Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Pinwheel]

Ah! Today I learned what quantization is. Lol how frustrating.

[Pinwheel]

@lamare

btw, this conversation is what I think it would be like to have an internet conversation with Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory.

But lines of force are induced right? They're the phenomenon that people are trying to describe with the word Induction. So Faraday, in trying to make sense, was saying that the aether particles link together to form the rays of induction. Not to say that the matter, "(atom, cristal structure of material, etc.)", doesn't perhaps influence how that induction happens - but as far as I can tell, what you are talking about (weather or not the fibrous nature is a legitimate reality due to it's admitted quantum nature) isn't considering at all the reality of induction. That is, that induction exists and this arcane science is trying to describe it. What you are talking about isn't trying to make sense of induction.

Like, if l.o.f. aren't fibrous, because of some aspect of quantum physics (that I am truly weak when it comes to understanding), then what are the implications that you are inferring with respect to induction?

[lamare]

@ lamare

you posted while I was slowly writing my above response. I'm about to go out for a couple of hours and then get back to all this interesting stuff but what I did see in your post was this:



Are you asking if it is has been verified, or weather or not the verification is valid? I do know I've heard somewhere in EPD's material that the fibrous nature of the l.o.f. are legitimate. Can't remember where but I could find it I'm sure.

I'm questioning the validity of the notion that the fields are fundamentally fibrous, because as far as I can tell, any measuring method has a limited resolution because the matter your measuring device consists of is quantized.

However, it is very well possible (or even likely) that the lines of force emanating from materials such as conductors are fibrous in nature. And if that is the case, I would say you would be able to verify the fibrous nature of those lines of force by experimentation.

But if matter is a standing wave phenomenon and the Universe is fractal in nature, then you could have the same kinds of phenomena on much smaller scales, up to the infinitely small, which would be beyond our capabilities to detect experimentally.

In other words: I think the fibrous nature of the lines of force that can be measured is likely related to the scale of the phenomena by which they emanate (atom, cristal structure of material, etc.) and are not a fundamental property of the ether.

Update: OTOH: they may also be a fundamental property of the [forces occuring in] the ether if the Universe is some kind of fractal. If that were true, and I believe that may very well be, then you would have lines of force that are fibrous in nature, so distinct physical entities, but that would go on unto the infinitly small. So, you would never be able to reach a point where you could talk about "the elemental lines of force", just like the search for "the elementary particle" is futile in a fractalic Universe.

This is one of my favorite cymatic images (see http://www.energeticforum.com/147013-post1.html ):

If you look at the left structure, I think this gives you an idea about how the lines of force may be structured around a particle. It seems like the ether somehow is directed/flowing along these lines of force. It also seems that there is a flow of ether going into a "particle" as well as an outgoing flow, and there are also these scattered spheres that are much more sprayed out in the picture.

Now if you look back at the animated pictures, an image appears which suggests that particles have (a number of) vortexes trough/towards the center, which rotate and "suck" up ether along the magnetic lines of force, while it "pushes" the ether out trough the other end of the vortex. And that may very well be such a distinct line of force, which "connects" one particle to the other.

If these lines of force are vortexes, that would mean rotation. And if the magnetic field is related to a rotation in the ether and the electric field is more like a "steady flow", without rotation, one tends to think in the direction that polarization ("plus" and "minus", "positive" and "negative") has to do with rotation, and that longitudinal electric (pressure) waves are rotation-free movements of the ether and therefore have no magnetic component.

And if "mass" or "particle" is intrinsicly coupled to "magnetism", then you cannot have "mass free magnetic energy", only mass-free electric energy, be it longitudinal waves or a steady-state flow of ether, which is very likely what "gravity" is, because it is known from the Bielefeld-Brown effect that the electric field and gravity are related to one another, even though to main stream science this is still a mystery:

Biefield-Brown Anti-Gravity Effect - Unexplained Mysteries Encyclopedia

While researching the effects of X-rays generated from a Coolidge tube, American physicist, T. Townsend Brown found a relationship between gravity and high voltage. Press reports state that a 2 foot diameter disc was made to fly around a central pole when tethered and excited with a potential of 50 KiloVolts.

So, it seems to me that the fibrous nature of the lines of force is very real for magnetic lines of force, but the electric field is likely to be non-fibrous in nature.

But I'm just thinking out loud here, so I may be wrong...

