Explaining Lenz's Law without the "Law of Conservation of Energy"

[WesTheSavage]

What Ken says makes a massive heap of sense, this was really helpful too.

I will say these few points though, I'm not a denialist of the photon, scientists have entangled beams of light and watched them oscillate in and out of particle and wave forms for nearly 20 years, so until that's properly falsified with counter evidence, I'll trust the results and accept them until then.

The thing is quantum theory is incomplete, not false, just REALLY incomplete and it needs to be incorporated into a dynamic ether system to complete it and correct some of its problems.

It's been MASSIVELY beneficial to multiple areas of material sciences, I can't and won't ignore that.

I also won't call it a cult, because that's r3tarded, I see it as a challenge to either prove false with new evidences that contradict it or to reconcile it, I think reconciliation is gonna be the most likely route someday, but we need to expand the Electrical Sciences first.

That's my honest position on all that stuff and I say this because of Ken Wheeler's posts on those threads that are linked.

The only way we can do that is to do what Eric said and go back to he works of Pre-1922 Steinmetz before the actual Einsteinian Cult peer-pressured him into abandoning his pursuits of the Ether, the works of JJ Thomson, and Heaviside's works so we can pick up directly where they left off.

You want to see a cult of nominalists?

Look into Miles Mathis, he's a peak nominalist idiot and invokes God as a cope against this problem of his...

[JenkoRun]

The problem with the particle model of the Photon is that they are known to move at exactly C, 299 792 458 m / s, when taking into account Aether Hysteresis (what determines the light speed barrier) it makes it impossible for Photons to be matter particulates due to the infinite energy requirements, academia tries to get around this by saying they're massless which is just ridiculous, if a particle had literally 0 mass it couldn't be a matter particle, can't have matter without mass, neither can I accept the matter particle model of Light with the number of issues that come about when any sort of large scale radial expansion and reflection becomes involved, that's something I noticed as kid that lead to me questioning the mainstream model. What I do accept is the illusion of a matter particle as a quanta energy packet, or smallest possible energy packet.

There is the subject of Radiant Matter with Tesla recording speeds upwards of 50x the speed of light but that's another topic related to electrostatic potentials, that's a juicy topic in and off itself with some mind bending possibilities.

Aside from Ken the other place I've seen Photons recognized in the same way is from David LaPoint, who's double bowl shaped Torus structure of magnetism I've come to accept over Ken's single torus model thanks to the research I've done with someone I'm in contact with, not to mention ancient Egyptian art showing the same structure, and that's on top of what we see in Ferrocells and CRT screens.

Once you see the structure of magnetism like this, including Earth's field structure, some very interesting possibilities start to make themselves known, I intend to make a thread on the forum for that topic when my contact is ready to share the information.

Dyl8B0tVAAAzeHP.jpg

Normal-2D-projected-field-display-of-a-magnet-placed-on-its-side-N-pole-left-S-pole_Q320.jpg
For what I accept, Photons and Electrons both have this "illusion" where they appear to be matter particles but are in reality "bumps" in the fields (Dollard also talks about this here: https://youtu.be/TttHkDRuyZw?t=6699), all the electrical pioneers (Tesla, Steinmetz, Thomson, etc) refuted the particle Electron model and for good reason, yet modern science has chosen to ignore the masters in favor of their own belief on the subject. If you haven't seen The Primer Fields video series yet I highly recommend it:

https://youtu.be/9EPlyiW-xGI
https://youtu.be/2NogyJ0k8Kw
https://youtu.be/lpI6ikj1G-s

[jettis]

IMG_6255.jpeg IMG_6256.jpeg IMG_6257.jpeg IMG_6258.jpeg IMG_6259.jpeg IMG_6260.jpeg

[WesTheSavage]

Thank you Jettis.

This is also helpful.

I do have a few critiques of the illusion hypothesis of electron and photon behavior, Jenko.

I am lenient to your train of thought, but these are the critiques I have:

1. Thomson, Tesla, Steinmetz, etc.. did not refute the Particle Models, they bypassed them to varying degrees, there's a difference.

The particle models could be incorporated into their works, which was what should've happened instead of just throwing their works aside and the godforsaken Einsteinian Cult screeching at Steinmetz to abandon his pursuit of the Dynamic Aether which ALL those guys, the Poincare Brothers, Whittaker, Heaviside, Lorentz, FitzGerald, Miller, Larmor, Allais, all those guys were going after it and rightfully so.

Doing this would very likely solve those fundamental problems we face with it now.

Michelson still defended the Aether till the day he died.

There's a book called "Decisive Experiments Modern Physics by Fiorenzo and Marco Todeschini that also goes into this some.


2. Illusions cannot be messed with, their sources can, but the illusions themselves cannot be.

We've entangled light waves and watched them oscillate in and out of particle and wave form for nearly 20 years, I very much believe this research into the double bowl shaped Torus structure of magnetism may be a very good key into understanding why this occurs.

3. I don't think Aether Hysteresis necessarily makes this duality impossible, but the whole massless thing is either a cope or something they invoked because of other fundamental problems, which I'm more lenient to your train of thought and it's on the right path to solving this problem.

