Talisman

Quote

First the attitude it is not worth trying cause it probably is too hard to do. When something is done it is not believed. It is not believed not by the standard of objective truth but by attitude. So Newman has to prove by their standard to win acceptance. If he does their standard it then must be a trick. Does it matter what they think? It does if it hampers distribution or dampens investment.

In many respects science is not unlike religion and the common element is people who are inherently subjective and somewhat biased. This is why there is much disagreement in both science and religion. What did you see and measure?... i didn't see it that way, what were you taught and read?...I didn't read it that way. Neither science or religion will ever find agreement or be perfect because we as people are imperfect.

In essence we believe what we believe regardless of the facts because the facts are also subjective and interpreted as we see them. As such I think an intelligent man must always have doubts, they must always question everything and find their own way to there own truth as they see it.

It is easy to judge and any fool can do it however in order to learn and grow as a person I think we have to listen and respectfully consider others opinions even if we are in complete disagreement with them. Did you know Nikola Tesla studies the Ancient Indian Sanskrit Text?, he said it was the most amazing culture and it possessed ancient wisdom and understanding modern man has yet to learn. However to most it is a backwards culture and the text little more than gibberish scribbled on old papers. In the text Tesla found what he was looking for as concepts for his technology  based on an understanding of nature. The power of 3... two opposite polarities or conditions which are born from and return to the zero point or neutral condition which dictates all phenomena. How opposite forces or conditions can be complementary or simultaneous singularity/duality. Tesla didn't learn this from an english science textbook he learned it from a culture far removed from ours seen from an entirely different perspective.

Different is neither good nor bad... it is simply different as a matter of perspective. What I do know is that one cannot truly learn anything new or grow as a person by reading the same page over and over.

The difference between science and religion is that one (science) has gained a broad standard of acceptance on the basis of objective observation. A minority can say an observable truth is not a truth but the perception does not change reality.   

Fair enough however in science the electron was thought to be a particle then a wave and we still do not know for certain which it is. I happen to agree with Russ ... is the electron real?... I do not know and in fact nobody does beyond all shadow of doubt. The fact remains that in most cases there is no observable truth there is only a measurement open to interpretation as to what was actually measured. For example time is said to be variable because the measure of time has supposedly changed in some way. However time is a measure of something and the clock an instrument to measure so did the properties of the clock change in affect changing the measure or did time change?. You see this is relates to  Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that using matter as a measure is uncertain because as an observation it would be impossible to determine whether the properties of our clock have changed affecting the measure of time or time itself... thus there is no actual observable truth to be had only an interpretation.

As well your observable truth from your experience may suggest no Electro-Magnetic wave can penetrate a Faraday cage yet I have proven in fact that it can pass through it as if Faraday's cage was not even present. Your observable truth may suggest radiant matter is a pipe dream and yet again I have proven it as a fact on the bench. So what is the truth my friend?, I would suggest it is open to our interpretation and one man's reality may not be the same as another man's because... obviously they are not the same man.

To stay on topic I would suggest that geometry plays a major role in the Newman device as he shows two coils with a geometric relationship to one another as well as a coil form based on a time constant. Now we must determine what is the character of the wave like disturbance in which one coil acts on the other. I can tell you one thing it is not Faraday's mutual induction as many have speculated for no other reason than we know that cannot work therefore it must be something else... what is that something else?. When you discover this then you will understand what Newman was actually doing and the reasoning behind why he did it. Understand that men who do great things are nor average or normal in any sense of the definition of these terms. Average is not great any more than great is average... they are not the same thing as we know through observation.

Quote from ~Russ on March 5th, 2018, 09:10 AM

Russ, it looks like he's got his rotating in the opposite direction to yours... is that going to make a difference?

Quote from Cycle on March 5th, 2018, 06:31 PM

Russ, it looks like he's got his rotating in the opposite direction to yours... is that going to make a difference?

Not if the magnet is flipped 180...
Induced feilds and Intreaction are the same.  Its all about setting it up proper...

~Russ

Interesting...

