[pasala (OP)]

HOW MAGNETIC FIELD IS USED TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY:
These generators are made up of coils of wire that are either rotated through magnetic fields or are stationary around a shaft with rotating magnets. In either case, the coils of wire are exposed to changing magnetic fields created by the magnets.

The magnets can be permanent or electric magnets. Permanent magnets are mainly used in small generators, and they have the advantage that they don't need a power supply. Electric magnets are iron or steel wound with wire. When electricity passes through the wire, the metal becomes magnetic and creates a magnetic field.

Stop plagiarizing, I'm sure that is against the rules!
From the site:  https://ng.opera.news/ng/en/technology/60f0305c4c5ce830d0805ebd2458b19a
"These generators are made up of coils of wire that are either rotated through magnetic fields or are stationary around a shaft with rotating magnets. In either case, the coils of wire are exposed to changing magnetic fields created by the magnets.

The magnets can be permanent or electric magnets. Permanent magnets are mainly used in small generators, and they have the advantage that they don't need a power supply. Electric magnets are iron or steel wound with wire. When electricity passes through the wire, the metal becomes magnetic and creates a magnetic field."

Sure origin, i am not opposing that.  The electric current produces the magnetic field because it also has the motion due to the movement of electrons from a negative to a positive end. The direction of the magnetic field is determined by the direction of the movement of electrons.  We are taking magnetic field as the property of flowing electric current.

But i am saying it as the property of space.  See, only moving electrons are creating magnetic field.

In an electrical generator, we are moving either magnet or conductor and cutting the magnetic field.  Ok, if the magnets or conductor is stationary or at rest can we produce electricity or cut the magnetic field.

[Origin]

Sure origin, i am not opposing that.

Not opposed to what, plagiarizing?

[pasala (OP)]

Sure origin, i am not opposing that.

Not opposed to what, plagiarizing?

Without base, nothing can be done.  When you said it as against the rules.  Anyway I don't want to go deep into that. 

[pasala (OP)]

Perhaps you just need to refer to some sources to support your claims.

Well, in the case of double slit experiment, if two waves interfere with each other, destructive interference, both the waves are cancelled out.  In recent experiments detectors are showing particles against the screen.  In other words wave momentum is cancelled, resulting in particles.

So, in the case of solar panels also, light waves falling on the panel, if there is momentum moves out, if  there is no momentum, spreads as particles.  These are in fact raising radiation.

Ok, suppose if  we rotate the panel, particles spread inside, including those ejected by atoms can be collected without any wastage.

We must plan, how to catch a ray.  Now a days, science developed a lot, if scientists focusses, it is not a big issue.

[pasala (OP)]

Sure origin, i am not opposing that.

Not opposed to what, plagiarizing?

Ok, basic definition, what ever site or where ever it may, never changes.

[Origin]

So, in the case of solar panels also, light waves falling on the panel, if there is momentum moves out, if  there is no momentum, spreads as particles.  These are in fact raising radiation.

Nonsense.

Ok, suppose if  we rotate the panel, particles spread inside, including those ejected by atoms can be collected without any wastage.

Nonsense.
The only thing you wrote that makes sense is the plagiarized content.

[pasala (OP)]

Well friends these days i was so much busy in office work.  Ok, Mr. origin, as per present physics it is true and i too accept it.  But, basic and simple question that bothers my mind is:

It is true that Newton's gravity theory "F = G(m1m2)/R2" is perfectly valid.  Ok, if we go by GR there is gravity near to the masses. 

What i am saying, as said by Descartes, this attraction between two masses is due to Aether.  Whether we accept it or not, there is something present in between these two masses which is aiding or helping attraction between two masses and it weakens as distance increases.

I too accept, much research is needed in this area.

[Origin]

What i am saying, as said by Descartes, this attraction between two masses is due to Aether. 

So what, we now have over a century of evidence that there is no aether.

Whether we accept it or not, there is something present in between these two masses which is aiding or helping attraction between two masses and it weakens as distance increases.

A statement without any evidence to back it up can be ignored.

[Bored chemist]

Whether we accept it or not, there is something present in between these two masses which is aiding or helping attraction between two masses and it weakens as distance increases.

Whatever it may be, it doesn't have the properties that were ascribed to the luminiferous aether.
And it is deeply unhelpful to call it "aether" because that might make some fools think that the aether is real.