Reconstructing EM & Energy Theory from scratch

[Agent.A]

@Jbignes5

it can be anything as far as i know.
i developed a few ideas about this behaviour ( after gazillion lots of this and researching )
they all relate to mechanics and information theory.

the MOST important thing about these lines of force that i understood from the very first moment is this -> the so called "lines of force" are ELASTIC.

i'll get back to this later.



@sebosfato

thanks for your feedback.

hay, i know the basics and more then that, be sure of that.
although i dont have any degree in physics, i have studied it very deeply.
i red lots and lots of info ( the historical line of development ) and did lots of lots of experiments ( old and forgotten and more modern )
just to have more comprehension of the subjects that are under the name "Physics". i know the ways of "physics fu".




@ Aromaz

oh, burn them i did, more then once. its ok, i learned how to be carefull and expect bombardment before it rains on me.
about your question, that a very very good one indeed.

please, by all means, come on and share your experiance and thoughts. im here for that. to learn more.

@all

well, here i go from the last "be continued" -> yes master Agent.A, come and babble some more

i'll skip the "voltage" question for the moment and continue with something else.
the behaviour of that "something" which is lost or gained or transferd.

in 1745, Pieter van Musschenbroek and Ewald Georg von Kleist, two different folks studying electrical phenomena,
invented independently a device that could store this "something", we all know it, the Leyden (Leiden) jar, and a new era in electrical expriments begins.
everyone in the field of electrics doing all sorts of weird things with those jars.

in 1782, volta coins the word - Condencer - and everybody are so happy, playing around, condensing.

in faradays book, "Experimental Researches in Electricity", Vol I, 1839, P.393, he describes his research about - Specific Inductive Capacity -
an old term for modern days term, Dielectric Constant or Permittivity ( relative Permittivity to be more precise ),
and more knowledge is added to the growing field of physics and electrical phnemena.

wait a minute mr babbling Agent.A, is this an history lesson ? we did not sign for that !
yoo hoo, as i said in da begininininggs, a little (hi)story is to be told to make my babbling clearer.

so, we have a device to store "electricity", we have a word - Condenser - and we have a research about the influence of the dielectric medium on that "electricity"
ha ?

real question if anyone is intrested before go on, what can you tell from all this ?

[EgmQC]

..........
Do not mind ‘Sebosfato’ there are always those that want to remain in the main stream. And there are those few that does not want to follow the crowd – I am one of them. Besides all, it is more fun anyway. In my humble opinion the science and physics of today has reached a solid wall; as in dead end. That was because their road went astray as far back as 1790.
..........

You need to understand that if you don't know the current science you will never find anything new because you don't have ANY base line to compare with. ALOT of people spend MONTHS experimenting on something they don't understand at first and don't know how to calculate but claim OU everywhere , best example i can give you is the Joule Thief thread at OU .com , they learn something from the current science in the hard way. About all people who worked in the free energy domain and got success was engineer , Tesla/ Moray/ Dollard /ETC. By knowing the current science you can extrapolate theory like Eric Dollard did in his books with mathematical explanation , and not just inventing some new weird/mystical definition of something they don't understand. You cant tell that the current science is wrong if you don't know it but you can prove it wrong if you master it and you see a flaw with a explanation. We can say the earth is flat if people like the idea but the real reality will not change because of that loll.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

[sebosfato]

Yes egmqc is right Tesla, stanley meyer and all others were the most advanced physicists of their time. Thats how they could discover new things. Is like the example i gave you about the content of the church secret library.

I hope you understand that whatever you may have read, it is just a very very small part of the things you can imagine that already exists.

Good luck

[Agent.A]

@ EgmQC & sebosfato

guys ( or gals ), i know the current science, i know it extensively.
i did not got up from sleep one day out of the blue without any knowledge and with the notion -> "hay, i want to rebuild physics" ,
if that were the case, i would look at myself in the mirror and slap myself in the head, hard.

i dont just seat and read information ( from whatever source it may be ) without understanding, i experiment, research, check and compare, learn,
think and rethink and look for sources to confirm or disprove my own ideas.

i have learned and searched high and low, far and wide, before this reconstruction idea came to be.

i know - physics fu - , the good parts and the bad parts.


@ all

what ? no took the challange to answer a simple question ? its simple, you know it. play the game. come on.

[Aromaz]

so, we have a device to store "electricity", we have a word - Condenser - and we have a research about the influence of the dielectric medium on that "electricity"real question if anyone is intrested before go on, what can you tell from all this ?

A) They used static electricity, compressed it and stored it in a condenser.
B) If we can access the Cosmic energy (electricity) we might need to condense it but we will not need generators.
C) They did not have universities to teach them how to do that. They did it by observation and fooling around with experiments.