[Pinwheel]

@ lamare

you posted while I was slowly writing my above response. I'm about to go out for a couple of hours and then get back to all this interesting stuff but what I did see in your post was this:

This raises a fundamental question. Can you perform a real-life experiment in order to establish wether or not the lines of force and hence the ether is continuous or fiberous?

Are you asking if it is has been verified, or weather or not the verification is valid? I do know I've heard somewhere in EPD's material that the fibrous nature of the l.o.f. are legitimate. Can't remember where but I could find it I'm sure.

[Pinwheel]

K ... I can handle this. Bear with me.

I'll look at the wiki page and do my best but I hate Wikipedia because everything is so damn complicated in there. For example:

Inductance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Waaayyy over my head^^. That's the type of things I have to look at while trying to learn about induction. So I usually go elsewhere - probably easier to just go with pure Steinmetz lol. I think they do it on purpose so people can't learn anything useful and spend their lives chasing red herrings and misdirection.

But on the surface I get what you are saying. Particles are complex standing waves.

What's confusing me at this point is 2 things - well, 2-ish things.

1) Wave-particle duality I thought was built upon the foundations of Einsteinian physics - the result of experiments with light traveling through slits in a board that give the appearance of being a wave and the appearance of being a particle. For me, I 'm going with "there is no energy in matter" - Nikola Tesla. Right? He was saying that there is no energy in matter except that which comes from the environment.

So then, is this standing wave/particle an independent system? What I mean is where does it get it's energy to undulate (I'm assuming perpetually) in it's standing wave pattern such as it apparently does? If we are to take Tesla at face value then doesn't that mean that even ... IDK, like if we take 1 single atom of iron, my understanding is that the electrons whizz and whirl about the nucleus in a cloud pattern. If all energy comes from the environment and there is no energy in mater then even on the atomic and sub atomic level the energy supplied to electrons so to enable their motion isn't generated from within the atom. It would come from the environment.

So then if Tesla was right but also wave particle duality was right, then what I wonder is where does the energy for the motion in the system of the particle come from? ZPR? Then there would be hysteresis too - which probably accounts for retaining heat and stuff.


2) I don't remember #2 anymore. I think I mixed it in with #1.

My original point is that wave/particle duality is born from a corporate brand of physics and that same brand of physics seems so often to be at complete odds with understanding Tesla (and therefore also EPD).

Perhaps there's an alternative, Tesla-ish, idea that explains the results given in slit experiments?

On the same hand I have't read the wiki page yet and perhaps you are talking about something else altogether.

[lamare]

In defining the hydro-dynamical tubes of force as concrete realities, a distinct phenomenon taking place with the aether, the constitution of the Planck sticks its snout out of the sand. The tubes of force are discrete, fiber-like, quanta as some would say. Experiments by J.J. Tompson indicate this. Lines of force are a quantum phenomenon, distinct concrete entities.

Further, we have the idea of “Planck’s Constant”, any variation in the total density of electric induction Q, in Planck’s, cannot vary continuously but must exhibit its variation in discontinuous, or discrete steps. Hence a distinct quanta Q. We may infer that the union, or CROSS PRODUCT, of a single tube of DIELECTIC induction, with a single tube of MAGNETIC induction, gives birth to a single unit of ELECTRICICATION Q. This idea embodies the concept of the photon, a QUANTUM UNIT of electro-magnetic induction. Also consider the J.J. Tompson concept of the “electron” (his own discovery). Tompson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction. One tube, one electron. So then, how big is a unit Planck, the quantum unit of electric induction, Q?

Eric wrote about this before:
INTRODUCTION TO DIELECTRIC & MAGNETIC DISCHARGES IN ELECTRICAL WINDINGS

FARADAY AND LINES OF FORCE THEORY

Faraday felt strongly that action at a distance is not possible thru empty space, or in other words, "matter cannot act where it is not." He considered space pervaided with lines of force.
Almost everyone is familiar with the patterns formed by iron filings around a magnet. These filings act as numerous tiny compasses and orientate themselves along the lines of force existing around the poles of the magnet. Experiment has indicated that a magnetic field does possess a fiberous construct.
By passing a coil of wire thru a strong magnetic field and listening to the coil output in headphones, the experimenter will notice a scraping noise. J. J. Thompson performed further experiments involving the ionization of gases that indicate the field is not continuous but fiberous (electricity and matter, 1906).

