Cop>17 Here's Why This Result Was Predicted

[Farrah Day]

Hi Rosemary

What a very interesting thread you have here, truly fascinating reading. You seem to be putting a remarkable amount of time and effort into this thread. You have my compliments.

As I understand it (though I may well be out-of-touch) mainstream science tends to believe that there are two families of fundamental particles, Leptons and Quarks. Of which three quarks bonded by gluons make up a proton. But as you say this has not been proven, and is simply the hypothesis that has become generally accepted as the standard model. So room for other hypotheses.

Now, please bear with me, I’ve just read through the whole thread in one go, so everything has not yet settled or slotted into place in my mind.

The idea that current flow through a circuit is an energy flow rather than the movement of charged species is not new to me, but I’m hoping you can clear up something for me.

If I take it that energy flow through a closed circuit is initiated by an imbalance, for example a voltage potential, is it that electron flow is a by-product of this energy flow or are you saying that electrons do not flow at all?

Farrah

[witsend]

As I understand it (though I may well be out-of-touch) mainstream science tends to believe that there are two families of fundamental particles, Leptons and Quarks. Of which three quarks bonded by gluons make up a proton. But as you say this has not been proven, and is simply the hypothesis that has become generally accepted as the standard model. So room for other hypotheses.

Hi Farrah Day and most welcome. I think there are many families - can't remember them all but they're roughly divided into 2 main groups - fundamental particles like quarks and electrons and, I think bosons from the lepton family - and then another very big group that proposes that particles can become composites. This latter group is really just a kind of 'tribal offshoot' so to speak and, being composites, includes everything from baryons and mesons all the way up to atoms and their molecules. Something like that. I think the electron is classified a lepton, as are quarks. A proton would belong to the 'composite' family group. Mainstream ascribe three sets of three basic quarks - a total of 9 - in the proton. But that means that at any given moment it can only have 1 of 3 potential sets - giving a total of 9 possible quark manifestations. And the quark itself has never been seen. It's needed though - first proposed by Murray Gell-Mann to even out those symmetries. I think the pion is the messenger particle between the gluon and the quark. But that's according to my model. I think you're right. Mainstream see the gluon as the 'messenger' between the pion and the quark. Not sure though. I'm very into particles - but unlike mainstream I'm proposing that all stable particles have a quark structure and therefore all particles belong to the composite family group. My proposal is that the zipon is simply the ONLY fundamental particle. But that's only my model of it. Certainly not approved by mainstream.

If I take it that energy flow through a closed circuit is initiated by an imbalance, for example a voltage potential, is it that electron flow is a by-product of this energy flow or are you saying that electrons do not flow at all?

Current flow has NOTHING to do with the flow of electrons. I'll go over this in a separate post because it's actually a big issue. But, for now just know that mainstream do not subscribe to the concept of the 'flow of electrons'. It's just that this is widely taught in engineering faculties. It's a useful concept and works as such. But it's theoretically flawed - on just so many levels.

And again, welcome. I've seen your posts on another forum and delighted to see that you've come here.

EDITED - ADDED

[Farrah Day]

Okay, thanks for that Rosemary.

I guess electron current flow has some major issues, but it's the fact that it seems to work in most cases (or rather perhaps nicely suits some purposes) that gives it such credibility.

I'm just trying to get my head around this, because while I can accept that electron flow might be a by-product of another flow of energy, I'm struggling to see how we can do without the electron flowing at all.

I'm probably looking at this all wrong, so bear with me, but we do know that the electron exists don't we. And given that nearly all our electronic theory is based upon this little fella moving about, it's very hard to simply dump a lifetimes worth of what-you-thought-you-knew in favour of something very alien to this knowledge.

If the electron does not flow in a circuit, how are charges exchanged at the electrodes of an electrolyser in order to evolve gas? Are you also saying that ions in a liquid do not flow to and from electrodes or gain or drop electrons?

Is an ion no longer simply an atom with a deficit or surplus of electrons?

What about Cathode Ray Tubes, are these not firing electrons?

I'm not doubting you, I'm just trying to get a grip on the idea involved here and get things clear in my mind.

