The theoretical musings continue.

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull »

Thanks Greg for your two posts, I got busy today. Constants are pretty much hole fillers related to the way things are, based on specific conditions of the experiment, as you note. Charges aren't there because of, or ruled by, the constant. The constant flows from observations based on interactions of charged matter within the universe. Which, again, is about what you said. The constant in the coulomb equation pretty much relates to the medium the charges are acting within. (dielectric constant for the most part.) For an idealized theoretical vacuum it becomes one and the constant, effectively goes away.

For Adam.... I am amazed at the universe as well, and after having been through about a thousand iterations of my take on it realize that I nor anyone will live so long as to get any REAL answers. This doesn't mean the questions die or the cogitating ends either. At nearly 60 my brain still grinds away on this stuff. I am sure there will never be an understanding of the reality of it all for mankind, just as I am sure that there WILL BE a "theory of everything" which will be wrong. There are too many people who are too sure that they are a hair's breadth away from it right now! With this flow and ground swell, they will surely convince themselves of a result sooner than later. All left behind or not joining the club will be pitied if ignorant or shunned if informed.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Frank Sanns
Site Admin
Posts: 2119
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
Real name: Frank Sanns

Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Frank Sanns »

If you ask a chemist if matter can be created or destroyed, he will say no because if you burn something and collect and weigh all of the ashes and gasses that evolve, you will get them all back. Well almost. There is a very, very tiny difference because some of the matter is converted to energy. The change is so tiny that it is appropriately neglected in chemistry. This is the conservation of MASS. In high energy physics, mass is often converted into energy and sometimes vice versa. So MASS ENERGY is conserved.

Charge is just like this. Charge must always be conserved but there is a vast difference between saying that INDIVIDUAL CHARGE is conserved and CHARGE is conserved. A chemist would say that you must maintain the same number of positive and negative charges to maintain neutrality. A bunch of positive charges need a bunch of negative charges to neutralize them. They may or not be together now or anytime in the future but the charges exist. This is NOT the same as 2 charges annihalating each other to form photons (gamma rays). CHARGE is conserved but this time it has changed like MASS changes to ENERGY. In this case the charges now fail to exist as mass fails to exist once converted into energy.

Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest »

Hi Greg,

I know you're just repeating what you've been told by others, so I don't take your view as a personal attack. But I do need to point out a couple things...

Greg Rogers wrote:
> "Electrostatic force is caused by Coulomb’s constant"
>
> No, coulombs constant was derived to explain the force. electromagnetic forces all derive from charges.
>

This is the arrogance of science. Scientists believe they have made up Coulomb's constant. They think they invented it. If you really take the time to investigate the logic of what you have repeated from textbooks you will see it is pure folly.

In order for a law of charge to work, the law has to be real to begin with. This is not something modern physics has the power to create in their labs. Neither do theorists have the ability to pull numbers and dimensions out of thin air and make them accurately describe reality.

Coulomb's constant was *discovered*, not just *derived*. Mathematics are a property of reality, not the mind of a scientist. A scientist can only reveal what is real, he or she cannot make fundamental laws, or will them into reality.

> "Electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry, and strong charge is toroidal in geometry. Have you ever built a Tesla coil? What shape of top capacitance did you find most suitable for the electromagnetic discharge?"
>
> I hate analogies when used with physics. They simply dont work.
>

Well, in this case it is not an analogy. It is a mathematical observation of reality. Electrostatic charge can be mathematically proven to be spherical in shape and electromagnetic charge can be mathematically proven to be toroidal in shape.

> What does the shape of a testla coil have anythign to do with the fundamental geometry of charge?
>

Everything. Try using a flat metal plate for a top capacitance, instead of a spun aluminum toroid, and see what happens to your performance. If the shape of the top capacitance had nothing to do with charge, and yet the same capacitance were maintained, the performance wouldn't change at all. But because charge does have a shape, the output of a top capacitance (antenna) is influenced by the top capacitance's geometry.

> Secondly, saying there is a fundamental geometry of charge is getting into philosopy.
>

No, it's pure science. My statement is backed up 100% by mathematics and physical observations.

> Thats like saying that electrons are cubes. Nobody has ever directly observed the shape of the electron, and never will, so saying this is stupid as there is no proof.
>

Pretending you have knowledge of things you don't, in order to make a convincing argument, does not make your argument convincing. Prove the mathematics for a cubic electron.

