There is no Ether

[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

[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]

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

[James Milner]

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

[longhorn]

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!

There is no vacuum - the vacuum is but a convenient fiction

ZPDM is a person who is searching for answers, and in playing the role of the proverbial "Doubting Thomas" it is proof that he is asking for the proof is in the pudding, or in the scarred hands of those of the past and present who have worked silently, without reward at great personal cost, towards the end of free energy from the vacuum.

What I believe ZPDM actually wants is the fruits of this debate without the cost associated in other words he wants something for nothing, but then most are the same in this regards, so why be shocked?

ZPDM we could debate ad infinitum the ether, the vacuum, and the speed of light, whose THEORY is right only the Creator knows, but in the end all remains is opinion and speculation, would it make you happy if I said that there is no ether?

But this raises another question where does the vacuum originate from, and how is light as an energy form moved from point A to B, because in a vacuum there is nothingness. But we know that by empirical evidence that it is frequency that moves through a vacuum tube.

My dear ZPDM what does frequency represent? It represents two opposing forces that while diametrically opposed to one another operate co-jointly as a single unit, i.e. a magnetic (frequency) field. So a vacuum is not really a vacuum at all but is just opposing frequency fields, negative and positive.

Its the yin and the yang of the Dirac Sea, fed by varying frequencies that make it all happen, its the quintessential "I Am because, I Am."

So ZPDM from a Zen Buddhist standpoint, just relax and let everything be as it is, progress is not measured by action, reaction, but by coexisting with nothingness which is all you would have without varying fields of frequencies, immersed in the Dirac Sea.

SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea

[longhorn]

[ZPDM]

James,

Sorry for the late reply. You covered a lot of ground there, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a thread about "nothing" generates a philosophical discussion, should have seen that one coming. I think you are entirely right, the question leads back to the beginning. I don't know if your model is correct, as far as I can recall I wasn't present at the start If I am to give my view of the beginning I will go back to Genesis. I may be the wrong person for it, it may be ugly, however I will now proselytize.

If we take Genesis as source material if you look at the first three lines of scripture they describe a "triune" God. The first line a Creator, the second a Spirit or Wind over the waters, the third line the Word. The first line spoken was "let there be light". So yes, the word/spirit/creator existed before light but through the light one is able to perceive something of the transcendent One. So the Christ is described so often as the Word of God, and in addition as He tells us "I am the light of the world". It all goes back right to the beginning. Or again, no one knows whom the Father is except the Son and those "to whom the Son chooses to reveal him". So yes at the mountaintop level I would agree something non-observable may exist.

I was just thinking on the more mundane level is there anything that can be observed of the "ether"? I would also clarify that I am not suggesting that things arise of their own accord from nothing that strikes me as silly, just that the One may create from nothing and perhaps it happens often.

As regards reality as simulation, it is an interesting thought unless someone kicks me in the shins. I'll offer another "model" not saying it has to be correct, I just suspect it might be something like this. A man by the name of Howard Storm had a near death experience. Along with many other things, one of the things he mentioned upon his return is that yes there really is a "heavenly choir". It consists of those beings who moving beyond doubt and fear are so attuned to the One that they are, at the direction of the One, quite literally "singing" our existence. And, per Howard Storm, if they were to stop everything around us would no longer exist. Oddly enough this is similar to how JRR Tolkein viewed things. It also, I suspect is a bit like what Walter Russel was talking about. Yes, the distance is real, the hot and cold are real, but they are "made of" the harmonies and interferences of fundamental (whichever they are) forces. So while it is real, if the cello player in the third row is told to play a different note one might find oneself on the other side of the galaxy. To add even one more wrinkle we have the admonition from scripture, "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away then for one iota of the law to pass away," or something to that effect. This points to a level of organization that is greater than the physical reality. While at first glance harsh, when one considers the question of intentionality in experiments and otherwise I find it comforting. Yes, as is frequently alluded to in scripture and I think just plain said will have to look it up, what ever you believe without doubting may come true, for a mind like mine that is not necessarily a good thing. However, the fail safe as it were is that one cannot, at the end of the day ever believe that which is not the truth. This truth or law is the program which underlies the "simulation" we are in.

Well if Dr. Bedini didn't ban me from the board when I first showed up on valid grounds of being an ahole I suppose valid grounds of BSing tremendously may be allowed as well. Besides if you can't BS on a free energy forum ... well what has this country come to!

[ZPDM]

Longhorn,

Lord knows I've been a "Doubting Thomas" and worse, and thank you that you believe I search for the truth. I don't know where to go with a lot of the rest that you said.

"What I believe ZPDM actually wants is the fruits of this debate without the cost associated in other words he wants something for nothing, but then most are the same in this regards, so why be shocked?"

