PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-21, 07:27:11
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Author Topic: Ether - Does it Exist?  (Read 117251 times)
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.

Golly Loner - it was NOT a criticism.  We're all just the way we are.  Nothing gooder or badder.  Just what we are.  Not intended as a value judgement.  We're all a little eccentric.  And frankly how boring would things be if we were all the same.  In my book there's nothing needs changing.  How boring would that be? 
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary, I wasn't taking it as critical of me, just a statement of fact.  I am just being critical of myself.

Really, I just need a little more backbone, and I wanted to thank you for reminding me of that.

As to changing, I require as much of it in myself as possible, as I get bored far too easily.  Only by talking with people different than I do I get any relief.  (I wonder what my rambling has to do with the aether?)   Gotta go fix an auto.  Keeping myself busy and it's a good mental break.   Strange effects occur in auto HV during wet weather.  I gather info from as many situations as possible.....
   
Group: Guest

It actually conforms to what is observed.  It just introduces the concept of an extraneous material that actually energises everything.

Rosemary

I see. Using those thoughts the experiment shows extraneous material proof at my waistline  :(
   
Group: Guest
Loner,

I take it your ignition systems is overcome with packed snow and ice.

Just spent the last 45 minutes digging snow from under my hood. Funny how those belts scream for mercy when the pulleys refuse to rotate.

A lesson in harmonics?
   
Group: Guest
I see. Using those thoughts the experiment shows extraneous material proof at my waistline  :(

Well.  That was really interesting on just so many levels.  I've proposed an alternate explanation for fire.  But the problem is that every self-respecting scientist knows EXACTLY what makes up the properties of fire.  According to Wiki it's an exothermic chemical reaction depending on oxygen, fuel and heat.  We know what oxygen atoms are.  So.  The next question is this.  What is the fuel?  Some compound's molecules 'burn' easy - other's not so easy.  And atoms simply don't burn at all. So.  Burn down your house - set fire to your table and chairs - cook your appliances - destroy whatever it is that you can - and you're left with all those atoms - eactly in the same condition that they started off.  But not one of them is in the same bound condition that they were before that fire started.  The only thing that has changed is their bound condition.

Then the next point.  Suns burn.  Hot, hot flames. Right through to the very heart of that structure there's evident FLAME.  It's a nuclear fire.  But there's not one evident oxygen atom required to sustain that burn.  So.  Why is it assumed that oxygen is required for 'fire'?  The fact is that the sun is that hot that it can transmute hydrogen to helium and back again.  But that tells us absolutely nothing about that 'fire' - only the level of heat in that fire.

Which brings one to the next point.  What generates that heat?  And where does it come from?  Wherever else it comes from it's not from the atoms.  They can't be touched - unless, as mentioned - it's that hot that it can alter the nuclear structure of the atom to change it.  Otherwise the electrons - the nucleus - the inner and outer energy levels of the atoms simply IGNORE fire.  If there's been an 'exchange of energy' then that 'exchange' has not been between the atoms.  

I get it that this concept has embarrassed everyone.  But - in the same way I'm embarrassed when I read the complicated, ponderous, technical explanations for what is KNOWN about fire.  All those words - all those terms - all those signs and symbols - all that complicated math - all those chemical explanations - and not one simple direct explanation for the properties of 'fire' itself.  I put it to you all that this has been the point at which science has learned to 'invent' explanations relying on terms that do not in fact carry any real description.  It explains nothing.

And I challenge anyone to tell me where this concept - this fundamental explanation may be wrong.  I've not invented pink bunny rabbits.  I've carefully observed what I know about fire and proposed that it may be a form of magnetic fields - a state of magnetism - that's responsible for binding atoms together. But it's essential condition is fluid and it can move through space and then find a 'home' or an 'atomic abode' provided only that there are atoms in that space.  And in its fluid state it is outside it's 'field' condition.  And then we experience it - as heat - or flame - or fire - or spark.  On the side of my argument - is that I've introduced a 'required' mass to amalgams or 3 dimensional structures that seems to be required - certainly on the scale of the very large.  And I seriously propose that this is one small form - one single dimension - of the aether that just about everyone here subscribes to.

