Cop>17 Here's Why This Result Was Predicted

[witsend]

My intention in the following posts is to explain why the heat signatures on the COP 17 / Rosemary Ainslie circuit were predicted. I will be dealing in simple concepts and, where I sacrfice details to the generalites - it is because I am trying to advance these as simple concepts that our talented forum members can wrap their minds around it and - hopefully - improve on this effect.

I'll be posting the posts over from my other thread during the course of the day. Please note, everyone. Questions more than welcome and there are no restrictions to posting here. But I also hope that this thread will not be interminable. I will also - I hope - conclude this thread with the thesis that I hope to get published. Meanwhile these posts can be seen as some rough background notes to that thesis.

Hope you enjoy reading here. And rest assured - if there's something that is not understood - then shout. It only means that I've explained it badly. I sincerely believe that all of physics is easily understandable. I need to know if I'm making it obscure. Absolutely not my intention and I cannot know this unless you guys tell me.

[witsend]

This is taken directly from the paper submitted to TIE. It explains the 'overview' of the argument - required because I was not allowed to reference the model inside the paper.


The model proposes that charge has the property of mass with the material properties of velocities and thermal capacities associated with that mass. These particles do not conform to the standard model and remain hidden within three dimensional solid or liquid objects or amalgams. They are extraneous to the atom itself and only interact with the atomic energy levels that, in turn, comprise independent fields of the same fundamental particle. These extraneous fields are responsible for the bound condition of the amalgam. This interaction between the fields and the atoms’ energy levels results in a balanced distribution of charge throughout the amalgam. Measurable voltage reflects a transitional state of imbalance throughout these binding fields that, subject to circuit conditions, then move that charge through available conductive and inductive paths to reestablish a charge balance. In effect the circuit components that enable the flow of charge from a supply source are, themselves able to generate a flow of current depending on the strength of that applied potential difference and the material properties of the circuit components. Therefore both inductive and conductive circuit components have a potential to generate current flow in line with Inductive Laws.

Classical assumption requires an equivalence in the transfer of electric energy based as it is on the concept of a single supply source. Therefore voltage measured away from the supply on circuit components is seen to be stored energy delivered during closed circuit conditions of a switching cycle. The distinction is drawn that if indeed, the circuit components are themselves able to generate a current flow from potential gradients, then under open circuit conditions, that energy may, be added to the sum of the energy on the circuit thereby exceeding the limit of energy available from the supply. Therefore if more energy is measured to be dissipated at a load than is delivered by the supply, then that evidence will be consistent with this thesis. The experimental evidence does indeed, conform to this prediction.

[witsend]

It is a little known truth that no-one actually knows what electric current is - let alone how or why it flows. In the same way no-one knows what causes gravity. These both, together with the strong and weak nuclear forces, are lumped together - very broadly, under the term 'forces'. And a force is known to be that something that can be used to give energy. But here's the thing. Nor does anyone actually know what energy is. You get whole divisions within universities dedicated to the study of clean energy, reusable energy, reticulated, recycled, economic, efficient, green - all in depth discussions and all about energy. Yet not one of these academic experts actually knows what energy is - the thing itself. Ask them and they will waffle on about 'change' or they will point to measurements that boggle the mind with their predictable accuracies. But energy? The thing that flows, that lights your light, that heats your stove, that gives you the will to learn, walk, wake up in the mornings, that thing? No-one actually knows what it is. All we know today is roughly where to find it, and exactly how to exploit it.

[witsend]

That having been said - also by the same token - those same expert academics also know an exhaustive amount about the measurement of that energy. And that measurement is so skilled that they can predict the outcome of a physical or chemical effect to extraordinary levels of accuracy. It is this knowledge that has led us into this technological revolution that allows us, among many other benefits, the use of our computers, our cars and the general conveniences of modern day life. I do not mean to diminish the vast wealth of knowledge available to us courtesy these experts. And they, in turn, have archived the excellent pioneering efforts of those Giants in physics who first pioneered this knowledge. All this work is a treasure of information and is an enduring and proud heritage of our civilisation. It has taken us from the confused presumptions of the dark ages to the clear light of science based, as it now is, on experimental evidence as proof of a thesis or theory.

[witsend]

All I am pointing to is the fact that physics today still has outstanding questions. And while these questions are really big questions, they all relate to our inability to actually see anything on a really minute scale. This includes everything on the scale of an atom and smaller. Beyond a certain size and at a certain given velocity our knowledge of anything is limited to that knowledge that can only be gained through inference. We have photographed electrons but know nothing of their structure. I have actually seen a photograph of the shadowy structure of atoms. An extraordinary feat in photography. But it simply looks like a nest of eggs laid out and cooling in something that also looks like a clinging morning mist. The atom's motor, its actual structure, remains hidden inside its shell. What little we know about particles is their charge or the 'direction' they take within a magnetic field and some extraordinary details related to the 'spin' of that particle when it can be held, tenuously suspended, away from it's natural environment. Scientists work with 'clues' and patterns of behaviour to gain an increasing understanding of the thing itself. And this art of inference has - notwithstanding these difficulties, enabled an extraordinary feat. We have the periodic table as tribute to the rarefied progressive logic that unravelled the atom's secrets. This and the fact that we know of a great many particles, an entire particle zoo as some call it, is all by virtue of the courtesy and the skills of expert knowledge, expert observation and expert assessment. Our progress in science is an enduring tribute to the skills of our mainstream scientists and their remarkably incisive logic. But yet our knowledge is limited, constrained as it is in any study of the very, very small.

[witsend]

And the scale which I am referring to? Think of this. There are more atoms on the head of a pin than there are stars that can be seen in the night sky. And the simplest of all atoms, our hydrogen atom? At its heart is one single proton with a positive charge - orbited by one single electron with a negative charge. And, if in your mind's eye you can imagine the proton to be the size of, say, your average Granny Smith apple, then the electron is, by comparison, the size of a green pea orbiting the apple at a radius of something in the order of 8 kilometers away from that centre. All that empty space which, as it turns out, is not that emply. What we cannot see except with the aid of some exotic photography, is that there are energy levels associated with each atom, widely referred to as 'lines'. If these energy levels comprise particles, then they would need to be on another scale of 'small'. Such particles would then constitute a remove in size that even exceeds the miniscule size of the proton and the electron themselves. I am not proposing that mainstream have ascribed any material property to these energy levels. They appear to be nothing more than a boundary of sorts that circle the nucleus of the atoms. They also seem to define the actual boundary of the atom itself. Each line is distinct one from another. We also know that we can tease the electron away from the proton or the proton away from the electron - but we can never entirely divorce the proton from those energy levels. Somehow the reconstitution of the hydrogen's proton back into some molecular partnership with another atom returns those same energy levels. It is these energy levels rather than the particles themselves that I am intrigued with. But I will get back to this point.

[witsend]

Which all brings this subject back to the mysteries of current flow. Electromagnetism was actually discovered by Orsted in 1821. Faraday was intrigued with the phenomenon but was only able to devote time to this at the death of his mentor Davy, in 1831. He was able to show that a changing electric field induced a magnetic field and, correspondingly, a changing magnetic field would induce an electric field. Faraday was unschooled or self taught so it was left to Maxwell thereafter to do the mathematical modelling of this. The result was the formulation of the Laws of Induction. But while this has been well modelled and extensively used there is very little said on the phenomenon of a magnet on magnet interaction. Given the right proximity two magnets will move apart or together with some considerable force but without necessarily inducing a corresponding electric field. There is no clear evidence that an an electric field is either required or extant. And if an electric field is in fact absent in a magnet on magnet interaction, yet an electric field cannot manifest without a magnetic field, then the implications are profound. It points to the possibility that a magnetic force is somehow a primary force, compared to which an electromagnetic force is merely a secondary field effect. This thesis proposes that indeed the magnetic force is a primary force which is also the model's first departure from classical or mainstream thinking.

[witsend]

The actual intention of this field model was to explore the possibility of there being a single elementary force. Was there something - one simple principle - that somehow governed all the forces - something that could account for the nuclear forces, for the electromagnetic interactions and for the effects of gravity? The possibility that this could be found was and is seductive. It would point to the real possibility that energy itself could be uncovered and that this, in turn would reveal some underlying principle that governed all the forces. And a magnetic force was an ideal candidate precisely because it had been so entirely overlooked. It is a field that is widely used, but little understood, well known in general but mysterious in its particular. What was needed were some tools of logic, whereby the properties of magnetism would be 'inferred' very much in the same way that our mainstream scientists had 'inferred' so much about the properties of atoms and particles. Mainstream, however, had the advantage of dealing with what is measurable and evidential. What was now needed was to unravel the properties of something that remained hidden from view - something invisible - something possibly on a scale of 'small' that even exceeded the miniscule and intangible properties of the particles in the atom itself.

[witsend]

Just as an overview - I've covered the fact that there is very little known about the properties of charge or current flow. What is known is 'inferred' knowledge as the actual material of electric current flow remains as 'hidden' today as it was in the times of Faraday. But nor is there any question as to the comprehensive nature of what is actually known about the electromagnetic interaction. The use of this force is, self-evidently, the single most incontrovertibly well understood and well used of all the forces. It has taken us to the moon, to Mars and even beyond our own solar system. It has also enabled the tools of mass communication that has engendered a kind of 'latter day' Tower of Babel. And the tower is high, so high that it stretches beyond our stratosphere and into the delicately exquisite instrumentation in our orbiting satellites. But there is an outstanding question as to whether we are dealing with a secondary force or a primary force. The proposal here is that a magnet on magnet interaction does not invariably induce an electric field. Yet an electric field cannot manifest without a corresponding magnetic field. Perhaps therefore the magnetic field is a primary force. And if so, then - being as it is hidden from view, how can we better extend our knowledge of this force. What tools can be used to expose hidden properties in the field that can be inferred to be consistent with its evident and manifold effects?

[witsend]

To address this the model proposed using a Rule of Correspondence. It's easy. We know everything is the sum of its parts and we know that those parts comprise atoms that have been forged, by nature or through some other artificial means, to represent precisely what it does. Computers, kettles, pots, bricks, rocks all comprise atoms and molecules. Always supposing that this grinding could done, and that it could also be done perfectly, and further supposing that we could collect those grindings in a receptacle of sorts - then theoretically we'd have an unidentifiable mess of atoms and molecules that previously made up the whole of that identifiable three dimensional object. Three things are now evident. Firstly, in their less defined or muddled state of disassociation from each other, the atoms and molecules bear no direct relationship to its previously bound state. Secondly some force or energy must have been applied to shape it into that previously bound and identifiable three dimensional shape. And thirdly and finally we can definitely conclude that albeit different to it's earlier presentation, those atomic and molecular parts indeed made up the whole of that amalgam or object. So. We can therefore conclude that if energy was added to bind the atoms into an amalgam of sorts then, by inference, the least energetic state of an atom is in its unbound state. The sum of its parts are indeed, consistent with the whole. And the evidence is that one can rely of the Rule of Correspondence to prove that particulate and aerosolate nature of all three dimensional amalgams.

[witsend]

I started the argument again at this point as it was definitely drifiting in the realms of the obscure.

I think that most readers on this thread have agreed that extra energy is evident. Some extraordinary work has been done by Aaron, Dr Stiffler, Bedini and many others to prove this. The question at issue is 'where does this energy come from'. Generally most people point to zero point energy but that does little to actually describe what it is nor it's precise location in space.

