E=mc^2

[Aaron]

energy

Tesla does not say there is _no_ energy in matter, he said what there is was received from the environment

Tesla does not always use terms in technically correct ways - he uses them in his own ways. The point I'm making is that mass is not energy itself.

The distinction is also not being made whether the matter is doing work or not. If there is no work, there is no energy, if work is being done, then there is energy.

"According to an adopted theory, every ponderable atom is differentiated from a tenuous fluid, filling all space merely by spinning motion, as a whirl of water in a calm lake. By being set in movement this fluid, the ether, becomes gross matter. Its movement arrested, the primary substance reverts to its normal state."

Everything comes from the aether - but when aether "condensates" into an atom, if no work is being done, there is no energy. There can be movement without "work" being done if there is no resistance and that is the general state of every atom anyway.

I'm talking about work (energy) as in measurable dissipation of organized potential. I'm not talking about energy as in an atom doing no work having energetic qualities to it in a metaphysical sense, which Tesla often does. Yes, the aether is "alive" and "electric" and "energetic" and has "energy" in that sense whether work is being done or not - those are casual references. I'm taking about a measurable quantity of work (energy) being done such as 1 watt second for a second or force x distance when lifting an object, for example.

An object can move through space at a steady speed so it is in equilibrium with the aether. If it isn't accelerating, it does not create a potential difference or a change in the relative density of the aether in relation to the object's mass so it can move for a million years while doing absolutely zero dissipative work. That is like an atom doing no work, there is movement, but no work is being done and therefore, technically, there is no energy.

[ckurtz]

Tesla does not always use terms in technically correct ways

Tesla was very clear that mass and energy were two different, although entwined things, and that about all that was known about energy was the effect it had on the movement of ponderable bodies. I'll leave it to you if Tesla was technically loose in his language, I find his writings so precise in the words and terms he used that the knowledge density contained therein is simply amazing, to use an over worked term. I do find it rather curious however, that you should make such an accusation in response to my pointing out a minor failing in that regard in your decision to use a quote from Tesla to support your contention that 'There is no energy in mass', when in fact that quote does not support such a statement. That's all I was trying to point out. As to your concept of the existence of energy depending entirely on your definition of work, again I'll leave it to you as it obviously suits your understanding of things, if not mine, but then I cheerfully admit I don't know a damn thing. In any case for what it is worth I agree entirely with your belief in the aether, that Einstein was a fraud and a paid hack, and find it refreshing to find someone who at least recognizes the existence and importance of orthogonal relationships.

[Aaron]

defining energy and potential energy

As to your concept of the existence of energy depending entirely on your definition of work, again I'll leave it to you as it obviously suits your understanding of things, if not mine

It's just a quote to show a separation of mass and energy, but I don't agree with Tesla's use of the word energy. I know what he means though.

It isn't "my" concept of energy and work - I'm clarifying the distinctions of each of them that are confused by outdated definitions in the dictionary and common scientific literature by considering what we now know.

This is what I mean...

As it stands, the physics terms for energy and work are only correct if there is no such thing as non-equilibrium systems. If closed system thermodynamics govern everything we are working with, then those definitions are correct. If "energy is transformed" from one form to another but is not created or destroyed, etc... then they're correct - not from a technically correct point, but from a matter of perspective if we go back to the past and enter the minds of those back then when they didn't know any better - since there is no intrinsic reality but only that which we say it is. So back then, those ideas are very real and unfortunately, today, most people still agree with that reality.

The moment we know that the aetheric source potential is the potential energy source for all work, the previous paragraph no longer applies and we have to realize a technically correct definition of energy and work if we're to incorporate what we now know.

Energy is talked about conventionally as a thing and potential energy is talked about as being an abstract concept. However, being that the aether is an actual substance and is THE source potential, therefore, the aether or source potential or potential energy has become self-evident as being the actual thing and now energy has to be understood to be the activity that the organized source potential experiences as it becomes disorganized and dissipates back into the aether.

Energy always is manifest and de-manifested (if that is a word) "right out of thin air". It does not change forms from one form to another. There is no conservation of energy, etc...

Aether is polarized by a dipole or multiple poles or potential differences > resistances disorganizes the polarized aether (energy) > the aether goes back into a symmetrical or equilibrium state back into the "vacuum"

Aether, the source potential energy did not change forms, it was simply polarized or depolarized and energy being the action of dissipation was happening and then it wasn't happening.

