Aether Science

[Ghostisfort]

If the Nazis wanted to build a nuclear bomb, then it was impossible for them to avoid using science based on Einstein's equation, E=MC². Einstein's own input into the development of the Manhattan Project bombs was apparently minimal.

So the Germans may have rejected, 'Jewish science', but it was still necessary for an understanding of the physics of nuclear fission.

The history of Nazi bomb making is fraught with controversy and opinion, but I don't think anyone has suggested that they actually managed to make one?
However that is not the case with nuclear reactions:

...Some work in nuclear transmutation had been done. In 1917, Rutherford was able to accomplish transmutation of nitrogen into oxygen, using alpha particles directed at nitrogen 14N + ? ? 17O + p. This was the first observation of a nuclear reaction, that is, a reaction in which particles from one decay are used to transform another atomic nucleus. Eventually, in 1932, a fully artificial nuclear reaction and nuclear transmutation was achieved by Rutherford's colleagues John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fi ... n_reaction

In 1920, Arthur Eddington, on the basis of the precise measurements of atoms by F.W. Aston, was the first to suggest that stars obtained their energy from nuclear fusion of hydrogen to form helium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Aston's work having already been done by William Crookes.

Meanwhile, the possibility of combining two light nuclei in nuclear fusion had been studied in connection with the processes which power stars, and the first nuclear fusion reaction had been produced using accelerated deuterium nuclei, by Mark Oliphant, in 1932. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fi ... n_reaction

During this period, the Hungarian physicist Leó Szilárd who was residing at the United States, realized that the neutron-driven fission of heavy atoms could be used to create a nuclear chain reaction. Such a nuclear-reaction using neutrons was an idea he had first formulated in 1933, upon reading Rutherford's disparaging remarks about generating power from his team's 1932 experiment using protons to split lithium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fi ... n_reaction

All of this was known throughout the science community well before WWII and so the Nazi scientists were not exactly blind to the possibilities.
Additionally, I'm told that atom bomb making is not exactly rocket science once the basic principals are known. In other words, you don't have to be an Einstein to build a bomb.

 

[Ghostisfort]

During the nineteenth century there were several speculative attempts to show that mass and energy were proportional in various ether theories.[51] In 1873 Nikolay Umov pointed out a relation between mass and energy for ether in the form of ? = kmc2, where 0.5 ? k ? 1.[52] The writings of Samuel Tolver Preston,[53][54] and a 1903 paper by Olinto De Pretto,[46][55] presented a mass–energy relation. De Pretto's paper received recent press coverage when Umberto Bartocci discovered that there were only three degrees of separation linking De Pretto to Einstein, leading Bartocci to conclude that Einstein was probably aware of De Pretto's work.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/mass-energ ... z1ZlButvKj

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

The history of Nazi bomb making is fraught with controversy and opinion, but I don't think anyone has suggested that they actually managed to make one?
However that is not the case with nuclear reactions:

...

I didn't say that they had built a bomb. Yes, scientists, still in Nazi Germany, were aware of the science. I'm not arguing that point. However, it brought them under suspicion from the SS, because it was related to work done by other German scientists, including Jews like Einstein, who had already fled Germany, many of whom ended up working on the Manhattan Project.

During the nineteenth century there were several speculative attempts to show that mass and energy were proportional in various ether theories.[51] In 1873 Nikolay Umov pointed out a relation between mass and energy for ether in the form of ? = kmc2, where 0.5 ? k ? 1.[52] The writings of Samuel Tolver Preston,[53][54] and a 1903 paper by Olinto De Pretto,[46][55] presented a mass–energy relation. De Pretto's paper received recent press coverage when Umberto Bartocci discovered that there were only three degrees of separation linking De Pretto to Einstein, leading Bartocci to conclude that Einstein was probably aware of De Pretto's work.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/mass-energ ... z1ZlButvKj

If you actually do read the rest of that article, you'll discover that the work of Einstein informs almost every aspect of the relationship between mass and energy as it has come to be known with relation to nuclear physics. Einstein was obviously not working in isolation, but he was the one to synthesise everything into a clear theory. To argue that his equations and work were not important and then to argue that if the equations and work were important, they weren't Einstein's anyway, is trying to have your cake and eat it too.