[Aromaz]

Crackpot Part 2 - From LIGHT to HYDROGEN

Energy is the root of all matter. Energy MOSTLY manifests itself in the form of light.

In these days non-crackpots calls this energy PHOTONS. They say electrons are . . . just electrons and as such an electron can absorb a photon to become more energized. So then the universe is made out of different particles – electrons, protons, positrons, neutrons, . . . . They all came to be just there? The one moment nothing, then the Big Bang immediately followed by a Universe full of Electrons, Protons, Positrons, Neutrons and Dark Matter?

BULL !

Here is the crackpot version: Pure energy became light (Photons) due to movement after the big bang. A big wave of energy ever expanding through the void that was before the universe. If you wish, it can just remain as PURE ENERGY. In fact that is still exactly what it LIGHT is.

LIGHT is PHOTONS is LIGHT is PURE ENERGY is PHOTONS is LIGHT is PURE ENERGY. Within this huge wave of pure energy then small pockets of vortexes formed; something like a small amount of energy started spinning around a centre pivot of its own. Remember now the void is no more void – it is filled with wave upon wave of PURE ENERGY.

In the process of this spinning the small pockets became denser, eventually reached the strength of what we call today an electron. But that did not stop there, that ‘electron’ pulled more ‘electrons’ into itself; causing it to even spin faster and became more dense – then started forming a PROTON. (ahh; yes centrifugal force is not at work because of environment and structure, more about this in my video.)

From here on we can easily follow the same sequence to see how more ‘electrons’ and ‘protons’ came to existence. Stop for a moment and dissect this first atom we have. What does it consist of?

Just pure energy; in the form of PHOTONS. Two parts, one is the eye (proton) and the other is the outer shell (Electron) – but still both are the same basic energy. The only difference is the compression and amount of the energy; caused by the speed of rotation. The faster proton become so dense that it actually behaves like what we refer to as a particle.

Is this not the same looks as we have with the origins of life? An EGG is the same thing even the yellow and white is just proteins but, does not look neither function the same. On this analogy, you add a sperm (which is just more protein) and then this egg changes and becomes a new life form.

So if you now have a saturated proton, it cannot absorb more energy to become more dense and spin even faster anymore – then any new additions will have to wait around on the outside. So we have one proton with one waiting electron trying to jump into the stronger nucleus – the element HYDROGEN.

Hydrogen is therefore just a compression of various pockets of spinning Pure Energy (light).

Next issue: Polarity, with short video clip to assist in explaining.

[Agent.A]

aromaz, you are the only one who took the challange ?
funny ppl dwell here ( those who did not even try ) thay want to be fed with a spoon
well, thats the way it is. i knew it before i asked.

shell we go on ? sure, lets go on. lets continue with the (Hi)story.

first, aromaz, thanks for playing, and please, lets leave the big complicated subjects to other time.
energy, photons, big bang, this bull and that bull, all in its proper time which is not now. a bit later.
theres some order to things and we did not get there just yet.

second, about your answer, good one.

third, no one at that time ( and at modern time ) stoped to ponder about the facts in front of their eyes, everybody fooled around,
making sciency stuff, adding to the growing body of knowledge, engraving their names in the book of glory and fame and doing lots and lots of bla bla bla.

the very little fact that "electricity" behaviour itself is also - ELASTIC - was just too obvious to notice. its like air, its there, in front of our eyes, but no one sees it.

lets examine a capacitor, considering that the area of the plates and the distance between them are fixed.
we can charge it to some voltage and then we can charge it some more up to a point of breakdown of the dielectric medium. right ? right.
now, lets add another independant capacitor with the same dimensions but with different dielectric and look at the case were thay both hold the same amount of charge.

what do we see ? thay have different voltage . aayy karambbba ! what is the mechanical explenation for that ?

everybody play the game.

[sebosfato]

I'm trying to find out why electrons orbits in elliptical configuration. I've being told by a chemistry teacher that this orbital configuration don't allow its spin energy to decrease. He told us that if it the orbital was only rotational its energy would decrease until the electron touch the atom.

Question:

Why electrons that orbits in elliptical configuration don't lose energy.

And,

Where the energy to keep them spinning come from.

I think that if we answer this questions, we can find something.

Any of you know the answers please?

[Jbignes5]

That answer

I'm trying to find out why electrons orbits in elliptical configuration. I've being told by a chemistry teacher that this orbital configuration don't allow its spin energy to decrease. He told us that if it the orbital was only rotational its energy would decrease until the electron touch the atom.

Question:

Why electrons that orbits in elliptical configuration don't lose energy.

And,

Where the energy to keep them spinning come from.

I think that if we answer this questions, we can find something.