In an example of mechanical work, the conventional definition is: "In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance. Like energy, it is a scalar quantity, with SI units of joules. The term work was first coined in 1826 by the French mathematician Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis."

This is before the understanding of what source potential is or where it comes from and what energy actually is. Coriolis sees energy being "transferred" but there is no such thing as energy transfer. He coined the term "work" to describe this transferring of a "force acting through a distance".

Now that we know there is an aether and that it is the source potential energy for all work, when we lift an object, force x distance shows how much work is done to lift the object into the air going against the downward push of the aetheric source potential that was displaced by the mass of the Earth. That work is usually measured in joules of energy as everyone knows.

But the idea is that the object is lifted and we then "store" potential energy in the object when it is at a certain height (mgh). That cuts the aether completely off as being the real source of potential energy and the current powers that be continue to perpetuate this hoodwinking operation.

There is no such thing as storing potential energy just like there is no such thing as storing electrons in a capacitor to charge it up and just like there is no such thing as filling up a battery with charge. All that happens is a potential difference is created so that the aetheric source potential external from the dipole can be polarized, come in, meet resistances and do work, then dissipates right back into the aether. Nothing was used up in the object, capacitor or battery - they simply became internally disorganized to equilibrium so there is no longer a potential difference.

In reality, we do work (dissipation of organized potential energy) to lift the ball and by the peak of the lift, 100% of all that potential energy simply dissipated back to the active vacuum. There was no changing forms of energy.

At the peak of the lift, 100% of every bit of potential energy that did work to lift the ball is completely gone and used up - there is nothing left to store even if that was possible.

The mass is at a distance from the ground (dipole) and mgh shows how much potential energy is there. mgh has always been a misunderstanding of what it actually represents that goes back to the time before we understood where the source potential comes from.

There is no potential energy stored. Instead, what mgh actually shows is how much potential energy will enter the system once the object is released so the downward flow of the aetheric gravitational potential to impart a push on the mass of the object and when it hits the ground and resists movement, that gravitational aetheric source potential dissipates by the resistance offered and dissipates right back to the active vaccum so no energy is transformed from one form to another.

For electrical work, 1 watt for 1 second is a watt second or 1 joule of electrical work. When we measure that, that isn't the electricity that makes things happen - meters only measure what is wasted - Bedini has said that for years. Dollard says the same thing as "energy is the rate of destruction of the electricity". So when we have electrical work, energy being work is the dissipation of the polarized aetheric source potential that moves over the lines and Tesla therefore is only using a metaphysical reference to energy.

Originally, energy was a metaphysical word to describe activity or movement. But that was way before a rigorous scientific definition for it came into being, which wound up being incorrect. For the purposes of engineering and science, there can't be preferred uses of the word - it is not some ambiguous thing that we can't define based on known observable facts.

For casual communication, we can use these words all we want but if we're going to seriously look at Einstein's fraud, what Tesla did right and discuss the very nature of the reality of mass and energy the very topic of this thread, we have to use definitions of energy that are in alignment with observable facts. Energy simply is the activity of entropy.

Tesla's description of an atom is reverse entropy - it is a demonstration of self-organization or regauging of the aetheric potential so if anything, it is anti-energy. That is the tendency of every natural or open dissipative system. The atom is a special case on its own while common physical systems on a larger scale will have entropy happening within its regauging activities.

There is an aether, it is the source potential and that source potential when polarized can be depolarized or dissipated back to the active vacuum, which is energy. Any other definition of potential energy or work that contradicts this contradicts the very physical reality that we can see and measure. Any other definition actually disputes the purpose of the aether - if we're talking about sound physics/engineering and not metaphysical definitions.

Just like when Bearden says no generator ever contributed one watt to the grid, he's right. The generator turns only to create a local potential difference (dipole) in its local volumetric space. That polarizes the aether (breaks the symmetry of the virtual photon flux - whatever your flavor) and the polarized aether moves in from the active vacuum towards the terminals of the dipole and moves over the lines towards a lower potential difference.

The work done in the generator is the dissipation of potential energy back to the vacuum in that area of volumetric space. Not one single bit of the "energy" work being done is transferred to the lines - it dissipates locally and never transforms from the generator to the lines.