Quote from ~Russ on March 5th, 2018, 09:05 AM

We should not Judge. as the bible says. as we just dont know...

~Russ

I agree, I dont  judge  him , only God can,  it is  just my feeling after seen that film.

I agree that I would  have been  very  sad  as  he  was.
But at the end of  one's life we  have nothing  to loose, so the choice is to  oneself.

I am  just  surprised  by  what  was  his.
And  certainly  the friend  who gave  hime  help  till the end...

Quote from ~Russ on November 4th, 2017, 10:11 AM

Ever seen a 16,000 Henry coil!  And this is the small unit. What do you think that big unit would be????

The required time to load  such a coil with magneto energy is for this big coil about 5*τ ~ 0.6 s where τ is the time constant of the coil (τ=L/R)
This is really  big !!
And I think it's too big: this means that half a magnet turn should last 0.6s  to fill the coil with magneto energy
so to have the max energy one turn  shoud last ~1s to get the max energy which is 1 Hz

And because the bemf is very quick; I think about ~10 ms,  that means we can  tap  only 10/1000 ~ 1/100 of that energy

IMHO ,  I  would  say that  you would'nt have  your  money  back with  such  a  ratio if  it works as  a  generator.

It  would  be  better to  have a magneto load of  say,   2*10ms,  and  that  would be  a good COP.

Quote from ~Russ on November 3rd, 2017, 10:20 PM

If this dont get your stomach cringe... There is something wrong with you..
feel free to fallow along...

~Russ

The reason  why copper  is  diamagnetic, there is one  orbital spinning   sink e-
So when  , as  was  telling  Joe ,  the  circuit  is  closed, the pressure follows  quickly the circuit at light speed, untoo the bridge of the dielectric battery  ,  the  dipoles between the slab  of the  battery ,  make the  aether  to flow  all around , and towards  the  circuit,   to  neutralize   the  charges  ( positives go to neg-slab and conversely , which  discharges it )  ,  and  this  flowing  in the  copper  matter  aligne  all  the  alone e-  on the copper  atoms  in the  same  direction, which  induces  magnetic  dipoles  on  ALL  the copper atoms  in the  matter   of  the   coil , which as  for  effect  to  create  a magnetic  field,  similar  as  one  we  find  in  a   real  neodynium magnet ,  H.

This  field  take  a  certain time  to  establish in  the  entire matter of the coil,  t ~ 5*L/R . ( for instance if L=200Henries and R= 20Kohms, t = 1/100s which is relatively long compare to the time bemf occurs ~ 0.2/100 s )

So  we  have  two  currents  ,  as  Maxwell told  in his 1861 paper on E.M :  Jtotal = Jconduction + δD/δt   , where Jconduction = U/R and  D is  'Displacement  current' as  Maxwell named it.

But  today, this is considered  as null in the  calculus  of    currents  in a circuit , and  it is  considered only  in  the  caculus of  wave propagation in void.  This is  why  Newman  is right  when  he said  that  J = j + j - he named it X+X in his book.

The  remaining  difficulty is to 'catch'  this current BEFORE it is suppressed  by the bemf.  The reason is  that δD/δt  is  extremely  rapid, it is  the  speed  of  c . We see that  in the second and fourth  equation of Maxwell paper :

2 - ΔxA = μ.H   ---->   the  A  is  the  'electrotonic'  pulse  of  Faraday   ( this  is  what  Newman  call  with  humour  'the punch'  )))))
4 - E = μ.v x H - δA/δt - ΔU  ---->  and the effect is  the negative bemf :   -δA/δt  which arrives  immediately or  quasi,  in opposition, minus sign,  to the emf E ( U is  the gradient potential furnished  by the battery which attains  rapidly the maximum value of the voltage (pressure) of the battery ) . 

The  permanent  regime  is  quickly  raised:
->   - δA/δt - ΔU = 0  in  μS  [ if the length of coil is 300 000 km, this lasts 1s to raise to permanent regime,  so for  alength of 3km t= 0.1μs ~ 100nS which is very  quick][/]
then,
-> E = μ.v x H   with v  the  speed  of the  big Joe (magnet) at the centre , H  the  coil  GIANT  flux

This is  the time  to   get  the  pay back, either with  pressure  on the coil , the voltage, either the torque  on the big Joe,  either  both.