Rosemary


  
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
An electric field is primary to a magnetic field.  (I thought this was common knowledge.)

Getting back the subject heading of this thread: "Ether - Does it Exist?"

It is apparent that "something" does exists, and we are still learning about it.
   
Group: Guest
An electric field is primary to a magnetic field.  (I thought this was common knowledge.)

Getting back the subject heading of this thread: "Ether - Does it Exist?"

It is apparent that "something" does exists, and we are still learning about it.

Well.  Not sure who you're addressing here but I'll assume it's me.  And I'm not sure why you say that an electric field is primary to a magnetic field.  It's absolutely wrong.  A changing electric field will ALWAYS produce a magnetic field.  A changing magnetic field does NOT ALWAYS produce an electric field.  When one permanent magnet interacts with another permanent magnet both magnets move through space - they change their positions - and it is or can be a really energetic movement.  Yet there is absolutely NO MEASUREABLE ELECTRIC FIELD ASSOCIATED WITH THAT MOVEMENT.  Show me one paper - any one study where this has been found to be wrong - and I'll glady admit the postulate is wrong.  I've done a search and indeed did find a paper where the object was to prove whether a magnet on magnet interaction resulted in an electric field.  AND it was published. And the results were inconclusive.  

SO Grumpy.  Why is it widely assumed that an electric field may be a primary force?  On the contrary.  It can ONLY be a secondary force.  And why exactly did you ask the question in the first instance if the existence of aether was that 'apparent'?  Is it determined by consensus - like your assumption of the primacy of an electric field?  Or is this based on 'evidence'.  And where then is that evidence?  And if you're still learning about it - then are you telling me NOT to interrupt that learning process by discussing it?

Rosemary

added
Actually I've just realised that you're objecting to an apparent deviation from the thread topic.  It's not a deviation at all.  We may not be able to see aether in its field condition.  But I'm suggesting that 'fire' is a form of aether and we definitely know that fire exists.  So.  I'm NOT off topic. 
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
A magnetic field can not exist without an electric field creating it.

Every magnetic field in existence in the entire universe has a changing electric field creating it.

You can find a few nice articles where the authors claim that a moving magnetic field does NOT create an electric field and that the appearance of a moving magnetic field creating an electric field is actually the electric field of the magnetic field creating another electric field.

Also, a magnetic field is not required to create a static electric field.
   
Group: Guest
A magnetic field can not exist without an electric field creating it.
Then where is the electric field in a permanent magnet? 

Every magnetic field in existence in the entire universe has a changing electric field creating it.
Really?  You know this as a fact?  Or is it assumed?  And what then carries that electric field?  Electrons?  Are there streams and streasms of electrons running in the vacuum of space to create all those magnetic fields?  Is this the aether that we're talking about?

You can find a few nice articles where the authors claim that a moving magnetic field does NOT create an electric field and that the appearance of a moving magnetic field creating an electric field is actually the electric field of the magnetic field creating another electric field.
I have NEVER found any 'nice articles' on moving magnetic fields that do NOT create electric fields.  On the contrary.  I have only found articles that talk about the simultaneous 'electromagnetic interaction'.  Or others on the baseless assumption that electricity is everything and everywhere.

Also, a magnetic field is not required to create a static electric field.
So what?  What does that prove?  A moving electric field generates a magnetic field.  ALWAYS.  That's not open to debate.  And static charge is NOT MOVING.
   
Group: Guest
No-one is obliged to see a correspondence between dark energy, dark matter and aether.  But the existence of dark energy and dark matter is not based on speculation it's based on fact.  And it's known that dark energy is EVERYWHERE.  It's conservatively assessed to constitute the material of more than 90% of the entire universe.  What we don't know is this field's actual material construct.  What particle belongs to this force - like the electron for electromagnetic interaction and the graviton for gravity and so on?    The electron itself is entirely precluded as a candidate.  It's just not that  bountiful and that plentiful to qualify for such huge quantities of dark energy.  Which also means that the electron or the electromagnetic force - is definitely out of the equation.  But it may yet allow the magnetic force.  No-one has yet proposed a particle for the magnetic field.  And certainly if the magnetic field comprised particles they could NOT be the electron.  The electron only has one charge.  A magnetic field always has at least two charges. The electron can be shown to exist.  The magnetic particle has never been seen.

