Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - this is an extract from an essay I'm working on.  It's probably very contentious - but it's where I come in on some aspects of mainstream science.

If we could see gravitons we’d know everything about gravity.  If we could see electrons we’d know everything about electricity.  If we could see the interaction of particles with each other then we’d know everything about the strong and weak nuclear forces.  We can’t see them.  We can’t even see an atom.  And we certainly can’t see the forces to explain them.  We can only speculate.  And when and if we do speculate then we’re no longer being scientific.  We’re being philosophical. 

The confusions that have been visited on this noble art of science is based on the philosophical reach that science is now trying to usurp.  A scientist does not have the disciplines of logic that are required for philosophy any more than a philosopher has the required acuities of observation and measurement that a scientist has.  The difference is only in this.  A philosopher does not, as a rule, dabble in science.  But our scientists are shamelessly dabbling in philosophies.  And it is all being done with such disgraceful parade of poor logic that, in the fullness of time, these last pages of its history are likely to remain as a source of more than a little embarrassment.   Whole chapters of scientific progress â€" based on nothing but pure speculation and the accidental use of concepts that partially work and partially don’t work.  And all of it presented with a kind of intellectual flourish â€" a parade of self aggrandisement that would rival the pride of Lucifer himself. 

What I find disgraceful, what is entirely inexcusable is that all this bad logic is hidden behind an obscure, in fact, an entirely incomprehensible techno-babble.  Terms are presented as acronyms and all is justified in the language of algebra.  Complex equations drift into ever greater complexities that would confuse God himself.  And all is intended simply to hide the manifold confusions that actually bedevil science itself.

It is possibly understandable that our experts feel required to explain ‘all’.  But these explanations are drifting into realms of obscurity  that have nothing to do with reason or logic or common sense or indeed science or philosophy.   It has simply become pretension.  What’s euphemistically referenced as theory is actually just  obscure jibberish masquerading as deep intellectual knowledge.  It makes the toes curl.   One must be ‘trained’ in science â€" of necessity.  It is not meant to be understood - certainly not as propounded by our experts.  Their intention is to flaunt a familiarity with complex abstractions.  And to own up to a lack of understanding would be to let the side down â€" to somehow admit to the disgrace of not actually being able to see the emperor’s new clothes. 

Let’s explore some of the confusions â€" let’s actually focus on the bare facts - on some of those manifold contradictions which our mainstream experts defend.  Starting with current flow.  Now.  We all know that electrical engineering is the applied knowledge of the electromagnetic force â€" so ably unfolded by Faraday and quantified by Maxwell.  And so widely applied in today’s technological revolution.  Our satellites, our trips to distant planets and more to come.  Our internet â€" our computers â€" our â€" cars â€" our measuring instruments, and on an on.  Examples of their skills are evident everywhere.

And yet.  Amongst all those able, those skilled engineers â€" the vast majority will insist that electricity is the result of electrons moving through their circuits in the form of current flow.  No matter that Pauli’s insights depended on the simple fact that electrons do not share a path. No matter that we have never been able to get electrons to move in the same direction without forcing them by the application of some very real energy.  No matter that electrons have a like charge and we could not get them to co-operate with each other in a shared environment any more than we can get to souths of two magnets to co-operate.  No matter that no-one has ever found ‘spare’ electrons inside circuit wiring.

Then there’s the pesky problem of charge balance.  The chemical analysis that is so ably applied by our chemistry experts determines  that every single electron inside a cell is fully accounted for in the formula relating to an electrolytic interaction. This chemical process will systematically move to neutralise the electrolyte without losing a single electron from the original molecules within the cell or any of the atoms which form the electrodes to that cell.  Yet the puzzle then is this.  When we recharge that flat battery we are told that electrons from a utility or any supply source replenishes that cell with electrons.  And this restores that condition where potential difference is again evident.  Where are our chemists pointing out the impossibility of this?   

And if the glove still doesn’t fit â€" then try another explanation.  We are now told that the actual current flow is the result of one valence electron somehow influencing a neighbouring electron â€" in a kind of domino effect.  Here the proposal is that the electrons do not actually move towards each other but in the same general direction.  Now we’ve got over the ‘shared path’ problem and that ‘no loss of electrons’ number.  This would certainly account for current flow.  But the problem is this.  Our scientists know the speed at which one valence electron would influence another valence electron.  And it would take up to half an hour for it to travel through the average two meters of circuit wire before it would reach the light to light it or to reach the kettle to heat it.  There would be a required delay between the switching of the switch and the lighting of the light to get that process started.  But, in all other respects it could â€" otherwise â€" have been a reasonable explanation.  But it’s self-evidently spurious.   

There's another problem.  We all know that if electrons were the actual ‘thing’ that was transferred from our generators by our utility supply sources, then those generators would need to supply an almost inexhaustible amount of electrons that somehow turn into photons that also somehow light whole cities â€" all of them linked, as is often the case, to a single supply grid.  The truth is that no utility supply source would be able to access that many electrons.

So.  Again.  Another glove.  Another qualification.   We are then told that actually the electrons themselves are ‘free floating’ and they intrude into the material of the conductive wiring.  They do not come from the supply source itself.  Which also means that these electrons that are somehow detached from any particular ‘home’ â€" are floating about in the air belonging to no atoms â€" just free for the taking.  And we must now get our heads around the problem that not only is our atmosphere saturated with these previously undetected little numbers but that they can move into the circuitry â€" all over the place, straight through the heavy barriers of insulation which was first applied to prevent this from happening, precisely because it’s impossible for electrons to breach this insulating material.