Regards, Farrah

[witsend]

I'm not doubting you, I'm just trying to get a grip on the idea involved here and get things clear in my mind.

LOL. Starting with this, you'd do well to doubt me. I'm not an expert.

I guess electron current flow has some major issues, but it's the fact that it seems to work in most cases (or rather perhaps nicely suits some purposes) that gives it such credibility.

Indeed. The fact is that quantum electrodynamics is the single most effective branch of all applied quantum theories. I say it often. It's taken us to the outer boundaries of our star system and it's given us views of whole galaxies - deep into space. It's an amazingly effective branch of quantum engineering.

I'm just trying to get my head around this, because while I can accept that electron flow might be a by-product of another flow of energy, I'm struggling to see how we can do without the electron flowing at all.

Here's the thing. Think of the general concept associated with the 'passage of charge' as proposed by mainstream. It can't be the mass flow of electrons from the atoms in the wire - because the required number of atoms needed to enable this 'flow' are not seen to become ionised. Ever.

If it's a sort of domino messaging system where the one electron simply influences its neighbouring electron to move and it's neighbour then moves and so on - down the line - then that 'messaging' system or 'electron drift' would move at something in the order of 1 meter and hour. But current flow is known to be some fraction within the speed of light and if we had to wait that long hour for your average current to move from the plug switch to reach your average light, for instance, then we'd all know about it and we'd all be complaining.

The only other proposal that is half way acceptable is the thought that there are 'free floating' electrons that somehow attach to the material of the wire and then then move in synch through the body of the circuit. The problem here is simply one of quantity. If all current flow requires all those electrons then your average supply grid would need an inexhaustible amount of electrons to keep that average grid in power. That sheer quantity is simply not known to be 'floating' around the place.

Finally - when quantum mechanics was first being formulated - Pauli pointed out that no two electrons could share the same path. It's known as Paul's exclusion principle and it's a pretty profound insight. But it's also a very logical insight. Electrons have a 'like charge' and like charges repel. How then can they overcome this inherent repulsion to 'share a path' anywhere at all. I use the analogy of two north poles on a permanent magnet. It takes an enormous applied force to bring those two together.

I'm probably looking at this all wrong, so bear with me, but we do know that the electron exists don't we. And given that nearly all our electronic theory is based upon this little fella moving about, it's very hard to simply dump a lifetimes worth of what-you-thought-you-knew in favour of something very alien to this knowledge.

You're in really good company if you prefer to think of current flow as the flow of electrons. It's widely taught in engineering faculties. And it's a useful concept to hold onto. But it should not be seen as 'literal'. If you read Conceptual Physics by Dyson or Dancing Wu-Li Masters by Zukov - you'll see that most physicists know that electron current flow is only a conceptual tool. It's not a fact. But it really is as good as any concept provided you do not ascribe to ZPE or Aether fields. If you do, then disabuse yourself of electron current flow. Quite apart from being inherently illogical - It simply could not explain any breaches in the energy barriers.

If the electron does not flow in a circuit, how are charges exchanged at the electrodes of an electrolyser in order to evolve gas? Are you also saying that ions in a liquid do not flow to and from electrodes or gain or drop electrons?

I have no idea how mainstream explain this. My own explanation is that atoms and molecules are attached or separated by fields of aether or 'zipons' as I've called them. Just invisible particles that move at twice the speed of light and arrange all matter to distribute the charge evenly throughout those amalgams.

Is an ion no longer simply an atom with a deficit or surplus of electrons?

It certainly is. That's exactly what an ion is. The electron is definitely a particle and very much part of the whole structure of the atom. I'm not doubting the existence of electrons. Golly.

What about Cathode Ray Tubes, are these not firing electrons?

Of course they're firing electrons. But that's the point. You need to apply energy to get those electrons to move in the same direction. They will NEVER do so of their own accord.

