Discussion of the ether theory of yesteryear

[Anonymous No.9757409]

I believe trying to convince anyone of anything is a simple repetition of information and in time the persons own ability to either justify or detest all information put in front of them. I don't believe I know 'truth', only what I experimentally have found, and what I hope to experimentally explore. Math being the logical proving grounds to ceoncepts , experiments are the physical reality that math aught to be used to describe. As such I feel it relevant and desirable to post on /sci/ to engage in what will likely be a heated response based on my current ideas due to their opposition to most things past 1920. Arguably the trouble started with the photoelectric effect idea, to quote Steinmetz, "Unfortunately, to a large extent in dealing with dieletric fields the prehistoric conception of the eletrostatic charge (eletron) on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the eletric field, the magnetic and the dieletric, and makes the consideration of the dieletric fields unnecessarily complicated."

To me, when such a theory as this exists and has a substantial amount of math and experemental evidence to me the concept of action at a distance is possibly one of the most confusing concepts possible. I find the biggest difference fundimentally between concepts is that the speed of light is a simple constant, not a binding limit.

If possible there be any Eletrical Engineers here I would love to hear what your idea of 'ground' is, and if ever you have had phenomena witnessed by you that contridicts what you were taught.

I also welcome the shit posters, but not the 'free energy' posters. They may rot in hell for the most foolish endevour.

[Anonymous No.9757453]

To provide the only experiment that I have run to date I set up a very rough version of the attached image. This was well before much of my reading into the OP image was conducted, and I had attended school for electrical engineering. I bought 4 sizes of nipple metal rings from lowes, to which I submerged them in water then took cables from ethernet cable to attach a 9 volt battery with the negative terminal to the center ring, and the positive to the outer ring. With my knowledge set, what happened was rather confusing as I began to see bubbles form in the interior of the rings but not inside the centermost, nor outside the outermost. The water was not hot, everything was safe to touch, yet the reaction reached a plateau eventually where I could discern two different bubble types, one large and one small. I would guess that is bubbles of H2, and O2.

The idea of capacitance is rather misunderstood and during the tests I too was confused. Hence afterword though I do feel I was separating water, and the issue with that is an oscillation occurred with the spaces in between the rings such that water becomes overly agitated to the point of separation. While water has a very unique effect on frequency, I do think that it was what initially lead me to trying to find a new understanding of what was occurring in front of me.

A large point of interest in the research was the Michelson–Morley experiment, and it's journey through the academic society with always the claims of having insufficient control over conditions. I found that to be most disheartening as they were some of the last (published) researchers trying to progress the ether theory. A relevant red flag about the corruption of the situation was that Einstein then proceeded to back up claims via the "failure" of the Michelson–Morley experiments.

The hard part about the academic discussion of this today is the blurring of the lines between repeatable, sensibly coordinated experimentation.

[Anonymous No.9757595]

>>9757409
What's confusing?
Michelson-Morley and
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment
have been confirmed repeatedly and to much higher accuracy that the original experiments.

Michelson believed he'd "failed" and wasted the rest of his life in futile attempts to detect the aether wind. He never accepted Relativity.
But he didn't fail. There is no aether and no aether wind and experiment was brilliantly designed. His only "failure" was of imagination, refusing to accept his results because they didn't match his preconceptions.


>9757453
>https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=joe%20cell

[Anonymous No.9757603]

>>9757409 (OP)
What's confusing?
Michelson-Morley and
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment
have been confirmed repeatedly and to much higher accuracy that the original experiments.

Michelson believed he'd "failed" and wasted the rest of his life in futile attempts to detect the aether wind. He never accepted Relativity.
But he didn't fail. There is no aether and no aether wind and his experiment was brilliantly designed. His only "failure" was of imagination, refusing to accept his results because they didn't match his preconceptions.


>>9757453
>https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=joe%20cell

[Anonymous No.9757666]

>>9757603
Oh look a shill posted twice.

[Anonymous No.9757674]

>>9757409
QFT shows pretty clearly that there's no "true" action at a distance, there are only energy/momentum carrier particles being emitted and absorbed.