It's a poor attempt at revisionism.

 

[rynner2]

Einstein was obviously not working in isolation, but he was the one to synthesise everything into a clear theory.

Actually, Einstein was not in any academic institution when he produced Special Relativity - he was working as a clerk in the Swiss Patent Office! So his contacts with the world of physics were based on reading scientific papers and exchanging letters.

When lots of people are working in related fields, it's natural that some of them will get glimpses of the big picture. But what Einstein did was more than 'synthesise everything into a clear theory' - he constructed a theory from scratch, from the bottom up.

He did this by working from just two axioms, Galileo's principle of relativity, and the constancy of the speed of light for all observers. At first sight, most people assumed that these axioms could not both be true, but Einstein looked carefully at the mathematics and showed that they were perfectly consistent with each other. And from that flowed time dilation, length contraction and mass-energy equivalence.

Others had had pale glimpses of these consequences, but it was Einstein who painted the big picture. He not only painted the picture, he built the easel and mixed the paints! Quite amazing, really! 8)


Well, this all helps to pass the time as we await proof of the aether theory....

 

[Cochise]

BTW, what happened regarding the thread on Religion?

[off topic]I did ask for our posts regarding that to be moved to a new thread but it didn't happen. I'll try and start one in 'chat' to avoid excessive controversy - after all, we're not going to prove anything [/off topic]

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

When lots of people are working in related fields, it's natural that some of them will get glimpses of the big picture. But what Einstein did was more than 'synthesise everything into a clear theory' - he constructed a theory from scratch, from the bottom up.

...

Others had had pale glimpses of these consequences, but it was Einstein who painted the big picture. He not only painted the picture, he built the easel and mixed the paints! Quite amazing, really! 8)

...

Thanks, Rynner. Einstein has become such a cultural icon that we sometimes forget just how important and paradigm shifting his work was when it was first published.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Thanks, Rynner. Einstein has become such a cultural icon that we sometimes forget just how important and paradigm shifting his work was when it was first published.

As usual, such arguments become polarised. The rationalists will continue to wallow in intellectualisation and why shouldn't they if that's what they want.

But the old problem still presents itself: That nothing that touches the lives of ordinary people on this planet is improved by the theory after a hundred years.

Even if we concede to the atomic bomb and GPS, we are still left with the unanswered question: What new concept technology has arrived as a direct result of modern physics theory in the last thirty years? Remember, that prior to this there were sixty years in which to ponder the problem.

I exchanged a series of Emails with physicist Donald Simanek not long ago. You can find him here: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/
He said that my problem with physics should be presented to application of physics. His question got me thinking that all of application is a hundred years old.

But back to the subject of these threads:
Rather than anecdotal descriptions I decided to talk about the devices I've tried myself. These are classified by rationalists as free energy for the purpose of waving them away, but they never do the work or try them out for themselves, preferring to take a non existent high-ground.

The Adams motor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams_motor sometimes called the Adams Bedini Motor works just fine and does what it says on the box. Most of those who try this seem to think they have to apply modern electronic theory and then wonder why they fail.
I found it works best with a mechanical spark-gap rather than using transistors. It uses very little energy to output and I don't understand why no professional has never researched it. No theory of course.

Having built it I then went on to use its pulses as a basis for the Tesla transmitter. Not having a workshop, I experimented on my computer desk. It shut the computer down several times before finally destroying it completely with radiation. The mother board, hard disk drive and optical drive were completely shot although amazingly the processor was OK and its being used to write this thread.
I need a workshop.

I mentioned all of this to Simanek, who said that Tesla was a "tinkerer" a word that speaks volumes for one addicted to theory. I'm sure he applies the word to me among other disparaging remarks.

The point, as always, is to show that the universe offers endless possibilities that are not covered by a single theory.
That there are other modes of thinking not included in the scientific method.
And, that there is no high ground retreat in academic science.

 

[Timble2]

I'm not surprised the Tesla transmitter fried your computer. If he'd actually finished the large scale device early 1900s, there wouldn't have been any circuits to fry with induced currents, though he might have had problems with induced currents in certain metal objects and structures.

You may not have an efficient way of distributing power, but you've got the making of an electromagnetic pulse weapon by the sound of it. I hope you're not messing up your neighbours TV reception too much...