I'm not arguing with you - simply stating my case and explaining why I have made such statements.

And my examples of force x distance, dissipation further incoming of new fresh source potential can be proven with simple 3rd grade math and 8th grade physics equations. Not that the definitions of those equations were every right, they were always seen inverse/upside down and backwards just like Einstein.

mgh is the correct formula - but not of what potential energy is stored in the mass at a certain height - it is the amount of potential energy that will enter from the gravitational potential once the object is released.

The definitions I stated account for gravity/aether to actually contribute to doing work, which pokes holes in Einstein's work and the rest of the conventional stooges who thing gravity can't do work. Some believe in Einstein's aether but are brainwashed into believing it cannot enter the system.

The definitions I give unify every observable physical action in the universe.

Months ago, I sat down with Eric Dollard to review the gravitational ideas that I have worked with and he did say that the conventional description of conventional ideas of the storing of potential, etc... are obviously wrong. I'm talking about the common ideas of mgh... First, he had to take the concepts I was sharing and convert them into electrical equivalents. He did the math and did say that what I am saying actually are in the dimension of energy. I do NOT want to imply he would say the same things as everything I said above in the way I said them, because I don't speak for him.

The point is that on this topic of what I have said energy is or isn't is mathematically correct across not just mechanical work but also for electrical work and are correct in their application to gravity and inertia and the existence of a participatory aether and my statement about Tesla's physically incorrect use of it. The definition I'm using can be put to paper. Tesla's occasional metaphysical use of the term energy cannot.

I use the word energy in the metaphysical way and the word potential as the abstract all the time, but neither holds water when using them to discuss energy and potential energy to determine if work is being done, etc...

1. Potential Energy is the aether - thing

2. Energy is the dissipation of organized aether or work - activity

[ckurtz]

This is before the understanding of what source potential is or where it comes from and what energy actually is.

In regards to the aether and the various beliefs or views regarding its nature, I remain at the level that there has to be correspondence, or points of similarity between all things regardless of how far apart they may seem. For instance, it is my quaint notion that if one wishes to actually see what a proton looks likes all you have to do is examine pictures of dear ol' Sol, for if our seething mass of hydrogen atoms with its positive potential in the hundreds of billions of volts surrounded by a massive glow discharge doesn't meet all the criteria for what a hydrogen nucleus is I don't know what would. Going the opposite direction this correspondence should hold true as well, with the hydrogen nucleus also made up of similarly minute particles. Exactly how far below that you'd have to go to emerge from the realm of Mendeleev's Zero Group (is that the correct term?), and perhaps even other lower levels, of hyper active incredibly minute elements into that of what some would consider the real aether I wouldn't have a clue. Past Mendeleev's group I favor a Buddhist type of philosophy of not worrying about beginnings I couldn't understand anyway - actually although not overly religious I don't have any inhibitions at that level about just putting it all down to watching the workings of the mind of God - or whatever. I don't find fault with your concept of the aether, might be totally correct, I would just caution against the somewhat overly enthusiastic use of definitive claims such as the above quote. From my perspective talk of source potential and energy is perhaps helpful toward gaining a better understanding of the universe and its workings, but I still have the sense energy's nature is a little too elusive to be pinned down quite so easily.

[Allcanadian]

@Aaron
That was a nice post and it is refreshing to see something along the lines of a progression of thought and justification for it.

Energy is talked about conventionally as a thing and potential energy is talked about as being an abstract concept. However, being that the aether is an actual substance and is THE source potential, therefore, the aether or source potential or potential energy has become self-evident as being the actual thing and now energy has to be understood to be the activity that the organized source potential experiences as it becomes disorganized and dissipates back into the aether.

I would agree and it is generally understood that the concept of Energy relates to "ambient" conditions. That is Heat moves not towards cold persay but towards ambient conditions, an average. Electrical energy in the form of a high electron density(negative) moves towards a low electron density(positive). A high density above ambient and a low density equally below ambient when meeting become ambient or what we perceieve as zero which never actually is zero. It is a regional condition which has returned to ambient conditions which can have any value as it is a relative measure. Energy manifests from ambient and disappears back into it which is why we have so much difficulty with the concept because the mind cannot reconcile "ambient".


