A Thiaoouba Inspired Website

[ejaos]

Hi,

I have recently completed my own personal website containing views developed after reading through thiaoouba prophecy in 1997. Finding it hard to gain critical feedback on any of these ideas I thought here would be a good place to start looking for some kind of peer review. Any form constructive feedback would be gratefully received and I hope that some of you guys can come on over and give these ideas the critical analysis they need.

Thanks in advance.

Edward.
http://www.ejaos.net

[InfoSource]

Hi Edward

From reading from your personal experience at the time of reading Thiaoouba prophecy you seemed to have very interesting experiences with telepathy and possibly communication with your higher self

Well I can say your website has covered the basic physic phenomena’s that are experienced at some points during peoples lives

I found another article that agrees with your aether hypothesis to explain everything, perhaps you've read it already

Etheric Ocean: http://www.gvano.com/ebteo.pdf contains information on ether travel (aether travel), psychophotonics, and a unifying theory

Hope this helps

[ejaos]

Hi Infosource,

Thanks for the Etheric Ocean link, I hadn't see it before, and thanks for checking out my website.

The thing with those personal experiences is it is hard to know how to take them -
maybe it was telepathy and higher self communication or maybe it was me just going a
little insane. I wrote the superluminal aether paper to try and figure that out so
that, regardless of the outcome, I could move forward in respect to those ideas.

Anyway I hope you enjoyed your visit to my world and please feel free to continue
writing on any of the views presented there.

Edward.
http://www.ejaos.net

[Alisima]

I like the idea of an aether, I always have. However, I think you should make small steps before you can make large ones.

It is always nice to talk about the structure of the universe, to philosophize and more of that. But apart from how much of it could be true, it is, due to lack of evidence, merely something you believe in.

I believe the only way to know truth is to experience it. Whenever truth is written down or translated into a believe, it looses it's truthness.

Rather than trying to teach people truth directly, we should teach them how to see the truth. How to experience it. How to live with it.

However, if you website is just for philosophizing, then it is a good website.

[ejaos]

The lack of reproducible evidence is definitely a barrier to the presented philosophy but it's not all unempirical conjecture - at the websites core I have put forward a new, testable form of energy interaction so that anomalous electrical interaction such as the kirlian effect can be accounted for. The websites credibility stands on this alone.

My own thoughts on what we can accept as truth are currently focused on Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason which I see as the only proper philosophy in analysing what truth can be. Having said that though I have already tried to do what you have suggested in the first principals section putting forward a halo viewing exercise but I think people are just going to see what they want to on that one.


Edward.
http://www.ejaos.net

[bomohwkl]

The conceptual ideas of quantum physics, aether and relativity are good. When it comes to giving personal explanation of a given observation, I would like to say that it lacks of scientific justification. There are just too many speculations without sounds logic. I might be too critical. Knowing how to explain a "mysterious" observation only comes to you when you have completed a PhD. It is an impotant skill that one acquired during a PhD. However, I have to say that you have a potential to be a good physicist in view of your ability to grasp conceptual physics.

The Kirlian effect has been successfully accounted by the presence of highly organized informational system surrounding our body. The Nu Journal provides the best explanation so far about aura and kirlian effect.

[ejaos]

The explanations listed in the aether dynamics section are not meant to be final only tentative to support the superluminal aether paper so if you see that as unscientific there is no argument from me as I am in total agreement with you.

I must have missed that NU Journal issue about the Kirlian effect, I don't remember reading anything that was presented as falsifiable but I might be wrong on that. Do you have any links to the issue? I did originally send my paper to the NU Journal but unfortunately I didn't get past the 'I'll get back to you' stage.

Many thanks for your criticisms so far.

Edward.
http://www.ejaos.net

[bomohwkl]

http://nujournal.net/
Is Chance or Choice the essence of Nature?
and
http://kirlianresearch.com

[ejaos]

I've visited those sites before, and again today, but I still fail to find anything presented as falsifiable which will progress science.

Those websites do get you thinking but ultimately they contain unsubstantiated philosophies with no clear empirical justification in them. To my mind this is why my ideas are currently better that those ones in that they can be shown to be wrong either in experiment or in mathematical logic.


Edward.
http://www.ejaos.net

[Vesko]

Knowing how to explain a "mysterious" observation only comes to you when you have completed a PhD. It is an impotant skill that one acquired during a PhD.

Come on, you do not strictly need a PhD for that, you need the equivalent of a PhD. You do not have to be formally educated to PhD level.

[bomohwkl]

Come on, you do not strictly need a PhD for that, you need the equivalent of a PhD. You do not have to be formally educated to PhD level.

yeah, which means having a Permanent Head Damage would qualify for a P.H.D. (joking). There is no strict rule, generally, people who has a PhD tend to be able to justify a mysterious observation with scientific vigour. However, nowadays, the quality of PhD has somewhat eroded.Of course, in a PhD trainning, you are able to control experimental parameters in order to find an explanation for the mysterious observation. In life, in particular when it comes to paranormal events, people tends to make conclusion too quickly without sufficient observations. If one has a limited set of observations, it is important to create a certain experimental condition to extend the range of observation. The experimental parameters are adjusted in order to test the hypothesis. Then an explanation can be given with sufficient scientific vigour.

