The Electron Illusion
At a press conference in the 1920’s, a reporter asked Nikola Tesla to comment on the great achievements of the electron. Said Tesla, “There is no such thing as an electron.”
“The electron: may it never be of any use to anybody! “ JJ Thomson
Cited from Lord Rayleigh, The Life of Sir J. J. Thomson (1943), p. 199.
My reasons for writing blogs like the one below – apart from the love of writing – is because no one seems to know anything about the true history of science. I don’t expect many of my readers to believe what follows because they were educated with a completely different version of events and they probably acquired their jobs because of that education. They are however unaware that science is untruthful about its history, its achievements and those of its manufactured heroes like JJ Thomson. We often find that people will tell us that education lead them to a dislike of history. For example: most technology, far from being derived from science was discovered by those who abandoned and ignored scientific advice or those who had no scientific training at all. That the origin of our electrical technology can be traced back to before the 1930’s and a physics that is no longer used by science. They are further ignorant of the fact that science has often discouraged and tried to debunk the useful, new and innovative ideas that make-up our technology.
The first love of JJ Thomson, now remembered as the discoverer of the electron, was the debunked aether physics and research much like that of Nikola Tesla – also debunked. Not many know that due to this research, for a hundred years, science has been reluctant to engage in the study of electricity and that today research into how it actually works and what its true properties are has stopped. The complex reasons for this can be found in this and other blogs on this site.
One of the few things that modern science has been successful in achieving is the development and use of the phrases ” Conspiracy Theory” “Debunking” and “Pseudo-Science” manipulating the meanings until today they have become anything that threatens a theory or generally embarrasses science. The very mention of such words will cause many to read only that which is peer reviewed or recommended by a scientist and to discard any no-scientific opinion be it good or bad – they will never know. This in turn is reinforced by an education that is a deliberate censorship, the direct cause of useful scientific loss to all. The idea of a benevolent science with our best interests at heart is wrong and naive. Science is about supporting science and its empire just like any other despotic ruling tyrant. Science rules minds!
The education received by a student is what he/she hopes will ensure a lucrative and secure employment and indeed it does in some cases. However, this education does not need to be “true” per se if all the academics involved are reading from the same hymn book, and they certainly are. I would therefore NOT recommend the reader to abandon education, but to compartmentalise both modes of information. This can be fun, quite enlightening and very useful if used with diplomacy – something I’m not good at.
Eric Dollard is one of a diminishing few researchers who do know about electricity and are prepared to share the knowledge with others. Scientists either don’t know or are not telling and so you will not get any of this from science. http://ericpdollard.com/
∗None of the early electrical inventors/pioneers attached any importance to what we call the electron.
∗All of the electronic technology we use today was in place before the discovery of the electron, none of it is thanks to particle or quantum physics. This can be verified by doing a little honest research.
∗JJ Thomson could not have discovered the electron without using electronics. This is only one of the many paradoxes of modern science.
∗No new technology has arisen as a direct result of the electron discovery, it has served as a constraint on electrical research.
∗The history of science has been corrupted beyond recognition by science itself, everything is broken and we will try to piece some of it back together.
Nature @ nature.com says: “When the British physicist J. J. Thomson won the Nobel Prize in 1906 for his discovery of the electron, he proposed a toast at a celebratory dinner reception: “To the electron – may it never be of any use to anybody.” He was proudly defending the then “obvious fact” that the electron was a discovery with no application, a “basic” type of research. A century later, not only does the electron have wide-ranging uses in our lives (from electronics to medicine), but its yearly “market value” is more than three trillion US dollars.” https://www.natureasia.com/en/nmiddleeast/article/10.1038/nmiddleeast.2012.52
Not even Nature journal is immune to scientific presentism, revisionism and fallacy when it ascribes all the discoveries made before the electron as being the result of it’s later discovery – can it be time travel or is it just that revisionism has become the norm, the scientific custom and practice that fills the pages of the scientific press? The article continues, calling Michael Faraday a physicist, something that would never be said about an amateur in today’s scientific climate. Oh, the temporal and mental contortions, the twists and the turns that science employs to justify its existence.
How does a top scientific journal such as Nature manage to hand-wave away the aether physics of J.J. Thomson and his book “Electricity and Matter” published long after his electron “discovery” in 1908? Eric Dollard tells us that in the book: “Thomson came up with the dynamics of Faraday’s Lines of Force, which he called Tubes of Electric Induction and this became an engineerable manifestation of the aether … His most important concept is that the aether is the storehouse of momentum. This means that when the aether is electrified, it exhibits the properties of a substance with inertia and momentum that acts upon physical matter.