Thomson's book can be downloaded here:
Electricity and matter : Thomson, J. J. (Joseph John), Sir, 1856-1940 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
pdf : http://ia600209.us.archive.org/4/ite...01thomgoog.pdf

This raises a fundamental question. Can you perform a real-life experiment in order to establish wether or not the lines of force and hence the ether is continuous or fiberous?

As I said before, the only means we have to interact with the ether is trough interactions with what we know as matter, which we know is quantized. In other words: no matter what you do, your measuring instrument is quantized. And therefore, I'm afraid you cannot conclude the ether itself is quantized and neither can you conclude the lines of force are quantized.

Right?

Update:

There are also indications that the Universe is a fractal. Nassim Haramein does a very good job explaining this. I posted about that before:

You know, there's an old programmers joke:

In order to understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.

So, the point is: there is no elementary particle. It's a fractal!

And that is mind blowing. Because that means the fractal goes on both ways up to infinity. Up to infinitely big, and down to infinitely small. And *that* is quite something. It means that in theory you can have billions and billions of complete galaxies and everything else you can find out there withing every single piece of matter.

Go look for the lectures by Nassim Haramein ( The Resonance Project ). Very interesting stuff. You are going to love his "string theory".

And finally, that suggests the Universe may be a hologram:
Is Our Universe a Hologram? In 1982 a Litttle Known but Epic Event Occured at the University of Paris (Today's Most Popular)
The Universe as a Hologram

Update: If you read this, you have a second reason why General Relativity should go to the trash can.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light.

The first reason is given by Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill : http://www.etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf - The whole idea of a fixed speed of light basically originates in a mathematical error. Because they got the Maxwell equations wrong, they used some freak coordinate transform known as the Lorentz transform, which can only work if the speed of light is constant. Now, we *know* the speed of light is not constant in the vicinity of matter. So, really, this is a piece of junk. Sorry, Einstein, you were wrong on this one.

And of course, Tesla got it right all along:

PowerPedia:Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity - PESWiki

"... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena."
"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

The Universe as a Hologram

"A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

So, there we got our fractal again.

[Pinwheel]

I wish I was more educated

[lamare]

@lamare

Doesn't EPD suggest that there's a paradigm flaw with measuring space in 3 dimensions? "There's only one dimension of space and that's space - not the corner of a cube." He gives the example of calculating the volume of a cylinder with 2 dimensions, circumference and height.

Yes, he does:

Continuing with the concept of the variation of a quantity (or dimension) with respect to time (another dimension). We may say then we are talking about a RATIO of a physical dimension to a metrical dimension.

[...]

Further, hit your erase button on the gibberish of 1, 2, or 3 dimensional space, there is only ONE DIMENSION OF SPACE – SPACE! Coordinates are NOT dimensions. Example, the volume of a cylinder can be expressed in TWO terms, height and circumference. So where is the third “dimension”, erased?

I'm still reading trough all this and trying to get my head around it, which is pretty challenging, because I need to visualize things in my mind before I can understand them.

But he is right, coordinates are not dimensions. And when you look at how Eric talks about dimensions, as far as I can tell, he basically equals the concept of "quantity" to "dimension", because when you can talk about a ratio between a "physical dimension" and a "metrical dimension", you basically say a dimension is some physical property that can be expressed by a number, a quantity.

However, in my view, this is more a discussion about which terms are used to describe what than about physics. Whenever you go to math and numbers, you describe and quantify some aspect of nature/the universe. What you describe using 3D coordinate systems is a geometric structure in space.

When you express the dimension of space by a single quantity (number), you essentially describe some other aspect of space.

Both are just different perspectives, different glasses, for looking at physical reality. Neither is "right" or "wrong". They're just different points of view and Eric's point of view is extremely useful for engineering electrical systems, because he manages to get rid of a lot of complexity in the dimension of space, while at the same time retaining essential aspects of the fields that describe the physics at a deeper level than what is normally done in electrical engineering.....

Didn't Einsteins theory come from some guy in the 1700's? If that whole conspiracy theory angle is valid, then it isn't Maxwell's right or wrong ... ness that would have anything to do with leading Einstein to come up with a 200 year old theory. Funding. Corporate funding led to Einstein's relativity theory.

I don't know where it came from. I just studied a.o. Thornhill and Meyl and came to the conclusion that there is an error in the Maxwell equations, because Maxwell postulated charge carriers to be causing the fields and then Thornhill ( Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill ) explains exactly how that leads to Einstein's flaw, which has to do with coordinate transformation. What is known as the Lorentz transform demands a fixed speed of light and that is eventually what leads to the notion of curved space, etc.

