Views on the Aether...Tesla,Mathis, Dollard,Thomson, etc.

[RayTomes]

Didn't Tesla describe the aether as being simultaneously rigid with a strength exceeding steel,

That was back in the day of Farady that they believed it was rigid like steel.
Tesla saw the Aether like I see it, it acts like a perfect gas, perfect liquid, perfect solid, perfect plasma,
all at the same time.
...

It is actually harder than you think to distinguish between a tensile aether and a fluid one. I prefer the tensile aether myself for two reasons.

1. It has no smaller parts needed.

2. It directly and simply explains transverse waves.

[junglelord]

Steven O wrote...

Since nobody has a good definition what charge is it will always wander about the Mad section. Charge equals the mass of photon radiation. To quote MM:

Miles Mathis wrote:
I will show that charge is dimensionally the same as mass. Then I will show that charge is the mass of the charge photons. I will also show that the permittivity of free space is a misdefined constant that has nothing to do with free space. The value of that constant is actually the value of the gravitational field of the proton.

Thats what APM says, mass is dimensionally the same as charge. Again I say they agree. Two views of one thing.

Permittivity of free-space being the gravititational constant of the photon field, is acceptable by me.

I fail to see how your real photon field is any different from the photon field predicted by APM in the Casimir Effect.

At some point someone has to ask Miles how real matter is created. I say via Dielectric Tensional implosion which is a Casimir Effect, because the less the distance, the greater the Dielectric Field Concentration in the system. Real Photon production is essential to an open system that makes matter.

Dollard says that c is just the relationship of charge to mass. Its a constant not a limit.
I have to agree.

I also fail to see why you say APM has quantum constant constipation, then turn right around and use a quantum constant yourself.

Cheers Steven and keep up the work on the Dielectric Field technology.

[junglelord]

Newton's constant, which describes the strength of the gravitational pull that bodies exert on each other, is the most poorly determined of the constants of nature. The two most accurate measurements have experimental errors of 1 part in 10,000, yet their values differ by 10 times that amount. So physicists are left with no idea of its absolute value.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... avity.html

I wonder what Steven O could teach us about Miles work and this statement.
They seem to be at odds with each other.
Which leads me to believe that Steven is correct...as they never teach us the truth.

[StevenO]

Newton's constant, which describes the strength of the gravitational pull that bodies exert on each other, is the most poorly determined of the constants of nature. The two most accurate measurements have experimental errors of 1 part in 10,000, yet their values differ by 10 times that amount. So physicists are left with no idea of its absolute value.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... avity.html

I wonder what Steven O could teach us about Miles work and this statement.
They seem to be at odds with each other.
Which leads me to believe that Steven is correct...as they never teach us the truth.

When physicists measure Newton's constant they do not measure the gravitational pull only, but the combined pull of gravitation and push of the charge field. The strenght of the charge field is about 0.1% percent of the strenght of gravity at the earth's surface. So, it seems logical to me that the variation they measure in G can be about 1 part in 1000, about equal to the variance that can be expected due to the variance in the charge field contribution, which is dependent on material density, temperature, ocean or mountain location, etc.

[StevenO]

Steven O wrote...

Since nobody has a good definition what charge is it will always wander about the Mad section. Charge equals the mass of photon radiation. To quote MM:

Miles Mathis wrote:
I will show that charge is dimensionally the same as mass. Then I will show that charge is the mass of the charge photons. I will also show that the permittivity of free space is a misdefined constant that has nothing to do with free space. The value of that constant is actually the value of the gravitational field of the proton.

Thats what APM says, mass is dimensionally the same as charge. Again I say they agree. Two views of one thing.

Permittivity of free-space being the gravititational constant of the photon field, is acceptable by me.

I fail to see how your real photon field is any different from the photon field predicted by APM in the Casimir Effect.

APM fails to see that the Casimir effect is just a reformulation of Newton or Coulomb. They should really start to read Miles. Could save them a lot of wasted time.

At some point someone has to ask Miles how real matter is created. I say via Dielectric Tensional implosion which is a Casimir Effect, because the less the distance, the greater the Dielectric Field Concentration in the system. Real Photon production is essential to an open system that makes matter.

That's just fantasy. But whether photons are created or recycled by matter is indeed an open question. My theory is still that matter is photon spin and space is photon motion.

Dollard says that c is just the relationship of charge to mass. Its a constant not a limit.
I have to agree.

The ratio between spin and motion is actually c^2. From both sides the zero point looks like c.

I also fail to see why you say APM has quantum constant constipation, then turn right around and use a quantum constant yourself.

The photon is not one of a page full of quantum constants but the single unit quantum.

[StevenO]

Here is Miles explanation of how magnetism works:

How magnetism works mechanically

The charge photons are not just being exchanged in some virtual manner between electrons and protons, they must be everywhere. Everywhere there is magnetism or electricity, there is a charge field of real photons driving the electrons.

