Frontier Science: Ken Shoulders

Bedlam
Well, no, I guess people who don't understand EM still support it, because they can't quite grasp the fact that EM doesn't need an aether to propagate.

Tom Bearden says this in "Toward a New Electromagnetics - Part III: Clarifying the Vector Concept - © 1983 T.E. Bearden - Implications":

Some of the fundamental concepts of the new Tesla electromagnetics are presented. The new concepts have startling implications:

(1) No force or force field exists as such in vacuum.
(2) Hertzian (transverse) electromagnetic waves do not travel through the vacuum, just as Tesla stated. . . .

Link

Are you saying the same thing? If the aether/ether is in the vacuum and EM does not travel in the vacuum, then you're agreeing with Tesla?

Or are you saying something different?

Mary Rose
I also recall that there is a lot of confusion about what happened with Einstein's work: That he's thought of as eliminating the aether from physics with his theory, but that actually in his later work he made it clear that there is an aether.

Actually, the lecture I was talking about took place in 1920, which is only four years after general relativity. I'm referring to a lecture at the University of Leiden entitled "Ether and the Theory of Relativity."

Mary Rose

Bedlam
Well, no, I guess people who don't understand EM still support it, because they can't quite grasp the fact that EM doesn't need an aether to propagate.

You're saying EM propagates in empty space?

Simple example

In the first light bulbs, all the air was sucked out of the bulb to create a near vacuum -- an area with no matter in it.

home.howstuffworks.com...

Mary Rose

Bedlam
Well, no, I guess people who don't understand EM still support it, because they can't quite grasp the fact that EM doesn't need an aether to propagate.

You're saying EM propagates in empty space?

Yes.

More correctly electromagnetic propagation is not a consequence of vibrations in some underlying mechanical-like fluid or stress-supporting substance which was once called "lumineferous ether".

In the 19th century that sort of ether was the working assumption of scientists because of the analogy to known wave motion of sound and fluid-mechanical waves & oscillations. At that point in time, all wave motion (and light and radio then had no experimentally known particle-like behavior) was assumed to be "of something else".

The "something else" being the "lumineferous ether". If it did, then there would be observable consequences like doppler effects and others relating to the underlying substance just as acoustic waves have behaviors which depend on the underlying fluid.

That idea, which is what physicists call "ether" is wrong, and experiments showed it to be so.

Electromagnetism is not like acoustics. Electromagnetic waves need nothing other than electric & magnetic fields to propagate, and these fields exist in space without requiring any matter or extraneous additional structure, and there is no known substrate beneath them. In other words, some 19th century scientists wondered if Maxwell's equations were incomplete and there were some additional physics underlying classical electromagnetism, just as acoustic waves (sound) have mechanics + thermodynamics of the underlying medium involved. Nope. Maxwell's equations are not incomplete, they are correct even including special relativity.

Now, if you consider any structure of 'vacuum' (areas of space without real particles with positive rest mass is what people generally mean by that) to be 'ether', you can call it that in your own head but don't use it in public because it's very confusing and misleading. Just because general relativity and quantum field theory show some structure in the vacuum (which are upheld with experimental evidence) doesn't mean that incorrect 19th century ideas about something entirely different (which is invalidated by experiment) has any validity or usefulness.

As if I were to call enriched uranium to be 'kerosene' and try to make some false analogy between chemical and nuclear reactions and then somehow assert that Herr Diesel had invented a nuclear reactor when he didn't.

mbkennel
Electromagnetic waves need nothing other than electric & magnetic fields to propagate, and these fields exist in space without requiring any matter or extraneous additional structure, and there is no known substrate beneath them.

So, you're saying EM waves propagate in fields?

How do you define "fields"?

Actually the Tom Bearden quote I posted is saying EM waves are not propagating in vacuum, so I guess that's saying they're not propagating in ether:

Some of the fundamental concepts of the new Tesla electromagnetics are presented. The new concepts have startling implications:

(1) No force or force field exists as such in vacuum.
(2) Hertzian (transverse) electromagnetic waves do not travel through the vacuum, just as Tesla stated. . . .

Link

mbkennel
Now, if you consider any structure of 'vacuum' (areas of space without real particles with positive rest mass is what people generally mean by that) to be 'ether', you can call it that in your own head but don't use it in public because it's very confusing and misleading. Just because general relativity and quantum field theory show some structure in the vacuum (which are upheld with experimental evidence) doesn't mean that incorrect 19th century ideas about something entirely different (which is invalidated by experiment) has any validity or usefulness.