 

[Ghostisfort]

I'm not surprised the Tesla transmitter fried your computer. If he'd actually finished the large scale device early 1900s, there wouldn't have been any circuits to fry with induced currents, though he might have had problems with induced currents in certain metal objects and structures.

You may not have an efficient way of distributing power, but you've got the making of an electromagnetic pulse weapon by the sound of it. I hope you're not messing up your neighbours TV reception too much...

Spot-on Timble
I checked the TV reception and had to add a capacitor to stop the interference.
I would still like a mainstream opinion about the radiation though.

 

[Mythopoeika]

I'm not surprised the Tesla transmitter fried your computer. If he'd actually finished the large scale device early 1900s, there wouldn't have been any circuits to fry with induced currents, though he might have had problems with induced currents in certain metal objects and structures.

You may not have an efficient way of distributing power, but you've got the making of an electromagnetic pulse weapon by the sound of it. I hope you're not messing up your neighbours TV reception too much...

Spot-on Timble
I checked the TV reception and had to add a capacitor to stop the interference.
I would still like a mainstream opinion about the radiation though.

Better not build too powerful an EMP, otherwise the Home Office may begin to take an interest.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

That spark gap generator would be a real give away.

 

[Ghostisfort]

It was only powered by a 9 volt portable printer charger so I didn't need Igor to throw zee svitch.

 

[Xanatic_]

Let´s start at the beginning. How is the field of electronics dependent on aether theory?

 

[Ghostisfort]

Let´s start at the beginning. How is the field of electronics dependent on aether theory?

Well, it's a long story, (too long for a forum) but I've laid it all out in as simple a manner as is possible on my web site at: http://www.n-atlantis.com/ where much of the non-academic history of electronics can be found. You will find that all the electronics we use today originated during the reign of aether theory. May I suggest that you start with: Radio Invention, TV History, Transistor, Terahertz etc.

The theories of Einstein became dominant in the 1930's, coinciding with the end of the Golden Age of Discovery - mainly electronic -, which ended around the same time period.
The age of aether, which was used as an inspiration by the inventors of the time was replaced with a theory that prided itself in being inscrutable. Unknowable, to all but a chosen few, who have done little or nothing with it in the way of original thought for the benefit of humanity in a hundred years, apart from elegant math' and endless intellectualisations.

This represents something of a challenge to those who support modern physics, as no one on this board has yet given a satisfactory answer or justification for its existence.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Let´s start at the beginning. How is the field of electronics dependent on aether theory?

Well, it's a long story, (too long for a forum) but I've laid it all out in as simple a manner as is possible on my web site at: http://www.n-atlantis.com/ where much of the non-academic history of electronics can be found. You will find that all the electronics we use today originated during the reign of aether theory. May I suggest that you start with: Radio Invention, TV History, Transistor, Terahertz etc.

The theories of Einstein became dominant in the 1930's, coinciding with the end of the Golden Age of Discovery - mainly electronic -, which ended around the same time period.
The age of aether, which was used as an inspiration by the inventors of the time was replaced with a theory that prided itself in being inscrutable. Unknowable, to all but a chosen few, who have done little or nothing with it in the way of original thought for the benefit of humanity in a hundred years, apart from elegant math' and endless intellectualisations.

This represents something of a challenge to those who support modern physics, as no one on this board has yet given a satisfactory answer or justification for its existence.

Or, you simply ignore all the new science since the end of the 19th century and carry on regardless. Whatever anybody posts.

:lol:

 

[rynner2]

The Age of Aether went the same way as the Age of Pholgiston, and for the same reason - lack of evidence, and no productive predictions from the 'theories'.

I still await (but without holding my breath) some proof of the existence of the aether. Frankly, I'm getting bored with Ghostisfort's regular chanting of his creed. His unwillingness to engage meaningfully with his audience makes him a poor missionary for his beliefs.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Or, you simply ignore all the new science since the end of the 19th century and carry on regardless. Whatever anybody posts.

:lol:

Well, I keep repeating myself I know but I'm still waiting for a modern physics supporter to answer my question. Something unequivocally derived from modern physics, something generally useful in the last 30 years?
I'm afraid I will have to keep repeating this until it dawns that such a thing does not exist.
Even Donald Simanek didn't dispute this one.