This is MHO  to  help   understand  the physical   Electromagnetic model of  Maxwell which has been  suppressed  since  relativity  in  all universities, 
and  which explains  why  we CAN  pump in the  sea of  aether, and theoretically,  δD/δt is  ENORMOUS !!

Thanks for reading.

Piero,  can you explain your thoughts on where the dielectric field is in this system. 

I'm guessing your saying that the desplacment current is the dielectric field,  however it seems that there is some confusion between dielectric field and eleteic feild as some people say there the same,  be we know that there not. 

So please express more of your thoughts.  I need to brush up on my math your posting,  for I don't have those things in my head well. 

Also note desplacment current is not conduction current...

Thanks for your input! 
~Russ

Quote from ~Russ on March 7th, 2018, 12:42 PM

Piero,  can you explain your thoughts on where the dielectric field is in this system.

This  is  the  dielectric in the battery. When  the   circuit is closed,  the  aetheric  flux  traces  is  way  trough  the  all circuit, this  including betwwen the slab + and - of the battery . The negatives  ions  are  pushed  to the + plate by the flux and  positives to the - plate. Ions are in the dielectric. Remember ,   aether  permeates  all  the  matter,  it is 1/1000 th  of an atom size .

My opinion on free energy right now is that is sort of becomes an Idolization of something which is wrong according to the bible.

A free energy machine would be running so many things, and it would become an idol due to use using all those things.

This isn't too indifferent from Oil and Fossil Fuels becoming idolized simply because were using so many appliances to complete work tasks that all at the heart run off of Oil and Fossil Fuels...

Idol Worship is a complex topic in the Bible. My understanding of it is that it could be considered simply relying on something other than God to give you something... the thing is the way the world is now we've become used to relying on all these things for our survival we really have no idea if we would survive if we did it the other way. What if you completely repented and abandoned everything you are relying on for your survival but God. Of course you would have to do a ton of work to change your ways and study many different religious texts from different angles and then live those values as best you can.

Apo4lypse,

I totally agree  with you.

We  need  to suppress these idols.
But,  we also  need  to   make  this  earth  a  better  place  for  the  childs  od  God.

In my country,  an old lady 81 years old  died because of lack of money  to pay her bill  to  the  electric company.
THEY CUT THE LINE! 
and  she  died  .

This  is only  a fact in the news. But  look at all  those others :  wars,  misery ,  starvation
'my  people  dy  by lack of knowledge'

We have to use the knowledge  to  let him  live,  and  then  they  will come  to  Him, they will recognize  the  Only , the Father of all , He  who say 'I am who I am' and loves  all his childs.

I think that is our  responsabilty.
Then all idols  will be  destroyed.

But certainly , His justice  is coming  soon.

Be prepared.

GBY

https://youtu.be/_Kx3u7-sGgk

There you go for now,  more qustions later
~Russ

Quote from onepower on March 5th, 2018, 04:44 PM

Fair enough however in science the electron was thought to be a particle then a wave and we still do not know for certain which it is. I happen to agree with Russ ... is the electron real?... I do not know and in fact nobody does beyond all shadow of doubt. The fact remains that in most cases there is no observable truth there is only a measurement open to interpretation as to what was actually measured. For example time is said to be variable because the measure of time has supposedly changed in some way. However time is a measure of something and the clock an instrument to measure so did the properties of the clock change in affect changing the measure or did time change?.

Time is the measure of change
We cant, as observer of Something,  observe  the change of  time.
Wilbur Smith says: "we associate Change with our Concept of Time which is something against which we gauge a rate of change"

We must forget all theories  and  start again  from  what  we know, i.e  what is experienced by our Awareness.

Quote

... thus there is no actual observable truth to be had only an interpretation.

