Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 509665
  • *Total Topics: 15190
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 8
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: can any of you answer this?  (Read 36260 times)

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #45 on: April 28, 2008, 07:35:50 AM »


Special Question for Smoky2......

By your comments, I am getting the basic idea that you accept a "Photon" as a
"Quantum fluctuation" of EM?  This is slightly different from what I accept, but as
you qualified the "Nothing" so well, I am hoping that I am reading your words from
my point of view, which means I may not be getting the meaning correctly.  This
area of description is so foreign to many, that I don't discuss it anymore, but I am
curious to get your "Opinion?" on this.  EM, or mesh?  I once accepted that light
was "Purely" EM but it was shown to me to be otherwise.  What level the fields are
at can make a difference, I realize, in how measurements respond, but, again,
 to keep it basic.   Pure EM, or "Mesh" as you called it?

Of course, the above question may be ignored, if it's too stupid or boring......


i wouldn't use the definition of "quantum fluxuation" to describe light.  if i had to put it into practicle terms,. i would call it  the visible propegation of a change in a magnetic field(s). the reason it moves at a constant velocity is because of the rate of propegation of that change through the nothing.  when you introduce a mass of molecules for the light to pass through, this increases the strength of  the field(s) that change is propegating through - thus slowing the light down. 


as for the nothing itself, if you can imagine a gillion parallel flux lines criss-crossing on an infinite number of planes, extending infinitely in every direction. creating a 3-d grid in every plane.

it can be distorted only locally, by a magnetic source - creating the effect we call an MF or EMF. as the field strength diminishes [ at distance X]  to less than the cummulative field(s) of the aether-mesh the field just becomes part of it.  It is not directly detectable, because it exists everywhere, permeates everything, and has an equal effect on everything in (almost) every situation.
To interact with it, is an apparent impossibility. to even know it is there, you must remove it .(or rather remove the effect it has on a local space)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #45 on: April 28, 2008, 07:35:50 AM »

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #46 on: April 29, 2008, 06:26:18 AM »
"same type of alteration", i have a serious problem with that......

radio waves are nothing the same.. and "light" actually exists far beyond the standard proposed frequency range from infared to visible to UV. there is a much larger spectrum of the light phenomenon.

but radio-waves are a completely different type of disturbance, while both may create an "EM" effect, you can cross each others frequency range, and they are still noticibly different.

radio waves are actually waves - much the same as sound waves.

light creates its own wave, in the same manner that electricity does.

i was taught how to move electricity at faster than light speeds, by a crazy old man, without so much as a full high school education. and HE was using nothing more than old truck parts......
took me years to prove what was actually taking place, as this crazy guy had no concept of FTL, and was simply amused by the fact that the electricity was moving without a WIRE!!

I've learned to welcome everybody's ideas, even if i dont particularly agree with some of it, they still may have information that i previously did not have. (even if its learning from their mistakes).

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #47 on: April 29, 2008, 06:03:39 PM »
that last part of my comment was not directed towards YOU being wrong.. it was more towards those persons who might ridicule someone simply because they dont agree with what they say, while completely failing to "learn" from the experience of the conversation.

i place "light" in the same category as electricity (though they are not exactly the same).

the EM is kind of like the splash made by a swimmer when he dives into a pool.
the light/electricity is diving into the pool at  x # of times per second (frequency).

so, in that sense radio waves would be more like the EM propegation, than the actual "light". if that makes any sense....

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #47 on: April 29, 2008, 06:03:39 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline zerotensor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #48 on: April 30, 2008, 08:41:13 AM »
the EM is kind of like the splash made by a swimmer when he dives into a pool.
the light/electricity is diving into the pool at  x # of times per second (frequency).
so, in that sense radio waves would be more like the EM propegation, than the actual "light". if that makes any sense....

Here's a related, but still overly-simple analogy:
Imagine a water-bug moving on the surface of a pond.  When the bug accelerates, ripples form on the surface.  In between these bursts of acceleration, the bug glides along without causing a disturbance.

The bug represents a charged particle.  The surface represents the EM field.  The ripples represent light.  When an electron is moving at a constant velocity, it does not radiate.  When it accelerates, it radiates.

When the acceleration is low, we get radio waves.  When it is greater, we get visible light, x-rays, and gamma radiation.  In the water-bug analogy, when the bug slowly accelerates, the ripples are gentle and far apart.  When it rapidly accelerates, the ripples are closer together (and hence have a higher frequency).

If we want to make an uncooperative water bug move, we can direct some waves at it, and hum some surfer-rock while our insectoid friend hangs six.