Any of you know the answers please?

The answer is simplicity itself. At the level you are talking about energy is only static. Meaning if left alone would attain a balance with another equal charge as in reference with other charges around that. Well how does one move those charges then? It has to have a way to compare it's own charge with the rest of the charges around that. I think planks distance is a good rule to follow at those levels. What is planks distance then? That is the distance of further smaller conductors emitted from the larger conductors to use as arms or feelers. If these particles are imbalanced in shape already then they would naturally cause a flow around them of the medium they are in. When a feeler touches another feeler of an adjacent larger conductor it will either push it away or attract it and pull the two conductors into alignment. These conductors are not the typical conductor you might think. They are sorta like a tiny crystal pyramid which from each layer of the pyramid has a feeler on each space of the slopes. So that is 4 slopes and a single base. The relation ship of the slopes to the base gives the conductors the ability to be directional in the forward direction with little interference to the speed it can travel and be able to auto negotiate to the next potential charge or the next base of the nearest conductor. This action gives charges a conduit to travel and auto position themselves via steps in the gradient once a string has formed. This is an a fractal and no matter how far you go in, in resolution the idea stays the same. Also as you go further into the resolution the less resistances or errors you encounter. With mass on our scale the possibility to have errors is immense. And that is where the additional rules come in. They are based on density of conductors and the base charges values in relation to other charges in that specific area in that specific resolution.
With all matter in the macro sense having different densities of the conductor that have been trapped into the matters attraction to the source charge via static charge that is at the middle of the string. Most charges would move down the string twords the center around a massing of other charges. Any gross matter would be attracted to the central charge and stick to the charge as close at it could be without violating Planks distance.
I believe these crystal conductors have multiple conduits running at each intersecting face and share the same plane all the way around the 4 faces of the tip. This allows for a higher potential at these joints and a model of the conductor can be seen here...

Sierpinski triangle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This shows us that the pyramidal shape can and will replicate just from static induction from the lower pieces making up the conductor. And I believe it goes on forever that way.
Salt crystals come in two varieties on the microscopic level and I believe this is how they operate on the largest of levels as well as the smallest. Since planks distance is thought to be the base line space in between two objects that means a planar shape like a pyramid would normally build that shape forever as it grows. In a perfect environment it would and it is what I believe in in the center of black holes. It is a well known fact that extreme pressures and heat cause what in a carbon rich environment? Diamonds!

[Aromaz]

I'm trying to find out why electrons orbits in elliptical configuration. I've being told by a chemistry teacher that this orbital configuration don't allow its spin energy to decrease. He told us that if it the orbital was only rotational its energy would decrease until the electron touch the atom.

Question:

Why electrons that orbits in elliptical configuration don't lose energy.

And,

Where the energy to keep them spinning come from.

I think that if we answer this questions, we can find something.

Any of you know the answers please?

@Agent.A - If you seek the answers you will need to go back to the beginning. The foundation of science is wrong! Therefore all attempts to work around that is wrong.

Elastic energy - before you can understand why or how - you first will need to understand the "What is energy" Howcome there came to be energy, its origin. Then you can proceed to build models and investigate the elasticy.

What is polarity, hoe does it work?

Believe me, the answer is very simple; when you understand the correct form of the atom.

[Aromaz]

I'm trying to find out why electrons orbits in elliptical configuration. I've being told by a chemistry teacher that this orbital configuration don't allow its spin energy to decrease. He told us that if it the orbital was only rotational its energy would decrease until the electron touch the atom.

Question: Why electrons that orbits in elliptical configuration don't lose energy.

And, Where the energy to keep them spinning come from.
I think that if we answer this questions, we can find something.
Any of you know the answers please?

Yes, you are so right. But to understand this - again, you will have to go back to the root - What exactly the electron is.

Here is your guide:
Look at the universe: All planets around their suns, the solar systems in the galaxies the galaxies themselves.

The reason for the continues spin - hold on to your chair strongly . . .
IS THE CAUSE OF GRAVITY. Cause NOT result. Gravity then feeds on itself to keep the spin going . . . It is a process that started with the Big Bang - which was a release of Pure Energy in the form of massive wave - aka aether.

I have been working this past week on exactly trying to explain this phenomena in a way people will understand!

Some pointers for you to ponder: (And I cut the crap - but keep it simplified)
1. Photons is pockets of pure energy rotating. Imagine a similar issue as you have with dwirlwind in air.

2. Combination/merging of some Photons became what we know as electrons. Electrons it then the result of two or more merged photons - but spinning faster and more condense.

3. Electrons binds with more photons - rotating even faster and become more dense. Later I will spend more time to expalin why centrifigal force does come into play. Eventually the electron reaches a saturation point - can not spin faster, can not absorb more energy - we call that Proton.