[Anonymous No.9757734]

>>9757603
I feel that the failure you claimed him of is your own. I can understand being involved in the field and not wanting to see how things could be due to that invalidating something you've spent so much time with. I do appreciate your linking of urbandictionary to me as it certainly sets the tone of yours about potential. In a less joking manner perhaps what do you think was what I was witnessing? I have no claims to share their ideology of it's operation. As I tried to state in the first post there is no free energy.

>>9757666
Checked. And do you think he is a shill true in nature to only refute ideas, or do you think that the potential of theories listed in the books makes his information look less 'right'?

>>9757674
I do believe the quote I opened with applies to the QFT, where consideration of the dielectric field be needless due to 'quantum mechanics explaining things instead.' Thank you however, as I appreciate responses.

[Anonymous No.9757766]

>>9757409
> the 'free energy' posters. They may rot in hell for the most foolish endevour.

The energy contained in a single atom originates from the aether. It is an open and highly kinetic system. Enjoy your black holes, time travel and multi-universes which can never be proven except with mathematical models.

[Anonymous No.9757770]

>>9757603
The aether and electron charge share a very close relationship. Atomic clock experiments prove the existence of aether drag all along and not "spacetime".

[Anonymous No.9757812]

>>9757734
The ONLY test of whether a theory is correct is whether is matches experimental results.
I don't care how beautiful your logic or mathematics are -- experiment is the final arbiter.
More than a century of experimentation has shown Relativity works.
Aether doesn't. Michelson wasn't the only hold-out. A lot of high-powered thinking went into trying to salvage "aether". Every single attempt failed. M-M and the other two experiments I cited put the nails in the coffin.
If you choose not to believe... well, you can bring a horse to water, but...

The only way you or anybody else is going to overthrow relativity (which COULD happen. Newton seemed invincible for centuries. And we know Relativity isn't the Final Theory) is to come up with a theory which;
A) matches all previous experiments at least as well as Relativity does, and
B) predicts a different outcome in some experiment we haven't tried yet.

Until you fulfill BOTH conditions, you're just bloviating. "I predict that on June 24 at noon Greenwich, Earth will intersect a Psycho-Orgone field and things will fall upwards for a period of 6 minutes. Before and after those minutes, Newton and Einstein apply." This meets condition A) and makes a definite prediction B). We just have to wait a few weeks to see it my theory is correct.
That's fair, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.9757813]

>>9757766
Also checked, thank you. Originates in what way do you think? As if it were an ultra-verified gas particle traveling at 50 times the speed of light roughly, where it's voltage is extreme but it's current is low? That's my idea on the matter. I am not sure yet about black holes, or shipping universal possibility. Even if time may share some transient information with field mechanics I do not think that the human body alone was designed to withstand it without adequate PPE. I am flattered that you believe my home kitchen laboratory can manifest such impressive field manipulation.

>>9757770
Agreed, to a degree. I believe the conception of the electron to be the crest of an energy storage exchange between the dielectric and magnetic fields.

Also a good time to talk about fields in terms of Space, and Time. I believe that those are the two dimensions we typically deal with, and is not in fact three. You have time as a variable with a verser of + or - 1. Space you have as a variable with a verser of + or - K as an exponential relation. Which is as if to say that There is an outward, positively increasing space, and the inverse, or decreasing space as a negative exponent would denote. One measured in CM, the other in PER CM.
I would consider the dimensions to be the electric field represented in two parts, that of the magnetic and the dielectric field. The magnetic being the spacial, and the dielectric being the counter spacial.

[Anonymous No.9757824]

>>9757766
>>9757770
Is this going to lead to the SAFIRE project and Electric Universe or are you shilling some other fantasy?
Just curious.