I am a firm disbeliever in the idea that
if I were to take a Josephson junction device, or other ultra high speed device (No Names here.)
and broadcast a "Radio Wave" at the "Light" frequency, I am NOT going to output "Photons".
Every person I communicated with here, would NOT accept that as even possible.  From what
they typed, it was obvious, by inferral, that they would see light coming off the "Radio" antenna,
assuming the transmit frequency was in the visible light spectrum.  I will say this much, I
have seem a transmitter operating at that frequency, and never saw light coming off the wire.
For me, this means that, while it is the same type of "alteration" in the background "nothing",
it certainly is NOT a simple "EM" wave.  I realize that Particle/Wave theory is a very hot
topic in some areas and to some people.  I'm actually looking to see if anyone out there
is ready to accept new reality's, when or if they come around.
There was a time, not too long ago, that even talking about Radiant Energy was to be
labeled as "Crazy".  Believe me, the tolerance used to be non-existent.  It's starting to
improve nowadays, but in the 70's to early 80's, you had better not have mentioned it.

You have seen a transmitter operating at 600 THz ???

In order for it to be a "transmitter", there would, by definition, need to be a "receiver".
What was transmitted?

I, while not being "firm" in my belief, would wager that if you pumped a tuned antenna at 600 THz it WOULD glow a lovely shade of green!  An antenna tuned to this frequency would be 500nm long, so it would make sense to lay down an array of antennae as a printed circuit board.  Now the hard part:  Where do we get the 600THz driver signal?

A sort-of "reverse" of this idea was recently accomplished.  Nanometer-scale antennae were printed onto a plastic substrate.  The resulting array worked as a solar cell, and quite well.  I think they were working in the infrared.

If we could somehow mode-lock the array at its natural frequency, I think we'd have a tuned-array laser on our hands.

That's a REALLY high frequency.  Somebody do the moore's law calculation and figure out when we will have these clocks in our computers.  The processor should literally glow!

Some of the difficulty here may be eliminated if we consider that electromagnetic waves are not purely transverse waves, but that longitudinal oscillations of the electromagnetic field can and do exist.  Standard electrodynamics ignores the longitudinal components.

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #49 on: April 30, 2008, 09:50:39 AM »
longitudional oscillations of a "particle" moving at the speed of light, would have to be at a frequency vs. amplitude such that the movement of the oscillations occured faster than light for them to affect the results. They are not ignored, they just are not prevailant in the equations under most situations. 

These actually become somewhat of a limiting factor when the "particle" is moving at FTL speeds.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #49 on: April 30, 2008, 09:50:39 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline z.monkey

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1660
    • Scientilosopher's Domain
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #50 on: April 30, 2008, 01:16:10 PM »
Howdy,

This was almost two years ago.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/NEWS/06/1211transistor.html

So by now they are probably pushing 5 terahertz.  A terabit router is not the same thing as a single component clocking at 1 terahertz.  The router is going to use parallel channels to make that bandwidth.  The ethernet cables that the data is moving on are clocking at 250 megahertz for a 1 gigabit ethernet, 2.5 gigahertz for a 10 gigabit ethernet.  A terabit router would have a 1000, 250 megahertz channels or 100, 2.5 gigahertz channels to support a terabit data rates.  I am certain that they are not clocking those lines at a terahertz.

So for achieving those frequencies today, without being able to make an oscillator which can actually resonate at the specific frequency we want, say 610 terahertz,  we use matter to do a conversion for us.  Through the immense research and development done by the semiconductor industry we know that gallium arsenide emits light when its arranged in a particular configuration.  You start with a piece which is doped to be N type and a piece that is doped to be P type.  Doping is the process of adding impurities to the semiconductor material when its crystals are grown.  Dopants are usually boron, arsenic, phosphorus, and sometimes gallium.  The N type piece and the P type piece are bonded together and metal conductors are bonded on the ends.  When we pass direct current through the PN junction of the gallium arsenide material it emits green light.  So this chunk of rather specialized matter resonates at ultra high frequencies when stimulated with electron flow and emits green light.  This is your 600 terahertz oscillator.  By the nature of the gallium arsenide atoms simple electron flow causes it to resonate and emit light, like a radio tank circuit emits radio frequencies. 

The spectrum has different bands of energy, like radio bands.  It is not feasible to take a radio oscillator and make it resonate at 600 terahertz and expect light to come out of it.  The radio oscillator works good within its band, but it has limitations.  If you want to experiment in the light band of the spectrum you need a different physical apparatus.  The same is true for electrical current and gravity, both are in different bands of the spectrum and require a different physical apparatus to solicit the desired results.

Photons and Electrons are both energy, but they are not the same form and frequency of energy.  Lower frequency energy is relatively large quantum particles.  Higher frequency energy is relatively small quantum particles.  This is inversely proportional through the entire spectrum.  At the low end most energy is electronic (big quanta, like electrons) in nature.  As you move higher through the spectrum, past radio and microwaves there is a grey area where the electron and photon energies seems to be the same.  Then at the upper end of the spectrum the photonic (small quanta, photons) energies dominate because of their small size and higher velocities.  The wavelength of an energy is determined by its velocity.  The velocity of a quantum particle traveling through open space forms a wake in the ethers which we identify as its wavelength.  The frequency of an energy determines its velocity and a function of the velocity is the wavelength of the wake left in the ethers.

