Electric Winds on Electric Worlds

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: playswithmachines
I have distanced myself from forums of late, way too many problems, both physical as mental, i decided to do what i always do; go it alone, and disclose stuff now & then.

The fact that there are paid agents purposely trolling on threads, plus rude and sarcastic defenders of the status quo to contend with, does make participation on forums bad for one's health at times.

But thank heavens we have the internet.

I see, asking for a shred of actual proof for your fairly large claims means that we are paid govt shills and rude...right

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Show me the equivalent of maxwells wave equations and you will have my attention

Which ones? The originals or the ones mangled by Lorentz & Heaviside?
Check out the argument between Heaviside & Poynting, it turns out Poynting was right, but you won't read that anywhere.

Show us ONE device any of you guys built using your science and you will have my attention

Lifters work, gravitors work. Podkletnov produced electrically a gravity wave powerful enough to bend 2 inch thick copper & steel plates. All that work is very well documented.
It is a fact that some mathematicians consider charge to be a dimension unto itself.
Da gubmint knows exactly how gravity works, believe me.

ETA; Eric Dollards use of the steinmetz method was good, it showed the 4 pairs as they should be, funny thing is Dollard is a big fan of Heaviside, for some reason......

The ones that make everything you use on a daily basis that involves any form of EM waves WORK. Dont you get it? Your screen, your microwave, your radio, your phone, ALL were built using components that work with the well established principles that you deride.

originally posted by: playswithmachines
The very nature of electric charge has yet to be properly defined, some scientists think it may be a dimension in itself.

Although people have to be their own investigator and put the pieces together themselves, I think searching within “science fiction” and listening to whistleblowers and dissenting scientists is the best way to search for that definition.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

The ones that make everything you use on a daily basis that involves any form of EM waves WORK. Dont you get it? Your screen, your microwave, your radio, your phone, ALL were built using components that work with the well established principles that you deride.

Yes they work, both thermionic & solid-state devices make use of the flow of electrons, but that is just scraping the surface, there is a lot more going on besides electron flow. We use electricity but we don't really understand it.
That's why i call it 'electrickery'
Rotation is also important, but rarely investigated. Particles having opposite spin will pass right through each other, regardless of their charge. That in itself breaks a whole bunch of 'well established' rules. The C60 'buckyball' experiment showed that a solid object can be in several places at once, Heisenberg was right, the very act of observing a phenomenon changes it.

Many assume the 'speed' of gravity to be the same as light, only because it then fits the Relativity model. Tesla reckoned the speed of gravity to be much faster than light, Podkletnov also proved this.
I know, you can argue that gravity is a field and as such has no velocity, in that case why try to attribute 'gravity' to a particle like a 'graviton' or more recently a Higgs boson? Kind of self-defeating logic if you ask me.
Any astronomer will tell you that the effects of one body on another in space is instant, regardless of the distance between them.

Torsion field theory evolved from the phenomenon regarding the effect of a spinning body on another, it would suggest that rotational energy in the form of a vortex could be the mechanism for energy transfer. It even has a name, it's called Inertial Translation.

Here's the fun part.
Imagine that the effects of 'gravity' are the result of an outside force squeezing things together, rather than any kind of 'attraction' between them.
If you remove that force in 1 direction, the object will be pushed along the path of least resistance. If you remove the force in all directions around an object, that object will fly apart.

So what is that invisible all-powerful force?
Ever heard of the aether?
Quantum theory & relativity deny each other, yet we are supposed to beleive in both of them at once?

originally posted by: Vector99
Just because something is old doesn't mean it has zero relevance.

It isn’t that the standard model of cosmology has been around too long; it’s that it has repeatedly been shown to be flawed.

Mainstream science has been quite guilty of protecting vested interests instead of pursuing the truth.

Dissident scientists have been ignored.

originally posted by: Vector99
If you want to change the model you have to actually figure out a mathematical flaw in the current model and expand on that.

Your statement presupposes that all current models are based on reality unless there is something wrong with the math.

That is putting math in a role which it does not deserve.

Math is only a tool.

If the underlying observation or interpretation of what is observed is flawed, the mathematics describing it is, in turn, flawed.

