PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-04-20, 17:41:28
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]
Author Topic: Ether - Does it Exist?  (Read 146016 times)
Group: Guest
It is an interesting read, I'm about half way through it.  I will say I tend to dislike the terminology he uses and he also beats a dead horse to death a second time bashing classical science.

His concept of a dielectric disk with centripetal and centrifugal magnetic components is a little hard for me to grasp.  So far in my read I cannot see physically how he came to the angles he describes other than to say, "It has to be so."  If you happen to understand this from a quaternion point of view, maybe you could explain it in your own words.  Or maybe I could understand it if you can explain it.  Also good if you can make it a bit more clear what space and counterspace is.  I read it like matter and anti-matter, but I know that is not the concept he is trying to express.
   
Group: Guest
I'll certainly give it a thorough read and see what conclusions I come to.

A  few words on quaternions.  I approach quaternions from a very basic algebraic viewpoint
and operational stance. I went back to the old books of Tait and Hamilton and learned how they
approached it.  My/their method is not difficult at all. First just the definition of a quaternion.
A quaternion is defined as a scalar or vector or a combination of the two.
This is straight forward and nothing spooky. And with this definition you can see it is applicable
to any and every physical expression. The rules of manipulating certain types of quaternions
are rather simple but it can get enormously tricky trying to keep track of signs.
There are however certain types of quaternions that are members of a Caley Dickson construction
such as quaternions, octonions, septenions, etc., that lose certain mathematical  operational abilities.
For example  a quaternion does not commute.  
An octonion is a quaternion that does not commute and is non associative.

I pretty much try to stay with quaternions because they are i, j, k, and a scalar, or x,y, z, and a scalar like zero the origin.
The rules of quaternion manipulation can be simple.  One of the rules is that the reciprocal of a quaternion
i.e., 1/j, is called the conjugate of j and can be designated as 1/j=-j.  Also ij does not equal ji.  ij=-ji.  
And ii=jj=kk=ijk=-1. Lastly ij=k, jk=i, and ki=j. Those are the basic rules.

Note: i does not equal k, does not equal j, does not equal i.  None of the three equal any of the other two.
This is one reason why it's conceptually difficult to wrap your brain around just what quaternions are.
I call them units of precession, allow them to act algebraically, and call it day. I leave the heavy lifting to the number theorists.

We can always designate the xyz axes as ijk.
This the basis of my current induction equations.  Nothing complicated.  Just basic algebra.
If you take the Lorentz force, E is along one axis, B is along another, and qv along the third.
Thus they must behave as quaternions and obey the rules of quaternions.
This is why  via GFT principles we may write both E/B=qv and Ex-B=qr/t.
This is basically why Maxwell and Steinmetz found quaternions to be so useful because electrons are quaternions.

Lastly, to my knowledge I"m the only one who has done this but I unify all of trigonometry and Hamilton's quaternions with
ii=jj=kk=ijk=-1=e^(ipi).  Again I may be mistaken but no one except me seems to see Euler's formula as being
the mathematical foundation of the whole of quaternion mathematics.

Again, I have to read much more in depth Wheeler's work but Steinmetz and Dollard talk of and explain this concept of innerspace.
I too have proposed something akin to this concept of inner space via conjugates. (this was prior to reading about Steinmetz and Dollard)  
I've also proposed that  the empty space inside an atom is not just empty space but is actually a quaternion space.
A space that is dynamically active and quantifiable.  This is why I find Wheelers book interesting.  He touches upon several
subjects I too have looked into.
« Last Edit: 2014-07-19, 18:22:30 by GFT »
   
Group: Guest
Oh.  One last thing.
We are taught that the centrifugal force is actually a
pseudo force.  A fictitious force that only seems to
be real because we are riding along with the real
force, the centripetal force.  Well given GFT principles
and the principles of precession the centrifugal force is real.
In fact given GFT principles all of the pseudo forces are real.
One frame of reference is as valid as any other.
The centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler forces are real.
They exist in their own right and there are (should be)
electromagnetic manifestations of the three.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 694
By the same token I'm sure we recall the Lorentz/ Einstein force law http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html as taught regarding magnetic circuits and the vector /phasor operating at 90 deg , where is that force in the electrostatic example? Intentionally missing along with all the maths and science is the conclusion of many, fudged and omited in order to cover up the exsistance of the Aether and the linear wave.  That argument is given wings by Prof Dollard and Prof P T Pappos amoungst others. Revisiting his web site to repost the links I now find it not working as it did … twas to be expected , http://papimiuk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/free-energy-by-dr-papas.html