One issue you will face is the same issue Einstein tried to resolve and despite popular opinion he was never totally convinced of anything. He had major reservations and in the end basically said his theory cannot work. Popular opinion paints a very different picture of Einstein and most of the textbooks take what he actually said completely out of context. The issue is "Inertia" and if the Aether is a substance then one would have to explain why the acceleration of a mass is opposed but not constant motion. To my knowledge no one has totally solved this problem to date using any theory. You see if they actually knew what it was then it seems probable that they could negate it's effects which is a problem.

As I'm sure you are aware it is a slippery slope but I'm optimistic were almost there. The younger generation are not so quick to believe anything and it was just recently that my 10 year old son's science fair project was to prove by experiment that lines of force shown in his textbook do not actually exist. The result was conclusive and I heard all the adults were scratching their heads,lol.

AC

[Aaron]

inertia and cancelling inertia

The issue is "Inertia" and if the Aether is a substance then one would have to explain why the acceleration of a mass is opposed but not constant motion. To my knowledge no one has totally solved this problem to date using any theory. You see if they actually knew what it was then it seems probable that they could negate it's effects which is a problem.

As I'm sure you are aware it is a slippery slope but I'm optimistic were almost there. The younger generation are not so quick to believe anything and it was just recently that my 10 year old son's science fair project was to prove by experiment that lines of force shown in his textbook do not actually exist. The result was conclusive and I heard all the adults were scratching their heads,lol.

AC

That is awesome with your son! All of this needs to make its ways into the hands of the children. They'll see things as they are instead of what we turn them in to. He's fortunate to have your guidance!

Einstein did say he had issues with his own beliefs - they're in the quotes of him that I posted. My issue is that it is very, very difficult to believe that Einstein said some of Dayton Miller's findings were because of temperature variations if my memory serves me right. That seems like a cop-out and considering everything else he said, I don't believe he believed that for a moment. I think he knew the validity of the findings.

With inertia, I actually do have a theory that is completely consistent with the rest of my model as to why acceleration is opposed but not a steady motion of mass.

It is all about a rate of change.

All matter is porous and when we look at how porous it is compared to the aether, it is so porous that it is difficult to find the matter.

Inertia is like back emf except instead of electromagnetic counter opposition explained by Lenz's law, it is opposing electrostatic repulsion that increases and gives the inertial resistance upon acceleration or a rate of change.

When an object is moving through space at a steady speed, there is no change in the relationship between the mass and the relative density of the aether. Although aether is supposed to be "incompressible", that does not mean more aether cannot be encountered per unit of time for a certain mass, which gives an apparent increase in the density of aether that it encounters.

At a steady speed, the density of the aether relative to the mass stays fixed and there is no potential difference between the mass and aether for practical purposes. When there is no potential difference and the relative density stays the same, there is no "rate of change".

When the object suddenly accelerates, it is no longer in equilibrium with the aether. As the speed increases, the relative density of the aether is increasing (rate of change) and this causes an electrostatic equivelant of back emf between the aetheric source potential aether and the mass of the object and this electrostatic repulsion that builds and grows as the acceleration goes up is what inertia is.

I believe in a bipolar aether just like a dual polarity virtual photon flux. Same principle different language.

The positive potential of the aether that is manifest in this space (it's negative charge is in counter space) opposes the positive charge of the protons that are the mass of the atoms that make up the mass. That repulsion is inertia that builds as mass moves faster to encounter more of the aether per unit of time which gives more repulsion - resistance to its movement.

To negate inertia - lets say you have a metal shell with isolated conductors at different parts of it so that there can be a positive on one and negative at another and they are both connected by a common line like a battery or capacitor is connected inside.

With a super high positive potential at the leading edge of the shell and a negative at the other end, the positive potential of the aether is repelled/deflected around the mass of the ship and it moves towards the negative terminal at the back end which means the aether is not moving through the mass of the ship but it is slipping over the shell. That could cause propulsion on its own but even if it had a gyroscopic drive, etc... inside, it wouldn't take much energy to get it moving in the intended direction because there is no resistance to movement - but the opposite - it would get pulled into the intended direction at negative resistance.