Challenge any scientist, any chemist, on any of these points and, in the unlikely event that they continue to the conversation, they will do so in a loud voice and with more than a hint of exasperation.  What gets me every time is their usual defence based as it is on the statement that I should not question ‘what has been known and used for centuries now ’.  Somehow this is sufficient justification.  And God alone knows why because it certainly it’s not logical.

I would modestly propose that in the light of so much improbability â€" it may be proposed that â€" whatever else it is - current flow is NOT the flow of electrons, nor, as I’ve seen it suggested even on these forums, the flow of protons, or ions or anything at all that belongs to the atom.  Else it would be logically evident.  And it is not.   

Then to attend to other confusions...

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

This is some more problems - this time relating to gravity.

Then to attend to other confusions especially as it relates to gravity.  Gravity â€" a weak force â€" apparently permeates the universe and acts as a kind of ‘glue’ on matter.  It only attracts.  It never repels.  If, indeed, all began as a Big Bang â€" then all that energy will systematically deplete until there is a kind of Big Crunch â€" where all disappears into the void that proceeded that bang.  Just as the electron is the ‘carrier’ of electrical energy â€" the graviton is philosophised to carry the gravitational energy.  But the graviton has NOT been seen.  Yet all is explained as if such a particle were extant.  Millions of dollars, euros, rupees, whatever, have been spent on trying to find the smallest ripple in the vast space time continuum around us and beyond us -  in those seemingly infinite reaches of space.

Where is the  evidence of this little particle?  Not even the faintest of faintest of these ripples has been found.  Not a whisper.  Not a shadow.  Notwithstanding which we’re assured that this lack of evidence is actually not a problem.  It is not considered to be sufficient reason to preclude the particle nor to discontinue the experiments.  We are told to ignore the ‘absence of evidence’.  A trivial requirement, a small stepping stone.  Step aside from this point.  Look the other way -  until, again and in the fullness of time, this required evidence must surely come to hand.  And until then â€" and in its absence  â€" it is to be regarded and referenced as a FACT.  This because our philosophical scientists are no longer requiring evidence to support a theory.  It’s enough to just balance those interminable equations â€" those  indecipherable and incomprehensible sums.

Now.  While it is understood that gravity is attractive â€" and ONLY attractive to all matter â€" for some reason our universe is not drifting towards a Big Crunch.  On the contrary.  Space is EXPANDING. And this is now also referenced as  FACT.  It seems that it’s enough for two schools to have reached the identical conclusion to establish a new scientific reality.  No-one questions the logic that supported this conclusion.  But there’s a small caveat.  The galaxies and stars and planets are not expanding.  It’s the actual space between them that â€" like poor little Alice stuck inside a rabbit hole â€" that is actually growing ever bigger and bigger.  And all this space is expanding at a predictable rate and is responsible for systematically propelling great clumps of matter apart from other great clumps of matter â€" all at a consistent and quantifiable velocity. 

Those that subscribe to this new evidence are careful NOT to reference the evidence of galaxies colliding â€" as this would put paid to their sums.  And those that do not subscribe â€" carefully do not reference these same galaxial collisions â€" for the same but opposite reasons.  I’ll get back to this point.  But for now the point is this.  If space is expanding, and yet galaxies collide â€" then that expansion is either not smooth or the galaxies themselves drift through space with varying velocities that would introduce a marvel of chaos to the otherwise and seemingly ordered and structured condition of our universe.   

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - for those that are still reading here.  Just a little more on that same essay.  When this exercise is finally finished I solemnly promise not to 'rant' against this again.     Judging from the lack of readers here I suspect the subject is not that compelling.  Which is a pity.  Because IMHO it's quite important.  Anyway.

Then more confusions.  We are told that nothing can exceed light speed unless it also had infinite mass.  Really?  In which case does that explain why photons that have no mass are able to travel at light speed?  And then what does one do with this famous equation where E = mc^2?  If the photon’s mass is zero then zero times any value greater or smaller than 1 â€" remains ZERO.  Where then is all this energy that moves at photon at light speed?  The truth of the matter is that science took a wrong turn somewhere and is reluctant to ‘go back’ so to speak.  Somewhere â€" somehow â€" the answers that were given as an explanation for all the forces were also somehow based on some erroneous foundation â€" a flaw in its structure.  And I would humbly suggest that this may have everything to do with the need to speculate on the properties of forces that remain invisible and particles that can only be studied by inference.

Herein lies the actual problem.   

[Hope]

If there is no effect on mass perhaps we are working with a -1 charge, what some call anti matter.  It may very well be that the neutral point can coexist wilth both matters.   Seeing this as not incidental you may recognize its similarity in loosely bound electrons, giving matter/anti matter a working exchange path.  (AND of course this is only my thoughts toward the non gravity effect)  Thank you Rosie

edited on spelling

[fritz]

Hi Rose,

(just for reference)
===============
There is a debate about the usage of the term "mass" in relativity theory. If inertial mass is defined in terms of momentum then it does indeed vary as M = γm0  for a single particle that has rest mass, furthermore, as will be shown below the energy of a particle that has a rest mass is given by E = Mc2. Prior to the debate about nomenclature the function m(u), or the relation M = γm0, used to be called 'relativistic mass', and its value in the frame of the particle was referred to as the 'rest mass' or 'invariant mass'. The relativistic mass, M = γm0, would increase with velocity. Both terms are now largely obsolete: the 'rest mass' is today simply called the mass, and the 'relativistic mass' is often no longer used since, it is identical to the energy but for the units.
===============

So this would mean that mass of the particle will be constant, whatever velocity,


rgds.