Tweet
Alright, that sounds either entirely conventional or pretty controversial depending on your vantage, so where am I going with it? Well at this point I tend to think there isn't an ether. Now there was the Michalelson-Morley experiment which found no "material" ether, taking it as valid one is still left with the original problem, what do waves propagate through? Well at least we say they are waves when we don't say they are particles, but the real issue remains, what does a magnet, when I feel it act through a distance, or gravity when it acts at a distance, act through? The ether ... oh wait. When we consider such forces as observable waves we might think of a wave from the ocean, "damping out" at the seashore, however, the ether is not observable, though something is said to travel though it.
So here is the fun game show question. Give me any observable property of the ether, or any model of a possible property which predicts observable events. I don't want to hear that the ether is "teeming" or "violent" or happy or sad. Is it orange? Does it smell like oranges, is it three feet in distance? Conversely, if there is a model of a seventh dimensional toroidal torsion tornado, how does this model consistently predict something experiencable.
I lost most intimidation and a good deal of respect for theoreticians and mathematicians when I thought about a child's spinning top for a while. When I made a mass as a spinning wheel raise to a height with no change at all in a kitchen scale I lost more confidence in the authoritative modelers. Mass is not constant, it varies to disappears in an inertial plane depending on how fast it's spinning. But who ever encounters a wheel? Oh and if you are not dealing with gyroscopic precessional motion but just spinning an unbalanced wheel, it hops in a linear direction. I don't blame Newton, he was a great experimenter he just also happened to be a likely forceful personality and a good mathematician so things became more entrenched than he ever would have liked or possible imagined.
Now you will tell me the ether is the energy that is possible at zero kelvin, when all motion has stopped, zero point energy. If, per Heisenberg, observation requires motion, and per Newton there is an equal and opposite reaction from any action, then something perfectly still, is again, not observable. One might Euclid like, though less fundamentally, question the postulates of Heisenberg and Newton, but should all of Western Science read like a bad Zen Koan.
We haughtily note that the Greeks never conceived of zero as a number (silly fools). Well zero isn't a number, it is nothing, nothing by definition is not something, hence zero is not something, likewise Descarte was correct, there are no negative numbers as there can not be something less than nothing by definition. If you acknowledge that these are vectors, I owe you money or you owe me money, that is valid, but there are no negative scalar numbers (which is what numbers are presented as).
I will present here an alternative to the ether. We see or hear, etc, waves and particles and note their behavior in various environments, we, perhaps erroneously, look to extrapolate this to fundamental forces. What if, rather than traveling through a non-observable ether, the fundamental forces, which ever they are, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc. are themselves responsible for creating the perception of space which needs to be traveled through? As a child we learn to perceive distance with our eyes through the interference pattern of the incoming “photons”, they provide consistency and predictability to further experience. The moon is not the size of my thumb it is distant. Well this has gotten silly for me now as well as I can't think of things creating existence which do not exist in something, still it may be worthwhile to look a little more upon the forces simply acting and not what they might be acting in.
One last point then I'll shut up. Let's say for an instant that the Bedini SSG is overunity, or the Kapanzde device, or Tesla's Magnifying transmitter, or Howard Johnson's magnet motors, or Depalma's N-machine, etc. If even one of these is "over-unity" we have the question "where did this energy come from?” Maybe a big ball of energy like with a solar cell. I like to consider Veljko Milković's two stage oscillator, unless I am mistaken Dr. Lindemann considers this device over-unity. It is quite bluntly a lot like a raised see-saw with a swinging bag of bricks at one end, (catch the other end if you can), I also guess it is over-unity. Now one has a much tougher question, where did the energy come from. I think rather then saying the asymmetrical, happy on Tuesdays, angry on Thursdays, what was non-observable now became observable ether, it is more intellectually honest just to say it came from nothing. Yes, ... the energy came from nothing, nothing! What springs to mind for me now is a line from the character Kramer, when he had no underwear, on the comedy show Sienfield , "I'm out there Jerry and I'm loving it!" I may be missing more than underwear. The FIRST (Immutable) LAW then is Energy may be created. I suspect it can not be destroyed.