This leads to an understanding that matter in and of itself is an accretion of the aether. Thomson shows that the aether is a substance that is directly engineerable both mathematically and in concrete form and that there is a direct equivelancy between aether and matter.” http://powerofaether.com/
Thomson’s science was so far removed from what we are told he did that the modern version of events is an outrageous insult to us all. So deeply embedded in our culture is the idea that the electron drives our modern technology that it is an assumption that is rarely if ever questioned. But the energy that drives your TV, computer and other household appliances remains unexplored and unacknowledged by science; although some scientists will sometimes admit to the truth of this statement. Electricity is not electrons and the only reason we think it is, is because our science dominated education brainwashed us into thinking that way. You think you’re not brainwashed – think again!
The electron was the first sub-atomic particle to be discovered and it gave rise to particle physics. This is why it is so important to the empire of science – science controls our education and education determines the way we think. It is also important to the financial status quo that funds science that no real progress is made that may prejudice the income and power. The reason science is able to get away with this deception is because all real research into how electricity works was aborted at the time of the discovery of the electron some one hundred years ago.
history.aip.org: tells us quite confidently that: “Modern ideas and technologies based on the electron, leading to television and the computer and much else, evolved through many difficult steps. Thomson’s careful experiments and adventurous hypotheses were followed by crucial experimental and theoretical work by many others in the United Kingdom, Germany, France and elsewhere. These physicists opened for us a new perspective–a view from inside the atom.” https://history.aip.org/history/exhibits/electron/jjhome.htm
If a cathode ray (TV) tube was used to discover the electron, how could the discovery of the electron lead to TV?
The sad fact is that no ‘modern ideas or technologies’ are based on the electron for one very simple reason; that all of the electronic technology we have today was already in place before the electron was ever mentioned. It makes you double take don’t it? JJ Thomson could not have discovered the electron without the essential electronics being in place, in order to make possible the electron discovery. And science manages to use yet another circular argument whilst standing on its collective head. Electronic technology was progressing rapidly without the electron and its discovery, together with changes in other branches of science were instrumental in causing the demise of an explosion of new ideas.
In this chapter and those following we will see that television, the computer and most of modern technology had nothing in common with JJ Thomson’s electron experiments and that knowledge gleaned from electron studies did nothing to advance their progress. In fact it was JJ Thomson himself who cast the first doubt with the statement, “The electron: may it never be of any use to anybody”. And some readers may be surprised to learn that this quote comes directly from a physics Nobel prizewiner, no less. For some strange reason no one ever seems to question this undeniable contradiction. The sceptics are never there when science throws-up questions and I would dearly love to hear from them.
Wiki and a much told, but totally untrue story: “In 1897 Thomson showed that cathode rays were composed of a previously unknown negatively charged particle, and thus he is credited with the discovery and identification of the electron; and, in a broader sense, with the discovery of the first subatomic particle. Thomson, in 1897, was the first to suggest that the fundamental unit was over 1000 times smaller than an atom, suggesting the subatomic particle now known as the electron. Thomson discovered this through his explorations on the properties of cathode rays. Thomson made his suggestion on 30 April 1897 following his discovery that Lenard rays could travel much further through air than expected for an atom-sized particle. In April 1897 Thomson had only early indications that the cathode rays could be deflected electrically (previous investigators such as Heinrich Hertz had thought they could not be). A month after Thomson’s announcement of the corpuscle he found that he could reliably deflect the rays by an electric field if he evacuated the discharge tube to a very low pressure. By comparing the deflection of a beam of cathode rays by electric and magnetic fields he obtained more robust measurements of the mass to charge ratio that confirmed his previous estimates. This became the classic means of measuring the charge and mass of the electron.” 3 (The charge to mass ratio has to do with the electron being so small that its mass cannot be directly measured.)
It’s all damned lies! Wiki and science revise history for the sake of sciences’ self aggrandisement and mythical hero building.
We will show below that it’s all lies, the real reason for Thomson’s toast and how he got the Nobel award. But before we examine the electron we must look at the questionable particle physics it gave birth to:
The Standard Model
The en.wiki wimps proudly proclaim: “The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, (and the) weak, and strong nuclear interactions… Developed throughout the mid to late 20th century, the Standard Model is truly a tapestry woven by many hands, sometimes driven forward by new experimental discoveries, sometimes by theoretical advances.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
The Standard Model of particle physics is the physics that replaced the “Old Physics” that depended on aether theory. Although the aether theory had been very successful as a driving force for electronic discoveries, it could not be detected by means other than electrical and, more importantly, most of the electronic discoveries were made by non physicists; not a happy situation for academic science. It came as a welcome relief to most physicists when a young Albert Einstein declared that the aether was unnecessary for his model of the universe, a model furthermore that could only at the time be understood by the ‘elite’ of science. The new physics was almost fully acceptable to the consensus of science by the 1930’s and all real research into electricity ended. particlephysics.ac.uk tells us: “So our understanding is clearly incomplete in fact, we don’t know what 96% of the universe is made of – and that’s why we do research!”
