We analyze the article by James Clerk Maxwell "Ether" from 1878

"We analyze"

Cherepanov x 6 = 1

Quote from RobertBryant

"We analyze"

Cherepanov x 6 = 1

Where is the poster whose avatar says "Please do not feed fingers to the animals trolls"?

We operate on a different policy 'be kind'. Mostly.

Aether Science

Another art pertaining to the low energy nuclear environment is Aether Science – the science of the vacuum. The Aether, or ether, is that which fills “empty space”. “Space” is found in the outer reaches between planets and between stars and “Space” is found between atoms. There is more space than matter in the universe. More space between the atoms in molecules and more space between the subatomic particles of the atom than there is matter… yet space is not, in reality, truly empty. Read “Dark Energy Dark Matter” NASA

Quantum Science: Pushing the envelope and inviting us to explore the physical realities within the Aether. (links go to the U.S. DoE search engine) Research these sciences at the U.S Department of Energy – Office of Science website links: into Dark Energy (see 46 papers – year 2013), into Zero Point Energy (see 13 papers – year 2013) , into Vacuum Field (see 43 papers – under ‘Energy’), into Gravity (see 103 papers – year 2013), into LENR (see 38 papers – under ‘Low Energy Nuclear Reaction’)

During an Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden

A theoretical physicist once said,

“As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density.

If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all.

The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.

Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or — as they might also be called — space and matter.

Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation.” Albert Einstein

What is Aether?

Robert B. Laughlin Nobel Laureate in Physics-Stanford University-The Ether

In contemporary theoretical physics: “It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed. The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.” Laughlin, Robert B. (2005). “A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down” pp. 120–121.

…from the Bottom Down” A REVIEW By Jeremy Chunn

“Tired of the predictable ‘clockwork’ nature of the physical world as defined by Newtonian laws? Then you’ll find a friend in Robert B. Laughlin. He suspects the fact that Newtonian laws break down at quantum levels and fail to predict all phases between states is evidence the physical world is still highly mysterious.”

Paul Dirac wrote in 1951

“Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of Aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the Aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an Aether. We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an Aether”. “Is there an Aether?”, Nature 168 (1951), p. 906.

… Is there an Aether?” abstract by Dirac St. John’s College, Cambridge. Oct. 9, 1951

IN the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading æther was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in 1905 by Einstein’s discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws. It was soon found that the existence of an æther could not be fitted in with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the æther was abandoned.

John Bell, interviewed by Paul Davies in “The Ghost in the Atom” 1986

Has suggested that an Aether theory might help resolve the EPR paradox by allowing a reference frame in which signals go faster than light. He suggests Lorentz contraction is perfectly coherent, not inconsistent with relativity, and could produce an aether theory perfectly consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Bell suggests the aether was wrongly rejected on purely philosophical grounds:

“What is unobservable does not exist”

Besides the arguments based on his interpretation of quantum mechanics; Bell also suggests resurrecting the aether because it is a useful pedagogical device. That is, many problems are solved more easily by imagining the existence of an aether. The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum Physics

As noted by Alexander Markovich Polyakov in 1987

Elementary particles existing in nature resemble very much excitations of some complicated medium (Aether). We do not know the detailed structure of the Aether but we have learned a lot about effective Lagrangians for its low energy excitations. It is as if we knew nothing about the molecular structure of some liquid but did know the Navier-Stokes equation and could thus predict many exciting things.

Clearly, there are lots of different possibilities at the molecular level:

Leading to the same low energy picture. – end quote

From Harwood Academic Publishers (1987), A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge Fields and Strings” sec,12

LENR and the Aether – Harold Aspden

‘Heavy Electron’ -‘Mu-meson’ Vacuum Field – Electron Proton ‘Creation’

Dr. Harold Aspden is of particular interest. A brilliant man, he successfully predicted the mass of the proton and was a pioneer of efficient thermal electric conversion devices. He was the first to be issued a U.S. patent with ‘cold fusion’ contained in the text of the application. A further example of his brilliance is his theoretical papers on Aether Science.

But Einstein and Sternglass were way ahead of you. E = mc^n.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

there are no "negative charges" and "positive charges" in nature

Unluckily for you we can measure negative and positive voltage with a corresponding force....

But I agree that charge is a magnetic effect but in our world it looks like a stable state.

So charge is merely a convention as many other things in physics that are not real like field energy.

4 off topic posts moved from LEC Replication thread to this one. Cherepanov2020 please don’t try to hijack other threads with your theory. We have asked you before to avoid this. Is nothing personal, you can always quote a post that draws your attention from other threads into your thread.

Still (perhaps) to be explained by the Russian: Thermionic emission (electron emission) from a hot cathode (e.g. Thoriated Tungsten) in a vacuum tube (evacuated of air tubular shaped envelope); related: TWT (Traveling Wave Tube operation wherein electron 'bunches' transfer energy), Magnetrons (where in electrons under magnetic field influence excite 'cavities' within the tube to produce microwave energy), doping of semiconductor crystals for either excess electrons (N type material) or a deficit (P type material).

I think cats fur rubbed against a glass rod (resulting in the subsequent movement and transfer of charges) has been covered in previous posts.

I'd like to see how the Russian explains the 'Hall Effect'. That's what you use to determine the effects of doping.