[Anonymous No.9757911]

>>9757812
I always enjoy conceptually every person being able to do the same thing as everyone else, but that as a basis of verification that something is true seems a bit far sighted to me. While of course the rule set for relativity is air tight due to how it can explain the phenomena we witness to a degree of accuracy that is sufficient as it has been verified so much. The situation here is that I am interested in electrical transients, which is a subject that in the ether theory offers a very detailed and in depth explanation to imo. I should like to know, what do you classify Tesla's work as then? Agreed that a large majority of his results have yet to be reproduced publicly but does that inherently make them false? Corruption within the field of science seems extremely likely to me, which colors me jaded towards a widespread approach to "what one must be able to verifiy, we must all be able to verify." Conceptually it is nice to believe we all have the same potential to manifest phenomena of all kind but surely this is not the case. Ideally the instructions should yield every human to the same result via assigned laws of nature yet. User error continues to be the most grand action amidst technological growth personally. So I find it unfitting to claim everyone may do as tesla did without the same setting he had thus the ether a myth.

On the flip side, I agree that in time we will find ways for it to be so reproducible and understood however that time is not now. I believe there will consecutive sensible results paired with a refined method of creating said results.

There are some findable results painting a very different understanding of things, but I do feel personal experimentation is of the utmost importance.

Image to show that the concepts and theory start on a somewhat literal and similar page, but the take on it is different slightly.

[Anonymous No.9757991]

Weber worked out a theory of electrodynamics that explicitly obeyed Galilean relativity by adding a velocity- and an acceleration-dependent term to Coulomb's law. Experiments have shown that these terms are basically zero, and that Lorentz invariance is the true type of relativity in our universe.

This has been checked and doublechecked for over a century. Anyone who still denies special relativity, general relativity or quantum mechanics is either willfully ignorant or downright delusional.

[Anonymous No.9758163]

>>9757991
I am not denying those [sets of laws], rather instead I am favoring these. Truly I could do no damage to the theories that have been hardened up for century with out sufficient time spent crawling up those theories. I hope to do no thing like that actually as all I wish to do is explore the older set of theories up to a certain point.

The reasoning on the latter of your post where you boast that anyone who does not believe this must be delusional is not a good look anon. Siding with a majority no matter how large for simple sake of it's size is categorically unattractive. I would have much rather heard some personal retelling of how you cam to know and experience these laws by your own hand. The situation about that is you could tell of those things, but instead may lay claim to another's understanding that you have understood. I find irony in this concept as no man knows truth from outside the self. You, and you alone are the arbiter of what is true; which is not to say you may assign fantasy to reality and call it that but rather your understanding of the reality before you is personally verified. When someone claims 2+2=5, clearly you would want them to demonstrate how this could be as you know 2+2=4, easily using your hands in front of you demonstrating that. But what if what I was adding was not their amounts, but rather the space between. Holding your four fingers in front of you there are three spaces between, and one on either side, thus five. Context is obviously relevant, and I fear we have lost the idea of creating your own context rather than being taught "what must be the case" as time goes on that information is bound to change thus i would rather seek information my self to establish with experience and reasoning what may be true. Even still I rather not dirty my hands with the word truth as it's a silly concept, just as that of facts.

I should expect to be lit on fire for such language.

[Anonymous No.9758174]

OP is either on serious drugs, baiting, or an unironic postmodernist, what with the outright denial of objective truth somewhere in this word salad >>9758163

[Anonymous No.9758192]

>>9758174
I do like salads, thank you.

You would default me as crazy no matter what I chose to believe as long as it is not what you believe. I do not understand this reasoning. You have bold claims to objective truth's existence and yet you live a completely personalized experience! How dare you claim that is happening out side yourself when you can not even truly know it's anything beyond perception. Shared phenomena in the form of perceiving a confirmed experiment to confirm remade results sounds like the most boring experience possible.

I am posting all of this unironically as it is what I verified. I believe it obvious for there to be many discrepancies in between you and I.

[Anonymous No.9758227]

>>9758192
>You would default me as crazy no matter what I chose to believe as long as it is not what you believe

That's where you're wrong, kiddo. Throughout my life I've believed a whole bunch of things that later turned out to not stand up to evidence, so I discarded them in favor of the new theory.

Issue is all you're doing is claiming that one of those old theories needs reconsidering, even though there are heaps upon heaps of detailed explanations of the experimental methods used to contradict them, the exact failures of said old theories and theoretical justifications for the new theories.