The author did a search for some practical applications of New Physics (that is the physics of the 4% +/- of the universe that is known by science) without much success, but the following forum inadvertently seems to have done my work for me and sums-up the point this page is trying to make very nicely:
Science Chat Forum.com: Re: Practical Applications of New Physics Post by Lincoln on February 24th, 2011, 7:19 am
The poster, Lincoln, quotes a previous post: “”Particle physics has little practical application to date. (And I’m a particle physics researcher.)”
Lincoln continues: “The techniques developed to do particle physics have a huge amount of applications. The world wide web was developed at a particle physics laboratory. The huge superconducting magnets we use were developed by us and now form the heart of many MRI magnets in hospitals. Radiation beams treats (sic) cancer, scans packages for homeland security, images things inside bodies, and is used to kill bacteria in food. Tires are now irradiated to make them stronger. Nuclear power is (contrary to many tree huggers worries) a clean power source that is safer than most. Atomic bombs stopped the ongoing warfare in Europe and helped keep the peace from major global conflagrations for the last 65 years. ( Is he totally blind to what is going-on in the world?) Quantum physics brings you lasers, semiconductors, etc. The computer you’re working on uses transistors that are a quantum effect.” http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17777
But rather than actual, applications, what the poster uses is technology discovered before the birth of new physics or even quantum physics. He uses technology that has been appropriated from a different older physical theory that was supposedly superseded by the new physics. This technology was stolen by modern scientists to give much needed support to the new physics precisely because modern physics has no practical applications. He does this as part of a stratagem of circular argument… Because these things seem to fit into the new physics, they must be as a result of new physics. It’s called presentism, where everything old is considered useless or if in use is assumed to be a recent discovery; it makes scientists look good.
We will examine each claim of Lincoln:
The photoelectric effect that led to the laser: Wiki says that when a surface is exposed to electromagnetic radiation above a certain threshold frequency… the radiation is absorbed and electrons are emitted. Light, and especially ultra-violet light, discharges negatively electrified bodies with the production of rays of the same nature as cathode rays. Under certain circumstances it can directly ionize gases. The first of these phenomena was discovered by Hertz and Hallwachs in 1887. The second was announced first by Philip Lenard in 1900, decades before the introduction of new physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
MRI technology is very old and can be traced back to the theories of Joseph Larmor in 1900 and before new physics. Larmor’s most influential work was Aether and Matter, a theoretical physics tome published in 1900.” https://www.amazon.com/Aether-matter-Joseph-Larmor-ebook/dp/B013FA670I Larmor was an ardent exponent of the Luminiferous Aether theory, now debunked by new physics. He was an Irish physicist and the first to calculate the rate at which energy is radiated by an accelerated electron, and the first to explain the splitting of spectrum lines by a magnetic field. His theories were based on the belief that matter consists entirely of electric particles moving in the ether.” His work is the foundation on which stands NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) , that later became MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). So many technological discoveries have their origin during the time period when the old ether theory was dominant that one wonders why it was rejected and why it is not revived for the sake of modern technological progress? Today’s physicists mine the rich vein of ideas via the back door and claim new discoveries.
The same can be said of medical radiation applications with ‘Roentgen rays in the treatment of skin diseases and for the removal of hair’ author Pusey, Wm. Allen 1900. 11
The Lancet medical journal tells us that nowadays, the term medical physics usually refers to the work of physicists employed in hospitals, who are concerned mainly with medical applications of radiation, diagnostic imaging, and clinical measurement. This involvement in clinical work began barely 100 years ago. (before new physics) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673611602821
In 1902 George Perthes finds X-rays are able to inhibit tumour growth; and he suggests they might be useful in the treatment of cancer. http://www.radiation-scott.org/timeline/table.htm
Nikola Tesla experimented with X-Rays in 1897
TSA scanners, Terahertz, Airport Full-body Scanners have an amazing history that dates back to the early 1900’s but they have nothing in common with new physics, (apart from the fact that most people think the technology came from new physics) it was based in its entirety upon aether theory:
1908 terahertz X-ray-like photography
An extract from a book by Le Bon: Dr. Gustave LeBon ‘The Evolution of Forces’ The International Scientific Series D. Appleton and Company ~ New York ~ 1908
Thanks to rexresearch.com: “The first of the three categories of radiations enumerated being identical with the cathode rays and radioactive emissions, it would be useless now to give them a special name. I shall therefore only designate by the name of Black Light: (1) the invisible radiations, totally unknown before my researches, emitted by certain phosphorescent bodies; and (2) the radiations of great (short) wavelength, belonging to the infrared part of the spectrum. This region has been known for a long time, but the majority of its properties have been ignored. It was not suspected before my researches that these radiations passed through a great number of bodies, allowed instantaneous photography in the dark, and possessed very special physiological actions. 12
The Spinthariscope (radiation detector) was invented by William Crookes in 1903. A device for observing individual nuclear disintegrations caused by the interaction of ionizing radiation with phosphor. The spinthariscope was the first radiation detector and was the forerunner of scintillation counters.