I can only assume that this diversion is to deflect the thread away from the Keely debunking?

 

[Jerry_B]

That doesn'ty answer Pietro's question. And has anything useful derived from the aether been created in the last 30 years? Surely if it exists and is the actual 'proper' way that the universe is ordered, someone must have invented something of use that utilises it? Or is it just about questionable 'free energy' stuff?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

That doesn'ty answer Pietro's question. And has anything useful derived from the aether been created in the last 30 years? Surely if it exists and is the actual 'proper' way that the universe is ordered, someone must have invented something of use that utilises it? Or is it just about questionable 'free energy' stuff?

Wasn't my question.

I simply pointed out that in order for Ghostisfort's assertion to be true, he simply ignored posts about such advances as have been made in laser technology, optical communications, solid state technologies and particle science, based on Einstein's theories and quantum mechanics, since WWII and particularly in the last few decades.

Technology will always lag behind the science, since it usually has to wait for materials and methods of implementation to catch up. Lasers being a perfect example. etc.

:lol:

 

[rynner2]

Well, I keep repeating myself I know but I'm still waiting for a modern physics supporter to answer my question. Something unequivocally derived from modern physics, something generally useful in the last 30 years?

This is a stupid game, which you play by your own rules, dismissing any suggestions we might make for some fatuous reason.

So if I suggest Liquid Crystal Display TV, you'd probably come back by saying that liquid crystals were discovered back in 1888, completely ignoring the fact that the technology to produce LCD TVs has only developed within the last 30 years.

Modern technology is a complex merging of earlier technologies with each other in new ways, combined with the results of new research, which is based in modern physics.

1983: Researchers at Brown, Boveri & Cie (BBC), Switzerland, invent the super-twisted nematic (STN) structure for passive-matrix addressed LCDs. H. Amstutz et al. were listed as inventors in the corresponding patent applications filed in Switzerland on July 7, 1983, and October 28, 1983. Patents were granted in Switzerland CH 665491, Europe EP 0131216,[12] US 4634229 and many more countries. Scientific details are published in the referenced article.[13]

1990: Under different titles inventors conceived electrooptical effects as alternatives to twisted nematic field effect LCDs (TN- and STN- LCDs). One approach was to use interdigital electrodes on one glass substrate only to produce an electric field essentially parallel to the glass substrates (Abstract)[14]. To take full advantage of the properties of this In-Plane Switching (IPS) technology further work was needed. After thorough analysis, details of advantageous embodiments are filed in Germany by Guenter Baur et al. and patented in various countries (Abstract)[15]. The Fraunhofer Institute in Freiburg, where the inventors worked, assigns these patents to Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, the world's leading supplier of LC substances.

1992: Shortly thereafter, engineers at Hitachi work out various practical details of the IPS technology to interconnect the thin-film transistor array as a matrix and to avoid undesirable stray fields in between pixels (Abstract)[16]. Hitachi also improves the viewing angle dependence further by optimizing the shape of the electrodes (Super IPS).
NEC and Hitachi become early manufacturers of active-matrix addressed LCDs based on the IPS technology. This is a milestone for implementing large-screen LCDs having acceptable visual performance for flat-panel PC monitors and TVs.

1996 Samsung develops the optical patterning technique that enables multi-domain LCD. Multi-domain and In Plane Switching subsequently remain the dominant LCD designs through 2010.[17]

2007: In the 4Q of 2007 for the first time LCD televisions surpass CRT units in worldwide sales.[18]

2008: LCD TVs become the majority with a 50% market share of the 200 million TVs forecast to ship globally in 2008 according to Display Bank.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_cry ... ef_history

Steam technology gave birth to Thermodynamics, a science that has applications far removed from railway locomotives. Similarly, modern physics has proved the basis of much R&D, and now has ramifications well outside the original, limited experiments that gave rise to the theories. Far more so than Aether theory ever did (to get back on topic... )

 

[Ghostisfort]

So if I suggest Liquid Crystal Display TV, you'd probably come back by saying that liquid crystals were discovered back in 1888, completely ignoring the fact that the technology to produce LCD TVs has only developed within the last 30 years.