This subfield used to be called the ether, but I don't call it the ether (mostly for political reasons). I could call it an ether, but I don't want the historical baggage attached to that term. I call it either the charge field or the foundational E/M field. The historical ether was never an ether of charge photons, so I want my field to be titled appropriately, and set apart from all historical fields, which were either non-assigned or poorly assigned. You will say that the ether has been disproved anyway, but that is not really true. The ether has been disproved in some forms, but not all forms. It has been shown that light does not travel via an ether, in the way that sound travels in the air; and it has been proved that the wave of light is not an ether wave, in the way the sound is a wave in the air. That is, light is not a field wave, and the ether is not the field of light. With all that I agree. However, it has never been proved that there is no ambient charge field. Just the reverse. We have lots of evidence for an ambient charge field, since the entire electromagnetic spectrum can be taken as a charge field. All the photons of all wavelengths, that we already know about, can be taken as the charge field. The universe is filled with this radiation, as we know from the Cosmic Background Radiation and other sources. The coldest emptiest space is filled with the CBR and other E/M radiation. But our Solar System is very far from being cold and empty. Our near environs are bursting with photons across the spectrum. It may be that many or most of these photons have little to do with charge. Some may be too large and some may be too small. But every square inch of near space is bursting with photons, and a part of this field is certainly used as the charge field.

Admittedly, we haven't figured out which part. We can't monitor a inch of space and say, “these are charge photons and these are not.” Nor I am any help in this, yet. I have no method of sifting charge photons from non-charge photons. In a previous paper2 I have calculated an average wavelength for this charge field photon of 1.6 x 10-4m, which would be about the size of a redshifted CBR, but I have a lot of work left to do on that. Blackbody radiation is probably the charge field, which would make the field operable over a range of wavelengths, but my blackbody research is also far from complete. My current guess is that most photons can be pressed into service of the charge field. Only really energetic photons like gamma rays or cosmic rays would be exempt, since the charge field is probably an average motion of the entire E/M field in a certain area. The electromagnetic field is an ocean, and the charge field is just the gradient of that ocean over some smaller area, caused mainly by the amount of mass in the area emitting it, but also by the kind of mass (unpaired electrons, for example).

At any rate, it is accepted by all that this electromagnetic field of photons exists. It is just that no one has thought to assign charge to it. So far it has been an ocean without a current, and I simply point out the unused current.

[junglelord]

I will send the Miles stuff to Dave Thomson, see what he says.
In the end, they are leaders of rethink, we are only followers in their footsteps, so they could talk best between themselves, on a level that would be only fair to both parties.
I can get that going.

But you know Steven, APM is built from only 4 quantum constants, not a page of them.


What system of measurement does APM produce?

APM system of measurement is devised so that all measurements are based on quantum length, quantum frequency, quantum mass, quantum charge, and the spherical constant.

What is the measurement of those constants?

a) quantum length equal to Compton wavelength, = 2.426310238 x 10^-12 m^19
b) quantum frequency equal to speed of light divided by the quantum length = c / Lq = 1.23558998 x 10^20 Hz
c) quantum mass is equal to the mass of one electron = 9.1093826 x 10^-31 kg
d) quantum charge = Electrostatic charge = 2.566969633 x 10^-38 Coul squared
Electromagnetic Charge = angular momentum x conductance of the aether,

Seems to me reading Miles, I can identify more then two quantum constants being used in his work as well.
Miles work while seemingly simple on the onset, quickly becomes cumbersome. He has rewritten entire ideas, from photons that shrink, to photons that expand with the 32ft constant he finds in the formulas. Thats quite the change and you can tell he did not know which he was going at some point.

APM grew in one direction, which has never gone back and reversed something on this magnitude.

In the end, it makes no sense to me why you bust APM's balls.

Both men show that given enough intelligence, the ratios hidden in all fundamental formulas, are there waiting to be exposed as true relationships. I would also point out that dimensionality and levels of order require more then just two fields to work out all levels of reality with math of two fields. So Miles level of order could be one step below APM. I have no trouble with levels of complexity. You seem to imply that the only level of complexity that will ever need explaining is the fundamental. It seems to me that germain to a UFT, the complexity reveals a growth of equations that fit the level of order being examined.

I have a question Steven.
I see that Miles shows that Coulombs Charge Constant is within the gravity portion of the equation, in this respect do we have a reason to boost TT Brown and LaViolette's work on electrogravitics. Is that not correct Steven?

[Grey Cloud]

Don't want to derail the thread but here is a little article on Tesla which I thought might interest some of you:
Long-Dead Inventor Nikola Tesla Is Electrifying Hip Techies
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 18942.html

[Corpuscles]

What a superb gathering of names for a topic. Eventhough I suspect it has been culled to "mad" by EU purists who don't yet get the significance of understanding the "electricity" in EU/ES discourse.

Mathis IS BRILLIANT.

If he turned comedian he could have me in stiches as he destroys with logic the sacred cow "so called facts" of sciencific development.

Eleoquent &entertaining & insightful. He starts with known accepted science and turns it inside out

He is critical unconscious contributor to EU progress, in that the first step is to shake the conservative status quo and ask the hard questions.