[lamare]

Well, to be fair, with no context those are just 3 words.

So then, if matter is actually not matter but a wave, what is a particle?

A particle is a wave?



edit: EPD post while writing this response

Yes, that is known as the wave particle duality principle:
Wave–particle duality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, a particle is not a classic "Hertzian" transversal wave, but some kind of standing wave phenomenon in the shape of some kind of vortex or swirl in the ether. I think we all accept the existance of a real fluid/gas like ether, so we only have to look at cymatics, sound waves in water, to get an idea what waves in the ether may look like.

And bear in mind that wave-particle duality does not go both ways. What Im mean with that is that a particle is a wave, but a wave is not necessarily a particle. Far from that: longitudinal waves, the kinds of "classic" waves that can actually flow trough a gas/fluid like medium, are not particles! Particles are a particular kind of localized standing wave, shaped like some kind of vortex or swirl.

These pictures may help to visualize the concept of what a particle probably looks like:

I posted more on this here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...phenomena.html

I also can recommend these video's to anyone, because they give you an idea of the complexity of wave forms. They show what is happening in water, etc., but if there is a real fluid-like ether, these are basically blown-up versions of the very small and therefore offer you a way to visualise what the phenomena at the very small scale look like:

Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 1 of 3) - YouTube
Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 2 of 3) - YouTube
Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 3 of 3) - YouTube

As Eric once said:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_...Brown(OCR).pdf

T: What is the medium for the transmission of energy if wires are
not used?
E: Whatever the general media is around us, call it the ether, or air or you can transmit it through the ground. Basically it just flows.

Tesla was dealing with ether type forces that don't involve material or atomic particles , they involve something a little finer than that.

So: the ether "just flows" and is "a little finer" than "material or atomic particles"...

[Pinwheel]

Well, to be fair, with no context those are just 3 words.

So then, if matter is actually not matter but a wave, what is a particle?

A particle is a wave?



edit: EPD post while writing this response

[t-rex]

Ratios and Products Continued

Ratios and Products Continued

Up to here has been covered the concepts of dimensional relationships known as ratios, dimension "one" per dimension "two." If dimension two is that of time, the ratio becomes a time rate or time derivative, from the Newton - Liebniz concept. This ratio is known as a first order time derivative, or differential equation. The dimension of time is in PER SECOND and this may be called a FREQUENCY v, in NEPER - RADIANS per 
SECOND. But let us not plunge these depths quite yet.

So what about products, the union of dimensional relation "one" by the dimensional relation "two", the product of one and two? Given thus far is the product of the magnetic induction, Phi, and of the dielectric induction, Psi, giving forth the total electric induction, Q. The product of magnetism united with dielectricity gives rise to the total electrification of the aether. Psi times Phi.

But consider the union of the law of magnetic and dielectric induction. Faradays' times Maxwell's. Thus the union, or product, of the electro-motive force, E, in volts with the displacement current, I, in amperes. E times I. Here specifically is the product of the dimensional relation WEBERS per SECOND, and the dimensional relation COULOMB per SECOND. The resultant relationship is hereby

WEBER - COULOMB
per
SECOND SQUARED

But it has been given that

WEBER - COULOMB
equal
PLANCK

Thus the dimensional resultant of the union of the pair of dimensional laws is PLANCKS per SECOND SQUARED. We will call this the electrical ACTIVITY, also known as the electrical power, P. Hence the dimensional relation

PLANCKS PER SECOND SQUARED
equal
WATTS

E times I equals P, Volts times amperes equals watts. However it has been given that the energy, W, in Joules is dimensionally the time rate of the total electric induction, Q in Plancks, that is,

JOULES PER SECOND
equal
WATTS

That is, the electrical activity in Watts represents the variation of the total energy of the electric field, this energy itself resulting from the variation of the total electric field of induction. This is not unlike the situation in the automobile. No forces appear with the first order time derivitive of miles per hour, but manifest in direct proportion to the second order time derivitive of,

MILES per HOUR
per SECOND

or

MILES per HOUR - SECOND

Hence, there is a distinct similarity between the dimensional relation for mechanical reactive force and the dimensional relation for electric activity

PLANCK per SECOND - SECOND

The Watt of electrical power, P.

73 DE N6KPH

[MonsieurM]

What level of thinking am I missing so as to understand your idea that matter is a wave?

