Electric theory??

This forum is for other possible methods for fusion such as Sonolumenescense, Cold Fusion, CANR/LENR or accelerator fusion. It should contain all theory, discussions and even construction and URLs related to "other than fusor, fusion".
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:14 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Starfire »

But what sort of battery do these waves have? - it has been feeding energy into each wave since the big bang, if there is source of maintenance of the waveit is a real cool trick - such uniform balance for such a long time - I need some of these batteries. All the theory seems to skip over this tiny point -

What is the nature of the wave sustenance over such a long time and why have they not propagated?

Perhaps it is only a wave when we look at it - I think we should wave back
longstreet
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:35 am
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by longstreet »

Waves conserve energy. If something was feeding energy into the wave then the energy of the universe would actually increase. Of course, you could argue that it actually is increasing (comsic acceleration).

Also, it's exactly opposite. Things are only waves while we don't observe them. We only detect point particles. That's what I was describing earlier.

Of course I should say that it's a cool trick that energy can stay contained in a point particle too. What force is keeping electrons from exploding? Whatever you come up with will probably work for waves too.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull »

Incredibly interesting stuff here and all thoughts are well considered. Sorry I missed out on the day to day chatter.

I am with Frank on the point of simplicity. It has got to be so simple that it will drive us to tears. I too opt for the absolute independence of charge and gravitation as I have noted many times in the past.

I feel that there is no unification possible on these vastly different forces. (all potential in nature). Inertia, I look at as a manufactured force associated solely with bulk matter. A reaction between mass and associated BOUND charge and change in motion. This is much as magnetism is a manufactured force from FREE charge in motion with the associated lenz law and Lorentz forces. Not to mention Amperian forces. This inertia would seem to link electrical and gravitational issues. However, inertia is more electrically reactive in nature with mass than with gravity, per se. It is a gravity mime.

Still, all are a mystery as to their core origins. What will be the clue that unlocks this mystery?

I tend to accept patently observable forces at face value and what appears to be the rules of the road in the universe and work outward from those points allowing macroscopic, testable points to be put forth. Quarky, quantum stuff is really cool but pretty much assembled ad hoc based on math and higher level observables. Quantum mechanics has proven itself to be very useful as a predictive tool to a point and at the same time flawed in the spirit of testability for the math allows for absurd zero extent point particles and fails to figure out certain key elemental electron shell arrangements. ( about 98% success.).

Quarks are totally dreamed up to make a house of cards that makes sense but is assembled from best guesses. I suppose that if I observed certain things at the edge of testability, I could make a predictive structure two onion skin layers deeper that would make perfect sense of it all.

This is the ultimate natural philosophy backed by bubble chamber tracks on one side of a chamber among countless thousands of other tracks creating a track on the other side of the chamber linked by a phantom entity that is relied upon to prove a point of quark theory. A most unsettling and risky sort of science.

It all boils down on how far out on a limb of a multi-brached limb that has branched six times since the last real world observable is one willing to crawl. The mind has no limits as does the number of branches on the tree limb. The more branches, the weaker the twig.

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: Electric theory??

Post by Frank Sanns »

Thanks for the posts Frank P. They look interesting and I will be looking at them more in the coming days. Not light reading when you think of the overal scope of the work.

To be honest, I have often wondered why more "experts" have not joined the forum. I know a few have been envited but no takers. Curious.

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
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull »

Certain experts find many of the questions, holes and issues hurtful and often they, themselves, have questions about the status quo, but do not get involved for any number of reasons, professional and personal.

I have seen this in many acedemicians, and annointed folks still gainfully employed. Once they retire, they are often free to join the fray.

Talking this stuff up is sort of like chasing your tail, but it needs to be punched around a bit from time to time, even though there is no resolution. Good ideas are often sown in the right heads however and some good might ultimately come from it in a fashion least expected.

The future is all about ideas today.

Ricahrd 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
Starfire
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:14 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Starfire »

Good ideas also benefit from a devils advocate it stimulates thinking.
MR.P
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:49 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by MR.P »

re: accelerating universe.................

1:04 PM 10/11/2005




Subject Re: Electric theory??
Posted by FRANK PARSONS on 2005-11-10 15:00
re: accelerating universe.................

Question: As we understand the present cosmic model, we posit that it has a

spherical geometry, where a boundry is defined as that surface which discriminates

the universe from 'nothing'. The 'idea' that the universe is acclerating results or is

derived from 'relational' observations.....

.Now, assuming an omnissient view of a sphereical form of our universe and

assuming that the sphere is 'growing' or 'expanding' at an acclerating rate then,

wouldn't it seem logical that the source of enery driving the expansion is derived

from "NOTHING"..

.....o.k. ....o.k....lookit....logically,,,,, 'somethin'(MATTER,/ENERY) is pushing

against 'nothing'(VACUUM) (beyond the universe's influence...'consequence of

existence').....we are also assuming we're acclerating..........we know from experience

the difference between 'potential enery and kinetic energy !!

