The satellite will never ever hit the moon, it will always swing by the moon and remain in orbit.
That's what an electron looks like in orbit around a nucleus. It's in a vacuum, a frictionless environment, and nothing can "knock" it so that it hits the nucleus. The height of the satellite above the moon or the orbital shell an electron is in represents an "energy state." In a vacuum there are no forces to stop the satellite or electron from happily orbiting at its given energy state.
So, you say that you don't need to look at the MIT lectures on electromagnetics, yet you can't fathom how an electron remains in orbit around a nucleus. In the lecture series the properties of an electron in orbit around a hydrogen nucleus are discussed in detail, and they go through the calculations to determine the electron's equivalent linear speed and equivalent current. It's fascinating because the equivalent linear speed is something like 2/3 of 'c' (If I recall correctly) and the equivalent current it represents is almost one milliampere.
MileHigh
Well then. Here's the thing. If the moon had a negative charge and the earth had a positive charge then - as and when push came to shove - that moon would DEFINITELY nosedive into that earth. No question. The only question is why do two particles not nosedive into each other in the atomic structure? Out of the atomic structure they behave very predictably. The only physicist I've seen prepared to even ASK the question is Zukov. The assumption is that gravity explains that gross orbit. Makes good sense. But particles DO NOT RESPOND to a gravity field. They ONLY respond to a charge.
This is the kind of fatuous analogy that mainstream rely on to explain things. And - in point of fact it explains nothing. Why are they all so scared of simply acknowledging that they don't have the answers. It's sad really. All that ego. Nothing wrong is saying 'actually it's not clear'. Or 'actually I don't know'. Then they would not confuse the likes of you MileHigh - by leading you by the nose - pretending that they have all the answers. They don't. They quite simply haven't even managed to answer some really, really basic questions. But they're safe. Just as long as uncritical - unthinking - people like you subscribe to whatever it is that they want you to think or believe. I think they realise that most of their admirers would never bother to actually pose a sensible question. Ever. That would require a certain amount of original thought. And there's not too much of that going around here.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.01.02, 06:40:02
Huh?
A proof for a model that doesn't fit reality means the proof is useless.
WaveWatcher - what are you saying? If there's proof of anything at all then it will ALWAYS fit reality. That's the definition of proof. And if that point strikes you as mad - then exactly how mad is it to assume that an electron manufactures a magnetic field out of nothing? Because that's what mainstream is saying - or what Maxwell and Einstein said. The claim is that the electron itself has material properties. Also. The electron can induce immaterial magnetic properties as a consequence of its movement through space. These immaterial magnetic properties have physical dimensions in space as they are are measurable. Yet somehow they are still, and nonetheless - immaterial. They do not belong to the material property of the electron. They just manifest. Somehow. Every time an electron moves. They do not effect the mass of the electron. They do not effect the charge of the electron. They just come. Out of nothing. And they've got a distinct boundary and it's measurable. Yet it's absolutely nothing. Tell me more about this logic! Personally I'm defeated.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.02, 09:29:52
Well then. Here's the thing. If the moon had a negative charge and the earth had a positive charge then - as and when push came to shove - that moon would DEFINITELY nosedive into that earth. No question. The only question is why do two particles not nosedive into each other in the atomic structure? Out of the atomic structure they behave very predictably. The only physicist I've seen prepared to even ASK the question is Zukov. The assumption is that gravity explains that gross orbit. Makes good sense. But particles DO NOT RESPOND to a gravity field. They ONLY respond to a charge.
This is the kind of fatuous analogy that mainstream rely on to explain things. And - in point of fact it explains nothing. Why are they all so scared of simply acknowledging that they don't have the answers. It's sad really. All that ego. Nothing wrong is saying 'actually it's not clear'. Or 'actually I don't know'. Then they would not confuse the likes of you MileHigh - by leading you by the nose - pretending that they have all the answers. They don't. They quite simply haven't even managed to answer some really, really basic questions. But they're safe. Just as long as uncritical - unthinking - people like you subscribe to whatever it is that they want you to think or believe. I think they realise that most of their admirers would never bother to actually pose a sensible question. Ever. That would require a certain amount of original thought. And there's not too much of that going around here.
I suggest that you watch the MIT clips. For the electron in orbit around the nucleus you substitute gravitational attraction for electrical attraction. In fact there is still some gravitational attraction at play also, but only a very tiny amount. Your comments about me being "unthinking" or your bashing of mainstream science are just sour grapes. Sometimes you discover that you don't know what you don't know Rosemary, it happens to everybody. Nor do I claim to be an expert in atomic structure or orbital mechanics. I am just applying my common sense and drawing from stuff from my background that's pretty foggy at this point in time. However, for the most part, if I was to review the material I can relearn it again and understand the derivations and follow along. The MIT clips are great and I was able to follow the derivations for the electron spinning around the nucleus in a hydrogen atom.
QuoteIf the moon had a negative charge and the earth had a positive charge then - as and when push came to shove - that moon would DEFINITELY nosedive into that earth.
There is no force at play to reduce the moon's orbital energy such that it would crash into the Earth. There is already gravitational attraction between the two bodies so what difference would it make if you added some electrical attraction? I think that you are just making a blind assumption and are convinced that you are right. If you think that you are right then tell me exactly why the moon would crash into the Earth.
The analogy that I gave you was perfectly decent. Electrons orbit around nuclei because they are at a given energy state that keeps them in orbit, just like the moon is in an energy state that keeps it in orbit around the Earth. If you don't think these statements are valid then lay out a logical argument to back up your claims.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 10:26:47
I suggest that you watch the MIT clips. For the electron in orbit around the nucleus you substitute gravitational attraction for electrical attraction. In fact there is still some gravitational attraction at play also, but only a very tiny amount.
I have watched those clips MileHigh. I've watched them more than once. And. No MileHigh. There is NO GRAVITY AT ALL can influence a particle. The smallest thing that responds to gravity is the atom. Particles are immune. They only respond to charge. And for some UNKNOWN reason - that response is ENTIRELY EXEMPT within the atomic structure. Suddenly - for UNKNOWN reasons, the electron doesn't respond predictably to the proton's charge. Nor is there an explanation.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 10:26:47Your comments about me being "unthinking" or your bashing of mainstream science are just sour grapes.
Sour grapes. LOL. Are you suggesting I'd prefer physics if I looked at is as you do? Or as mainstream does? They and you wear blinkers and you both select your evidence carefully. MileHigh. The genius of science and scientists is that extraordinary ability to measure. But when it comes to explaining the properties of what is invisible - it ERRS. Big time. Because anything used to describe this depends on speculation and deduction. And our scientists are talented. But they're not even trained in logic.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 10:26:47Sometimes you discover that you don't know what you don't know Rosemary, it happens to everybody.
That's a strange use of the word discovery. I suppose it fits. I just wish mainstream could share that discovery with me. LOL. I made that discovery long ago. And I never tire of referencing it. Unfortunately all that reference has allowed you to assume that you know so much more whereas your own discovery here - lurks around the corner MileHigh. Hopefully, as Professor has already mentioned - you'll make this your own discovery during the course of this year. It would be nice.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 10:26:47Nor do I claim to be an expert in atomic structure or orbital mechanics. I am just applying my common sense and drawing from stuff from my background that's pretty foggy at this point in time. However, for the most part, if I was to review the material I can relearn it again and understand the derivations and follow along. The MIT clips are great and I was able to follow the derivations for the electron spinning around the nucleus in a hydrogen atom.
Well. Bully for you. I could follow it too - provided I suspended my faculties of reason. You don't seem to share this reluctance.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 10:26:47There is no force at play to reduce the moon's orbital energy such that it would crash into the Earth. There is already gravitational attraction between the two bodies so what difference would it make if you added some electrical attraction? I think that you are just making a blind assumption and are convinced that you are right. If you think that you are right then tell me exactly why the moon would crash into the Earth.
You actually need this explained? Let me start with this. If the moon was predominantly negative, say and the earth was predominantly positive - say - then they would both be predominantly monopolar. OUTSIDE of an atomic structure particles interact. Like charges repel. Unlike charges attract. Therefore if the moon was negative and the earth was positive there would be an attraction between the two bodies. Such 'charged' attraction would induce both bodies to move towards each other at an angle of 180 degrees. They'd make a beeline for each other. They'd connnect. That's according to the know Laws of Charge. Not sure why you assume that either 'charged' bodies would continue to orbit as it's highly unlikely.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 10:26:47The analogy that I gave you was perfectly decent. Electrons orbit around nuclei because they are at a given energy state that keeps them in orbit, just like the moon is in an energy state that keeps it in orbit around the Earth. If you don't think these statements are valid then lay out a logical argument to back up your claims.
Then I must refer you to that link that you clearly can't understand and that you have stated is 'wild' or 'fanciful'. I forget which. Probably both. So that's a non-starter.
Rosemary
Hi,
A thought experiment.
If matter (atomic level) has a repelling force based on inverse cube ruling, and opposing charges has an attractive force based on inverse square ruling, we would never see a 'collision' would we. I don't generally follow all of this but have not seen anything remotely suggesting this.
As for dark matter, that requires leaving for now. Why try to run when you can't walk?
The spanner is thrown.
steve.
Rosemary:
QuoteThere is NO GRAVITY AT ALL can influence a particle.
A proton has mass. An electron has mass. Have you ever heard of the universal law of gravitation? I don't know how you "invent" this "world view" in your head Rosemary but it is really strange sometimes.
QuoteYou actually need this explained? Let me start with this. If the moon was predominantly negative, say and the earth was predominantly positive - say - then they would both be predominantly monopolar. OUTSIDE of an atomic structure particles interact. Like charges repel. Unlike charges attract. Therefore if the moon was negative and the earth was positive there would be an attraction between the two bodies. Such 'charged' attraction would induce both bodies to move towards each other at an angle of 180 degrees. They'd make a beeline for each other. They'd connnect. That's according to the know Laws of Charge. Not sure why you assume that either 'charged' bodies would continue to orbit as it's highly unlikely.
No they would not connect just because you say so. You have to have an unbalanced force to remove the orbital energy from the moon so that it could crash into the Earth and there is none. Therefore the moon would continue to orbit around the Earth. What "known laws of charge" are you talking about and how do they explain your premise? You are clearly unable to answer the question with a rational explanation.
You need to learn some basic physics also Rosemary. I am just pointing out how often you are out of your element. You can continue to rant about how science doesn't know this and science doesn't know that. Nobody says that science knows everything for sure. But you continuously make it clear that you go out on a limb and make grand pronouncements without really having the knowledge to back them up. It's just an observation.
MileHigh
Keeping it simple...
More harmonious and less cacophony...
http://wbabin.net/ntham/davis.pdf
Looks like the only tool needed is resonance.
