The Electric Universe is no monolith. It is not a belief system. It is currently not much more than a framework for investigation. In order for the Electric Universe to make any sense whatsoever, there must be some effort eventually to explain what structure the aether possesses. Quantum mechanics uses probability functions, and suggests that these functions represent real physical entities. But, it's just as possible that what we are observing represents the constituents of matter changing in such a way that they induce matter to lose its "materialness". In other words, subparticles do not always represent matter; under some conditions, they might only just be part of the non-matter aether.One can solve ANY problem when they are allowed to postulate invisible fairytale dimensions. This is going to ruin the very thing that makes E.U. valuable IMO , and I don't think ALL the "Thunderbolts Team" are on board with this stuff!!! I hope I'm not gonna have to be the lone voice of Objective caution against theories that are no different conceptually than Platos other realm of ideals and such! There are no infinite existents. A existent with infinite identity is one with no identity. A dimension that is every where is everything.There are no 2 dimensional existents only 2 dimensional concepts!
What I "get" is that this is his first mistake .Until I can see any reason to accept Quantum mechanics and relativity I don't see this as a good start. What are the supposed quantum computing advances ,do you know? I don't care that mathematically it is statistically meaningful. Equations don't dictate reality.What are the "set of facts we can all agree on"?But, what you're not getting is that there is a completely alternative way to figure all of this stuff out: and that's by developing a specific physical model for the aether that is in agreement on all of the current knowledge we've accumulated in quantum mechanics and relativity. There is a set of facts that we can all agree on; it's the interpretations of the causes that cause great disagreement.
Here's the other problem. Non materiel means non existent, If it exists it seems to me it must have mass , and therefore be of matter or a form of "materiel". to say other wise is no different than any "spiritual" abstraction that cant be proven .I thought Thomson didn't consider quantum theory as "probabilistic"?Quantum mechanics uses probability functions, and suggests that these functions represent real physical entities. But, it's just as possible that what we are observing represents the constituents of matter changing in such a way that they induce matter to lose its "materialness". In other words, sub particles do not always represent matter; under some conditions, they might only just be part of the non-matter aether.
Well a proper analysis is always one that breaks concepts down through the hierarchy of knowledge. in conceptual units. This process of course should lead to perceptual concretes, But 4 or 5 are still conceptual units that are individually a unit themselves. Doesn't saying that something is "mass free" contradict this statement completely? What are his units then ? And what is his method of "defining" them. By the way a "sub particle" , is still a unit or entity. so I'm not sure where your going with this line of reasoning.What happens when you start to think about the aether is that you are forced into a process of reductionism. People are made of organs, organs are made of cells, cells are made of molecules, etc, etc, etc. Now, whether you specifically like it or not, true reductionism involves a redefinition of your environment each time. Unless you're just going to mirror the establishment view that particles are made of particles are made of particles, you're going to have to eventually contemplate what makes up the subparticles. And this is where things become very complicated. David Thomson's approach is respectable. He reduces reality until he's left with something like four or five constituents that cannot be broken down any further.
Another thing that David Thomson does -- and which is the most daunting part of it all -- is he revisits in excruciating detail how we define our units. Most people will shy away from this investigation due to the sheer pain of it, but it's not difficult to find Don Scott or Wal Thornhill complaining about the exact same thing, and if you think long and hard about it, you will come to the same exact conclusion that we must be rigorous with our units, and possibly even that units should all possess some physical meaning -- as opposed to existing as nothing more than convention.
Could you please explain what YOU mean here explicitly , and how it relates to defining "subparticles"?Now, whether you specifically like it or not, true reductionism involves a redefinition of your environment each time.
Gravestone/Headstone at the entrance to Bruce Lee's dojo.I agree with Junglelord's assessment here. Which is precisely why I refer to 'mainstream' science as a "classical mess".
imo, an excelent re-starting point.pln2bz wrote: Another thing that David Thomson does -- and which is the most daunting part of it all -- is he revisits in excruciating detail how we define our units. Most people will shy away from this investigation due to the sheer pain of it, but it's not difficult to find Don Scott or Wal Thornhill complaining about the exact same thing, and if you think long and hard about it, you will come to the same exact conclusion that we must be rigorous with our units, and possibly even that units should all possess some physical meaning -- as opposed to existing as nothing more than convention.
