View Single Post
 
Old 02-17-2010, 05:57 AM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Redirect from - COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

http://www.energeticforum.com/84908-post206.html
Quote:
To address this the model proposed using a Rule of Correspondence. It's easy. We know everything is the sum of its parts and we know that those parts comprise atoms that have been forged, by nature or through some other artificial means, to represent precisely what it does. Computers, kettles, pots, bricks, rocks all comprise atoms and molecules. Always supposing that this grinding could done, and that it could also be done perfectly, and further supposing that we could collect those grindings in a receptacle of sorts - then theoretically we'd have an unidentifiable mess of atoms and molecules that previously made up the whole of that identifiable three dimensional object. Three things are now evident. Firstly, in their less defined or muddled state of disassociation from each other, the atoms and molecules bear no direct relationship to its previously bound state. Secondly some force or energy must have been applied to shape it into that previously bound and identifiable three dimensional shape. And thirdly and finally we can definitely conclude that albeit different to it's earlier presentation, those atomic and molecular parts indeed made up the whole of that amalgam or object. So. We can therefore conclude that if energy was added to bind the atoms into an amalgam of sorts then, by inference, the least energetic state of an atom is in its unbound state. The sum of its parts are indeed, consistent with the whole. And the evidence is that one can rely of the Rule of Correspondence to prove that particulate and aerosolate nature of all three dimensional amalgams.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/84913-post207.html
Quote:
And, if this is true, if indeed everything has some particulate - some smaller state than is evident, could it be that perhaps there is something that is even smaller than a particle? What we know about particles is that they can decay - or they can be stable. But always, even if only through the complex appartus of a particle accelerator a particle can be shown to exist and to have precise properties associated with that particle. No one has seen anything smaller and, as a result, this is assumed to be the smallest possible state. Everything can be subdivided down to its smaller part, but the very smallest? That particle? That's the bottom line. It is the most profoundly fundamental potential division of matter to it's most profoundly smallest state. That's where the buck stops. And that is mainstream opinion. With good reason. Science is based on empirical evidence and nothing has been seen to be smaller.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/84942-post209.html
Quote:
The north of one magnet repels the north of another and conversely the south repels anothers south. But a north will be attracted to the south of another and again, a south to another's north. Vagaries of their juxtapositions aside, that movement will reduce to the shortest possible mean average distance which translates into a straight line. This is the direction they take to either attach or move apart. Therefore in terms of the principles of correspondence, and again assuming that the magnetic field may be particulate, then one may conclude that these magnetic dipoles follow the laws of charge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/84944-post210.html
Quote:
It seems that a magnet is not able to 'swap' its justification. Once its north and south are fixed then, given a critical proximity the magnet will move the entire body of the magnet to attach north to south or south to north. It seems that these polarities, once applied, are not interchangeable. Again therefore, in terms of the principles of correspondence and again, if the magnetic field is particulate then it seems that a north pole is always a north pole and a south is always a south. Essentially the property of the magnet is actually an interrelationship between two separate and opposite magnetic extremes or monopoles - each entirely distinct one from the other. But just as one does not get a magnetic field without both a north and south justification, then one may assume that the two poles invariably occur together. Therefore the existence of an isolated monopole within a magnetic field would only hold theoretical interest and be substantially irrelevant to a study of the field as a whole or to the parts of the field.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85366-post235.html
Quote:
I think that most readers on this thread have agreed that extra energy is evident. Some extraordinary work has been done by Aaron, Dr Stiffler, Bedini and many others to prove this. The question at issue is 'where does this energy come from'. Generally most people point to zero point energy but that does little to actually describe what it is nor it's precise location in space.

And the confusions related to current flow are everywhere. Some highly respected academics still attribute this exclusively to a flow of electrons. Others more conveniently simply refer to 'charge' flow - but are not able to describe the properties of that charge. Charge is associated with the properties of particles and they are always positive, negative or neutral. Charge does not occur without this particle association. So. To refer to charge without describing what is charged is no better than pointing at wind without reference to atomospheric pressure or even to the atomic or molecular components and densities in the air itself.