And I do respect Walter Lewin. Been watching him for years.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 15:59:35
Rosemary:
A proton has mass. An electron has mass. Have you ever heard of the universal law of gravitation? I don't know how you "invent" this "world view" in your head Rosemary but it is really strange sometimes.
My dear MileHigh. If you have found something - some particle - that responds to gravity - then indeed you've got something exceptional. Having said that - photons are known to bend within a gravitational field. But that's it. Otherwise particles and gravity are strangers. Which is most fortunate really. LOL What gets me is the patronising way you tell me to learn about physics. And then you come out with this.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 15:59:35No they would not connect just because you say so. You have to have an unbalanced force to remove the orbital energy from the moon so that it could crash into the Earth and there is none. Therefore the moon would continue to orbit around the Earth. What "known laws of charge" are you talking about and how do they explain your premise? You are clearly unable to answer the question with a rational explanation.
More of the same. I'm not sure that I can claim to be rational in proposing that anything that's as big as the moon has a negative or positive charge. But I'm afraid I must stick to my guns here MileHigh. In the highly improbable event that the moon and earth were oppositely charged - then in the event that they did not 'nose dive' and intersect at some point - then they would be DISOBEYING the laws of charge. And I'm not about to recount the Laws of Charge. Just look them up. And they're LAWS. Not principles. Broadly opposite charges move together in a straight line. Which is why I question the fact that the electron and proton absolutely ignore each other within an atomic structure. LOL. You see now the affliction in 'asking the odd question'? it takes away that smug dependency on mainstrem opinion. Of COURSE you're free to parrot mainstream. But then you're likely to contradict yourself. And right now you're not even parroting mainstream. You're inventing a branch of physics where gravity exceeds the atomic structure. That's rich with possibilities. But you'd also need to rewrite physics. Not a bad thing in and of itself. It's got to be done sooner or later.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 15:59:35You need to learn some basic physics also Rosemary. I am just pointing out how often you are out of your element. You can continue to rant about how science doesn't know this and science doesn't know that. Nobody says that science knows everything for sure. But you continuously make it clear that you go out on a limb and make grand pronouncements without really having the knowledge to back them up. It's just an observation.]
Indeed. The joke is that I'm quoting mainstream. And you're quoting physics a la MileStratospheric. Frankly I prefer your physics. It's way more inventive. LOL.
Rosemary :)
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.01.02, 16:19:11
Keeping it simple...
More harmonious and less cacophony...
http://wbabin.net/ntham/davis.pdf
Looks like the only tool needed is resonance.
And I do respect Walter Lewin. Been watching him for years.
Hi 'Jack' - LOL. It's a mouthful to say GiantKiller - and I've been dying to reference that hijack number. No offence intended.
I've FINALLY read that link of yours. I should have done so earlier. It's BRILLIANT. I'm now going to try and find out more about Znidarsic. Thanks very much for that. EXCELLENT stuff. MileHigh may be interested. Here's a sample quote. LOL
Logical reasoning was replaced by a form of quantum-indoctrination.
Yes, it was obvious that everything atomic was in reality quantized,
but within a single generation, the world of physics had begun to
completely ignore the fact that not a single PhD could explain the
physical causations behind why an atom is stable, why an electron
doesn't continue to radiate energy below the ground state orbital and
eventually crash into the nucleus, or why an electron doesn't drop
straight from a top energy level to the ground state energy level and
emit a high energy photon in one fell swoop. Furthermore, the ...
Many thanks GK. Very good reading indeed.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
You are really making a "LOL" spectacle of yourself.
QuoteMy dear MileHigh. If you have found something - some particle - that responds to gravity - then indeed you've got something exceptional. Having said that - photons are known to bend within a gravitational field. But that's it. Otherwise particles and gravity are strangers. Which is most fortunate really. LOL
http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/Tutorial/NewIBPS/PS16/PS16.htm (http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/Tutorial/NewIBPS/PS16/PS16.htm)
Quote15. Compare the electric force holding the electron in orbit around the proton nucleus of the hydrogen atom, with the gravitational force between the same electron and proton. What is the ratio of the these two forces?
Solving this require us to use F = kq1q2/r2 to calculate the electric force holding the electron in addition to the gravitational force between the two. After calculating each, to find the ratio we simply divide the electric force by the gravitational. Use the proton and electron's charge for q1 and q2, the radius is diameter of a hydrogen atom divided by two.
Electric Force: F = kq1q2/r2 = (8.99E9)(-1.602E-19)(1.602E-19) / (.53E-10)2 = 8.2E-8 N
Gravitational Force: F = Gm1m2/r2 = (6.67e-11)(1.673e-27)(9.11e-31) / (.53e-10)2 = 3.6E-47 N
Divide and Conquer: 8.2E-8 / 3.6E-47 = 2.3E39 N ratio Electric/Gravitational
I told you that both protons and electrons have mass and there is a
universal law of gravitation yet you were too arrogant to try looking anything up.
QuoteAnd I'm not about to recount the Laws of Charge. Just look them up. And they're LAWS.
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.eiu.moonorbit/ (http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.eiu.moonorbit/)
QuoteThe Moon, Earth's natural satellite, seems to hover in the sky, unaffected by gravity. However, the reason the Moon stays in orbit is precisely because of gravity -- a universal force that attracts objects. With the right combination of speed and gravity, satellites can fall around, instead of into, the body that they orbit. In this animated video segment adapted from NASA, learn about how the Moon stays in orbit around Earth.
QuoteGravity is an attractive force between any objects with mass. When an object that is not supported by anything falls due to the force of gravity of another object, it is said to be in free fall. An orbit is essentially a path of constant free fall. For example, the Moon is falling towards Earth. However, it also has an orbital speed from the momentum gained during its formation that allows it to fall around Earth with a trajectory that follows the same curve as Earth's surface. Because these paths are parallel, the Moon perpetually falls around Earth without ever touching it.
By charging the moon and the Earth with opposite polarities all that you are doing is making it look like there is more gravitational attraction between them because the force would be in exactly the same direction. Therefore the orbital mechanics would still apply.
There is a little movie associated with the link that explains to children how the moon stays in orbit around the Earth. I suggest that you watch it.
This whole conversation with you has been a farce and I'm done with it.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 19:54:20
Rosemary:
You are really making a "LOL" spectacle of yourself.
http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/Tutorial/NewIBPS/PS16/PS16.htm (http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/Tutorial/NewIBPS/PS16/PS16.htm)
I told you that both protons and electrons have mass and there is a universal law of gravitation yet you were too arrogant to try looking anything up.
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.eiu.moonorbit/ (http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.eiu.moonorbit/)
By charging the moon and the Earth with opposite polarities all that you are doing is making it look like there is more gravitational attraction between them because the force would be in exactly the same direction. Therefore the orbital mechanics would still apply.
There is a little movie associated with the link that explains to children how the moon stays in orbit around the Earth. I suggest that you watch it.
This whole conversation with you has been a farce and I'm done with it.
MileHigh
MileHigh - you keep promising to be done with this. Hopefully this time you mean it. To claim any kind of gravitational influence on particles is absurd in the extreme. Particles are NOT known to respond to gravity. Nor is it proposed in that example that you quote. And how on EARTH can the force between two attractive objects be in the same direction. If anything moves towards or away from another then they're both moving in diametrically opposite directions - in both cases. Take two objects that attract. The one moves towards the other. Then the one will move east say while the other would move west towards each other. And take two objects that repel. Then the one moves away from the other. The one will move east say while the other would move west away from each other. Always two separate directions. Far from sharing the same direction in space they'd be opposite. The only thing they'd share is all that attraction -
or repulsion.
And when it comes to arrogance! What can I say? You admit to no further need for any new knowledge. I've never made any such admission. On the contrary. But it does seem that my grounding in physics is at least enough to argue your rather facile points here. And may I recommend you read GiantKiller's excellent reference. It may help enfranchise all that much needed thought on your part. Right now you're borrowing obscure reference to substantiate your entire lack of logic in the hopes that you need never do more than continue to sit in your arm chair and pontificate.
LOLRosemary
added
Rosemary:
You are almost unbelievable sometimes. Every object possessing mass is attracted to every other object possessing mass in the Universe. That's why they call it the universal law of gravitation. This includes all particles that have mass. When I said, "the force would be in exactly the same direction" I was talking about the gravitational and hypothetical electrical forces between the Earth and the moon.
QuoteYou admit to no further need for any new knowledge.
That's a lie and you are just blatantly spinning.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 20:29:02
Rosemary:
You are almost unbelievable sometimes. Every object possessing mass is attracted to every other object possessing mass in the Universe. That's why they call it the universal law of gravitation. This includes all particles that have mass. When I said, "the force would be in exactly the same direction" I was talking about the electrical and gravitational forces between the Earth and the moon.
That's a lie and you are just blatantly spinning.
MileHigh
NO MILEHIGH. Every ATOM has mass and that mass responds to the gravitational force. If there was any tendency of particles to respond to gravity then they would NOT be able to sustain their condition inside the atom. And no-one has ever found any particle respond to gravity - regardless of it's mass or lack of it. And no-one has ever explained the fact that the electron does not nose dive into the proton. If it obeyed the laws of charge it would. And don't try and say that some gravitational principle accounts for this. It quite simply doesn't. If it did it would be duly recorded. There's NOTHING wrong with mainstream's ability to observe and measure. We'd ALL know about this if it were the case.
It's one thing to keep quoting mainstream as the authority. But in this case you're misquoting mainstream - regardless of its authority.
Rosemary
There is no "Rosemary's Exception Rule" when it comes to particles that have mass. The law is universal, and you should just keep plugging away up the learning curve.
No doubt gravitational effects are probably almost always ignored for particles, look at the ratio of electrical to gravitational force for an electron in the hydrogen atom: 2.3E39 ratio Electric/Gravitational.
The main thing is to UNDERSTAND and I have rarely encountered someone as pig-headed as you. The electron does NOT nose-dive into the proton, that's the REALITY. I have tried to explain that to you and failed. So stick to your cognitive dissonance guns Rosemary and refuse to believe that the electron stays in orbit because you don't think it should because you can't understand the concepts while at the same time acknowledging that the electron DOES remain in orbit about the nucleus.
This is just like Aaron's inability to understand the energy dynamics of a bouncing ball. I give up.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 21:05:46
There is no "Rosemary's Exception Rule" when it comes to particles that have mass. The law is universal, and you should just keep plugging away up the learning curve.
No doubt gravitational effects are probably almost always ignored for particles, look at the ratio of electrical to gravitational force for an electron in the hydrogen atom: 2.3E39 ratio Electric/Gravitational.
The main thing is to UNDERSTAND and I have rarely encountered someone as pig-headed as you. The electron does NOT nose-dive into the proton, that's the REALITY. I have tried to explain that to you and failed. So stick to your cognitive dissonance guns Rosemary and refuse to believe that the electron stays in orbit because you don't think it should because you can't understand the concepts while at the same time acknowledging that the electron DOES remain in orbit about the nucleus.