We have superconductivity in 1900 when Nikola Tesla was granted a US patent (No. 685,012, dated October 23, 1901.) for the means for increasing the intensity of electrical oscillations by lowering the temperature, which was caused by lowered resistance, a phenomenon previously observed by Olszewski and Wroblewski.” 14 Now known as Superconductivity
Superconductivity can be found even earlier in 1864: Whilst exploring ultra-cold phenomena, James Dewar inventor of what we now call the thermos flask initiated research into electrical resistance at low temperatures. Also there was Zygmunt Florenty Wroblewski who conducted research into electrical properties at low temperatures, though his research ended early due to his accidental death. Around 1864, Karol Olszewski and Wroblewski predicted the electrical phenomena of dropping resistance levels at ultra-cold temperatures. Olszewski and Wroblewski documented evidence of this in the 1880’s. 15
The atomic bomb was well on its way into production in Nazi Germany where Einstein’s theories were banned.
Nazi nuclear waste from Hitler’s secret A-bomb program found in mine: A statement by a boss of the Asse II nuclear fuel dump, just discovered in an archive, said how in 1967 ‘our association sank radioactive wastes from the last war, uranium waste, from the preparation of the German atom bomb.’ This has sent shock waves through historians who thought that the German atomic program was nowhere near advanced enough in WW2 to have produced nuclear waste in any quantities. 16
Headline: ‘Hitler ‘tested small atom bomb’, BBC News, Berlin: Sceptics agree the book sheds new light on Nazi nuclear experiments, “A German historian has claimed in a new book presented on Monday that Nazi scientists successfully tested a tactical nuclear weapon in the last months of World War II.
Rainer Karlsch said that new research in Soviet and also Western archives, along with measurements carried out at one of the test sites, provided evidence for the existence of the weapon. “The important thing in my book is the finding that the Germans had an atomic reactor near Berlin which was running for a short while, perhaps some days or weeks,” he told the BBC.
“The second important finding was the atomic tests carried out in Thuringia and on the Baltic Sea.” Mr Karlsch describes what the Germans had as a “hybrid tactical nuclear weapon” much smaller than those dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki
He said the last test, carried out in Thuringia on 3 March 1945, destroyed an area of about 500 sq m, killing several hundred prisoners of war and concentration camp inmates. The weapons were never used because they were not yet ready for mass production. There were also problems with delivery and detonation systems. Karlsch has done us a service in showing that German research into uranium went further than we’d thought… but there was not a German atom bomb.
Michael Schaaf, German physicist said,”We haven’t heard about this before because only small groups of scientists were involved, and a lot of the documents were classified after they were captured by the Allies,” said Karlsch. “I found documents in Russian and Western archives, as well as in private German ones. “One of these is a memo from a Russian spy, brought to the attention of Stalin just days after the last test. It cites “reliable sources” as reporting “two huge explosions” on the night of 3 March. Karlsch also cites German eyewitnesses as reporting light so bright that for a second it was possible to read a newspaper, accompanied by a sudden blast of wind. The eyewitnesses, who were interviewed on the subject by the East German authorities in the early 1960s, also said they suffered nose-bleeds, headaches, and nausea for days afterwards. Karlsch also pointed to measurements carried out recently at the test site that found radioactive isotopes..” 17 It must not be forgotten that Jewish theories were verboten in Nazi Germany at the time and this removes the need for Einstein and his theories in early nuclear bomb technology. Also note: E = mc2 was known long before Einstein and does not require relativity.
It may come as a shock to some who think the transistor was thanks to the careful work of quantum physicists, but the transistor has been around as long as radio, even in the first decade of the 1900’s, well before new particle or quantum physics took-off. See the transistor blog
Finally we come to the invention of the Internet by Tim Berners Lee at CERN. See another blog that examines this myth in detail.
The new physics that started in the 1930’s has done nothing to advance useful technology and we owe it all to the physics that it replaced because New Physics applications do not exist!
Although the examples above are all given by the poster as evidence to boost the reputation of physics, they cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to be as a result of new physics applications. They were all discovered when old physics and aether theory were extant. The poster is either lying through his teeth, or if he knows no better, he is ignorant of the history of science – a more likely scenario. This stuff is taught in place of real education and the students swallow it whole. A science with a need to grossly exaggerate and even lie about its own past achievements and then teach them as if they were education is in big trouble. 18 New Physics has only been around since the first half of the twentieth century. Einstein’s theory was first tested 1919 and even then it was contested by astronomers and physicists alike. In fact up-until this time the aether theory had supported most of physics.
The Old Quantum Theory
en.wiki informs us that the old quantum theory is a collection of results from the years 1900-1925 which pre-date modern quantum mechanics,” 7 Proto-particle physics began in 1897 with JJ Thomson’s electron, but we can say with confidence that there was no general consensus on modern quantum or particle physics until after 1925 because science is so conservative. I personally reckon that it all took-off during the 1930’s, this is also supported by accepted reference authorities. And so any development from before that date cannot be used in support of new physics.