Therefore, as the positive potential of the aether is not able to impart an electrostatic repulsion or resistance against the mass of the atoms that make up the ship (because of being deflected around the ship instead of through it), there can be no inertia and the positive charged end of the ship/shell will be sucked forward under negative resistance towards the negative void of the aether in front of it. It gets pulled along by the negative charge of the aether in counterspace instead of being pushed into a positive resistance.

In that zone, there is no aether, therefore there is no space since space is made of the aether and it not "filled" with the aether. That is the only true vacuum. It should be able to move between any "two points" simultaneously since it does not have to travel a distance, which is a property of space or volumetric aether. How does it know how to go where it wants and wind up somewhere once the inertial cancellation effect is turned off? I think it is directed by conscious intent of the pilot, but that's another subject. lol The point is that negating inertia electrostatically seems to be a way.

When we are standing on the ground, the aether displaced by the mass of the Earth rebounds back dynamically towards where it was displaced from. As it moves through us on its way down, we don't feel inertia. That is the same as an object moving at a steady speed through space. Our standing still gives no relative change in the density of the aether and therefore, no rate of change so no inertia.

Einstein is correct about the gravitational/inertial equivalence, but he goofs and doesn't distinguish that in gravity, there is no acceleration and inertia there is. I believe I know what he means as the effects are inverse of each other, but he actually doesn't make the proper distinction.

Another way to cancel inertia is proven by DePalma's experiments. One is very simple. Two metal balls - one is spinning at over 10,000 rpm and the other is still. Throw them in the air at the same time and the one spinning goes up higher faster goes out further and comes down faster out at a further distance than the one not spinning - Einstein is destroyed by this stupid simple experiment.



A ball launched into the air will will experience the downward push of the aether (gravitational potential). That resists its movement up and as it falls, it can only fall so quick based on the gravitational potentials speed.

When the ball is spinning, as it goes up, it is deflecting the downward moving aether at a 90 degree angle kicking it out around the ball so less can move through the mass and impart a gravitational push. That is why the ball can move up faster even though the same amount of throw was given to it and the ball not spinning. As the mass is moving 90 to the direction of the propagation direction of gravitational potential - there is that perpendicular deflection. Spin an umbrella in the rain, the water is deflected to the edge - same concept.

So, that defeats force x distance as a certain amount of joules should be required to get that spinning ball to the higher height - it took less, which is shown by the ball not spinning going to a lower height.

Skeptics that claim it is an effect of air resistance or that the extra energy to lift it higher came from putting energy into spinning the ball - all of that is rooted in ignorance because that energy is dissipated in the spinning of the ball and is not being applied to lifting the ball.

Then as the ball falls and is spinning, it deflects the aether it is in contact with 90 degrees towards the edges meaning it can fall faster without the falling speed limits. This is just like a diver who can put his arms out in front and slice through the water at a lower resistance.

[Aaron]

energy and potential

In regards to the aether and the various beliefs or views regarding its nature, I remain at the level that there has to be correspondence, or points of similarity between all things regardless of how far apart they may seem. For instance, it is my quaint notion that if one wishes to actually see what a proton looks likes all you have to do is examine pictures of dear ol' Sol, for if our seething mass of hydrogen atoms with its positive potential in the hundreds of billions of volts surrounded by a massive glow discharge doesn't meet all the criteria for what a hydrogen nucleus is I don't know what would. Going the opposite direction this correspondence should hold true as well, with the hydrogen nucleus also made up of similarly minute particles. Exactly how far below that you'd have to go to emerge from the realm of Mendeleev's Zero Group (is that the correct term?), and perhaps even other lower levels, of hyper active incredibly minute elements into that of what some would consider the real aether I wouldn't have a clue. Past Mendeleev's group I favor a Buddhist type of philosophy of not worrying about beginnings I couldn't understand anyway - actually although not overly religious I don't have any inhibitions at that level about just putting it all down to watching the workings of the mind of God - or whatever. I don't find fault with your concept of the aether, might be totally correct, I would just caution against the somewhat overly enthusiastic use of definitive claims such as the above quote. From my perspective talk of source potential and energy is perhaps helpful toward gaining a better understanding of the universe and its workings, but I still have the sense energy's nature is a little too elusive to be pinned down quite so easily.

I believe "as above so below" as you describe. Not everything seems to hold to it by visual analysis, but does seem to be by principle or concept.