This is just like Aaron's inability to understand the energy dynamics of a bouncing ball. I give up.
MileHigh
Well. I'm not allowed to mention the fact that I'm amused. So I won't. I'll not refer to it at all. On the contrary.
And I absolutely agree with you. The electron really DOES NOT nose dive. Anywhere. Unless it's out of the atom. Then it does - if it can. Either towards or away from whatever it senses. And what's more, the electron does stay in orbit inside the atom. So you're absolutely right. Can't argue with you here MileHigh. Nor will I reference the points we're actually arguing. Because then you'll accuse me of being pigheaded. God forbid.
It's the first time that Aaron's thinking on anything at all has been compared to my own. Also an interesting association. I'm sure you're well aware that there's nothing in common with our ideas. Or are you simply trying to 'diminish by association'. Rather as you did with Professor - where you implied that all reference to ether has only ever been endorsed by publication in esoteric pseudoscientific journals. I really can't accuse you of 'fighting fair' or even of fighting honestly - MileHigh. Nor can I accuse you of being logical.
Defintely will not laugh out loud. In fact :( Is that acceptable?
Rosemary.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.01.02, 16:19:11
Keeping it simple...
More harmonious and less cacophony...
http://wbabin.net/ntham/davis.pdf
Looks like the only tool needed is resonance.
And I do respect Walter Lewin. Been watching him for years.
May I also add my thanks for the input Killer of Giants.
When our minds become loaded down with all manner
of "accepted knowledge" a return to simplicity is often
all that is needed to break us out of a loop of circular
thinking and spinning wheels...
The great lengths that are gone to in defense of long
held beliefs in order to postpone admission of error
is somewhat amusing.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.02, 20:29:02
Every object possessing mass is attracted to every other object possessing mass in the Universe. That's why they call it the universal law of gravitation. This includes all particles that have mass.
MileHigh
IF every object here includes charged particles or even neutral particles - then every particle would gravitate to every other particle. Light would clump together. Electrons would clump together. Protons would clump together. Everything would just clump together and there would be no separation of anything at all into recognisable and separate objects. Use your common sense MileHigh - if you have any. Particles are EXEMPT from gravitational influence - with the entire exception of photons. And they just keep moving. But given a gravity field - they'll bend around it.
Rosemary
It is said that he who admits wrong is the fastest to learn.
I would prefer find my self incorrect sooner than to find I was wrong all the time.
:)
May this year be an eye opener for all.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.02, 21:27:22
May I also add my thanks for the input Killer of Giants.
When our minds become loaded down with all manner
of "accepted knowledge" a return to simplicity is often
all that is needed to break us out of a loop of circular
thinking and spinning wheels...
The great lengths that are gone to in defense of long
held beliefs in order to postpone admission of error
is somewhat amusing.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.01.03, 04:19:49
It is said that he who admits wrong is the fastest to learn.
I would prefer find my self incorrect sooner than to find I was wrong all the time.
:)
May this year be an eye opener for all.
Giantkiller:
I am not really sure what you are saying here. Is it perhaps that you linked to a paper written by somebody that challenges certain aspects of quantum mechanics and we are all supposed to roll over and just assume that your link is the "truth?"
Admitting that you are wrong takes critical thinking skills and you really have to know the material that you are looking at. I don't think anybody that has commented on your linked paper knows enough about quantum mechanics to make a call on the veracity of what's stated in that paper and that includes you and me.
So I did a bit of poking around. Lane Davis has a YouTube page. He is 24 years old. His clips include his treatise on quantum mechanics, plus all of the usual alternative fare. There is stuff about anti-gravity, the NWO and the Illuminati, 9/11 conspiracies, cold fusion, fluoridated water, false flag operations, H1N1 conspiracies, etc. In other words, the whole nine yards.
http://www.youtube.com/user/seattle4truth (http://www.youtube.com/user/seattle4truth)
I came across this in his paper:
QuoteBut in the realm of known laws of electrical engineering, 100% energy
transfers require a 100% impedance match. Impedance is a measure
of resistance, and can be applied not only to electrical systems, but
to mechanical ones as well (such as a clutch in a manual transmission
car). Impedance matching is required to transfer electrical power
from power stations to your house. The job of the massive trans-
formers that are seen near power stations (or the smaller ones going
from the power line to your house) is to match the impedance of one
set of lines to the next set of lines. If this doesn't happen, the en-
ergy from the lower impedance line will bounce o the line with the
higher impedance and the energy will not transfer e ciently. In order
to get all of the energy to transfer, the impedances must be matched
100%.
Guess what, this is garbage. Lane is just parroting what he has heard about impedance matching and applying it to high tension electrical power transmission lines without really knowing what he is talking about.
So, based on my poking around and without reading the paper, I am not prepared to give any credence to it at all. I don't have the desire to read it nor do I have the background to be able read it and appreciate it anyways. My feeling is that if I truly did have the proper background, I would be able to poke so many holes through it that it would be beyond a Swiss cheese. I am prepared to filter it out ahead of time without doing a full investigation into it as pseudoscience junk. You can call it a qualified prejudgment of your linked paper if you want to.
Dumped:
QuoteMay I also add my thanks for the input Killer of Giants.
When our minds become loaded down with all manner
of "accepted knowledge" a return to simplicity is often
all that is needed to break us out of a loop of circular
thinking and spinning wheels...
The great lengths that are gone to in defense of long
held beliefs in order to postpone admission of error
is somewhat amusing.
I advise you to think critically about where the potential multiple sources of error are and who is believing what and what "accepted knowledge" you are talking about. Just because something is "alternative" doesn't necessarily mean that it's true or right.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.03, 05:49:04
Giantkiller:
Admitting that you are wrong takes critical thinking skills and you really have to know the material that you are looking at. I don't think anybody that has commented on your linked paper knows enough about quantum mechanics to make a call on the veracity of what's stated in that paper and that includes you and me.
Then I must conclude that you are incapable of critical thinking skills because you clearly are incapable of admitting that you're wrong. Let me remind you of a couple of points that are still raw and recent. You claimed we didn't reference any results in our TIE or IEEE paper. WRONG. You claimed that particles respond to gravity. WRONG.
When you have enough critical thinking at your disposal to admit these points then we can possibly move on and consider this new reach of yours where no-one here understands quantum mechanics. We'd need to be told what it is that we don't understand. I for one would like to know. So. Let's start with that 'admission'. That way we at least know that you've got some critical thinking skills worth talking about.
Rosemary
And MileHigh - let me presume to educate you on New Age Physics. It's based on the uncomfortable realisation that quantum and classical physics are founded on the wrong bases. And that's MAINSTREAM. Not New Age. It's just that New Age Physics knows that what's been missed is a dynamic aether field. Not the static steady scaffolding proposed by string theorists - nor even by our dark energy experts. Something far more energetic. But right now - both Classical and Quantum theorists have relied on an entire dismissal of the concept. They are and were wrong. And the proof is now everywhere. But they, like you, are still trying to ignore the evidence. And frankly - they/you are running out of excuses to keep ignoring it. And trying to re-instate a sense of 'shock and awe' at the ponderous nonsense that they/you keep referencing - is absolutely NOT going to cut it. You don't have to be a genius to see that you've been wrong. You just need to ask the ocassional question. That's more than enough.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
You can shout and rant as much as you want, it's not going to make a big difference in the scheme of things. I'm not qualified to talk about quantum physics nor are you.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.03, 07:01:02
Rosemary:
You can shout and rant as much as you want, it's not going to make a big difference in the scheme of things. I'm not qualified to talk about quantum physics nor are you.
MileHigh
I don't think I'm ranting. And I'm over qualified to talk about quantum physics. It's been my special area of interest and study for over 12 years now. Do NOT assume that I share your inability to work in concept MileHigh. You should, by now, have seen some of that evidence of the fact. But it's further proof of your entire lack of generosity or your entire want of reference to the facts. You'd prefer to deny or ignore talent than ever acknowledge it - unless of course it's your own. I really don't give a damn. But when it comes to this anxious propagandising about my apparent lack of ability or right to comment - that I see serious harm done. And I'm not about to give you that amount of license.
Rosemary
Rosemary:
I am talking about real quantum physics where you go to university, get an undergraduate degree in physics, and then focus on quantum physics for your Master's and your PhD research and studies.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.03, 07:17:08
Rosemary:
I am talking about real quantum physics where you go to university, get an undergraduate degree in physics, and then focus on quantum physics for your Master's and your PhD research and studies.
MileHigh
What a load of cobblers. Not even our experts require that. They just require evidence of actual knowledge. EVEN FOR PUBLICATION. SINCE WHEN has a degree been the ONLY BASIS TO ALLOW COMMENT? If it was then Faraday would have been DOOMED - as would EINSTEIN himself - to quote just 2 for starters. What rubbish you talk MileHigh. It's all that you respect because it's never occurred to you that there are those of us who can attain a high level of competence without any degree at all.
Not, may I add that I'm presuming that I'm in the same class as Einstein.Rosemary
added
Well. I'm still a bit bruised but I've got a sneaking suspicion that I may have actually delivered a final punch in a punch up. Rare experience for me because by now - under normal circumstances - I'd be banned.
Just to get back on topic - the down side of quantum physics is that it's based on certain imponderables related to the wave particle duality and other rather pretentious questions related to Schrondinger's poor little cat. The actual question here is to ask if that cat is first drugged before it's put in that box? Because if not, then it would give us every evidence of life. And - at it's least - that protest would likely be noisy. In truth - all that our quantum giants managed was to say - 'guys - we actually will never know what the hell is going on because we can't see the whole picture'. Had they done this then we could all have avoided all those thousands of pages and all those ponderous explanations. You see. What they DISCOVERED is that you can apply a kind of statistical analysis to any particle interaction to predict an outcome. Nothing wrong with that. It's been the basis of statistical studies everywhere. But it hasn't got the purity of classical requirements where causality is everything. In effect the quantum theorists would be right in saying, for example, that 3 out of every 5 marriages will end in divorce - or whatever. And the classicist would rather say - if this person marries that person then there will be that divorce. Something like that. But those stats were good. Still are. They do the job and they do it well.
But both sides hold onto one argument - with the tenacity of a ship wrecked sailor holding onto a floating plank. It's this. Unless an object has infinite mass then it cannot exceed light speed. I would argue that a field is the sum of it's particles. And the field can have infinite mass. The aether particles. And that - with or without respect - may be our aether. That it cannot be directly and tangibly evident - is precisely because it exceeds light speed. Light 'trails in its wake'. Light itself would then be SLOWER than the velocity of the field. Surely that's not too difficult to digest? And precisely because the evidence is that 'light bends' with the gravity field - then perhaps gravity fields hold these really fast little numbers - those 'faster than light speed' gravity particles. And precisely because of Einstein's cosmological constant - then - if light moves through the vacuum at a constant speed - then the probability is that this hidden field would also move at a constant speed. Just faster.
