TAPPING NATURE'S ENERGY SOURCE: An Introduction to Electrodynamic Energy Science
Date: Monday, September 26, 2005 @ 22:25:21 GMT
Topic: Science


by Harold Aspden, Ph.D., FIEE, FIMechE, C.Eng, C.Phys Given a conference theme that covers alternative energy and its scientific and social implications, I see 2005 (billed as "Einstein's Year") as being the year to go on the attack. So, if asked to speak on this subject, I would begin by being critical of the vast expenditure going into the project aimed at replicating the conditions assumed to prevail in the Big Bang notion of Creation - a project said to have spin-offs telling us more about energy. Surely, if one seeks to understand more about energy, government funding should be directed at alternative energy research. I will therefore list and highlight a few of the errors on which existing scientific belief is founded.

These include the notion that the sun derives its power from fusion in a central core region that is assumed to be at an enormously high temperature conducive to high energy collisions between protons - when, in fact, gravity close to the surface of the sun squeezes hydrogen atoms so close together that they ionize. The gravitational interaction between two free protons is, in acceleration-rate terms, 1836 times greater than that between two free electrons, and so our sun has a positively charged interior by just the amount needed for electrostatic forces to balance gravitational forces, meaning a uniform mass density and temperature throughout the body of the sun. That is not enough to trigger fusion - and if it were, the sun would have been blown to pieces long ago!

Why is it that physicists accept that the sun mainly comprises hydrogen at least some of which is in an ionized state, thereby accounting for its temperature and radiation, but yet they fail to see that the protons are free and so, since they have the greatest gravitational attraction compared with the electrons, they will develop a net repulsion that prevents further compaction owing to gravity?

The energy the sun radiates is sustained because free electrons recombine with protons and when they do, this imports energy from the quantum underworld (the aether) to get those electrons back into their quantum state orbits. The sun's energy is not fusion energy but simple energy drawn from the aether by gravity squeezing hydrogen atoms close together to cause ionization.

Turning to another subject, electrodynamics, 40 years ago I delved into its history to find that it was built solely on measurement of effects of current carried by electron flow, whereas the broader picture - which emerged from the early days of funding high-energy experiments bearing upon developing nuclear fusion - indicated that the forces on heavy ions, notably protons in a discharge, were, for some mysterious reason, enormous in relation to what theory suggested. This has to mean that a force and possibly an inflow of energy could be attributed to the quantum behaviour of the omnipresent aether, but where is the interpretation of this in the development of physics theory? The subject is ignored in spite of research aimed at proving something useful for reactor design delivering this unexpected spin-off by revealing an inexplicable phenomenon. I seemed to have been the only person to react to this spin-off discovery. It was in the 1960s that I put this mystery on record myself out of pure scientific interest, as I challenged orthodox electrodynamic theory and saw how the law of electrodynamics concerning interaction forces between moving charges could be formulated. So I was indeed fortunate when Paulo and Alexandra Correa did see its relevance to their own research. The ion/mass ratio is an essential factor if the current is not all-electron in nature. Inflow of energy from the aether is then implicit, meaning a potential alternative new energy source, but this was only discovered experimentally by the PAGD findings of the Correas.

What use is it to spend billions of dollars trying to find what happens when protons collide at speed close to the speed of light and perhaps detect the phenomenon of a new transient particle form, when the already-discovered phenomenon of inexplicable proton acceleration in fusion research is left unexplained by the scientific community? Say a particle 1,000 times the mass of the proton is discovered. Then what? Do we build an even larger collider at even greater expense to look for even heavier particles? Why not spend a fraction of the money looking into the anomalous energy discovery already made and have the good sense to see that there is a real aether filling space that is ready and willing to shed energy, given the right ionized-gas discharge technology? We should look also for other ways of tapping energy from the aether, but must not turn away from such research thinking there is nothing more to learn on the subject of space and what fills space.

According to cosmologists, who contribute nothing to help resolve our energy problems, space is taken to be a void, the properties of which are seen as a set of meaningless mathematical equations, given that those equations are based mainly on the notion that elegance in formulation and symmetry is the governing factor.

In providing such funding, government authorities should speak only to physicists who are ready to accept that, where space and time are concerned the aether is what should be the focus of attention, whereas Einstein's world of four-dimensional mathematical space needs no funding, it being merely the subject of an intellectual exercise of one's mathematical skills that can be pursued as a hobby. To be sure it offers no hope to a world seeking to reduce its future energy problems. If it did, some enlightenment as to how would have dawned in the past 100 years since it made its debut.

It seems not to be realised by those in charge of funding major high-energy research projects that so many research groups in universities need to compete to claw their share of the research funding by supporting such projects, that so many of the individuals concerned dare not be seen to be giving a hearing to those of us who venture into the unorthodox aether field. The social implications are then obvious. Money is wasted that could be better spent in the public interest. There are other implications too, one being that budding scientists in their student years see no future in an energy technology that is in decline, and so turn their attentions to the technology of computers, mobile phones etc. and ignore electrical power generation, thinking there is nothing new to discover. How wrong they are! What future does the world have if we do not encourage research into tapping energy from the aether?

The roadblock is the memory of Albert Einstein and the unquestioning faith of physicists who have accepted everything that Einstein claimed, in spite of the alternative understanding hidden in the records of history. Einstein abolished the aether and gave us the formula E = Mc2 and people are led to think that we owe nuclear power to Einstein's genius. Yet I can show from a 1904 textbook I have (1904 being when scientists still believed in the aether and the year before anyone had heard of Einstein), that the thought that mass and energy were linked had already been recorded in the scientific journal Nature, in the context that matter could be destroyed by mutual annihilation of opposite electrically charged particles, so releasing enormous amounts of energy. Also the increase of energy with speed of an electron had been formulated in terms of its charge expressed in electromagnetic units, which introduced the factor c, whereas the intrinsic electric energy of the electron at rest had also been formulated. The common parameter in these formulations was the radius of the charge, a term which cancels out when the two are combined. What is left is then the formula E = Mc2. So how did Einstein get the credit?

Given the importance of the aether to the new energy scene, the task we face is an uphill battle to get the world to revive the scientific interest in the aether, it being our future energy resource, even though that means challenging the teachings of Albert Einstein. 2005 being the centenary year of Einstein's first paper on relativity, it is a year in which tribute will be paid to his memory.

For my part, the quest on our road to tap the aether's energy resource includes challenging belief in Einstein's theory. Sadly, it seems likely that in spite of the evidence nothing will stir a change of mind concerning Einstein's theory, which means that movement on the free-energy front is the primary hope. It certainly is far more important, and once we can see energy flowing from what seems to be 'nowhere', the scientific community might then rediscover their belief in the reality of the aether. Keep in mind the fact that our universe was created by tapping energy from some source. Then give that source a name. I use the name 'aether' and say we should research its existence and the detail of its structure. Some use the name 'God' and deem that sufficient, whereas others point to a so-called Big Bang and seek enlightenment from vast government expenditure on trying to replicate creation in high-energy particle colliders.

Whatever name is applied to that energy source, let us learn more by funding the research of those who see a path other than that implied by belief in the Big Bang theory of creation.


April 11, 2005

------------------
Source: http://www.aetherometry.com/

Dr. Aspden's websites: www.aspden.org, www.energyscience.org.uk







This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1528