Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)  (Read 338451 times)

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #90 on: April 14, 2008, 08:55:41 AM »
My idea is that "sine waves" do not come from resonant/reactive behavior of the circuit and its coils. Sine waves appear as a result of some "external" potential field. However, it is circuit that triggers this potential field. This potential field's intensity varies with time and it is this variation that is seen as sine-wave segment. By the way, SM himself tuned his device so that it produces overunity DC current - not a sinewave output. From the vid he also referred to high-freq sinewaves which are of course not really useful for powering applications.
I will have to think about this. Interesting concept. What potential gradient do you theorize it is acting upon?
"Sine waves" are result of DC acoustic potential field produced by pulse coils. This DC acoustic potential field affects all surrounding fields and electrons, and so these changes manifest as change in voltage in "sine wave segment" shape on the oscilloscope.

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #91 on: April 14, 2008, 10:16:50 AM »
That might explain something to me. I used to wonder why Tesla preferred to use a DC voltage  (a DC High voltage dynamo, of which I have pictures of him proudly standing by.) source to supply his testing coils. I had assumed it was mainly for the charging effect on capacitors. I assumed this since a DC voltage is constant, and has a non-varying voltage gradient potential, it gave the capacitors a faster charge time, allowing higher frequency to be achieved.

However, comparative charge times are possible with a slightly higher potential high voltage AC source of low frequency. In an age where diodes were non-existent, and the vacuum tube a relatively new invention (at the time the new-fangled incandescent light bulb), AC generators were cheaper and easier to build. (simpler to wind, commutate,  etc.)

Maybe another approach is to imitate a disruptive discharge to the coils. A high speed voltage dependent gate of some kind? Low resistance high speed high current transistor/mosfet switched off of capacitor/coil feedback voltage and said coil/capacitor resonance tank fed pure DC?

Frequency of operation would be calculated simply through parallel coil/capacitance resonance formulae already utilized. Waves through such a tank would be pulses of said frequency trains (packets of pulses at the design frequency), and much higher energy than could be attained through other direct pulsing means with the same input voltage/current ratio.

The question arises, is there a product suitable for said transistor/mosfet which is capable of the voltage/amperage/switching speed/resistance necessary.

It is not like we are hitting these with hundreds of volts DC/AC, and the cap/ind ratio can be fairly small yielding a low instantaneous joule throughput, UNLIKE a high volt/high capacitance/low inductance tesla primary which may source hundreds of joules at any point in time at the spark gap.. Any ideas?

Better yet, tune the coils to the frequency you desire, hit them with pulsed DC at the frequency you desire, but very low duty cycle (very short "on" time) while the coils are charge by direct DC linkage. Feedback TO the coils is then merely a blocking diode input to each coil off of the collector coil source. However, the collector would have to feed through a voltage divider to run the oscillator circuit, or recharge the source battery. Hmmmm..... This might even be a better way. Resonance in the controls would be relatively pure.

(Resonance, like field rotation is A key, but not the ONLY key. Yes, the control coils would HAVE to resonate. Resonance in itself is a means of energy storage, or amplification, and this is true of both electrical and physical resonance. People, do not forget that there is an ambient "background" electrical field that is actually quite strong considered in volts/meter, and that every magnetic wave has an electric traveling in conjunction with it. The TPU may well be providing somewhat of a "ground" through its operation concerning this field....)


@aleks

Thank you! You reminded me of this, and it may well be the answer, as Tesla aimed to harness this potential field, and you can tap ANY electric field, if you can provide a ground for it. The earth is a giant capacitor, and the field is produced between the Ionosphere and ground, with air as the dielectric. However, this would HAVE to be controlled, as a low resistance or shorted ground for this field (ever heard of a lightning bolt?)........ It would most definitely destroy the apparatus, and provide the destructive magnetic effects described by otto and others if runaway. Any capacitor is a DC battery of a kind, even the earth. Tesla knew this, and I think SM figured it out.


Paul Andrulis


pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #92 on: April 14, 2008, 10:54:12 AM »
--------------->IMPORTANT IMPORTANT<-----------

I am shaking inside as I write this.

Someone check my logic PLEASE!

premises:

1. There is no such thing as a stationary electron, either it is spinning around an atom, or it is in motion towards an available hole in an electron shell
2. Moving electrons have an associated electromagnetic field.
3. Each electron therefore has its own magnetic field due to its own motion.
4. Magnetic fields either attract or repel each other, depending upon field orientation.
5. Magnetic fields generate electricity in a wire by stripping electrons from electron shells.
6  Nature abhors a vacuum.
7. A voltage gradient due to newly available holes due to stripped electrons exists in the wire.
8. Wires may replenish stripped electrons which exit them, by drawing from surrounding electrons in close proximity to the wire.
9. This replenishment may also be accomplished through any local electric fields in proximity with the wire.

