Reconstructing EM & Energy Theory from scratch

[Aromaz]

@Agent.A;
my apologies for seem to offend your purpose.

I just thought it would be better to start at the point of origin when you
want to 'reconstruct' else your reconstruction might end with the same
flaws as the item you wish to reconstruct.

How can one consider to re-define ElectroMagnetism and Energy if one
did not reached a different definition of either?

What are the basic building blocks you are playing with? At least then you
might give us the toys you want to play with before we start.

Are you talking of Electron, Proton, Positron, Eons, Neutrons . . .

Or are you talking of Positive, Negative, Neutral, Gravitational pull and
electrostatic waves?

Maybe then we should go back to your posting #1 ans start of by defining
what you mean by saying:

"EM & Energy Theories are flawed. i mean really, very flawed."

On your posting #9 (?) you wrote:

"1st, objects with the same electrical polarity do not like each other and therefor repel,
and objects with opposite electrical polarity like very much each other and therefor attract.
both polarities attract objects with no polarity, ie, natural or in balanced state."

So my question then is: Define Polarity? What causes polarity?
AND howcome this change of understanding might lean to change
ElectroMagnetism. RECONSTRUCTION

The defendant rest his case.

[Aromaz]

Happy to see I am not the only crackpot around! The why I will soon
explain in a new presentation - and that is surprisingly very simple.

@mk1: Wrong thread to ask this question, but I will answer you:

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

Electrostatics and Electricity is fundamentally the same force.
Magnetism on the other hand is a product/result of Atomic Electrostatic Alignment.
Sorry – my crackpot definition! Yet; Ed Leedskalnin had similar ideas?
Oh well, he was also accused of Pseudo Science and crazy.

"Why would something spin around something else , are they resonantly paired , or dancing to a bigger band. "
The same as a whirlwind or tornado spin around - nothing. In fact this will result in long explanation about my theory
of the Atom. Keep your eye on Energetic forum front page; I will post notice there when I published the extract.
Your question asked here and still in your mind - are all answered there.

"Keely was he crazy."
Yes he certainly was; so was Dr. Nikola Tesla and many others - they dared to THINK.

I was litterally happy and when I was accused of being a crazy
crackpot practisioner of Pseudo Science in a related Nuclear forum; yet
there was an eery silence when my experiment prooved that I could do
what those intelligent graduates was trying to do; and failed for some time.

[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.

In a previous tread: “Imhothep” (I think) we did examine this issue of capacitors intensively and with
Experimental participants all over the world.

In short:
No, they will not hold the same charge or the same amount of any energy - simply because
the energy is not 'stored' in the plates but in the di-electric.
More interesting we found the distance between the conductors is a
critical important variable.

However, with new understanding I can say that even that was not the correct interpretation
of those experiments. The experiments and results remain valid, but the
WHY has changed in my opinion.

[Agent.A]

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.

well, thats simple, i wrote that thay hold the same amount of charge. thats my starting point.

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.

magnifico

tell me, as far as you know, two objects with the exact same dimensions but made out of different material, have the same capacitance ?

@ 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. ....

i realize, i really really do.

I just thought it would be better to start at the point of origin when you
want to 'reconstruct' else your reconstruction might end with the same
flaws as the item you wish to reconstruct.

How can one consider to re-define ElectroMagnetism and Energy if one
did not reached a different definition of either?

point of origin ? wow, thats far, really really far. if you know the point of origin, then you are one hack of brainer.
as for me, i dont know ( my ideas and theories put aside ).

i dont play with definitions, again, i work with facts thet were discoverd and nothing more.
definitions are a matter of language and people. thay both change. facts do not. ( ye, i know, debatable )

What are the basic building blocks you are playing with? At least then you
might give us the toys you want to play with before we start.

Are you talking of Electron, Proton, Positron, Eons, Neutrons . . .

