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: 136
39
<< 133  134  135    137  138  139 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What is temperature? It's a measure of the kinetic energy of the particles in the system. It does not contain the totality of information, which would be the complete phase space of the system. Does it make temperature fake, or unnatural, or exotic?
Some people don't understand temperature any better than virtual particles.

In the space forum I had a hard time convincing some people they could freeze to death at an interstellar temperature of a million degrees.

I have a problem with people rejecting things they don't even understand. First it was Colin Hill rejecting the wave/particle duality seen in the double slit experiment, when it appears to me he doesn't even understand the experiment (Mary, did he ever reply?)

And now it's beebs rejecting virtual particles without understanding them, and apparently rejecting real particles also, in favor of his wave structure of matter beliefs.

This video elaborates on the cognitive disconnect that's displayed when people reject things they don't even understand:

Skewed views of science


A look at the pitfalls of arguing against science from incomprehension or emotion.


Beebs, please at least understand what it is you're rejecting, before you reject it. That's one of the key points in that video. I almost had the feeling the video was talking about you.




posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have asked him the question about the issue of observation causing the wave function to collapse.

I did not receive a reply.

But I have concluded that focusing on the "observer effect" is irrelevant, anyway, so I'm not interested in pushing for a response to that inquiry.

Reviewing all notes that I've made on the double-slit experiment, it seems to me that it's not true that observation causes the wave function to collapse, because it's not true that one electron at a time has been sent experimentally through slit(s). I agree with what is stated on feandft.com in the article "Quantum Quackery of Quackademia," which I pointed out on page 61 in this post. I see the keywords as:


. . . devious theory that they are firing . . . "balls or marbles" through the two slits. . . .

. . . the electrons they are firing through the slit are not balls or marbles in reality. They are electro-magnetic wave forms created as emission products in their electron gun.

I think this because I don't believe that we have actually isolated an electron particle. My sense is that Mallon is correct in what he says in the video I posted on page 95 - that, for lack of a better word, a particle is nothing but what we see at each end of a wave.

By the way, I find it interesting that the Wikipedia article "Double-slit experiment" that I printed on May 19, 2011, which was 16 pages at the time, now does not have a key passage. The article is now 10 pages long, and the following passage is omitted:


Although Tonomura asserted that the Italian experiment had not detected electrons one at a time - a key to demonstrating the wave-particle paradox - [emphasis mine] single electron detection is clearly visible . . .

The Italian experiment referenced took place in 1974. The Tonomura et al experiment at Hitachi, in Japan, took place in 1989.

I see that now "Tonomura" appears only in "External Links."

Perhaps there is quite a bit of politics involved with the double-slit experiment? I would say yes.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I did not receive a reply.

But I have concluded that focusing on the "observer effect" is irrelevant, anyway, so I'm not interested in pushing for a response to that inquiry.
I thought it was relevant because you can make the interference pattern come and go with both slits illuminated. That's not consistent with the alternate reality you want to live in, so you dismiss it as irrelevant? Is that the reason?


Reviewing all notes that I've made on the double-slit experiment, it seems to me that it's not true that observation causes the wave function to collapse, because it's not true that one electron at a time has been sent experimentally through slit(s). I agree with what is stated on feandft.com in the article "Quantum Quackery of Quackademia," which I pointed out on page 61 in this post. I see the keywords as:


. . . devious theory that they are firing . . . "balls or marbles" through the two slits. . . .

. . . the electrons they are firing through the slit are not balls or marbles in reality. They are electro-magnetic wave forms created as emission products in their electron gun.

I think this because I don't believe that we have actually isolated an electron particle.
Do you want to watch this movie of electrons hitting the screen one at a time and run that by me again after you watch the movie?

Direct link (opens movie in browser unless you right click and save it to your hard drive):
rdg.ext.hitachi.co.jp...

Page of links: www.hitachi.com... the direct link above goes to the second movie on this page of links titled "single electron events...", the mpeg version with narration.

Please explain what we are seeing. Why do we only see one electron strike the screen at a time if that's not what's happening?