The point being that whatever else makes up dark energy it certainly cannot be electric in it's fundamentals.  So why this requirement to insist that electricity is everything and everywhere?  It absolutely does not fit in with what is known.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Rosie,

I lack the necessary motivation and time to explain the universe to you, as I see it, especially to someone that insulted me for not wanting to "poisoning the wellspring of my mind" by reading their "theory".

If you want to understand things, then look them up.  Read the views of past experts and present ones and try to understand the basis for their points of view.  If at all possible, try experiments to gain a realistic understanding of what you read.

=============================================

Once again:

Getting back the subject heading of this thread: "Ether - Does it Exist?"

It is apparent that "something" does exists, and we are still learning about it.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1994
@Rosemary
Quote
I get it that this concept has embarrassed everyone.  But - in the same way I'm embarrassed when I read the complicated, ponderous, technical explanations for what is KNOWN about fire.  All those words - all those terms - all those signs and symbols - all that complicated math - all those chemical explanations - and not one simple direct explanation for the properties of 'fire' itself.  I put it to you all that this has been the point at which science has learned to 'invent' explanations relying on terms that do not in fact carry any real description.  It explains nothing.
I think what we call fire is pretty easy to understand when put in the right context, first we should understand that most everything we see is an illusion. If we take a piece of wood having carbon in it and this wood is in the presence of oxygen nothing happens because the C and O atoms cannot interact. If however these atoms are excited by friction or heat which are not energy but forms of energy then this excitation can cause the C and O atoms to "snap" together producing further excitation and CO which further reduces or "burns" with O2 into CO2. We should remember that this is not chemistry as every aspect of what we call chemistry relates directly to electrical or "charged" states. The energy is in the charged states of the atoms producing motion and EM radiation which is all that "heat" is. As well what we see as "fire" is the excitation of atoms leading to light which is EM radiation, Heat which is atomic excitation producing EM radiation as well as ionization which is a charged state. Much of the confusion around this issue relates to mistaking heat,light,ionization etc.. as energy, they are not energy they are forms of energy relating to the condition of something and this condition of matter relates to the rate of oscillation and charged state which is the actual "energy" and not the effects of a condition of something.
I think this is why there is so much confusion regarding energy and forms of energy as many mistakenly call the effects of a condition energy when in fact it is the condition itself as it relates to other things which is the energy. Once we understand this I think everything becomes easier to understand, personally I think nature is quite easy to understand but we have to look past the illusion and the false assumptions we make based on what we see.
We could apply this same concept to the aether, does it have to be "something"?, is it something or simply an effect of something?. It is odd that the closer we look at things of supposed substance the less real substance we find they have, could it be that we have never really been correct about anything in any way as most all the facts we have would have us believe that everything reduces to what appears to be nothing but a "disturbance" in the media.
Speaking of the energy and matter here is something to consider, if all the electrostatic charges in a one centimeter cube of aluminum were separated how much force would these separated charges exert on one another? Well about 32 x 10^18 pounds or 32 million million million pounds of force.
Regards
AC
« Last Edit: 2010-12-14, 03:45:31 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
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: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3008
One of the characteristics of "old age" is often
the appearance of a "hard head" or a state of
mind "set."  Some even describe it as being
"set in my ways" it is that strong.

As children we each enjoyed bountiful curiosity
and an incredibly open mind.  As ego and pride
are "programmed" into us the open-ness of the
mind begins to close; as a door closing.

As we become firmly "set" in our beliefs and our
"rightness" we will defend them with extreme
vigor;  the thought of being "wrong" or having to
admit "error" becomes a potential fate worse than
death itself.

I appreciate your perspective Rosemary.  And the
possibilities you bring to the discussion.

I also appreciate what you're up against and wherefrom
it arises.  It's an "institutional" thing.  Kinda like protecting
ones' "turf."