One doesn't have to look directly at subatomic matter to see its shape. Since we are talking about quantum reality, where each individual subatomic particle is exactly like every other similar particle, we can observe subatomic characteristics in larger systems. If you can get more electrons on to toroidal surface than you can on a flat plane surface of equal capacitance or surface area, then you are observing the effect of electron geometry.

> "The Coulomb constant exists prior to its interaction with charge. It does not just magically show up when two charges are present."
>
> The coulomb constant is a fundamental property of nature. Thats just the way things are, period. It is not caused by anything. And it does not exist, it is simply something we made up to describe electromagnetic forces effectively.
>

I don't subscribe to fantasy. If something exists, it's not because, "that's just the way things are, period." If something exists, it is that way due to a cause. And it is the work of science to identify those causes. I have identified a super structure of constants within the Aether. This super structure IS the Aether. These constants are non-physical properties of something real that truly do affect physical matter. Coulomb's constant, the gravitational constant, permeability, permittivity, and the speed of light are real properties of a real, non-physical entity.

This isn't what you were taught, I admit, but the mathematics clearly show there is structure in the non-physical Aether. And this structure is what contributes to the geometry of angular momentum and charge, and even space and time.

Look, I'm not trying to force anything on you. If you don't want to hear an alternative explanation of physics that might lead you to new perspective that could lead to new discoveries, then I won't bother you. I have nothing to gain by sharing my discoveries.

You can take your dead-end research and continue to run up against brick walls if you choose. Let's face it, if the Standard Model of physics worked, you wouldn't be trying to push the limit in physics with your fusors. It would have already been done in a commercial lab and everybody would buy a computerized fusor at Wal-mart for $199.

The reason you are doing reseach on this group is because you believe there is something, yet undiscovered in physics, that you would like to discover. What if the only thing holding you back is the physics you have so much faith in, the physics that says charge has no geometry and Coulomb's constant is just a derived number that happens to work, what if that physics were wrong? How much more money and time would you need to burn before you decided to question the physics?

That's exactly where I was when I was experimenting with Tesla's flat spiral - solenoid combination secondary coils. It was then that I realized there was more to physics than what was known in the Standard Model. That's when I decided to re-investigate the physics, starting from the fundamental constants and working up. And that is when I discovered the Standard Model is incomplete and based on several significant, and incorrect assumptions.

One of the most important errors made in the Standard Model is the incorrect dimensions attributed to charge. Charge is not single dimensional, like mass. Charge is distributed. You can see that by analyzing all the instances in which charge is observed. And it turns out that if charge is distributed, it has to have a geometry, which it does, and which is easily mathematically discovered from known fundamental observations of subatomic particles.

The proof of the observation that all charge is distributed is found in the incredibly symmetrical, simple, and perfectly accurate Unified Charge Equations. These equations arise from distributed charge and cannot arise from single dimension charge. The Unified Charge Equations ARE the long sought Unified Field Theory.

Now, if the observation that charge is distributed, and that distribution produces a specific geometry, and that geometry produces the Unified Charge Equations, and those equations give us our long sought Unified Field Theory, then don't you think that maybe I *might* be right? Don't you think it is worth looking into, rather than knocking my theory down just because it doesn't agree with the ignorance of the Standard Model?

Dave
User avatar
Adam Szendrey
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
Real name: Adam Szendrey
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Adam Szendrey »

Greg, maybe it's just me, but i think analogies are good and usefull. The way i see it the universe is like a fractal..infact it is. We just separate things to better understand and because we cannot describe nor understand them as one. Everything is connected to everything this is clear, and nothing is different from the rest. I cannot really explain this, sorry, and i know that this is not science , it is rather philosophy, a thought.

Adam
davidtrimmell
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 5:37 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by davidtrimmell »

Hi all. This has been a fascinating thread to follow; I love these types of discussions. I personally believe humans will never understand the "how’s" of the universe, beyond our limited perspective. Much less understand the "whys", that’s for philosophers. I think Murray Gell-Man put it in perspective:

"It is the most persistent and greatest adventure in human history, this search to understand the universe, how it works and where it came from. It is difficult to imagine that a handful of residents of a small planet circling an insignificant star in a small galaxy have as their aim a complete understanding of the whole universe, a small speck or creation truly believing it is capable of comprehending the whole."

Regarding those chasing the Zero Point Energy fantasies, eventually they will recognize their own tails.

