# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## New theories about free energy systems => The Aether => Topic started by: redriderno22 on April 08, 2008, 03:23:09 AM

Title: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 08, 2008, 03:23:09 AM
are light and electrons the same thing?

or is it like comparing apples and oranges?

is fire a form of electrical energy?

what I'm trying to do is get a good picture of how electricity works in my head, if that makes sense?

now i think i understand the basics.

but the more i think about it the more confused i get? ??? ???

if electricity was like water in a river or a pipe it would make more sense, but from what i gather it does and does not.

Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 08, 2008, 08:58:47 AM
lunatic fringe?

http://amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html#light

this is good also,
http://amasci.com/pathsk2.html
i wonder if he had shrugged atlas in mind when he wrote this?
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 09, 2008, 05:07:35 AM
thanks for the info!

but do they really know?

one more thing, how does gravity relate to magnetism and electricity?
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 09, 2008, 05:08:57 AM
could gravity be a form of voltage?
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: Scorpile on April 09, 2008, 04:06:33 PM
Dude, gravity is even more complicated... try to understand what you asked first, and then mess with the space time.

I have my own theory of electricity.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: z.monkey on April 09, 2008, 09:09:34 PM
Howdy,
All these different forms of energy are just that, energy.  It is the frequency of the energy that makes the effect which we can sense.  DC voltage is at the bottom of the spectrum oscillating at 0 Hertz.  Your brain oscillates at several frequencies all below 10 Hertz, it is energetic.  Alternating current power is electron flows oscillating at 60 Hertz.  Aircraft power oscillates at 400 Hertz.  Radio waves manifest as energy from 9 Kilohertz to 100 Gigahertz.  Gravity is energy around 1 Terahertz.  Light manifests as energy around  1 Petahertz.  X-rays are energy around 1 Exahertz.  Gamma Rays are energy are around 10 Exahertz.  Gamma rays, x-rays, light, gravity, radio, AC power, thought and DC power are all forms of energy manifesting in different ways because they are different frequencies.

Particle physics is what you are looking for.  You want to be able to see the way electrons move and interact with the ethers.  This can be done, but you can't use your eyes.  You have to use your mind to "see" subatomic particles interact.  Like the way the odd shaped electrons move through the etheric "sea" and leave a wake in their path.  Electrons sort of look like an ice cream cone.  The leading edge is a spiraled cone, each one unique.  The trailing edge is a half sphere.  When they are pushed through the ethers they spin because of the spiraled cone on the front.  They leave a cone shaped wake in the ethers in their path.

Be careful with this information, you'll shoot your eye out, kid!

Blessed Be Brother...
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: zerotensor on April 09, 2008, 10:22:43 PM
Electrons are tiny black holes with toroidal event horizons.
They do not decay, because the geodesics on the horizon are closed loops that thread the aperture.  The equations of GR insist that these loops remain closed.
"Spin" is the combination of toroidal and poloidal momenta in toroidal spacetime.
Spin twists-up the geometry of spacetime outside the horizon.  This "twist", or "helicity", is the electromagnetic field.  Specifically, the helicity of spacetime at some point is identified with the magnetic vector potential there.
From an accelerated reference frame, the twisted spacetime behind the electron appears distorted in a regular way.  The distortion is a regular wave pattern with a wavelength that is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the acceleration.  This is a picture of an electron being accelerated by a wave-train of light.  (or, equivalently, an electron radiating a train of photons as it accelerates in an external electric field).  From an inertial frame, the light appears to move at velocity c.

So there you have it.  Electrons are little knots in space which twist up the space in their neighborhood, and light is the regular wave pattern in the helical spacetime that results when an electron is accelerated.  All described using general relativity, so there's your gravity connection.

Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: erickdt on April 09, 2008, 10:29:17 PM
could gravity be a form of voltage?

No, gravity is a gulf in spacetime.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 09, 2008, 10:39:10 PM
"Gravity is not an intrinsic property of matter, neither is inertia. These secondary forces are both formed by the reaction of matter to the dynamic field of SuperLight. Gravity is not an attraction! It is the result of a universal pressure, exerted by SuperLight as it rains in from infinity, from all directions, onto every object.   Materials are not 100% transparent to SuperLight. I estimate, perhaps about 99.99999999% transparent. As a consequence, all material domains, all "matter", experiences an acceleration caused by SuperLight. Every "particle" is affected by a slight drag, or pressure differential, as SuperLight travels past and through them." -- dr. john v. milewski

more here...
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/milewski.htm
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: erickdt on April 10, 2008, 12:43:41 AM
"Gravity is not an intrinsic property of matter, neither is inertia. These secondary forces are both formed by the reaction of matter to the dynamic field of SuperLight. Gravity is not an attraction! It is the result of a universal pressure, exerted by SuperLight as it rains in from infinity, from all directions, onto every object.   Materials are not 100% transparent to SuperLight. I estimate, perhaps about 99.99999999% transparent. As a consequence, all material domains, all "matter", experiences an acceleration caused by SuperLight. Every "particle" is affected by a slight drag, or pressure differential, as SuperLight travels past and through them." -- dr. john v. milewski

more here...
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/milewski.htm

Huh? Relativity (what I described) is proven.

