PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-21, 06:22:23
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11
Author Topic: Ether - Does it Exist?  (Read 117248 times)
Group: Guest
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that can prove certain anomalies or things along those lines, but that doesn't mean that the main theory has been superseded by a new theory.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
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878
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that can prove certain anomalies or things along those lines, but that doesn't mean that the main theory has been superseded by a new theory.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"?

Quote
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. 
...
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.

Quote
American 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


   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878
The Interconnected Universe

Begin reading at the top of page 19.

.99

I enjoyed this reference, Poynt -- thanks.
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
 :)
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. 

You, 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. 

Your 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.   

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
Indeed.  :)

The reality is that is not true and it could be proven with the big capacitor test.
Not true.  I've explained this above.

It could also be proven with very careful measurements with a DSO done by an expert.
Many experts associated with this MileHigh.

When 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.

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.
If you're that concerned that the equipment is misused then you must point out where.

If 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
   
Group: Guest
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.

Quote
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.

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
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878

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?
   
Group: Guest
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
  
   
Group: Guest


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?
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878
   
Quote
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?

  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:

Quote
According 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
.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Dirac's aether is a sea of virtual particles.

(thanks PhysicsProf)
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878
Good point, Grumpy..  Although I'd amend that to a sea of virtual particles, including virtual electrons, protons, etc.
   
Group: Guest
 
  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
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878
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!
   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Here is what it says at the start of your Wikipedia link:

Quote
The 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.

Quote
I 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?

Quote
dark 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

« Last Edit: 2010-12-30, 07:47:48 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
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     
   
Group: Guest
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
« Last Edit: 2010-12-30, 07:48:54 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

Quote
Can 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:

Quote
Apeiron: 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
   
Group: Guest
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. 
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3174
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-10-21, 06:22:23