Heisenberg 's principle of uncertainty ,  is  the  aknowledgment, translated  in  a 'principa' ,   that  the model  , quantic model,  has  to answer with  a formula  to an  uncertainty  which is due NOT TO THE REALITY , but to  a bias in the model. So we mus  abandon the model. This is  pure  science  principles. Which has never been done because of ...  the arrogance of  scientists ?

Quote

As well your observable truth from your experience may suggest no Electro-Magnetic wave can penetrate a Faraday cage yet I have proven in fact that it can pass through it as if Faraday's cage was not even present

This is  science !!  ))))))))
Now  you  must take this  fact  in your reality.

Quote

. Your observable truth may suggest radiant matter is a pipe dream

Radiant matter is  a  manifestation we see of the matter. Not  allmatter  radiates when in   stable equilibrium.

Quote

So what is the truth my friend?, I would suggest it is open to our interpretation and one man's reality may not be the same as another man's because... obviously they are not the same man.

This is the reason why WE MUST  adopt the same  framework of reasoning. See the paper of W.Smith on this ESSENTIAL  principiae.

Quote

To stay on topic I would suggest that geometry plays a major role in the Newman device as he shows two coils with a geometric relationship to one another as well as a coil form

This is yet science, you make  an HYPOTHESIS. But  having it verified at all times,  we keep this  as TRUE...
...and go forward.

Quote

based on a time constant.

Why do you add  this  assumption ?
What is a time constant ?
This is just the result  of  an other hypothesis , which  gives  an equation , exponential  raise  of  CURRENT in the coil.
Ok, so it's t=L/R .  See  what is the result for a copper coil of say, 3km  , a big Joe coil ))) :  t = 0.6s  [L= 16000H, R=26kohm]
See that ? In such a coil,  it takes  0.6s   for  the current  to attain is  max  value !!
It is very  BIG compare  to  the  occurence time of  BEMF which is in order of 1ms
Is  this result usable ?

Quote

Now we must determine what is the character of the wave like disturbance in which one coil acts on the other.

We know that ,  because we have not thrown  the Electromagnetic theory of Maxwell.
So , glance  at it and  you'll have  your answer.
If  we  have unsolved  questions,  we  must not  'throw the baby with  water bath' ))))))))))

Quote

I can tell you one thing it is not Faraday's mutual induction as many have speculated for no other reason than we know that cannot work therefore it must be something else...

This is NOT science, or  give a compatible argument

Quote

what is that something else?. When you discover this then you will understand what Newman was actually doing and the reasoning behind why he did it. Understand that men who do great things are nor average or normal in any sense of the definition of these terms. Average is not great any more than great is average... they are not the same thing as we know through observation.

Newman was an honest guy,  I think.  His  theory is based  on Mxwell's. We are  at the same point as he was. We must start  where the  men of old science  let  their work. It is our turn. We  must  grant  on  a common   and  well known   SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Wilbur Brockhouse Smith, been harping about him for quite some time.

There is information in here we should take seriously.  I'm very much aware his explanations are probably not perfect due to translation errors, but the concepts are something we can work with.  The primary concept is time being a gradient (derivative) of spin and spin is the foundational concept of a gyro.  Spin is everything and once this is fully understood, everything else should begin to fall into place.

The work Steinmetz did over a century ago is also of great significance and should be recognized as such.  I tend to think Smith and Steinmetz gave us a great starting point to analyze what it is we are dealing with here.

What I would really like to see is a well thought out explanation of induction and why the inductance of a coil increases drastically when the capacity of a coil is also increased.  Remember this is all related to spin and a thorough explanation should include it.

Quote

I happen to agree with Russ ... is the electron real?...

I am leaning to an electron is a measurement for a particle of a polarity. The particle is more stable in atoms but the free electron or the charge movement is what we talk about in a circuit. I can only speculate not having a lot of study at that level, but is it mostly the electrons moving?
Or the charge skipping along conductors electrons?

Quote

How do electrons flow in a circuit?
Electrons do literally move, both in AC and DC. However, the movement of electrons and the transfer of energy do not occur at the same speed. The key is that there are already electrons filling up the wire all along its length. A common analogy for electrical current in a circuit is the flow of water through pipes.

electron flow

Really the flow is drift velocity of a free electron?