---------------------------
How many more to be .threatened, abused murdered, Their research in the hands of evil corporations intent on total control ?
http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/b/b9/suppressed.pdf
whilst we know little .. friends remember,
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
D. Erasmus
   
Group: Restricted
Sr. Member
*

Posts: 270
I am going to chime in here.  Normally I stay in my areas of interest and only venture out of them once in a while.  So today I am going to dabble into this aether business.  I know that almost none of you are going to listen to the information that is in the links, but I am going to disseminate it anyways.  You guys need to see the counter-balance once in a while, even if you are going to ignore it.

The truth is the conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that there was no convincing evidence for the existence of the aether.  However, you can find junk/alternative science links on like that claim just the opposite.  This is where you take science and turn it into some sort of a game of political spin.  It's really the wrong way to go.  You either accept what the main body of scientific research has come up with based on the experimental evidence or you don't.  It's the same kind of business with respect t electric current and electrons.  For some reason some people don't want to believe in electric current, even through there is overwhelming evidence it exists and circuit analysis relies on current and it's in agreement with experimental evidence.  I suspect that the "current" business stems more from a desire to go against the grain than anything else. It shows that you have "alternative energy" "edge" or something.

Going back to the aether, if you do the Google search the vast majority of the information you find indicates that the experiments could not prove that it exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

About the Sagnac experiment:

The quote from Grumpy's original quote about this goes as follows:

The above statement is bullshit.  The rotating apparatus would either create a longer or shorter path for the light and be detectable as shown in the highlighted section in the Wikipedia link above.

This other statement below from Grumpy's link is also nonsense.

The above quote plays into the usual "suppression" argument and it's not true.  The effect is perfectly understood and it's used to make laser gyroscopes.  The tone of the statement is right from the Tom Bearden school of writing.

MileHigh

Hmm, it seems that you just ignore the facts that someone else has wrote a book, explained theory and formula for calculus … and on top of this has built an OU device that is presented in a patent as a proof and i am going to quote:

Quote
Summary.
It has been found, after ample research, that zero point-energy can be extracted from Space in several ways: by using permanent magnetic and / or electromagnetic fields, as well as "Time-Space " changes .
That this is not known by the contemporary Physics , or don’t want to know, is the biggest scandal done to humanity Since 1912, the year of the "failed " Michelson - Morley experiment, which failed because of the erroneous assumption that the Aether, if it would exist, would flow tangentially along the Earth's surface flow, is simply adopted by Physics that it did not exist / exists.
The reason that Michelson-Morley had failed is that the equipment should have been
set up 90° different. (The gravitational inflow is the main component of the Aether flow near and in the Earth) . Poincare suggested the nonsense that Nature itself would hide the discovery of the existence of a carrier for electromagnetic and gravitational waves and currents.
Einstein already in 1931 proposed serious objections against the direction which Physics has gone (Einstein , Podolsky , Rosen).
However, to date, the theorists have kept the developments in Physics with respect to low- temperature fusion and zero point-energy to a stand, aided by the large-industries, for the enforcement of the status quo and little interested in energy technologies which make low costs, decentralisation and independence for consumers possible. This invention concerns the “against each other in oscillation” of two electro- magnetic fields, wherein it has been observed that , depending on the frequency , more Electric energy can be taken away, then is provided.
Use is being made of conducting wires, which are right next to each other. Possible ways are (a) "in the plane", (b) on a "cylinder”, (c) on a "toroid"

See attached patent that i am referring to. I would love to hear how such a junk theory can produce such effect when something non existent as you say, can be used with very beneficial effect.
« Last Edit: 2023-10-02, 09:13:31 by Classic »
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 40


When we talk about ether some facts must be known.

The stars and the empty space around it are the same in composition but different in volume.

