Body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_temperature
https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0506196
Looking at it from the perspective of moving charge carriers
(electrons), you are correct all the way down to the Absolute Zero but
this is all Theoretical.
On 1/12/2019 8:13 AM, [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
> Hi Norman,
>
> Don't be too sure that there is such a thing as static electricity. It
> may look static but the charges may actually be moving at signal speed
> but opposing each other to look like a static field. Ivor Catt's
> theory C tells that the charges always have to be on their move.
> Wilbert B. Smith's theory tells that electrons and positrons cannot
> exist without being on the move. An analogy can be made by using smoke
> rings which have some of the same properties as electrons and
> positrons. Try to stop a smoke ring and it just disintegrates.
>
> Citing Ivor Catt from here http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/965.htm:
> "We are driving towards the principle that Energy (current) E x H
> cannot stand still; it can only travel at the speed of light. Any
> apparently steady field is a combination of two energy currents
> travelling in opposite directions at the speed of light.
>
> Ivor Catt 6 May 2012"
>
> Article about the experiment done by Tony Wakefield that confirmed
> Ivor Catt's theory C:
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
> And a succeeding experiment (Experiment to complement the Wakefield
> Experiment. Suggested by 4
> students at Newcastle University UK.):
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3a922.pdf
>
> "The Wakefield Experiments Background and Motivation:"
> http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/12/12/the-wakefield-experiments-background-and-motivation/
>
> The problem is if nature is right and the experiments show how nature
> works or if theory is right and nature must follow theory even though
> it doesn't always do so. But even us humans violate laws and perhaps
> nature isn't different in that way or it is just ruled by its own laws.
>
> Regards
> Ole
>
> Strange. Show message history doesn't work so copy pasted some in:
>
>
> On 1/12/2019 7:28 AM, Norman Wootan nwootan@... <mailto:nwootan@...>
> [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
>> Glad you asked there Mick for almost all of us have our copies of
>> Joseph Cater's Book, Awesome Life Force in which he uses the terms
>> Hard Electrons vs Soft Electrons. The Scientific Community take a
>> dim view of publications such as this BUT teach, even at MIT that
>> there are hard vs Soft electrons??
>>
>> See;
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6twjgw/eli5_what_are_soft_and_hard_electrons/
>>
>> MIT lecture on Superposition:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3bPUKo5zc&feature=youtu.be
>>
>> https://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field
>>
>> To sum up this whole argument, this article says it best
>> https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-static-and-vs-dynamic-electricity/
>> If it is moving (dynamic) they are hard electrons and carry a
>> magnetic field and electric field. If they are standing still, (no
>> movement) they are Soft Electrons. Moving charges create fields.
>> You can charge a large capacitor via an influence machine
>> (electrostatic generator) and as long as the charge is at rest state,
>> it is static electricity. When you discharge the capacitor, the
>> resultant moving of charge (dynamic) creates the fields due to moving
>> charge. This is how I see it.
>>
>> https://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma_classification_(types_of_plasma)
>>
>> I had a friend, Leonard Dorsett that lived at Grapevine, TX by the
>> lake. In the evening, just at dusk, the metal roof of his house would
>> glow due to a strange ionization soft plasma. We never figured out
>> this phenomenon.
>>
>> On 1/11/2019 8:09 PM, Mick mkjekyll@... <mailto:mkjekyll@...> wrote:
>> Hide message history
>>>
>>> Norm,
>>>
>>> Could you please distill the concept of soft particles? I read the
>>> Cater book and for some reason have a disconnect concerning what
>>> defines a soft or hard electron etc.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mick
>>>
>