Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why electricity flows

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by gmonundercover
 


So very much of that post is wrong. You need to toss all the vibration stuff, for starters.


Bedlam ............I suggest you read up on Einstein before making such statements - then come back and we'll a have a debate - if your up to it that is. Actually all you would need to do is to read the A Einstein quotes in my post in order to prove yourself sufficiently wrong headed in your assertion.

Sarcastic quote --->:

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Wow. You need to check out this page.

buddhasystem........




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by gmonundercover

'Matter' is just a name for something we cannot so easily explain, but the one who said it best was A Einstein------> In order to comprehend it we must study his writings on the relationship between matter, energy, space, time, and gravity.


In order to do THAT, one of us needs to understand what a Hamiltonian is to start with, I'm up to tensors, how about you?

GR is the work of a lifetime. You can't get there with verbal sound bites that were meant for the press.



'Things' per se, seem real enough but they are mere aggregations of light waves - meeting and crossing one another at certain well defined coordinates. "Things" are electromagnetic vibrations - nothing more - nothing less.


No. When "light waves" cross each other, they ignore each other as if nothing happened. Each one is sort of in its own little universe. They can produce interference patterns, but the individual light waves are unaffected by the interaction. Further, light waves don't meet and stop in a pile. Light that's not moving isn't light.



Einstein said it best "matter is light stopped." Vibration is measured in frequencies called Hertz (cycles per second), and all vibrations - including light, sound, and your own physical body are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Things are light - matter is light - you are a mass of coagulated light !


I'm not sure he actually said that.

You can attribute frequency to vibration, in physics. Many things have frequency. That's because frequency is nothing but the number of times something repetitive occurs in unit time. Since many things are repetitive (even it if only repeats once...) that means you can attribute frequency to many things. But this doesn't make them co-identical in any way.

Light IS a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Sound is a mechanical wave of compression in a medium, typically air. It is NOT a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Matter is...matter. It also is not in the electromagnetic spectrum, as it is not an EM wave.



"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." - Albert Einstein


Yep, pretty sure he said that. It doesn't apply to your statement.



"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relatively implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density are particularly high." Albert Einstein.


He sort of said this, but it's a combination of several quotes. It doesn't seem to apply to your statement either. In GR, it makes sense. But the statement doesn't attribute 'vibrations' to things, nor does it say that matter is light waves.



"All forms of matter are really light waves in motion." - Albert Einstein


I don't think he said this one at all. Because it wouldn't make a lot of sense. I see it quoted on a lot of woo sites, but not on any believable ones.



Vibration can be understood with Einstein’s theory of relativity. Matter is simply energy vibrating at a very, very slow frequency (but still in motion). Einstein’s equation defines energy as E=MC2: energy = mass (matter) x the speed of light squared. So matter is energy, and energy is matter; a physical thing (such as your body) is simply an accumulation of energy vibrating at a specific rate. In addition, quantum physics has confirmed that all 'things' in the universe are ultimately a vibration made up of energy, are relatively self-aware, and are communicating through the exchange of information.


Here's where you go full woo. You NEVER go full woo.

One, it's not the theory of relativity. It's the matter-energy equivalence. Matter-energy equivalence does NOT state that matter is energy, just that matter has an energy equivalent. In a similar way, I have some specie in my wallet. It has a dollar-penny equivalence. That doesn't mean my dollar is made of pennies, or is pennies in some other dimension, or if I cut one side pennies will fall out. It means that in certain circumstances, the dollar may be transformed into change.

Nothing in there has anything to do with "vibrations". Nor that anything is "vibrating at a specific rate". I suspect your grasp of quantum physics has a lot to do with "What the &$(% do we know" and less from plodding through Schrodinger's equations.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Some interesting info about copper and other elements. Conductivity works so well with copper, silver, gold as it has one outer electron.

scienceforkids.kidipede.com...
edit on 8-11-2012 by sean because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


You seem to be very adroit at twisting words and meanings to suit your own purposes. I'll have none of it.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Hmm maybe that link I gave isn't correct now I look closer at it lol. Not sure how they come up with 35 neutrons. Others sources say there is 2 isotopes of copper. 63Cu and 65Cu. One has 34 neutrons and the other has 36. Both have 29 protons and 29 electrons. ::::scratches head:::: must be a misprint.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Late in the game.
Try troubleshooting elevators day in and day out,


Try dealing with dc motor-generator loop circuits and groundings. because of carbon dust build -up.
Compounding the generator and so on.
Setting up neutrals ,brush rigging angles,and seating the brushes.

www.imperialelectric.com...
Then there are those old ones with exciters.
You,the op,hopefully understands that.