IF THESE ARE ALL TRUE THEN:

SHOUT EUREKA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine a linearly moving magnetic field, whose lines of force are not cutting through, just merely dragging through the outer skin of an inductor (magnetic skin effect towards a wire). As the field drags through the outer skin, the magnetic field affects the fields of the electrons it encounters, which try to orient their fields to the new field. This magnetic field is weak, and merely a few electrons are affected enough to drag them out of their weak bond shell holes. These electrons flow through the wire attracted to and in sync with this magnetic field which is drawing them. The holes must be filled, so electricity flows in from the outside, through static fields already present at decent potential (the ambient field present everywhere on the face of the earth).

NOW IMAGINE THAT THIS FIELD IS A ROTATING FIELD, AND THAT THE FIELD IS NOT SO WEAK, AND WE HAVE JUST CREATED A GROUND (LOCALIZED VOLTAGE IMBALANCE OF LOWER POTENTIAL) FOR THE AMBIENT ELECTRIC FIELD OF THE EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!

If this is right... THEN WE KNOW WHY THE TPU WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #93 on: April 14, 2008, 11:00:29 AM »
NOTE FOR ABOVE POST:

In premise No 9. I forgot to state that the influx of electrons from the field only raises it back to ambient voltage.

NOTE 2:

The TPU is not overunity, and violates no rule of conservation of energy. It draws power from an already present MASSIVE potential energy source!

Paul Andrulis

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #94 on: April 14, 2008, 11:07:05 AM »
One last note, for any doubting physics types:

Why be surprised that a small battery can produce such output. It has been both LONG and WELL KNOWN that a small amount of energy can control and direct a much greater amount of energy. Nothing is "produced". Nothing is "destroyed". Charges are merely moved from one place to another. All the "laws" go humming right along, as the TPU violates none.

Paul Andrulis

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #95 on: April 14, 2008, 12:10:03 PM »
It is not like we are hitting these with hundreds of volts DC/AC, and the cap/ind ratio can be fairly small yielding a low instantaneous joule throughput, UNLIKE a high volt/high capacitance/low inductance tesla primary which may source hundreds of joules at any point in time at the spark gap.. Any ideas?
I think we also need to "fire" a lot of joules per impulse for any serious action. The frequency of impulses can be lowered if each impulse can be made powerful. If Tesla ever got any surplus energy, he should have used spark gap at a low frequency repetition - there were no MOSFETs at that time which could fire 50000 impulses per second like in Otto's experiment. At the same time even in Tesla's times each spark gap impulse could be made powerful to any degree required. Note that spark gap impulses are saw-tooth waves:
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4638/sparkgapshotzd4.png)
Varying duty cycle in square wave is not the same thing.

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #96 on: April 14, 2008, 12:24:21 PM »
2. Moving electrons have an associated electromagnetic field.
3. Each electron therefore has its own magnetic field due to its own motion.

From what I've read, electrons have electrostatic charge field. This is like a bulb's light aura which diminishes with distance from the electron's core.

4. Magnetic fields either attract or repel each other, depending upon field orientation.

This does not apply to electron as it does not have a magnetic field. Electron is an electric charge monopole. Electrons always repel each other. What makes them stick to each other in an atom is proton which is lacking one electron charge. But it is not electrons sticking to each other - it is protons nullifying their repelling force that make them able to live close to each other.

Electro-magnetic fields are always a result of photon emission performed by various particle interactions.

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #97 on: April 14, 2008, 12:31:18 PM »
All the "laws" go humming right along, as the TPU violates none.
It does violate laws of conservation from what I understand (but then a space satellite does it by gaining velocity in planets gravity field). But I do not think you have to be afraid of that. It is dogmatic physicists who should really get scared. From what I've read they were really pissed when such situation happened in the past (do not remember which experiment was it), but then they've invented a neutrino and that gave them a better breath again. If I understand human society correctly 'top' physicists are really exist to protect conservation of energy for elites. Any good physicist will always tell when a 'borderline' is close to be broken (meaning something unexplored seems like producing OU). We have many such 'conspiracy' evidences recorded - just surf the net and see many 'OU' situations where humble inventors were 'locked' in prison or in grave. There are artists/actors who are really working as politicians, and there are physicists (and generally - scientists) who do the same. Such physicists will start to stink if money resources are going into a 'wrong' direction. I hope you understand this social system.