Vibration
Polarity
Rhythm

[Pinwheel]

@lamare

Doesn't EPD suggest that there's a paradigm flaw with measuring space in 3 dimensions? "There's only one dimension of space and that's space - not the corner of a cube." He gives the example of calculating the volume of a cylinder with 2 dimensions, circumference and height.

I'm afraid you're stepping in the same trap as Maxwell has done and which led to Einstein's relativity theory.

Didn't Einsteins theory come from some guy in the 1700's? If that whole conspiracy theory angle is valid, then it isn't Maxwell's right or wrong ... ness that would have anything to do with leading Einstein to come up with a 200 year old theory. Funding. Corporate funding led to Einstein's relativity theory.

And since we know all matter is some kind of wave propagating trough the ether(...)

Why is this? I thought matter was just matter? Doesn't "all energy come from the environment" (if we're to believe Tesla)? A wave is just a mathematical representation of the propagation of energy right? Like, you couldn't catch a wave in a net, or a jar - they're not actually physical? You could catch the substances that are carried by waves - or perhaps substances that arrange themselves so that they're propagation is best achieved in a wave form (aether?). But you could never catch a wave - they aren't physical things, with a mass or an atomic lattice structure.

What level of thinking am I missing so as to understand your idea that matter is a wave?

[lamare]

The Maxwell-Tompson concept of electric induction, and the of the aether which engenders this induction, considers the dielectric lines of force, and the magnetic lines of force, as CONCREATE PHYSICAL REALITIES. (Read electricity and matter by J.J. Tompson, and also read Theory of Light and color by Babbit, the Un-sterilized version).

These lines can be considered “tubes of force” a hydro-dynamical vortex tube of sorts. Here we find the “hydro-dynamical model of the aether” as given by James Clerk Maxwell. Understanding of this sort has been buried by the relativists and quantum car mechanics. From the initial concept of Faraday, thru the theoretical reasoning of Maxwell, into the experimentalist like Crookes and J.J. Thompson, it gave an ENGINEERABLE CONCEPT of the primordial aether. Finally Nikola Tesla, Oliver Heaviside, and Carl Steinmetz turned this into today’s electrical technology. The roots of Edison sprang to life.

So what may aether be? Consider what are called the “states of matter”.

1. SOLID
2. LIQUID
3. GAS
4. PLASMA
5. AETHER

Hence, the five distinct states of matter.

Electricity is embodied in the aetheric state of matter, or “proto-matter”. Electricity is aether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is aether in motion, dielectricity is aether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the aether give rise to electrification. Phi times Psi gives Q.

Hi Eric,

I'm afraid you're stepping in the same trap as Maxwell has done and which led to Einstein's relativity theory.

You see, we have wave-particle duality as a fundamental concept of nature. If you take that to the extreme, every interaction we can have with the ether goes trough "particles", even when detecting longitudinal dielectric waves. So, it seems like whatever the medium or ether is made of, you can't detect it's nature because of the limits of the interactions you can have with it. In other words: the ether itself is outside of what we can perceive of physical reality!

And since we know all matter is some kind of wave propagating trough the ether, I don't see how the ether could possibly be a state of matter. Seeing matter as a state of ether could perhaps be possible, but I really have a hard time seeing ether as a state of matter. All we can know about the ether is that it is a medium with fluid-like properties trough which waves of electric and electro-magnetic nature can flow. So, I'm afraid all we can really say about it, are it's wave propagation properties.

Paul Stowe appears to have developed an interesting ether model:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...%20Archive.pdf

Now the actual model is the ultimate in simplicity. It assumes that there are individual entities that have a distinct amount (Quantum) of linear momentum, that they occupy a non-zero volume, and cannot occupy the same s pace at the same time. The actual volume (size) and momentum (and equivalent mass) of same is not discernable based on matter interactions. This is because this "field" of particles (covered by simply kinetic theory) approximates an ideal "fluid" or superfluid, and constitutes the foundation of Maxwell's atomic vortices & vortex sponge state.
Each of these vortices has a permanent existence in an ideal perfect medium, and cannot be destroyed. They therefore can be considered individual entities, which will in turn interact with each other in complex but predictable fashions. Thus the vortices can be considered quasi-particles but have the added complexity of circulation interactions (action at a distance forces) and string like vibrational modes which radiates waves and permits transmission of same. It is at this level, and NOT the basic particle level mentioned in the previous paragraph, that EM & QM occurs.
Gravity on the other hand is seen in this model as the transfer of basic field energy from the "random walk" kinetic field into the vibration/circulation energy within the vortices. That is to say, the underlying field constantly feeds energy into the vortices, which converts to vibrations and ring circulation. Now it is quite clear that if this were a "one way" affair, the entire system energy would soon all be tied up in this form. However, entropy is never zero, and thus there is constant "dissipation" back into the randomized state. Thus we have what I've come to call the fundamental feedback triad.

