Dielectric Fields

Discussion of electricity, electronics, electrical components and theories of circuit operation.
user737
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: Near Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Dielectric Fields

Post by user737 » Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:33 pm

bperet wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:59 am
Now, field concepts match current concepts; voltage (t/s2) parallels Planck field (t2/s), current (s/t) parallels the dielectric (s) and their ratio has resistance (t3/s3) paralleling the EM field (t2/s2). The difference is ∢t, as the former is direct current, and the latter is alternating current.
Should be: "...and their ratio has resistance (t2/s3) ..."

What more can you share, Bruce?
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1496
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Dielectric Fields

Post by bperet » Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:43 pm

user737 wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:33 pm
Should be: "...and their ratio has resistance (t2/s3) ..."
Thanks; fixed the original post.
user737 wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:33 pm
What more can you share, Bruce?
I have a lot more info, but have been busy trying to get Larson's out-of-print books back into print.

I did notice that the fields generated by an Van de Graaf generator don't behave as we've been taught (I have a 250kv machine). The presence of thorium (just a simple, calibration disk) causes different behavior--even though the particle emission rate is very low, the effect is constant. One would think that the arc would be repelled by the electrons being emitted from the disk, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

The dielectric field, itself, does not appear to be "lines of force," as commonly believed. I noticed the same thing with magnetism, where iron filings are used to show the "lines" ... in reality, those lines are just the parallel bits of iron repelling each other, giving the appearance of lines. They aren't really there.

Gopi and I were recently discussing electromagnetism, and how it does not technically have "poles", since it is a circular field about a wire. The poles don't show up until you put a piece of metal in the field, then the metal takes on poles--they don't seem to be inherent in the field, itself.

One thing that is omitted in conventional thought is Larson's concept of "speed ranges," one that Tesla actually proved exist in electricity with his coil experiments. Tesla found THREE resonant points in a coil that just had two, vertical wires with balls on the top, that sparked. The first resonant point, the one we conventionally use, makes a spark arc between the balls. The second, of higher frequency, causes a "brush," a spray of electrons that shoot up vertically, neither attracting nor repelling. The third, at a higher frequency yet, causes the brushes to become horizontal, where + and - repel each other. This behavior is identical to what is observed at astronomical levels with the low speed (attract), intermediate (neutral) and ultra-high (repel) speed ranges. This, to me, indicates that the electron, itself, is actually a 3D particle--but 3D in the cosmic sector, with a 1D projection, the conventional "rotating unit of space" that Larson refers to, in the material sector.

I think we have a lot of the particle structures incomplete, dealing with projections instead of the underlying rotational systems.
Every dogma has its day...

user737
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: Near Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Dielectric Fields

Post by user737 » Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:51 pm

bperet wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:43 pm
I think we have a lot of the particle structures incomplete, dealing with projections instead of the underlying rotational systems.
I was under the assumption this was already obvious to the group given that we understand that only ratios of space/time or time/space and various powers thereof represented true underlying motion. The electron, being a unit of space only (s) therefore not fitting this definition must be the "shadow," and not the true underlying structure.

Given the electron is an anti-particle and is thus viewed from across the unit speed boundary is seen as a wave (non-local) and such motions which extend beyond the unit boundary are themselves reduced to 1-dimensional structures upon observation fits. The magnitude of the angular speed of rotation (of space) would be this single projection.

The observation of electron "generation", normalized to time, gives current, a speed, or s/t. How can this be an anti-material particle or otherwise? This makes the electron the "waste" motion and as such the higher the current the higher the REAL losses (PLOSS = I2R). The observation of current flow (1-dimensional motion) is the residue (in a gravitational field) and as such would be a reification process of our consciousness to explain away the apparent (outward) progression in only one dimension.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1496
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Dielectric Fields

Post by bperet » Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:42 am

user737 wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:51 pm
The observation of electron "generation", normalized to time, gives current, a speed, or s/t. How can this be an anti-material particle or otherwise? This makes the electron the "waste" motion and as such the higher the current the higher the REAL losses (PLOSS = I2R). The observation of current flow (1-dimensional motion) is the residue (in a gravitational field) and as such would be a reification process of our consciousness to explain away the apparent (outward) progression in only one dimension.
"Waste motion" is a good description and very appropriate. Particularly Beta decay (see Gustave LeBon's books on the evolution of matter).

I no longer believe that the electron is a primary particle--it is a shattered remnant of something else (as is the positron). As LeBon had noted, beta decay puts out far more particles than can be accounted for within the atomic system, itself. This is why he assumed atoms where a storehouse of energy. What I found is that beta decay originates from the SUN and is transmitted intra-atomically (through 3D time, rather than space), breaking out of the atom into 3D space like a flood gate. I was able to demonstrate this with my research from a few years ago that correlated solar flare activity with radioactive decay rates in thorium-232. It is almost spooky how they change together--but the radioactive decay rate changes BEFORE we see the corresponding flare activity, indicating that the effect is instantaneous (through time), rather than through space.

I have also determined that the dielectric field, itself, is not actually any kind of structure--it is nothing more than the net push/pull of scalar motion in a single dimension. When dielectric lines "repel," what we are seeing is the progression of the natural reference system--the lines are a contour map of the push apart, not an actual "thing." The same with attraction, except this is the 1D version of gravity, an inward scalar motion.

Based on the quaternion model, it seems that all particles start out as a 3-dimensional rotating system. The Universe is 3D by nature, so Larson's approach to starting with a single dimension doing a "direction reversal" seems flawed. There would be no bias toward a particular dimension (like the one coincident with the reference system), nor a bias towards the number of dimensions involved, so the basic motion would be a 3D, inward rotation to start with. When this motion is cosmic, rotation in the space region, we only observe the projection, but it isn't a true projection--it is just another way to look at the SAME motion.

Let me explain... you are dealing with motion, an abstract concept, not a "thing." This means that the original structure and all its projections are the SAME THING. Unlike a shadow cast upon a wall, you can manipulate the projection and the original motion will also be manipulated! This is very important to understand. The projection is just an ASPECT of the motion, not something created by interaction, as a shadow is.

So, when we manipulate a 1D electron through our electronic circuits, the underlying 3D cosmic motion is also manipulated. This is how semiconductors work (read Gopi's papers on the positive current).

The same goes for the positron, except the situation is reversed. The positron, being a "rotating unit of time," will be absorbed by the atomic rotation of the time region, but in the space region will act as a positive current. We see this as a 2D structure, because we are in the same reference frame as the positron (time to time), so it appears to be a kind of magnetic current (aka Leedskalnin or Spring's magnespheres--a quaternion). Spring's work is interesting as it defines EM radiation as a 3D sphere--a quaternion--and if that radiation can be 3D, one would think that the photon of light has the same structure (see the Photon 2.0 stuff).
Every dogma has its day...

user737
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: Near Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Dielectric Fields

Post by user737 » Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:04 pm

bperet wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:43 pm
Gopi and I were recently discussing electromagnetism, and how it does not technically have "poles", since it is a circular field about a wire. The poles don't show up until you put a piece of metal in the field, then the metal takes on poles--they don't seem to be inherent in the field, itself.
Is this accurate?

Poles which imply polar which for a conic would be the point of intersection of two tangential lines to the conic.

Yes, no linear poles.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma

Post Reply