I think OU people should also produce some politic influence. For example, they may need to show perspective of oil stream end, of possible bad crops for biogasoline uses. Bankers will really get scared if they'll try to envision economy collapse resulted from energy resources shortage. They should be more than interested in sustaining economy and thus they should be interested in 'pseudo-science' of this kind. Religious centers should be also very interested, because religion and morality may gain dominance if unlimited energy source is created. It's not that I'm personally interested in getting money for this kind of research - I'm only capable of theoretizing without much personal responsibility. But I'm really interested in new findings along these lines, which are lacking at the moment.

Bankers have nothing to lose given such energy shortage perspective. $50bln were spent for thermonuclear synthesis research without much results. More to be spent. This is a pseudo-science, supported by physicists-politicians who have more faith in models than in reality.

A timely quote I've found:
?Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.? Nikola Tesla
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 03:44:18 PM by aleks »

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #98 on: April 14, 2008, 02:36:22 PM »
BTW, on another thought, a rotating 'field' may be of use. However, it is not about rotating electric-magnetic field, it is mostly about using DC acoustic potential field to produce gradients around the coil so that they produce a directed electric flow. Well, the EM field WILL rotate, of course, being pulsed that way, but its rotation is an outcome of DC acoustic potential field. Just imagine you are popping and hiding small black holes from nowhere in a cyclic manner around coil. They will start to accelerate all charges inside and outside the coil. This will produce an EM whirl, but the energy of this whirl is sustained by pulsing, not by whirl itself. Then you can use this whirl to get required energy.

sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #99 on: April 14, 2008, 03:45:40 PM »
    I remember somewhere reading that when an antennae transmits, the electric field detaches from the magnetic field within nanometers of the antennae.  The radio wave becomes purely massless and propogates at the speed of light.  The electric field following the charge migration up and down the antennae.  I believe that the magnetic field is the effect on the aether by kinetic electrically charged MASS.  It is the wake caused by the charged mass migration through the aether.  The magnetic lines of force are pressure gradients in the aether like iosbars on a meterlogical map.  When the torroidal coil is pulsed it creates a smokering like pressure gradient in the aether.  This allows it to persist in the aether just like a smoke ring persists in the air.  The collector coil traverses this aetheric pressure gradient and now you have a conductor passing through a magnetic field at lots of meters per second.  This essentially makes the tpu an open air dragless generator with the Earth the prime mover moving the output windings across a magnetic field suspended in the aether by the kick coils.
   

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #100 on: April 14, 2008, 10:28:03 PM »
@aleks

1. From what I've read, electrons have electrostatic charge field. This is like a bulb's light aura which diminishes with distance from the electron's core.

2. This does not apply to electron as it does not have a magnetic field. Electron is an electric charge monopole. Electrons always repel each other. What makes them stick to each other in an atom is proton which is lacking one electron charge. But it is not electrons sticking to each other - it is protons nullifying their repelling force that make them able to live close to each other.

3. Electro-magnetic fields are always a result of photon emission performed by various particle interactions.

This is good stuff, and is exactly what I seek, but also has answers associated. I have added numbers to your quote so that I can address them individually.

1. Electrons do have an electrostatic charge field, which is true. Your description is pretty good. However, an electromagnetic field is created  by said charge field in motion. That is why an electromagnetic field is electromagnetic. A magnetic field always has an electric field in conjunction with it. No field is truly static, as all fields are varying over time in magnitude and motion.

For instance, an electron in a lower electron shell has more energy than one in a higher shell. A laser (stimulated emission) works by adding energy to an electron which forces it into a lower shell, then upon relaxation it returns to its original shell, and gives off the extra energy in the form of light quanta we call photons. The charge field of each electron had to vary, to change the energy contained in said electron, so was by no means static.

2. :D Concerning the magnetic field, prove it.

If a moving electron has no magnetic field (and there is no such thing as a stationary electron), then electricity and its associated magnetic field, does not work. A magnetic field is produced wherever electrons are in motion, and this is independant upon the conductor. An electric arc in a vacuum still has a magnetic field produced (IE no conductor at all, JUST electrons in motion.).
 
Electrons do repel each other, and this is due solely to the monopole nature of the charge. Opposite charges attract, like charges repel. To my knowledge, electrons never stick to each other.They orbit the atom nucleus in a similar manner that a moon orbits a planet.