Our "old minds" feel "young" but in reality they deceive
us.  We've lost the "essence" of youth with our "blinders"
of age and "wisdom" and "education."

The question is necessarily broad in scope and requires
branching and detouring as the complexities under consideration
unfold into their fullness.

Are those who insist upon confining the limits of the discussion
to a narrow "ON TOPIC" path truly engaging in meaningful
examination or are they simply desirous of maintaining some
sort of "control?"

Yep, things do get a little "strange" from time to time...


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Then where is the electric field in a permanent magnet? 
Really?  You know this as a fact?  Or is it assumed?  And what then carries that electric field?  Electrons?  Are there streams and streasms of electrons running in the vacuum of space to create all those magnetic fields?  Is this the aether that we're talking about?
I have NEVER found any 'nice articles' on moving magnetic fields that do NOT create electric fields.  On the contrary.  I have only found articles that talk about the simultaneous 'electromagnetic interaction'.  Or others on the baseless assumption that electricity is everything and everywhere.
So what?  What does that prove?  A moving electric field generates a magnetic field.  ALWAYS.  That's not open to debate.  And static charge is NOT MOVING.

Here.  First one is on the House:

Quote
In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).

From the University of Texas:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node77.html

   
Group: Guest
Dumped:

I'll take your last comments as being about me.  Look, it should all be about agreeing what the term "aether" means and whether it exists or not based on experimental evidence.  You have to find a common ground for any discussion.

From my perspective, the "aether" goes back to the 19th century quest to try to explain how electromagnetic waves propagate in space.  That's what the M-M experiment and later more sophisticated versions were all about.  I have made my points about that so there is no need to repeat them.

Now, that aether concept in itself is worthy of debating.  If you ask the average person that is outside of the free energy realm and is knowledgeable about the aether debate, chances are they would say that the debate is indeed directly related to what I am suggesting it is all about.

On the other hand, if the meaning of the word "aether" is a free-for-all, then you can go off in a myriad of directions.  Is it electric field based?  Is it some universal magnetic field that supports various electromagnetic fields?  Is the aether some kind of glue that we get from burning wood?  Is it Dark matter and/or Dark Energy?

So, anyone is free to pursue the endless "broad in scope" definitions for the aether and it doesn't even have to be about the aether being a medium to support the transmission of electromagnetic waves.  It can be anything, it can be like a big hippie Be-In in 1966 and anything is permissible and anything can happen.  Throw of the "blinders!"

The only problem with all that is chances are it's going to get you nowhere.  Not a very wise move if you ask me.  People will start proclaiming "answers" but they will have forgotten the question.

So it's not about "control" as you put it, it's really about building up a knowledge base that makes sense and going onwards and upwards from there.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-12-14, 10:24:50 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Rosie,

I lack the necessary motivation and time to explain the universe to you, as I see it, especially to someone that insulted me for not wanting to "poisoning the wellspring of my mind" by reading their "theory".
Well.  That's a new one for the books.  It seems that i've been accused or am accusing all and sundry of 'poisoning my/their' minds - well sprung or otherwise.  And that I have a 'theory?'  That's rich.  I've only ever claimed a thesis.  And I'd be very glad if you did not ALL assume that I need to 'read' up more than I already have.  I do indeed lack 'knowledge'.  I lack math training and the logic of math.  But that absolutely DOES NOT MAKE ME ILLOGICAL.  And I assure you all - AC, MH, Grumpy -  that I am entirely familiar with conceptual physics - clearly more so than the rest of you.  And the ONLY way to understand physics is through CONCEPT.  Otherwise one applies measurements.  And measurements DO NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING.  It only MEASURES.

Once again:

Getting back the subject heading of this thread: "Ether - Does it Exist?"

It is apparent that "something" does exists, and we are still learning about it.
And AGAIN.  WHERE does it exist?  WHAT is your proof?  You've done NOTHING but point everyone to a whole lot of references that DO NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING AT ALL.  I, at least, attempted definitive proof of its existence.  And all you did was IGNORE THAT EVIDENCE.  I actually think that your intention is to control this discussion by implying a knowledge that you either do NOT have or are NOT prepared to share.  Another thread doomed to DEATH for want of some honest exploration in the actual issues.  What a crying shame.  And this from someone who appears to be so anxious to promote our New Age concepts especially as it relats to aether. 
   
