It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 134
39
<< 131  132  133    135  136  137 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . the fact that the pyramids exist, and the fact that our modern day technology (that's mainstream and recognized) could not provide the ability to transport the stones . . .


My understanding is that the blocks that were used to build the Sphinx Temple and the Valley Temple that are in front of the Sphinx in Egypt came from the enclosure area that is around the Sphinx, (we know this because the strata of the blocks match the strata of the enclosure wall) and that these blocks weigh in excess of 200 tons.

What technology did the Egyptians use to transport these blocks?




posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
Walks like it , talks like it , quacks like it


It doesn't "walk" or "quack" like it. You missed on that in Arb's post. Oh well.

"Lumineferous aether" is not the same as the vacuum of quantum field theory. If you read the Laughlin's quote again, you can figure it out. As he points out, the word "aether" was used in opposition to Einstein ideas, which were proven to be correct. So it wasn't used much afterwards.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So from my perspective they just decided to call it something else (space time) because aether already had a common definition or meaning, which was luminiferous aether, and Einstein's "new aether" was something quite different so calling it something else like spacetime would help avoid confusion. That sounds like a logical reason to me that has nothing to do with religion.


At this point in time, after studies have clearly shown that space is not empty, the term “spacetime” is no longer appropriate and needs to be replaced.

I think Laughlin was making the point that “relativistic ether” would be more appropriate but the science community will not allow it, for no good reason.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So from my perspective they just decided to call it something else (space time) because aether already had a common definition or meaning, which was luminiferous aether, and Einstein's "new aether" was something quite different so calling it something else like spacetime would help avoid confusion. That sounds like a logical reason to me that has nothing to do with religion.


At this point in time, after studies have clearly shown that space is not empty, the term “spacetime” is no longer appropriate and needs to be replaced.


Spacetime in special relativity is just that. So the term will stay. It's a four-dimensional space.


I think Laughlin was making the point that “relativistic ether” would be more appropriate but the science community will not allow it, for no good reason.


Laughlin's point is that vacuum turned out to be a complex object. You can call it ether if you wish. But hey, you insist that aether is moving inside Rodin's coil, right? So there, a good reason exists, in fact -- to keep science and quackery separate, wherever possible. So you get to keep your non-existent ether and we get to keep a very real and complex vacuum, which has nothing to do with "fingerprint of God" or other such stupid notions.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Spacetime in special relativity is just that.


Physics doesn't quite have it all figured out, correct?

What we need is a unified theory. SR needs to be replaced, as well.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Laughlin's point is that vacuum turned out to be a complex object.


No, Laughlin's point is that space is an ether rather than an empty vacuum.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think Laughlin was making the point that “relativistic ether” would be more appropriate but the science community will not allow it, for no good reason.


Laughlin's point is that vacuum turned out to be a complex object. You can call it ether if you wish.
Actually, please don't call it that, but if you wanted to call it what Laughlin does, "relativistic aether", I personally wouldn't have a problem with that since that tends to distinguish it from luminiferous aether, but you would have the problem that 99+% of the rest of the world still calls it spacetime, and that's not such a bad name so I don't see why you can't just use that.

The problem I have with calling it "aether", is that without further clarification, it's generally interpreted to refer to luminiferous aether, hence the reason I believe we don't use the term.
edit on 30-11-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Spacetime in special relativity is just that.


Physics doesn't quite have it all figured out, correct?


No, it's incorrect in the context I used. Please take a course in SR and come back later.


What we need is a unified theory. SR needs to be replaced, as well.


Your car manufacturer does not replace Newtonian mechanics when making the necessary calculations.


No, Laughlin's point is that space is an ether rather than an empty vacuum.


You have no idea what he's talking about.

I'm tired of people with zero knowledge calling for replacement of this and that.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Please take a course in SR and come back later.

