There is no Ether

[James Milner]

Dayton Miller was an interesting fellow who took 20 years of observations that proved his theory. The problem was it created problems for Einsteins theories,and that of his compatriots. Michelson actually repeated the experiment and came up with a drift of 20km sec but it was considered not significant. Millers understudy Shankland was left with his research notes when he died, reviewed them in the negative and his prospects soared. He was personally thanked by Einstein for his critique of Millers results as Einsteins theory hangs on the premise there is not aether.

Regarding quantization, I think you will find it in everything including red shift of the "expanding universe", which makes you question how could quantization values vary, unless the speed of light has changed over time.
If everything is quantized maybe we are indeed in a digital simulation. That messes with our brains huh!

Thanks for Faradays notes. I look forward to reading them.
James

[ZPDM]

James,

I had not heard of Dayton Clarence Miller, took a glance at Wikipedia and see I will have some more research to do, thank you!

Regarding absolute zero my point is a little different. After Max Planck introduced his idea that energy states are quantized, Heisenburg pointed out that if you have to hit something with a finite sized something you will disturb it and hence can't know perfectly where it was when the photon struck it or perfectly where it is going when the photon struck it, the photon of course needing to go back to a sensor, or eye, if we will. In the same way, if we say something is perfectly still (absolute zero), as soon as it is hit by an observing photon it would no longer be perfectly still (absolute zero), nor I would guess could you tell if it was even perfectly still before it was observed. Maybe Heisenburg and/or Newton (the thing moves when hit) are wrong. That is why I dwelt on that. More fundamentally, while I can conceptualize a still object (maybe), it would have to not move when anything illumined it otherwise it would not be still. Does a non-illumined, non-observable object exist? Or now that I've read this again, absolute zero can never exist in an observable state unless one can observe without changing. I would also agree the strong nuclear force seems as mysterious as the rest.

After some trips to the toy store I'll say I agree with you wholeheartedly about experimenting, you have to read alot, but nature is the real textbook. I've just started to glance at Faraday's notes, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14986...-h/14986-h.htm they get boring at times but it really isn't difficult, "I wound this here I put this there I saw this." Not like the mathematicians, I'm a bit angry at mathematicians right now I suppose, intimidated by their being better at chess than me for so long and now I'm like "wait a minute you left out the wheel ... really? ... no derivative, no integral, just nothing on that."

'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' St. Paul to the Greeks, Acts 17:28

[James Milner]

Zpdm,
Have you researched Dayton Clarence Miller, a contempory of Albert Einstein. He was even more well known than Einstein at the time and took Michelson morleys experiments to a new level. Some say that he didn't compensate enough for temperature variations in his experiments, but i can't explain away the vector or the phase shift? To me it seems a cheap shot, particularly since he was a very experienced scientist an had spent years repeating his experiments with bigger and bigger apparatus. I'm not advocating for the aether but I'm not discounting it either. I think that little has been done on cosmological field flow other than detecting background radiation.
Regarding your comment about absolute zero, it doesn't affect photons, their speed is unchanged.
Likewise from another perspective why does the atom not fly apart? Particularly at absolute zero. All those positive charges so close together, likewise the energy required to keep electrons in motion and stop them collapsing into the core.
Nuclear glue (the strong nuclear force) is without explanation to this day. There is energy coming from somewhere. Where is the question?
Getting to the spiritual the bible states in John 1 by him all things were made by him and col 1:17 by his power all things hold together. I personally believe that this is the real truth.
I think the greatest obstruction to learning is thinking that we already know. It's better to keep an open mind on many theories and think up experiments that can either prove or disprove these hypothesis.
For me the cooling of batteries while using a SSG has me stumped. Either is it some sort of new version of magnetic refrigeration by electrical transference, electricity taking on a new phase/orientation or state yet to be explored. It is clearly drawing energy out of its surroundings making it cold while increasing in electrical potential.

