PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-21, 06:46:34
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 117250 times)
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest

 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.

 :)


   
Group: Guest
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.  :-[
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1994
@Clint3142
Quote
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
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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1994
@Rosemary
Quote
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 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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
@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
   
Group: Guest
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
« Last Edit: 2010-12-13, 02:15:39 by WaveWatcher »
   
Group: Guest
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...")
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1443
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
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.


---------------------------
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Drink enough beer and you can float in the aether, or at least feel like you are floating..

 :D

   
Group: Guest
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.

 :)

   
Group: Guest
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.

 :)
   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Group: Guest
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    
   
Group: Guest
Here's a musical interlude followed by some brain food:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWtCittJyr0[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube]
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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")   :)
   
Group: Guest
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:

Quote
There 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

Quote
Generally, 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
   
Group: Guest
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.

 




   
Group: Guest
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.    

   
Group: Guest
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.  ???
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest
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.
   
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, 06:46:34