It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Mary Rose
Bedlam
And no, don't think he'd be building a quantum effects mechanical clock.
I was thinking in terms of his mechanical ability being used to utilize the ether, which does exist, in the form of a gaseous (as Tesla called it) or dynamic, rather than a solid, (as Hertz thought it was) ether.
Mary Rose
I'm learning from William Lyne that light travels through free space with longitudinal waves . . .
Mary Rose
Here is what I heard Lyne saying:
- Space propulsion and free energy are using the same thing: the ether.
- Tesla's discovery is not electromagnetic or electrodynamic; it's electrostatic, or better: electromechanical.
- The waves travel at the speed of light.
- EM waves can't travel in free space; they can only travel through solid substances.
- Einstein and Hertz believed in a solid ether; only a solid ether could conduct EM waves.
- Tesla believed in a gaseous ether.
- Tesla's waves are similar to sound waves, which travel in the atmosphere. The differences are that Tesla's waves travel at the speed of light, and instead of using the atmosphere, they use the ether, which is sub-atomic.
Mary Rose
Here are things I heard in the second hour:
- The energy of light is being carried by the ether.
- Light itself isn't travelling anywhere; there are no particles moving through space.
- Light is basically a standing wave form in the ether.
- This energy collides with solid bodies to produce reactions such as heat and reflection of other wavelengths.
- Radio science today still is actually producing "sound waves in the ether" but the technology does not produce the pure sounds it could if it were based on Tesla's gaseous ether theory instead of Hertz's solid ether theory.
- Ether is just a carrier.
Mary Rose
ErosA433
So it is good to dream and say what if! but if what if is essentially magic even by realistic models, it is not really helpful to the progress of science and life.
It isn't magic if it's a phenomenon that is simply not understood by all and is used in a new concept.
The proper attitude to take is neutral when there is reason to believe something could be real.
Those who have an understanding of the suppression endured by inventors over the decades have an advantage over those who don't because it puts things in perspective.
Fromabove
The largest vibration of them all was the "big bang" which we know was expansion. And expansion fits perfectly with the aether theory.
ErosA433
The obvious existence of UFOs is not as obvious as their actual nature. Besides, everyone carries with them a camera these days and the amount of actual evidence that is credible is really not increased at the same rate.
ErosA433
And besides, apparent suppression of UFO subject material does not necessarily have any causal value with what is being discussed here.
Mary Rose
It only takes one valid one to prove a point.
ErosA433
Thank you... now, what you are saying is that a point can be proven by ONE valid piece of evidence... Now accept the many valid pieces of evidence that most of what you have posted on this thread is incorrect and has been proven INVALID over and over and over.
intrptr
reply to post by Mary Rose
Theres this old adage…
"something from nothing…"
I really wish it were true. It would have to violate the known laws of Physics, though.
As soon as he puts a load on the shaft to produce power enough to turn a generator that gets more energy out than is put in, let me know.
Mary Rose
The problem with mainstream physics and those who defend it is the arrogance.
Physics and science in general should just be physics and science. There shouldn't be classifications of them.
Mary did you ever answer this? How should science treat theories that have been proven wrong?
Arbitrageur
So if someone makes a scientific theory today that arrows move because air pushes them, how do you propose we treat that theory, when we can prove it wrong?
The example of plate tectonics comes to mind. Scientists rejected the idea because there was insufficient evidence to support it. When sufficient supporting evidence was presented, the same scientists accepted the same theory they previously rejected. As previously stated this is the means by which any "alternative science" can become science...just provide sufficient evidence as the proponents of plate tectonics did.
ErosA433
That is the point of what i was going. It is like one rule for one and one rule for the other.
Science isn't like that... it is the same rules for all
Yes this is what typically happens on Earth, which is why the ancients thought something had to be pushing the arrow, because as you said, observations seemed to suggest that things only kept moving if something was pushing them. So you can sort of understand why they might try to think of something pushing the arrow.
Fromabove
reply to post by Arbitrageur
We know that air is not rushing in to push the arrow from behind, but something is happening in the arrow to make it continue on it's journey. Let's exchange the arrow for a sleek narrow boat that has a point at the front and is flat at the rear. We set it in the water and then give it a push. We can see that the front of the boat is displacing water and that it quickly rushes into the rear of the boat to replace that displacement.
What we have is that when any force or pressure is applied into any mass it will cause a direction of motion away from that pressure. As the mass object moves away from the source of pressure, the energy applied will slowly be reabsorbed into the surrounding area outside of it's mass. The object then comes to a stop with pressure at all sides and angles being equal.
We can model what would happen to your hypothetical boat in a computer simulation. Doesn't this show a pretty good understanding of what is going on in that example?
Computational fluid dynamics, usually abbreviated as CFD, is a branch of fluid mechanics that uses numerical methods and algorithms to solve and analyze problems that involve fluid flows. Computers are used to perform the calculations required to simulate the interaction of liquids and gases with surfaces defined by boundary conditions. With high-speed supercomputers, better solutions can be achieved. Ongoing research yields software that improves the accuracy and speed of complex simulation scenarios such as transonic or turbulent flows. Initial experimental validation of such software is performed using a wind tunnel with the final validation coming in full-scale testing, e.g. flight tests.
Mary Rose
Physics and science in general should just be physics and science. There shouldn't be classifications of them.
My understanding was different, that "theories" like those of a relatively uneducated person like Ed Leedskalnin claiming the moon is held in orbit by magnetic force and would come crashing down to Earth if the Earth and moon didn't both have opposing, unchanging, dipolar magnetic fields should not be considered "alternative science"; it should just be considered a scientific theory along with other scientific theories like the one that says gravity and inertia are responsible for the moon's orbit, without labeling it "alternative science" and without ridiculing it with such terms as "crackpottery".
ErosA433
The problem is that you are asking for something that has become totally unfeasible. A physics degree takes typically 3 years, ontop of that a masters will take 1-2 years, ontop of that a phd can take 4 - 6 years. What you are saying is that (if i am understanding correct) that to be a physicist you need to understand at PhD level every aspect of the subject.
Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam
I'm learning from William Lyne that light travels through free space with longitudinal waves and EM, transverse waves only travel through solids.
Arbitrageur
Mary did you ever answer this? How should science treat theories that have been proven wrong?