Group: Guest
'In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).'

What is being proposed here that is any different to anything that is on offer in our text books?  And what does this to do promote our understanding of aether.  Is it based on the implication that magnetism is the same as electricity?  In which case?  Does magnetism rely on the flow of electrons as you all assume electric current flows?  Because you'd be wrong.  Electrons cannot FLOW as a field.  It's simply not possible. Nor has ANYTHING EVER BEEN SEEN OR MEASURED OR KNOWN TO FLOW INSIDE CIRCUIT MATERIAL.  All those atoms - from start to finish - stay exactly as they were before the measured flow of current.  No more or less ionised atoms.  No more or less imbalance in their valence electrons.  No repositioning in space.  No changes.  You cannot claim any variation whatsoever in the material properties of the atom itself.  Not even in the 'alignment' of their electrons.  If there is any kind of material exchange between those circuit atoms - then it has absolutely NOT changed those atoms - AT ALL.  What does change is when current has completed its orbit.  Then indeed 'it' the fields that DID flow - can rearrange the atoms / molecules - into a more balanced charge condition.  But when it flows through circuitry it only imbalances the bound condition of the circuit material.  NOT the atoms themselves.

Rosemary

ADDED
   
Group: Guest
And AC when those two hydrogen atoms 'snap together' with one oxygen atom - or when two oxygen atoms snap together with two one carbon atom - and the rest - then - what makes you so certain that something - outside of those atoms actually couldnot first have been responsible for gluing  those atoms together?   Just because we don't see it doesn't mean that it's not there.  We know that the forces work.  But we don't see them.  Do gravitons 'snap' atoms together and then pull them 'downwards'?  Do electrons 'snap together' ever, to cause current flow? 

And how about this.  We can put hydrogen atoms inside a vacuum and they will NEVER create a sun.  On the contrary.  They'll move as far apart from each other as is physically possible within the constraints of any particular volume or area.  YET - they've filmed whole suns - HUGE QUANTITIES of hydrogen that move out of our nebulae.  What accounts for that accretion?  Gravity?  So where is the gravity in the vacuum that contains our small sample of hydrogen atoms?  Can't it reach into that experimental apparatus?  Suddenly for some arbitrary reason gravity first becomes localised? There is absolutely NO bonding of any atoms into any gross physical three dimensional object unless there is first an applied energy source.  The atoms of themselves do not exchange any kind of interest in each other - the more so when they're alike.  And how do you explain all that nuclear fire in a sun when there is absolutely not one single oxygen atom at all?  Are you proposing that the condition of those purely hydrogen atoms in our younger suns are exchanging material properties with each other?  If they were they would not be identifiable as hydrogen.  The atoms always and only stay the same.  Until they're transmuted into more complex structures.  Then indeed their material properties are varied.  But they do not first grow big and light up and pop like a balloon pops.  Yet all around is on fire.  What causes that fire?   
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3008
My comments were as much about "me" as perhaps anyone.

I certainly cannot exempt myself from any criticism.

I too am learning to be "young" again and to re-capture the
enthusiasm and the idealism of earlier years.  Though I may
look the part of the "ol' stuck in the mud codger" there isn't
any real need to continue the mind-set of a lifetime of acquired
pride and prejudice.

The mental freedom of childhood is exhilarating!  The boundaries
of the mind are limitless!  Fling that door open!

Perhaps the aether is more about what it isn't than what it is...

I suspect complete understanding will be a long time in coming.

We have a whole lot of "un-learning" to do first...


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Guest
Dumped - from where I sit you're the only one who is prepared to entertain new ideas.  Everyone else just gives it lip service.  It's a rather brittle condition for membership anywhere.  New Agers are as closed minded as Mainstream.  It's just that their prejudices are from different sides of that same table.  Frankly everyone will tolerate anything provided always that they share that perspective.  Quite lonely in a way - if you don't share either view point.  It seems that there's nothing quite as polarised as difference of opinion.  And it seems that once that opinion is polarised - then it's stuck there - as fixed as the justification of a permanent magnet. 