And the confusions related to current flow are everywhere. Some highly respected academics still attribute this exclusively to a flow of electrons. Others more conveniently simply refer to 'charge' flow - but are not able to describe the properties of that charge. Charge is associated with the properties of particles and they are always positive, negative or neutral. Charge does not occur without this particle association. So. To refer to charge without describing what is charged is no better than pointing at wind without reference to atomospheric pressure or even to the atomic or molecular components and densities in the air itself.

The question is this. What is the particle that is responsible for current flow if current flow actually also has the property of charge. In other words, what exactly is charged?

[witsend]

To answer this question the model proposed that all things are essentially particulate. They can be divided, and sub divided - forever - until it's final basic structure - the atom. And after this is the proof of particles inside that atom. But that's it. In terms of mainstream science that's the Ground Zero of all matter. And the evidence of this is everywhere. The atoms have been unravelled and their particles have been seen or measured or traced. Nothing smaller.

But this leaves questions because gravity, which is not seen, also seems to control anything the size of an atom or larger. And everything smaller than an atom - those particles - respond to magnetic fields to show that they have, themselves, an innate charged property of sorts. What then is there in a magnetic field or in an electromagnetic field that induces this reaction in particles?

[witsend]

Using the dialectic, or as some have called it 'inductive' reasoning - the model argues that in the same way as all bound matter can be subdivided into its essentially smallest part being the particle, so can a magnetic field be subdivided into smaller parts. The difference is this. Those parts of a magnetic field? They need to be inferred. And this, because they remain hidden. But, the arguement goes like this. If the definition of the parts is consistent with what is seen - then the argument may be valid.

And why the interest in a magnetic field rather than an electromagnetic field as it was finally modelled by Maxwell? Well. The argument is simple. An electric field always has a magnetic field associated with it. A magnetic field need not have an electric field. Therefore - using that self same tools of dialectic argument, the thesis suggests that a magnetic field may, therefore, be an independent and fundamental force and the electromagnetic interaction - by comparison - a secondary phenomenon of this single force. Therefore, if more can be disclosed by 'inferring' or 'ascribing' material or particulate properties to this force, then we may hopefully advance our understanding of the field as a whole and the part it plays to induce particles to bend or twist or 'spin' as it is referred to. We will, hopefully, better understand the 'charge' property of particles and something more about the charge in a magnetic field itself.

[witsend]

So I took your average permanent bar magnet and made observations. Bottom line, a magnetic field always has a north and south pole. If it's got particles then they must be a magetic dipoles. A field cannot change it's north to south and vice versa. Therefore the magnetic dipoles must comprise two opposite but distinct properties the south or negative being distinct from the north or postive. And albeit different and opposite - yet somehow they complement each other. This also suggests that monopoles don't exist in the magnetic field.

Then to the shape of a field. Particles aren't known to move as a field. Photons irradiate in straight lines away from its source. Pauli's exclusion principle claims that electrons cannot share an orbit - or a path. Electrons from cathode ray tubes are known to irradiate in a similar way to photons. Particles, of themselves, may fill a specific area but they do not comprise the smoothness that is supposed to be the distinguishing feature of a 'field'. And a magnetic field does indeed appear to be smooth. It's north and south pole apear to be equal though opposite in strength and it's influence through space is constant. Therefore there may be some feature of those magnetic dipoles that create the field effect that is not possible in dissassociated particles.

YouTube - aetherevarising's Channel

[witsend]

Now I have to take a detour. Bear with me. It's been suggested that a magnetic field may contain particles but we have never seen those particles. Not ever. But why should they be invisible? Here's what the model argues. If any particle were smaller than a photon - and if they were faster than a photon - then photons, or light itself, would never find those particles. They would remain hidden from view. The analogy drawn is to wind that we can't see blowing a balloon that we can see. Just forever out of reach. This means that light is not so much the limit of all that is measurable. Just that light is the boundary limit of WHAT we can measure. The speed of light may simply be the boundary limit of our measurable dimensions.

A particle that exceeds light speed is a tachyon and they are purely theoretical. They are not actually presumed to exist. The model argues that this magnetic dipole is a tachyon and that they do indeed exist and they exist in a field.