From those "in the know" (at least who I consider in the know) - according to them, the Babbit Atom is the most accurate.

Doesn't look like an analogy of the solar system visually, but we do have an electric solar system with the Sun and Jupiter being the primary dominating positive and negative poles. There are more poles than that, but those are the two major opposite poles.

Zero Group is good enough to know what you mean. I don't worry about where it will begin possibly below the sub hydrogen species or where will it end at the universe + macro level. I've experienced the answer to both during meditation and especially during multiple spontaneous Kundalini releases but cannot apply that experience with basic math on paper to prove a point.

I think that is one of the greatest meditation topics - going to the smallest of small and biggest of big until we see no difference. Many people have experienced a taste of these as well but it is usually at a non-intellectual level because that is the only way we can see it for what it is. When we put words to it, we contaminate the essential truth with our diabolical (diablo) reasoning meaning making mind.

What I am concerned with is simply a more and more accurate representation of the very nature of nature and absolutes aren't important - constant upgrades are. I just believe what I believe and if something makes more sense and updates the holistic school of thought with no apparent contradictions, I go with it. I'm not married to any particular belief, but if something is self-evident based on so much prima facie evidence, it is what it is and will remain the premise for my statements.

Because there is work when lifting an object and that work is measured in units of joules and that is a measurement of energy - and a watt second for a second is a joule and that is energy, energy must be defined in the engineering, mathematical and scientific sense as being work done, which is the dissipation of organized potential energy.

[mpc755]

When we are standing on the ground, the aether displaced by the mass of the Earth rebounds back dynamically towards where it was displaced from. As it moves through us on its way down, we don't feel inertia. That is the same as an object moving at a steady speed through space. Our standing still gives no relative change in the density of the aether and therefore, no rate of change so no inertia.

Aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

[Aaron]

Mpc755 Banned

Aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

Hey everyone,

I am banning this person and blocking their entire ip range.

This person is a disinformation plant who has caused trouble here before, in Energy Science Forum and many other places on the internet. He posts all this misinformation in bot like fashion and doesn't know how to communicate like a human being - ALWAYS evading questions that destroys his house of cards.

What he does is make you think he is on your side since he talks about Aether and gives an accurate view of the general principles of aetheric displacement to produce gravity, etc...

HOWEVER, you will see that he does it in a way that only promotes Einstein as being the holy gospel. Meaning, he is doing it with nothing but pure closed system concepts that actually cut off the possibility for aether to ever contribute to doing work, etc...

Here is one of his sentences that I put in a Google post so you can see I'm not overreacting.

https://www.google.com/search?q="A+moving+particle+has+an+associated+aeth er+displacement+wave"

Page after page after page, the same copy and paste. It is the most ridiculous misinformation spamming attempt I have ever seen.

[thx1138]

The atom is a special case on its own..."

Is it? I think not - just my opinion. Atomic decay is the entropy of the atom. While radioactive materials decay faster, IMO every atom decays. It may be on time scales unavailable for us to witness (millions or billions of years) but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Studying radioactive decay recently the only explanation I found for radioactive decay was that the material was "unstable" but that doesn't explain what mechanism is involved. My non-scientific guess is that atoms decay via neutrinos. While neutrinos rarely interact with matter, rarely is not the same thing as never. And although they have miniscule charge that is not the same thing as zero charge.

I studied chaos theory for a couple of years back in the 90's and my take at the end of those studies was that there is no such thing as chaos - given the proper perspective there is a pattern to everything in the universe. Chaos would be a sink of the universe's order. If any chaos existed in the universe it could do nothing but consume the universe and the universe could not exist at all.

I agree with most of your theory. Would the idea of atomic decay, above, help or hinder that theory?

[Aaron]

atomic decay and chaos

Is it? I think not - just my opinion. Atomic decay is the entropy of the atom. While radioactive materials decay faster, IMO every atom decays. It may be on time scales unavailable for us to witness (millions or billions of years) but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Studying radioactive decay recently the only explanation I found for radioactive decay was that the material was "unstable" but that doesn't explain what mechanism is involved. My non-scientific guess is that atoms decay via neutrinos. While neutrinos rarely interact with matter, rarely is not the same thing as never. And although they have miniscule charge that is not the same thing as zero charge.