Or are you talking of Positive, Negative, Neutral, Gravitational pull and
electrostatic waves?

oh boy,
you go way too deep then is needed. the building blocks are the facts that were discoverd in the 400 year period until modern time, step by step,
from the very first to the very latest. nothing more.

So my question then is: Define Polarity? What causes polarity?
AND howcome this change of understanding might lean to change
ElectroMagnetism. RECONSTRUCTION

i try to avoid definitions and wordings as much as possible and stay simple. the KISS approch.
as to your question of - WHAT - well, i'll leave that to you since you seem to already know the answer and going to publish it very soon.
i have my ideas about it but they are not facts and as such they may be wrong.

to be continued ? i look forward to you presentation.

[sebosfato]

I'm a bit drunk right now but I got the impression that after all this bla bla bla I didn't got any, and I mean any valuable answer to my clear and objective question witch i myself don't know the answer either.

I'm not physicist yet, and you lead me to believe that none of you either.
Don't get me wrong...

[Agent.A]

you are correct, i dont know about the other folks here, but i mayself am not an educated physics master ( not by the standard definition ). sorry.
is that the reason im babbling all this bla bla bla ?



sebosfato, what do you know about the atomic and/or molecular model, about its structure ? its mechanical behaviour ?

[Aromaz]

. . . Why electrons that orbits in elliptical configuration don't lose energy.
And,
Where the energy to keep them spinning come from.

Let me try again:
The electrons are not particles; they are a pocket of energy; read 'cloud'
or wind. Being energy itself the 'electron' can not loose itself - but it can
change.

The spin comes from constant crash/contact with other pockets of energy
like 'electrons' and photons - which by the way is the cause of gravity. Iin
the same it is the method by which the whole universe and all within orbits.
Example: Hit a ball slight off center with stick i.e. baseball or cricket.

That the electron does not loose energy is not true; in fact the electron can both gain and loose energy;

sorry - I am in contradiction to normal science; so do not accept the theories of this crackpot - yet.

In as far as Alternative energy (What all this forum is about) the normal
science has failed. Therefore read my slogan below here: We need to seek the NEW

[sebosfato]

Hi agent
This is the kind of stuff I'm studying in the university, Atomic and molecular physics...
http://media.wiley.com/product_data/...0471680281.pdf

I know that big atoms suffer from relativistic effects and because of this to calculate a model for this kind of atoms with precision relativistic influence must be included in the calculation.

I learned that we never know where the electron really is but only that there is a probability that it will be in a certain position.

I think that free energy can come from the manipulation of the energy witch keep everything in this world alive. The energy witch keep the electrons in the atoms spinning.

Heat is = to the rate of vibration of the atoms.

We don't have 30° Celsius of heat in a hot day but we actually have 303° kelvin of vibration... This is a lot of heat energy.

If you think well if we didn't had the sun keeping everything hot, there would be energy? Or life?

We already have a fusion plant working 24 h a day since millions of years we just need to use this energy with intelligence.

sorry to mass around with free energy discussion here but i believe is related with what we are talking about.
Atomic orbital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Best Regards

[Agent.A]

sebosfato, which image describes best the atomic model,


this ?





or this ?

[boguslaw]

I've thought about electricity and find that we are investigating the wrong side of phenomena. The correct way is to ask simple questions and prepare simple proof experiments (yet those require sophisticated measuring tools unfortunately)

The first question should be : where is electrical energy ? The answer is : it is flowing in space around conductor . Why is that ?
Answer : maybe because such conductor is like a waveguide or water pipe ?
Then we must ask what is the source of electrical energy and if there is no conductor connected to power source where does that energy go ?
Can we measure something around a battery placed in pure vacuum ? Or a generator ? We expect that a battery even in vacuum would slowly deplete itself due to chemical changing, but it should be proved and explained where is the electrical energy gone . I expect that it will be radiate away as a heat wave.We should test is that radiation is equal all around the source in all directions.
So we have a few important experiments which should be easily done in a good lab. Let's assume that any electric power source in pure vacuum would radiate it's energy away in kind of heat, RF, sound,light whatever.Well, we will know that somehow a conductor and especially a conductor in closed loop circuit is guiding that energy .
Next we should look around conductor to understand why and how it happens.Well we find magnetic field circles around it - is that a possible energy transfer ?
We should back to waveguide or water pipe analogy and understand how it is working.I suspect it works because there is a difference of speed outside of pipe and inside or in case of waveguide the surface of it makes such difference - the speed of wave is faster on that surface then in envinronment around or there is a barrier between two areas (outside and inside).Here is when I must learn more before going further.
End of clear ideas...

