There is no Ether

[James Milner]

Folks,
An interesting article on the topic.
Zero Point Field Induced e+e- Pair Creation for Energy Production
James

[James Milner]

Does a non-illumined, non-observable object exist?

In my opinion yes.
I've been thinking about beginnings. We think about the "big bang" as a bright flash of light, that is observable.
My thoughts are the polar opposite. The beginning was a huge amount of energy. So much so that the first matter created was disassociated plasma. In this state there was too much energy for photons to be emitted, so nothing could be observed. It would be absolute darkness, matter would exist in its absolute simplest forms, maybe as quarks or even smaller. As space stretched out and matter began to cool finally atoms were able to form at a level that electrons could reduce from the highest possible energy state to the next. Thereby releasing the first photons. Up until that point you would have your non-illuminated, non-observable object.
Thereafter you would not.

Looking at heisenbergs uncertainty principle, looking at it light heatedly, lets say we are in a digital simulation. Matrix-esk. Lets say we are burrowing down to the source code level, what do you expect to see at the atomic level? I expect to see even the electron in its orbit move according to quanta within its orbit. That is there are a certain number of possible locations for it to be to achieve various properties of the atom. Lets make it real simple and call it four, consider our analogue of an electron cloud. The interesting thing is that if you try and locate it you can in one of the four possible locations, but the velocity is null. Ie not determinable, because in that moment in time it only has locality. If we try and work out velocity, ie how fast it moves between locations we can work it out because the velocity is the rate of change from location to location, but to locate it, as it vanishes and then turns on at the next location, is impossible, because the location is unable to be determined as it moves from location 1 to location 2. The electron does not move in a smooth celestial orbit as in bohr's model of the atom.

Back to the issue of the aether. Lets say it exists, but not as we expect to see it. We seem to think of these things in the way we've been taught whether we like it or not. Its been talked about as a flow within our dimensionality. Lets suggest that we live in 4 dimensions, but more exist as per string theory suggests. Maybe one is the ether, the one that energy flows out of to support so many things that require it. Atoms, sprites which form the large lightning bolts seen from space, gravity, the strong nuclear force, magnetic spin, energy remaining in the system at absolute zero just as some possible suggestions. Like a power cable threading itself through space-time. If we can tap this repeatedly, through magnetic field potential collectors ( sorry can't think of telsa's name for it) or magnetic ringing like in ssg's, maybe this will be our first views into these hidden or curled dimensions.
It is a suggestion gravity could exist strongly in an adjoining dimension. And in our reality we are but seeing a shadow of its true power. In the measured "aether" by Miller, maybe we are seeing the same, a shadow of the real power of an adjacent dimension. To my thinking that is what is so important about chasing the Aether, finding out what it is by repeated experimentation. I can't but feel that we are getting our first glimpses of a new reality. Why else do you think he powers that be are stridently trying to shut this stuff down? It took the Internet and its lack of control to get ideas like John Bedini's and even Teslas into the wider community. It affords a degree of safety but also a degree of risk, because its also so hard to hide.

As I have stated earlier I'm not totally convinced by millers findings because so much works with einsteins theory's as does quantum mechanics, yet i think they are to taken very seriously. I think the aether is understated in magnitude because we do not yet understand our surrounding dimensions,yet I also believe we are not completely isolated from them, we just can't see them. The question is how to access them even in part.
I think the likes of tesla and others since then are beginning to, we just need to do so repeatedly, reliably and work out the reasons why. I just hope that we have the likes of Eric Dollard and John Bedini for as long as possible, and they may finally nail down the theory and math for lesser men like myself.

I apologise for the lack of correct jargon and terminology, as it has been many years since I had the time, and headspace to walk the halls of academia. But I hope it creates some new thoughts in the area nonetheless.
James

[ZPDM]

Didn't realize there was so much activity here.

Vtech,
And I suppose that 2D person would have some difficulty putting together the patterns which would come in from the third dimension. Though if he could experience another dimension it might appear as a simple as a sphere. I could go on re the second part of your comment but seeing all the comments on the thread, I'll, for the moment, quit while I'm ahead.