[bomohwkl]

http://www.ejaos.net/paper.html

My critical comments:
1. Please label your equations.
2. In figure 4, please indicate the permittivity of the space occupyingthe region between the "normal permittivity" and "low density permittivity".
3. PLease clarify the meaning of "low density permittivity". Do you mean it has permittivity less than free space? Do you mean it has an imaginary permittivity. There are materials that has negative permittivity and permittivity less than the free space.
4. In essence, the figure 4 can look like a free electron between a uncharged capacitor. The electron ,assuming that the space occupying the capacitor is vacuum space, then, the electron will polarize the dielectric plates. If both plates have different dielectric constants, then , the polarizibility of the plates as a result of electric field produced by the electron would be different. There will be a migration of electrons away from the plates (conductor) so that it is slightly positive charged. The plates will be slight repulsive with respect to each other.
5. You cannot subtrate electric displacement like that!!!!! It is conceptually wrong. You can do that when different electric fields acts at an object at the same point. Even i interpreted the figure 4 as a capacitor, the D (D3 = D2 - D1) doesn't signify the electric field produced by the dielectric plates.


Polarizability is defined as the tendency of a molecule's electrons to be deformed by an applied electric field.

[ejaos]

My critical comments:

1. Please label your equations.

2. In figure 4, please indicate the permittivity of the space occupyingthe region between the "normal permittivity" and "low density permittivity".

3. PLease clarify the meaning of "low density permittivity". Do you mean it has permittivity less than free space? Do you mean it has an imaginary permittivity. There are materials that has negative permittivity and permittivity less than the free space.

4. In essence, the figure 4 can look like a free electron between a uncharged capacitor. The electron ,assuming that the space occupying the capacitor is vacuum space, then, the electron will polarize the dielectric plates. If both plates have different dielectric constants, then , the polarizibility of the plates as a result of electric field produced by the electron would be different. There will be a migration of electrons away from the plates (conductor) so that it is slightly positive charged. The plates will be slight repulsive with respect to each other.

5. You cannot subtrate electric displacement like that!!!!! It is conceptually wrong. You can do that when different electric fields acts at an object at the same point. Even i interpreted the figure 4 as a capacitor, the D (D3 = D2 - D1) doesn't signify the electric field produced by the dielectric plates.

My rebuttal :

1. OK, they will be added in the next update.

2. The region is anything under the original permittivity/permeability of free space. The diagram was meant to help show the possibility of energy creation and destruction through the aether.

3. I am aware some materials have negative permittivity less than the free space and have followed the real vs imaginary arguments in the usenet but this not what I mean. I merely mean to say that there are faster than light energies and am using the weak, less than free space, permittivity and permeability concepts to interact with them.

4. The electron between two plates analogy you present is incorrect due to the nature of the d2 area. See below.

5. I agree, it is conceptually wrong to do so under your capacitor analogy but that was not what I was trying to say. The d2 area is fundamentally different than a dielectric plate, it is a layer of subtle, faster than light energy existing under and with all physical energy. It cannot be seen as a simple plate with a ultra low permittivity and permeability. Conceptually the D2 area interacts through D (D3 = D2 - D1) only when it contains more energy than the physical layer as tentatively shown in the high voltage, high frequency, low amperage Kirlian effect.


Thank you for your continued time spent criticising this idea bomohwkl, it means a lot to me.

ps -
If you have other ideas for the list of alternatives in the aether dynamics section send them to me and I will update the page accordingly.


Edward.
http://www.ejaos.net

[bomohwkl]

Conceptually the D2 area interacts through D (D3 = D2 - D1) only when it contains more energy than the physical layer as tentatively shown in the high voltage, high frequency, low amperage Kirlian effect.

D3 cannot be interpreted as energy interaction. It is a conceptually meaningless equation. D2 is not an equation that shows the destruction of creation of energy. You are making an assumption about energy can be destroyed or created. No mathematical proof has been used to support the idea.

2. The region is anything under the original permittivity/permeability of free space. The diagram was meant to help show the possibility of energy creation and destruction through the aether.

The diagram is at best confusing. It doesn't illustrate how the energy is created or destructed. If the region between D1 and D2 is filled with normal space, then, your derivation of equations starting from Gauss's law are all incorrect. There are extensive misinterpretation of the equations. I suggest you to get a university level book on Maxwell's equations and learn how to solve some of the questions on the book. This could improve your concept of electromagnetism.

[ejaos]

D3 cannot be interpreted as energy interaction. It is a conceptually meaningless equation. D2 is not an equation that shows the destruction of creation of energy. You are making an assumption about energy can be destroyed or created. No mathematical proof has been used to support the idea.

D3 is the change when the faster than light energy is taken away from standard light speed energy. The concept behind it is that the differing light speed fields which live imposed on each other can, under some circumstances, not cancel each other out and either create or lose energy through the electrical field displacement. Of course D2 is not a equation that shows the creation or destruction of energy it is just D2 = e0 .x e2 , the assumption about lack of energy conservation for the hypothesis is made using D3 to deal with that but you find this conceptually meaningless - perhaps you could elucidate on that more clearly.

The diagram is at best confusing. It doesn't illustrate how the energy is created or destructed. If the region between D1 and D2 is filled with normal space, then, your derivation of equations starting from Gauss's law are all incorrect. There are extensive misinterpretation of the equations. I suggest you to get a university level book on Maxwell's equations and learn how to solve some of the questions on the book. This could improve your concept of electromagnetism.

I'm sorry you found that diagram misleading, I'll have another look at it when updating. Could you explain a little more why the equations starting from gauss's law are incorrect please? I know I have used Maxwell's equations in the MKS system in unconventional manner but there is no other gauge where I can communicate the differing light speeds on em in such a consistent manner. As for books perhaps you could supply a link to something which clearly shows why you cannot subtract differing speed displacements from each other.


Edward.
http://www.ejaos.net