I studied chaos theory for a couple of years back in the 90's and my take at the end of those studies was that there is no such thing as chaos - given the proper perspective there is a pattern to everything in the universe. Chaos would be a sink of the universe's order. If any chaos existed in the universe it could do nothing but consume the universe and the universe could not exist at all.

I agree with most of your theory. Would the idea of atomic decay, above, help or hinder that theory?

I think you're right about the "neutrinos".

If radioactive matter were able to be shielded from "neutrino" bombardment, it would cease to be radioactive according to some ideas coming from Tesla and others I believe. I think it can be done with electrostatic containment but that is just an idea.

That isn't entropy in regards to mass slowing down because after some initial push it finally ran out of "energy". Radioactive decay contributes to entropy happening in the universe but that isn't the same as entropy "happening in the atom" as an intrinsic part of what the atom is doing on its own.

Stable atoms do not show any evidence of this kind of internally produced entropy. Stable atoms can be made to be unstable, but again, the decay of that is externally sourced and is not generated within so no entropy "in the atom."

Radioactive material is like being hit with a full automatic weapon. After a while, there won't be much of it left but not because the movement of mass slows to a standstill (entropy in the atom).

These distinctions show the model is still consistent.

With chaos, that is another topic. But I believe there is chaos and all order (patterns, organization, etc...) comes from chaos. The tendency of natural systems (open dissipative systems) is to self-order (reverse entropy).

On the other hand, I do not believe in anything random in the universe, which is completely different from chaos.

A random number generator (RNG) is an algorithm so is not even really random. To get more "random", you have to have a white noise generator where it is turned into 0's and 1's. Then you have a random event generator (REG). However, the REG is not actually random, it is a chaos generator as white noise is chaotic.

There are actually patterns in RNG systems, but there have not been any patterns found in chaos generators however.

For example, engineers asked if the mind of a pilot of a space ship could influence the controls of the ship. They went to prove or disprove this. Years later, they proved that it can and does indeed happen. It was done by the PEAR Group at Princeton (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research). They closed it down because they could not prove it any more than they have proven it with a colossal amount of evidence showing the mind can order chaos. They won't say it like that but that is what it is.

Global Consciousness Project The Global Consciousness Project.

With a REG, each 0 and 1 is like flipping coins and over time, there should be approximately 50/50 and the more samples, the closer to 50/50. Now what happens if you take dozens of the REG's and spread them around the world and monitored all of them and made a collective data set of what they are doing collectively?

You will find that right BEFORE every major event - 9/11, the tsunamis, the olympics opening ceremony, etc... you name it, there is ALWAYS a deviation from 50/50 and often times OFF THE CHART.

Now they give their little disclaimer that it could be chance occurrence (which it is not) and guess what they calculate the odds to be that these deviations are chance? 1 in a trillion! That means it probably has never been chance.

I won't go into all the subconscious stuff, but subconscious has connection to all of the yet to happen events in the collective. When that many minds are focused on a single event, that is enough to polarize and influence the chaos so that there is a coherent asymmetrical outcome with the REG's even before we witness the event with our eyes.

This is 100% identical to a dipole polarizing the chaotic aether making it asymmetrical in order for it to be able to "take form". This entire aetheric model 100% applies to consciousness. It unifies physical and mental.

So I guess what I'm saying is I believe there is chaos because of several reasons listed above and the patterns are there and are made possible because there is unorganized potential energy (chaos) that is able to be polarized (patterned and shaped).

[BroMikey]

Talking to the wall

Hey everyone,

I am banning this person and blocking their entire ip range.

This person is a disinformation plant who has caused trouble here before, in Energy Science Forum and many other places on the internet. He posts all this misinformation in bot like fashion and doesn't know how to communicate like a human being - ALWAYS evading questions that destroys his house of cards.

What he does is make you think he is on your side since he talks about Aether and gives an accurate view of the general principles of aetheric displacement to produce gravity, etc...

HOWEVER, you will see that he does it in a way that only promotes Einstein as being the holy gospel. Meaning, he is doing it with nothing but pure closed system concepts that actually cut off the possibility for aether to ever contribute to doing work, etc...