The article I posted on Page 120, "Commentary on Maxwell's Equations and Special Relativity" by William H. Cantrell comes to mind. I have posted many times about the significance in history of tampering with Maxwell's equations. The fact that you reject this information doesn't make it incorrect.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
You have no idea what he's talking about.

Apparently, I know more than you do about it.

I certainly appreciate the significance of the aether in relation to new energy.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Arb, do you believe there are actually such things as 'virtual particles'? Do you also believe these 'virtual particles' are 'flitting in and out of existence'?

Further, what is the relationship, in your opinion, that they have with the phenomena of VDF and ZPE?



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The problem I have with calling it "aether", is that without further clarification, it's generally interpreted to refer to luminiferous aether, hence the reason I believe we don't use the term.


Good point.

Let's call it "energetic aether."



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The problem I have with calling it "aether", is that without further clarification, it's generally interpreted to refer to luminiferous aether, hence the reason I believe we don't use the term.


Good point.

Let's call it "energetic aether."


Shouldn't we call it "emanation of the most Holy Name", as Rodin suggests?



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Only while meditating.




posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Arb, do you believe there are actually such things as 'virtual particles'? Do you also believe these 'virtual particles' are 'flitting in and out of existence'?

Further, what is the relationship, in your opinion, that they have with the phenomena of VDF and ZPE?
I already posted a solution to the world's energy problems in this thread based on them, and I didn't get greedy and ask for 11 million dollars like Bearden, I just made a modest request to get a percentage of the profits from whoever uses the idea to make millions, but frankly I'm not even entitled to that because it's actually someone else's idea I posted:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
but it doesn't appear like anybody took me seriously, yet people are taking blacklight power and their made-up hydrino seriously which mainstream science says doesn't even exist. At least mainstream science admits
Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, probably exists, at least in theory.


of the order of the Planck length... At such small scales of time and space the uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws.
But I also have to be my own biggest critic and point out once again the gap in our understanding of the link between quantum theory and relativity which means this idea might not (and I suspect probably wouldn't) work:


With an incomplete theory of quantum gravity, it is impossible to be certain what spacetime would look like at these scales, because existing theories of gravity do not give accurate predictions there. Therefore, any the developing theory(s) of quantum gravity will elucidate our understanding of quantum foam as they are tested.
So this idea is at the boundary between the known and unknown.

Even though that's the case I suspect that the old common sense sayings "you don't get something for nothing" and "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" might still apply after we figure out the theoretical gap we haven't figured out yet.


Quantum foam is theorized to be created by virtual particles of very high energy. Virtual particles appear in quantum field theory, where they arise briefly and then annihilate during particle interactions, in such a way that they affect the measured outputs of the interaction even though the virtual particles are themselves space, and these "vacuum fluctuations" affect the properties of the vacuum, giving it a nonzero energy known as vacuum energy, a type of zero-point energy (however, physicists are uncertain about the magnitude of this energy).
And I've elaborated extensively on the zero-point energy in this thread, showing how we can calculate at least 5 different answers for the amount of zero-point, or vacuum energy, depending on what approach we use, and we don't know which answer is correct but we have some pretty good clues and I've explained all that already.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
He doesn't understand the double-slit experiment.

In the first both slits are illuminated. In the second both slits are also illuminated but observation causes the wave function to collapse, or so they say. I posted a popular video animation of the experiment in my last thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The key result is that the pattern is different, not that it's the same. So he either has absolutely no idea what he's talking about or he's not explaining himself very well. So when he says: "The accepted error is that there is no difference between the two respective interference patterns. " it doesn't make any sense.


Putting aside Hill's statement "The accepted error is that there is no difference between the two respective interference patterns," I want to display what I found online, for what it may be worth. It may not be significant, at all.

Hill quoted Max Born in the book Atomic Physics published by Blackie and Son. I found a .pdf of this online and it does have a reference to illuminating one slit, and it does roughly show the words all maxima "equally bright" in the first interference pattern as compared to "their intensity falls off from the middle outwards" in the second interference pattern. I had to do screen shots instead of copy and paste. I can't link to the .pdf because one has to download it, free here.