Farrah - it's such an interesting subject - and such intelligent questions. I really am not that far from mainstream concepts. It's not 'me' who thinks that electrons don't make up current flow. But if you get into the actual extensions of electron current flow it becomes logically absurd. The need for 'holes' and all that nonsense - that's only further extensions of the same basic fallacies - required to support the flawed concept in the first instance. But what makes up 'charge' - that's still very much an open question. It's just that our engineering fraternity prefer to think of electron current flow. And no harm done. Like I said. It's an amazingly well developed science and all progress was courtesy those very same engineers.

[Farrah Day]

Thanks for your replies Rosemary.

Certainly some food for thought here.

Hope you don't mind me picking at this like I am, but I've never been one to blindly accept anything on face value. That said, it's the conflicts with mainstream science that makes this all the more intrigiung.

I must say it's nice to have someone clearly as educated and knowledgable as yourself on one of these forums.

I thrive on thoughtful and intelligent conversation, but quickly get frustrated by sheer ignorance and mindless posts/posters. My lack of tolerance for charlatans and utter stupidity is my one great weakness - and usually my downfall.

You are a breath of fresh air. Lovely talking with you. Speak again soon.

Farrah

[witsend]

Thanks for your replies Rosemary.

Certainly some food for thought here.

Hope you don't mind me picking at this like I am, but I've never been one to blindly accept anything on face value. That said, it's the conflicts with mainstream science that makes this all the more intrigiung.

I must say it's nice to have someone clearly as educated and knowledgable as yourself on one of these forums.

I thrive on thoughtful and intelligent conversation, but quickly get frustrated by sheer ignorance and mindless posts/posters. My lack of tolerance for charlatans and utter stupidity is my one great weakness - and usually my downfall.

You are a breath of fresh air. Lovely talking with you. Speak again soon.

Farrah

Golly Farrah. This is a first. I'll need to frame this post. LOL. I'm rather well known for being somewhat confrontational - so I share something of your intolerance. But discussions on physics is really my daily 'fix'. Can't think of a better way to spend my time. I need to 'get a life'. LOL

[witsend]

Thank you. I think quantity explain it. Different molecule have different bond.

I forget where I get it, but here it is:
Gerry_Vassilatos-Lost_Science_Chapter_2-3-4-5-6-7.doc - download now for free. File sharing. Software file sharing. Free file hosting. File upload. FileFactory.com

hopefully you can get it before it expired....

No. I couldn't download. But I'll look for more on his theories. I think the essential difference between aether fields and my own proposals is that my aether is absolutely synonymous with magnetic fields. And the fact is that I ascribed an actual particle to these fields. But - gosh - there's a welter of similarities. Quite exciting for me. I need to 'search the web' - or better still - go and pay a visit to our local library. I'm sure they'll find the books if they haven't got them.

Thanks anyway Sucahyo - for trying. And thanks for those downloads that you did manage. They're gold.

[witsend]

There is an enduring problem with any discussion on physics. We all have a kind of mental reference that depends, essentially, on concepts. Our quntum experts are able to juggle really complex concepts within ever more complex contextual frames bing spatial and non-spatial (whatever that means), local or non local (whatever that means) and in or out of our space-time continuum (and whatever that means). They measure things in scales that beggar the mind - in up to the billionth of a fraction in size and time. And they observe matter - vast galaxies - positioned milions of light years away that are sometimes more than a million light years across. The mental gymnastics required by relativity theorists and quantum theorists to grasp these issues of scale, are so extreme that the lay public are simply left with a crippling lack of understanding and a dizzy sense of disbelief.

This is tragic. The tragedy is that the majority of our lay public then leave questions on 'matters physical' to the experts on 'matters physical'. And a direct consequence to this is that they also leave decisions on how to advance physics - to those same experts. And those experts then appropriate rights to decide on things physical on behalf of that lay public. In effect, if we are now paying the price of pollutant energy sources and profligate wasteful uses of this, we only have ourselves to blame. We have reliquinshed our voting rights to that body of experts who vote precisely as best suits their pocket or their understandings. The first is self-interested and the second is often swayed in favour of majority consensus. The most of us like to feel that we're with a group of like minds. And those experts are no different. If energy barriers are part of 'consensus thinking' then those experts will subscribe. If oil is useful and carbon pollution not entirely toxic - then those experts will subscribe. The fine line between pragmatism and the 'common good' is heavily compromised in line with this concensus by the experts. And where consensus is split between two opposing fields of thought - then we, the lay public, simply line up and support one or other viewpoint.