Humility, though to legitimate! authority, lest we destroy ourselves, is needed with such an idea. Far from just destroying the dipole, as Bearden states, in electrical transmission, we may have been all along living in a land flowing with milk and honey, we just keep destroying it. On a positive note, I’ve seen some small experimental evidence myself and read reports frequently from reasonable people of energy being created, is energy ever destroyed?
So here is the fun game show question. Give me any observable property of the ether, or any model of a possible property which predicts observable events. I don't want to hear that the ether is "teeming" or "violent" or happy or sad. Is it orange? Does it smell like oranges, is it three feet in distance? Conversely, if there is a model of a seventh dimensional toroidal torsion tornado, how does this model consistently predict something experiencable.
I lost most intimidation and a good deal of respect for theoreticians and mathematicians when I thought about a child's spinning top for a while. When I made a mass as a spinning wheel raise to a height with no change at all in a kitchen scale I lost more confidence in the authoritative modelers. Mass is not constant, it varies to disappears in an inertial plane depending on how fast it's spinning. But who ever encounters a wheel? Oh and if you are not dealing with gyroscopic precessional motion but just spinning an unbalanced wheel, it hops in a linear direction. I don't blame Newton, he was a great experimenter he just also happened to be a likely forceful personality and a good mathematician so things became more entrenched than he ever would have liked or possible imagined.
Now you will tell me the ether is the energy that is possible at zero kelvin, when all motion has stopped, zero point energy. If, per Heisenberg, observation requires motion, and per Newton there is an equal and opposite reaction from any action, then something perfectly still, is again, not observable. One might Euclid like, though less fundamentally, question the postulates of Heisenberg and Newton, but should all of Western Science read like a bad Zen Koan.
We haughtily note that the Greeks never conceived of zero as a number (silly fools). Well zero isn't a number, it is nothing, nothing by definition is not something, hence zero is not something, likewise Descarte was correct, there are no negative numbers as there can not be something less than nothing by definition. If you acknowledge that these are vectors, I owe you money or you owe me money, that is valid, but there are no negative scalar numbers (which is what numbers are presented as).
I will present here an alternative to the ether. We see or hear, etc, waves and particles and note their behavior in various environments, we, perhaps erroneously, look to extrapolate this to fundamental forces. What if, rather than traveling through a non-observable ether, the fundamental forces, which ever they are, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc. are themselves responsible for creating the perception of space which needs to be traveled through? As a child we learn to perceive distance with our eyes through the interference pattern of the incoming “photons”, they provide consistency and predictability to further experience. The moon is not the size of my thumb it is distant. Well this has gotten silly for me now as well as I can't think of things creating existence which do not exist in something, still it may be worthwhile to look a little more upon the forces simply acting and not what they might be acting in.
One last point then I'll shut up. Let's say for an instant that the Bedini SSG is overunity, or the Kapanzde device, or Tesla's Magnifying transmitter, or Howard Johnson's magnet motors, or Depalma's N-machine, etc. If even one of these is "over-unity" we have the question "where did this energy come from?” Maybe a big ball of energy like with a solar cell. I like to consider Veljko Milković's two stage oscillator, unless I am mistaken Dr. Lindemann considers this device over-unity. It is quite bluntly a lot like a raised see-saw with a swinging bag of bricks at one end, (catch the other end if you can), I also guess it is over-unity. Now one has a much tougher question, where did the energy come from. I think rather then saying the asymmetrical, happy on Tuesdays, angry on Thursdays, what was non-observable now became observable ether, it is more intellectually honest just to say it came from nothing. Yes, ... the energy came from nothing, nothing! What springs to mind for me now is a line from the character Kramer, when he had no underwear, on the comedy show Sienfield , "I'm out there Jerry and I'm loving it!" I may be missing more than underwear. The FIRST (Immutable) LAW then is Energy may be created. I suspect it can not be destroyed.
Humility, though to legitimate! authority, lest we destroy ourselves, is needed with such an idea. Far from just destroying the dipole, as Bearden states, in electrical transmission, we may have been all along living in a land flowing with milk and honey, we just keep destroying it. On a positive note, I’ve seen some small experimental evidence myself and read reports frequently from reasonable people of energy being created, is energy ever destroyed?
I'll say I agree with you wholeheartedly about experimenting, you have to read alot, but nature is the real textbook. I've just started to glance at Faraday's notes, 
Comment