Take a look at the design of a modern Tesla Impulse Magnifying Transmitter.Class Notes: Tesla Coils and the Failure of Lumped-Element Circuit Theory
by
Kenneth L. Corum and James F. Corum, Ph.D.
All those handbook formulas that people use for inductance, L, inherently assume applications at frequencies so low that the current distribution along the coil is uniform. (They were all derived from the Neumann integral with an assumed uniform current, which, historically, is an attempt to geometrically characterize a coil in terms of a ratio of magnetic flux linkage to impressed current.) The real issue is that migrating voltage nodes and loops are not a property of lumped-circuit elements - they are the directly observable consequence of velocity inhibited wave interference on the self-resonant coil. Lumped element representations for coils require that the current is uniformly distributed along the coil - no wave interference and no standing waves can be present on lumped elements. The problem has been that many experimenters working with self-resonant helices have pursued the concept of coil self-capacitance without really understanding where the notion comes from or why it was ever invoked by engineers. For that, they will have to go read R.W.P. King's wonderful old book Electromagnetic Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 1945. (See pp. 418-422, 461-466.) On pg. 465, the Harvard Professor points out that, for coils whose wire length exceeds 1/6 wavelength (as is the case for the secondary of authentic Tesla coils), "an adequate representation of the reactance of a coil with a nonuniformly distributed current is not possible in terms of a coil with a uniform current [a lumped-element inductance] connected in parallel with a lumped capacitance." Period. Resonant fields present surprises to engineers with limited training.
How can you tell whether your Tesla coil is operating in Tesla's pre-1894 tuned lumped element regime or in his post-1894 distributed resonator regime? You could just look at the field distributions, as described in the test above. Here's a decisive set of quantitative measurements to see how bad the lumped-element model really is. Do the experiment on your Tesla coil. We'll call it Test II.
Several years ago, a numerically modeled transient analysis of coupled lumped-element coils was published in the AJP ("A Solid-State Low Voltage Tesla Coil Demonstrator," by D. Bruns, American Journal of Physics, Vol. 60, 1992, pp. 797-803). An exact mathematical analysis of the same circuitry, including losses, had been given in TCTUTOR back in 1988 when we pointed out that a lumped analysis is appropriate only during the duration of the primary spark (while the coupled flux is uniform throughout the resonator), and we indicated the great importance of controlling the primary switching epoch. (Finkelstein's optimum k = 0.6 criteria is valid only if the spark duration is roughly 1/(2f) where f is the line splitting passband broadening of the over-coupled circuit.) That the coupled-coil, lumped-element model of Tesla coils is physically fallacious (it doesn't predict the three-humped spectrum that is actually observed when the spark duration is finite) has been known since the 1911 experimental observations of Dr. Fleming. ("Some Resonance Curves taken with Impact and Spark-Ball Discharges," by J.A. Fleming and G.B. Dyke, Proc. of the Physical Soc., London, Vol. 23, 1911, pp. 136-146 (see comments by Dr. Eccles and Prof. Howe, p. 144); Also see "100 Years of Cavity Resonator Development," by J.F. Corum and K.L. Corum, Proc. 1990 ITS Symposium, pp. 2:1-18, Figs. 3, 4.) Needless to say, the 1992 AJP article is little more than the simulated impulse response of an IF can - the kind of tuned lumped coupled circuit Tesla was using before his splendid discovery of 1894. On the other hand, if you have been able to model your coil with a lumped-element inductance, L, with less than 5% error, then you've been working with a lumped, tuned, coupled-circuit (like a radio receiver IF can) just as Tesla was doing prior to 1894, before he discovered the true Tesla coil. [If you've got a huge capacitance on the top then the length of wire in the secondary may be less than o/(2) and, as voiced by Professor King, the current distribution could be uniform enough so that you can represent the transmission line as a lumped element. But, as Tesla once told his attorney, "A large capacity and a small self inductance is the poorest kind of circuit which can be constructed."] The good news is: there's a whole new realm waiting for you to explore. "Oh brave new world that has such creatures in it!" (Tempest, V.1)
VII. Closing Thoughts. There is nothing sacred about using a sine wave generator (a finite power signal) to perform the above tests. The more sophisticated experimenter might want to repeat Test II with a broadband white noise (stochastic) source coupled to the resonator with an untuned link. Fundamental and overtone resonances can be observed with a calibrated receiver or a spectrum analyzer. Those with a knowledge of modern optics will easily recognize even richer phenomena occurring. (It can be shown that the ultimate limit in voltage rise on the coil is set by the degree of coherence of the up and back resonator waves.) While this may shatter the egos of some coilers, contrary to popular myth, the key performance parameter for a high voltage Tesla coil is not the length of the discharge (which is a function of things like input energy and primary spark duration) but, rather, the VSWR on the resonator coil - the higher the better! [It's related to the fringe "Visibility Function" for quasimonochromatic, partially coherent optical beams. (Principles of Optics, by Born and Wolf, 5th ed., p. 506.)]
