Reconstructing EM & Energy Theory from scratch

[Agent.A]

@sucahyo

what follows is not to dismiss what you said, just to give you some pointers.

Negative vs Positive electricity.

have your ever red about Georg Christoph Lichtenberg and - Lichtenberg Figures - ?



the different behavior of negative and positive electricity was known since 1777, im sorry to burst the bubble, but bedini did not found anything new in this subject.
all he did ( and i have the greatest respect for that ) was to point, again, that science lost the way and forgot some old knowledge.

about one wire electricity, do you understand what is the process that enables this phenomena ?
it is a process after all, a simple mechanical process, not some weird science.
meny people look at this as - WoW - and dont bother to chack the underlying facts and hance we have some spooky esoteric science, wwoooooo.

about Orgone, have you ever build/tested a - Joe Cell - ?


@All

do me ( and yourself ) the most kind favour,
what ever you gona bla bla in this thread, try at the very minimum to add some data about it.
an old or new experiment ( direct or indirect ) , writing of someone in the field with pointers, anything that can support in any way whatever you add.

if you bring up theory this and theory that, please show what the theory is based upon and why do you believe that this theory is more correct then any other.

thank you very much.

[Tehnoman]

[..]
do you have any FACTS, experimental data or anything that supports your writings ? [..]

And do you? Seriously. No offense, simple question.

[..]simple yet strong experiment[..]

Do you have or can you point at one experiment, that can not be described by Maxwell equations. Please, I want one. I want it badly.

Or there is no reason to tho this:

[..] " Reconstructing EM & Energy Theory from scratch " [..]

If there is no experiment, that can not be explained by Maxwell equations, then why bother to build them from scratch?

[..]
im more then willing, in fact, im eager to have some brain storming with folks of the thinking kind. [..]

Yess. I want it also. But, but, but. I have to see a single experiment, that can not be described by Maxwell equations, or else - about what will the talk be? What is that and what is this - these questions are unanswerable in reasonable time and will lead you nowhere. Mark my words. I cold even bet on it.

For me - no pep-talk, just one experiment, please. DATA, to say in your words.

[Agent.A]

well Tehnoman, lets go step by step and see what can be made from the enormous collection of facts and the body of knowledge.

refuting Maxwell equations is a task which might show that im a complete idiot,
so i treat this issue very carefully. you understand i hope.

lets us continue from the last point. the source of the magnetic field.

as Oersted showed, a needle is deflected by passing electric current in a wire and ever since, we learn that current ( charge in motion ) is the cause of magnetism.
is it ?

André-Marie Ampère came up with a little cute equation ( we all know it )



which describes circular patterns of magnetic field around current carrying wire,



looking at this equation and noticing that it show the magnetic field to exist outside the conductor, i asked myself ->
" hay, wait a sec, what about the inside ? what happens for example in a hollow conductor ? "



since the magnetic B-field is circular closed loops, nothing should prevent it from being in the inside too. yes ?
well ... there is no magnetic field inside a hollow conductor ... ... interesing

moving on ( skiping the historical backgound ) and looking at coaxial cable,



there is no magnetic field ... at the outside ( except some leakage ) ... wwoooo ... very intresting

pondering about this and researching further, more experiments comes up front :

in 1876, Henry Augustus Rowland, at Johns Hopkins University, experimented with rotating charged disk



and, in 1881, J. J. Thomson,
attempts to verify the existence of the displacement current by looking for magnetic effects produced by the changing electric field made by a moving charged sphere.

hhmmm,

another quite unknown experiment is the "Roentgen current", some of you may know it, some of you may not.
http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/70/836/809.pdf


well, what do we have here ? is charge in motion the source of the magnetic field ?

[juju]

Lol

@juju

i consider much more then those things that can be measured.
im not closing myself in a box, im open to ideas.

sorry but you are a bit contradictory, first you say that only will accept facts or proof... now you say you are open to ideas and consider much more that what can be measured, and in the next step mistreat someone with open ideas who wanted to share his theory without being based on evidence...

and you dont even answer the question i made... another one, do you allready made experiment with bedini or one wire energy or some energy circuit?

