Quote from: TinselKoala on December 23, 2014, 12:40:31 AM
QED: you will not do any of the experiments I suggested... because you KNOW THEY WILL PROVE YOU WRONG.

fallacy hell.


"jump thru my hoops"  said the goon.


"jump thru some more".



Im youre superior son, I dont jump thru your hoops.     



Youre just a lazy jackass , pure and simple

Quote from: TinselKoala on December 23, 2014, 12:39:08 AM
you deny the existence of the electron?

Tesla denied it.


Countless others as well,  E. Dollard, ......even the discoverer of the "electron" DENIED it was a particle



SO, once again, you have jack shit.


Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview:
     On the whole subject of matter, in fact, Dr. Tesla holds views that are startlingly original. He disagrees with the accepted atomic theory of matter, and does not believe in the existence of an "electron" as pictured by science.

     "To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives of the electron as a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble, such a bubble could exist in a medium as a gas or liquid because its internal pressure is not altered by deformation. But if, as supposed, the internal pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction of the bubble! Just to mention another improbability..." - Nikola Tesla

Article: "A Famous Prophet of Science Looks into the Future" (Popular Science Monthly)




     Thomson developed the "Ether Atom" ideas of M. Faraday into his "Electronic Corpuscle", this indivisible unit. One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an "electron". (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether." – E. Dollard


     "There is no rest mass to an 'electron'. It is given here the 'electron' is no more than a broken loose "hold fast" under the grip of the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in half package of spaghetti. Obviously this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein's Theory of Relativity." – E. Dollard


     "Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the 'electron', on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated" - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)


     The idea of electricity as a flow of 'electrons' in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as "a psychosis". This encouraged Heaviside to begin a series of writings





     "Electrons as a separate, distinct entity...doesn't really exist, they are merely bumps in something called a 'field'."  - Dr. Steve Biller



     "Here we will dispel the "electronics nerd" concept that a capacitor stores "electrons" in its plates. Taking the pair of copper plates as in the previous experiment, but now we have two pairs of plates, one pair of plates distant from the other pair of plates. Upon one pair of plates is imposed an electro-static potential between them. The cube of 10-C oil is inserted between this "charged" set of plates. This hereby establishes a dielectric field of induction within the unit cube of 10-C oil. Now we then remove this cube of oil, withdrawing it from the space bounded by the charged pair of copper plates, and taking this unit cube of oil, it is then inserted into the space bounded by the other uncharged pair of plates. Upon insertion it is found that the un-charged pair of plates have now in fact become charged also. It here can be seen that a cube of dielectric induction can be carried through space, from one set of plates to another set of plates." – E. Dollard


     Also consider the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction.


     "The notion exists that the electro-motive force, E.M.F. in volts, is established by "cutting" lines of magnetic induction via a so-called electric conductor. This "cutting" is then said to impel the motions of so-called electrons within the conducting material. It is however that a perfect conductor cannot "cut" through lines of induction, or flux lines, Phi. Heaviside points out that the perfect conductor is a perfect obstructer and magnetic induction cannot gain entry into the so-called conducting material. So where is the current, how then does an E.M.F. come about? Now enters the complication; it can be inferred that an electrical generator that is wound with a perfect conducting material cannot produce an E.M.F. No lines of flux can be cut and the Ether gets wound up in a knot.


Heaviside remarks that the practitioners of his day "do a good deal of churning up the Ether in their dynamos". – E. Dollard


     You cannot say that stretching a trillion rubber bands nailed to the floor and releasing them or breaking their "force lines" is the "flow of electrons"; discharge is a terminal movement in systems of inductance or dielectric capacitance.  There are no discrete particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate charges, discharges, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, and radiation, only fields, all modalities of the Ether. The so-called 'electrons' are not particles, not objects or subjects but are the dynamic principle of discharge, and are certainly not charge-carriers, fields are not particles, are not "electrons", nor assuredly are there energy discharges in the vacuum of space involving 'electrons'; the 'electron' is a fiction of fallacious observation and an even more faulty mental acuity, spawned naturally from the minds of materialists, or an Atomist. Electricity is Ether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is Ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, is the radiative termination of electrical discharge; dielectricity is the Ether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the Ether give rise to electrification. Phi times Psi gives Q; 'electrons' do not mediate these electrical and magnetic forces or their likewise the Ether fields.   








So, YOURE FUCKED.     





So, youre the fucking idiot, ....or  "Status Unchanged"

Quote from: TheoriaApophasis on December 22, 2014, 10:32:15 PM


I see you put "much" thought into your statement.

Apparently more than you put into your experiment...

PW

Quote from: picowatt on December 23, 2014, 01:10:26 AM
Apparently more than you put into your experiment...

PW

weighs the (many times repeated) experiment.......


weighs your worthless fucking flapping lips.








the later comes up short.   Check your scale.

Quote from: TheoriaApophasis on December 23, 2014, 01:27:27 AM


weighs the (many times repeated) experiment.......

So you repeated this experiment many times and you still got it wrong?  That's pretty sad.

Where is your control image of the bismuth sphere taken with the IR from the same angle with no magnet attached?  Where is your corroborating alternate measurement method?

Quote
weighs your worthless fucking flapping lips.



the later comes up short.   Check your scale.

Your skills as an "experimenter" continue to be equaled only by your people skills.

They are both good for a chuckle...

PW