4. Since more electrons still wants to merge with the Proton, but they can not, they remain in orbit around the proton - and you have the molecule of Hydrogen.

So in retrospect:
The Proton is a very dense pocket of fast rotating Pure Energy.
The Electron is a lower density of Pure energy rotating at slower speed around the proton.
In essence it is just the same thing; like a tornado is just wind, same as all the air around the area that is not a tornado.
Or same as an egg with yellow neuclei and white surrounding - still the same basic thing - protien.

So, IF the proton is only compressed energy rotating very fast,
and the Electron is NOT a particle-wave; but a rotating cloud of concentrated pure energy, and there is resistance from other similar 'galaxies' then the plane on which the atom spins will cause it to be slightly eliptical. We are talking of the well known CENTRIFIGAL force/effect. Here look at the earth for the best example!

MAJOR KEY: The Electron is neither wave, nor particle - not even 'wave-particle or particle-wave". It is a spherical ball of rotating energy.

Well, that is more than enough to ponder now . . . good luck in trying to understand my Crackpod descriptions.

[Agent.A]

@Aromaz

ok, i see you dont get the point. my goal in this thread is simple. RECONSTRUCTION.

taking all the - FACTS - that exist and rebuilding the model to better describe our physical world.
to do that, i follow history and play with the basic building blocks as LEGO and look at their behaviour. what are they doing and how they interact.

the energy question exist much deeper and to understand what it is, we have to understand the upper levels first, its way of being.

you asked what is polarity ( a very good question ) and i wrote back that you more then welcome to share your ideas, thoughts, knowledge ( or lack of it )
or what ever is in your mind as long as the game being played and you talk about - FACTS - and not - IDEAS - like -> Rotating Pure Energy .

[mk1]

Can magnetism , electrostatics and electricity be the same force , seen from a different axe XYZ. It seems to show imbalance of mater .

Why would something spin around something else , are they resonantly paired , or dancing to a bigger band . Keely was he crazy.

Sorry , they let me out

Mark

[pha3z]

@Aromaz

ok, i see you dont get the point. my goal in this thread is simple. RECONSTRUCTION.

taking all the - FACTS - that exist and rebuilding the model to better describe our physical world.
to do that, i follow history and play with the basic building blocks as LEGO and look at their behaviour. what are they doing and how they interact.

the energy question exist much deeper and to understand what it is, we have to understand the upper levels first, its way of being.

I think you've posed a very loaded question here. And a lot of people here have already done some pretty intense study in the field of lesser-known physics and alternative theories. You're going to get responses from people jumping all over the map.

Anyway, on to one of your specific questions:

@Aromaz
lets examine a capacitor, considering that the area of the plates and the distance between them are fixed.
we can charge it to some voltage and then we can charge it some more up to a point of breakdown of the dielectric medium. right ? right.

now, lets add another independant capacitor with the same dimensions but with different dielectric and look at the case were thay both hold the same amount of charge.

What do we see? They have the same voltage.

Maybe this is a newbie comment, but how do you know they hold the same amount of "charge"? How are you measuring that? Certainly we can measure voltage, but in order to have any sense of charge, wouldn't you need to discharge them and take measurements on that? I'm assuming that by charge, you're meaning their stored capacitance.

I will throw my guessed answer at the question best I can though. To understand a common two-plate capacitor properly, we must first understand that any mass (object) has capacitance. A penny is a capacitor. The earth is a giant capacitor. A wire has its own capacitance. Taking that into account, assuming you had a negatively charged penny sitting on a table, the penny can very gradually lose its charge to the surrounding environment. Some people explain this as electrons drifting off the surface of the penny into the air. Look up the famous "electron pump" invention for a concept of how this can work both directions. But personally, I'm not totally convinced that a negative charge of an object is created by a simple gathering of electrons in and on the surface of said object. And that brings me to my first point. Aromaz was getting deep into particle stuff, and you're pretty much going to have to get into particle physics to have real arguments about this stuff. One thing I do know is that there is usually a slow loss of charge in any mass -- this depends on the surrounding medium's resistance to discharging.

[pha3z]

@ Agent A. In my humble opinion, the fact that the thread title includes "EM Theory" is an indicator that you don't realize how much you're chewing on here. EM is waste. Tesla adamently preached that scalar energy and electrostatic fields are where its at. And EM waves can actually be viewed as a sort of by-product transverse component to scalar waves. Instead of assuming you've got magnets to work with, assume you've got charged potentials to work with and build your thoughts and supporting experiments from there. Afterall, lightning is nature's waterwheel of electricity and that has nothing to do with electromagnetism. Its electrostatic motion.