When new observations and/or interpretations are made, one has to go back to the drawing board.

originally posted by: playswithmachines
Any astronomer will tell you that the effects of one body on another in space is instant, regardless of the distance between them.

I’ve heard Wal Thornhill say that gravity is instantaneous in one of his talks.

originally posted by: playswithmachines
. . . energy transfer.

I’m not sure what that is but I couldn’t find out by doing a search.

Please define energy transfer for me.

originally posted by: playswithmachines
It even has a name, it's called Inertial Translation.

Is the research and development of it largely suppressed?

originally posted by: playswithmachines
Ever heard of the aether?

Is aether synonymous with zero point energy?

a reply to: ConnectDots

It isn’t that the standard model of cosmology has been around too long; it’s that it has repeatedly been shown to be flawed.

Whenever an observation is made that challenges the current model, the model is altered to accommodate it. That is how science works. Any new fundamental theory will need to explain everything that the current model does while making falsifiable predictions. Does the Electric Universe theory explain time dilation? The Doppler effect? Spectrographic emission lines? The current model does. If EU does not, it is not valid.

Mainstream science has been quite guilty of protecting vested interests instead of pursuing the truth.

And attacking the scientific establishment rather than investigating phenomena objectively is what defines a crank.

Dissident scientists have been ignored.

I thought you said they were attacked.

originally posted by: Vector99
If you want to change the model you have to actually figure out a mathematical flaw in the current model and expand on that.

Your statement presupposes that all current models are based on reality unless there is something wrong with the math.

Not exactly. Math is used to describe what is observed. If the math is flawed, the description is flawed. The observation itself is the reality.

That is putting math in a role which it does not deserve.

Why?

Math is only a tool.

Correct. You cannot build a house without tools. You can describe the most magnificent palace using words, but until you pick up a tool, it is a fantasy, not reality. Likewise, no matter what sort of cosmology you imagine, until you can describe it mathematically and use the equations to make predictions that can be verified through observation, all you have is a fantasy.

If the underlying observation or interpretation of what is observed is flawed, the mathematics describing it is, in turn, flawed.

Correct. It works the opposite way as well. Observations of the planets' motions in the sky seemed to put the Earth at the center of the universe. Copernicus devised a geometrical solution that was better able to predict their motions. Kepler refined this mathematically and, it turns out, the mathematics yielded the correct interpretation of the observations. Of course, some people still believe otherwise.

When new observations and/or interpretations are made, one has to go back to the drawing board.

Yes, but that doesn't mean you should chop the drawing board up and use it as firewood.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Please define energy transfer for me.

You should do some research before you start attacking the scientific method.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Agreed.
These days it is the custom to keep on re-hashing the model to make it fit the facts, or even worse,distort the facts to fit the model. If the facts (ie.observed phenomena) do not fit the model then there is something wrong with the model, not the observation.

Math is a tool, just that. There's a branch of algebra called Dimensional Analysis that i started learning years ago, today there's only a few pages to be found on the net, but scientists use it all the time to define formulas.
Simply put, it breaks everything down into it's component dimensions like time (t) length (L) area (L^2) mass (M) and charge (Q). These are then sorted into constants or variables, and you can quickly determine which dimension(s) are part of the formula & which ones can be discarded.

Inertia for example can be expressed as ML/t or mass x length (1 dimension only) over time. If you add temperature (T) or charge (Q) you will see that they make no difference to inertia, at least in the standard model.

That model is flawed, since all these dimensions do interact at some basic level, but i don't want to complicate things here.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Please define energy transfer for me.

I just did, in the case of kinetic energy it would be rotational energy or what you might call a torsion field.
In the case of electrical energy it's the displacement of charge, mostly but not always accompanied by electrons, they are just charge carriers they are not the charge itself Charge has zero mass & infinite speed.

Is the research and development of it largely suppressed?

I wouldn't say actively supressed, although the demolition team at Wikipedia have been very busy removing or trashing important findings that clash with the standard model.
I would say it has simply been overlooked.

Is aether synonymous with zero point energy?

