0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Do unlikewise points attract unlikewise points?
Good. What causes the repulsion and the attraction?
The electrostatic force , but as to what the underlying mechanics of the force actually is, is a mystery to me and seemingly difficult to imagine .
Quote from: Thebox on 12/04/2018 17:39:19 The electrostatic force , but as to what the underlying mechanics of the force actually is, is a mystery to me and seemingly difficult to imagine . One of my reference books is Tesla's biography by W. Bernard Carlson (softcover edition), from which I quote from pages 134 & 135, from his 1891 lecture at Columbia College, "Tesla began remarking that modern science had been able to make rapid progress by recognizing the ether as the medium in which invisible waves travel but that the exact nature of electricity was still unknown. Tesla proposed that electrostatic phenomena might be considered as the aether under strain while dynamic electricity or currents should be seen as 'phenomena of ether in motion.' ... Tesla informed the audience that the luminous effects in Geissler tubes were caused not by electromagnetic waves but by electrostatic 'thrusts'."As he gave the lecture he was actively controlling the lighting level using his high frequency alternator set up in the college's workshop and powered it by an electric motor with a knob on stage and hence he could control the frequency produced by his alternator to raise and lower the lighting.https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/gallery/43933_12_04_18_6_47_22.jpeg
Tesla proposed that electrostatic phenomena might be considered as the aether under strain while dynamic electricity or currents should be seen as 'phenomena of ether in motion.'
Tesla almost understood the aether, I understand it better though.
Quote from: Thebox on 14/04/2018 13:16:41Tesla almost understood the aether, I understand it better though. He is quoted as saying that the electrostatic thrust, oscillations, loaded energy onto the ether between the coils in his devices. The coils were not grounded, the energy was not through the Earth, but rather by means of the thrusts, electromagnetic waves moving through the ether. He also demonstrated that ordinary incandescent lamps could be powered buy his apparatus.To him, the problem was that it was a very limited source of power, based on electromagnetic waves. His "solution" was to take a different path. Later he tried sending the electrostatic thrusts into and through the Earth. He didn't quite accomplish the large scale wireless power transmission project referred to as the Wardenclyffe project. Still, you have to be amazed at his accomplishments.
I guess I will respond that the "aether" or ether is what fills all space. All space contains the ether and the ether is occupied by gravitational wave energy traversing all space at all points from all directions at all times. Gravitational waves carry energy across the ether.Take the infinite set of all points of space and you have the infinite and eternal universe, filled with gravitational wave energy. Each point has an individual gravitational wave energy density value made up of the energy carried by all gravitational wave fronts that are intersecting at that point. The wave energy density thus varies point by point and instant to instant. Each "local space" contains a volume of space and has a has an average local wave energy density.There is a wave energy density profile of space that is made up, location by location, of the out flowing gravitational wave energy component from distant mass that has reached a given location at a given point in time.Or so I say, for discussion purposes.
https://youtu.be/2rVdEhyMR6A?list=WLScientific knowledge contains a nearly endless number of explanations for what we observe around us, and much of that knowledge overlaps from observation to observation, meaning that the same science can apply to many observations with varying applicability to each individual observation.A good example of that is in the attached video. When you watch it you will see the electrostatic motor and how it works. As an example of overlapping science knowledge, notice that there is no mention of gravity or gravitational waves, and yet everything in regard to the electrostatic motor is associated with gravity, and therefore with gravitational waves.The reason for bringing this into the discussion is that the diagram in your attachment can be a representation of what is happening in the atmosphere, in regard to the charges and voltages employed to run the motor. The role of gravity is essential, but you don’t need to bring up the details of gravitational waves, or their role in how the electrostatic motor works, in order to describe what is going on.I am reminded of Art Bell, who passed away over the weekend. He was famous for the wild and crazy discussions he moderated on night time radio. He was heavily into broadcasting and ham radio, means and equipment, including extensive antennas. He once told of a vast antenna he was erecting on his property, and of the dangerous shock he got from it. That is an example of how the high voltage in the atmosphere is harnessed in many useful ways, and at the same time can be dangerous if we are not respectful of the forces involved.
I was implying that the N field could be similar to the fundamental nature of the ether, and was thinking that if you could associate it with something in the body of known scientific knowledge, such as gravitational waves, gravity being the most fundamental observable, it would be easier to discuss and understand.
I see, I thought I was and have already associated the N-field with gravity and gravitation waves by explaining Q.F.P etc. My N-field and n-field uses nothing but mainstream .
Quote from: Thebox on 19/04/2018 15:17:22I see, I thought I was and have already associated the N-field with gravity and gravitation waves by explaining Q.F.P etc. My N-field and n-field uses nothing but mainstream . It is probably an example of how differently two different minds work, when they try to communicate outside of the strict confines of the scientific method, lol. I'll give you the point you just made.What I am burdened with is that I have my own views, based on known science serving as departure points into a speculative model that I claim is internally consistent and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data.My alternative views tend to impede any understanding when the other party looks on them from the mainstream perspective, because the model is all in the area of departures from the mainstream, where the mainstream does not yet have generally accepted answers.
My idea uses nothing but mainstream and everything they taught me in all these years. I consider I present it with better explanation and rationality. I believe they have the concepts but often explain them poorly leaving the explanation ambiguous to interpretation. I like to have an absolute explanation that is not ambiguous. In example, what is a n-field? a n-field is an electrostatic neutral field permeating from any binary particle that is neutral in polarity. That is basic and I fail to see any problem in saying that, it does not change any science, but it is really simple to understand. The n-field is at relative rest in respect to the emitting body.
Quote from: Thebox on 19/04/2018 15:40:35My idea uses nothing but mainstream and everything they taught me in all these years. I consider I present it with better explanation and rationality. I believe they have the concepts but often explain them poorly leaving the explanation ambiguous to interpretation. I like to have an absolute explanation that is not ambiguous. In example, what is a n-field? a n-field is an electrostatic neutral field permeating from any binary particle that is neutral in polarity. That is basic and I fail to see any problem in saying that, it does not change any science, but it is really simple to understand. The n-field is at relative rest in respect to the emitting body. And my perspective is that there are "as yet" unknowns, that are not part of the mainstream because there is no generally accepted mainstream explanation, and therefore no consensus on the math behind them.Those things are "out side the box" speculations that are part of an individual objective reality based on generally accepted (mainstream) scientific observations, as well as on a human logic that is evolving as individuals mature within the most advanced known life form (us), but are not included yet in the body of scientific knowledge because they are not generally accepted.You have to go outside of the box if you are going to have an appreciation of the "reality" that I muse about.