You're admitting that there is "structure" in the vacuum; it is not empty space.

But you don't want to call it the ether.

The official story of mainstream physics is that the ether was disproved with experimentation. Alternative physics says otherwise.

But a new term would help. As posted about earlier, the new term coined by Joe Firmage, "Potentum" might work.

Mary Rose

mbkennel
Electromagnetic waves need nothing other than electric & magnetic fields to propagate, and these fields exist in space without requiring any matter or extraneous additional structure, and there is no known substrate beneath them.

So, you're saying EM waves propagate in fields?

Yes. Electromagnetic waves are waves in coupled electric and magnetic fields. Maxwell's equations showed how you can get propagating waves at a distance from moving charges.

How do you define "fields"?

In physics (pre quantum mechanics), a function of position and time, in Euclidean representation (x,y,z,t) which has a value everywhere in space and time and a physical interpretation, and equations of motion corresponding to physics on it, and relating this field to other physical values. A scalar-valued real field has one number, (e.g. pressure in low intensity acoustics), a vector valued field has a magnitude and direction (each of electric and magnetic fields are vector-valued) and then there can be higher-order fields (tensors, say for stress tensor in wave mechanics of solids).

Actually the Tom Bearden quote I posted is saying EM waves are not propagating in vacuum, so I guess that's saying they're not propagating in ether:

Please start believing Maxwell and Einstein more than Tom Bearden.

mbkennel
Now, if you consider any structure of 'vacuum' (areas of space without real particles with positive rest mass is what people generally mean by that) to be 'ether', you can call it that in your own head but don't use it in public because it's very confusing and misleading. Just because general relativity and quantum field theory show some structure in the vacuum (which are upheld with experimental evidence) doesn't mean that incorrect 19th century ideas about something entirely different (which is invalidated by experiment) has any validity or usefulness.

You're admitting that there is "structure" in the vacuum; it is not empty space.

But you don't want to call it the ether.

I don't know what you mean by "empty space" but that there is some kind of dynamical structure in the vacuum has been known for literally decades. Direct effects of quantum vacuum has been observed experimentally over and over again. General Relativity has also been demonstrated to be justified with some pretty precise and difficult experiments as well as astrophysics like the spin-down of pulsars. So far the true "capstone" of proving dynamical structure of space time, has not been experimentally observed directly, this being gravitational waves. There's a large experiment meant to do so, but the problem is known to be stupendously difficult technically and may not be feasible with our technology. Still, no serious physicist disputes the predictive power of general relativity as a macroscopic theory of gravitation: Einstein is something like 80-0 in the ring.

No I don't want to call it ether, because there are specific names for these effects which are clear and communicative, and the vacuum structure of general relativity and quantum field theory mean different things, and the unification of the two has yet to be completed satisfactorily.

The official story of mainstream physics is that the ether was disproved with experimentation. Alternative physics says otherwise.

19th century luminiferous ether was disproved with experimentation. After all the large-scale astrophysical surveys (not known in 19th century) we would have seen plenty of evidence if there was some large scale electromagnetic anisotropy as implied by 19th century ether hypotheses.

Remember, this 19th century ether was never a firmly accepted part of physics! The time between Maxwell's equations and Albert Einstein was pretty short.

But a new term would help. As posted about earlier, the new term coined by Joe Firmage, "Potentum" might work.

If you have a new term you need a reason for this term and physical equations of motion and direct experimental consequences. What are these? Get the physics right first, and then consider the name.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Yes.

Mary Rose

Bedlam
Well, no, I guess people who don't understand EM still support it, because they can't quite grasp the fact that EM doesn't need an aether to propagate.

You're saying EM propagates in empty space?

Correct. No aether required. If EM propagated in aether, your LCD monitor wouldn't work. Along with many other things.

mbkennel
Please start believing Maxwell and Einstein more than Tom Bearden.

Bearden is an expert on both Maxwell and Einstein.

No one is better informed than he is as far as I'm concerned.

He has thoroughly researched from original papers rather than learning from textbooks.

There is no substitute for that.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Is that why he has a fake doctorate?

ps...when you get a degree you don't just read textbooks.