I consider this as facts:

Is that a fact?

here his simplest experiments that can proof that an atom can be at more then one place at the same time, and that the reality behaves in accordance to the observer.

i cannot find the experiment of the 2 shooting electrons in oppose direction, one of them passing a magnet, and both will change in same direction... i will send you soon i find it...

Double slit experiment:

YouTube - The Infamous Double Slit Experiment

YouTube - Double Slit Expr.

[Agent.A]

juju, you really misunderstood me
although i favor facts and/or data, im open to different ideas ( however weird thay may be ) which may lead me to other facts or data.
if the weird stuff does not have anything to support it ( even remotely ), it stays just that, weird stuff, nothing else, just ideas and thoughts in anyones mind.
if you cant understand this very simple logic ( ), well my dear juju, you are in trouble.

if you say that the world is flat and stands on four elephants which stand on a giant turtle,
i might accept that if you give me anything that may show your point, your words only are not enough.

i do NOT dismiss anything unless i really know otherwise and that is a FACT.

whenever someone presents a theory to me, all i ask is very simple question,
what is that theory based upon ?
what data led him/her to these ideas and thoughts ?
what made this person to develop this theory ?
it is that simple.

if you see this as mistreatment, i am very sorry for ya.

as to your question, your first question was

the magnet or copper alone dont have electrons with energy or electric current, but when a magnet pass a coil you have electric current...
from where do you think the energy comes from?

it it is not contained in the mass of neither magnet or copper, whats the source?

the very basic FACT is this -> when a magnet pass a coil you have electric current
stationary magnet over a stationary copper wire does NOT produces electric current.
once one of them starts to move ( it does not matter which one ) you have interaction of fields.
but to move any of them, you have to input some external energy first.
it is the same as with bedini SG circuit, it can stand for gazillion years without doing anything unless you give it the very first push.
energy input by you. external to the circuit.

on the contrary, you can build ( if you have the knowledge and understand ) an Howard Johnson type of magnetic rotating device,
in which the magnetic fields interaction are vibratory by the structural nature of the device,
or a self starting oscillatory circuit.

but, in both cases, and any other of this nature, you input the very first energy in the assembly process of this kind of structure.
such devices do build them selfs in nature.

and your next one

do you allready made experiment with bedini or one wire energy or some energy circuit?

yes, i have. i have experimented with many different technologies and FE devices to have a better understanding of the surrounding universe in which i am a passnger.

[juju]

...

i just made a simple question, where do you think the energy comes from?

i only can read a whole of, ya, joe, gazillion, bull....

what i understand is that you words are a contradiction! and you say im in trouble if i dont understand your contradiction? LOL

your attitude here is like... the ones that agree with you are ok, the other ones.. are freaks and fairy tails or have problem in the brain and can go away...

the thing im shore is that your state of counsciesness is somewere near of tradicional level and do you imagine what will be the result of your rude attitude? or your theory?

soon you will not have anyone to respond to your posts, and you can play alone in your ignorance!

hugs

[Agent.A]

ok my juju, you ask the very source of energy, where it all starts, yes ?
i dont know. this question is way beyond my grasp at the moment.
i understand how energy interacts, how it seem to change, how it moves around, but its very source ? sorry, cant tell ya.
maybe you are more knowledgeable then me and know the answer ? if so, do you have anything to support it ? share with me/us. please.

as to my attitude, hay, that is what you make of it in your mind. in reality, you are wrong, but, its ok.
meny people ware wrong about it, especially those who locked their mind and did not understood what i said.




now, lets stop this flaming stuff, it is beneath us, no ?

[juju]

by reconstructing the scientific model, with known facts (that may not be), you are just constructing the model as it is at this point!

if you want to reconstruct, and not construct it again... you can show us some part of the model that is wrong, and your evidence or experiment that shows that really is wrong!

im not saying that my bla is more important then any other bla but this thread is supposed to be about reconstruction of the scientific model based of known facts
and not on mysticism and/or occult esoteric science.