David Trimmell
grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 »

"Coulomb's constant was *discovered*, not just *derived*. Mathematics are a property of reality, not the mind of a scientist. A scientist can only reveal what is real, he or she cannot make fundamental laws, or will them into reality."

Yes, thats exactly what I was trying to say, I like the way you put it.

"Everything. Try using a flat metal plate for a top capacitance, instead of a spun aluminum toroid, and see what happens to your performance. If the shape of the top capacitance had nothing to do with charge, and yet the same capacitance were maintained, the performance wouldn't change at all. But because charge does have a shape, the output of a top capacitance (antenna) is influenced by the top capacitance's geometry. "

The top load of a tesla coil has many interrelated factors that affect its performance. All of them can be explained with conventional physics. I dont really understand how you can explain a complex macro phenomenon with something is simple as your explanation of fundemental shpae of charge. If maybe you explained it more fully, I would understand better. But it seems to me like the two have absolutely nothing in common.

"If you can get more electrons on to toroidal surface than you can on a flat plane surface of equal capacitance or surface area, then you are observing the effect of electron geometry."

Not necessarily true. The electrons geometry is not the same as the way the electron interacts. The way the electron interacts is why it behaves a certain way, not because it is shaped a certain way.

"then don't you think that maybe I *might* be right? Don't you think it is worth looking into, rather than knocking my theory down just because it doesn't agree with the ignorance of the Standard Model?"

I'm not trying to knock your theory. But you have to make a theory complete in order to make it useful. This is something you have not done to the best of my knowledge. Yeah, you might be right, but you have to convince us first :) First explain lots of physical phenomenon that we currently understand by means of conventional physics, by means of your theory, that way we can see how it works in practice. It loks like you are on your way to trying to do this though. Our physics has served us well and continues to, so a new theory would have to be incredibly good to change to it.

Also, if you want to add credibilty to your theory - do not post something like this on your web site. "The practical application of this "Unified Charge Theory" is a binding energy formula for the nucleus of all atoms and a method for extracting Zero Point Energy from the electron via the Casimir effect"

Saying something like that will make nobody believe anything you say and lump you in with crackpots even if you arent one. Even mentioning Zero Point Energy sets off the pseudoscience alarms. Doing so would violate one of the most basic laws- conservation of energy. Yes, the casimir effect is real, but there is no way to extract energy from it. And the cause for the casimir effect is explained simply with quantum mechanics.
User avatar
Adam Szendrey
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
Real name: Adam Szendrey
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Adam Szendrey »

Hi Anthony!

I found a really long article on the speed of gravity. It concludes that this speed is 2x10e10c .I did not read itt yet since it is very long, but i will when i find the time (remember that my native language is not english :) ).And i also found one that says this speed is equal to c, "proven" by an experiment.
The first link: http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
The second:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030106/030106-8.html

Adam
grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 »

Okay, I dont hate all analogies. But most of them are used to connect two superficially similar things that have no actual similarities. They may look similar, but are actually described and explained by two completely seperate explanations using different rules. Used in this way it is pointless to use analogies, since it does not follow to relate the two.
3l
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 3:51 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by 3l »

Hi Adam:

I find the quest for knowlege and the "doable" quite stimulating!
I have labored long and hard at the wheel of discovery.
Am I discouraged ?
Not one little bit.
After a while the ethic of science becomes like breath of oxygen.
I still love the way and not the why....but I still love looking at the stars above. But I have tred both worlds with confidence of experience.
Don't think I can't still learn stuff @ the half century mark.
Every day at fusion is a battle to be fought.
I don't dispute the process but I simply want folks to know that it wasn't always that way.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest »

Hi Greg,

> "then don't you think that maybe I *might* be right? Don't you think it is worth looking into, rather than knocking my theory down just because it doesn't agree with the ignorance of the Standard Model?"
>
> I'm not trying to knock your theory. But you have to make a theory complete in order to make it useful. This is something you have not done to the best of my knowledge. Yeah, you might be right, but you have to convince us first :) First explain lots of physical phenomenon that we currently understand by means of conventional physics, by means of your theory, that way we can see how it works in practice. It looks like you are on your way to trying to do this though. Our physics has served us well and continues to, so a new theory would have to be incredibly good to change to it.
>
You are correct, I have not given a full course in physics on this list. I haven’t been invited to do that, either. But you can read a lot of my ideas and explanations on my web site, which you have apparently begun to do. I would gladly explain anything about my theory in greater detail if the web site is not clear enough.