I guess so, the theories do blend well. In both cases the creation of a dipole (a potential difference between 2 points) enables humungous amounts of energy to flow. It has been postulated that mass is simply compressed aether, but i can't find any evidence apart from the fact that mass & energy are in a continuous state of flux. I would say that aether is a kind of fluid where energy flows, and there are islands of mass floating in it.
Just as the sea washes sand from one beach to another, the energy flux can create or remove particles randomly. Given that E=MC^2 still holds, that means there are petawatts of unseen energy flowing around us, through us.

This i also beleive to be the heart of the 'dark matter' problem. There is no dark matter, only dark energy, since the 2 can be interchanged.

That i guess is what you may call ZPE. It can be tapped electrically, but there are restrictions. Even so it predicts 'overunity' and self-running machines, many of my experiments have proven this, i'm still working on self-running circuits, i have had to wait until the right chips appeared on the market to go further, i now have those chips.
Exciting times ahead!

Funny how the EU quacks never predict these sort of discoveries but always crow about how it supports EU after the fact.

originally posted by: playswithmachines
If the facts (ie.observed phenomena) do not fit the model then there is something wrong with the model, not the observation.

It seems to me that people don’t realize how programmed we all can be at times. We hear terminology used in the mass media as if there is no disagreement about the term being bandied about – for example – “the Big Bang.”

I think this is a factor in keeping models unchallenged.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Yes, we are taught to assume things rather than to actually check them out, there is less fundamental experimentation going on in the 'established communities' and more being done by you-tubers.

Check out what peeps are doing with monopole magnets. They are not possible according to standard EM theory and yet you can buy them on Ebay!
Everywhere you look you can find gaping holes in our 'well established' science..........

originally posted by: GetHyped
Funny how the EU quacks never predict these sort of discoveries but always crow about how it supports EU after the fact.

Erm, well they spent $18 trillion trying to prove an impossible theory, just shows how insane they really are.
Worst part is, they used my tax money, and didn't ask me for permission as to how it would be spent.

A few years ago they paid a mathematician $2 million to write a book on gravity, i havent seen that book yet, some pre-publish manuscripts showed he was merely repeating the same MIT garbage that the rest use, and avoided any form of electrical connection, despite the massive amount of evidence for it.

I sure would love to have his job, easy money

originally posted by: playswithmachines
. . . in the case of kinetic energy it would be rotational energy or what you might call a torsion field.

So, you’re saying with all kinetic energy the transfer is done rotationally?

And this is an alternative viewpoint – at odds with mainstream science? Or, have you not said that?

originally posted by: playswithmachines
In the case of electrical energy it's the displacement of charge, mostly but not always accompanied by electrons, they are just charge carriers they are not the charge itself Charge has zero mass & infinite speed.

How much of that does mainstream science agree with?

originally posted by: playswithmachines
. . . the demolition team at Wikipedia have been very busy removing or trashing important findings that clash with the standard model.

I think Wikipedia is a huge problem, because people rely on it (not scientists but researchers who speak out on issues) and when the subject is not controversial, it is a goldmine, so it’s easy to be fooled by it.

I’ve learned not to even go there if the subject is controversial.

a reply to: playswithmachines

Like every other EU proponent, you seem to be of the belief that simply stating claims is the same as substantiating them.

Double post

originally posted by: playswithmachines
Erm, well they spent $18 trillion trying to prove an impossible theory, just shows how insane they really are.
Worst part is, they used my tax money, and didn't ask me for permission as to how it would be spent.

Are you talking about EU as in European Union?

originally posted by: playswithmachines
Check out what peeps are doing with monopole magnets. They are not possible according to standard EM theory and yet you can buy them on Ebay!
Everywhere you look you can find gaping holes in our 'well established' science..........

It's as if the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

There is too much compartmentalization and an attitude between compartments.

originally posted by: playswithmachines
I guess so, the theories do blend well. In both cases the creation of a dipole (a potential difference between 2 points) enables humungous amounts of energy to flow.

I have heard Tom Bearden talk about the creation of a dipole and what can be accomplished.

Is a dipole something that naysayers regarding converting zero point energy, something mainstream science says does exist, into usable energy, a conversion mainstream science scoffs at and frequently uses name-calling to denigrate inventors associated with it, do not appreciate?