Recovered: History of the Z Pinch and Theta Pinch Rewritten!

[bboyer]

(NB: This begins Page 3 of the Old Forum's thread; looks like it may be incomplete as it was a relatively short page)

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: Reply with quote

I really get tired of egotistical claptrap like this.

To be honest, I think we should let Thomson's assertions stand and just get on with the business of creating some expertise within this group of what the APM actually says.

My thoughts are that we badly need to develop "camps" within the Electric Universe on how to interpret the behaviors of particles and sub-particles. If David is wrong, then experiment will bear this out. But he should be respected for his willingness to take a stand on the subject, and at least some of us have an obligation to try to understand what he's saying.

The Thunderbolts Forum thrives due to its acceptance of a wide range of discourse. It could only be a good thing if we had two or even three competing physical models for understanding physics on a particle level. In fact, we must sort them out if our goal is to ever productize any of this theory.

I think that learning the EU is only a first step. And in the same way that EU changed our perspective on astronomical and astrophysical press releases, learning a new framework *like* the APM will similarly alter our perception of the particle domain. Eventually, one particular particle model will win out. Getting to that point should be anticipated, and we'll only get there if we *encourage* all avenues of investigation available to us. We'd be wise to learn from the mainstream's mistake of dismissing claims. We must investigate all claims in the most honest manner we can, and start out by giving all claims the benefit of the doubt.

That is the way of a true skeptic. We withhold judgment until we achieve a sufficient amount of information ...

OP "pln2bz"

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:33 am Post subject: Reply with quote

We'd be wise to learn from the mainstream's mistake of dismissing claims. We must investigate all claims in the most honest manner we can, and start out by giving all claims the benefit of the doubt.

I'm curious as to if your referring to a specific example of dismissiveness as relates to E.U. and APM ?

OP "Plasmatic MnemoHistory"

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: Reply with quote

I find that the aether, scalar field is inevitable if your going to balance the books. Its so symetrical to have three primary fields for EM. I refuse to accept it as pseudoscience, even though wikipedia says it is.

_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

OP "junglelord"

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:44 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, when considering Birkeland currents and galaxy formation via the intersection of those currents with the double layer 'skin' of dark plasma clouds, it seems possible that those currents 'energize' vast sections of the cloud's double layer where they so intersect. This is what forms the 'disk' proper imho. ... It seems that within the double layer this could produce an energized constrictive torus or "ring current" that would theta pinch the plasma column running perpendicular to it. Composite images such as Hubble, Spitzer, and Chandra of M82 *seem* to indicate that type of electric plasma dynamic.

The Double Layers are quite interesting, and even a look at what goes on with the belts and rollers on a charging system for a Van Der Graff generator is fascinating - can't say I really understand it. However, it seems that when you examine the orthogonal relationships involved in a Birkeland current, the interplay that begins when two currents begin to pair up, has a logical progression that leads to a torus formation. When the two currents are close and their individual concentric ring / sprial magnetic fields begin to merge, there seems to be a tilting which leads to the spiraling, and this changes the orthogonal relationships which leads to more tilting and tighter and tighter sprials until they are nearly perpendicular to the original direction of motion of the individual current, creating the torus with its solonodial magnetic field. Exactly how this all plays out so there ends up an average of 9 torus formations in line is a good question.

OP "ShortHC"

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:32 am Post subject: Honesty in Science Reply with quote

I really get tired of egotistical claptrap like this.

To be honest, I think we should let Thomson's assertions stand and just get on with the business of creating some expertise within this group of what the APM actually says.

Since you are quoting me I'll respond.

You honestly want to let Mr. Thomson's dishonest assertions stand... I don't have much to say about that to you as it would be a waste of time.

However, for other readers, Thomson has shown himself to be 'dishonest' at the simplest level. There is no reason to believe he will be any different at any level. While I freely admit I don't know much about anything, I am aware of the characteristics of egotistical selfpromoting scam artists. Whether or not Thomson is a scam artist, he most certainly is a dishonest egotistical selfpromoter. If someone lies to themselves constantly they will lie to you, and since they are often quite clever they can lead you a merry dance. If you sincerely believe he has something worth learning then by all means investigate it, its your life.