The quote begins at the 4th line from the bottom:






posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

I can post the image for you from the wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...


Same double-slit assembly (0.7mm between slits); in top image, one slit is closed. Note that the single-slit diffraction pattern — the faint spots on either side of the main band — is also seen in the double-slit image, but at twice the intensity and with the addition of many smaller interference fringes.


Now how does what he says make any sense in the context of that image? We don't see the interference pattern in the top image, only the diffraction pattern. And he doesn't even address the paradoxical result I mentioned regarding the results we get when which-path information is obtained:


The double-slit apparatus can be modified by adding particle detectors positioned at the slits. This enables the experimenter to find the position of a particle not when it impacts the screen, but rather, when it passes through the double-slit — did it go through only one of the slits, as a particle would be expected to do, or through both, as a wave would be expected to do? Numerous experiments have shown, however, that any modification of the apparatus that can determine which slit a particle passes through reduces the visibility of interference at the screen,[3] thereby illustrating the complementarity principle: that light (and electrons, etc.) can behave as either particles or waves, but not both at the same time.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What technology did the Egyptians use to transport these blocks?


Hmmmm. Arb and BS have not weighed in on this.

Why not?

Talk about in-your-face evidence of "paranormal" technology related to energy!



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

So you gave up on Hills confusion over the double slit experiment?

Regarding how large stone blocks were moved, Wally Wallington makes it look pretty easy, just using sticks and stones:

Man Moves Huge Blocks!


He can move and erect 25 ton blocks all by himself and he says he knows how the pyramids were built. And by all accounts I've read, there was no shortage of labor so if one guy can do it that easily, then lots of people could do it even more easily. And we know from excavations at the site they had lots of workers, probably at least 20,000 and as many as 30,000 or maybe even more.

Actually the biggest challenge isn't moving the blocks, that's pretty easy, as Wally Wallington demonstrates.

The biggest challenge is moving so many of them so quickly. That took a lot of organization and efficiency but I think the Egyptians were capable of that.

However they didn't start with the great pyramid, there were smaller ones built previously where I'm sure they refined their techniques and efficiency. Also there aren't as many blocks as we once thought because they have found using ultrasound that parts of the pyramid are apparently filled with sand, and not constructed of blocks. So now we don't know how many blocks they have but it's less than we once thought.

This is a pretty good look at how they might have moved the blocks:

MOVING AND LIFTING THE CONSTRUCTION BLOCKS OF THE GREAT PYRAMID


A wide range of theories and opinions have been advanced to explain how this was accomplished. I will dismiss as inconsequential those speculations which attribute the moving and raising of the blocks to the use of anti-gravity and supernatural power by the high priests of ancient Egypt. I also will not consider theories that astronauts from other planets built the GP. The proponents of these ideas incorrectly assume that ancient Egyptians living in 2600 BC did not have the ability to do it by themselves--using straightforward, physical methods and working with the same natural laws we encounter in the present day. Of course, many scientific theories have been advanced that are less fanciful and more workable. The various scientific contenders differ substantially with regards to practicality, engineering feasibility, and the archaeological record. The purpose of this paper is to lay out and select the most promising of these.
It's Occam's razor Mary.

There's no need to invoke the paranormal when normal sticks and stones will do. Just ask Wally.



edit on 1-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So you gave up on Hills confusion over the double slit experiment?

No.

I'm in contact with him. Waiting for an answer to my last inquiry.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Just ask Wally.


I haven't started on this one yet.

First: You're serious?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

I see. So you apparently couldn't figure out what in the heck he was talking about either, and felt it necessary to ask him to clarify?

That's an admirable effort, to seek clarification. It's too bad you waste that on the mainstream science haters and ignore the people who generally know what they're talking about in mainstream science.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 131  132  133    135  136  137 >>

log in

join