3. In this I HAVE to disagree, to some extent. If various particle interactions are necessary, then explain the magnetic field created by an arc in a vacuum? Or maybe explain the photon itself, which by the claims of physics is a traveling electromagnetic wave with an associated electric field, with NO ASSOCIATED PARTICLES. (If it sounds somewhat stupid, that is because it is. I debate this view as well, but it is the current model.)

*A side note for those reading not knowledged in this area. If these fields are not dependent upon particle propagation, then a photon does not have mass. If they are, then a photon has to have a particle traveling with it, and it has mass. Interestingly enough, a mass has been associated with the photon, but they refer to this embarassing contradiction as "apparent mass" to explain it away, which ONLY raises more questions, especially since they ignore the implication inherent with E=mc^2, namely that mass and energy are but different aspects of the same thing, and are non-separable in nature.

@sparks

I have been reading your posts, and you may not realize it, but you are talking about space/time, and may well be possible.

Don't be confused by my statement, as space/time supposedly "did away with" the Aether concept, but in truth only redefined it, and rather badly at that. The old aether concept was a physical substance, which allowed propagation of waves through a vacuum (light etc.), allowed action at a distance. (fields such as gravity, electric, and magnetic, etc..). Space/time SUPPOSEDLY is not a substance, but it by definition has shape, and substance, since its shape we call fields (gravity etc.) and its topology can be warped..... (contradiction upon contradiction.) It is treated in reality as a substance (an aether) but defined as not. They haven't bought a clue from wal-marts, so don't beat yourself up mentally either. :D

Your descriptions at least sound more honest.

Paul Andrulis



pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #101 on: April 14, 2008, 11:05:58 PM »
BTW, on another thought, a rotating 'field' may be of use. However, it is not about rotating electric-magnetic field, it is mostly about using DC acoustic potential field to produce gradients around the coil so that they produce a directed electric flow. Well, the EM field WILL rotate, of course, being pulsed that way, but its rotation is an outcome of DC acoustic potential field. Just imagine you are popping and hiding small black holes from nowhere in a cyclic manner around coil. They will start to accelerate all charges inside and outside the coil. This will produce an EM whirl, but the energy of this whirl is sustained by pulsing, not by whirl itself. Then you can use this whirl to get required energy.

Actually, you are stating pretty much exactly what I am, using different terms and phrases. I am just disagreeing in that I think the rotating magnetic field induces the DC potential field, instead of it being a resultant derivative of the field. I am seeing the field in my mind as creating , for lack of better words, somewhat of a lens. Like a charged short wire antenna in some aspects, and like a yagi in others. However, instead of drawing the magnetic aspect of the field (though this may well be a side effect too), drawing the electric field lines from a distance, giving your DC potential field that you talk about. (acoustic is a term which is used for properties of sound by definition)

Your statements about the "whirl", "vortex" (or any other similar term describing something with a twisted motional cone, as this would describe the action of the rotating field upon the electric field.) would directly apply, and indeed IS drawing and accelerating the electric field, and indeed sustained by the pulsing. You and I have practically been quoting each other, just using different terminology. The magnetic field in motion, and the charge imbalance in the conductor, creates its own oppositely charged electric field which draws the outside ambient field.

Paul Andrulis

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #102 on: April 14, 2008, 11:08:18 PM »
1. Electrons do have an electrostatic charge field, which is true. Your description is pretty good. However, an electromagnetic field is created  by said charge field in motion. That is why an electromagnetic field is electromagnetic. A magnetic field always has an electric field in conjunction with it. No field is truly static, as all fields are varying over time in magnitude and motion.

Electromagnetic field is not filled or built of electrons. Electromagnetic field is comprised of moving photons. Both magnetic and electric fields can come alone without its counterpart. There are electric fields without magnetic component and magnetic fields without electric component (e.g. permanent magnet).

For instance, an electron in a lower electron shell has more energy than one in a higher shell. A laser (stimulated emission) works by adding energy to an electron which forces it into a lower shell, then upon relaxation it returns to its original shell, and gives off the extra energy in the form of light quanta we call photons. The charge field of each electron had to vary, to change the energy contained in said electron, so was by no means static.

Laser is created by focusing low-energy light emission in a special chamber having a "hole", there is no direct relation to electron and electron shells in laser emission. You may build your own 'poor man's' laser out of reflective dishes and a light bulb.

2. :D Concerning the magnetic field, prove it.
If a moving electron has no magnetic field (and there is no such thing as a stationary electron), then electricity and its associated magnetic field, does not work. A magnetic field is produced wherever electrons are in motion, and this is independant upon the conductor. An electric arc in a vacuum still has a magnetic field produced (IE no conductor at all, JUST electrons in motion.).