Rosemary
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1994
@Dumped
Quote
As children we each enjoyed bountiful curiosity
and an incredibly open mind.  As ego and pride
are "programmed" into us the open-ness of the
mind begins to close; as a door closing.

As we become firmly "set" in our beliefs and our
"rightness" we will defend them with extreme
vigor;  the thought of being "wrong" or having to
admit "error" becomes a potential fate worse than
death itself.
Those are words of wisdom and very well spoken, I think all of us can relate to this and I have had similar thoughts for a very long time. I heard some good psychiatry quotes which relate directly to your post--- "If you do not think you have an ego problem then you obviously do" and "The only people with real psychological problems are the ones that believe they do not have any". On a personal note I can tell you I am guilty of all that you have mentioned above on more occasions than I would care to admit and am quite proud of the fact I understand this as I cannot change something I will not admit exists in the first place. I have done a great deal of research in this area of psychology and found that in fact all of us, every single one of us is in fact just plain weird,lol. Not because we have issues persay but because we usually always deny the fact that we do despite the facts.
Now some might say what does this have to do with the topic at hand? I would submit it has everything to do with any topic because what and how we think determines what we do. Imagine that, that somewhere in our mind we know things, things we have observed, measured and sensed but suppressed because they do not fit in with our reality at the time. Is it any wonder that some of the greatest discoveries have happened by accident, the fact that these accidents led to a reality that nobody had ever considered therefore thought impossible. If there is one thing I have learned over the years it is, never say never, because the odds are were probably going to end up looking stupid at some point in time. I think we can apply a similar thought to the aether in that what we find improbable if not impossible to understand today will be obvious at some point in the future. History has proven this time and time again and to think otherwise just seems a little crazy in my opinion.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
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
Rosemary, this is sort-of pointed at you.  (Dumped, what can I say, I agree 100%)

In your concept of the "Magnetic" being a primary, as in possibly being directly related to the makeup of aether, I have another question which is really to see how what you "Think" is related to how I "Think".  (I have my own "Opinion", but don't want to bias your answer yet, as a clean thought would be helpful to me.)  Without getting into quantum theory, which I have quite a few problems with, do you consider the "Magnetic" force related to a "Particle"?  You mentioned gravitons, which is really a convention for humans to work with digital concepts instead of analog.  (I am sure many would argue that is a close-minded position, but I would argue the contrary.)

To put it in a more generalized form, would you consider an EM wave to actually be a stream of particles?  I assume you see the relation to the concept of light, as currently defined.  I just wanted to pick your brain for a bit.

To all, I assume the root cause for the phrase "Out of the mouth of babes...." has become obvious.  Also the phrase "Too smart for his/her own good."   WE all can fit in that second one, more often than not.  (Again, I really appreciate "Dumped"'s words.)
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy,

I believe the aether exists. The main problem with acceptance may be more to do with ones worries about staying employed in a science related position. Maybe now they can use the term 'Dark Energy' and keep there funding.

One reason I don't proclaim the existence is there is normally little reason for me to worry about it. The final analysis may show us that it does exist but there is much more to it than the early experimenters decided. We should face the fact that it was primarily a 'fudge-factor' to explain things unknown at the time.

Now that we are starting to see more unknowns we needed another fudge-factor and it is called Dark whatever. This dark stuff may wind up being the aether. I tend to think it will be, and much more. At least some folks, under the label of 'New Physics' are trying to explain the Voyager problems. This may well be the breaking straw for c or a new understanding related to time. I can't wait until the findings come in from new probes.

Can we use what we know about this poorly defined fabric? I don't know but have serious doubts about my capabilities to do so.

I will go out on a limb here, in spite of the tone of some of my previous posts. Even though I find apparent contradictions and some sloppiness in some old works, once you begin to understand how it all ties together there is no doubt the majority of the findings must be correct. The beauty of it all is to profound for any human artist. Unfortunately, this symmetry is like the best books. The meaning varies too much depending upon the reader.

I despise the way Heavyside butchered the works of Maxwell. I loathe the reasons for Maxwell using Gauss instead of Ampere. It pains me to see other such obviously correct and well defined experiments passed over as if they were nothing.

So, I experiment with the things that seemed to go unnoticed. At least it is fun to do  :)

Maybe I'll figure out which came first. The chicken or the egg  >:D
 
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary, this is sort-of pointed at you.  (Dumped, what can I say, I agree 100%)

In your concept of the "Magnetic" being a primary, as in possibly being directly related to the makeup of aether, I have another question which is really to see how what you "Think" is related to how I "Think".  (I have my own "Opinion", but don't want to bias your answer yet, as a clean thought would be helpful to me.)  Without getting into quantum theory, which I have quite a few problems with, do you consider the "Magnetic" force related to a "Particle"?  You mentioned gravitons, which is really a convention for humans to work with digital concepts instead of analog.  (I am sure many would argue that is a close-minded position, but I would argue the contrary.)

To put it in a more generalized form, would you consider an EM wave to actually be a stream of particles?  I assume you see the relation to the concept of light, as currently defined.  I just wanted to pick your brain for a bit.

To all, I assume the root cause for the phrase "Out of the mouth of babes...." has become obvious.  Also the phrase "Too smart for his/her own good."   WE all can fit in that second one, more often than not.  (Again, I really appreciate "Dumped"'s words.)

Hello Loner.  Yes indeed.  I've described it as follows - in our TIE paper.

I.   INTRODUCTION
THE following tests were designed to evaluate a thesis  that predicted anomalous heat signatures on an inductive resistor placed in series with a switching circuit. The thesis is developed from a non classical magnetic field model but a full description of this falls outside the scope of this submission.  What is pertinent here is some overview of that thesis as it applies to current flow. The following paragraph is intended as a broad brushstroke description of this and is further clarified as described in the Appendix I.

The model proposes that charge has the property of mass with the material properties of velocities and thermal capacities associated with that mass.  These particles do not conform to the standard model and remain hidden within three dimensional solid or liquid objects or amalgams.  They are extraneous to the atom itself and only interact with the atomic energy levels that, in turn, comprise independent fields of the same fundamental particle. These extraneous fields are responsible for the bound condition of the amalgam. This interaction between the fields and the atoms’ energy levels results in a balanced distribution of charge throughout the amalgam. Measurable voltage reflects a transitional state of imbalance throughout these binding fields that, subject to circuit conditions, then move that charge through available conductive and inductive paths to reestablish a charge balance. In effect the circuit components that enable the flow of charge from a supply source are, themselves able to generate a flow of current depending on the strength of that applied potential difference and the material properties of the circuit components. Therefore both inductive and conductive circuit components have a potential to generate current flow in line with Inductive Laws.

Classical assumption requires an equivalence in the transfer of electric energy based as it is on the concept of a single supply source. Therefore voltage measured away from the supply on circuit components is seen to be stored energy delivered during closed circuit conditions of a switching cycle. The distinction is drawn that if indeed, the circuit components are themselves able to generate a current flow from potential gradients, then under open circuit conditions, that energy may be added to the sum of the energy on the circuit thereby exceeding the limit of energy available from the supply. Therefore if more energy is measured to be dissipated at a load than is delivered by the supply, then that evidence will be consistent with this thesis.  The experimental evidence does indeed, conform to this prediction.


What has nothing to do with this experiment is that 'fire' is proposed to be the manifest particle out of the field condition. What may also be of interest is Harvey's description of the thesis in an addendum to that same paper.

The following exercise is intended as a broad brushstroke description of the non classical properties of current flow that was tested in the experiment described herein.

The classical approach to current flow recognizes that charge motion is predominately that of electric charge. The aspect of this thesis that is considered appropriate to this submission relates to current flow. It proposes that current flow comprises the motion of magnetic charge which, in turn comprises elementary magnetic dipolar particles. In classical terms, these particles would align with Faraday’s Lines of Force and therefore the number of lines that exist through a particular  real or imaginary surface, would still be represented as magnetic flux while the particles themselves, in distribution along those lines, represent the magnetic field.