"The first ever flat panel display was invented in 1964 at the University of Illinois. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_panel_display

The above is typical of the misleading technological history that is churned out for popular consumption and education. The impression is given that physicists did it all when in fact they had nothing to do with the discovery.

1936 Tihanyi described the principle of "plasma television" and conceived the first flat-panel television system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1lm%C3%A1n_Tihanyi

As is obvious from the above my 1930's theory holds, no need to mention the past 30 years.

1957 "Farnsworth an American inventor and television pioneer...
"...predicted HDTV and solid-state flat-screen technology in a 1957 interview: (See Klmn Tihanyi above)
"[W]e think we can eventually get in excess of 2000 lines instead of 525 and do it on an even narrower channel which will make for a much sharper picture. We believe in the picture-frame type of a picture, where the visual display will be just a screen. And we hope for a memory, so that the picture will be just as though its pasted on there."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth

You can back-engineer history as much as you like but the record stands.
It's the original idea that's important and when it comes to technology the ideas can rarely be traced back to academia.

Having worked in engineering all of my life, much of it in the automotive industry, I am well aware of development. But the sad truth is that there has been very little change to the basic car in a hundred years apart from additions such as safety devices and cosmetic restyling.
Engine, transmission, gearbox, clutch are all the same.
Some of the drawings I used for development of new models were yellow with age.

See also: 'Nothing New': 7 modern car technologies that are actually 100 years old
http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2011 ... years-old/

 

[rynner2]

So if I suggest Liquid Crystal Display TV, you'd probably come back by saying that liquid crystals were discovered back in 1888, completely ignoring the fact that the technology to produce LCD TVs has only developed within the last 30 years.

"The first ever flat panel display was invented in 1964 at the University of Illinois. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_panel_display

This is typical of Ghost in Humpty Dumpty mode ("When I use a word, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less").

I mentioned LCD displays, and he replies with a quote about Plasma displays - which is a completely different technology. It's impossible to have a rational debate with someone who doen't know what he's talking about, or else is being deliberately mischievous.

I'm outta here - no more stupid games for me.

 

[Ghostisfort]

LCD displays are even older.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

And then, of course, when the technology hasn't yet caught up with the science, i.e hot fusion. Then that's proof of Ghostisfort's position as well.

It's like looking for the missing link.

 

[Ghostisfort]

And then, of course, when the technology hasn't yet caught up with the science, i.e hot fusion. Then that's proof of Ghostisfort's position as well.

It's like looking for the missing link.

The problem as I see it, is that you can't answer a question by changing the question.

The original challenge was to find a new technology that is derived from modern physics theory in the last 30 years.
If the properties of LCD's were known in 1888, it's obvious that LCD's are not derived from a modern physics theory.

If I wanted to be pedantic, I would insist that the theories were specifically those of Einstein - the on-topic subject when I originally asked the question.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I look forward to you posting images of 19th century LCD screens.

:lol:

 

[rynner2]

The problem as I see it, is that you can't answer a question by changing the question.

True. So when Are you going to present proof of the aether?

If the properties of LCD's were known in 1888, it's obvious that LCD's are not derived from a modern physics theory.

Liquid Crystals were discovered in 1888, but it was decades before the concept of using them in a display screen arose. (Even CRT TV hadn't been invented back then.)

Like P_M said, "I look forward to you posting images of 19th century LCD screens" !!

 

[Ghostisfort]

Let me reword the question:

1. Of the work done by academic physics in the past 30 years, what items can be said to promise useful application?

2. Of the above items, how many have been developed by the 'application of physics' department?

3. What are they?

 

[rynner2]

Let me reword the question:

...

Reword it as much as you like, I'm not bothering to answer as you constantly pooh pooh everything we come up with.

Do your own research. Here's one place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_physics

But since your general remarks to date have revealed a poor understanding of physics, I doubt you'll be any the wiser even if you do look into the matter, because twisting everything you read into conformity with your preconceived notions is no way to learn.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Let me reword the question:

1. Of the work done by academic physics in the past 30 years, what items can be said to promise useful application?

2. Of the above items, how many have been developed by the 'application of physics' department?

3. What are they?

Well, there's graphene.

And it's application in solid state electronics, (quantum) computing, etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9491789.stm

http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v83/i2/p407_1

Potentially very versatile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=-YbS-YyvCl4