Some of the fundamental concepts of the new Tesla electromagnetics are presented. The new concepts have startling implications:

(1) No force or force field exists as such in vacuum.
(2) Hertzian (transverse) electromagnetic waves do not travel through the vacuum, just as Tesla stated. . . .

Link

Two more from the list of 28 items:

(3) Forceless, massless Tesla (scalar) longitudinal waves actually transit the vacuum. Tesla called them "electrical sound waves."
(4) At present there are actually four different FUNDAMENTAL TYPES of vectorial entities in physics, erroneously confused as one and the same.

Mary Rose
The fact is the source of the energy of the quantum ground state is the aether.

Bedlam
Well, no, I guess people who don't understand EM still support it, because they can't quite grasp the fact that EM doesn't need an aether to propagate.

(3) Forceless, massless Tesla (scalar) longitudinal waves actually transit the vacuum. Tesla called them "electrical sound waves."

We got off on EM when the topic was the aether.

But it seems that whether or not EM needs aether to propagate does not mean there is no aether.

There are other waves besides EM.

From the 13 page .pdf by Ken Shoulders and his son Steve Shoulders, "Charge Clusters in Action":

ABSTRACT

New energy transformations have been found using highly organized, micron-sized clusters of electrons, or EVs, having soliton behavior, with electron populations on the order of Avagadro’s number. When interacted with solid material, these charge clusters perform a low-energy phase transformation type of atomic disruption that liquefies the lattice and propels the material to a high velocity without apparent signs of conventional heating. Using an ordinary thermal interpretation, a thermal gradient for bulk material greater than 26,000 degrees C per micrometer would be required to achieve these effects. Evidence will be shown for the EV transiting the solid material, fluidizing it by contributing one extra electron per nucleon for a period considerably longer than the relaxation time, and then imparting momentum to the fluid. Under such conditions, the impact of this fluid on another solid buries a slug of solidified material to a depth of over 20 micrometers. This abnormal behavior introduces the notion of energy gain produced through a lowenergy atomic and molecular phase change coupled with high recombination energy release. Evidence will also be introduced for the underlying energy production process stemming from the equivalence of an electron-annihilation energy release based on the manipulation of fractional electronic charge.

Scanning electron micrographs will be introduced showing EV borehole perfection, dual EV existence, and an electrically driven, sloshing type of material reflection in the borehole that is correctable with impedance-matching, micro nozzles. Micro thrusters using a 20 micrometer diameter and 100 micrometer long slug of non-explosive material will be discussed that are based on a spark-like propulsion process giving sufficient velocity to produce shock cones 70 micrometers apart at atmospheric pressure after being initiated from an energy source of 20 micro Joules. In vacuum, the ions from such a source travel 1 cm in 50 nanoseconds. As an example of the new energetics produced by EV interaction with material, data will be submitted on an intense light source having dimensions of a few micrometers and duration of several picoseconds arising from a form of synchrotron radiation. The basis for controlling the wavelength of this photon source from the visible light region to gamma wavelengths will be discussed. Micrographs will be shown of a low energy nuclear reaction that has produced nuclear transmutations by using a nuclear cluster reaction process.

Link

Again, EV = electromagnetic vortex or electrum validum (strong electron)

I had to look up "soliton." From the Free Dictionary:

A pulselike wave that can exist in nonlinear systems, does not obey the superposition principle, and does not disperse.

Link

And "superposition principle":

A principle holding that two or more solutions to a linear equation or set of linear equations can be added together so that their sum is also a solution.

Link

reply to post by Bedlam


Oh please; that is nauseating.

His education is his own research and his own experimentation and life experience: The best education under the sun.

Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Oh please; that is nauseating.

His education is his own research and his own experimentation and life experience: The best education under the sun.

That's a pretty lousy way to learn physics.

If physics were anything like "intuitively obvious" or something people can pick up with "life experience", Gaius Julius Caesar would have conquered Gaul with nuclear missiles.

Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Oh please; that is nauseating.

I thought so myself. So did the military. Buying a fake doctorate from a diploma mill tells you all you need to know. He's the scholastic version of a PX Ranger.

His education is his own research and his own experimentation and life experience: The best education under the sun.

Maybe that's why he tried to use a sine wave RMS meter to measure pulse power from his perpetual motion transformer. He didn't know any better.