Agent, you want everybody to answer your questions and play your game.. but you dont answer to some or ignore them as i have seen, and dont play the game with them... just with the ones that are in your line of thinking, but you must aceppt everybody's taughts... you dont have to agree with them.. just acept what they think, if you dont agree, you can say why you do not agree and then we have a constructive way to interact with each other!

so you must captivate others interest, if you want to play a game... and not tell them they have brain problems! because there is nobody completely wrong, or completely right! we are all brothers, all equal, and no one is better that anyone.... all at the same level!

you can start with this one...

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?

now i see you really want to play the game... not a war game.. but a game were everybody wins! and shore everybody wants to play that kind of game!

now you get my point...

how would you explain with facts or proof, something that you cannot see? and maybe is impossible to see because your perception dont alow it!

you have to make a theory!

first of all, i just want to take one more thing clear, because till now i dont get what you really believe... in unlimited source of energy, or limited source energy contained in the mass of the universe? "tell me what you believe, and i will tell you, who you are"

now i have to go... but i will answer your question soon, and i will try to support it!

hugs

ok my juju, you ask the very source of energy, where it all starts, yes ?
i dont know. this question is way beyond my grasp at the moment.
i understand how energy interacts, how it seem to change, how it moves around, but its very source ? sorry, cant tell ya.
maybe you are more knowledgeable then me and know the answer ? if so, do you have anything to support it ? share with me/us. please.

as to my attitude, hay, that is what you make of it in your mind. in reality, you are wrong, but, its ok.
meny people ware wrong about it, especially those who locked their mind and did not understood what i said.




now, lets stop this flaming stuff, it is beneath us, no ?

[Tehnoman]

well Tehnoman, lets go step by step and see what can be made from the enormous collection of facts and the body of knowledge.

refuting Maxwell equations is a task which might show that im a complete idiot,
so i treat this issue very carefully. you understand i hope.
[..]

I understand unwillingness to making one self as an idiot, but yet... In my eyes reconstructing any existing theory is more stupid than experimental search of existing theory flaws.

Seriously, where do you expect to end up? Somewhere other than Maxwell equations? Ok, best result would be original Maxwell equations, which are speculated to include more description than in our day widely used Maxwell-Heviside equations (in vector field notation).

If one can't disprove (for at least specific situation) Maxwell equations, I can not see a reason why to mess with EM theory. Maxwell equations works quite well in most cases (all cases, that I have personally observed and been able to describe mathematically). Why discard them?

By the way - do you know, how Maxwell derived his famous equations? He went your way, united all available information at that time in mathematical description, set of equations. Again, why do you expect to end up somewhere else? (discarding quantum effects, because they are not part of classical EM theory)

[..]
if you want to reconstruct, and not construct it again... you can show us some part of the model that is wrong, and your evidence or experiment that shows that really is wrong!
[..]

Exactly my thoughts. If one can't show that model is wrong, why invent a bicycle again?

Thinking is good, but reality is better.

[Agent.A]

what i expect is very simple.

some building blocks are incorrect and are based upon data that was misinterpreted.

pointing on this and that and saying that it is incorrect and it should be fixed seem to be the most correct course of action,
but, this is wrong, because then the underlying paths that led to this flaw remain and the same will happen again.

showing what was the line of thought and history and fixing the flawed ideas due to the misinterpreted data and their paths is the right action. step by step.
i know this for a fact.
this may seem very ridiculous but i learned that this is the best way and people react to this very good.

in the process, i may really discover that im an idiot ( bla, i really hope im not ) and this gives me a chance to self correct.



reality seems to be better until you hit da wall, then you have to think, again ...

[juju]

ah ah

you guys, by making fun of others you are making fun of yourselfs!

like you sayd.. thats what you make of it in your mind, in reality, you are wrong!

enjoy!

[Agent.A]

now i have to go... but i will answer your question soon, and i will try to support it!

hey, you said you will tell me/us about the source of energy. whats wrong ? lost the answer ?
come on, if you have it, share it, make us all wiser. dont be a miser.

[sucahyo]

@Agent.A, thanks for the pointer. I never know Lichtenberg. It is interesting that people can do that kind of image those days. Where can I find his book?

If people know it since 1777, current atomic model show that science abandon it. I guess you agree no to insist on using current atomic model.