Superlight? Never heard of it before...
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 10, 2008, 12:47:48 AM
Huh? Relativity (what I described) is proven.

Superlight? Never heard of it before...

Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: z.monkey on April 10, 2008, 01:09:14 AM
Wilby is yanking your chain, it's what he does...
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 10, 2008, 04:18:47 AM
all good ideas!

but it has to be more simple

one common thing that ties it all together

light,electricity,magnetism,gravity,heat, cold.............

what that is????

who knows?

I'm sure many people have given theory's?

Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: triffid on April 11, 2008, 07:26:58 PM
I was taught that light consists of photons(a dual particle/wave) and that electrons are solid particles.
Photons can be considered as having wavelike behavior and also a solid particle behavior.Both electrons and photons can travel across space.If two light beams intersect each other(like this X) the beams pass through each other with no change in direction.They do not bump each other.However set up  two electrons to intersect and they do bump each other causing a change in direction..Triffid
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: zerotensor on April 11, 2008, 08:38:20 PM
I was taught that light consists of photons(a dual particle/wave) and that electrons are solid particles.
Photons can be considered as having wavelike behavior and also a solid particle behavior.Both electrons and photons can travel across space.If two light beams intersect each other(like this X) the beams pass through each other with no change in direction.They do not bump each other.However set up  two electrons to intersect and they do bump each other causing a change in direction..Triffid
Electrons have a wave nature as well.  A double-slit experiment performed with electrons yields an interference pattern, which would not happen if they were classical particles.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: triffid on April 13, 2008, 01:18:43 PM
I agree that electrons have a wave nature too.Things get fuzzy now.But I still think of light and electrons as being two different things.Photons(light) raises electrons to higher orbits in their electron shells around an atom(when an atom absorbs a photon).When an electron falls to a lower energy shell it emits a photon(light) which can be measured.So light in and then light out.triffid
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: Magnerazz on April 13, 2008, 03:22:04 PM
Under standard model physics light and electricity are different manifestations of the same phenomena. The fundamental unit of light is a defined energy quantity called the Photon. The fundamental unit of electricity is the electron, also a defined energy quantity. The charge density or available energy quantity of the photon and electron are equal to each other. The difference is that the photon is defined as having no mass while the electron as a specifically defined mass. For instance in a solar cell the impact of one photon changes the energy state of an electron in orbit around an atomic nucleus by one quantum charge unit removing it from the atom so it is free to move in a defined circuit path. The relative mass of the two particles is defined by a combination of inherent frequency and energy density. So the photon is at a much higher frequency state than the electron. The mathematics that define this are highly refined under the theories of general and special relativity and quantum dynamics. The well established experimental values that underline all electrical and electronic engineering equations are accurate to approximately 10 decimal places. This picture is however incomplete and inaccurate under some circumstances. For instance photons do have a very small mass because they are subject to gravity. When light passes close to a supermassive object like a star, its path and polarity change.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 13, 2008, 04:51:10 PM
could gravity be magnetism?

big magnet = higher gravity?
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: triffid on April 13, 2008, 08:38:18 PM
Yes the gravity of a star can bend the path of light. How much mass is it said to have?Per photon?triffid
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: triffid on April 13, 2008, 08:43:27 PM
My physics is about 30 years old.I only took one year in college.Second year was way beyond me.
triffid
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 13, 2008, 09:57:51 PM

in our solar system all the planets orbit on about the same plane in relation to the sun.

are they folowing a neutral magnetic plane?

I know the poles of the sun switch from time to time

But it would be to quick to effect anything unless it only went half way
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: zerotensor on April 14, 2008, 06:34:53 AM
could gravity be magnetism?
big magnet = higher gravity?
in our solar system all the planets orbit on about the same plane in relation to the sun.
are they folowing a neutral magnetic plane?
I know the poles of the sun switch from time to time
But it would be to quick to effect anything unless it only went half way

Magnetism and gravity are both distortions in the fabric of spacetime.
Gravity arises from the "global" curvature induced by the presence of mass, and magnetism arises from its spin-topology.

The aggregation of planetary bodies in a disk around a star is similar to magnetism, in that it is an effect of rotation.  Magnetism may play a (small) part in this phenomenon, but  but confusing common magnetism with the kind of gravity that makes the apple fall is, well... confusing.