Longhorn,
I guess I am just trying to simplify the terminology and ask if we, in discussing free energy, are talking about what we obviously seem to be talking about. If we say energy from the "vacuum" well a vacuum is defined as "nothing". If we say "zero point", again that is nothing. If we say ether, ether is nebulous and ill-defined. So I am just asking can we say anything about the ether, if we can't that would be nothing again. I don't think it's bad if we say the energy is from nothing. It just would mean energy can be and is being created all the time. I hope it came across that I meant the "seventh dimensional toroidal torsion tornado" as the kind of thing I see in "advanced" papers where I have no clue what they are talking about and begin to think the authors themselves have no clue either. There is I would say a conventional model for the heartbeat that doesn't make any reference to the ether, sure we might not have a complete model and it might be flat out wrong. Alright, you got me, the heart beat just might be a seventh dimensional toroidal torsion tornado (SD triple T) to us experts, that demonstrates the ether.

James,
You're noting that there are erudite critiques of Michelson Morley obviously struck a power chord. I was expecting the points brought up to be about the lighting of fluorescent lights around the whole electrically insulated circuit path of a Bedini or other radiant type machine. I was ready to concede this point but to mention if one ever accepts the mechanical devices like Melkovic's two stage oscillator or a gravity wheel or Laithwaite easily lifting a heavy spinning wheel above his head, the whole thing is right in front of you as it were, still when you tally it up the energy doesn't balance out, even more than the weird Tesla type stuff that is what, again if valid, I have trouble wrapping my head around. Instead you and Aaron are giving me a whole new direction to study and learn in.

Tom C,
I am going to go entirely afield of your comment, however, I know you're the man on this, unless JB wishes to offer guidance. I'm going to build another SSG or two, don't even have a working one at the moment. I'm not looking to do precision engineering, this will be a balsa wood on a CD build, just want it to spin. Then place a thin sheet of copper touching the magnets on the rotor. Put a brush contact at the center of rotation and one at the periphery of the wheel. I might also note that one could run a pulse motor (I think) with the N/S facing vertical to the axis of rotation and so could easily extend the pulsing magnets right in towards the center of rotation of the copper disk if need be. The only loss I would see is the friction from the brush contacts, while one might not have to further be concerned with Lenz stuff. So I would say if it has been done to death and don't waste your time, please let me know, heaven knows these builds aren't the easiest thing for me. If not, well go feed the naked and clothe the hungry or whatever. In all honesty I don't know if it is a very dumb idea, if not ... BTW I couldn't get anywhere on my superglue balsa wood V-gate motor, rats.

Faraday,
"`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe ...
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!",

Beware the frumious Bandersnatch!

[James Milner]

Faraday,
I can't imagine how I managed to upset you. Now or in the past!
I'm at a loss???
Your initial reply was at the very least cryptic and also condescending. Whether you meant it that way or not.
Frankly I couldn't be bothered arguing.
Let's leave it there!
James

[Faraday88]

look who's talking...! i never had any intention to provoke first of all! secondly i'm not a great fan/ proponent of the 'particulate travel theory of light'
Time travel and Space travel are different aspects and are Asymmetrical..that's the best i can say for now.

[Aaron Murakami]

Will look into Dayton Miller more would be quite interesting if the evidence is possibly for a material ether.

Study this page in depth: Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments all the historical references are there.

Also, Einstein always knew Miller was right and he was wrong. He was just protecting himself but he gave enough evidence to let everyone know his own model was inevitably going to fall on its face.

Anyway, that Miller page linked to above has more than enough to confirm the historical facts - all the references are completely verifiable.

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)

[Aaron Murakami]

Now there was the Michalelson-Morley experiment which found no "material" ether

Actually, that is not the whole story. Originally, their findings showed a POSITIVE deviation. It's a historical fact conveniently not discussed.
Furthermore, later on, Michelson himself later verified Miller's results in the POSITIVE.

The Michelson-Morley experiment that found "no" aether is null and void and is taken out of context of the earlier and later experiments.