But common to all such 'opinion by experts' is that they speak on behalf of the lay public. The actual issues - the questions - are left to those experts. They 'know'. Their specialities qualify them - to speak with authority. This is the tragedy. In order to retain that apparent authority - they also best serve their best intersts by keeping 'physics' obscure. If the lay public discovered that 'matters physical' are also essentially logical and essentially simple, then they will also systematically 'lose' that authority which is so urgently required. I am entirely satisified that the number of scientists who readily explain any 'event' - any principle in science - in simple terms, he also then considers that he is doing both himself and science a disservice.

That is why I find it offensive when anyone presumes to make obscure - something that is essentially very simple. It does not need knowledge to advance physics. It needs understanding. Physics is not explained by mathematics - it is proved by mathematics. Physics is not described by forces - it is proved by the measurements of those forces. To measure something does not advance an understanding of something. I do not explain an elephant by describing it's size and colour. Nor do I explain an electron by describing it charge and mass. And the truth is that these more subtle matters of physics are also not understood by our experts. All is based on a partial understanding. They, like the lay public, also grapple with questions relating to charge and current flow and gravity and the rest. Their answers are partial. We are all searching for answers. None of us know.

There is one real dynamic value in making matters physical a subject of wider questioning - of putting it back to the lay public. It is this. We all have access to logic. It's an inalienable birthright. We are all as capable of understanding conceptually as are our experts. And when that understanding is advanced - to the wider public - then we will be able to get back our voting rights. Therefore - if I have a reason for spending these long hours on this thread - it is simply to try and advance that conceptual understanding. I think the rich variety of logic and argument that will come from the lay public is something to be desired. I sincerely believe that this, more than anything else, will finally tumble the energy barriers that nature herself shows is very essentially and in truth DOABLE. But to get there we need to get back our voting rights. We need to advance our understanding of physics - not it's measurements.

EDITED

[sucahyo]

Thanks anyway Sucahyo - for trying. And thanks for those downloads that you did manage. They're gold.

Or try this instead
Download Gerry Vassilatos-Lost Science Chapter 2-3-4-5-6-7.doc from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way

[Farrah Day]

Hi Rosemary

Since we spoke I've been trying to find something - anything - on the internet related to non-electron current flow and/or alternative energy flow theories, but I'm struggling. Do you have any links to such?

Is there an example you can point me to that suggests that electrons are not flowing around a cct?

My analogy of electron current flow has always been a tube of ballbearings. You push one in one end and one pops out the other end. Hence current flow is near instantaneous, even though a singular electron might take and age to travel just a few inches. To enhance my analogy, if I use multiple small magnets in a plastic tube whereby every magnet is set to repell the next, again I push one in one end and one pops out the other and they never actually touch each other.

Holes... aren't they simply the hyperthetical space an electron leaves before another fills that place... so in reality holes are, well... positively nothing!

The other thing. With reference to the Pauli exclusion principle, doesn't this only relate to two or more electrons not being able to occupy the same quantum state within an atom? How would this relate then to electrons skipping from one atom to another?

I keep coming back to thermionic valves. Like the CRT, electrons are certainly flowing to the anode here (I know they incorporate heating elements), so surely electrons must flow to balance the charges throughout the cct... mustn't they?

Also, if the plates of a capacitor are not charged with electrons (or lack of), what is holding the charge on the plates?

So many questions, I know.

Last one. Are you saying that electrons do not move in a conductor at all, or just that they are simply not the energy carriers?

I ask this because I'm sure you're aware of the Tolman-Stewart experiment whereby they determined the charge to mass ratio of the electron by rotating a closed cct metal coil at 4000 rpm and then bringing it to rest in a fraction of a second. They found that the 'conduction' electrons carried on moving after the bulk of the metal had stopped. The inertia of the electrons producing a very tiny pulse of current.

Regards, Farrah.

[witsend]

Since we spoke I've been trying to find something - anything - on the internet related to non-electron current flow and/or alternative energy flow theories, but I'm struggling. Do you have any links to such?