Writ large, however, we can see that all "forces" are made out of the same underlying cloth -- namely, the scintillating geometry of spacetime.

Electromagnetic models of astrophysical phenomena like galaxies have met with some success.  Plasma cosmology is emerging as a brilliant new direction in theoretical physics.  Check out "The Electric Universe"; it is quite compelling.

Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: zerotensor on April 14, 2008, 06:42:44 AM
Electromagnetic models of astrophysical phenomena like galaxies have met with some success.  Plasma cosmology is emerging as a brilliant new direction in theoretical physics.  Check out "The Electric Universe"; it is quite compelling.

Thunderbolts of the Gods:

Edit:  (they get it wrong about relativity, btw, as electromagnetism is fundamentally related to gravity via relativity as I have explained above.)
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: Kul_ash on April 14, 2008, 09:38:25 AM
Light and electrons are totally apples and oranges!

Light is a form of energy and electrons are particles inside the matter!
Electricity is also a funny word! It composes of many definations such as electrical current, electrical potential difference, electrical charges etc. Now electrons movement is caused by electrical potential difference between two poles and this movement is called electric current. This current carries electrical energy! And all this combined is called electricity!
Similarly light is the form of energy. It is not matter. Energy can be converted into matter following famous E = mc ^ 2 principle. So you can convert a matter which is composed of electrons and neutrons and protons etc. in to pure energy. nuclear power plants use this to produce electric form of energy from matter.

Hope I am of some help!  ::)
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: Kul_ash on April 14, 2008, 11:50:09 AM
could gravity be magnetism?

big magnet = higher gravity?

No. Magnetism is not equal to gravity. Both forces are attraction forces but magnetism works only with other magntic material i.e. a material capable of rearranging its polarity e.g iron. Vice versa Gravity attracts all type of materials to itself.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 14, 2008, 11:10:35 PM
i dont understand why?

everything has something in it that can have its polarity rearranged?

doesn't every atom have an electron shell? that would have a polarity?
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: erickdt on April 15, 2008, 12:18:05 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: Kul_ash on April 15, 2008, 11:22:01 AM
i dont understand why?

everything has something in it that can have its polarity rearranged?

doesn't every atom have an electron shell? that would have a polarity?

Yes exactly! Even they do have same compostion as a matter every where, they do not have "magentism" property in them! Thats why they can not rearrange their polarity. It is a property of only few metals and thats why they are used in magentism!
Every matter though same, it is a nature of its molecules which makes every substance different from each other!
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 16, 2008, 01:47:19 AM
but what if the earth did not have a iron nickel core?

with the same mass

and less of a magnetic field?

hard to prove!
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: craigmkd on April 16, 2008, 01:58:11 AM
all good ideas!

but it has to be more simple

one common thing that ties it all together

light,electricity,magnetism,gravity,heat, cold.............

what that is????

who knows?

I'm sure many people have given theory's?

'Particle Wave Physics'   It's not simple. Here is one site of many thousands. I misspoke earlier about theory -
It's an entire science obviously loaded with infinite theory.

Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: z.monkey on April 16, 2008, 07:07:59 PM
Howdy Red Rider #22,

I told ya kid, your gonna shoot yer eye out!

The Earth is Hollow, no molten iron core down there...
Matter is energy moving in tiny little circles.
Energy is matter moving in straight lines.
Existence is made up of thought.
Nothing exists except that which you perceive.
Planet X is gonna get you, sucka...

Hahahhahhahhaaahahaa.....

Blessed Be Brother...
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 17, 2008, 01:05:16 AM
sweet!

I hope its quick

and i have a beer in my hand
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: triffid on April 17, 2008, 07:35:43 PM
I was told we got the moon 4.5 billion years ago from the last planet x that hit us?Maybe the next planet x will give us another moon? Two beers for two moons!!!Triffid.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 18, 2008, 12:59:38 AM
how did planet x work its way in?
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: WilbyInebriated on April 18, 2008, 07:44:36 AM
how did planet x work its way in?

z.monkey is yanking your chain... it's what he does ;)
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 19, 2008, 01:20:05 AM
another question

how can you completely remove an electrical charge from an object?
say give it a positive charge?
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: zerotensor on April 19, 2008, 06:21:56 AM
another question

how can you completely remove an electrical charge from an object?
say give it a positive charge?

If you want to completely remove all charge, you must convert the mass to pure photon energy.  In other words, annihilate it.

Of course, if you just want a net charge of zero, balancing positive with negative will do the trick.  Just don't go trying to mix positrons and electrons unless you want the former scenario.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 20, 2008, 04:43:53 PM
what about giving an object a negative charge?
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 22, 2008, 03:36:34 AM
OK

ive got an idea for a simple experiment

tell me if its been done, or if there is evidence to prove otherwise.

first, is there a way to see a single atom? more closely its polarity?

ok now take one atom and look at it here on earth, then take that same piece of stuff and look at it on the space station?

to see if its polarity had changed?

i still think that gravity is a side effect of magnetism.