Ss..s...s....so.....the simple explanation for an acclerating uniform expansion of the

universe is the consequence of the transformation of the ' "infinite potential enery

well" we know as the (VACUUM) into kinetic energy . Since there is no need for

matter creation (due to equilibrium) , (this has a quantum quality like 'bandwidth')

,this energy is manifested/transformed into the 'energy to acclerete' all the mass

within the universe to a velocity or threshold where accleration ceases and 'matter

formation ' occurrs and the 'net' 'new' cosmological velocity resets to an initial

'starting' point......the cosmological 'material velocity' is also an instantenaous

occurrance due to the introduction of this newly created mass....anyway this is frank

p's theory

Or perhaps, stated another way:

'Reality' (we/universe) transmutes from a 'SCALAR' quality to a 'VECTOR'

quality????????

Isn't 'potential' energy defined as a scalar quantity?????

Electrostatics is an example of this very simple process..

I PROPOSE, SINCE WE THE MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM ARE THINKING

MEN/PEOPLE, THAT WE START OUR QUEST FROM SCRATCH THROUGH

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF OUR OWN 'PHYSICS' DEFINED/FOUNDED UPON

OUR 'POSTULATES'........

I'll start with what I believe to be irrefutable absolutes that should lead to a universal

AXIOM......these postulates are arguable so lets have at it....we already know there'll

be two camps the 'PHILOSOPHERS' and the 'MATHEMATICIANS'....The prize

will be...........ahhh....

maybe......ahhhhh.....................'ERUEKA'....,..I know the truth??????? maybe???

..h\\ows' this for an initial set of postulates for reevaluating existence?

UNIVERSAL POSTULATES by frank parsons

1. "NOTHING ALWAYS ATTRACTS SOMETHING"

2. "SOMETHING ALWAYS COMES FROM NOTHING"

3. "SOMETHING IS ALWAYS ENERGY"

4. "MATTER IS ALWAYS ENERGY"

5. "REALITY IS ALWAYS COMPOSED OF ENERY"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR.P
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:49 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by MR.P »

RE:POSTULATE 5


SHOULD BE

5. "REALITY IS ALWAYS COMPOSED OF KINETIC ENERY"
MR.P
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:49 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by MR.P »

re: came across this on Wired. I read through quite a few articles and thought maybe you all would be interested in it. This is definitely for those who have open minds.

Ed......hello..Thank you for the links ....The thunderbolts site is well manaed ,too..
BTW My mind is soooo ooopen it's empty....

frank p.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14991
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Electric theory??

Post by Richard Hull »

I think that thoughts this far near the edge are pretty much metaphysical in nature as opposed to scientific. Certainly there is little testable proof possible in such arguments. Your list of givens appear as sylogisms and converted to boolean algebra one might assume that a couple of them reduce to "nothing is nothing". which is obvious.

In the fifties/sixties I was convinced of the rectitude of the Bondi-Hoyle continuous creation universe. In the late sixties, the big bang universe that was expanding gained the upper hand. Now dark matter, dark energy and an accelerating edge of the universe is all the rage. Bondi-Hoyle went from a 50's joke to back looking pretty again. I am sure we still have it all wrong.....Or at least wrong enough so that none of the accepted tenets-du-jour can be used as a jumping off point into discovering the unknown.

I still think science has a lot of stuff much closer to home and reality all wrong! Why should I climb out on an even more vaporous, incredulous limb as if it were real or substantive?

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
ebeuerle
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 4:11 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by ebeuerle »

Frank,
You are certainly welcome for the links. I found it really facinating to read some of the docs off that site that talk about how comets are not made of snow and ice but rather are like the moon(dry and dirty). In addition there is the though that the reason for the tail is electrical created from the negative body of the comet and the postive ions streaming from the sun(which form water that was detected by probes in the past-which gave rise to the theory of the comet being made of ice). There is also talk about mars and venus being much closer to earth in the recent past and that the electical plasma arcs caused by the nearby planets formed the landmarks such as Grand Canyon and the rivers/streams they see on Mars. They have some pretty interesting evidence to back it up too such as the extremely round craters on the comets and Mars. Also there is a cave drawing that occurs on all 3 major continents that has now been interpreted as man's drawing of a plasma fields in the sky(men drew what they saw back in the prehistoric days) and that based on the angle the drawing was made it seems that the figure was in the sky at that time. They also back it up with quotes from mythology(had to be based on fact from somewhere) about how the gods of venus and mars always used lightening bolts for weapons(plasma and lightening tend to go hand in hand). Anyways, would definitely change our whole view of the universe if electricity was considered the primary force in the universe instead of gravity.

Sorry for the rambling.
-Eddie B.
JosephBlow
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:45 pm
Real name:

Re: Electric theory??

Post by JosephBlow »

Hi Frank, I enjoyed your postulates.

Where would you place infrasound?

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Linking-G ... _1764.html
Post Reply

Return to “Other Forms of Fusion - Theory, Construction, Discussion, URLs”