I don't know what the fruits of this debate might be (what do you see longhorn?). Yes what I am saying is to heck with the ether, the dirac sea, the zero point, the vacuum, the asymmetrical quantum flux, maybe you can get, as you put it "something for nothing". If someone presents the something and can't say anything about the "nothing" well as a simple man that is how I would view it. I don't know who the "most" are or why they are somehow "shocked".

I also never insulted any experimenters, if anything I was disparaging towards people better at math and modeling than I am. I am an experimenter, have worked hard, unknown, unpaid, just what are you getting at? Enjoyed the Mosaic reference to God as being and something about Buddism but really, what's the difference between "ether" and nothing?

[longhorn]

Longhorn,

Lord knows I've been a "Doubting Thomas" and worse, and thank you that you believe I search for the truth. I don't know where to go with a lot of the rest that you said.

"What I believe ZPDM actually wants is the fruits of this debate without the cost associated in other words he wants something for nothing, but then most are the same in this regards, so why be shocked?"

I don't know what the fruits of this debate might be (what do you see longhorn?). Yes what I am saying is to heck with the ether, the dirac sea, the zero point, the vacuum, the asymmetrical quantum flux, maybe you can get, as you put it "something for nothing". If someone presents the something and can't say anything about the "nothing" well as a simple man that is how I would view it. I don't know who the "most" are or why they are somehow "shocked".

I also never insulted any experimenters, if anything I was disparaging towards people better at math and modeling than I am. I am an experimenter, have worked hard, unknown, unpaid, just what are you getting at? Enjoyed the Mosaic reference to God as being and something about Buddism but really, what's the difference between "ether" and nothing?

ZPDM

I do not question your sincerity, but I do question your intent.

It is as Winston Churchill stated:

"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
-Winston Churchill

I'll end with another Churchill quote:

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
-Winston Churchill

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. Never, never, never give up."
-Winston Churchill

Never, never, give up ZPDM, my brother.

Longhorn

[thurstjo63]

Zpdm,

I would suggest that you look at Paul LaVoillette and Subquantum Kinetics. In it he postulates a set of well-ordered reaction processes that are proposed to take place at the subquantum level similar to chemical reaction systems that spontaneously evolve well-ordered wave patterns. An example of these self-organizing phenomenon, is the Belousov-Zhabotinskii reaction that was first discovered in 1958. These slowly moving concentration fronts called chemical waves, or “reaction-diffusion waves,” can be discerned when a dye indicator is added to this reacting solution. In the case of subquantum kinetics these reaction processes compose what is called the transmuting ether, an active substrate that is very different from the passive mechanical ethers considered in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It also proposes that the concentrations of the substrates composing this ether are the energy potential fields that form the basis of all matter and energy in our universe. The operation of these ether reactions causes wave-like field gradients (spatial concentration patterns) to emerge and form the observable quantum level structures and physical phenomena (e.g., subatomic particles with mass, charge, spin, and force field effects and electromagnetic waves).

In the case of subquantum kinetics:
1) It starts with a mathematical model of subquantum processes;
2) it then computer simulates this model to generate quantum level phenomena;
3) it compares the model’s simulated results to actual observations. The model’s mathematical parameters are then “fine-tuned” so that its simulated results accurately reflect experimental observation, thereby making the model realistic representation of the physical world.

Since it begins with a single reaction system model as its point of departure for describing essentially all observable physical phenomena, subquantum kinetics qualifies as a unified theory. Compare this to conventional physics that begins with many theories conceived independently from one another and later attempts to “sew” these together. The result is a self-contradictory aglomeration of theories that appear more as a patchwork which is probably why you've come to the conclusion that there is no ether.

The interesting thing is that the theory has been validated for a significant body of existing phenomena such as:

• Nucleon Core Field
• Energy Conservation and Photon Redshifting
• Energy Conservation and Energy Generation
• Brown Dwarf Stars
• Interplanetary maser signals
• Galactic Evolution
• Galactic Core Energy Source
• Supernova Precursor Stars
• Gravitational Repulsion
• Gravity wave and Coulomb wave speed and gravity wave force
• Dissipative Solitons in Reaction-Diffusion Systems
• Galactic Core Explosions
• Cosmic Ray Propagation
• Cosmic Ray Bombardment
• Cosmic Debris Around Solar System
• Cosmic Dust Influx
• Tin in Cosmic Dust
• Tin Isotopic Anomaly

It is definitely worth checking it out in more d

[longhorn]

Solar Wind Prediction Forecast, the Aether is also known as - the solar wind ZPDM, this forecast is provided by the National Weather Service, daily.



