There is no Ether

[ZPDM]

Thurstjo63,

I think a few years back I stumbled upon LaVoillette for maybe two minutes and probably thought gee he's nutty I apologize that I have less time to look into some of these things than I might like but I wouldn't be surprised if I looked into it now and said, "well, you know" or maybe, "he's a genius!" There is just so much to look into. I did stumble upon from a very cursory Google search the Lavoillette etheric website where ether physics is in part described as "the transmuting ether is the wellspring of Creation. ... If this continual activity were to diminish from its present rate ...all the subatomic particles and energy waves composing our physical universe would gradually dissipate, dissolving into a state of uniformity ...This same cosmological paradigm is expressed in the Hindu story of Vishnu" Sounds similar to what I mentioned from the near death experience gentleman, and what JRR Tolkien described as a backstory.

When I find time will try to look more into what Laviolette is saying. Thanks,

Paul

[longhorn]

ZPDM

I do not question your sincerity, but I do question your intent.

Longhorn,

I don't know if I should feel better that you think I am sincerely bad intentioned. Okay two can play this game I don't question your sincerity but I question your manners. It is a bit interesting that you bring up Churchill. I actually attended Winston Churchill High, great school, it led me to read Churchill's 3 tome memoir of WW II. I looked up to Churchill when I was younger. At this point though I wonder whether he wasn't just an alcoholic psychopath who ordered the firebombing of Dresden, incinerating some 100,000 or more people in 48 hours at the near end of the war for no clear military reason. A little further afield, both author Kurt Vonnegut, and experimenter David Hammel (re a simple magnetic gate motor (validated by JB) and who has been trying to build a spaceship in his backyard for some time) were allied prisoners of war at Dresden at the time of the firebombing. Both came back a bit "nuts" though who can blame them.

Getting back on topic, I'm not that concerned whether you say there is an ether or not. Reality isn't a popularity contest and observable reality either is or isn't. I'm just noting that when using words like "virtual", "zero point", etc. the ether is non-observable, I've heard good objections to this, though I don't think solar wind is one. I also have no idea if I am correct, I actually suspect there are a plethora and spectrums of different phenomena. Sometimes like a blind man considering a solar cell we just don't see the source of energy, other times maybe an interaction with an other dimension (for which the the 5th dimensional leprechauns may charge us for stealing their ether). What gets me is a spinning wheel. You just have to hold it for a short time to realize it most definitely, in no means, no how, is following Newtonian mechanics. There is a great photo of Dr. Laithwaite holding up a twenty pound spinning wheel on a one foot shaft with one finger. Without going into issues of mass and gravity I'll just say it occurs that one could make energy from that, and an MIT grad apparently did just that. Where does the energy come from then?

I have again been surprised by the interest and emotion in the question. Longhorn, your interest did get me to reflect on something Tom Bearden said which hadn't sunk in, "we have no definition of energy". Now Mr. Bearden may have been considering this on very mathematical and technical levels but I finally got what he was saying, we don't know what energy is. So, and possibly this is how I should have titled the thread, maybe the FIRST LAW of Thermodynamics is invalid. Now bear with me, the first law is beautiful, not coincidentally, almost religious sounding in its "energy can be neither created nor destroyed." Energy, in physics is conventionally described as capacity to do work. The second law comes in and says "entropy is always increasing" and we are headed towards a nihilistic grey goop where no work may be performed. The two laws are contradictory. There is a work around of making a distinction between "kinetic" and "potential" energy but ... wait for it ... potential energy can not be observed. I suspect energy can be created, I think it happens all the time, there might even be a little free energy created every time you flush your toilet. Again, I agree on the mountaintop level energy does not come from nothing, perhaps it comes from the power of that Spirit mentioned in the second line of scripture hovering over the formless waters. On a mundane level though it "looks" like it comes from nothing.

So I don't think we need to be so concerned or worry about "giving up" on the technical level. I'm fairly well convinced there's lots of people on this board who have "free energy" devices. Even if we just used the current paradigm, why not as Tesla also suggested, use the temperature gradient from a hole in the ground. Studies have shown you can get 2-3 megawatts from an abandoned oil well. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of these holes we already dug. They were economically dug for a vanishing resource, what about using them for a resource that will last millions of years, i.e. the temperature gradient. We don't face a technical problem, we face a people problem.

So in summary, there may or may not be an ether, if energy may be created it is not necessary and in any event perhaps we might not be so focused on it when nothing may said about it.

ZPDM

It is clear that you are operating with intent, what that intent is is becoming increasing clear. Whom is quoted is not nunc pro tunc (specifically meaning now for then.) It is alleged that Churchill was a drunk - do you have proof otherwise or second, and third party information? What is the source of this information, is the information biased? All this is really besides the point with that point being that you are really about confrontation. The facts remain obscure about many of the actions of WW II, why? Because it was a war. Wars are not renown for being organized events, things happen some or most are regrettable, There is no excuse for the taking of a human life under any circumstances especially by an organized civilized society otherwise known a a State.

