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

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@shruggedatlas.

If you go back in the thread you'll see that Rosemary gave certain explanations but, like I said, they fly in the face of well established and easily demonstrable facts. One, indeed, may have his or her own beliefs but broadcasting them as the rejection of well understood facts isn't acceptable.

Omnibus - I think we need to get down to some issues here.  Your entire rejection of string theory is based on something that I think our readers would find very interesting.  They propose the theoretical requirement for a force that has - thus far - not been acknowledged by mainstream science.  Sometime in the early 1920's (dates are not my strongest point so I may be out here) a guy called Zwicky (an astronomer) saw that galaxies should be 'unravelling' if - as had been understood - gravity was the predominant force in the universe.  There was not enough evident matter in all those stars to 'hold together'.  This was independently verified in or around the late 1930's.  At the time quantum mechanics was getting a life of its own - being forged by Bohr and Heisenberg.  Then came Einstein and concepts of relativity - that 'took over' the academic and public interest.  Then came the Michelson Morely proof or 'disproof' of aether energies.  And all the while there was little if any focus on that little known fact that what Zwicky first called 'missing energy' and what others subsequently termed 'dark energy' was an extant FORCE heretofore unscheduled within classical or quantum thinking. 

The simple truth is that string theorists propose the structure of the force that astrophysicists require to explain the fact that galaxies do not 'unravel' as would be required in the context of their mass and in the context of our knowledge of how gravity works.  But astrophysicists - Ellis, from Caltech, being the leading proponent, took the trouble to measure that energy which was achieved through the art of gravitational lensing.  Their conclusions - the results of those experiments - the measured evidence is that about 10 times more mass is actually measured in these galaxies than can be seen. 

Now.  If indeed that mass can be accounted for in dark energy - which it can, then the truth is that our string theorists have already given us the mathematical proof of this.  It's a NEW force. And if this force is alive and kicking and just needs to come into the light of our general knowledge - then it will UPEND conventional thinking regarding equivalence principles.  It will prove the existence of an energy field that permeates our universe as MATTER - as a particle - and that it constitutes approximately 90% - if not more - of our entire universe.  This means that the greatest part of the universe is INVISIBLE and - like all matter - it has an energy potential that is so abundant that it will knock our thermodynamic constraints into the dark ages. 

I suggest to you that as you already deny the existence of OU which we and others have proved experimentally - then you will REALLY need to work hard to deny the evidence of dark energy and it's mathematical justifications in STRING theory.  Our string theorists have experienced various levels of unpopularity.  But what is UNARGUABLE is that they have given mathematical proof of what they see.  It is just very confusing conceptually - as they work in multidimensions.  And indeed, my own modest little excursion into theoretical physics - is also based on string theory.  In other words - I most definitely subscribe to the thinking.

Regards,
Rosemary
edited
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

[WilbyInebriated]

ahh good ol' crazy fritz (zwicky)...

why do theorists continue to favour the e-m field, the photon, and maxwell's equations for 70 years in spite of the well-known flagrant failure of the mathematical description to agree with observation? why were alternative descriptions of nature not sought? i think the answer is because it worked once the errors were removed with a bit of 'hocus pocus' mathematics (ala renormalization) and the aid of empirical data...
it is really a tragedy, this erroneous insistence to retain the point particle and vector force fields has been the root cause of the many paradoxes and mysteries surrounding quantum theory. the resulting confusion has been increasingly exploited in the popular press and so instead of searching for the simple behaviour of nature, the physics community found that 'wave-particle duality' was an exciting launching pad for more crazy paradoxical proposals that found support from government funding agencies. the search for truth was put into limbo and wave-particle duality reigned. and so, now, they all hail cern...

illegitimi non carborundum rosemary.

[Omnibus]

Rosemary,

I suggest to you that as you already deny the existence of OU which we and others have proved experimentally - then you will REALLY need to work hard to deny the evidence of dark energy and it's mathematical justifications in STRING theory.

There are two different issues here (maybe even three). First, I don't deny the existence of OU. Moreover I have myself proved it definitively -- recall the magnetic propulsor argument, the RC filter with with voltage offset argument and in the argument regarding the so-called 'cold fusion'. What I have not seen experimental evidence of is the OU in the circuit proposed by you. There may or may not be OU in it. That remains to be seen. As for the idea that the electric current in a solid conductor is not a directed flow of electrons, that I deny altogether because such idea goes against well established and understood experimental facts.

So, these are the three points I'm focusing on in this discussion, leaving dark matter, string theories and what not, which is outside of the discussion at hand where it belongs -- outside this discussion.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

ahh good ol' crazy fritz (zwicky)...

why do theorists continue to favour the e-m field, the photon, and maxwell's equations for 70 years in spite of the well-known flagrant failure of the mathematical description to agree with observation? why were alternative descriptions of nature not sought? i think the answer is because it worked once the errors were removed with a bit of 'hocus pocus' mathematics (ala renormalization) and the aid of empirical data...
it is really a tragedy, this erroneous insistence to retain the point particle and vector force fields has been the root cause of the many paradoxes and mysteries surrounding quantum theory. the resulting confusion has been increasingly exploited in the popular press and so instead of searching for the simple behaviour of nature, the physics community found that 'wave-particle duality' was an exciting launching pad for more crazy paradoxical proposals that found support from government funding agencies. the search for truth was put into limbo and wave-particle duality reigned. and so, now, they all hail cern...

illegitimi non carborundum rosemary.

Hi again.  I really need to get this email system fixed.  I didn't get here until now.  This is very well put indeed Wilby.  There is this a strange preference for the confusing, improbable, highly complicated explanation rather than the simple.  Personally I find it morally offensive as it gives a kind of respectability to those who can REALLY confuse the pants off the public.  Technobabble.  Personally I welcome these knew concepts as it will be a kind of renaissance in physics.  AND it will have the very real benefit of simple logic where our lay public will again be able to get involved.  While string theories ague pure math it still is still confusing - certainly to me.  But when the logic is  explained in simple conceptual terms then the thinking is as evident as daylight. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

EDITED LOL.  I'm going blind here.  I posted the most of this inside your own reference.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

There are two different issues here (maybe even three). First, I don't deny the existence of OU. Moreover I have myself proved it definitively -- recall the magnetic propulsor argument, the RC filter with with voltage offset argument and in the argument regarding the so-called 'cold fusion'. What I have not seen experimental evidence of is the OU in the circuit proposed by you. There may or may not be OU in it. That remains to be seen. As for the idea that the electric current in a solid conductor is not a directed flow of electrons, that I deny altogether because such idea goes against well established and understood experimental facts.

So, these are the three points I'm focusing on in this discussion, leaving dark matter, string theories and what not, which is outside of the discussion at hand where it belongs -- outside this discussion.

Omnibus.  I'm delighted to read that you subscribe to experimental evidence.  In which case please read the paper that is appended to this and to the previous post to you.  The evidence of OU was required and predicted in terms of my thesis, was experimentally demonstrated, was accredited by some really reputable companies, was replicated and all aspects extensively documented. That should take care of the first two points that you want to concentrate on.

The third point relates to electron current flow.  You claim that the reconstitution of copper in a zinc/copper battery is proof of the electron current flow.  What I propose is that it proves that electrons can be induced to move in the reconstitution of the atomic and molecular structure determined by the process of electrolysis.  That everyone thinks that electric current flow relies on electrons is entirely their right - and yours.  I personally do not subscribe.  I think we must just agree to differ.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
EDITED