Wiki again: “Following the negative outcome of aether-drift experiments like the Michelson–Morley experiment, the concept of aether as a mechanical medium having a state of motion lost adherents. It has been replaced in modern physics by the theory of relativity and quantum theory” 8
But the problem with this statement is that all of our modern electronic technology was born from the fruitful womb of aether theory. The word ‘aether’ 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 today. Abandoning the aether theory was a retrograde step and several physicists have tried to reintroduce it through the back door.
Aether Technology was killed for money
It seems to the uncritical eye that the killing of the golden goose of technology (aether theory) by the very science that claimed its ownership is incredible. But we must consider the source of scientific funding and those who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Science is funded by government and government and science are funded, in part, directly and indirectly, by big business, multinational and utility companies. Such interests were not impressed by the threat of an inexpensive aether energy source that (as they saw it), would rob them of revenue on investment in existing technology. Too much of a risk for the money men.
Yes, history shows they took it very seriously at the time. There were one or two experimenters who claimed to have harnessed the power of the aether (beginning of the [Conspiracy Theory] Free Energy saga 1850 to 1930). Such people were, more often than not, not academic scientists, but men such as Nikola Tesla, who was originally an academic, had stolen the scientists thunder on more than one occasion and the upstart had to be taught a lesson. And so it was, that the academics started a conspiracy theory by calling Tesla a mad man. This, in spite of the fact that he held some 700 international patents, many of them for the most cutting-edge technology of the day. Anyone who thinks that Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Tower was a hoax is a naive fool, as all of Tesla’s technology worked and the vast majority of it is still working today; much of it as part of the academic science that debunked it.
What we now want to see as proof from the academics, to refute the above, is a technology in the shops that is as a direct result of a new particle or quantum physics application over the past, say, thirty years? I doubt that any exists? If anyone finds one please let me know?
Now we explore the question: “What is an electron?” Is it useful? Does it exist?
The flow of an electric current in a conductor is thought of, (as a result of educational dumbing down), as being the transfer of electrons from one atom to its neighbour: qr.northwestern.edu says: “If you put new electrons in a conductor, they will join atoms, and each atom will spit out an electron to the next atom. This next atom takes in the electron and spits out another one on the other side” 19
According to Oregon State University:
“The flow of electrons is termed electron current. Electrons flow from the negative terminal to the positive. Conventional current or simply current, behaves as if positive charge carriers cause current flow. Conventional current flows from the positive terminal to the negative. Perhaps the clearest way to think about this is to pretend as if movement of positive charge carriers constituted current flow. It is important to realize that the difference between conventional current flow and electron flow in no way effects any real-world behavior or computational results. In general, analyzing an electrical circuit yields results that are independent of the assumed direction of current flow. Conventional current flow is the standard that most all of the world follows.” (The reader may have noted that the words flow and current mean exactly the same thing) http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~traylor/ece112/lectures/elect_flow_vs_conv_I.pdf
Has there ever been anything more likely to confuse the student – and this is exactly what it was designed to do. The last thing science and by default education wants is a return to the days when the world and his wife were experimenting with electricity and some of them were even beginning to understand it.
In fact, what we call electrons are not the energy of electricity. No electron burning takes place in our electrical appliances and there is no stoking the electric furnace. Electrons are not used-up during an electrical-powering process. The source of the power that drives what we call electricity is totally and deliberately unacknowledged by modern physical science. One thing we can be sure of is that there is no longer a single scientists on the planet who knows what was common knowledge to Thomson, Tesla and Steinmetz with regard to electricity. It has become a lost art only mentioned today by in the video lectures and papers of Eric Dollard the books of Gerry Vassilatos and a few others who are called pseudo scientists. -See,’Secrets of Cold War Technology’.
An example, with thanks to William Beaty of amasci.com: At his website he does some interesting things with transformers and we can see that it is possible to transmit the unidentified electrical power without the use of electrons:
tramsformer“FIG. 12 With high-mu materials , the transformer core could even take the form of wires. But these wires are non-conductors. They “conduct” waves of a magnetic field.” 20 http://amasci.com/elect/mcoils.html
With long-enough non-conducting wires it would be possible to wire a whole house without the use of, or the flow of what we have come to believe are electrons. An alternating magnetic field generated at the power station would power an entire national grid system of non-conducting wires. A motor could easily be adapted to run from magnetic pulses.
No more electrocution!
But the magnetic pulses can be transformed into an electric current if required.
The (V out) half of the above transformer would give us conventional electricity.