StevenO... if time permits tolerate your dummy admirer/disciple.

Q1 What is the basis for his radial emission by all matter of photon theory? Is this fact is there a lesson made for dummies link you can help me to educate myself?

Mathis confesses that his motivation was his expansion theory.It all makes sense except

Q2. Does he literally mean expansion of all matter?????
eg My lounge room is 7m *6m ,but my steel tape measure is much smaller therefore ought emit far less photons yet they must be growing at the same rate? btw Is there any hope for my masculine equipment?

Thomson -APM

Is much more difficult.I learn more from JL than APM material (especially when JL provides pivate email responses from Dave himself)

But Forward and backtime??? stumps me!

But a non material backgound aether makes absolute sense.... and equivocates almost entirely with Mathis's photon field

Questions for JungleLord

Q1 I notice you taunt some here about how the background aether spawns matter! That makes sense tome but:

Can you explain to a dummy how this happens?


Tesla needs no explaination ...the MASTER for all grasshoppers wishing to understand what he knew and he proved THAT HE DID!

Dollard is new to me.. thanks again JL...fantastic that someone is rigorously endeavouring to experimentally demonstrate Teslas work!

Again all critical to EU.... what the F*** is electricity!?

[StevenO]

But you know Steven, APM is built from only 4 quantum constants, not a page of them.

Look at the first page of the "Calculations of the Unified Force Theory as Explained in the Aether Physics Model" paper. There is a table with 21 constants. Some known physical constants, but I see at least 15 confusing constants added by APM.

You seem to imply that the only level of complexity that will ever need explaining is the fundamental. It seems to me that germain to a UFT, the complexity reveals a growth of equations that fit the level of order being examined.

If you have an UnUnified Theory you will need to add dimensions for every field you have to describe. So adding dimensions is a sign of unfinished theories. Only with a Unified Field you can reduce the number of dimensions. You should really read Miles' paper on string theory that explains this.

I have a question Steven.
I see that Miles shows that Coulombs Charge Constant is within the gravity portion of the equation, in this respect do we have a reason to boost TT Brown and LaViolette's work on electrogravitics. Is that not correct Steven?

I see no reason to do that yet since according to Miles the charge field strength is only 1/1000 of the gravity field strength at the earth's surface level. However, he noticed that magnets are much stronger than you would expect if you would assume that magnetic attraction puts the two charge fields in opposition, so you feel the force of gravity pushing your two magnets together. It might also be that we underestimate the force of gravity.

[StevenO]

Mathis IS BRILLIANT.

I fully agree.

Q1 What is the basis for his radial emission by all matter of photon theory? Is this fact is there a lesson made for dummies link you can help me to educate myself?

I don't know how he first developed that idea. It must have been by considering how electromagnetism can be explained mechanically by making the current Standard Model "virtual" photons real particles with size, mass and spin. How gravity and EM emission are unified by him is described in short here and in detail there.

Mathis confesses that his motivation was his expansion theory.It all makes sense except

Q2. Does he literally mean expansion of all matter?????
eg My lounge room is 7m *6m ,but my steel tape measure is much smaller therefore ought emit far less photons yet they must be growing at the same rate? btw Is there any hope for my masculine equipment?

Don't despair, you can consider it a mathematical trick if you like. Size is relative. The physical explanation is indeed that the inertia and gravity of matter is caused by a motion that is analogous to pumping up a balloon. Since it is proportional to volume and space scales with the size of a photon everything remains in the same proportions, so your eyes don't notice it. Only effects like gravity (a continuous acceleration field) show that there is a real underlying motion.

[junglelord]

the expanding universe no one can detect, just what kind of lunacy that?
Just some math trick?

Steven APM has four constants, the rest are all derived from four constants.
Are you claiming that in the whole universe there are only two constant?
I say there are only four!

[StevenO]

the expanding universe no one can detect, just what kind of lunacy that?
Just some math trick?

I said you can consider it a math trick, like "curved space", if you cannot live with the idea. But it is very well detectable: just take an accelerometer; in rest it will report a real constant acceleration directed towards the earth. How can something that is supposedly in rest accelerate?

Steven APM has four constants, the rest are all derived from four constants.
Are you claiming that in the whole universe there are only two constant?
I say there are only four!

In a field of two forces you only need two constants: the constant of gravity (acceleration vs. size) and the mass (vs. frequency) of photons. Good question is to ask where the speed of light comes in...me thinks it is only really needed for relativistic observations.

[junglelord]

So, in you profession, you do all your math now in two field Miles analysis?

[StevenO]

So, in you profession, you do all your math now in two field Miles analysis?

I'm just beginning to realize the impact of Miles' work on EE. It will not directly replace Maxwell, though hopefully make that simpler. The biggest impact will be how his redefinition of the calculus impacts electronic signal processing theory. Getting rid of imaginary numbers, convolutions, Fourier analysis, delta's and steps. My brain is too small for that and Miles did'nt look into that yet (though he promised).