Victory belongs to the victor, just as history belong, or rather the writings and telling's of history belong to the victor, the armed victor that is. Contrary to what or what not Churchill was in your estimation is of very little relevance. I was not quoting Churchill for the man, I was quoting Churchill the statesman for the subject content of what was actually relayed to the recipient.

It is a fact that many men are devils, but it also remains that some men are devils because everyone else is a devil.

One should reflect on whether their an angle or a devil and choose wisely between the two persona's (mask), because intent is interpreted into the role that is performed by the audience.

The world is a stage and life is but a play...

Now getting back to your original posit.

longhorn

[Mark Dorsten]

Gentlemen,

You may find this interesting. David LaPoint demonstrates magnetic effects and draws correlations with astrophysics that are pleasantly surprising. I watched them more than once.

The Primer Fields Part 1 - YouTube

Perhaps it will create new fodder for discussion.

Mark

[ZPDM]

Extremely belatedly, I did enjoy the video you linked Marc, thank you! Not to flog a dead horse, I was going back and reading what I wrote and the thought "what was this guy smoking, has sprung to mind". However, with things having simmered or refined for a time I think I can perhaps a little less philosophically get at what led me to the post.

However, some did seem to enjoy the philosophy and I did have as I was reading another thought (there you go thinking again) so before going on I want to return to where I mentioned that I was a bit offended at how the Greeks were ridiculed that they didn't come up with zero as a number. Yes, zero is not a number it is the absence of number. Rereading, I think I finally realized what annoys me so much. The Western number system uses the same symbol for zero or nothing as it does for a placeholder between finishing nine digits and adding the tenth. Come on, 9 plus 1 does not equal 1 plus the symbol for zero (nothing). It is either zero or one. nine + one = 10? The Roman numeral system did not have this bizarreness to it. To be, what shall I say, intellectually normal, there should be a different symbol used as the placeholder symbol in Western math, say the left parenthesis ( symbol. I don't think it would affect any computations and would be less confusing and, it seems to me, more honest.

Alright, that out of the way, I am willing to concede that there is within the phenomena described by Tesla and others as sequlae of electromagnetic experiments an "ether" that has observable properties. I don't know how central this ether is to other phenomena and I don't believe it is the source of all "free energy" or possibly of any free energy. One problem I see is that there seems to be a desire to lump all free energy as a single phenomena, it is not, no more than all "energy" is the same. My guess, and that is what it is, is that energy can be created, which is likely what I should have titled the thread. To just give a little philosophical framework before proceeding to the argument, I would say, aside from practical implications, the arguments against energy being created stem from two sources. First the Laws of thermodynamics say no ("It's the Laaaw"). As I pointed out earlier, these laws, using a conventional definition of energy as capacity for doing work, are self-contradictory. Second, without getting on an ill fitting soap box, though noting the culture in which these scientists stated this, I think there is a conflating of the concepts of creation and Creator. The Creator is One and nothing may be added to or detracted from the One ("energy can be neither created nor destroyed"). This is how the scientist's who made the Laws of thermodynamics viewed things and it is quite attractive, however, they have again conflated the creation with the Creator. Per their own beliefs creation was created, i.e. energy was added, and creation can be ended. Of course, I don't know whether energy is being created all the time as it might lead to chaos, and while certain conditions lead to a net increase in energy, there is always the fail safe of, for a lack of a better term, materials engineering, i.e the thing flies apart, as otherwise any free energy system would quickly "devour" all creation. Finally, it is not the individual creating energy, rather it is the Creator creating energy though the individual can play a role in establishing conditions which generally lead to this.

Alright, that out of the way and glad I cooled down in this post the logical argument. If "free energy" is solely from the ether, or the "zero point" or "negative" energy, such terms must account for all phenomena. And there may just be a big pool of etheric or negative energy, which in the end balances out with, energy can neither be created nor destroyed I'll just mention three examples that I find difficult. 1) As I mentioned earlier the mechanical amplifier of Vilko Milkovik. It is all right in front of you, don't need a microscope, whence the excess energy? 2) A different phenomena, the reported COP > 1 of heat pumps. whence the excess energy? As a very last aside, for people who at the moment have time, a steam engine certainly looks to me like a photo negative of a heat pump, if one can be over unity the other should be able to be as well. And for a closed loop steam engine instead of going the organic rankine cycle engine route with liquids more volatile than water, what about just lowering the atmospheric pressure by about 1/3rd where water is boiling at 100F not 100C. Much closer to a heat pump. I may be way off on this, but then again I think I read somewhere where Tesla said his Tesla turbine was his favorite invention. Given all he did, do you think he would have said this if a steam engine couldn't be overunity? 3) Alright, either I'm in great error here or the blinders are slightly less tight. Given the laws of thermodynamics which cannot be violated, explain a tornado. Again a different phenomena. One minute there is nothing, the next there is something which, if large, over the course of its say, half hour/hour life above ground and on the ground likely releases energy on the order of a small atomic weapon. Where did this energy come from? With a hurricane I might say the Coriolis effect, but for a tornado? or less dramatically a few feet large water spout, I've got nothing. There is no ether showing up, no zero point, no negative energy. It appears the energy was created as a result of the conditions established and persists while those conditions exist. It also appears to rip the laws of thermodynamics to shreds.