Reblogged from a Quora page by Partha Sarathi Mishra
For the simple reason that it’s a BS concept. Electron concept was devised to suppress any further electrical research using aether which was quite dangerous for the oil baron like Rothschild.
Generally I don’t answer these type of conformist questions. After reading the mindless answer of Andy Briggs , I am now more motivated to write.
Aether is the universal storehouse of energy which comprises the entire electric phenomenon. Every electrical pioneer (Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla, Heaviside, Steinmetz, Thomson etc) believe in aether, as it was inevitable and quite logical as per natural philosophy. All our foundation of modern electrical engineering is from them. We still use their equations. Modern physics has contributed nothing to electricity, as research on electricity has stopped since 100 years, to promote business science.
First I will give evidences of how these electrical giants believed in aether.
Michael Faraday
Faraday felt strongly that action at a distance is not possible thru empty space, or in other words, “matter cannot act where it is not.”
Faraday considered space pervaded with lines of force. Almost everyone is familiar with the patterns formed by iron filings around a magnet. These filings act as numerous tiny compasses and orientate themselves along the lines of force existing around the poles of the magnet.
James Clerk Maxwell
In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium.
To fill all the space with a new medium whenever any new phenomenon is to be explained is by no mean philosophical, but if the study of to different branches of science has independently suggested the idea of a medium, and if the properties which must be attributed to the medium in order to account for electromagnetic phenomena are of the same kind as those which we attribute to the luminiferous medium in order to account for the phenomena of light, the evidence for the physical existence of the medium will be considerable straighten.
— James Cleark Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Vol II (Chapter XX, Article 781)
Oliver Heaviside
The chief reason why the founders of the modern science of energy did not explicitly make use of the idea of the continuity of energy was probably the very obscure nature of gravitational energy. Where was it before it became localised as the kinetic energy of a mass ? It is of no use to call it potential energy if that is to explain anything, which it does not. It would, seem that the energy must have been in the ether, somewhere, and was transferred into the body, somehow. This makes the ether the great store-house of all gravitational energy. But we are entirely ignorant of its distribution in the ether, and of its mode of transference.
Observe here that ether must be regarded as a form of matter, because it is the recipient of energy, and that is the characteristic of ordinary matter. There is an unceasing enormous flux of energy through the ether from the Sun, for instance, and we know that it takes several minutes to come; it comes through the ether, without bringing the ether with it; it is not a convection of energy, therefore. Of course, to avoid confusion, it is well to distinguish ether from ordinary matter by its separate name; but it is important to note that it has some of the characteristics of ordinary matter. It need not be gravitating matter; it is, perhaps, more likely to be the medium of gravitational action than to gravitate itself.
—Oliver Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory (Section 68, pg 75).
Charles Proteus Steinmetz
The velocity of propagation of the electric wave is incredible, but is a finite velocity, and after the electric wave has left the sending antenna, a finite time elapsed before it is observed by the receiving antenna. The energy sent out by the oscillator, the electric circuit, the sending antenna, is thus received by the receiving antenna at a later time. The finite speed of propagation of the electric wave implies that the energy during its motion from the starting point to the point observed must reside for some time in intervening space. This means that there must be something in the space which carries the energy; a carrier of the energy of the radiation, of light. That carrier we explain by the hypothesis of the luminiferous ether. We assume that the ether permeates all space, is of extreme tenuity and fineness, and is the carrier of the electric wave.
—CP Steinmetz, Electrical Disturbances And the Nature of Electrical Energy
Unfortunately, to large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electrostatic charge (electron) on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated.
— CP Steinmetz, Elementary Lectures on Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses (Lecture II, pg 18)
J J Thomson
…the tubes of electrostatic induction which we shall adopt, we shall regard them as having their seat in the ether, the polarization of the particles which accompanies their passage through a dielectric being a secondary phenomenon. We shall for the sake of brevity call such tubes Faraday Tubes.
In addition to the tubes which stretch from positive to negative electricity, we suppose that there are, in the ether, multitudes of tubes of similar constitution but which form discrete closed curves instead of having free ends; we shall call such tubes “closed” tubes. The difference between the two kinds of tubes is similar to that between a vortex filament with its ends on the free surface of a liquid and one forming a closed vortex ring inside it. These closed tubes which are supposed to be present in the ether whether electric forces exist or not, impart a fibrous structure to the ether.
—J J Thomson, Notes on Recent Research in Electricity and Magnetism (Ch 1)
Oh, yes.
Thomson was the first person who started engineering the aether into a much usable system. But unable to complete as was consumed by lust of Nobel Prize. He was bribed to shut down his aether research for electron. We only know Thomson for discovery of so-called electrons, which he himself never believed.