http://www.ttr.com/corum/
_________________In the present communication we focus upon the theoretical and experimental demonstration that the century-old Tesla coil has all along, unbeknownst to modern science, functioned - when properly tuned and loaded - as a massfree electric energy generator that, in defiance of the corollary of the second law, outputs aether energy in electric form greatly in excess of the energy spent at the input by the 60Hz alternate current of massbound charges.
This energy output has remained heretofore ignored because experimental and theoretical Physics is incapable of differentiating the electromagnetic energy associated with these coils from both types of electrical energy involved in the coil action - and incapable of differentiating further between these variants of electric energy that are affected to massfree and massbound charge.
In the present communication, we propose an aetherometric method to determine the massfree ambipolar radiation of Tesla coils, as consisting of the superimposition of primary electric and magnetic massfree waves, and differentiate it from the aetherometric determination of the kinetic energy of massbound charge oscillating in the coil, as the latter deploys a secondary form of superimposition of capacito-inductive waves. The understanding of how ambipolar radiation is captured by massbound monopolar charges in the form of field-acquired electrokinetic energy is, in turn, critical to functionally comprehend, physically and mathematically, how blackbody electromagnetic spectra are indirectly produced from aether electric energy, via the shedding of the kinetic energy of massbound charge-carriers.
In parallel with the core endeavour of the present communication, we also present the new aetherometric theory of the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of a medium, demonstrating how these functions must, under well defined conditions for both massbound and massfree charges, be treated either as constants or as variables. As constants, the aetherometric values experimentally and theoretically arrived at are - for electrical permittivity:and for magnetic permeability:
- eoyt1.jpg (2.31 KiB) Viewed 10327 times
Complete aetherometric current and power functions for the `alternating' currents of pulsed damped waves associated with either massfree or massbound charge, at or near resonant load operation of Tesla coils are also provided.
- mopv9.jpg (1.82 KiB) Viewed 10327 times
_________________It is no longer useful or valid today to continue to employ these distinctions in these ambiguous ways. They were quite functional in terms of Reich's own process of discovery, but others have made a mockery of them with their wild and inarticulate claims of replications of the Oranur Experiment. There is a whole network of disinformation on this subject, some of it gathered around that National Enquirer of Free Energy called KeelyNet.
It is no longer viable to refer to OR and DOR without placing these manifestations of aether energy in their proper context. This boils down to the fact that there is indeed a domain of massfree ambipolar electricity which is, in general, radiant - though it can conduct through the ground, through metallic bodies and through dielectrics as well. Its real discoverer was Nikola Tesla - who insisted that his 'electrostatodynamic' electricity was distinct from both electromagnetic energy and the electricity of cathode rays or any other massbound charges. Reich, who gave Tesla very little open credit for Tesla's discovery, and was not even sure that Tesla waves were the same as orgone energy, simply rediscovered this massfree ambipolar energy in its two fundamental antagonistic subtypes, OR and DOR. But his ambivalence towards the electrical or nonelectrical characteristics of OR and DOR precluded him from fully realizing the connection to Tesla waves. Reich understood, however, that OR and DOR form an inseparable continuum. The contribution of aetherometric theory in this context is the demonstration that this continuum of massfree electrically ambipolar aether energy produces all the known blackbody spectra through its interaction with Matter. But aetherometric theory also provides something that neither Tesla nor Reich could - the exact energy, wavelength and frequency characteristics of the OR/DOR continuum. This is presented in AS2-17.