Here is one of his sentences that I put in a Google post so you can see I'm not overreacting.

https://www.google.com/search?q="A+moving+particle+has+an+associated+aeth er+displacement+wave"

Page after page after page, the same copy and paste. It is the most ridiculous misinformation spamming attempt I have ever seen.

Hey Aaron

yeah get him gone, I remember that guy and he never responds.

Mike

[Ben2503]

interesting view points are never mainstream

Hey everyone,

I am banning this person and blocking their entire ip range.

This person is a disinformation plant who has caused trouble here before, in Energy Science Forum and many other places on the internet. He posts all this misinformation in bot like fashion and doesn't know how to communicate like a human being - ALWAYS evading questions that destroys his house of cards.

What he does is make you think he is on your side since he talks about Aether and gives an accurate view of the general principles of aetheric displacement to produce gravity, etc...

HOWEVER, you will see that he does it in a way that only promotes Einstein as being the holy gospel. Meaning, he is doing it with nothing but pure closed system concepts that actually cut off the possibility for aether to ever contribute to doing work, etc...

Here is one of his sentences that I put in a Google post so you can see I'm not overreacting.

https://www.google.com/search?q="A+moving+particle+has+an+associated+aeth er+displacement+wave"

Page after page after page, the same copy and paste. It is the most ridiculous misinformation spamming attempt I have ever seen.

Hi all.
I am following this forum for quite some time now and I must say that I enjoy it very much. Especially as it is mostly about non-conventional solutions which are lowed by our mainstream physicists.
In my opinion mpc755 gives an alternative solution for the double slit experiment. We should all welcome this viewpoint and review it, rather than ban the messenger.

To me his idea makes perfect sense. Anyone who has ever been in a subway station has felt the air flowing (pressure wave) into the station just before the train (particle) arrives. Perhaps a better example is the jet fighter that breaks the sound barrier.

I feel the bast way forward in science is the free exchange of ideas and not muting the critics, as the present mainstreamers are doing.

Best regards
Ben

[Allcanadian]

Hello Ben

To me his idea makes perfect sense. Anyone who has ever been in a subway station has felt the air flowing (pressure wave) into the station just before the train (particle) arrives. Perhaps a better example is the jet fighter that breaks the sound barrier.

I feel the bast way forward in science is the free exchange of ideas and not muting the critics, as the present mainstreamers are doing.

On the surface this seems intuitive and we could conceive that there is a tenuous fluid we call the Aether. However I would think it would suffer the same problems Einstein faced with his theories. Mainly if the Aether is matter and can be displaced then this would imply there is something in between it such as space. In which case we are simply speaking of another form of matter but are still left with Einsteins spooky action at a distance only on a smaller scale.

I subscribe to a different theory, there is matter on various scales however it can only interact through field interactions, one field on another. The fields may be EM wave interactions which constitute Energy not Matter. It would seem to explain many phenomena however the same problem remains, what is a field and how can it act through a distance?. The problem I see with any theory which involves matter is that the pieces of matter always seem to get progressively smaller but never solve the real issue of what is between them.

AC

[Ben2503]

New ether mechanics

Hello Ben


On the surface this seems intuitive and we could conceive that there is a tenuous fluid we call the Aether. However I would think it would suffer the same problems Einstein faced with his theories. Mainly if the Aether is matter and can be displaced then this would imply there is something in between it such as space. In which case we are simply speaking of another form of matter but are still left with Einsteins spooky action at a distance only on a smaller scale.

I subscribe to a different theory, there is matter on various scales however it can only interact through field interactions, one field on another. The fields may be EM wave interactions which constitute Energy not Matter. It would seem to explain many phenomena however the same problem remains, what is a field and how can it act through a distance?. The problem I see with any theory which involves matter is that the pieces of matter always seem to get progressively smaller but never solve the real issue of what is between them.

AC

Good morning AC
I think even Einstein believed in an ether. The problem is that we cannot see it.
We are like fish trying to discover the water. Do we move the ether, or does the ether move us or both? Or none of the above.

Robert Distinti is making some great videos on this. Please check https://www.youtube.com/user/rdistinti/featured

Wall Thornhill and others presented a great Electric alternative for the Gravity based universe. check holoscience.com | The Electric Universe | A sound cosmology for the 21st century
I believe we are again at a tipping point in the history of science and my point was that we should not mute critics, but keep an open mind.

Best regards,
Ben