If you want a good link to some remarkably erudite writing on aether I can't do better than point you to the Correas - a husband and wife team. I know this link courtesy sucahyo's efforts here. They're amazingly knowledgeable and they're both highly accredited.

Is there an example you can point me to that suggests that electrons are not flowing around a cct?

LOL I have no idea what a cct is. I'm afraid you're asuming I understand such terms. I'm afraid I don't. You clearly know more of the technology than I do - which is hardly surprising given the little that I know.

My analogy of electron current flow has always been a tube of ballbearings. You push one in one end and one pops out the other end. Hence current flow is near instantaneous, even though a singular electron might take and age to travel just a few inches.

That's back to one of two concepts. You must first assume that the tube is first filled with 'free floating' electrons. This is not known and is somewhat unlikely as there are simply not enough electrons 'floating around' to provide all the current needed from your average suply grid. Or you must assume that you can bump one valence electron in the outer energy levels of the material's atomic structure - all the way down the line to reach other other. This is referrred to as electron drift. It's just WAY TOO SLOW.

To enhance my analogy, if I use multiple small magnets in a plastic tube whereby every magnet is set to repell the next, again I push one in one end and one pops out the other and they never actually touch each other.

Nothing wrong with this analogy. But you are first assuming that the magnet is 'held fast' in that tube. Take away the tube and then what happens? You'd struggle to get all those opposing charges of the magnets into any kind of line. In fact it would be impossible.

Holes... aren't they simply the hyperthetical space an electron leaves before another fills that place... so in reality holes are, well... positively nothing!

I can't comment here Farrah. I simply don't know enough about conventional concepts. It just strikes me that the instantaneous nature of current flow is such that the fields would also manifest instantaneously. No holes. Not ever. But that's because I attribute 'charge flow' to be at light speed or better. So effectively, there can be no 'gaps' or 'holes' ever. But that's my version and you're certainly not obliged to 'buy in'.

The other thing. With reference to the Pauli exclusion principle, doesn't this only relate to two or more electrons not being able to occupy the same quantum state within an atom?

It does indeed. It actually states that 'no two electrons can share the same path'. If the quantum state of like charged electrons were to 'flow' in a circuit - they would be sharing the same path. They simply can't. Not of their own volition. Not if you clustered a whole lot of electrons together and set them loose, so to speak.

How would this relate then to electrons skipping from one atom to another?

I don't know. I suppose if there were such a thing as 'free floating' electrons then one could move from one atom to the next - and that at pace. I Just don't know. I guess you're proposing a sort of attraction/repulsion sequence. My guess is that this would still occur at 'electron drift' pace. But I may well be wrong.

I keep coming back to thermionic valves. Like the CRT, electrons are certainly flowing to the anode here (I know they incorporate heating elements), so surely electrons must flow to balance the charges throughout the cct... mustn't they?

Again. I just don't know and I'm not sure what a cct is? But I'm satisfied that electrons can be propelled through space if their path is constrained and if enough power is applied to move them. Effectively you put them in that 'tube' that holds your ball bearings.

Also, if the plates of a capacitor are not charged with electrons (or lack of), what is holding the charge on the plates?

Again I don't know. But in my book a capacitor would have an 'induced' magnetic field - and I certainly don't see that it requires electrons.

Last one. Are you saying that electrons do not move in a conductor at all, or just that they are simply not the energy carriers?

What my thesis proposes is that electrons are moved by magnetic fields. It is the magnetic field that is plastic and can move through space. Again, only in terms of my thesis, it's the electron that is moved by the magnetic field. But again, that's only my thesis. Not obliged to 'buy in' so to speak.

I ask this because I'm sure you're aware of the Tolman-Stewart experiment whereby they determined the charge to mass ratio of the electron by rotating a closed cct metal coil at 4000 rpm and then bringing it to rest in a fraction of a second. They found that the 'conduction' electrons carried on moving after the bulk of the metal had stopped. The inertia of the electrons producing a very tiny pulse of current.