Well, I hope I didn't break your mind so early in the morning.  I'm all hopped up on coffee, and I like thinking about the quantum realm when I'm hopped up on coffee...

OK, Mo Later...

Offline z.monkey

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1660
    • Scientilosopher's Domain
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #51 on: April 30, 2008, 08:26:13 PM »
Howdy Art,

There are four pairs in an ethernet cable.  So at 100 megabits, you be getting 25 megahertz signaling in one pair times 4 pairs is 100 megabit signaling.  Tricky, they are, yes...

OK, Mo Later...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #51 on: April 30, 2008, 08:26:13 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #52 on: May 01, 2008, 04:50:10 AM »
ammount of data being transfered per cycle, vs number of cycles per second,

these values are not superimposable like that...

thats why they are represented as two seperate concepts.

Offline z.monkey

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1660
    • Scientilosopher's Domain
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #53 on: May 03, 2008, 04:51:01 AM »
Howdy Art,

Well, I know I am not making this up.  I just worked on a project where I had to troubleshoot a malfunctioning ethernet design.  I guess I'll have to go back and look at that more carefully.  Maybe I am thinking of the way the early 10 megabit ethernet works where slow clock rates necessitated transmitting 4 pairs at 2.5 megahertz.  I'll get back to you on that.

As far as the original topic, I think RedRiderNo22 shot his eye out...

OK, Mo Later...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #53 on: May 03, 2008, 04:51:01 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #54 on: May 03, 2008, 03:45:02 PM »
pc to pc, it uses all 8

but for raw data transfer:  i.e. - through a hub/switch, ect  ther are really only 2 pairs being used.
you can observe this through a crossover cable, ALL of the data is passed through 2 pairs of wires.

so i would assume that it is using parallel data-transfer through the 8 wires.

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #55 on: May 04, 2008, 09:34:13 PM »
thats essentially the basis for parallel data transfer.

each 2 wires represents the "circuit", and its either "on" or "off".

thats all the computer knows.  when you have multiple pairs, you can transfer info in multiple streams, to move more faster.

such as sending and recieving at the same time, or sending 2 data streams at once.


and yeah, the cable installers should know better, i did that for a few years, and had to learn all about the engles you can/can't make with your runs.

fiber is even worse

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #55 on: May 04, 2008, 09:34:13 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline redriderno22

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #56 on: May 04, 2008, 10:15:46 PM »
How did we get off topic?

O well ;D


Offline nitinnun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #57 on: July 12, 2008, 11:15:07 PM »
* matter is just crystalized energy.
(proton torsion unfreezes it. electron torsion freezes it)

* electrons do not jump from atoms to atom, to create electricity. that is a lie.
 instead, negative magnetic energy transfers between electrons. AKA "hot electricity"
 (cold electricity transfers from proton to proton. cold electricity IGNORES electrical resistance!)

Offline atomicX

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #58 on: October 27, 2008, 02:40:53 AM »
Red,

man... you should have stick to your instict.  If you like this you can keep it. 

This universe is a fractal.  Atoms are just like solar system.  Electricity is ineraction of mass, magnetism is a psuedo energy.  Each time two mass object collide it gives out a pseudo force 90 degree.  This psuedo force is electromagnetic waves.  There is no such fix electron size.  Just like earth and mars.  They're electron to the sun, but they ain't share the same mass or size. Light are just a junk of mass that is hella small.  The reason it travels at c because that is its terminal velocity.  Gravity is little jingy vibration of all atoms on earth combine.  Just like sound wave, it can levitate stuffs.  So if you shoot ultra high frequency electro magnetic wave into an object, it'll vibrate and can levitate or gain mass.  DC current is ultra high AC current, and it has mix frequency.  Frequency is intensity, voltage or force is the magnitude.   Everything vibrate gives out continuos energy, the universe expands on this excess energy.  If you perfectly trap a mass, it'll explode sooner or laterdue to energy build up.  Heat is large mass vibration, electricity is small mass vibration.  Different in voltge is different in vibration magnitude.  There, what did I miss?

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2655
Re: can any of you answer this?
« Reply #59 on: October 27, 2008, 02:55:29 AM »
Oct. 2008,only to remember:
since 1935 , by Chadwick and v.Heisenberg-Consensus the atomic structure is defined
as based by protons/neutrons and not more protons/electrons.
There are not to find electrons in the atomic structure, ergo only molecular importance.
Never forget in some calculations the spin-orientation defined sub-atomar-elements,
proton and anti-proton, neutron and anti-neutron,..... but also the existence of anti-electrons.
We can "complicate" the hypothesis by use of Bosons,Fermions and more of these
 "little cosmic Bauelemente".

GN
     CdL   

 

OneLink