> Also, if you want to add credibilty to your theory - do not post something like this on your web site. "The practical application of this "Unified Charge Theory" is a binding energy formula for the nucleus of all atoms and a method for extracting Zero Point Energy from the electron via the Casimir effect"
>
> Saying something like that will make nobody believe anything you say and lump you in with crackpots even if you arent one. Even mentioning Zero Point Energy sets off the pseudoscience alarms. Doing so would violate one of the most basic laws- conservation of energy. Yes, the casimir effect is real, but there is no way to extract energy from it. And the cause for the casimir effect is explained simply with quantum mechanics.
>

Science is not about politics. When scientists have to form their opinions around what others expect to hear, then it is no longer science.

I do have an electron binding energy equation for the 1s orbitals…
http://www.tshankha.com/electron_binding_energies.htm

I have also been working on a nuclear binding energy equation…
http://www.tshankha.com/binding_energy.htm

The Casimir effect is not explained “simply” with QM. It is explained rather technically, and it is not a very good explanation. My theory, based on the strong charge of the subatomic particles, is much simpler. And for you to say there is no way to extract energy from the Casimir effect is pretty bold. I presented a mathematical explanation of how the energy could be extracted. I am presently in communication with experts in the field who are obtaining the materials I need to build a device that could test the theory.
At the very least you should wait until experiments, based on my treatment of the Casimir effect, have been attempted before making claim that it can’t work. You know what it feels like when people tell you it is impossible to produce fusion in your garage, even when you are already doing it.

Don’t forget that Einstein was considered a crackpot when he first presented his theories. Tesla was told by his professor that his rotating magnetic field motor was a perpetual motion device and therefore wasn’t possible. The Wright Brothers had been flying for two years and were still called crackpots by some for claiming to fly.

I’ve noticed that a lot of people in science have been bullied into calling people crackpots for coming up with new theories, lest they be called crackpots themselves for believing in the new theories.

Let the pseudoscience bells ring. Several PhD level physicists have already tried to find fault in my theory, but none has so far. The mathematics is perfectly correct in both its values and its dimensions. The theory agrees completely with experimental evidence.

Now you asked me to explain something that the present physics does not. I have already explained a mathematically correct unified field theory that identifies the exact carrier of the strong force. I have provided the most advanced electron binding energy equation known to science. I have also provided a good explanation for neutron beta decay, based on simple dimensional math. In fact, all my theory is based on simple, dimensional math.

In addition to these things the Standard Model does not adequately explain, my theory also explains much of the known phenomena. I’m not saying that I have examined every area of physics, because I haven’t. But each day I incorporate more explanations in my theory. Today, I learned a possible quantum explanation for the Hubble constant. What’s more, this explanation for the Hubble constant is consistent with the apparent production of ZPE.

BTW, ZPE is not getting something for nothing. The energy from ZPE is produced directly from the magnetic moment of the electron, which is perfectly elastic. The energy comes from something, but what this something is, hasn’t been investigated enough to fully understand.

Dave
grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 »

In quantum physics, there is an explanation for ZPE. Apparently (since I have not the math skill to do it) if you solve shroedinger's equation for a vacuum, you will get a non-zero number. So that is energy. But it is not "tappable" in an way.

The quantum explanation for the casimir effect is simply that the small space between two plates is so small that the uncertainty principle does not allow as many particles to pop into and out of existence as it does outside the plates so there is an inward force. But since you did not create any energy on the whole, the particles must pop out of existence with the same energy as they had when they popped into existence. So while there is a force on the plate, it is forbidden to give any energy. here is where I do not fully understand it, since I am no physicist. Could the plates go through the discplacement, doing work from the virtual particles, but since it is a conservative force, when you pull the plates apart again, you would return that energy. Or is it that the virtual particles are forbidden to do work, so if the plates would go through a displacement doing work, the particles would automatically pop out of existence before they hit the outside of the plate, so that no force would occur doing no work. I am not sure on which it is. It seems intuitively that it would be the first, but also, since there is conservation of energy, it sould be the second too. hmmmm. But even if it was the first, the amount of energy that is available from the plates when they collapse into one bigger plate is virtually zero,even if you had huge plates, so......there probably would never be instruments precise enough to detect this.
Post Reply

Return to “Fusor and/or General Fusion Theory (& FAQs)”