So. Here's the thing. If gravity fields are made up of aether particles and because light seems to follow the general shape of a gravity field - then? At some stage and in some way light must be interacting with the field. That's the puzzle. How does light interact with the field if light itself is slower than the field? Well. Nature also gives us the answer here. Virtual particles decay into the vacuum. Could it be that they 'slot in' to that field and simply disaapper from sight? If so, then we also are told by our experts is that paricles are what they call discontinuous. They seem to flicker in an out of sight. Perhaps, all particles decay. But if they're stable - then they have some property in themselves that interacts with the field when it decays. And that interaction just pushes them back into our visible realms. That way. Light itself, for example, would be moved by the particle in the field. And provided the aether particles were EVERYWHERE - then that interaction would be at a constant speed.
Not a popular argument. It's downside is that it proposes that the energy in the particle itself is irrelevant. It's the interaction with the field that imparts energy to the particle to move it through space. But that's the basis of my argument. So Grumps - in the unlikely event that you're still reading here - the question is not 'does ether exist'. The actual question is what is this ether? The fact that it exists is pretty well proven. Just no-one is actually prepared to look at the evidence.
Rosemary
That Last Paragraph. Nice to see the nail hit on the head so accurately!
I offer no opinion on the rest, but my views are already all too well known. (Why particles?)
Seems that there is more to your thinking than many realize. Your question IS the correct one!
(Now if some could actually devise methods for answering it, without basing the answer on previous "Theory"....)
Quote from: Loner on 2011.01.04, 19:17:20
That Last Paragraph. Nice to see the nail hit on the head so accurately!
I offer no opinion on the rest, but my views are already all too well known. (Why particles?)
Seems that there is more to your thinking than many realize. Your question IS the correct one!
(Now if some could actually devise methods for answering it, without basing the answer on previous "Theory"....)
Hello Loner. It intrigues me that you you need someone to answer that question. Presumably you mean someone other than me? Intriguing. Presumably my answers here will be of no force an effect? For some reason? Only someone else's answers matter. I'm not sure why my own must be ignored. But I'm sure you've got good reasons for this.
But thank you for acknowledging that my question is appropriate. That's at least some tribute.
Rosemary
OK. I am certainly not ignoring your "answer", I am just not fully agreeing with some of the details.
As far as a thread "Does it exist?" goes, I think that answer is agreed. As far as the actual makeup of "What" the aether is, I feel that is for another thread, as there are not yet correct terms to correctly define it, from a conventional point of view. You are on the way, but, again, I am not in full agreement on the details. That is certainly not to say that I am right and you are wrong. Possibly the inverse is true. As I was blathering before, physical tests, not based on existing "Theory" must be devised. (For me, at least...)
Theoretical discussion on the makeup of the aether presupposes the existence of one. As MH has been pointing out, the description from the 19th century certainly won't cut it, but the correct representation is still, IMHO, up for grabs. Different thread, maybe?
Why waste time dissecting sand to count the facets of each grain when you can easily build castles?
QuoteHarmonic resonance is an extraordinarily diverse and varied phenomenon seen
in countless forms throughout the universe, from gravitational orbital resonances,
to electromagnetic oscillations, to acoustical vibrations in solids, liquids, and
gases, to laser resonance in light and microwaves. Harmonic resonance spans a
vast range of spatial scales, from the tiniest wave-like vibrations of the elemental
particles of matter, to orbital resonances that emerge from spinning disks of gas
and stars. But across this vast range of spatial scales and diverse media, there
are certain general properties of harmonic resonance that are common to all of
them. They all tend to oscillate at some characteristic frequency, and at its higher
harmonics, frequencies that are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency.
They all exhibit spatial standing waves, whose wavelength is inversely
proportional to their frequencies. They all tend to subdivide one, two, or threedimensional
spaces into equal intervals of alternating reciprocating forces
dynamically balanced against each other, with the twin properties of periodicity
and symmetry across every possible dimension of space and time. These, and
many other properties, are properties of resonance in the abstract, manifested
across all those diverse forms and media. Harmonic resonance is a higher order
organizational principle of physical matter, that transcends any particular
implementation in a physical medium. It is the properties of that transcendent,
more general concept of harmonic resonance that are the focus of this book,
because it is those transcendant properties that reveal the essential properties of
resonance itself, and explain how those properties lead to the emergence of mind
from brain.
The minimal prerequisite for harmonic resonance is some system that when
deflected from some rest state, or equilibrium condition, experiences a restoring
force that pushes it back toward that equilibrium state. Also required is some kind
of inertia, or momentum term, that makes it overshoot the equilibrium point and
pass on through, continuing on to a deflection of equal magnitude in the opposite
direction, from which point the restoring force will accelerate the system back
toward the equilibrium center again, setting up for repeating back and forth
oscillations that can continue indefinitely in the absence of frictional losses.
Magnetic fields have no frictional losses. Or do they? 8) :o
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.01.05, 17:43:50
Why waste time dissecting sand to count the facets of each grain when you can easily build castles?
...
Magnetic fields have no frictional losses. Or do they? 8) :o
Hmmm... Well said.
Do we truly understand what "propels" radiation?
At the "electromagnetic speed of light?"
Is it "pushed" or "pulled" or does it just "go?"
Quote from: Loner on 2011.01.05, 16:42:32
OK. I am certainly not ignoring your "answer", I am just not fully agreeing with some of the details.
As far as a thread "Does it exist?" goes, I think that answer is agreed. As far as the actual makeup of "What" the aether is, I feel that is for another thread, as there are not yet correct terms to correctly define it, from a conventional point of view. You are on the way, but, again, I am not in full agreement on the details. That is certainly not to say that I am right and you are wrong. Possibly the inverse is true. As I was blathering before, physical tests, not based on existing "Theory" must be devised. (For me, at least...)
It would be nice to think this question is resolved. It really isn't. It's probably going to go down in history as one of the most glaring 'mistakes' that our theorists have made. While there is a readiness perhaps - on these forums - to assume the existence of this aether - it is not that readily available on our campuses. And that's where acceptable theories are usually forged and invariably promoted to the general public. Never mind that the Michelson Morley tests never actually 'disproved' aether. It's promoted as it if WAS disproved.
The truth is this. ALL modern classical and quantum theory rely on the existence of a 'carrier' particle as the energy 'exchange' medium. And all quantum and classical theorists depend on the fact that any particle - including these carrier particles - move at or within light speed. That's the actual problem. You see - relativity concepts require that magical constant that was identified by Einstein. And until these fields are acknowledged to exist and that they move at superluminal speed - then an awful lot of logic is forever rendered illogical in their theories.
Meanwhile - what is required is some kind of proof that their foundation thinking is wrong. That proof is readily available - all over the place. And they're ignoring it. Even those that know about dark energy are trying to find a particle that 'fills the vacuum'. But none of them are looking at the 'field' - at a full on FIELD EFFECT. And, in my humble opinion - that's where they would possibly find that particle.
Loner, I've said this before. Your excessive modesty is entirely unjustified. It is always a pleasure to read your comments. But one has to search for them behind all that self effacement. We're all given license to comment here on Poynty's forum. And your own rights are inviolate. Why clutter them with these anxious reminders that you may be right or wrong. It's the nature of the beast. We may all be right or wrong. So what? We're discussing certain viewpoints - is all. And frankly, in my opinion, your own view point is invariably thoughtful and well considered. I wish my own were up to that same standard. Please. No more self-effacement. It's entirely unnecessary.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.05, 21:51:59
Hmmm... Well said.
Do we truly understand what "propels" radiation?
At the "electromagnetic speed of light?"
Is it "pushed" or "pulled" or does it just "go?"
Dumped - I'm intrigued with your contributions here. They're always reasonable. I just can't believe that you'd ever be banned. In any event - I also want to get my head around 'radiation'. How does energy move through space when there's no circuitry available to move it. The question fascinates me.
Rosemary
@AR,
Loner has been our most humblest poster for years now. :)
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.06, 02:50:29
Dumped -...
I just can't believe that you'd ever be banned.
...
Rosemary
I have a compelling "need" to be candid and frank with
"shysters." I really dislike dishonesty and exploitation.
Speaking out too candidly and too frankly (while pointing
fingers) has done me in... Even when the "speaking out"
is done politely and without rancor.
Aaron M. (most recent) is a very difficult communications
challenge. Very complicated. I wonder - is he gay?
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.06, 23:22:28
I have a compelling "need" to be candid and frank with
"shysters." I really dislike dishonesty and exploitation.
Speaking out too candidly and too frankly (while pointing
fingers) has done me in... Even when the "speaking out"
is done politely and without rancor.
Aaron M. (most recent) is a very difficult communications
challenge. Very complicated. I wonder - is he gay?
LOL. I've been rolling. If you asked him this - then I can indeed understand why you were banned. Dumped. If he's gay then I don't think he's aware of it. I believe he's married. In any event - there is certainly a rather inappropriate antagonism - but I think that's the result of dealing with public rejection of those esoteric philosophies of his. Personally I subscribe. They're all just so hopeful - if not enirely credible. And we all need a bit of hope in our diet - especially in the face of our depressing media headlines. In the unlikely event that there are 'little green men' all over the place - I can well understand why they don't come forward and introduce themselves. They've likely discovered our talents for abusive criticism and our penchant for for hysteria. We're really not that nice. Not as a species. But who knows. A bit more evolution and perhaps we'll change into something that deserves intergallactic communication. It would be wonderful. Right now there's no chance of it. Cruel scepticism is the order of the day. And for some reason it's considered desirable and sophisticated. It's not. It's just inappropriate and abusive. And he's as guilty of that scepticism as we all are. He's just sceptical of the sceptics. So. Perhaps not entirely representative of all that 'good' that he espouses. But who is? I think the last candidate was probably Jesus Christ. Or Mother Theresa. Not run of the mill personalities. LOL.
:)
No, I didn't raise the possibility while engaged in discourse
with Aaron. It's just that his emotionalism brought to mind
past workmates who were indeed gay. Not that it makes
any difference at all... I've several friends who are gay and
find them generally extremely intelligent and insightful and
they tell marvelous jokes!
You've said it well Rosemary. I largely agree with what you've
expressed; we're a sorry lot.
The world does seem to be in a tailspin headed for a great
crash. There are many prophecies which seem to bear this
out and would put us near the "end" of corruption as we
know it. If so, then we will see most wonderful change in
the not too distant future. Once we get through all of the
coming ugliness and turmoil and into the birthpangs.
There will be a very happy new beginning.
One day in the far future we'll fully understand not only
the Aether, but all of the mysteries which now puzzle us.
Journey to the stars anyone?
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.07, 07:55:23
Once we get through all of the
coming ugliness and turmoil and into the birthpangs.
There will be a very happy new beginning.
One day in the far future we'll fully understand not only
the Aether, but all of the mysteries which now puzzle us.