What Is “Electricity”? (c)1996 William J. Beaty , Electrical Engineer
“What is electricity? This question is impossible to answer because the word “Electricity” has several contradictory meanings. These different meanings are incompatible, and the contradictions confuse everyone. If you don’t understand electricity, you’re not alone. Even teachers, engineers, and scientists have a hard time grasping the concept. Obviously “electricity” cannot be several different things at the same time. Unfortunately we’ve defined the word Electricity in a crazy way. Because the word lacks one distinct meaning, we can never pin down the nature of electricity. In the end we’re forced to declare that there’s no such stuff as “electricity” at all! Here’s a quick example to illustrate the problem.
Do generators make electricity? To answer this question, consider the household light bulb. Inside a lamp cord the charges (the electrons) sit in one place and wiggle back and forth. That’s AC or alternating current. At the same time, the waves of electromagnetic field move rapidly forward. This wave-energy does not wiggle, instead it races along the wires as it flows from the distant generators and into the light bulb. OK, now ask yourself this: when “electricity” is flowing, is it called an Electric Current? Yes? If so, then “electricity” is simply the charges already inside the wires, where a flow of electricity is a flow of charge. And therefore we must say that the “electricity” sits inside the wires and vibrates back and forth. Generators do not create any, and electricity does not flow forward through the wires. Next, ask yourself if electricity is a form of energy. If it’s energy, then electricity is not the movable charges. Instead, electricity is made of invisible electromagnetic fields, and it doesn’t wiggle back and forth within the AC cables. Instead it can only exist in the space outside the wires, and not within the metal. Generators do create electricity, and it races along the wires at high speed. Yet please note that Electricity cannot do both, it cannot be both the charges and the fields, the electrons and the energy. So which one is really “the electricity?” Is it the wiggling electrons within the wires? Or is it the high-speed EM field energy? The experts unfortunately cannot agree on a narrow definition. The reference books give conflicting answers, so there *is* no answer.
If someone asks whether generators make electricity, it exposes a great flaw in the way we talk about “electricity”. If we can repair this flaw, perhaps our explanations will finally make sense. http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html
Even en.wiki is forced to admit in its “Speed of electricity”: “When a DC voltage is applied the electrons will increase in speed proportional to the strength of the electric field. These speeds are on the order of millimeters per hour. AC voltages cause no net movement; the electrons oscillate back and forth in response to the alternating electric field (over a distance of a few micrometers).”
en.wiki again: Electromagnetic waves, Wave propagation speed “The speed at which energy or signals travel down a cable is actually the speed of the electromagnetic wave, not the movement of electrons. Electromagnetic wave propagation is fast and depends on the dielectric constant of the material. In a vacuum the wave travels at the speed of light and almost that fast in air.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity
In a press conference in the 1920’s, a reporter asked Nikola Tesla to comment on the great achievements of the electron. Said Tesla, “There is no such thing as an electron.”
Note: The electron is a theoretical convenience that maintains the financial status quo and keeps physicists in a job. It gave rise to particle accelerators that eventually led to the Large Hadron Collider, all based on and evolved from the cathode ray tube. And remember, the cathode ray tube was invented by self educated amateur physicist William Crookes who today would be called a pseudo scientists.
∗Electrons move slightly in response to an electric current but have no part to play in electricity and electric currents.
∗Electricity is about fields, not electrons.
The history of science is also the history of suppression to further the ambitions of scientists and maintain the energy dictatorship.
∗Scientists avoid questions about the true nature of electricity.
The History, Discovery and Distortion of the “no-use-to-anyone electron”
J J Thomson did not make any new discoveries, nor did he name the electron, but merely verified and documented the work of a large number of others. Thomson was given the Nobel for inventing a new branch of science – Particle Physics – that provided work for physicists. More importantly he gave physics the excuse it needed to remove the troublesome aether theory and replace it with theories more palatable to extreme materialist academics.
Wiki: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Wiki “Matter”: Before the 20th century, the term matter included ordinary matter composed of atoms and excluded other energy phenomena such as light or sound. This concept of matter may be generalized from atoms to include any objects having mass even when at rest, but this is ill-defined because an object’s mass can arise from its (possibly massless) constituents’ motion and interaction energies. Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
Another completely untrue statement made by en.wiki and other reference sources: The 1897 Electron: “Thomson, in 1897, was the first to suggest that the fundamental unit was over 1000 times smaller than an atom, suggesting the subatomic particles now known as electrons. Thomson discovered this through his explorations on the properties of cathode rays. Thomson made his suggestion on 30 April 1897 following his discovery that Lenard rays could travel much further through air than expected for an atom-sized particle.” 21
Note that the idea of a particle in physics derives from the age-old notion that the atom was the smallest division of matter. With the arrival of Thomson’s electron the particle myth should have dissipated because the electron is obviously a form of energy. But so extreme was the materialism of scientists that they could not bring themselves to admit that they were working with something non material and insisted they were billiard balls.