Some scientific magazines mention that the black hole around the sun is 4 to 19 million times bigger then the sun. For us, the numbers are not so important, as long as we know that it take  tremendous amount of space to create a star.

I read somewhere that it takes 936 photons to create a proton.

A planet like Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus – we call them gas giants with very high radiation. These giants are in disintegration stages and we know that the last octaves are very radioactive. This means that they are on their way to disappearing. When gases are expanded to the zero point, it is where the ninth octave becomes one again.
The gases don’t disappear. They become what they were.

 For us, this brief explanation should be enough to know that space is not empty at all.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 73
Didn't you know about the research about the ETHER, done back in late 1800's? See documents related to John W. Keely of Pa. S V P sells copies  + there are several  books available related to his machinist work and the 42 new laws of vibratory physics.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3359
Well what exactly is electricity ?
It is a movement of charges in one net direction.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 73
John W. Keely , 1865-1899 worked with Ether physics in his workshop. Study the Keely references. Some are available from S.V.P. mr. pond. 42 new laws of vibrational physics.
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 328
I know that we are spitballing here but here is my take .

Every time you see a decent lightning strike ,ask the question. Was the voltage there before the conditions allowed the discharge to occur ?
Or was the discharge actually generated by the clouds rubbing together ?

This helps me at least .
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2816


Buy me a beer
I know that we are spitballing here but here is my take .

Every time you see a decent lightning strike ,ask the question. Was the voltage there before the conditions allowed the discharge to occur ?
Or was the discharge actually generated by the clouds rubbing together ?

This helps me at least .

For every meter above ground there is at least 100v always, at 2meters 200v etc.

When there are clouds it is like placing another capacitor inbetween, the voltage at the ends is still the same from Ionesphere to ground. The clouds rubing together increase the voltage to a point of break down of the dielectrics.

This can go either ground up or from above to ground. The couds are part of the circuit, as is the Earth Ionesphere cavity.

But I still do not know if the TPU pulls some of the charge, or it is cutting Earths magnetic field, or it is a Maxwell demon.

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2625
I know that we are spitballing here but here is my take .

Every time you see a decent lightning strike ,ask the question. Was the voltage there before the conditions allowed the discharge to occur ?
Or was the discharge actually generated by the clouds rubbing together ?

I found maybe a fraction of 1% of adults actually understand why lightning occurs but it's pretty simple.
-The ground has a (-) charge and the atmosphere(+).
-Surface water forms a dual layer with highest (-) charge on the surface attracted to the (+) atmosphere.
-Evaporating surface water vapor therefore has a (-) charge and when the water rises it cools and condenses.
-When the water condenses two small water droplets combine to form one larger droplet.
-Two small drops combining to form one large drop has the same volume but a smaller surface area.
-Since the (-) charged surface area decreased the (-) charge density must increase.
-As the water droplets continually condense, combine and raise the (-) charge density the potential difference between the cloud and ground increases.
-The cloud concentrated (-) charge near the bottom induces an opposite and equal (+) charge on the ground under it.
-When the difference between the (-) charged cloud and (+) charged ground becomes great enough an electrical discharge occurs we call lightning.

It's easy to explain when we understand the evaporating water which is rising upward is acting as a charge carrier. Ergo, when the water condenses so must the (-) surface charges the water carries increasing the charge density and cloud/ground voltage.

In fact the atmospheric water/charge cycle is almost identical to a Van De Graaff generator. Simply replace the belt moving (-) charges from ground to the top load with evaporating water vapor doing the same. It's so simple even a child could understand it.

AC


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

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 185

-Evaporating surface water vapor therefore has a (-) charge and when the water rises it cools and condenses.
But they say to me,that it's impossible to charged any gas with same charge.
I was already ask here that earlier. was raising a question.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2625
But they say to me,that it's impossible to charged any gas with same charge.
I was already ask here that earlier. was raising a question.

Your confusing a vapor and a gas, there not the same.

Quote
Gas and vapor are both forms of matter that exist in a gaseous state. However, there are some key differences between the two. Gas refers to a substance that is in its gaseous state at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, such as oxygen or nitrogen. On the other hand, vapor refers to the gaseous form of a substance that is typically a liquid or solid at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, such as water vapor or steam.

AC



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

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
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 2024-04-20, 17:41:28