I know im wrong

bit ignorence is bliss  :o 8) ??? ::) :P
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 26, 2008, 04:58:20 AM
does everything have a small magnetic field?

Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 27, 2008, 12:24:45 AM
@ Loner - you're kind of close there....

everything is related to magnetism, and its effect on (itself?)

Magnetism exists in 2 forms. Equal and opposite - We have arbitrarily labeled them "N" and "S". But these labels dont mean anything. Think of them as simply opposite forces. Two halves of the nothing*[note] they split away from.  Together (in equal quantities) they become nothing once again.
All matter, and all forms of energy are derrived from these 2 forces in varying quantities.

Yes - all matter has a tiny magnetc field. We cannot observe its polarity, without actually changing said polarity by the act of observation. { because our instruments themselves have a magnetic field}.

The 3 elementary particles consist of several (micromagnets for lack of a better term). One being "N", one being "S", and the third being a combination of the two, that is either slightly "N" or slightly "S" - but to us it appears to be neutral, because the difference is too small to detect.

anti-matter is simply the "exact" opposite of the matter it destroys. - the two rejoin into nothing.
They must be in exact quantities for this to occur. [i.e. a lepton is only destroyed by its exact opposite]
all particles consist of several of these (micromagnets). for example - a quark is approx. 196 of them.
they polarize with respect to one another, forming the elementary particles that we observe.

a photon (which is what makes the effect we call "light") is not a physics piece of matter, but rather the effect of a localized magnetic fluxuation, resultant from a changing magnetic field of a piece (or pieces) of matter.
this changing field (photon) propegates in a single direction, and generally has a polarized orientation.
a stream of photons (beam of "light") may or may not be all polarized in the same direction.
[coherent/incoherent]

if we were to strike a particle with a photon, the field from the photon would actually become a part of the field the matter already has - increasing its strength. However, the matter cannot sustain a field larger than its own, so it will "let that photon go", or rather create new photonic disturbance which shoots off in another direction.

continued in next post........
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 27, 2008, 12:38:01 AM
So, is light magnetism ?  yes, it is.

is magnetism light? not necessarily....

magnetism is not a result of physical matter, but rather physical matter is a result of magnetism.

physical matter, could be said to not even exist. It is the effect of an invisible force field - like trying to press two opposing magnets together. what we "see" is the changes in the color of the "light" striking the physical matter. everything is the effect of tiny magnetic forces. VERY strong fields with respect to their size.

[ the magnetic field is said to decrease in strength with distance^2. - this is only correct with respect to a macro field.  else- a single atom would have a magnetic field several meters in diameter, and this is simply not the case. ]

How does this relate to gravity? --  the cummulative fields (macro field) of several atoms together creates a dual-field. magnetic AND gravitational. the gravitational being a unique type of distortion of the nothing.  Both results of the same magnetic force, but both very different in nature.  the magnetic attracts only its opposite force, and repels the like.
while the gravitational field attracts all other gravitational fields. - i say attracts, because that is the apparent observation, but in reality the two fields combine to create a lack of nothing between them.  The nothing then pushes the two gravitational fields towards one another.

[* Note --    NOTHING in the context of this posting is used to describe the universal magnetic-aether-mesh, the term nothing was substituted here out of respect for einsteinian mythologies]
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 27, 2008, 12:49:18 AM
for clarification - the magnetic field represented by a cummulation of matter, is not the same as the magnetosphere around the earth, the sun or certain other planets - that is actually an E-field, resultant from the earth molten core, and the superheated elements in the sun, ect.

the macro-magnetic field from matter is very small in comparison.
though- when it is polarized (like in a magnetic material) it can become larger.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on April 27, 2008, 02:54:36 PM
I have herd that if you take a large neo magnet and a rock of the same weight and drop them from the same height
the rock will hit first?

is this true?
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 27, 2008, 09:57:53 PM
hmm,.. i dont have any "large" neos to try this,. but it makes sense.. the magnet is travelling through the earths magnetic field. it may have some effect against gravity on the way down.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: sm0ky2 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)
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: sm0ky2 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).
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: sm0ky2 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....
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: zerotensor 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.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: sm0ky2 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.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: z.monkey 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...
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: z.monkey 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...
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: sm0ky2 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.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: z.monkey 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...
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: sm0ky2 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.
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: sm0ky2 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
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: redriderno22 on May 04, 2008, 10:15:46 PM
How did we get off topic?

O well ;D

Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: nitinnun 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!)
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: atomicX 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?
Title: Re: can any of you answer this?
Post by: lancaIV 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