Furthermore, Experimental Aetherometry also provides the corresponding boundaries in blackbody spectra. As we said above, an idealized, smooth or continuous blackbody spectrum will encompass two distinct types of optothermal photons - which we have termed, respectively, HFOT (high frequency optothermal) photons, responsible for feeding dangerous free radical reactions (such as those responsible for smog and ground-level ozone), and LFOT (low frequency optothermal) photons that are essentially beneficial or even critical to life. The entirety of the blackbody spectrum is nonionizing by definition. These two classes of photons are contiguous in the spectrum - the observed break being only qualitative. It is a single spectrum which carries both species and corresponds effectively to a contiguous, more fundamental, underlying spectrum of ambipolar massfree energy encompassing the two qualities - the 'orgone' quality and the 'DORgone' quality - of the ambipolar electric Aether.
What we discovered experimentally - and this is presented in Volume 2 of Experimental Aetherometry - is that we can employ induction coils to produce both types of massfree electric radiation. More specifically, if Tesla coils are operated within certain specific parameters of potential and frequency, they function as exact analogs of the solar ambipolar massfree radiation mode. This is to say they output ambipolar radiant energy within the orgone segment of the massfree electric spectrum. It is then possible to use this as a tool to demonstrate the difference between what is 'orgone energy' as electrical massfree energy and what is the nonelectric 'orgone effect' of 'latent heat'. Both these energies are massfree aether forms, both are fundamental but nevertheless distinct. The sun, like every living system, captures 'latent' energy from its environment. In the case of the sun, 'latent' energy is captured from plasmas in galactic space; in the case of the cell, it is captured from the liquid and gaseous environments to produce action potentials which convert 'latent heat' back into massfree electricity. So, there is a certain justification for Reich to have used the term 'orgone' to apply to both - because these two strata of massfree energy can interconvert. Star processes convert massfree 'latent heat' to massfree ambipolar electric energy, while creating Matter. The same conversion route is followed by living systems. In systems of capture - such as the atmosphere or the ORAC as an analog of the atmosphere - the conversion process goes in the opposite direction, from electric massfree ambipolar radiation back to 'latent energy'.
In Physics it is necessary to designate as different, energy manifestations that are distinct in terms of their very specific physical characteristics. So, in the case of sensible heat, for example, we have the characteristics of sensible temperature and pressure caused by volumetric expansion or contraction of molecular microatmospheres, while in the case of charge we have electrical and magnetic characteristics. In the case of electromagnetism, if it is ionizing, we have the electric effects associated with polarization and ionic fluxes, and if it is not, then we have the very different absorption and chemical phenomena related to the action of HFOT and LFOT photons. Likewise, we have to wonder what these two variants of aether energy are, one electric and the other nonelectric. Should we continue to call them both 'orgone'?
It is true that Reich himself might well have had an inkling of our aetherometric argument - since in Orgonotic Pulsation he went as far as tentatively putting forth the notion of an 'orgone heat'. But that, too, left much unaddressed. Was orgone heat sensible or latent? Reich's description and context suggest he is referring to sensible thermal effects, yet latent heat shares none of those physical characteristics, save indirectly baroscopic effects. And if, before Reich knew of the existence of 'DOR', it still made more sense to contemplate an energy form that sometimes behaved electrically and at other times did not, and thus one could go on replacing 'Aether' with 'orgone', after the Oranur experiment it could no longer make sense to agglutinate three distinct manifestations of massfree aether energy, OR, DOR and 'latent heat', under the same rubric of 'orgone'. With the discovery of 'DOR', it also becomes imperative to separate the electric from the nonelectric variants of aether energy.
Aether is in fact, both historically and conceptually, the correct term to encompass all these electric and nonelectric forms of energy, for they are all physical expressions of the same massfree energy, the Imponderable. In some cases the expression is electrical and carries a duality of qualities. The duality is between OR and DOR, and not between positive and negative. In other cases, it is not electric, and its fine structure remained mysterious until Aetherometry emerged to propose a novel treatment of both gravity and 'latent heat'.
Volume 2 finishes with what, for us, is one of the greatest jewels of this investigation: how to directly extract the blackbody spectrum from the ambipolar massfree radiation of a star - or, for that matter, of any other source of OR and DOR energy. We use the solar spectrum of massfree electric energy as an example. From this, we directly derive the familiar blackbody solar spectrum - both before and after atmospheric absorption.
http://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometr ... o_vol2.php
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests