Ether mechanics. Comprehensive understanding of a new energy.

I found this video only yesterday and many more, for anyone with an interest in free-energy, ether/orgone/chi/whatever you want to call it and more.

Basically its nothing too fun to watch, what it is, is a video made by an electrical engineer who is dying and I suppose he really wanted his work to get out there. Its kind of mostly a physics course which allows ether to be included as a a models currently established in physics, why and how it fits in etc and how we took the wrong turn.
Its a days worth of watching I havn't seen it all yet, however very interesting the way he goes through and shows theories and how we could have misenterpreted our findings from the past. I am not an electrical wizz but I dream of having free energy one day and not dissimilar to Ed Leedskalnin I suppose he finds the medium of what we could consider a vaccum to be in existance but not see-able.

Ether is the space all around us, and essentially is like tiny little magnets that makes up everything. It breeds life, creates gravity is pure energy essentially. Whats better is it is a form of energy we havn't tapped into and cannot deplete since all energy eventually becomes Ether or likewise.

If his theoretical model works out we could be doing some pretty impressive stuff in the near future!

I think you forgot the link.

sorry I should add the link
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Judgie

re-inventing ether? or just redefining it? Because this:

Whats better is it is a form of energy we havn't tapped into

is Tesla talk, how old are these news now? 1865-1943? Tunguska was 1908, I say it was him: a minor etherical mishap...

a reply to: Judgie

Aether was abandoned in favor of more accurate theories.

Luminiferous aether

I guess there could be a new "aether' in the form of dark energy, dark matter, maybe even the Higgs field- but the original theory was killed by general relativity almost a century ago.

I wish this was the theory that I was looking for to explain Chi infusion in a body. But it is not. He do not account for what forces exists in the canon ball depending on different media (atmosphere and wood) and therefore cannot see that energy distribution is not needed if there is a state of equilibrium.

Give the cannon ball a few million years and I do not believe the wood would look the same and that the ball would have lost more potential energy since the wood on an atomic scale would change it shape under the strain of gravity force (the ball would also change shape if there is not perfect equilibrium). In different media where there is not 100% equilibrium it takes different set of time to push the atoms away. In air quick, in water slower, solid wood longer time.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Judgie

Aether was abandoned in favor of more accurate theories.

The work that Tesla and others were doing was confiscated and suppressed by Government in conjunction with commercial interest. Einstein's work is the smokescreen covering a more complete and accurate concept of our environment.

originally posted by: Mon1k3r

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Judgie

Aether was abandoned in favor of more accurate theories.

The work that Tesla and others were doing was confiscated and suppressed by Government in conjunction with commercial interest. Einstein's work is the smokescreen covering a more complete and accurate concept of our environment.

What Tesla knew and what others knew I cannot know since I have not seen their work. I do believe there is a quantum probability field on the quantum level that create places that can be filed with energy and therefor create the particles that are energy in equilibrium form that are stable. And we can measure the field with experiments like double slit experiment. I also believe that synchronicity is an observation by the consciousness of the same quantum probability field. A field creating and shaping fate that we ourselves also interact with.

watched the video and watched half of his previous video (found on youtube) before I'd had enough of his apparently tenuous grasp on thermodynamics.

my understanding is that a universe after the (theoretical) big bang that is filled only with hydrogen is in a high energy and low entropy state. things are initially hot and fairly uniform. When 2 hydrogen atoms fuse into a helium atom the result is a release of energy and an increase of entropy (disorder) not the reverse as he is stating. Unless I have this concept seriously backwards in my own mind this alone is enough to make me question his reasoning for his theory.

That's not to say I don't believe this aether could potentially be a real component of the universe, just that we have enough pseudo science and far out theory's in the mix already making it pretty damn confusing.
It'd be nice to see something that is backed up by repeatable experiments, solid peer reviewed papers and good maths all at the same time for once

When you call the aether/unknown energy one particular name, people are more accepting if it is a "scientific" name like dark matter/Higgs/quarks etc. but it is truly much more complex and contains much smaller particles than those. It is best to just call it energy unless speaking of a specific level.

Even a vacuum is full of matter that is simply undetectable with modern instruments as current technology is limited to the sensitivity/size of the particles that the instrumentation is made of. However a human has ... let's just say jokingly that they can be detected.

As a Falun Gong practitioner, I can assure you that it exists and is quite powerful --beyond imagination. However, the path of modern science is to look at a single particle and keep digging into that bulls-horn. Everyone can reach a point of accessing/developing that higher energy matter, but it requires a serious change in direction and thinking.

Modern technology will never catch up to it. "Free Energy" in the context people think about it now will never happen, though a change in direction may allow for a different approach to bring those things to ordinary society at large.

Holy cow! I love this guy. Watched 20 lectures now and just wow. Not expecting free energy or anything but more importantly a correct model of the universe. Sadly I will have to throw out all my physics and astronomy texts.

a reply to: hmmmbeer
Amazing eh, even if he isn't right as such, he brings up the most fundamental issues with our scientific community and that is we forget there are other models out there. I thought the same thing, my physics is going to need to be seriously revised

originally posted by: Mon1k3r

The work that Tesla and others were doing was confiscated and suppressed by Government in conjunction with commercial interest. Einstein's work is the smokescreen covering a more complete and accurate concept of our environment.

The LCD you're looking at tells you that EM is transverse and not longitudinal. There is no aether.

originally posted by: Judgie
sorry I should add the link
www.youtube.com...

Translation of the video:

"My failure to understand the basic concepts of physics 101 constitutes a breakthrough in modern physics".

Um, no, it doesn't. Nassim Haramein tried to use the same argument, and it's sad. That they have followers ignorant enough to believe them is even sadder, though not totally unexpected. If one in five people believe the sun orbits the earth, and they do, why should we be surprised that people believe this guy? It's about as accurate.

He says that if a quadcopter consumes more energy to hover with a cannonball than to hover without a cannonball, then surely a bookshelf must also consume more energy to support the same cannonball. This is what is called failed logic, and he should have listened to his 8th grade teacher that no, the bookshelf isn't consuming energy to hold up the cannonball (it was a briefcase in that example).

His whole belief system seems to be built on failed logic steps such as this. He says that an object must consume energy to have a gravitational field at about 4.5 minutes. So if either of these statements were true, where are his measurements of the energy consumed by an object exerting a gravitational field, and of the bookshelf holding up the cannonball?

There are hypotheses that are confirmed by observation and experiments which then become theories and make up mainstream science. Making up new hypotheses is fine, it's part of the scientific method, but without observation and experiments to support them, or in this case where observations and experiments contradict his hypotheses, they fail. So why would anybody believe this nonsense? I don't know why anybody believes the sun orbits the Earth either except in that case you can at least say it sort of looks that way. But I don't see how you can say it looks like a shelf is burning energy to hold up a ball...it doesn't.

OK, I have watch most of the lectures now and I am a believer!
I dare anyone to critically challenge any of his significant models and conclusions. There are some misspellings and trivial issues during the lectures but he is too prolific to keep the quality perfect.
You need to lose your sense that throws stuff away because of [lack of] popularity - see his 'smarter monkeys video'. I have a great eye for patterns and inconsistencies - and the world at large has many. I found myself suffering from the smarter monkey problem and now I can see much more clearly.
The 4 forces of nature - ha! - that always got me. Two that were made up to satisfy math equations and one which was not a force but a 'warping of time/space' - but we still had 4 forces. Distinti has 1, and his model is simple and elegant.
I urge everyone to watch his lectures, and either learn from them or point out any problems. But DO NOT USE the excuse (without evidence) that he is wrong simply because of popularity. It would be the same argument as we have with 9/11 official story believers - they NEVER provide evidence and their stories are inconsistent and defy basic principles of physics. But they believe because its popular, and far too many would have to be involved to keep it hushed up. That is NOT evidence.