What follows is proof of the failure and the complete hash made by scientific/sceptical revisionists to justify JJ Thomson’s Nobel Prize:
The electron sixty years before Thomson:
Exactly the same theories concerning the electron had been published by British surgeon Richard Laming around 1838-1850, up-to sixty years before Thomson’s theories, but Thomson, being a physicist got the credit and the Nobel Prize.
Richard Laming en.wiki: ” Between 1838 and 1851 he (Laming) published a series of papers speculating about the electrical makeup of atoms. He hypothesized that there existed sub-atomic particles of unit charge; perhaps one of the first persons ever to do so. He suggested that the atom was made up of a core of material surrounded by concentric shells of these electrical ‘atoms’, or particles. He also believed that these particles could be added or subtracted to an atom, changing its charge.” 22
This wiki entry for Arthur Schuster has now been removed:
The Charge-to-mass ratio in 1890, seven years before Thomson:
“By measuring the amount of deflection for a given level of current, in 1890 (Arthur) Schuster was able to estimate the charge-to-mass ratio of the ray components. However, this produced a value that was more than a thousand times greater than what was expected, so little credence was given to his calculations at the time.” He was debunked. Wiki now tells us that in 1890: “The German-born British physicist Arthur Schuster expanded upon Crookes’ experiments by placing metal plates parallel to the cathode rays and applying an electric potential between the plates. The field deflected the rays toward the positively charged plate, providing further evidence that the rays carried negative charge.” But this is exactly the claim of JJ Thomson in 1897. 23
More researchers who anticipated JJ Thomson’s experiments:
Julius Plucker 1850’s, en.wiki: “During the 1850’s Julius Plucker researched the light emitted in Crookes tubes and the effects of magnetic fields. In 1869, Johann Wilhelm Hittorf studied discharge tubes with cathode rays emitted from a negative electrode. These rays produced fluorescence when they hit a tube’s glass walls, and when blocked by a solid object they cast a shadow, just as Crookes had discovered. 24
1875 William Crookes
discoveriesinmedicine.com: “In 1838 (self educated) Michael Faraday first described the characteristics of the gas discharge tube, a glow witnessed in a partially evacuated tube with an applied high voltage. (The first cathode ray tube)
But, probably the most important research using cathode-ray tubes was performed in 1875 by the English (amateur) physicist William Crookes. In order to confirm the experiments of Plucker and Hittorf, Crookes designed his own vacuum tube from which the air could be almost completely removed. So great an improvement over Geissler’s tubes (Geissler was a glass blower not a physicist) were these that the “Crookes tube” quickly became the standard vacuum tube for use in scientific experiments. Crookes continued Plucker’s experiments with magnetic fields, confirming the glow was easily deflected. He also installed tiny vanes within his tubes. As the current was applied the vanes would turn slightly (it was as if they were blown by a gust of wind).” 25
1876 Johann Wilhelm Hittorf
en.wiki: “He observed tubes with energy rays extending from a negative electrode. These rays produced a fluorescence when they hit the glass walls of the tubes. In 1876 the effect was named “cathode rays” by Eugen Goldstein.” 26
1883 Heinrich Hertz and Arthur Shuster, Deflection by electric fields: en.wiki: “Heinrich Hertz built a tube with a second pair of metal plates to either side of the cathode ray beam, a crude CRT. If the cathode rays were charged particles, their path should be bent by the electric field created when a voltage was applied to the plates, causing the spot of light where the rays hit to move sideways. He did not find any bending, but it was later determined that his tube was insufficiently evacuated, causing accumulations of surface charge which masked the electric field.
Later Arthur Shuster repeated the experiment with a higher vacuum. He found that the rays were attracted toward a positively charged plate and repelled by a negative one, bending the beam. This was evidence they were negatively charged, and therefore not electromagnetic waves.” 27
1886 Eugen Goldstein, en.wiki: “In 1886, he discovered that tubes with a perforated cathode also emit a glow at the cathode end. Goldstein concluded that in addition to the already-known cathode rays, later recognized as electrons moving from the negatively-charged cathode toward the positively-charged anode, there is another ray that travels in the opposite direction. Because these latter rays passed through the holes, or channels, in the cathode, Goldstein called them Kanalstrahlen, or canal rays. They are composed of positive ions whose identity depends on the residual gas inside the tube. It was another of Helmholtz’s students, Wilhelm Wien, who later conducted extensive studies of canal rays, and in time this work would become part of the basis for mass spectrometry.” 28
1895 Jonathan Zenneck, en.wiki: Deflection by electric fields, “Electrical engineer Jonathan Zenneck improved the Braun (Crookes) cathode ray tube, by adding a second deflection structure at right angles to the first, which allowed two-dimensional viewing of a waveform. (A rectangular raster) This two-dimensional display is fundamental to the oscilloscope.” 29
ieeeghn.org: “From 1895 to 1905 he (Zenneck) was associated with the Physikalischen Institute in Strassburg, Alsace, first as assistant to Braun and later as assistant lecturer.” And so it was technician Zenneck and not Braun who gave us the oscilloscope. 30
The first Braun Tube
1897 The Braun tube of 1897 was a Crookes tube and Braun’s experiments had been preceded by William Crookes. According to en.wiki: “In 1897 he (Braun) built the first cathode-ray tube (CRT) and cathode ray tube oscilloscope.” 31
The scanning of this tube with only two deflector plates would only allow the screen to display a one-dimensional single straight line at most and it seems it was Zenneck, Braun’s assistant, who added the necessary extra two plates to make it into a true oscilloscope in two dimensions.