But a very good lesson for those not familiar with electricity.
edit on 9-11-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Them some big motors I bet.
With big brushes in there they get magnetized dust all over and gotta service/inspect them all the time as being such a critical system with humans aboard the car. Always get a fear of being trapped in one of them or it failing lol.
edit on 9-11-2012 by sean because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by gmonundercover
reply to post by Bedlam
 


You seem to be very adroit at twisting words and meanings to suit your own purposes. I'll have none of it.
I thought he made some valid points, perhaps you are just outmatched. For example:


Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by gmonundercover
"All forms of matter are really light waves in motion." - Albert Einstein


I don't think he said this one at all. Because it wouldn't make a lot of sense. I see it quoted on a lot of woo sites, but not on any believable ones.
Either Einstein said this, or wrote it, or he didn't.

gmonundercover, if you are saying Einstein said this, then give us some verifiable information. If written, name/date of publication.
If he said it, when, where, who recorded it? I searched for it and I found pretty much what bedlam described, a bunch of woo sites copying each other, but no reliable citation.

If you are posting fabricated quotations, that's far a far worse thing to be accused of than "twisting words" which could just be miscommunication or misunderstanding. But if you're not, then prove it.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by gmonundercover
reply to post by Bedlam
 


You seem to be very adroit at twisting words and meanings to suit your own purposes. I'll have none of it.


Translation into English:

When it comes to debating user "Bedlam", I'm woefully out of my league both in terms of mental capacity and actual technical skills required to apply relevant math. So I'll just throw an ad hom at Bedlam and hope nobody will notice.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by gmonundercover
you are just not that well informed - surely not enough for me to consider you a worthy opponent in any sort of an intellectual discussion.


Well maybe I'm not as informed as some theoretical physicists, but I'm informed enough to see that what you wrote here:


all vibrations - including light, sound, and your own physical body are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Things are light - matter is light - you are a mass of coagulated light !


is just one lump of nonsense. Sound can't be a part of electromagnetic spectrum. "Things" are not light. Unless you listen to woo-woos.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

Sorry, I misunderstood your post...



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Are you using the "bafflegab" that you talked about on the "Schumann Resonances, Electro Magnetism, and the Brain" thread?



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
The flow of electricity (electric) current cause by the electrical pressure of the voltage is referred to as in its units of measurement are amperes.


I googled the word "ampere" and ended up at the article posted on Pure Energy Systems "Tesla's Scalar Fields Still Beaming On!"

Within this article is a link to a .pdf file entitled "Tesla's Wireless Power Transmission." It is a 93 page PowerPoint presentation presented by IEEE engineer Steve Jackson to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers on March 23, 2011.

Here is a provocative section head:



Here is the reference to "ampere":



Here is the link to the .pdf:


You can download his PowerPoint presentation here.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
All of these conspiracies surrounding Tesla are amusing. What's so sad is none of them are true. Tesla was a great man, but like all men, he had flaws. Never put a man so high he's untouchable.

Einstein was a great man too, but take a look here:
en.wikipedia.org - Principle of locality...

.........
Albert Einstein argued that quantum mechanics was an incomplete physical theory. Using the principle of locality, in a famous paper he and his co-authors articulated the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox which showed that position and momentum were simultaneous "real" physical properties of a particle. However, quantum mechanics has nothing to say about these "elements of reality". Thirty years later John Stewart Bell responded with a paper that posited (paraphrased) that no physical theory of local hidden variables, no local realism, can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics (known as Bell's theorem).
..........

Einstein had a poor grasp of QM and wanted to extend his classical ideas into that realm. But as we can see, he failed miserably and battled to his last days to reconcile with it. It really made him look old and tired and unable to transition. The idea of hidden variables or even local realism (for that matter) is mostly shot down and unrecoverable. Sweep up the mess, pay respects and move on.