So the electron I am leaning to could be a particle state we need to think: electron proton and neutron.

A measure of a state of matter.

Is it accurate for the educator to tell students that it is so many electrons flowing per second and that is a volt?

In terms of thinking about it is it realistic to think not the number of electrons but the strength of the polarity differential hence the strength of the charge?

No wonder hardly anyone gets it.

   

One aspect to remember is that our perception is fundamentally flawed thus our sense of reason. For example I have a bowling ball made of solid steel surrounded by supposedly empty space. We observe and measure a very real difference between the two however matter is supposedly 1% tangible matter as a particle and 99% Electro-magnetic fields filling the space between the particles. Thus the only difference between a bowling ball made of steel and supposedly empty space is 1%... only 1%. So what is tangible when it is in itself supposedly 99% intangible?.

As such the proper perspective should include the fact that 99% of everything we think we know is not tangible, has little or no solidity to it and is misleading at best. As well if we are swimming in a sea of energy and I believe we are then what we call tangible objects are little more than a slight 1% variation in energy state and solidity relative to the supposedly empty space it occupies and that surrounding it.

As an analogy everything we think we know amounts to little more than light being reflected off of wisps of smoke so far as the tangible and our reality are concerned. So when someone say's that electrical disturbance I produced cannot pass through that metal plate I say why not?. The metal plate is 99% empty space... why can't it pass through because there is almost nothing there in reality to impede it under the right circumstances.

Why not let your imagination wander to 100%...

Quote from Wilbur Smith

Whatever might be the origin of this Universe, of one thing we can be reasonable sure, that it is within "nothing at all". If it "started", then it must have started from nothing at all. It always was, this it has nothing at all around it. Whatever there might be beyond this "nothing at all" we have no way of knowing for we are within it and of this Universe and have no concept beyond it.

This idea of nothing at all is a most difficult one to come to grips with, but it is an absolute necessity to an understanding of even the first ideas of cosmology. Nothing at all means exactly what it says: NOTHING AT ALL; no space, no time, no substance, no energy, no change. To approach it one must slough off all reality and proceed deliberately into the void of nothingness. It is something extremely personal which must be experienced by the individual as a basic exercise; it is something which cannot be "taught". Most people recoil from the idea of nothing at all, feeling that it is akin to annihilation, which it is, but we must know of "nothing at all" before we can understand the basic concept upon which our Universe is built. Subsequent lessons are futile without this basic understanding.

Everything is spin and the fields they manifest.  Think of hollow tubes of infinite length rotating.  I say tubes because at some radius there is a membrane, purely a mathematical construct, between inside and outside the tube.  The tube possess inertia from its rotation and interacts with other tubes.  These tubes have the same properties as gyroscopes (such as precession) and their interaction with other tubes predicate the fields that manifest.  The fields that manifest give us concepts of time, space, energy, matter, forces and everything we perceive as the world around us.  But it in the end, it came from and IS "Nothing at All".

Elon Musk has stated we live within a simulation, a virtual world.  Seems he may be correct.

The Grand Creator is the only one that can have his cake and eat too.   :-)  He brought into existence worlds from nothing (at all) and if it all goes away, nothing (at all) was lost.  How perfect is that?

Quote

We observe and measure a very real difference between the two however matter is supposedly 1% tangible matter as a particle and 99% Electro-magnetic fields filling the space between the particles. Thus the only difference between a bowling ball made of steel and supposedly empty space is 1%... only 1%. So what is tangible when it is in itself supposedly 99% intangible?.

I think everything is made up of fields and particles only seem to exist to us because they are simply a combination of field interactions that add up to something that we can measure or touch and experience.

I also do not think electrons physically flow within a current, if anything they become excited and begin a chain reaction with the other electrons in the other atoms allowing a transfer of "charge" between the atoms. This is why a DC current can only go so far, but in an AC current it is just like creating a harmonic reinforcing wave through the atoms using the electrons allowing the disturbance wave of electron disturbances to reach much farther than a DC current would.