I do not know the process of one wire electricity, maybe it is not COP>1, maybe just simple energy transfer. But I know for certain that even with a diode the neon can still lid and show that there is no dematerializing or anything. The electricity do not need a returning point.

I never build joe cell, I think it is more like tubular orac with wool replaced with live water.

Garry Vassilatos mention Maxwell is wrong because not considering aether as part of the equation. As result any device that can communicate with aether will look impossible in current theory. But Aspden mention that attempt to include aether in Maxwell or other theory has been done.

here his simplest experiments that can proof that an atom can be at more then one place at the same time, and that the reality behaves in accordance to the observer.

Thank you for the video . Very interesting. Remember that I don't trust current atomic model .

as point of interest Harold Aspden, "Letter to the Editor of the IEE journal 'Electronics and Power' published in the April, 1965 issue at p. 137."

here was an experiment involving a falling column of mercury carrying a high current and developing as a result a sinuous motion during its fall. That had to be produced by the self-action of the electrodynamic effects of that current, meaning the whole closed circuit flow of the current. So we can see how the lateral deflection of the column from the vertical arises, there being scope for producing forces on the column acting at right angles to its current, that is in a horizontal direction. What was apparent from the photograph illustrating those sinuosities was not just the increase of that lateral deflection as the mercury was falling but also the fact that at the bottom of its fall when it joined the pool of mercury at its base that column had come back to its central axial position. Now lateral forces alone could not account for that. I have therefore to insist that the evidence points to forces holding the column together and able to pull it back to its central axis at the bottom of its fall.


Nor, indeed, can one just declare that every charge in motion is really part of a closed loop circuit, thanks to displacement currents in the field environment. Think what that means if we consider two electrons travelling along a common line. If each has its own current loop then the current loop of one electron acts on the other electron to apply force to it that can only be at right angles to its motion. There would be no electrodynamic force acting between the two electrons, as I say there is according to the force law of equation (2) above. The idea that gravity can be an electrodynamic interaction force is then washed away and along with it all hope of finding the ultimate Unified Field Theory. Surely common sense says that there must be scope for electrodynamic forces acting on those electrons along the axis of their motion. How else can one expect energy to be fed to and from electrons in their interplay with a magnetic field as part of the process of magnetic induction. Do remember the need to explain how energy goes from a solenoidal into the 'field' and returns to the solenoid as the current is switched off.

Forces asserted by displacement currents are forces exerted by the aether. Yet physicists tell us the aether is a figment of 19th century imagination. Then if, as I have done in my Letter above, I say that two current circuit elements acting on one another develop a force according to equation (2) above, then I am told by Dr. Ware that I am ignoring the effect of displacement currents and these are part of the whole circuit. My concern about the connection with the force of gravity and the electrodynamic forces internal to that mercury column which somehow hold it together yet extend it in length is not heeded.

[juju]

...

why will i troube to answer you, if you dont trouble to answer me? or ignore me?

if i feel to share i will create my own thread! dont need yours!

have fun with your theory of nothing and your doomed thread

hey, you said you will tell me/us about the source of energy. whats wrong ? lost the answer ?
come on, if you have it, share it, make us all wiser. dont be a miser.

[Jbignes5]

The source of Energy.

hey, you said you will tell me/us about the source of energy. whats wrong ? lost the answer ?
come on, if you have it, share it, make us all wiser. dont be a miser.