Journey to the stars anyone?
:) I'd be happy to go on that trip but I suffer from vertigo. LOL. More's the pity. I can't add to this. I also hope for all that change. It would be cool to just start by acknowledging the occasional oversight in current physics theories. But to even start there one would first need to demystify it. And our physicists seem hell bent on obfuscation. They've exploited all possible ways of saying 'we don't have the answer'. Maybe one day they'll just come out and say it. Right now they're saying it in ways that only they can pretend to understand - all in the hopes of avoiding a full on public admission of the fact. Then - in one fell swoop - we'd all be justified in talking aether energies. God forbid. What's needed is NOT a published paper on Aether - but a publication on those manifold contradictions that they all ascribe to - so freely and so desperately and so apparently LEARNEDLY. LOL.
:)
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.07, 08:34:04
...
What's needed is NOT a published paper on Aether - but a publication on those manifold contradictions that they all ascribe to - so freely and so desperately and so apparently LEARNEDLY. LOL.
:)
Agreed. However, it will not be forthcoming.
The "Science Establishment" has become a manipulated
tool which facilitates the advancement of a sinister agenda.
Any who demonstrate too much interest in the "truth" are
nullified or eliminated. Many taboos are strictly enforced.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.07, 19:40:54
Agreed. However, it will not be forthcoming.
The "Science Establishment" has become a manipulated
tool which facilitates the advancement of a sinister agenda.
Any who demonstrate too much interest in the "truth" are
nullified or eliminated. Many taboos are strictly enforced.
There is another angle on this Dumped. The angle is that cliches about the "science establishment" and "MIBs" are constantly being repeated by the big players in the realm of free energy. These are then repeated by some of the followers. With enough propagandizing of the cliches and enough repeating of the cliches by some of the followers, then these ideas take on a life of their own.
What this ultimately becomes is that everything is turned on its head. The truth becomes the lies and the lies become the truth. Take the example of Mylow claiming that the MIB were after him and Sterling Allen believing him. It was all bullshit. Mylow was just playing into the fact that everything is turned on it's head in the realm of free energy. Bedini has stated that he had been threatened and was physically roughed up by the MIB many years ago. Why would they do that? Every single thing that Bedini has ever shown is an under unity device.
Look at this recent quote from Bedini about the Ferris Wheel motor, "I was offered mucho money to sell this machine and shut up, I will not take it. as I think it is very important for others to do it." As far as I am concerned that's just Bedini playing into the whole MIB game. It's bullshit, I don't believe him. The only thing we know about the Ferris Wheel motor is that it spins and has some coils. What does it really do?
Here is another interesting quote about the Ferris Wheel motor, "I said that if you live in the northern hemisphere that the south pole of the coil must extend through the coil, and no do not turn the motor upside down. John you live in the southern hemisphere so the pole piece must be extended towards the wheel for the geometry to work with the shield." John Bedini is stating that you physically configure the motor differently depending on if you build it in the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern Hemisphere. That is absolute nonsense and I challenge anybody to tell me differently.
So here is something for you to contemplate Dumped: The real conspiracy is that there is an "Inverse MIB" conspiracy. People promoting free energy devices or concepts for financial gain constantly make direct or indirect statements or inferences that there is a "shadowy MIB out there looking to stomp on and suppress every free energy device." They play into the beliefs that some people have and they know that they have a willing and receptive audience. There are people that want to believe in free energy without tangible proof and there are people that want to believe in conspiracy theories without tangible proof. They also know that there are many people in this class that have limited technical knowledge and it makes it that much easier to keep the "Inverse MIB conspiracy" momentum humming along. Some of these people simply can't tell if what they are looking at is real or not because they don't have the technical background but they choose to believe anyways. I think that the conspirators sometimes make outrageous claims that any person with common sense would object to just to test the waters and see how firmly established the "Inverse MIB conspiracy" really is.
So that's the other side of the coin. Is there a conspiracy being promoted by the vital interests in the realm of free energy? What are typical annual revenues that this "Inverse MIB conspiracy" taps into? When you add up the sales of all of the DVDs, and parts, and plans, etc, etc, and you throw in all of conferences and all sorts of other solicitations, how much money on a global annualized basis are you really talking about? What do you have to say and promote to keep that annual revenue stream flowing?
Who has the sinister agenda in this setting, the scientists or the "Inverse MIB" conspirators?
MileHigh
You make several good points regarding the "staged"
disinfo operations recently witnessed. There are many
"actors" involved at many levels of innocence or
complicity.
In all matters of importance it is necessary to do serious
research well below the surface and into the core. When
possible it is desirable to "penetrate" the core to make
first hand observation.
Fortunately, a number of former accomplices have seen
"the light" and have "turned" so are now able to very
carefully expose the corruption.
The manipulations are seldom achieved by means of physical
threat or "roughing up." There are far more effective methods
of "persuasion" utilized to keep the minions happy as they do
their dirty work.
No, many of them do not know. They too have been deceived.
They are simply utilized to promote the "way it is" while their
weaknesses and secret desires are attended to.
The best "conspiracy" is one which involves the fewest at the
very core. It is easy to develop a "following" of duped slaves
no matter how ridiculous the "program."
Give them what they crave and they'll do "anything."
Recognition; Position; Degrees; Salary
Benefits; Privileges; Inner Circle association
Secrets; etc.
It's a very old game. And it "works" for "them" very well indeed.
When you have the resources to "own" the show...
QuoteMax Headroom and 20 Minutes into the future.
The background story provided for the Max Headroom character presents a dystopic look at a run-down near-future dominated by television and large corporations. Max Headroom was shown to have been created from the memories of Edison Carter. The character's name came from the last thing Carter saw during a vehicular accident that put him into a coma: A bar with a sign warning of low clearance, marked "MAX. HEADROOM: 2.3 M".
The question as to whether there are black ops or MIB or Psyops - or whatever. It's irrelevant. What is evident is that there's an awful lot of misinformation perpetrated in these forums and they are from both sides of this question. I personally am absolutely satisfied that there are paid operatives who lurk the internet in search of patentable technology. And when they find this then they use extraordinary tools and techniques to discredit in order to appropriate that technology. They menace. And they're effective. By the same token it's possible that there are those who perpetrate technologies that don't work. Yet they're paid good money - and maybe they even solicit that money. Who cares? What's interesting is simply - 'who actively promotes new ideas - and who actively frustrates new ideas? Because they can both be entirely destroyed on Open Source. It's just a question of who uses the more sophisticated 'propagandising' tools? Propagandising tools include; the need to destroy, hide or deny actual data; the need to frustrate the knowledge by proposing erroneous test parameters. The need to pretend to a level of knowledge that is - as required - based on bad science or not. The need to imply TOTAL IDIOCY of the idea or it's proposer. And so it goes. And by the same token - those free energy nutters need only show the evidence of OU to have it entirely denied by those who choose to do so. Or entirely believed by those who choose to. Again. Who cares? It should be patently obvious by now that Open Source is absolutely NOT the way to promote anything at all. It's dominated by all that agenda. I think a fair measure of a forum's impartiality is whether or not it 'sells' anything. And I think both EF.com and OU.com are both designed to solicit funds - one way or another. Fortunately Poynty's forum has resisted this. Thank God.
If this is still on topic - perhaps we could consider another question. We all know that there are huge empty spaces within the atom. But the assumption is made that there's nothing inside that space. So. Here's another question. When we measure a voltage imbalance on a circuit - what exactly are we measuring? A magnetic imbalance? If we're measuring an electron 'imbalance' then we'd need evidence of electrons orbiting around that inductive material. But there isn't any. Certainly not that they can be identified and seen. Unless they turn 'invisible' - somehow. If the electrons are spinning inside that atom - or even if they're moving as current flow inside that circuit material - then what generates that magnetic field or that measured voltage imbalance? You see. If the electrons have generated that magnetic field effect as mainstream claim - then their ability to generate that field is AMAZING. Nothing like the atomic distance between the electron and proton. In terms of the apple and split pea analogy - where they orbit at plus/minus 11 kilometers - it would be an orbit of global proportions. It would be like the split pea reaching across the entire world to generate that magnetic field. In fact. It would be as if that split pea can generate a magnetic field around the moon. Doesn't this strike anyone at all as being somewhat improbable? A whole measurable field - resulting from the spin of something as small as an electron? And then to propose that that field that is measurable is also immaterial? How can this be. How can vortices and spins and sundry things that are measurable - result from the movement of a tiny little particle so removed from, so far, far away from the resulting 'field effect'? Surely that stretches one's credulity - here and there?
But. If we simply assume that there is a magnetic material that can move through space - then at least we can account for that field effect. I would have thought.
Rosemary
Here is a complete and total lie compliments of the Inverse MIB:
http://pesn.com/2011/01/07/9501738_Company_V_has_megawatt_free_energy_generators_for_sale/ (http://pesn.com/2011/01/07/9501738_Company_V_has_megawatt_free_energy_generators_for_sale/)
QuoteBoth are able to produce power continuously, 24/7, and nearly 365 days a year, with minimal down time for servicing. Most significantly, they require no fuel whatsoever and produce no waste but are self-contained, harvesting energy freely from the environment using advanced scientific principles.
QuoteThe superconductor engine prototype that qualified parties can see now purportedly produces 15 kW while consuming 50 Watts.
It's all a complete lie following in the school of Chairman Mao's "Big Lie" technique.
I guess that this was like a foot-note for my previous posting.
MileHigh
Company " V " = http://valenciaenergy.com/index-4.html
Rosemary, I can't respond to the first part, as the whole MIB situation is too far off topic for me. (Interesting, though...)
The second part, has a LOT of good stuff, but has a couple confusion points for me, so I will comment and let you straighten me out as to your real meaning. As to a "Voltage Imbalance", and what we are measuring, this is a tough thing. There are VERY few out there who really realize that voltage is almost impossible to even measure. We measure "Current" through a known resistance, and calculate the voltage from that. All meters with two leads operate this way, as I am aware you realize. This fact does actually change what you are saying, for me at least, as you are now always actually discussing a current flow, which IS defined as the movement of electrons. This presents me with two difficulties. One, true voltage requires no current, but is so rarely used in such a manner that I know VERY few that can even discuss the subject. Very little research is done, even today. Most electrostatic work could be looked at this way, as long as discharging the charge is not part of the operation. I needn't go further with that, as the problems are obvious. Two, and this leads to what I "Think" (I.E. My Opinion...), as soon as you are talking actual current flow, thereby discussing physically ripping electrons from an atom and moving them to the next one, you are really talking about nuclear functions. Atomic energy, though very few think that way. Just imagine, you are actually ripping apart an atom! With 1 amp, your ripping apart 1 coulomb per sec, at every point along the flow path. This is an ENORMOUS amount of power, that "Could" account for the magnitude of the field. (Think how many places you could pick on just .001" of wire. Each atom could be measured. The real number of ripped electrons gets BIG, and quite easily... If BOTH the rip and the replace give off field... Now think 1".)