So if everything is made of "fields" of "energy" Tesla's belief in an Ether or Aether actually starts to make way more sense than anything else floating around on this subject.

[major speculation warning]

A "field" or "energy" is simply just Ether or Aether that has spun or gathered in such a way that it begins to make up what we call a field or energy. Basically it is nothing but everything when its physical properties are in the correct form (shape, speed, spin, distortion, etc. etc..) to begin forming anything.

The concept of nothing is strange but to me the answer is simple. The concept of Nothing actually doesn't exist, because there is no such thing as nothing there is only everything, the question is what is the "thinnest" or "least energetic" state of everything, and that is what "Nothing" would be if it were to exist.

So to me when God created everything from nothing in this above outline and speculative idea, God created everything by manipulation of infinite "fields" or the Ether/Aether.

[/end major speculation]

That's how I am now beginning to view everything now... whether or not its true who knows, and can it be proven, I have no idea. I think its similar to string theory except instead of using strings its just accepting that they aren't strings forming everything but instead just groupings of energies least dense state, which I think is infinite.

The alter-ego of nothing is something which falls in line with the Aether theory as well as the Electric Universe theory in my opinion. In which case there is no need for creation from nothing and we could simply create new forms from something already present everywhere. As it turns out a completely uniform medium filling all space would be perceived as nothing because the only way to distinguish one thing from another is the difference between them.

If you lived in the middle of the ocean oblivious to the concept of water which appears to be nothing due to it's uniformity which you are completely immersed in... is it nothing or is it something?.

Quote

As it turns out a completely uniform medium filling all space would be perceived as nothing because the only way to distinguish one thing from another is the difference between them.

This exactly.

The question then is, at the "point of creation" if it exists, if everything was a completely uniform medium, is it possible to turn this medium into something else when all you have ever known is that uniform medium?

Probably not, although I'd say definitely not if our definition of completely uniform covers everything from multiverses to multiple dimensions being in a completely uniform state, and that a completely uniform medium has never actually existed and can't because then nothing would ever be and consciousness cannot exist within one but could exist outside of one, but then it would no longer be uniform.

If the point of creation exists, whatever created the current non uniform medium were in right now would have had to have been in a different state than the hypothetical uniform medium because a completely uniform medium would in theory stay uniform forever until something not uniform to it interacted with it. That is assuming that an object will stay in its current state until acted upon by an outside force is actually a true statement. No interaction and the medium stays the same forever as a uniformity mass or space of nothingness.

So a point in time where the "universe" was completely uniform cannot exist physically, but can be imagined. I put universe in quotes because it depends on your definition of the universe. If we follow the multiverse, were dealing with more than one universe, so there could be one completely uniform universe that interacts with another universe to become something else.

There would have had to have been at least two different attributes or states within this medium in order to become what it is now, complete uniformity would lead to nothing. This is assuming medium accounts for all different versions of universe theories where universe simply means everything or existence itself. In multiverse theory we could have been a completely uniform medium that interacted with another different completely uniform medium. Or even a uniform medium interacting with a completely non uniform medium.

Which is interesting when you consider how two human beings come together to create another human being, but that's kind of reaching and too speculative and simple to compare really... but I can see the relationship... lol unintended pun.

Heh what if the two uniform mediums that came together to make what we are experiencing right now are actually just Good and Evil... almost kind of confirms the idea doesn't it.

And and, then what if Heaven is really just non uniform Good and Hell is non uniform Evil. o_o

Ok thats enough speculative theory for me today...

Question for onepower:  To the best of your ability describe the difference between something rotating and something with a "tendency" to rotate?  To clarify "tendency", I quite literally mean that it hasn't rotated a single degree since the beginning of the universe, but it has some desire to rotate in a particular direction.  It's intention is to rotate though it has never shown any actual rotation, no trend, no evidence of actual rotation.

This is difficult to answer, so please take your time and think about it carefully, because it would imply many things we take for granted are not actually so.

Explains why I find consciousness so intriguing to think about...