Femto camera experiment says space is the medium for light

[trevorjohnson83]

I gather that many of the things I actually say make you feel icky.

You're good. If this was five years ago I'd be going on about how space is made of a conductive grid and void blocks. Ten years ago and I'd be going on about how gravity is like the game connect 4. I've only been going on about this heat thing since last December so I'm yet to complete the oasis I'm making here in the unexplored jungle. Excuse me if some of it sounds like BS.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Grumblenuts I was reading that Jupiter and Saturn and Neptune create more heat then they receive from the sun. What do you speculate could be going on, what reaction is creating the heat? I was thinking since they are gas giants the heat of the core pressure circulates through out the planet.

What Planet Gives Off 2 Times as Much Heat as it Receives From the Sun?

What Planet Gives Off 2 Times as Much Heat as it Receives From the Sun?. A feature that makes Jupiter interesting is that it radiates almost twice as much heat as it receives from the sun; this is possible only because it produces its own heat. Although Jupiter has almost enough hydrogen to...

education.seattlepi.com

 

[Grumblenuts]

Grumblenuts I was reading that Jupiter and Saturn and Neptune create more heat then they receive from the sun. What do you speculate could be going on, what reaction is creating the heat? I was thinking since they are gas giants the heat of the core pressure circulates through out the planet.

What Planet Gives Off 2 Times as Much Heat as it Receives From the Sun?

What Planet Gives Off 2 Times as Much Heat as it Receives From the Sun?. A feature that makes Jupiter interesting is that it radiates almost twice as much heat as it receives from the sun; this is possible only because it produces its own heat. Although Jupiter has almost enough hydrogen to...

education.seattlepi.com

The Earth also creates heat. I don't know, but I expect the gravity pressure at Earth's core is enough to keep a low level of fusion going. The heat then radiates and cools on its way to the surface. I guess the gas giants behave similarly but would ask a geologist and a cosmologist.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

The Earth also creates heat. I don't know, but I expect the gravity pressure at Earth's core is enough to keep a low level of fusion going. The heat then radiates and cools on its way to the surface. I guess the gas giants behave similarly but would ask a geologist and a cosmologist.

Doc Nuts, does your computer underline the word Aether? when you write it? aether ha it did it again!?! are people really that insane about disregarding the aether and accepting Relativity and Quantum mechanics?!? The Aether is so important to understanding, I bet the side that gets ahead first is going to be the side that wins.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Doc Nuts, does your computer underline the word Aether? when you write it? aether ha it did it again!?! are people really that insane about disregarding the aether and accepting Relativity and Quantum mechanics?!? The Aether is so important to understanding, I bet the side that gets ahead first is going to be the side that wins.

No problem once you teach your online dictionary by adding words that it doesn't know. Relativity is mostly common sense, whereas QM is vastly nonsense sill desperately attempting to deny and replace the Aether. They've been at it so long that most proponents are now simply innocently ignorant. Anyone caught teaching Aether theory in a US school would be fired in no time. Likely in the UK as well. The field of electrical science was going like gangbusters until Einstein threw his "spacetime" monkey wrench into the works. We all shall continue losing until the physics collective manages to extract its head from its ass.

Not that we're at a standstill. We continue on despite the heavy shackles placed on our limbs. We have no choice but to march on. It's just frustrating knowing that Nicola Tesla was still way ahead of us.. even now.. way back then.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

As far as molecular bonds and the aether are concerned, I don't believe in the negative positive attraction of the proton and electron. The gravity of the two protons in a molecule would pull them together if there wasn't a repulsive force, that of the theoretical electron. When temperature or density on the aether changes, any molecule will vary between solid liquid and gas. The Aether density holds molecules together in liquids and solids or allows them to pass an inherent resistance line where they are gas. The electron bond of molecules maybe gravity of the heavier molecules pulling against the lighter one's with electric charge being a free moving heat on the aether repelling them. The energy's free moving nature to spread to colder region's of the aether as it is free from it source pushes in on the density of the aether created by a nuclues gravity feield and creates a sort of atmosphere of heat in the nucleus's gravity field. When two of those atmospheres combine in a molecule they push apart because unlike nucleus heat that causes gravity EMR heat will look to fill another region of space that is colder and repels the heat density of the other electrons region. Most pure elements are gray, a white electron over a black nucleus, but combining molecules creates color because you effect the wavelength of light in bonding electrons.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

What I'm trying to say is how nucleus heat that causes gravity and attracts two objects is different then EMR heat which expands out like an explosion through colder aether. Once Energy enters the gravity field, it begins to slow down until it reaches a point where the gravity field is equal in density and temperature then it stops and forms an electron. But when two electrons touch they repel because they are still made of free moving energy that seeks out colder regions and the aether of either electron would be unattractive to the other.

When you take the atmospheric/aether pressure off of a substance, or raise the pressure of the substance with heat, You give strength to the heat of the electron and electron's repulsion overpowers the attraction in molecular bonds and when they come apart in combustion the atom's of the molecule's expand into a hot gas that is the heat of a fire, not the flames.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What I'm trying to say is how nucleus heat that causes gravity and attracts two objects is different then EMR heat which expands out like an explosion through colder aether. Once Energy enters the gravity field, it begins to slow down until it reaches a point where the gravity field is equal in density and temperature then it stops and forms an electron. But when two electrons touch they repel because they are still made of free moving energy that seeks out colder regions and the aether of either electron would be unattractive to the other.