Also see:http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post117414

P.s. Watched this video by Nassim Haramein today: Nassim Haramein - Sacred Geometry & Unified Fields - YouTube
I can recommend this to everyone, because he offers a completely different perspective on physics, which has quite a few connections to what we are discussing, even though he sees gravity as a distinctly difference force from the electro-magnetic forces, while TT-Brown experiments clearly show a connection between gravity and electro-magnetic forces. According to Stowe, gravity is the gradient of the electric field and I believe that is correct. And someone also has to explain to Nassim that Einstein is not the way to go, but besides that it is a very interesting watch that broadens your perspective.

[madhatter]

Hi Eric,

I have just been reading in your symbolic representation of alternating waves ( http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_...%20Dollard.pdf ). I read your statement above before and I wondered what you meant by that. As you can read in one of my posts just above, I do believe in conservation of energy. So, your statement of producing energy out of the square root of minus one did raise my eyebrows so to speak.

Now that I am reading your paper I see what you mean. However, IMHO you have to keep in mind what you are describing with your equations. As far as I understand now, you essentially describe propagating waves in two dimensions. When you go to a transmission line kind of model, one of them is the length of your transmission line, which is also the propagation direction of your wave(s). The other one is your complex wave model, which only describes part of reality, cause physical reality is in 3D, of course. So, what your model describes is a complex 2D surface projection of phenomena that actually occur in 3D space.

And therefore, what you call "reactive energy" which is "imaginary" and therefore "not real" is very real in 3D reality. It is not imaginary at all, it literally flows in dimensions that are not part of your 2D complex model. It flows in the 3D reality of which your model only describes a 2D projection!

Let's illustrate this with an example. When you throw a rock in a pond, you get 2D transverse waves on the surface of the pond. However, in 3D reality these are longitudinal waves underneath the surface as well as in the air above the surface. There are no transversal waves inside 3D reality fluid/gas media. These are illusions created at the boundary of two adjacent media. So, when you only describe the transverse wave you totally ignore the energy contained in the longitudinal waves that are hidden under the surface (literally in this example), unless you include a "projection" of that 3D phenomenon in your 2D model using an "imaginary" component in your wave model.

And that is essentially what you do with complex math. It's in essence a trick to take two (mathematical) dimensions together into one equation.

So, it may seem that you can produce energy out of a non-existing imaginary energy field, that is just an illusion which is the result of the limitations of your 2D model. The energy you can "produce" that way does not come out of the square root of one. It comes out of the real 3D energy floating around in space, of which your model literally only scraps the surface.

Now please don't take this wrong, your model and work is really awesome and goes far beyond anything you can find in the University textbooks these days.


I just can't live with the idea of "producing" energy out of a non-existing "imaginary" component. I mean, just look at how Einsteinians managed to screw up with "virtual particles", "dark matter" and God knows what.

Really, you don't want to go there!!

I'll agree with that as well, I think the difficulty for many is not being able to see the dimensional component properly. Steinmetz has some very simple and to me at least. models that try and convey the true dimensional nature. for the most part the current use of electro-magnetic inductance will lend itself to a 2D descriptive, and then the other plane is ignored or reduced to the transient 'effect'.

I want to play with quaternions to see if it helps any, although it really isn't necessary once you understand the nature of the fields. The trick is generating that field without vaporizing the medium. Steinmetz explanation of capacitance and it's relation to the magnetic field is I think key to understanding what is truly occurring in a circuit.

I wouldn't say that it comes from nothing but that it arises from 'nothing' per the current accepted theory of electricity since it has reduced that plane down to zero. I think Eric and I could be wrong, used that explanation to try and draw a comparative between the two as the traditional education would have one think it was coming from nothing or a zero field.

I hope I haven't muddied the waters further. Any one who's interested in what Eric is talking about really should study at the least Steinmetz books as he does make it easy to grasp by showing the math and relationships of the fields. from there Eric's writings are easier to grasp as well and you can see the progression.

I'm curious as to if any work as been done with 'insulation' materials, similar to the Felici HV generators, seems like a few changes to how it's 'wired' would give rise to some interesting fields.