RE: Terry's Test - Two Manifestations of Charge

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "David Thomson" <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Mark,

> >How do you explain the difference in color of the sparks?  One
is
> >purple, the other is bright white.  If there is just one
> manifestation
> >of charge, shouldn't you be able to get a bright purple, or
> thin white
> >spark?
>
> An imperfect conductor that carries more current will be
> hotter than the same imperfect conductor that carries less
> current.  The color of the radiated light follows the
> blackbody radiation theory and Wein's Law:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_law

>From the black body page: "So, as temperature increases, the glow
color changes from red to yellow to white to blue."

Does this mean the thin purple spark is hotter than the thick
white spark?

> >  > It seems obvious from the photos that the top of the tube
is
> >  > near the same potential as the top of the coil...  That is
> >  > certainly just as expected from plain old field theory...
> >
> >I can't tell if we are talking about the same thing or not.
Are
> >you saying that it looks like the potential from the topload
to
> >the vacuum tube is the same from the vacuum tube to ground?
What
> >makes you say that?
>
> The potential of the tube is closer to the potential of the
topload than to
> ground.  And that's what one would expect due to capacitive
coupling and
> field theory....

How do you think the potential from the tube to ground will
compare to the potential between the topload and tube, given the
tube is exactly in between?  Would you predict that by changing
the angle of the tube with respect to the coil that the physical
appearance of the sparks will change?

> >That's true.  The "new" theory I am talking about is really
the
> >old Aether theory, but based upon modern measurements.
>
> Didn't Michelson and Morley disprove the aether theory pretty
> thoroughly?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

Actually, no.  They proved that there is an Aether drift of ten
thousand kilometers per second.  This was verified in over
100,000 repetitions of the experiment over 20 years and
culminated with Dayton Miller's work.

Dayton C. Miller, Science, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 1635 (Apr.
30, 1926), 433-443

Also, in 1966, Dieter Brill and Jeffrey Cohen changed the name
from "Aether drift" to "frame dragging," and using a satellite,
proved that it does exist.  Nobody has yet observed a "frame," I
might add, any more than anyone has observed a unit of Aether.
But it is accepted by mainstream science, nonetheless.

> >The fact is, in order for something to have an effect, it must
be
> >real.  In the modern interpretation of EM theory, the field is
> >just a mathematical construct.
>
> I can show that a magnetic field is "real" with some iron
filings, and the
> gravitational field certainly feels real enough....

Take it up with modern physics.  It is the prevailing view in the
peer reviewed journals that magnetic fields are not real, but
just mathematical constructs.  I happen to agree with you, and
mathematically quantify the Aether as quantum units of rotating
magnetic field.  But somehow, I suspect you will now correct
yourself and say that the "real" magnetic field is just an
illusion of being real. :-)  Can't have an Aether.

> See Michelson and Morley above.

See Dayton Miller above.

> >It is interesting to me that it can be proven, at least
visually
> >so far, that there are indeed two distinct manifestations of
> >charge, which matches the quantities derived from the
empirical
> >data.
>
> All that we have proven, visually speaking, is that one spark
has more
> current than the other.

I must have missed something.  Did someone take a measurement of
the currents?  As I understand it, the only thing that has been
proven so far is that there are two different appearances.  One
of them is thin and purple, the other is thick and white.  Check
out the pictures to see what I'm talking about.  We also know
that the vacuum tube will produce this result and that a mere
piece of metal between the topload and ground will not.

I understand that there are some theories and opinions as to what
the observations mean, but as far as I understand it, nothing has
been done to prove anything, yet.

Dave