The question is this. What is the particle that is responsible for current flow if current flow actually also has the property of charge. In other words, what exactly is charged?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85369-post236.html
Quote:
To answer this question the model proposed that all things are essentially particulate. They can be divided, and sub divided - forever - until it's final basic structure - the atom. And after this is the proof of particles inside that atom. But that's it. In terms of mainstream science that's the Ground Zero of all matter. And the evidence of this is everywhere. The atoms have been unravelled and their particles have been seen or measured or traced. Nothing smaller.

But this leaves questions because gravity, which is not seen, also seems to control anything the size of an atom or larger. And everything smaller than an atom - those particles - respond to magnetic fields to show that they have, themselves, an innate charged property of sorts. What then is there in a magnetic field or in an electromagnetic field that induces this reaction in particles?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85372-post238.html
Quote:
Using the dialectic, or as some have called it 'inductive' reasoning - the model argues that in the same way as all bound matter can be subdivided into its essentially smallest part being the particle, so can a magnetic field be subdivided into smaller parts. The difference is this. Those parts of a magnetic field? They need to be inferred. And this, because they remain hidden. But, the arguement goes like this. If the definition of the parts is consistent with what is seen - then the argument may be valid.

And why the interest in a magnetic field rather than an electromagnetic field as it was finally modelled by Maxwell? Well. The argument is simple. An electric field always has a magnetic field associated with it. A magnetic field need not have an electric field. Therefore - using that self same tools of dialectic argument, the thesis suggests that a magnetic field may, therefore, be an independent and fundamental force and the electromagnetic interaction - by comparison - a secondary phenomenon of this single force. Therefore, if more can be disclosed by 'inferring' or 'ascribing' material or particulate properties to this force, then we may hopefully advance our understanding of the field as a whole and the part it plays to induce particles to bend or twist or 'spin' as it is referred to. We will, hopefully, better understand the 'charge' property of particles and something more about the charge in a magnetic field itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85383-post240.html
Quote:
So I took your average permanent bar magnet and made observations. Bottom line, a magnetic field always has a north and south pole. If it's got particles then they must be a magetic dipoles. A field cannot change it's north to south and vice versa. Therefore the magnetic dipoles must comprise two opposite but distinct properties the south or negative being distinct from the north or postive. And albeit different and opposite - yet somehow they complement each other. This also suggests that monopoles don't exist in the magnetic field.

Then to the shape of a field. Particles aren't known to move as a field. Photons irradiate in straight lines away from its source. Pauli's exclusion principle claims that electrons cannot share an orbit - or a path. Electrons from cathode ray tubes are known to irradiate in a similar way to photons. Particles, of themselves, may fill a specific area but they do not comprise the smoothness that is supposed to be the distinguishing feature of a 'field'. And a magnetic field does indeed appear to be smooth. It's north and south pole apear to be equal though opposite in strength and it's influence through space is constant. Therefore there may be some feature of those magnetic dipoles that create the field effect that is not possible in dissassociated particles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85385-post241.html
Quote:
Now I have to take a detour. Bear with me. It's been suggested that a magnetic field may contain particles but we have never seen those particles. Not ever. But why should they be invisible? Here's what the model argues. If any particle were smaller than a photon - and if they were faster than a photon - then photons, or light itself, would never find those particles. They would remain hidden from view. The analogy drawn is to wind that we can't see blowing a balloon that we can see. Just forever out of reach. This means that light is not so much the limit of all that is measurable. Just that light is the boundary limit of WHAT we can measure. The speed of light may simply be the boundary limit of our measurable dimensions.

A particle that exceeds light speed is a tachyon and they are purely theoretical. They are not actually presumed to exist. The model argues that this magnetic dipole is a tachyon and that they do indeed exist and they exist in a field.
__________________