Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-05-26, 06:23:52
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]
Author Topic: Ether - Does it Exist?  (Read 121258 times)
Group: Guest
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.
Group: Guest
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.
« Last Edit: 2014-07-19, 18:22:30 by GFT »
Group: Guest
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.

Group: Restricted
Hero Member

Posts: 686
By the same token I'm sure we recall the Lorentz/ Einstein force law 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

How many more to be .threatened, abused murdered, Their research in the hands of evil corporations intent on total control ?
whilst we know little .. friends remember,
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
D. Erasmus
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 2022-05-26, 06:23:52