Note at this point, it may be recalled that en.wiki states: “In May-June 1897 Thomson investigated whether or not the rays could be deflected by an electric field. Previous experimenters had failed to observe this, but Thomson believed their experiments were flawed because their tubes contained too much gas.” 32
But then we find in that that same year 1897 that Karl Braun’s Work on the Cathode Ray Tube, according to inventors.about.com “The cathode ray tube or Braun tube as it was called was invented by Karl Braun in 1897. Braun used his cathode ray tube with a fluorescent screen and built the first oscilloscope called Braun’s electrometer. The cathode ray oscilloscope is an electronic display device used to produce visible patterns that are the graphical representations of electrical signals. Karl Braun demonstrated the first oscilloscope in 1897, as part of his work on high frequency alternating currents.” 33 And so we can only assume that 1897, Braun and Zenneck had an oscilloscope that deflected cathode rays electrostatically, and also that Thomson was the first to deflect cathode rays electro-statically in the same year!
1897 chemteam.info: “Walter Kaufmann deserves special mention before leaving this subject. In 1897, he had better data than Thomson and had it months before him.” In other words, just like Thomson he had also repeated the experiments of all the other experimenters. The problem was that he was such an extreme sceptic that he refused to believe his own data – it probably cost him the Nobel Prize. 34 We have several other examples of scepticism, this strange malady of science in other chapters, but in at least one case the chemist/physicist actually seems to have been awarded the Nobel prize for delaying science for several years when he had been given the answer almost from day one and ignored it due to his scepticism.
As we can see, Thomson’s Nobel Prize for his 1897 discovery was a travesty, but to his credit he did admit to the fact that the electron was a totally pointless exercise, because all the work on electronics had already been done – well as far as we are concerned today because it stopped.
Before the Electron
It cannot be denied that JJ Thomson was born during the Golden Age of electrical discovery. Equally, it may (or may not, by revisionists) be recalled, that such pioneering names as: Alessandro Volta, Hans Christian Orsted, Michael Faraday, James Watt, Andre Ampere, Georg Ohm, Thomas Edison, and Nikola Tesla etc., never used the electron theory or even the word electron prior to Thomson’s discovery. But the electrical inventiveness and discoveries of the above names progressed and were developed nonetheless, even though they resulted from a debunked physical theory.
Additionally, along with all of the pioneering names above must be included all of the circuit elements: the capacitor (condenser), the resistor and the inductor (coil), not forgetting the cathode ray tube, in fact the circuit elements we use today were all used well before the introduction of the concept of the electron – the electron could not have been discovered without the use off electronics. The circuitry was applied to the valve-vacuum tube, the cathode ray tube and later worked perfectly well with the transistor. We can say with absolute confidence, that all of our modern electronics is based on a theory that was defunct by physical academic science. A science that invented and continues to use an electron “that was no use to anyone”.
Electricity is electromagnetism – the clue is in the word. An electromagnetic field is a duel field consisting of a dielectric and a magnetic component at right angles to each other. The field travels outside of a conductor and anything induced within the conductor is due to the field and not the other way around. Electrons cannot travel at near light speed in a copper conductor, only a field can do that, outside of the conductor.
Charles Proteus SteinmetzScience likes to manufacture heroes but the JJ Thomson of science is not Thomson the man. He was, like William Crookes a mystic, something that would ensure his exclusion in today’s physics. He was, I would guess, given the Nobel prize to keep quiet about his obvious knowledge of electricity. This can be verified if the reader can get hold of anything he wrote. The same applies to Steinmetz, forgotten and suppressed, the man who solved all of the serious problems of electrical distribution, his work may as well be lost. Future generations will wonder why their sub-stations explode into flames as they did in the early 1900’s and the engineers will say “I don’t know”. Science may bring us some benefits, but on balance I would say it’s a net loss.
Professor Eric Dollard explains all of this much better that I ever could
See YouTube “Theory of Anti-Relativity” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIuMICiFqmE
There was a disaster regarding the references for this page and they are lost in a maze of data. However, when time allows I will find them and post them.
Secrets of Cold War Technology
by Gerry Vassilatos
Download PDF http://www.scribd.com/doc/15125148/Secrets-of-Cold-War-Technology
by Gerry Vassilatos
I will attach the numbered references when I find them
Leave a Reply
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.