It is proposed that these fields are extraneous to the atomic structure of matter and are thought to play a critical part in binding atoms and molecules into gross identifiable matter. Further, the particles obey an immutable imperative to move towards a condition of balance or zero net magnetic charge. Given a source material with an ionized charge imbalance which is measured as a potential difference, and given a closed circuit electromagnetic material path, these particles will return to the source material with the necessary charge to neutralize that imbalance.

Typical electronic circuits provide such material paths through the circuit components of which they are made which includes all conductors. During the passage of current flow through such closed circuitry it is proposed that the charge imbalance is transferred to those circuit components. The individual imbalances in each component and each conductor then seek balance according to that immutable imperative. In typical electronic circuitry, each component that has been ‘charged’ by this transfer, will either neutralize the charge internally, or influence a secondary current flow  in anti-phase or opposite polarity to the first cycle.

While this is substantially in line with classical assumption as it relates to the transfer of charge, the distinction is drawn that the energy that is then transferred to such electromagnetic components, is able to regenerate a secondary cycle of current flow in line with electromagnetic laws. This energy is then not limited to the quotient of stored energy delivered during the first cycle and as presumed by classical theory. Instead it is dependent on the circuit component’s material characteristics and the means by which those materials balance a charge put upon them. Therefore there is a real energy potential in the secondary cycle which would reflect in a measured improvement to the performance coefficient of the circuit arrangement. This enhanced performance coefficient may be at the expense of the bonding of the material in the circuit components. In a worst case condition, this energy may be released as is observed in an exploding wire that is put under extreme charge conditions due to excessive current flow. In a best case condition, the energy is released gradually over time and results in fatigue to those components. This paper addresses an application of the gradual release.


Since the noisy fracture of our collaboration he DENIES understanding the thesis at all.  But this dissertation somewhat belies that statement.  In any event. I'm reasonably satisfied that NONE OF YOU have actually ever bothered to read the thesis or the any of the papers that related to these tests.  And Poynty claims that the results are inconclusive.  Not sure how he determines this when experts designed the protocols and no expert has denied these numbers.  They won't publish though.  It's too controversial.  We were told to submit it to a physics journal.  And physicists wont argue electric measurement - so we conveniently fall out of reach of both disciplines.  Hopefully that's set to change.  But the paper needs a rewrite and the data supplied by Glen has mostly been withdrawn from easy public reach. 

Rosemary


   
Group: Guest
What the thesis does manage is a perfect reconciliation of the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron.  Biut that in turn requires each particle to be a composite of of these fundamental bipolar particles.  Actually.  It explains just about every paradox that still needs an answer - including but in no way limited to the casimir effect.  The downside of the thesis is that it's simple.  I think everyone hopes for something that is impossibly difficult to conceptualise.  But having said that - I'm not sure that it is that simple.  It also seems to generate a certain amount of confusion.

In any event.  That's my work on the AETHER for what it's worth.  And unlike the most of you assume - there's ample experimental evidence and ample accreditation.  It's just unfortunate that the attraction of the technology is sufficiently overwhelming that it's been subjected to an attack the likes of which has never been evident on any forum anywhere.  More's the pity.  I keep reading all you scholarly contributors talking over me and around me - or telling me to go and 'read' up what's on offer - and with the entire exception of Loner - NOT ONE PERSON had sufficient courtesy or interest to simply ask me to explain anything at all.  I put it to you that my grasp of the aether and aether technologies is probably about as advanced as it's likely to get until a latter day Maxwell get down to the actual numbers.  Meanwhile it's best rendered as a binary system.  It's all that's needed.  And like ALL PHYSICS it can only be understood through CONCEPT.  When will you all begin to realise that conceptual physics is the ONLY WAY TO GO?  There is absolutely NO OTHER WAY that it can be understood.  

Sad really.  The more so concepts are seen as a kind of infantile exercise and my efforts to promote understanding through concepts then satisfy you all that I must be as thick as pig shit and entirely unschooled.

Rosemary
   
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, 07:27:11