All in all the overall portrait is quite clear : electrical power source generate kind of energy waves which are then directed or guided by a conductors.
My idea is that those are the same waves which constitutes magnetic field and all our electric circuits are permanent magnets plus some odd interference (electrons).All we have to learn is how to sustain original dipole generating energy.Oops , I'm going to bla bla bla bla

[boguslaw]

If conductor is a waveguide then two conductors are like two mirrors and dielectric is a place where stationary wave can occur. Ping-pong.
But once again we should not guess - there is simple way to understand it if someone has a dissectible capacitors. Experiment:
1. Get two identical Leyden jars and I said identical in size and electric parameters.Both should be easily disassembled.
2.Charge one from static source.Discharge.
3.Charge gain and this time disassemble.
4.Change both metalic terminals to those from not charged Leyder jar.
5.Discharge ?

We will learn where is electrical energy.

[Agent.A]

let me correct you a little bit about the questions one must ask to ( and use his mind ) to get some answers.

one shout not ask -> what is this and what is that and where it all comes from and it is going ?
these questions are the wrong place to start in.

one should ask -> what is the behaviour of the things that im researching ?
why are those things behave as thay do ?
what effects or controls this behaviour ?
how this behaviour effects other things ?

one collect FACTS and builds the image of the physcical world with those FACTS, not by IDEAS and THEORIES.

the question of " what is fire " can not be answered before there is an understanding of fire behaviour in different situations.
the same is true for ENERGY, ELECTRICITY, MAGNETISM or anything else.

one must know and understand the real physical model before he can continue asking bigger questions.

[Tehnoman]

@ 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.
[..]
Its electrostatic motion.

About chewing large food. Actually, it just might be wrong.

In modern science classical EM theory consists only of four equations, four Maxwell-Heviside equations written in vector field notation. Fix these and basically you have fixed all EM theory.

Wikipedia

I have read many information about important physical phenomenon that has been discarded from original Maxwell equations (in quaternion form), but that is not the story.

For some time I have searched for simple yet strong experiment, that would show some deviations from these. Closest that I have come so far is Meyl theories and experiment idea.

Other discussion

Yet after some time working on them and trying to reproduce theory, so many problems came out, that I could not even imagine. The work in this aspect is postponed due to fact that I have to defend my bachelor degree in physics after one and a half of week.

So, I would say, that rebuilding theory is not the best direction of action. In my opinion best place to start is experiment. If we want to observe a new global effect, we can discard quantum physics for now.

I am still searching for experiment that can not be described with Maxwell-Heviside equations.

[Aromaz]

The first question should be : where is electrical energy ? The answer is : it is flowing in space around conductor . Why is that ?

Happy to see you joined the exclusive crackpot club sometime since we worked on this issue long ago!

@Agent.A - neither of your two presentations of the atom is correct;
but then all three are just theories - unless you can go back to origins.

By understanding bahaviour you will have only the known results to work with. Your mission has gone MBA.

Over-and-Out.

[sucahyo]

sebosfato, which image describes best the atomic model,


this ?





or this ?

Personally I believe atomic model very different from both, from "occult chemistry":



It explain the relation between aether and electron, although unfortunately only the conversion process and not the cause (so we can use it).

I don't think this atomic model is what Aromaz refer as the third one. Lets call this fourth.