Rather than mess with the "higher learning" brinkmanship, which cannot be answered without a college level lab, I think it more profitable to get down in the weeds and do the experiments that can describe a repeatable phenomena and then put them to use. Forget the theory, I'll leave that to the mathematicians/physicists with the prowess of Tesla

I for one am sick of college level armchair opinions, nothing like putting your money where your mouth is. No personal insult intended, just a generalisation of critics of so called free energy. That is why I'm here and putting up the cash to provide my own data, which I can't argue away.
I am just thankful John Bedini has had the generosity of heart to offer help and advise for those willing do the experiments for themselves.
James

[ZPDM]

Alright, that sounds either entirely conventional or pretty controversial depending on your vantage, so where am I going with it? Well at this point I tend to think there isn't an ether. Now there was the Michalelson-Morley experiment which found no "material" ether, taking it as valid one is still left with the original problem, what do waves propagate through? Well at least we say they are waves when we don't say they are particles, but the real issue remains, what does a magnet, when I feel it act through a distance, or gravity when it acts at a distance, act through? The ether ... oh wait. When we consider such forces as observable waves we might think of a wave from the ocean, "damping out" at the seashore, however, the ether is not observable, though something is said to travel though it.

So here is the fun game show question. Give me any observable property of the ether, or any model of a possible property which predicts observable events. I don't want to hear that the ether is "teeming" or "violent" or happy or sad. Is it orange? Does it smell like oranges, is it three feet in distance? Conversely, if there is a model of a seventh dimensional toroidal torsion tornado, how does this model consistently predict something experiencable.

I lost most intimidation and a good deal of respect for theoreticians and mathematicians when I thought about a child's spinning top for a while. When I made a mass as a spinning wheel raise to a height with no change at all in a kitchen scale I lost more confidence in the authoritative modelers. Mass is not constant, it varies to disappears in an inertial plane depending on how fast it's spinning. But who ever encounters a wheel? Oh and if you are not dealing with gyroscopic precessional motion but just spinning an unbalanced wheel, it hops in a linear direction. I don't blame Newton, he was a great experimenter he just also happened to be a likely forceful personality and a good mathematician so things became more entrenched than he ever would have liked or possible imagined.

Now you will tell me the ether is the energy that is possible at zero kelvin, when all motion has stopped, zero point energy. If, per Heisenberg, observation requires motion, and per Newton there is an equal and opposite reaction from any action, then something perfectly still, is again, not observable. One might Euclid like, though less fundamentally, question the postulates of Heisenberg and Newton, but should all of Western Science read like a bad Zen Koan.

We haughtily note that the Greeks never conceived of zero as a number (silly fools). Well zero isn't a number, it is nothing, nothing by definition is not something, hence zero is not something, likewise Descarte was correct, there are no negative numbers as there can not be something less than nothing by definition. If you acknowledge that these are vectors, I owe you money or you owe me money, that is valid, but there are no negative scalar numbers (which is what numbers are presented as).

I will present here an alternative to the ether. We see or hear, etc, waves and particles and note their behavior in various environments, we, perhaps erroneously, look to extrapolate this to fundamental forces. What if, rather than traveling through a non-observable ether, the fundamental forces, which ever they are, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc. are themselves responsible for creating the perception of space which needs to be traveled through? As a child we learn to perceive distance with our eyes through the interference pattern of the incoming “photons”, they provide consistency and predictability to further experience. The moon is not the size of my thumb it is distant. Well this has gotten silly for me now as well as I can't think of things creating existence which do not exist in something, still it may be worthwhile to look a little more upon the forces simply acting and not what they might be acting in.

One last point then I'll shut up. Let's say for an instant that the Bedini SSG is overunity, or the Kapanzde device, or Tesla's Magnifying transmitter, or Howard Johnson's magnet motors, or Depalma's N-machine, etc. If even one of these is "over-unity" we have the question "where did this energy come from?” Maybe a big ball of energy like with a solar cell. I like to consider Veljko Milković's two stage oscillator, unless I am mistaken Dr. Lindemann considers this device over-unity. It is quite bluntly a lot like a raised see-saw with a swinging bag of bricks at one end, (catch the other end if you can), I also guess it is over-unity. Now one has a much tougher question, where did the energy come from. I think rather then saying the asymmetrical, happy on Tuesdays, angry on Thursdays, what was non-observable now became observable ether, it is more intellectually honest just to say it came from nothing. Yes, ... the energy came from nothing, nothing! What springs to mind for me now is a line from the character Kramer, when he had no underwear, on the comedy show Sienfield , "I'm out there Jerry and I'm loving it!" I may be missing more than underwear. The FIRST (Immutable) LAW then is Energy may be created. I suspect it can not be destroyed.

Humility, though to legitimate! authority, lest we destroy ourselves, is needed with such an idea. Far from just destroying the dipole, as Bearden states, in electrical transmission, we may have been all along living in a land flowing with milk and honey, we just keep destroying it. On a positive note, I’ve seen some small experimental evidence myself and read reports frequently from reasonable people of energy being created, is energy ever destroyed?