It's a valiant effort and I support it nonetheless.



I'm a follower of Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Lakatos on the Philosophy of Science side of things, so I support people believing what they want to as long as we can verify anything to any meaningful degree and cross-reference in an open market of information exchange.

Even if something is properly falsified, as long as it makes predictive power, makes explanatory power, is reproducible, and has utility, it's true, a falsified theory that fits these criteria just means there's something missing we need to figure out in the future or the theory itself is incomplete and needs to be completed in the future.

So yeah, the lack of proper falsification of the Ether as a whole, the predictive power, the explanatory power, the reproducibility, and utility the works of Steinmetz, Heaviside, Thomson, Tesla, Dollard, Murakami, Lindemann, Babcock, Murray, etc... are all why I'm supportive of their works and joined this forum.

Seriously, I really appreciate this back and forth, it's given me a LOT to ponder and I do genuinely enjoy this exchange.

This place is f#cking great.

[JenkoRun]

Thanks for the mention of Fiorenzo and Marco's book, I'll see if I can get a copy of it somewhere.

Could you clarify on what you meant by them not refuting the Particle models but bypassing them to varying degrees exactly? These are some pieces of information on what they wrote about the topic and to me reads as them rejecting the conventional matter particle model:

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Tesla-...ons-dont-exist
https://www.tumblr.com/drnikolatesla...n-the-electron

(Note that Tesla remarks in other articles that "primary matter" may also be considered "streams of ether" rather than conventional matter we know)

In regards to Thomson specifically, in his mind what he discovered were the terminal ends of the "lines of force" of the electrostatic field which at the time he termed corpuscles which later came to be called Electrons, since this is analogous to naming the 2 ends of a string it doesn't seem reasonable to incorporate a matter particulate into his work if we use his understanding of what the Electron corpuscle is, unless you have something else in mind?

As for the situation with Light, if one sees the Photon as the highest point of compression of the oscillating wave structure of Light then, to me at least, it doesn't require there to be a physical matter particulate present to make up the structure of Light, it makes a lot more sense for this phenomena to be a result rather than a cause of Light's perturbation across space, especially when once takes into account how matter thins out the further it moves in a radial fashion from the origin point, so as things stand now I don't see any necessity for matter particles to be involved in Light waves and Electrical activities.

To give some context on what I thought about as a kid on this subject, it basically boils down to no matter how many particles are present to make up the Light it's not possible to look at a light source and see absolutely no distortion in your vision of the source (stars), or of illuminated matter that is reflecting light (planets/moons/etc), especially the further out you move radially from the origin point, the only way to make what we physically observe possible is for the primary state of Light to be a wave disturbance and not dependent of particle structures, it it were then there would be effectively holes in space where the light source is gone but remains visible in other locations, assuming an empty stretch of space between the source and the observer.

Having said that, you've got me thinking of another possibility which you may find more acceptable to your knowledge:

Just so we're on the same page on this topic, when I refer to "matter particles" I'm referring to something stable with a defined and almost solid boundary structure, like an Atom with its oscillating spherical harmonic structure, whereas energy packets like subatomic particles are of differing nature more comparable to field movement in a semi-organized and loose structure, this is how I'm seeing them.

If we applied the corpuscle nature of these effects to sub-atomic particles like Photons and Electrons then I can see that making a lot more sense, after all atoms are themselves oscillating energy packets of stable nature, so applying the same principle to those could make sense from my perspective and provide an explanation to how Light can have both wave and particle qualities at the same time, if Light were alternating between a wave state and "folding" down into an energy packet and then "unfolding" back into a wave, that I would find more reasonable that an actual matter particulate shifting between a wave and particle state, because otherwise to me that would be the same as saying a rock can oscillate between a solid and a wave which is quite an unreasonable concept.

I'm glad you're finding value in chatting with us on this forum, really without this place and the stuff the big guys have been sharing I'd still be wondering around in the dark feeling quite lost myself, I recently spoke to jettis via PM and reflecting on Jim Murray's mechanical amplifier concepts and I believe I may have found 2 of the biggest secrets of mechanical, electromechanical, and solid state electrical free energy concepts, and it all boils down to redirecting the manifested counter force of any system into an assistive force, and in that condition the non-transient assistive forces can become far, FAR stronger than the input ever could be just by increasing the load on the machine. I intend to share the deeper technical theories on this forum when I get around to it, but if I'm right it may be the end of most other COP > 1 methods, and marvelously simple.

The GIF I posted earlier on the first page of this discussion is more than half the concept on the electromechanical side, with a little brain storming and reversing the geometry I'm sure it'll become apparent what's going on there.

[WesTheSavage]

They bypassed the whole electron particle thing by not worrying with it because they worried about the more fundamental forces while the physicists worried about the particles.

I look at the photon and electron and the muon and others as corpuscles of the Magnetic and Dielectric Lines of Force at various ratios expressed, with the muon being the same ratios as the electron, but 10 times more intensely expressed.

You're getting it, atoms are oscillating energy packets of stable nature.