I know nothing about this experiment. I simply can't comment. You'd need to explain what a cct is. I've googled it and can't find an appropriate reference. Sorry. If you can tell me this much I could possibly comment.

So many questions

Never a bad thing. How else can any of us ever learn. I have a few of my own here - that Toman-Stewart experiment being one of them and a definition of cct? I'll look up the experiment and would be glad if you could help me out with what is a 'cct'.

Thanks Farrah.

I can't open the file on the Tolman-Stewart experiment. Can you give me a link?

EDITED

[witsend]

Last one. Are you saying that electrons do not move in a conductor at all, or just that they are simply not the energy carriers?

I ask this because I'm sure you're aware of the Tolman-Stewart experiment whereby they determined the charge to mass ratio of the electron by rotating a closed cct metal coil at 4000 rpm and then bringing it to rest in a fraction of a second. They found that the 'conduction' electrons carried on moving after the bulk of the metal had stopped. The inertia of the electrons producing a very tiny pulse of current.

I've now searched all over. Can't get to find out the experimental set up and I can't find the paper with abstracts and so forth. What I will say is this. If the current flow was actually detected as electrons then I have absolutely no argument. But these experiments, from the the thread of 'physics forums' only claim that the one side of a rotating metal disc had a negative charge. The experiments were conducted in 1916 or thereby. I'm not sure that the negative charge can be strictly attributed to electrons - certainly not if the the other side was charged postive? I just don't know the full extent of the claim. Sorry.

But I think I need to point out that my own concepts of current flow were never taught. I deduced my model from an extension of the magnetic field. There's no value in the model except that it proposed an alternate source of energy to that allowed by conventional studies. And that model has nothing to do with the flow of electrons. In terms of that model, and therefore, only in terms of my own hypothesis - current flow is sourced from conductive and inductive material when the fields are imbalanced. It is sourced from 'binding magnetic fields'. It compromises the bound condition of that material. And that imbalance always and only relates to the ionised or 'valence' condition of that source material.

The numbers stacked up in multiple experimental evidence all over the place. Energy barriers were predicted to be breached and in fact were shown to be breached. And any breaching of our energy barriers simply cannot be accommodated in conventional theories in line with electron current flow. Unity would always be its best reach.

But I assure you I am not qualified to comment on conventional concepts. I don't understand them. Where I've tried to bend the mind, so to speak, I just come across a slew of contradictions that I - personally find to be offensively illogical - certainly as expounded by most electrical engineers. But that's just me. Frankly, if I had relied on conventional engineering schooling to get to grips with conventional understanding of current flow, then I would certainly not have needed to develop my own understanding. And my understanding only has merit in that it can be and has been experimentally evidenced. But there are no doubt many who will claim alternate reasons, alternate models, or alternate theories. All such welcome.

[Farrah Day]

Rosemary, sorry about my 'cct' - it's simply the commonly used abbreviation for 'circuit'. I used it automatically without considering that it may cause some confusion.

But I assure you I am not qualified to comment on conventional concepts. I don't understand them. Where I've tried to bend the mind, so to speak, I just come across a slew of contradictions that I - personally find to be offensively illogical - certainly as expounded by most electrical engineers. But that's just me. Frankly, if I had relied on conventional engineering schooling to get to grips with conventional understanding of current flow, then I would certainly not have needed to develop my own understanding. And my understanding only has merit in that it can be and has been experimentally evidenced. But there are no doubt many who will claim alternate reasons, alternate models, or alternate theories. All such welcome.

The more views and alternate concepts the better. I suppose it's not until one generally accepted explanation - however long established - comes to something that it will not explain do scientists start looking elsewhere for answers. The old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" comes to mind.

I'll try to find something more on the Tolman-Stewart experiment, however, it may not ultimately conflict with your ideas. It may well simply be down to the way they interpreted the data.

If your knowledge of convential concepts is somewhat lacking, does it not concern you that there may well be some conventional concept unknown to you, that your theory fails to satisfactorily explain?

Whatever the case, this is all very intriguing... and I love mysteries.