It is quite simple the source of energy has always been all around us. Why is that so hard to understand. Everyone from Bearden to any other person who has seen this fact has been trying to tell you guys the secret and still you don't understand that simple fact that if the energy was always in the battery or even the wires then it would never work at all.
Energy is just charge in motion with ordered direction. Do you not understand that simple fact? You want to understand what you can not see you must go to what we can see and look for the common thread that binds it all together. Static charges and how they interact with each other should be your ultimate source. Movement causes statics and static can cause movement. Walla the ultimate form of energy. Enclosed statics in this case by a non traditional conductor of statics (Crystals). Even metals are fundamentally based off of crystalline structures. But if you read any other post from me in like the Radiant Energy threads you would have know where I get the Ideas that I have.
I will not double triple and quadruple post this information and you should just be able to read other threads that are akin to radiance energy. You will see my posts.
In fact in the Radiant energy thread I go into a lot of the material that proves we have it wrong.
Oh sorry about not posting back earlier but I had to put my new computer together so it took a day for me to do that.
As for you to be open to new methods I doubt you are if you say that Maxwells theories need tweeking. The Theories presented by maxwell were brought up with the intent to prove that the energy came from devices like a battery. Well to tell you the truth A battery is only a steady static producing device. We made the mistake of thinking that the current came from the battery when if you really understood batteries they are just a static voltage potential providing device that has the ability to energize the wires from the environment and anything in the way with a certain static pressure of voltage. Present too large of a resistance lowers the ability of the battery to produce and maintain that potential. Maxwell assumed that battery was making current but it only attracts it from the surrounding density of charges in the local environment. Energy is everywhere all a battery does is initiate the flow in ther current from the antennas (wires) to enter that system. What we think are fields are actually voids of energy. Also there is no such thing as negative energy. Negative means only a direction in reference to another point.
The example you site as being proof of negative energy is actually a much lower positive energy then the base line. If there was such a thing as negative energy it would bond to the higher positive energy and never come apart, neutralizing the effects.
This energy grows in a steady way much like a baby. The mother connects her own point source to the flesh until it can develop it's own point source charge. And thats how life propagates. The father donates some of his code and the mom the other. Then the cells grow from the moms sharing her point source or life charge until the baby can use that to grow it's own source. This source charge is actually an energy matrix and when it is filtered through the dna code, it grows based on the merging of the donors dna as a guide on how that energy matrix will tend to grow based on a perfect environment.
That leads us to defects or errors in the code. This can come two ways. One is that it is in the code already and the other is environmentally effects on the code as it grows. When growing the barrage of other radiative events can cause errors in the replication of the cells. This is also why we age. As we age the replication process of our cells gets errors in it and creates defects. These defects can be age or even serious defects like cancers. Cancers are the code gone crazy.
Did you know they are now seeing that the brain has neurons that have a pyramidal structure... Hmmm....
It would also explain how dna comes about in the first place. Dna is just a strand of these networks strings enveloped in flesh. The network strings grow in much the same way as a crystal except in a flesh covering. The flesh is attracted to the energy matrix's charge which is a static attraction and builds on the material structure of the lines of force. The charges still flowing from the external to the internal higher source of energy.
Those picture of the lines that form around the wire are a perfect example. Seeing the charges in a static way would follow the conductors of the internal charges provide and flow to the internal. This is evident by just a view of those pictures. Since you should know about flows you know that streams form from brooks and then flow into rivers. If you look closely at corona pictures you can see this in evidence from viewing the corona picture that are actually on this forum.
This one wire display only proves that I am correct. There has to be an in and out. If it came from the hv side it would burn out and not really collect around the one wire.
I trust you haven't studied Tesla's ideas on one wire transmissions. Because if you did you would have made the connections already. You got to remember that there needs to be a cycle of energy this cycle is a flow and Tesla saw this as a fluid flow. Meaning it obeyed the laws of fluid dynamics.

I would say if you are attempting to rebuild the Theories one needs to understand where we went wrong. That was from not paying attention to the invisible and dismissing it as not being important enough to explore. So we only see half of the picture and pay twice to have the power we have now. This is why Tesla said that this AC was most unnatural. This is just simple logic to see that nature doesn't have plugs to plug into the natural energy plug in nature. Well we just never payed attention to those connections. Why because they had what they needed. Greed took over and we have sat here in denial that what those companies were doing was selling the potential only to us and making up a device to charge us for the connection. If energy is all around us that means they are charging us to use that energy from our location. Meaning the environment sucks the energy into our devices and they charge us to do such for lowering their potential on their side. The energy comes from around our devices and they charge us for letting it flow to their potential.
If we finally made this revelation what do you think everyone would do? Sue? I bet the class action suits would be rampant then and they would loose all their power to control that energy. No one would be bound to one spot and we would go where we wanted when we wanted and that's not what they want. They want us to be separated because that keeps us segmented and not unified.