So according to “modern” physicists, all these pioneers are fools. They outcast the pioneer geniuses of the past by removing the aether. Even though they use all their equations. They leave in hallucination that we know more about electricity that these oldies. Well the truth is quite opposite. The concept is field is completely replaced with virtual particles and innumerable baseless theories were introduced which give no way to understand true nature of electricity.
J J Thomson used to say a toast at dinner time:
“To the electron! May it never be of any use to anybody”.
Seems it’s correct. We can see the progress in the field of electricity after the introduction on electron.
Modern scientist think too deeply with no clarity. They haven’t invented anything useful with their aether-less science. They spend more time in creating mass hysteria scam like hadron collider scam, black hole’s fabricated picture, global warming, LIGO’s gravitational wave scam, etc. All these stunts are performed with tax payer’s money.
Science is no longer about nature as natural philosophy is abandoned. It’s more about money and consensus.
Physicists parrot Michelson and Morlay’s experiment to pseudo-debunk aether. But they rarely every study and analyze the experiment properly. Also they are ignorant regarding Sagnac and Dayton-Miller’s aether experiments.
All this destruction start with an armchair theorist Einstein, who said their is no need for aether. He had zero practical competency in electricity. Einstein knew nothing about electricity, but many Wiki page regarding electricity has reference to Einstein. It’s not strange that why physicists worship Einstein so much, as most electrical pioneers are not physicists. And aether can be experience only through electrical experiments.
Einstein once said:
“I have now struggled with this basic problem of electricity for more than twenty years, and have become quite discouraged,
though without being able to let go of it. I am convinced that a completely new and enlightening inspiration is needed.”
Seems physicists have no interest in studying electricity, that’s why they outcast electrical pioneers’ works and statements and impose their believe on it.
No lets take a look into the loopholes of electron theory.
The cathode ray tubes are all not same. In many tubes, there is no straight path from cathode to anode for so-called electron to flow. Look at the following tube design.
Strange that Wikipedia only shows those tubes which has straight path between anode and cathode..
Cathode ray – Wikipedia
Quoting Wiki:
“Like a wave, cathode rays travel in straight lines, and produce a shadow when obstructed by objects.”
Well, then how will you explain the flow of electricity aka electron in the above picture? But there is no issue with electricity by changing the path. Assuming there is no aether, there is no way a charged particle can sense positive end with lots of obstruction ahead and still bend and hit the anode without hitting anywhere in the wall. But bending the path doesn’t affects the electrical phenomenon at all. Hence, they don’t travel in straight line. It’s only possible if there is a medium through which the lines of induction is establish from one point to the another, irrespective of its path. Hence it’s not particles, rather field perturbation.
Now see the following diagram of shadow casting from Crook’s tube.
Now if cathode rays are electrons and move in straight path, then what is that which curves and hits the anode to complete the circuit?
Now look at the Thomson’s tube.
The anode voltage here is very high compared to the deflecting electrode’s voltage. Even though the anodes have slits, how come the electrons still manage to pass through the slits with attraction from a comparatively lesser voltage and gets deflected? I have no plausible answer. Thomson even found that the cathode rays don’t deflect towards anode, but rather towards the phosphorous coating.
[Fig. 46]
The paths of the negative rays are governed entirely by the shape and position of the cathode, they are quite independent of the shape or position of the anode. Thus, if the cathode and anode are placed at one end of an exhausted tube, as in Fig. 46, the cathode rays will not bend round to the anode, but will go straight down the tube and make the opposite end phosphoresce.
Any part of the tube which is made to phosphoresce by the action of these rays seems to acquire the power of sending out such rays itself, or we may express the same thing by saying that the rays are diffusely reflected by the phosphorescent body (Goldstein, Wied. Ann. 15, p. 246, 1882). Fig. 47 represents the appearance presented by a bent tube when traversed by such rays, the darkly shaded places being the parts of the tube which show phosphorescence.
[Fig. 47]
These rays seem to be emitted by any negative electrode, even if this be one made by putting the finger on the glass of the tube near the anode. This produces a discharge of negative electricity from the glass just underneath the finger, and the characteristic green phosphorescence (if the tube is made of German glass) appears on the opposite wall of the tube; this phosphorescence is deflected by a magnet in exactly the same way as if the rays came from a metallic electrode.
—J J Thomson, Notes on Recent Research in Electricity and Magnetism, Art. 114.
So it’s shows that cathode rays have nothing to do with electrons as a fundamental element of electricity. It shows that they are different electricity compared to the conventional one.
There is another critical thinker author online with the alias cadxx who did nice analysis about the electron myth. I replicated the experiment, and got the same result.
Following is the experiment.
Following is the schematic.