Farrah

[Farrah Day]

Hi Rosemary

Just some Tolman-Stewart links that may be of intertest:

Histories of the Electron: The Birth ... - Google Books

with above, scroll down to page 267.

http://www.df.unipi.it/~macchi/FISIC...an-stewart.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/9/5/166.full.pdf

IngentaConnect Electric fields in accelerating conductors: measurement of the EM...

And this quoted from another forum:

"I managed to find the text I was looking for, and it was called the Tolman-Stewart experiment. From Knight's "Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Volume 4":

The Tolman-Stewart experiment of 1916 was the first direct evidence that electrons are the charge carriers in metals. Tolman and Stewart caused a metal rod to accelerate very rapidly. The inertia of the charge carriers within the metal (and Newton's first law) causes them to be "thrown" to the rear surface of the metal rod as it accelerates away...Tolman and Stewart found that the rear surface of a metal rod becomes negatively charged as it accelerates."

Regards, Farrah

[witsend]

Rosemary, sorry about my 'cct' - it's simply the commonly used abbreviation for 'circuit'. I used it automatically without considering that it may cause some confusion.

LOL. I've been rolling. It shows how unfamiliar I am with conventional reference - and I rather think I should have guessed it's meaning. No excuse here - but awfully funny. I thought you were referring to some exotic component part. Golly.

The more views and alternate concepts the better. I suppose it's not until one generally accepted explanation - however long established - comes to something that it will not explain do scientists start looking elsewhere for answers. The old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" comes to mind.

Indeed. But I tend to get rather boring on the subject. I think it's awfully important that we all try and get to a standardised conceptual reference. But on the subject of 'current flow' - it's been an open question for a long time. For some reason - probably in the interests of proving electromagnetism a 'complete' theory - there are those engineers who will only refer to the flow of electrons. I've had really kindly, well-intentioned, honest, decent, law-abiding professors - simply put the phone down on me when I propose that current flow has nothing to do with electrons. It's that offensive to them. But I've only ever had endorsement of this same question from physicists. Seems to be a dichotomy in scientific circles that they've sort of lived with and tolerated. And I can see why. Those same engineers keep advancing their own sophisticated applications. One must assume that they know whereof they speak. And it's hardly my place to point out errors when they clearly have a pretty amazing grasp of it's multiple applications - way beyond anything that I could do. Strange really. Strange that they have done so much and all based on a fundamental misconception. And strange that they can live with the obvious inherent contradictions. But there you go. I think they're sort of satisified that they're right.

Here's a kind of an analogy. Florence Nightingale saw the need for cleanliness to advance the health of those poor wounded during the Crimean Wars. But she denied the existence of 'germs' which was then referred to as 'contagionism'. But that new regimen of cleanliness, hygene and ventilation reduced the death rate from a staggering > 50% or more down to 2%. So she controlled infections effectively without realising that what she was controlling was germs. It worked. The reason for it was not understood. Something like that. LOL. I can see a whole lot of engineers reading this and wincing.

But I say it often and I realise now that it's very much a part of an emergent consciousness - the reality of aether fields are yet only a part of an emerging science. It's been questioned for hundreds of years, certainly since and before the work of your own namesake - Farraday. But it's more elusive than 'germs'. It's entirely invisible. And we don't easily hold onto concepts that first require that they're invisible. It sort of offends a deep rooted need know of things experientially rather than purely intellectually. Then too - proof of all this zero point energy is always contended by our learned and revered. It requires extraordinary persistence to get such concepts into vogue. But it's thanks to the efforts of Forums such as this that resistance is getting erroded. Such fun.

If your knowledge of convential concepts is somewhat lacking, does it not concern you that there may well be some conventional concept unknown to you, that your theory fails to satisfactorily explain?

Not at all. My little zipons explain EVERYTHING. But only to my satisfaction. My children tell me that the general understanding grows in inverse proportion to the number of people who read it! LOL. Such cheek! But I do see extraordinary similarities between my model and aether. It's just that I've rather presumed to describe it more fully. I think this even offends our free energy enthusiasts. It's a no-win situation. But I just keep plodding on plodding on. The hope is that someone will, eventually, get to understand what I'm pointing to. I'm an incurable optimist - as you see. LOL