I do not have to prove it, it's written in the books. :) Electrons interact with photons of electromagnetic field, but they do not have their own magnetic field. During electron-electron interaction more photons are created which may or may not produce electric or magnetic field depending on the conditions - this is all theory, of course.


Electrons do repel each other, and this is due solely to the monopole nature of the charge. Opposite charges attract, like charges repel. To my knowledge, electrons never stick to each other.They orbit the atom nucleus in a similar manner that a moon orbits a planet.
There is no such thing as 'opposite charge'. There is only 'lack of charge'. Electrons orbiting the atom nucleus is a dogma, or model. They may well be "sticked" around atom like bullets into rifle's magazine. Electrons may appear attracted to each other in Copper's pairs when super-conductivity is reached.


3. In this I HAVE to disagree, to some extent. If various particle interactions are necessary, then explain the magnetic field created by an arc in a vacuum? Or maybe explain the photon itself, which by the claims of physics is a traveling electromagnetic wave with an associated electric field, with NO ASSOCIATED PARTICLES. (If it sounds somewhat stupid, that is because it is. I debate this view as well, but it is the current model.)
Arc in a vacuum is created out of ions and electrons and EM waves at the same time. Of course, photon is a mass-less wave. I think that E=mc^2 means that you cannot speak of energy without having mass to accept it; you can't get energy out of EM waves without having matter.

Well, I'm not trying to play 'smart guy' role, but I had enough of doubts and headaches trying to understand jungle of physics. But still I may be missing something - but physics as a system does miss something - there are enough questions and observations that were not and cannot be answered to by existing physics models.

As for the aether, I do think it exists. However, it does not exist as a substance, as something with 'structure'. Aether is a "cosmic ruler" - it defines ("stores") length standard deviations. This is how I understand it. If my hypothesis about DC acoustic waves proves valid, aether is a thing built-in into reality of acoustic waves, acoustic waves cannot exist without aether existing at the same time. Photons are self-sustaining (symmetrical) "perturbations" of aether. Well, in this concept aether's length standard deviations can have their life without matter existence. In this respect they become purely virtual, with no way to manifest themselves without interaction with matter. What is matter - I do not know. It is probably a system of stable aether structures - virtual as well. We are living in Maya - this is a thousand years truth.

aleks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 673
    • DC Acoustic Waves Hypothesis
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #103 on: April 14, 2008, 11:11:08 PM »
giving your DC potential field that you talk about. (acoustic is a term which is used for properties of sound by definition)
We may be close in our terminology and understanding of this particular coil system, but I insist it is a "DC acoustic potential field", not just "DC potential field" which usually implicitly means "related to electricity". It's a conceptually different thing.

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)
« Reply #104 on: April 15, 2008, 12:03:05 AM »
@aleks

Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation.... (or laser) No, you cannot create a laser using two mirrors and a light bulb. All lasers (excepting solid state diode lasers) use parallel mirrors one completely reflective and one partially reflective (excepting of course Q-switched which uses a rotating mirror arrangement of various possible configurations.), and derive a coherent beam through wave entrainment of one frequency of electromagnetic radiation which gain energy with each reflection until said are energetic enough to break free of the containment area. These photons are stimulated (by electricity, or EMR, heat, etc.) , in the lasing material between the mirrors, just as I described. A light bulb does not put out coherent light in any form....?????

Protons are positively charged, and electrons negatively charged. Anti-electrons (electron anti-matter) are supposedly positively charged as well. Yes, there are more than one type of charge...?????

A permanent magnet has within itself a moving electric charge, due to the availability of free electrons within the atomic structure, the structure of electron shells of certain atoms, and peculularities of molecular alignment and interaction within the overall particular magnetic substance.....????

Concerning the electron/magnetic field/books.... what books????

A "lack of charge" is called neutrally charged, not positively charged. It is by definition NOT of ANY charge.....?????

An ion, by basic definition is a charged atom or molecule. Free charged particles themselves are called ionizing radiation....?????

You have me really confused here. (Just being honest.)

I am not trying to insult you. I truly am not, but your responses to this last post make absolutely no sense to me, from the physics standpoint. If you are trying to speak a concept, and do not have the proper words to express your concepts, please state so and I will try to interpret. I do not fault anyone for this.

Using any term which is well defined like the classical term "Aether", but applying your own definition without explanation only causes confusion. I truly DO desire to understand your viewpoint, but please understand that, though seriously flawed, the current physics model is far from worthless, as it can fairly accurately explain most of observable reality. That is why I use it, despite the flaws.

Paul Andrulis