OP "ShortHC"

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

This led him to the discovery that electricity is made up of different components that can be separated from each other, and that a pure, gaseous, etheric energy can be fractionated away from the flow of electrons ...

THAT!! - is extremely interesting. This is what struck me as being the primary result of Tesla's work just from reading (and re-reading) some of the voluminous information that's been posted. That sums up the intuition that I was having rather nicely. This is also the perception that I got when viewing the Dollard vids on YouTube i.e. that 'other' aspects of electrical forces were being worked with while simultaneously accounting for traditional electrical aspects as well. Very; very good understanding/realization in that statement imho.

OP "Solar"

(MOD NOTE: This is where the copy of Page 3 of this thread ended.)

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: Reply with quote

I am of the same mind pln2bz. Wilbert Smith is given questionable remarks because of his belief in the ufo phenomanon (he was told by the MJ12 that the UFO was in fact true in the early 50's) and that right there makes the rest of his work useless to many. To me that means the opposite about his work. I am more interested then ever in his work because of the UFO connection based on his level of security and governmental work for Canada in the 50's.

I have no axe to grind with Mr Thompson. His work has potential to understand the primary scalar field. I do not expect any theory to be perfect. Nor do I expect one theory to hold all the marbles. Its very acceptable to use a theory to your own devices. I do it all the time. Most of what I have learned is not accepted by the professional or the lay person. That in no way makes me less secure in my own knowledge. I feel no need to defend Wilbert Smith or to explain to the lemmings why it matters.
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

OP "junglelord"

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: Reply with quote

That in no way makes me less secure in my own knowledge. I feel no need to defend Wilbert Smith or to explain to the lemmings why it matters

This is a reasonable position for one to take concerning ones conceptual choices. The exact opposite one, of suggesting someone else be your apologist , when its your ideas not others ! Very Happy

That being said , saying someone is "bickering" when they point out that someone is exaggerating their originality , with supporting data , is to sanction such an act. It doesn't matter how many points of a particular statement or theory are objective . To say one is incorrect for pointing out a point that is not , is ridiculous and lacking in integity.
_________________
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"....Ayn Rand

OP "Plasmatic MnemoHistory"

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:14 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Egos are often involved in the human condition....go figure (thats some good math for you). It must be the magnatism of their magnetic personalities.

_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

OP "junglelord"

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:47 am Post subject: Reply with quote

That being said , saying someone is "bickering" when they point out that someone is exaggerating their originality , with supporting data , is to sanction such an act. It doesn't matter how many points of a particular statement or theory are objective . To say one is incorrect for pointing out a point that is not , is ridiculous and lacking in integity.

I'm willing to concede that David Thomson is exaggerating his role if it means that we can get on to the business of considering his theory, comparing it to and synthesizing it with others, and interpreting EU through the lens of such theories.

OP "pln2bz"

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:19 am Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm willing to concede that David Thomson is exaggerating his role if it means that we can get on to the business of considering his theory, comparing it to and synthesizing it with others, and interpreting EU through the lens of such theories.

Fair enough indeed.
_________________
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"....Ayn Rand

OP "Plasmatic MnemoHistory"

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: Reply with quote

While reading through Thomson's blog, I ran into the following. What I found interesting about this is the conceptual similarity between the concept of Tesla pushing DC current off the end of a conductor (I believe for his electron pump) and the concept within quantum computing of pushing an electron into a "quantum dot". I think we can agree with Thomson that the quantum dot is in fact the aether ...

> PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
> The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
> Number 838 September 7, 2007 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein
> http://www.aip.org/pnu
>
> ACOUSTIC QUANTUM DOTS. A new experiment at the Cavendish Lab
> at the University of Cambridge is the first to controllably
> shuttle electrons around a chip and observe their quantum
> properties. A quantum dot restricts electrons to a region of
> space in a semiconductor so tiny as to be essentially
> zero-dimensional. This in turn enforces a quantum regime;
> the electron may only have certain discrete energies, which
> can be useful, depending on the circumstances, for producing
> laser light or for use in detectors and maybe even future computers.
> A quantum dot is usually made not by carving the
> semiconductor into a tiny grain but rather by imposing
> restrictions on the electron*s possible motions by the
> application of voltages to nearby electrodes. This would be
> a static quantum dot. It is also possible to make dynamic
> quantum dots-that is, moving dots that are created by the
> passage of surface acoustic waves (SAWs) moving through a
> narrow channel across the plane of a specially designed
> circuit chip (see figure at http://www.aip.org/png/2007/289.htm).
> The acoustic wave itself is generated by applying microwaves
> to interleaved fingered electrodes atop a piezoelectric
> material like GaAs. The applied electric fields between
> finger-electrodes induce a sound wave to propagate along the
> surface of the material.
> These acoustic waves have the ability to scoop electrons and
> chauffeur them along the surface.
> The tiny region confining the electron even as it moves is in
> effect a quantum dot. Such acoustic-based dynamic quantum
> dots have made before, but according to Cambridge researcher
> Michael Astley (mra28@cam.ac.uk), this is the first time the
> tunneling of the electrons (even single electrons) into and
> out of the quantum dots has been observed. This is an
> important part of the whole electron-shuttling process since
> one wants control over the electron motions and spins. If,
> moreover, electrons in two very close acoustic wave channels
> could be entangled, then this would present the chance to
> make a sort of flying qubit, which could be at the heart of a
> quantum computer. (Astley et al., Physical Review Letters,
> upcoming article; lab website at
> http://www.sp.phy.cam.ac.uk/SPWeb/resea ... html#SAWQC)

OP "pln2bz"

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as terminology and expertise I understand Tom Bearden's model better. His explanation I put forward a few post back makes the most sense to me intellectually and EM wise.
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

OP "junglelord"

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

pln2bz , can you direct me to a summary of his "quanum" ideas. I recall alot of the usual mystical/acausal crap , so I want to look again.
_________________
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"....Ayn Rand

OP "Plasmatic MnemoHistory"

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

pln2bz , can you direct me to a summary of his "quanum" ideas. I recall alot of the usual mystical/acausal crap , so I want to look again.

David Thomson does not make his case on his website. I'm going to have to purchase his book. What you have to realize about Thomson though is that he spent many years of his life studying religion. It's as much a part of him as the science. I'm not a religious person one bit, but many great scientists have been very religious. We can't let it bother us.

I don't recommend even bothering with his website. What's there will likely turn you off. But we can't let that distract us from finding out if there's something useful in the book. I'm going to have to get back to people on what I find after I read his book. I'm operating on the basis that it is currently difficult to predict the 1s electron binding energies. My physics and chemistry education is not exactly something to brag about. I'm a pretty normal person in that regard. But I don't view this as a real big problem at this point. I see people who argue against EU as being cursed by their knowledge. They've learned so much of the dominant paradigm that they've tainted their ability to step back from it and analyze their knowledge from an objective standpoint. I'm interested in learning the most worthwhile "cranky" theories out there, and then going back through a conceptual physics book to see how well they compare with the conventional view. That's my own personal methodology. I want to completely re-learn physics in an unconventional manner in the hopes that I can develop a more useful way of understanding it, so I'm intentionally blinding myself to the conventional view for now. As it stands, chemistry and physics seem a bit messy to me. People are more than welcome to correct me on this if they think I'm being absurd, but there has to be some underlying logic to it all that results from the simple facts of the aether. I'm more interested in the search for this underlying logic than I am in trying to understand what's known of physics today. I'd rather be able to logically reason my way to all of what's known, rather than having to memorize it all.

As far as terminology and expertise I understand Tom Bearden's model better. His explanation I put forward a few post back makes the most sense to me intellectually and EM wise.

We badly need to develop expertise here on this forum in *all* of the various theories of particle behavior. I encourage you to develop your understanding of Bearden's work as much as possible so that we can see if there is common ground to be found between the various theories. What I worry about is the advocacy of a particular framework to the exclusion of all others. That would seem to just be a process of copying. We need to analyze, compare and contrast. Maybe this is too lofty a goal, but there is no rush. Ultimately, our success or failure in understanding Tesla and a Theory of Everything will completely depend upon our procedure and strategy. IMO, the situation we're currently in -- where the conventional particle models appear to be wrong and need a replacement -- demands that we increase the breadth of our examination for a replacement. We need to try to perform a comprehensive review of what's out there before we settle on anything in particular. Everything that's against-the-mainstream is being lumped together by the establishment as "cranky". How ironic would it be if we used *that* site as a resource for performing our own analysis? David Thomson is listed there, more-or-less with extraterrestrials and the paranormal. In fact, all consideration of the aether is considered cranky. But what's hilarious about it all is that the collider experiments demonstrate that material does pop in and out of existence. My understanding is that scientists have to "ignore" the free energy of the aether when attempting to prove their non-aether theories ...

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE

The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News

Number 841 October 2, 2007 by Phillip F. Schewe http://www.aip.org/pnu

THE VACUUM STRIKES BACK. Modern physics has shown that the vacuum, previously thought of as a state of total nothingness, is really a seething background of virtual particles springing in and out of existence until they can seize enough energy to materialize as *real* particles. In high energy collisions at accelerator labs, some of the original beam energy can be consumed by ripping particle-antiparticle pairs out of the vacuum. Sometimes this process is the very reason for doing the experiment, but sometimes it is only a detriment. For example, in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), under construction at the CERN lab in Geneva, a major source of beam losses (particles exiting
from the usable beam) for heavy-ion collisions is expected to be a class of event in which the counter-moving ions pass each other and don*t interact except to spawn a pair of particles---an electron and positron---one of which (the positron) goes off to oblivion while the other (the electron) latches onto one of the ions. This ion, bearing an extra electric charge, will now behave slightly differently as it races through the chain of powerful magnets that normally steer the particles around the accelerator. Going a certain distance, the modified ion will leave its fellows and smash into the beam pipe carrying the beams, thus heating up the pipe and surrounding magnet coils.

Fearing these future beam losses, accelerator physicists have sought to observe this effect at an existing machine, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at the Brookhaven Lab on Long Island. And they found what they were looking for, a tiny splash of energy amounting to about .0002 watts, or about what a firefly puts out. The RHIC beam for these tests consisted of copper ions each carrying 6.3 TeV of energy (about 100 GeV per nucleon). According to CERN scientist John Jowett (john.jowett@cern.ch, 41-22-7676-643) this troublesome class of events, referred to as bound-free-pair production (or BFPP, the bound referring to the electron and the free to the positron), will be much more formidable at LHC than at RHIC. First of all, the pair production scales as the atomic number of the nucleus (or the charge of the nucleus, denoted by the letter Z) raised to the seventh power. The LHC heavy-ion collisions will use beams composed of lead ions. The more highly charged nucleus and the larger energies (574 TeV per lead nucleus) mean the BFPP process should be some 100,000 times more prominent than in the test at RHIC. This would amount to about 25 watts, the equivalent of a reading lamp. That doesn't sound like much but, when deposited in the ultra-cold (1.9 K) magnets of the LHC, it could bring them to the brink of "quenching" out of their superconducting state, interrupting the operation of the huge machine.

(Bruce et al., Physical Review Letters, 5 October 2007; journalists can obtain the text from http://www.aip.org/physnews/select; other background material at arxiv.org/abs/0706.3356v2),
http://cern.ch/AccelConf/e04/PAPERS/MOPLT020.PDF, Vol. I, Chapter 21 of the LHC Design Report, available at
http://ab-div.web.cern.ch/ab-div/Public ... eport.html)

We can break this task up into little pieces by simply encouraging people to follow their own preferred lines of investigation. And then, over time, if we can maintain representatives of each of the particular frameworks, then we can have some *very* interesting discussions and perhaps make some progress. This is inherently a *creative* process -- which is where the mainstream has gone off-track. They attempt to subject the process of idea inception to rigorous review. You won't develop any new theories that way, but then again, they don't want to develop anything new. They are just defending the status quo. We have to allow ourselves to be less rigorous for a long time, and be willing to expose ourselves to all sorts of unusual ideas, before we finally become rigorous and attempt a technical review of some sort.

When I first started reading David Thomson's explanation of units, I was utterly repulsed. But, the reason side of me interjected and realized that as much as I don't *like* doing it, units are *incredibly* important. We have to exhibit self-doubt in this way about our decisions, or we will merely follow our preferences for what we *want* to believe and work on.

OP "pln2bz"