When you take the atmospheric/aether pressure off of a substance, or raise the pressure of the substance with heat, You give strength to the heat of the electron and electron's repulsion overpowers the attraction in molecular bonds and when they come apart in combustion the atom's of the molecule's expand into a hot gas that is the heat of a fire, not the flames.

I hear you. Still don't agree with much, but I'm listening and applaud you for sharing your "outside the box" perspectives.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

I hear you. Still don't agree with much, but I'm listening and applaud you for sharing your "outside the box" perspectives.

Dr. Nuts, I'm confused as to how the electrostatic force is supposed to work. Is there a layman explanation of it? probably not but I thought I'd check if you knew anything. It certainly has failed to explain how lightning is formed.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Dr. Nuts, I'm confused as to how the electrostatic force is supposed to work. Is there a layman explanation of it? probably not but I thought I'd check if you knew anything. It certainly has failed to explain how lightning is formed.

Good question. I'd say no, generally speaking, if by "It" you mean the "layman explanation(s)" widely offered. Yep, they suck. As Dollard states here:

Tesla devoted an enormous portion of his efforts to dielectric phenomena and made numerous remarkable discoveries in this area. Much of this work is yet to be fully uncovered. It is my contention that the phenomena of dielectricity is wide open for profound discovery. It is ironic that we have abandoned the lines of force concept associated with a phenomena measure in the units called farads after Faraday, whose insight into forces and fields has led to the possibility of visualization of the electrical phenomena.

Because lighting can easily be witnessed going cloud to cloud as well as cloud to ground, one can presume that it's a way (among many) that energy exchange occurs between entities of significantly different (di)electric potential. Combined with photo evidence such as this:

It's plain that any talk of "initial pulses" coming from the ground is BS. In fact, the pulses don't necessarily begin or end anywhere in particular, but do "repeat" (cycle, reciprocate) once the air gets blasted out of their path, allowing for a much lower resistance, higher current, plasmatic transfer (via the Aether).

When considering "how the electrostatic force is supposed to work" I generally start with simple capacitors and go from there. Look to coils or electromagnets for a better understanding of electromagnetic forces. Avoid all talk of "positive" vs "negative charges." Instead, think higher vs. lower potentials. Try to avoid thinking in terms of the poorly defined QM "electrons" and "photons." Think the magnetic vs, the dielectric. The most interesting aspect being how one can store more energy in a capacitor simply by moving the plates closer together. Less space = more energy storage. Space vs counterspace.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

The atomic number of oxygen is eight, assuming that nuclei are round, 8 of them would create a perfect cube, this would make oxygen more stable in it's energy shells around the atom, and lack a common trait of atom's to be unstable in these regions and good conductors. Also iron is 26, one shy of a perfect 27 and is the densest strongest atom.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Notice how magnetism is a property to cubic numbers of 3 and 4 give or take a couple nuclei. A perfect cubic structure might line up the atoms so they act together and create a fan like magnetic effect.

"Magnetically hard materials are used to create permanent magnets made from alloys generally consisting of varying amounts of iron, aluminium, nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements samarium, dysprosium and neodymium."

What Materials Make Magnets | First4Magnets​

https://www.first4magnets.com › magnetic-materials-i156









d rare earth elements samarium, dysprosium and neodymium.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

If oxygen, which is a gas, has a strong magnetic field on its own, as strong as steel, but doesn't line up as easily because its a gas, that could explain why its so energy absorbing and exchanges energy readily during oxidation.

 

[Grumblenuts]

how magnetic is solid oxygen?

Oxygen and nitric oxide are the only two common paramagnetic gases.

Note "solid oxygen" is not a gas.
Several forms of cryogenic oxygen (solid and liquid) do exist, each having unique magnetic (spatial) properties.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

how magnetic is solid oxygen?

Note "solid oxygen" is not a gas.
Several forms of cryogenic oxygen (solid and liquid) do exist, each having unique magnetic (spatial) properties.

I bet Oxygen is weak magnetically because it has a weaker shell of electron energy that creates a weaker magnetic field. It's nucleus of 8 is a lot smaller then the nuclei at 27 and 64.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

The cubic atomic numbers, or close to cubic, are all close not only in magnetic tendency but in density and electronegativity as well. So is it safe to say the three are related?

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's safe to say they're related in that all three atomic numbers are cubes of smaller numbers. Cubic generally means something else like a cubic equation or shaped like a cube.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The atomic number of oxygen is eight, assuming that nuclei are round, 8 of them would create a perfect cube, this would make oxygen more stable in it's energy shells around the atom, and lack a common trait of atom's to be unstable in these regions and good conductors. Also iron is 26, one shy of a perfect 27 and is the densest strongest atom.

Iron is the most stable element in terms of natural activity. The strongest is tungsten. The densest is osmium.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Iron is the most stable element in terms of natural activity. The strongest is tungsten. The densest is osmium.

Dr. Nuts, what does it mean that carbon has a boiling point of 3000 degrees when its neighboring elements like oxygen are negative 200. Interesting that the boiling point of carbon dioxide is -109 degrees F, clearly the two oxygen atom's have a greater control of the boiling point in that molecule.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Dr. Nuts, what does it mean that carbon has a boiling point of 3000 degrees when its neighboring elements like oxygen are negative 200. Interesting that the boiling point of carbon dioxide is -109 degrees F, clearly the two oxygen atom's have a greater control of the boiling point in that molecule.

Without looking, I'd say it means elemental carbon likes remaining solid or crystalline. Whereas gases like O2 and CO2 prefer flapping their wings. Carbon rarely reaches 3000 degrees on Earth's surface because it reacts spontaneously (combusts) with any available O2 long before the temperature can get that high.