So quoting cadxx
Above we have an alternative configuration for the benefit of the sceptics among us. The reader will note that we now have four circuits, any three of them using the same wires with four voltages all moving in opposite directions simultaneously. I checked the circuit with a compass needle and there is no magnetism in the crossed wires.
Below we have the circuit wired-up and working. The voltages are, as is obvious, 1.5v 3.v 4.5v and 6volts, the bulbs are 6v filament type. Each bulb and battery is sharing a circuit with two others and so we have three circuits of various voltage and polarity using the same wire. (This is best seen in the diagram above) There is current moving in the crossed wires in both directions and with different voltages simultaneously. Each bulb and battery shares a circuit with the others. The polarity can be seen by the wires from the batteries. I challenge readers to give me an explanation in terms of scientific or any other theory as to how electrons move in both directions when they are negatively charged and strongly repelling each other? I challenge them to tell me in terms of modern electrical theory what is going-on in the crossed wires?
So obviously the water flow analogy is absolute garbage, as it eliminates the field concept completely.
What about the wireless system? Does antenna emits particles (or photons)? Then how they penetrate matter and reach the receiver?
Anybody with common sense and practical experience will say that electron theory of electricity is absolute BS. But theses physicists seems to be highly incompetent and can go up to any level of irrational imagination against natural philosophy, as aether is a taboo word for them.
Electricity is the flow of fields, NOT electrons. Current don’t exist inside the conductor. Current exists in the SPACE surrounding the conductor.
Following is the electric field diagram of a single current carrying conductor.
The magnetic lines of force comprises the magnetic field which are in the form of concentric circles. The number of magnetic lines of force is termed as magnetic flux.
The dielectric lines of force are radial to the surface of the conductor. The number of dielectric lines of force is called dielectric flux (aka charge in modern term).
Between two conductors, the line of force are crowded together and form arcs of circles, passing from conductor to return conductor.
The dielectric field create attraction force between the two conductors and the magnetic field create equal repulsive force to balance it out.
The dielectric field of a circuit is treated in the same manner as the magnetic field.
Laws of Lines of Force
All lines of magnetic forces are closed upon themselves creating loops. All lines of dielectric force terminate at conductors. Dielectric field cannot terminate on space.
The diagram below shows the electricity in a closed circuit.
Dielectric lines of force are discrete and have physical thickness, not continuous. It can be called as a Faraday tube. They are vortices in the aether.
So when energy transfer from A to B, there must be something in between to carry them, as energy is not a physical entity, rather an ability. Aether is the universal storage of energy which manifests into all matter.
Analyzing Andy Briggs Statements
[Andy Briggs’s answer to Why do those (Tesla, Heavyside, Maxwell, Steinmetz) who created our entire electrical system state that there is no electron particle?]
Dear Andy,
Have you read any of the works of Faraday, Heaviside, Maxwell, Tesla, Steinmetz and J J Thomson? I don’t think so. Because they were all aether believers and natural philosophers.
So you said “Also, Maxwell never said the electron didn’t exist”, so does it automatically means that he believes it exists? Are you sure if he would have been there today would be agreeing with the electron theory? I have shows Maxwell believed in aether.
By the way, have you ever bothered to study the original Maxwell’s treatise with Quaternions ? (Not the degraded 4 equation subset version with “modern” tag)
You said:
“Telsa was full of shit too, denying most modern science.”
So is your so-called modern science a religious dogma that if anybody deny is a fool? Would you please take time to quote Tesla an explain the shits which you are alluding to?
Science is about discovering and utilizing the natural phenomena. Seems you are too much brainwashed with “modern” tag.
You said:
“So what if a few past scientists didn’t believe in the electron? We know it exists. They didn’t have equipment to demonstrate it.”
How do you know it exists? Could you explain what experimental result leads you to believe that electrons exists?
You said:
“A lot of past scientists didn’t think people would fly, or that you could send a rocket to the Moon. So what? They were wrong.”
Well how this point is relevant to the question? Did your “modern” physicists invented aircraft and their equations?
Please list of 10 modern technologies in the market which are creations of “modern” physics. Consider this an open challenge.
And lastly you said:
“Get your science from academic sites or other reputable sites. Not fools.”
Is science is for academicians? So it confirms that you are an academia brainwashed with zero critical thinking. Academicians never invented anything, as invention needs out-of-the-box thinking. Academicians are locked-up in their boxes.
If you do little bit research, then you will find that no significant invention happened in the past 100 years. All our modern technologies are miniaturized version of 19th century sciences. Modern technologies don’t use any of the modern sciences, as they are useless. Science is hijacked into a religious cult after Einstein.
So sooner you learn and realize, better you can give something to the mankind. There is no age for learning. Everyone realizes when the right time comes.
I would request you to quote my lines and then comment.