Solar Wind Prediction

[James Milner]

Longhorn,
I believe the solar wind is only a fraction of it. There is also net cosmic wind as well which is what I believe Miller was studying as it moves contrary to the solar wind. There is some suggestion that this cosmic radiation/wind is responsible for the level of cloud formation in our atmosphere, more when our solar radiation is low and less when the solar wind dominates. Very little study done on it regarding potential climate change etc.
Cheers
James

[Faraday88]

Has any body experianced the effect of Solar presence/absence on the local Vacuum ?..there by reflecting in the SSG behaviour.(more preciesly the E-AMP effect)
FEG book says night local Vacuum is more active than day..due to Solar activities...
rgds,
Faraday88.

[James Milner]

Faraday,
I have noticed that charging can be a little better at night on some occasions. I seem to recall the moon was up when it occurred as well, which made me think about possible reflected aether. But my observation is purely anecdotal and without hard measurements to back it up. I certainly wouldn't put a wager on it at this point in time.
Nonetheless it would be worth a study, maybe someone who has long periods of sun and long periods of darkness, provided the test was done at the same ambient temperature. The only problem with this is the closer you head toward the poles the closer we are to both Aurora's which may have an effect on the results. Otherwise anywhere else with short charge times whilst completely in darkness.

[ZPDM]

ZPDM

I do not question your sincerity, but I do question your intent.

Longhorn,

I don't know if I should feel better that you think I am sincerely bad intentioned. Okay two can play this game I don't question your sincerity but I question your manners. It is a bit interesting that you bring up Churchill. I actually attended Winston Churchill High, great school, it led me to read Churchill's 3 tome memoir of WW II. I looked up to Churchill when I was younger. At this point though I wonder whether he wasn't just an alcoholic psychopath who ordered the firebombing of Dresden, incinerating some 100,000 or more people in 48 hours at the near end of the war for no clear military reason. A little further afield, both author Kurt Vonnegut, and experimenter David Hammel (re a simple magnetic gate motor (validated by JB) and who has been trying to build a spaceship in his backyard for some time) were allied prisoners of war at Dresden at the time of the firebombing. Both came back a bit "nuts" though who can blame them.

Getting back on topic, I'm not that concerned whether you say there is an ether or not. Reality isn't a popularity contest and observable reality either is or isn't. I'm just noting that when using words like "virtual", "zero point", etc. the ether is non-observable, I've heard good objections to this, though I don't think solar wind is one. I also have no idea if I am correct, I actually suspect there are a plethora and spectrums of different phenomena. Sometimes like a blind man considering a solar cell we just don't see the source of energy, other times maybe an interaction with an other dimension (for which the the 5th dimensional leprechauns may charge us for stealing their ether). What gets me is a spinning wheel. You just have to hold it for a short time to realize it most definitely, in no means, no how, is following Newtonian mechanics. There is a great photo of Dr. Laithwaite holding up a twenty pound spinning wheel on a one foot shaft with one finger. Without going into issues of mass and gravity I'll just say it occurs that one could make energy from that, and an MIT grad apparently did just that. Where does the energy come from then?

I have again been surprised by the interest and emotion in the question. Longhorn, your interest did get me to reflect on something Tom Bearden said which hadn't sunk in, "we have no definition of energy". Now Mr. Bearden may have been considering this on very mathematical and technical levels but I finally got what he was saying, we don't know what energy is. So, and possibly this is how I should have titled the thread, maybe the FIRST LAW of Thermodynamics is invalid. Now bear with me, the first law is beautiful, not coincidentally, almost religious sounding in its "energy can be neither created nor destroyed." Energy, in physics is conventionally described as capacity to do work. The second law comes in and says "entropy is always increasing" and we are headed towards a nihilistic grey goop where no work may be performed. The two laws are contradictory. There is a work around of making a distinction between "kinetic" and "potential" energy but ... wait for it ... potential energy can not be observed. I suspect energy can be created, I think it happens all the time, there might even be a little free energy created every time you flush your toilet. Again, I agree on the mountaintop level energy does not come from nothing, perhaps it comes from the power of that Spirit mentioned in the second line of scripture hovering over the formless waters. On a mundane level though it "looks" like it comes from nothing.

So I don't think we need to be so concerned or worry about "giving up" on the technical level. I'm fairly well convinced there's lots of people on this board who have "free energy" devices. Even if we just used the current paradigm, why not as Tesla also suggested, use the temperature gradient from a hole in the ground. Studies have shown you can get 2-3 megawatts from an abandoned oil well. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of these holes we already dug. They were economically dug for a vanishing resource, what about using them for a resource that will last millions of years, i.e. the temperature gradient. We don't face a technical problem, we face a people problem.

So in summary, there may or may not be an ether, if energy may be created it is not necessary and in any event perhaps we might not be so focused on it when nothing may said about it.