A rule of thumb I use when I'm considering information from someone else, by the way: Do they benefit from this being true? If they do, then take it with a pinch of salt, for sure. If the result is neutral to them, it's pretty safe to trust it unless you can spot flawed methodology. If someone is publishing a result that clearly, unambiguously invalidates a theory they themselves advocate for, though? You can be sure they've tested that result as fully and thoroughly as possible, and are honorably admitting defeat.

[Anonymous No.9758309]

>>9757911
Tesla said Relativity was "castle in the air" nonsense.
Translation: I don't understand it so it can't be true.

No one in denying he was a good electrical engineer in his early days. But the field moved on. Tesla said he could visualize the fields. Steinmetz put EE on a firm mathematical footing and Tesla couldn't adapt.

His later writings; tapping aetheric energy, death rays, and 3:6:9 is all mystical bullshit. He may not have been a CONSCIOUS faker like John Keely or Andrea Rossi but he was still peddling garbage.
Regardless of what you may think of science and scientists, the truth comes out. It's faster in some fields than others, but it comes out. If you write a paper on some unimportant biological pathway, no one may bother checking for years. If you claim to have overthrown Newton's 3rd, you can be sure it'll be investigated and checked for reproducibility immediately.

IMO, you don't understand how science works.

[Anonymous No.9758334]

>>9757812
>More than a century of experimentation has shown Relativity works.

Propaganda. Relativity is metaphysics with math. Invented to keep the public away from zeropoint energy, fusion power, faster than light (FTL) propulsion, penetrating directed energy devices and elemental transmutation. This is the level of technological stagnation that Einstein has caused. The fact that many here will consider such practical inventions as science-fiction while supporting multi-verses and time travel illustrates my point. Many brilliant scientists and engineers have died under mysterious circumstances while exploring aetheric science. You have no fucking idea.

[Anonymous No.9758350]

>>9757824

The Sun is electric,..the standard (fusion core) model is wrong. Electric Universe is one foundation for elemental transmutation that is censored from the public. Think about it; turning mercury into gold. This knowledge can be misused. Aetheric science brings us mastery over matter, energy and propulsion. Relativity offers metaphysics and mental masturbation.

[Anonymous No.9758364]

Okay, I'll bite. Is this stuff randomly generated or just another schizo off his meds?

[Anonymous No.9758369]

>>9758364
>tuff randomly generated or just another schizo off his meds?

Exhibit A: Dr. Eugene Mallove: murdered in his home before a major public announcement. Supported zeropoint energy devices involving controlled plasma discharges.

[Anonymous No.9758377]

>>9758364
Alexander Chernetski Plasmatron : another zeropoint energy device using controlled plasma discharges.

[Anonymous No.9758387]

>>9758364
James Allen: assisted in disclosure of electrogravitics powered by zeropoint reactor. Poisoned with toxic metals.

[Anonymous No.9758389]

>>9758387
Film Director of Fluxliner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwOkzaqzog

[Anonymous No.9758399]

>>9758369
>>9758377
>>9758387
so... ran out of seroquel?

[Anonymous No.9758402]

>>9758364
Wilhelm Reich, experimented with aether but named it "orgone". Died in jail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G53HYqOhkAE

[Anonymous No.9758440]

>>9758334
>Invented to keep the public away from zeropoint energy
You keep using that word, but you obviously don't understand what it means. Feel free to prove me wrong and explain in your own words what ZPE is. Because if you understand what it is, you should also understand that you cannot use it to generate energy.

[Anonymous No.9758483]

>>9758440
I expect you, the reader, to understand what zeropoint is and will not bother to spoon feed.

[Anonymous No.9758603]

>>9758364
Box of cash would shut him up.

[Anonymous No.9758947]

>>9758483
If you explain what it is in your own words I might be able to clear up some confusion you might hold. But if you simply want to admit you have no clue that's fine with me too.

[Anonymous No.9758953]

>>9758163
>Siding with a majority no matter how large for simple sake of it's size is categorically unattractive.
This is not siding with majority. It is not appeal to authority. I am a physicist, I know these theories. I know how much experimental evidence there is backing them all up. I follow the evidence, not the people.