If I were to assume the "Magnetic Material" was moving through space, this is almost stating the the aether is this magnetic material. If that were the case, I think it would be much easier to detect than it is. This would also mean that there would always be the "Magnetic" material in all of space, which doesn't prove out to be the case. (Plenty of real tests done there, already.) I would have to offer my opinion that the "Magnetic Material" would have to be looked at like an oar in the water. It can generate the wave in the water, but is not the water itself. This follows experimental results quite well, as to detect the created wave, you need to sick another "oar" in the water. (Or some other "Mass", etc.)
Does this make any sense, and am I understanding you correctly?
I can't really properly integrate your info any other way into what I understand, as I am unaware of "Photons" (Ignoring base composition for now...) having their own magnetic characteristics. I don't mean that a mag field has no effect, but that a beam of photons doesn't cause such an effect, unless modified by other means. (I am aware of the electron cloud modulation of lasers, but that's pushing several things together and which does what is for another day...)
SO, what do you think about these ideas? Am I missing the boat or have I understood your meaning incorrectly?
(As an insight to my line of thought, if aether can be "oar'd" by magnetism, then this interaction might put to "Other" uses, and could possibly interconnect with "Other" forces, and allow for the exchange of one force to another, etc. This would bring the concept of resonance into the picture, but now I'm pushing the idea a little too far. If aether IS magnetism, then some of these concepts no longer can apply, and resonance becomes very different between force types. Just a thought or two.)
Hi Loner, Very interesting. But I'll need to get back here tonight - you're tomorrow. Certainly food for thought. I don't often do this - but just indulge me and read up on the following link. That's my opinion on mainstream current flow as it relates to electrons. But plenty to add. Can't wait. But can't deal with this right now.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html
If you've got time. At least you'll know where my confusions come in.
Quote from: darkspeed on 2011.01.08, 04:21:29
Company " V " = http://valenciaenergy.com/index-4.html
Yes indeed, it's a very impressive looking web site with beautiful flash animations. The problem is that if you spend 10 minutes looking around the web site you begin to realize that there is nothing there. It is a hollow "zero calorie" web site.
They list four power projects:
Quote* New York Power Project.
* Peru Power & Water Project.
* Chile Power Plant Project.
* Mexico Power Plant Project.
They are all fake, there is no information for three of them and the New York project link just shows some meaningless text that says nothing.
It's a little bit tricky to find the separate "Valencia Energy" web site that is specific to their power production units. When you get there, one more time there is nothing, just some more meaningless text and some pictures of what they claim are prototypes.
Here is the blurb on the CEO:
QuoteHoward Brown, CEO
Mr. Brown, CEO, an innovative, solutions-driven executive with more than 20 years of experience managing sales, operations, and personnel at district, regional, and corporate levels for manufacturing companies. He received his B.S. in International Affairs from the University of Florida.
However, when you Google on "Howard Brown Valencia Energy"
nothing comes up in the search.
It's a totally fake company with no products or real-world power projects.
This came up on one of those business directory web sites:
QuoteValencia Energy LLC is a private company categorized under Consultants-Business (Unclassified) and located in West Palm Beach, FL. Our records show it was established in 2008 and incorporated in Florida. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of 110,000 and employs a staff of approximately 1.
In the "Contact Us" section they show a picture of what allegedly is their corporate headquarters. From the Google satellite view it is readily apparent that the picture of their headquarters is a fake.
I am an expert in qualifying companies based on their web site presentation and by doing a little bit of extra digging. This company is a total lie. They make it appear that they are a real company with tens or possibly hundreds of employees, yet the business directory says that they have a single employee. Normally I take the information in these obscure business directory web sites with a grain of salt but in this case I will assume that the information is accurate.
MileHigh
In the Vanencia site they say they convert mechanical energy to electrical energy. So they may have a pretty efficient Generator but there is no miracle there. Just another competitor for GE and Westinghouse.
Quote from site
When implemented into power projects, this new core fusion engines will provide clean energy technology that cost effectively converts mechanical energy into electricity for use in a multitude of facilities and applications.
Unquote
Does not say anything about loop systems.
wattsup
Hi Loner. Hopefully you managed to read that link. That's what I think of conventional concepts related to current flow. There are too many contradictions in the theory for me to buy in. And until I can get my head around all those contradictions - then I'll just stick to my own definition. It's way simpler. The ease with which valence electrons are moved to and from sundry atomic structures - is the special skill of our chemists. And I'm not sure that any one of them will argue that a recharged battery has simply added more electrons to an electrolyte. But - regretably - this is what our utility suppliers assume - and they bill us accordingly. And may I remind you. NO extra electrons have ever been detected inside circuit material as a result of current flow. Indeed. No changes to any of the atomic structures that comprise circuit material have ever been evident. The only thing that changes is their bound condition.
Quote from: Loner on 2011.01.08, 04:42:42
... and am I understanding you correctly?
Yes is the short answer. I think that there's a universal assumption that a voltage imbalance is related to a magnetic imbalance. I'm not sure if it's valid or even if I understand this wrongly. What I do know is that a magnetic field can neither be seen nor measured. We can only see or measure it's influence on matter and measurable material. We only ever do 'indirect' measurements to establish its existence - regardless. So. How would one determine it's existence in the vacuum of space or even in the spaces within atoms? This is the more so - as I think it's reasonable to assume that a magnetic field orbits.
Here's the question. Charge is determined by the direction a particle moves within a magnetic field. Since charge is an inseparable quantised value of all particles then all particles are known to relate to a magnetic field with a standardised justification. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the field itself has a 'charged' value of sorts - else this interaction would not be feasible. Then. If the field itself 'orbits' as is assumed by Faraday's 'line's of force' then that orbit first goes up and then goes down. It first goes back and then forwards. If charge is determined in relation to the field and if the field itself orbits then an orbit - any orbit - essentially has two directions or two justifications or two charges. So. If that orbit in the field in fact moves 'up and then down' and so on - then it also has two inherently opposite charges or justifications or directions. The one will cancel out the other. This means that each part of each field has a justification - to determine that orbital path. But the entire field is neutral. How does one detect a neutral field if this is the condition of space - either in the vacuum or in the atom...is the question? I don't know that it is possible.
So as a rather wild leap into speculation - what if the entire universe was structured around a great big toroidal magnetic field? If that structure still comprised Faraday's 'lines of force' then those strings would be the same - just way, way, longer. And they'd still be orbiting. Put your finger on any part of the vacuum - those vast spaces between its galactic structures - and you'd only experience a neutral charge. The justification or charge of any part of the field would be contradicted by the existence of the other half of that 'spin' condition - or that orbit of that string. The entire field would be neutral. Yet each part of that entire field would yet have a justification of sorts.
As an aside - but may be of interest. Our string theorists work with strings of improbable length and equally improbable 'thinness'. It's acceted as a possible 'scaffold' to the structure of the universe. The difference is this. Our string theorists subscribe to the idea that these fields are static. Why is it that they cannot just as well be considered to be actively moving?
So Loner. You're right. I'm actually proposing that we need look no further than the magnetic field to find a universal condition in all space. And I very much doubt it would be detectable. We can only detect matter. Not the field.
Not aether. Not ever.
Rosemary
edited
Rosemary, I did read that page, and liked what I read. I hope that you realize you actually are reading a description of "The wave theory of matter". You even actually state this very thing near the end.
I must point out a couple things, which may actually be in agreement, or may not, as fully comprehending all this is a deeper subject than I could describe in just a few words. (Or pages, or books, for that matter...) The whole idea of "Lines of force" is a complete falsehood. (I can hear some being so upset that they stop reading, and figure some rational way of proving this wrong...) As an example, most people think of taking a magnet, putting a piece of paper on top and sprinkling filings of some magnetic material upon it. This will show "The lines of force" and actually is the basis for a lot of "Scientific Garbage". These lines are caused by the presence of the filings themselves and are not intrinsic to the "Field". (I am sure you know this, I'm just making a point. We may be agreeing in a lot more ways than I will admit.) Taking this into account, the field, bu itself, has no "Ups and downs", but is completely linear, and the "Lines of force" are to be used the same as a topological map, as indicators for field strength, but not as actual lines. Modern theory seems to like to ignore that fact, all too often.
I will have to think a while as to how to properly respond to your post, as there is a lot there, but it seems that you want to believe that the "Base" field, or the aether, is purely magnetic in it's structure. For me, I could not directly accept that, as there do seem to be "Neutral" particles, as in, particles with no charge. Just trying to figure how such a thing is possible from the standpoint of being created from a material that would produce a charge is difficult, as the "Field" would somehow have to be "Shielded" from all mass around it. I'm sure there may be a method, but it would be complex. Now I hit occam's razor, and all that. This is hard for me to write, straight from the hip, as it were.
So, while I agree that some of what you are saying is VERY possible, I would take a LOT more convincing for me to agree that it is magnetic in it's "Pure" form. (In basic wave theory, only two at 90 degrees has the "Effect" of a mag field, and a gravity field is the same concept, but at the other 90, and you can already see why I don't discuss the deeper mechanics of it around here. It's all too simple to visualize but the math would be tough and goes against the grain of what has been taught for over a century. All particles "Could be" 3D standing waves, and all forces, again, "Could be" easily explained in this manner. Analyzing these waveforms, math wise, would be much more difficult than discrete functions. Why basic humans can't seen to grasp that "Particle" thinking is just to put an analogue reality in a "Digital" format to ease the math, I can't seem to understand. You didn't hear me say that, or see that I wrote it...)
I will try to think further on this so that I can properly put it into words that make sense and don't draw on the current standards, which I don't agree with. Of course, the existing math and descriptions work well enough that we obviously can make use of them, but that doesn't mean they correctly describe things. It just means the numbers work. We just might be thinking along very close lines, with just a few disagreements. I must agree to disagree that the magnetic "Field" is the base, but as I cannot say that your description of a true, unaffected magnetic field is the same as what someone else would have, this is not a sure disagreement. What I mean by that is, if this "Field" is accepted as not being magnetic until interaction with "Mass", then, in a way, we could be describing the same thing. I will give this more thought, and will respond as I am able.
Quote from: Loner on 2011.01.09, 15:20:29
I must point out a couple things, which may actually be in agreement, or may not, as fully comprehending all this is a deeper subject than I could describe in just a few words. (Or pages, or books, for that matter...) The whole idea of "Lines of force" is a complete falsehood. (I can hear some being so upset that they stop reading, and figure some rational way of proving this wrong...) As an example, most people think of taking a magnet, putting a piece of paper on top and sprinkling filings of some magnetic material upon it. This will show "The lines of force" and actually is the basis for a lot of "Scientific Garbage". These lines are caused by the presence of the filings themselves and are not intrinsic to the "Field". (I am sure you know this, I'm just making a point. We may be agreeing in a lot more ways than I will admit.) Taking this into account, the field, bu itself, has no "Ups and downs", but is completely linear, and the "Lines of force" are to be used the same as a topological map, as indicators for field strength, but not as actual lines. Modern theory seems to like to ignore that fact, all too often.