[James Milner]

Faraday,
I can't make sense of your post. Unless you are attempting to provoke!
For clarity I am very aware of the Setterfield/Norman Analysis on the slowing of the speed of light over time and the equally important study by Alan Montgomery indicating it followed a Co-secant^2 Regression with better than a 99% correlation co-efficient. I alluded to it very vaguely(see comment "unless the speed of light has changed over time."), but not specifically in my post. Hence my comment to Tom C, about being on the same page.
Such a potentially critical fact calls into question the value of C and it's application to many physical properties. Furthermore it calls into question our modern understanding of the discipline of physics as it is taught in our educational institutions.


If you are going to contribute further to this thread, do so constructively and play nice.

[Faraday88]

How much of the 'same page ' is understood is more important than pointing it out ......
its not a cup of your tea anyway so why crib....bla bla...

[James Milner]

Tom, exactly the fellow/study I was alluding to!
Sounds like we are on the same page!
James

[Tom C]

just to muddy the waters here some more type Barry setterfield into google and read his paper on C (speed of light) not being constant

Tom C

[Faraday88]

the constituent of Nothingsness is two fold : one is Spatial Nothingness and the other is the Temporal Nothingness. Thus Michealosn -morely experiment carries no sense if they anticipated the presence of a Meterial 'Aether'..! yes this is very evedient in the Tesla's Colarado experiment, where he could get 'meterial aetheric Discharges which is nothing but Energy. (what do you understand by Fractionation of Electricity) thus the meterilistic aspect of the Aether is Energy in spatial terms. and Matter evolves out of Time!

Rgds,
Faraday88.

[longhorn]

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?

ZPDM

In the above you specifically stated; "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.

You ZPDM ask for an observable property of the ether, "or any model of a possible property which predicts observable EVENTS."

Try your heartbeat. Which if you look at the average arrangement of the human heart, with the arteries, valve placement excetera, it is observable that the average mundane human heart is actually a "seventh dimensional toroidal torsion tornado model, which consistently predicts something experiencable - a heartbeat, which is directly attributable to the etheric (ether) waves of the universe.

[blackchisel97]

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!

James

This subject brings a memory from the science class in elementary school, back in '60. My teacher drew a stick man and enclosed in a close circle. Now- he said, we have an example of 2D being unaware of 3D world outside. Since he only knows 2 dimensions this circle creates an obstacle to his body and his mind alike. How can he possibly grasp 3D or 4D concept?
What if...there is no light as we think of it and the speed of these waves while can be measured in our atmosphere with all forces acting upon becomes invalid as soon as we go beyond "our environment"?
That's even more mess for our calcified brain

Thanks
Vtech

[ZPDM]

Will look into Dayton Miller more would be quite interesting if the evidence is possibly for a material ether.

If everything is quantized maybe we are indeed in a digital simulation. That messes with our brains huh!

As I think the Greek scientists well understood it is either quantum or infinite, i.e. you either take a step or there are infinite steps between one and the next. Both mess with my brain! Though at the moment I sort of like the quantum with intervening nothingness to the infinite As an aside here I was reading the other day about people who got conked on the head then ended up with incredible acquired abilities (math, music, art, etc), Acquired Savant syndrome they called it -> maybe I should walk into a door . Anyways this fellow who got mugged ended up with prodigious mathematical and artistic talent, drawing fractals, the interference pattern of the two slit photon experiment etc. He made the point on a message board that if you take Plank's constant (which I guess he figured as a distance I am guessing from an electron jump) and divided it into the size of the known universe you get like 100 million (or billion, don't recall) digits. He then noted we have calculated pi out to 2 trillion digits but anything beyond 100 billion is just mathematician's mischief (sorry, sorry my term), but that reality stopped at 100 billion digits or put another way we have a 10e11 x 10e11 VGA screen. If we accept Plank's constant and the size of the universe, I think he's got a point (errrrr quite literally).

I also read something about that model of reality as a digital simulation. I would bet you, (pinky to lips) "ten thousand" dollars, oh wait that it is a political gimmick, would bet a nickel in our heck on earth you'll never hear anything again, from the idiot media at least, about a model of digital simulation. It brings up the oh so gauche question of the programmer or creator of the "simulation".