The lesson should be to know when you've lost and not prolong it. No man or woman can go on forever. We all have our limits. This is just the way of the world. It might actually be a virtue. If people had no limits, we'd have no reason to work together and less need for society.
edit on 11-11-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
From johnbedini.net:


. . . Tesla's Discovery and Application of Radiant Energy


Of all the great inventions and discoveries of Nikola Tesla, nothing stood out with greater potential benefit to the whole of humanity than his discovery of Radiant Energy in 1889. The series of observations that led to the discovery of Radiant energy initially grew out of experiments that Tesla had conducted in an attempt to duplicate the results that Heinrich Hertz had claimed to achieve in affirming the existence of electromagnetic waves, the discovery of which Hertz announced in 1887. While replicating Hertz's experiments, Tesla experimented with violently abrupt DC electrical discharges and discovered a new force in the process. Only after conducting exhaustive experimental trials for the next three years, did Tesla announce this stupendous discovery in a paper published in December, 1892, entitled "The Dissipation of Electricity". Incredibly, most academicians of the day completely missed the mark in understanding the true significance of his paper. Noted scientists such as Sir Oliver Lodge, mistakenly thought that Tesla was referring to high frequency AC electricity in the operation of the Tesla Transformer, a huge blunder that remains to this day in the misnaming and misinterpretation of the Tesla Coil. The transformer that Tesla referred to in the 1892 paper did not operate on magnetic/electric field induction created by alternating currents. It operated in an entirely new domain of physics based on abrupt discharges of electrostatic potentials and the subsequent release of kinetic Radiant Energy from the omnipresent ether. Tesla was now operating under entirely new rules which he referred to as "dynamic" electro-static forces and had, by now, completely abandoned any further interest in the AC waveform. The genesis of the Lodge misunderstanding, however, began a few years earlier with the publication of certain mathematical formulas by a brilliant Scotsman named James Clerk Maxwell. . . .


In my opinion, everything electrical engineers think they know about electricity should be re-evaluated, if they want to truly be experts in the field.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Electrical engineers may not know everything, but you're not going to convince them to do anything with quotes from a known hoax site like Bedini's.

His products are some egregious scams, and therefore anything he says has zero credibility with me and probably any other technical people who know how the technology really works, a type of knowledge you apparently lack, so your opinion on what electrical engineers should do doesn't carry much weight either, unless you want to start explaining those equations you posted and make your case with them.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Bologna.

That's always your excuse.

Try doing some research of your own, instead of bad-mouthing inventors.

You don't need to be convinced by anyone. You need to do some research of your own. Make use of this internet. That's what it's for.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Bologna.

That's always your excuse.


What is Arb's excuse, pray tell? That he in fact invested considerable time in studying the actual subject of electromagnetism? And you didn't? But that's in plain sight, and it's not an excuse but a statement of fact.


Try doing some research of your own, instead of bad-mouthing inventors.


You seem to like the word "research" a lot, and from what I have seen, it means something different to you than it does to educated people. You read some crackpot website and go "Wow! Finally they are gonna get that evil mainstream science! Oh, those conspiracies! Suppression!". That's the level of your research skill. You don't know jack about electrical current, nature of resistance, magnetic fields or anything related to the subject, for that matter. If you read on the web that "the free energy device had a secondary coil made of gauge 20 wire. In a repeated measurement, we registered 85A current which proves it's overunity" you won't see why this is clearly a fabrication. You have no problem bad-mouthing scientists, yet you have the nerve to advise arb against passing his judgement on people who can't demonstrate anything proving their "inventions", like that Bearden dude who destroyed his magic transformer immediately after he made his alleged discoevery, or Searl, whose devices tend to fly away to outer space the second he manufactures them.

edit on 12-11-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
From Prof. Konstantin Meyl's website meyl.eu:


Potential vortex, newly discovered properties of the electric field are fundamentally changing our view of the physical world.

In his books, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl develops a self-consistent field theory which is used to derive at all known interactions of the potential vortex. Instead of the normally used Maxwell equation, Prof. Meyl chooses Faradays law of induction, as a hypothetical factor and proves that the electric vortex is a part thereof. This potential vortex propagates scalar-like through space and is a longitudinal electric wave whose properties have already been established a century ago by Nicola Tesla. This phenomenon can now be studied and examined thanks to a fully functional replica designed by Prof. Meyl. . . .



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Funny, I googled "ampere" and ended up on a very informative set of articles on Wikipedia (first hit of first page). Strange how you skipped pages and pages of informative google results to "end up" on some crank website. But I guess that's Motivated Reasoning for you.






top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join