Loner - I've got another little exercise that may be of interest. I'll pm you on this. Get back to me thereafter. That may explain more. Meanwhile - I'm not inclined to agree here. It appears that the iron filings need that magnetic field to arrange themselves. Of interest is that they become stable having done so. That's hard to conceptualise in line with the proposal that there's a moving magnetic field. One would assume or anticipate some kind of localised variation in the actual movement of anything at all through space. Therefore those filings should change position - now and then. And they don't.
Quote from: Loner on 2011.01.09, 15:20:29I will have to think a while as to how to properly respond to your post, as there is a lot there, but it seems that you want to believe that the "Base" field, or the aether, is purely magnetic in it's structure. For me, I could not directly accept that, as there do seem to be "Neutral" particles, as in, particles with no charge. Just trying to figure how such a thing is possible from the standpoint of being created from a material that would produce a charge is difficult, as the "Field" would somehow have to be "Shielded" from all mass around it. I'm sure there may be a method, but it would be complex. Now I hit occam's razor, and all that. This is hard for me to write, straight from the hip, as it were.
Again. Not sure that neutral particles don't actually respond to the field. They do. Photons are neutral. And they're hardly frustrated in their path through the magnetic field. They appear to entirely ignore it - in fact. Also. When they hold 'neutral' particles in those bubble chambers - they simply do not spin. Just sit there and apparently do nothing. If those particles are indeed charged 'neutral' then it implies that there must also be a neutral potential in the field - else they would not be sustained in a magnetic field. And they are. Or they are in that bubble chamber.
Quote from: Loner on 2011.01.09, 15:20:29So, while I agree that some of what you are saying is VERY possible, I would take a LOT more convincing for me to agree that it is magnetic in it's "Pure" form. (In basic wave theory, only two at 90 degrees has the "Effect" of a mag field, and a gravity field is the same concept, but at the other 90, and you can already see why I don't discuss the deeper mechanics of it around here. It's all too simple to visualize but the math would be tough and goes against the grain of what has been taught for over a century. All particles "Could be" 3D standing waves, and all forces, again, "Could be" easily explained in this manner. Analyzing these waveforms, math wise, would be much more difficult than discrete functions. Why basic humans can't seen to grasp that "Particle" thinking is just to put an analogue reality in a "Digital" format to ease the math, I can't seem to understand. You didn't hear me say that, or see that I wrote it...)
I agree. I think that new physics is likely to spawn a new math. And I very much doubt then that anyone would need to count up to more than three. But that's still not that easy. Certainly not if it incorporates more than one time dimension.
Quote from: Loner on 2011.01.09, 15:20:29I will try to think further on this so that I can properly put it into words that make sense and don't draw on the current standards, which I don't agree with. Of course, the existing math and descriptions work well enough that we obviously can make use of them, but that doesn't mean they correctly describe things. It just means the numbers work. We just might be thinking along very close lines, with just a few disagreements. I must agree to disagree that the magnetic "Field" is the base, but as I cannot say that your description of a true, unaffected magnetic field is the same as what someone else would have, this is not a sure disagreement. What I mean by that is, if this "Field" is accepted as not being magnetic until interaction with "Mass", then, in a way, we could be describing the same thing. I will give this more thought, and will respond as I am able.
Thanks Loner. It's enough that you're even reading here. It's quite a lonely experience playing around with eccentric concepts. But - in view of your 'name of choice' I think you know something about this. I don't buy into the concept of 'standing waves' either. And, in my opinion that whole 'wave particle duality' thing is a cop out. And nor do we need it. But that's just my opinion.
:)
Check out the pm.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
OK, Rosemary, I think, before I go on, that I will directly respond to this last post, each section at a time, and then go back to my thinking, as I haven't had much time to process all this, nevermind reference any external data. This is all from memory, so accept the possibility that I may give some bad data. So Be It.
First part, as to the "Lines of Force". I'll Quote your statement below so I can read it as I go and all can see what I am referencing. First time for this method, for me.
QuoteIt appears that the iron filings need that magnetic field to arrange themselves. Of interest is that they become stable having done so. That's hard to conceptualise in line with the proposal that there's a moving magnetic field. One would assume or anticipate some kind of localised variation in the actual movement of anything at all through space. Therefore those filings should change position - now and then. And they don't.
I would agree that the "Field" is needed to arrange the filings, but the reason I see for them being stable is "Simple" to me, as they actually become part of a "Core". (Think of any more permeable substrate) The reason they form "Lines" is because of the "Self repelling" nature once they become "Magnetized?" The actual "Flow" is along the line, and we all know that standard induction operates at a 90 degree angle, or the cutting of these "Field Lines". Going with them causes no induction other than the fact that the alignment id never perfect, etc. I need not get into exacting details, I'm sure, but this is also why NO coil could ever be perfect as the winding will always have a slight angle to it. Also, this leans away from the actual aether being magnetically based as the mag field to mass interaction would easily be noticed, once away from the planets "Background" field. There are possible exceptions to what I am saying, but I hope you see what I am trying to get across.
Now we get into it a little bit. Quantum guys would give their explanation, but I already disagree with that so I put down what you said and give my opinion.
QuoteNot sure that neutral particles don't actually respond to the field. They do. Photons are neutral. And they're hardly frustrated in their path through the magnetic field. They appear to entirely ignore it - in fact. Also. When they hold 'neutral' particles in those bubble chambers - they simply do not spin. Just sit there and apparently do nothing. If those particles are indeed charged 'neutral' then it implies that there must also be a neutral potential in the field - else they would not be sustained in a magnetic field. And they are. Or they are in that bubble chamber.
See, this first part confuses me a little, so I must be reading it wrong. If photons exist, and If they are neutral, and If they ignore the magnetic field, then it follows that they are not affected by the field. This would seem to say that neutral particles don't respond to the field..... See my confusion. I am not attempting to say the is a "Neutral" charge, but I would accept one definition of a neutral charge to be an equal of plus and minus, or up and down, etc. (We all understand that reference, right?) As to the suspension in an actual bubble chamber, inside the magnetic bottle type, I assume you are describing, then we are actually into a whole new area. Whatever liquid is in the chamber is right at the "State change" point and usually has already been charged to the matching point for minimal penetration charge differential, just to make for a good test. There is SO much more going on there that I couldn't begin to comment on a individual aspect. Even gravitational forces operate differently here, at this level, so I cannot use this as a reference. Consider this to be my pet peve of not allowing unrelated things to distract me. Simple mind and all that. Having said that, if I can see any "Recognized" "Particle" with no "Recognized Charge" respond to just a magnetic field, then I might change my mind, but that would require NO charge, not a balanced or Neutral one. I think you should be able to see what I am trying to say? Good example would be the photon, if such existed with no charge, and I could deflect it with just a pure magnetic field, THEN we would be talking.
The next part about the math, no quote needed. I think existing math would be fine, but imagine if all simple "Add" and "Subtract" values had to be the real calculus functions to describe the wave interactions. It sure gets heavy, fast, doesn't it. We actually agree on something 100%. (Let the trumpets sound!!! Just kidding. I'm just a little "Juiced" about it.)
Final section, I haven't given it enough thought to accept or deny. For me, the turning point will be to actually conceptualize what form the "Magnetic" field will be in, while in true space, with no mass around to alter it. I'm sure you have seen the "Curl" experiments that prove that the "Field Lines" actually look like "Springs" when viewed in 3D. This rotational effect can be very difficult to incorporate into design work, as 2D paper can't even display such, but that is, at least, correct experimental data. As I said, a lot to think about and I await more information as, in a way, this is related to a description of the aether. I'm sure we can agree that a magnetic field has an effect on such a thing, one way or another, and that is a common starting point for a new analysis. Whether that is the basis or not, at least we have a solid picture to develop from....
To all, forgive these long posts, but I feel that the information is worth the typing. If you disagree, feel free to skip it as this whole thing is "Assuming" an aether, but may offer methods for a true "Proof" to be devised. That is my ultimate hope.
:)
I ave found this discussion in a Italian forum:
http://www.energeticambiente.it/discussioni-su-teorie-personaggi-e-tecniche/14721590-letere-moderno.html (http://www.energeticambiente.it/discussioni-su-teorie-personaggi-e-tecniche/14721590-letere-moderno.html)
One investigator has found a way to detect the 'ether.
Thancs
Leo48
Quote from: Ken on 2010.05.13, 12:04:42
Mainstream science uses this credo.
When the facts do not line up with the theory, the facts must go!!
I see it happen all the time. I would much rather see facts than listen to someone's guess.
E=mc2 does not allow for ether. Or does it?
E=((m)(c/a))2
E= energy
m= mass
c= velocity of the speed of light
a= aether density
8)
There is an ether. All camps agree. It's just that mainstream science calls it zero point energy or the zero point field, or virtual particles, or quantum vacuum field fluctuations. There are hundreds of tesla colis in operation today that prove the existence of the ether.
GFT, your quote above, is that Ken Wheeler?
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.07.18, 01:03:05
GFT, your quote above, is that Ken Wheeler?
Funny you mentioned that. I clicked on a link a poster provided and did a quick cursory look at Wheeler's book.
Very interesting. Many of his observations coincide with my own. I have to sit down and read it in depth. My theory says that it is the magnetic field that is the basis of all electrical phenomena. Mainstream science says it is the electrical field.
Anyway, I want to post this quote he quoted in his book that pretty much hits the nail on the head.
"The word Ether has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics only because its past association with opposition to
relativity. This is unfortunate because stripped of these connotations, it nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. The modern concept of vacuum space confirmed by every experiment is a relativistic Ether. But we do not call it this because Ether is a taboo term."
-
Robert B. Laughlin
It is an interesting read, I'm about half way through it. I will say I tend to dislike the terminology he uses and he also beats a dead horse to death a second time bashing classical science.
His concept of a dielectric disk with centripetal and centrifugal magnetic components is a little hard for me to grasp. So far in my read I cannot see physically how he came to the angles he describes other than to say, "It has to be so." If you happen to understand this from a quaternion point of view, maybe you could explain it in your own words. Or maybe I could understand it if you can explain it. Also good if you can make it a bit more clear what space and counterspace is. I read it like matter and anti-matter, but I know that is not the concept he is trying to express.
I'll certainly give it a thorough read and see what conclusions I come to.
A few words on quaternions. I approach quaternions from a very basic algebraic viewpoint
and operational stance. I went back to the old books of Tait and Hamilton and learned how they
approached it. My/their method is not difficult at all. First just the definition of a quaternion.
A quaternion is defined as a scalar or vector or a combination of the two.
This is straight forward and nothing spooky. And with this definition you can see it is applicable
to any and every physical expression. The rules of manipulating certain types of quaternions
are rather simple but it can get enormously tricky trying to keep track of signs.
There are however certain types of quaternions that are members of a Caley Dickson construction
such as quaternions, octonions, septenions, etc., that lose certain mathematical operational abilities.
For example a quaternion does not commute.
An octonion is a quaternion that does not commute and is non associative.
I pretty much try to stay with quaternions because they are i, j, k, and a scalar, or x,y, z, and a scalar like zero the origin.
The rules of quaternion manipulation can be simple. One of the rules is that the reciprocal of a quaternion
i.e., 1/j, is called the conjugate of j and can be designated as 1/j=-j. Also ij does not equal ji. ij=-ji.
And ii=jj=kk=ijk=-1. Lastly ij=k, jk=i, and ki=j. Those are the basic rules.
Note: i does not equal k, does not equal j, does not equal i. None of the three equal any of the other two.
This is one reason why it's conceptually difficult to wrap your brain around just what quaternions are.
I call them units of precession, allow them to act algebraically, and call it day. I leave the heavy lifting to the number theorists.
We can always designate the xyz axes as ijk.
This the basis of my current induction equations. Nothing complicated. Just basic algebra.
If you take the Lorentz force, E is along one axis, B is along another, and qv along the third.
Thus they must behave as quaternions and obey the rules of quaternions.
This is why via GFT principles we may write both E/B=qv and Ex-B=qr/t.
This is basically why Maxwell and Steinmetz found quaternions to be so useful because electrons are quaternions.
Lastly, to my knowledge I"m the only one who has done this but I unify all of trigonometry and Hamilton's quaternions with
ii=jj=kk=ijk=-1=e^(ipi). Again I may be mistaken but no one except me seems to see Euler's formula as being
the mathematical foundation of the whole of quaternion mathematics.
Again, I have to read much more in depth Wheeler's work but Steinmetz and Dollard talk of and explain this concept of innerspace.
I too have proposed something akin to this concept of inner space via conjugates. (this was prior to reading about Steinmetz and Dollard)
I've also proposed that the empty space inside an atom is not just empty space but is actually a quaternion space.
A space that is dynamically active and quantifiable. This is why I find Wheelers book interesting. He touches upon several
subjects I too have looked into.
Oh. One last thing.
We are taught that the centrifugal force is actually a
pseudo force. A fictitious force that only seems to
be real because we are riding along with the real
force, the centripetal force. Well given GFT principles
and the principles of precession the centrifugal force is real.
In fact given GFT principles all of the pseudo forces are real.
One frame of reference is as valid as any other.
The centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler forces are real.
They exist in their own right and there are (should be)
electromagnetic manifestations of the three.
By the same token I'm sure we recall the Lorentz/ Einstein force law http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html)as taught regarding magnetic circuits and the vector /phasor operating at 90 deg , where is that force in the electrostatic example? Intentionally missing along with all the maths and science is the conclusion of many, fudged and omited in order to cover up the exsistance of the Aether and the linear wave. That argument is given wings by Prof Dollard and Prof P T Pappos amoungst others. Revisiting his web site to repost the links I now find it not working as it did ... twas to be expected , http://papimiuk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/free-energy-by-dr-papas.html (http://papimiuk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/free-energy-by-dr-papas.html)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.11, 22:30:03
I am going to chime in here. Normally I stay in my areas of interest and only venture out of them once in a while. So today I am going to dabble into this aether business. I know that almost none of you are going to listen to the information that is in the links, but I am going to disseminate it anyways. You guys need to see the counter-balance once in a while, even if you are going to ignore it.
The truth is the conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that there was no convincing evidence for the existence of the aether. However, you can find junk/alternative science links on like that claim just the opposite. This is where you take science and turn it into some sort of a game of political spin. It's really the wrong way to go. You either accept what the main body of scientific research has come up with based on the experimental evidence or you don't. It's the same kind of business with respect t electric current and electrons. For some reason some people don't want to believe in electric current, even through there is overwhelming evidence it exists and circuit analysis relies on current and it's in agreement with experimental evidence. I suspect that the "current" business stems more from a desire to go against the grain than anything else. It shows that you have "alternative energy" "edge" or something.
Going back to the aether, if you do the Google search the vast majority of the information you find indicates that the experiments could not prove that it exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)
About the Sagnac experiment:
The quote from Grumpy's original quote about this goes as follows:
The above statement is bullshit. The rotating apparatus would either create a longer or shorter path for the light and be detectable as shown in the highlighted section in the Wikipedia link above.
This other statement below from Grumpy's link is also nonsense.
The above quote plays into the usual "suppression" argument and it's not true. The effect is perfectly understood and it's used to make laser gyroscopes. The tone of the statement is right from the Tom Bearden school of writing.
MileHigh
Hmm, it seems that you just ignore the facts that someone else has wrote a book, explained theory and formula for calculus ... and on top of this has built an OU device that is presented in a patent as a proof and i am going to quote:
QuoteSummary.
It has been found, after ample research, that zero point-energy can be extracted from Space in several ways: by using permanent magnetic and / or electromagnetic fields, as well as "Time-Space " changes .
That this is not known by the contemporary Physics , or don't want to know, is the biggest scandal done to humanity Since 1912, the year of the "failed " Michelson - Morley experiment, which failed because of the erroneous assumption that the Aether, if it would exist, would flow tangentially along the Earth's surface flow, is simply adopted by Physics that it did not exist / exists.
The reason that Michelson-Morley had failed is that the equipment should have been
set up 90° different. (The gravitational inflow is the main component of the Aether flow near and in the Earth) . Poincare suggested the nonsense that Nature itself would hide the discovery of the existence of a carrier for electromagnetic and gravitational waves and currents.
Einstein already in 1931 proposed serious objections against the direction which Physics has gone (Einstein , Podolsky , Rosen).
However, to date, the theorists have kept the developments in Physics with respect to low- temperature fusion and zero point-energy to a stand, aided by the large-industries, for the enforcement of the status quo and little interested in energy technologies which make low costs, decentralisation and independence for consumers possible. This invention concerns the "against each other in oscillation" of two electro- magnetic fields, wherein it has been observed that , depending on the frequency , more Electric energy can be taken away, then is provided.
Use is being made of conducting wires, which are right next to each other. Possible ways are (a) "in the plane", (b) on a "cylinder", (c) on a "toroid"
See attached patent that i am referring to. I would love to hear how such a junk theory can produce such effect when something non existent as you say, can be used with very beneficial effect.
When we talk about ether some facts must be known.
The stars and the empty space around it are the same in composition but different in volume.
Some scientific magazines mention that the black hole around the sun is 4 to 19 million times bigger then the sun. For us, the numbers are not so important, as long as we know that it take tremendous amount of space to create a star.
I read somewhere that it takes 936 photons to create a proton.
A planet like Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus – we call them gas giants with very high radiation. These giants are in disintegration stages and we know that the last octaves are very radioactive. This means that they are on their way to disappearing. When gases are expanded to the zero point, it is where the ninth octave becomes one again.
The gases don't disappear. They become what they were.
For us, this brief explanation should be enough to know that space is not empty at all.
Didn't you know about the research about the ETHER, done back in late 1800's? See documents related to John W. Keely of Pa. S V P sells copies + there are several books available related to his machinist work and the 42 new laws of vibratory physics.
Quote from: AlienGrey on 2023.10.02, 22:45:51
Well what exactly is electricity ?
It is a movement of charges in
one net direction.
John W. Keely , 1865-1899 worked with Ether physics in his workshop. Study the Keely references. Some are available from S.V.P. mr. pond. 42 new laws of vibrational physics.
I know that we are spitballing here but here is my take .
Every time you see a decent lightning strike ,ask the question. Was the voltage there before the conditions allowed the discharge to occur ?
Or was the discharge actually generated by the clouds rubbing together ?
This helps me at least .
Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2024.02.29, 03:43:41
I know that we are spitballing here but here is my take .
Every time you see a decent lightning strike ,ask the question. Was the voltage there before the conditions allowed the discharge to occur ?
Or was the discharge actually generated by the clouds rubbing together ?
This helps me at least .
For every meter above ground there is at least 100v always, at 2meters 200v etc.
When there are clouds it is like placing another capacitor inbetween, the voltage at the ends is still the same from Ionesphere to ground. The clouds rubing together increase the voltage to a point of break down of the dielectrics.
This can go either ground up or from above to ground. The couds are part of the circuit, as is the Earth Ionesphere cavity.
But I still do not know if the TPU pulls some of the charge, or it is cutting Earths magnetic field, or it is a Maxwell demon.
Regards
Mike
Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2024.02.29, 03:43:41
I know that we are spitballing here but here is my take .
Every time you see a decent lightning strike ,ask the question. Was the voltage there before the conditions allowed the discharge to occur ?
Or was the discharge actually generated by the clouds rubbing together ?
I found maybe a fraction of 1% of adults actually understand why lightning occurs but it's pretty simple.
-The ground has a (-) charge and the atmosphere(+).
-Surface water forms a dual layer with highest (-) charge on the surface attracted to the (+) atmosphere.
-Evaporating surface water vapor therefore has a (-) charge and when the water rises it cools and condenses.
-When the water condenses two small water droplets combine to form one larger droplet.
-Two small drops combining to form one large drop has the same volume but a smaller surface area.
-Since the (-) charged surface area decreased the (-) charge density must increase.
-As the water droplets continually condense, combine and raise the (-) charge density the potential difference between the cloud and ground increases.
-The cloud concentrated (-) charge near the bottom induces an opposite and equal (+) charge on the ground under it.
-When the difference between the (-) charged cloud and (+) charged ground becomes great enough an electrical discharge occurs we call lightning.
It's easy to explain when we understand the evaporating water which is rising upward is acting as a charge carrier. Ergo, when the water condenses so must the (-) surface charges the water carries increasing the charge density and cloud/ground voltage.
In fact the atmospheric water/charge cycle is almost identical to a Van De Graaff generator. Simply replace the belt moving (-) charges from ground to the top load with evaporating water vapor doing the same. It's so simple even a child could understand it.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.03.03, 23:16:02
-Evaporating surface water vapor therefore has a (-) charge and when the water rises it cools and condenses.
But they say to me,that it's impossible to charged any gas with same charge.
I was already ask here that earlier. was raising a question.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.03.04, 07:09:15
But they say to me,that it's impossible to charged any gas with same charge.
I was already ask here that earlier. was raising a question.
Your confusing a vapor and a gas, there not the same.
QuoteGas and vapor are both forms of matter that exist in a gaseous state. However, there are some key differences between the two. Gas refers to a substance that is in its gaseous state at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, such as oxygen or nitrogen. On the other hand, vapor refers to the gaseous form of a substance that is typically a liquid or solid at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, such as water vapor or steam.
AC