Although Tonomura asserted that the Italian experiment had not detected electrons one at a time - a key to demonstrating the wave-particle paradox - [emphasis mine] single electron detection is clearly visible . . .

The Italian experiment referenced took place in 1974. The Tonomura et al experiment at Hitachi, in Japan, took place in 1989.

I see that now "Tonomura" appears only in "External Links."

Perhaps there is quite a bit of politics involved with the double-slit experiment? I would say yes.
You mean like big oil is suppressing the truth or what? So what if it's in an external link or in the article? It's not in the last 500 revisions and there's nothing on the talk page about it so nobody seems to be objecting to it being an external link. Couldn't it be that the article was a bit too long and the external link was used instead for readability/brevity? Actually 10 pages is still pretty long, so why couldn't the reason have been to shorten it from 16 pages to 10 pages instead of "politics"?

The English of the narrator of the Tonomura movie isn't perfect, but it's better than my Japanese, and it's a pretty good movie of the single electron impacts, before he time compresses the movie to show the pattern that forms. I'm not familiar with the 1974 Merli Italian experiment. There's a link to that Merli movie in the wiki article, but it's broken.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Buckyballs!



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


I can't wait to buy my new grandson Buckyballs! And then play with them along with him!



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I thought it was relevant because you can make the interference pattern come and go with both slits illuminated.

You're talking about an experiment where supposedly electron particles are being fired at slits?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That's not consistent with the alternate reality you want to live in . . .

Huh?



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You mean like big oil is suppressing the truth or what?

I meant it in a very broad sense. If the underlying structure of nature/the universe is waves, why are we spending billions upon billions looking for particle after particle?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Couldn't it be that the article was a bit too long and the external link was used instead for readability/brevity?

No.

In view of the extreme importance and sensitivity of the double-slit experiment to the history of physics, taking out the phrase "a key to demonstrating the wave-particle paradox" cannot be brushed off that way. It's much more likely that there is a battle going on among factions in the physics community.






edit on 12/04/11 by Mary Rose because: Typo



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I thought it was relevant because you can make the interference pattern come and go with both slits illuminated.

You're talking about an experiment where supposedly electron particles are being fired at slits?
Yes. Electrons, photons, neon atoms, or any quantum scale "things", whether they are particles or waves. One of my university professors liked to call them "wavicles" because they could behave like waves or particles depending on how you observed them. I think Sagan used the term "wavicle" also, but it never seemed to become widely used.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That's not consistent with the alternate reality you want to live in . . .

Huh?
Then why else claim it's irrelevant, if it's not an inconvenient truth for your pet beliefs? It seems relevant enough to find it in any thorough description of the double slit experiment, right?


I meant it in a very broad sense. If the underlying structure of nature/the universe is waves, why are we spending billions upon billions looking for particle after particle?
I'm not sure what part about the double slit experiment you don't get, but the whole point is that we can observe either behavior of the same objects, depending on how we observe them.


In view of the extreme importance and sensitivity of the double-slit experiment to the history of physics, taking out the phrase "a key to demonstrating the wave-particle paradox" cannot be brushed off that way. It's much more likely that there is a battle going on among factions in the physics community.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised since you probably think big oil is suppressing free energy too.

But the same concept is still in the article, now they call it "an important version of the experiment":

en.wikipedia.org...

An important version of this experiment involves single particles (or waves — for consistency, they are called particles here). Sending particles through a double-slit apparatus one at a time results in single particles appearing on the screen, as expected. Remarkably, however, an interference pattern emerges when these particles are allowed to build up one by one (see the image to the right). For example, when a laboratory apparatus was developed that could reliably fire one electron at a time through the double slit,[10] the emergence of an interference pattern suggested that each electron was interfering with itself, and therefore in some sense the electron had to be going through both slits at once[11] — an idea that contradicts our everyday experience of discrete objects. This phenomenon has also been shown to occur with atoms and even some molecules, including buckyballs.
I don't see any problem with saying it's an important experiment. However I can understand why it may not be a key to understanding...there's no new effect observed, as we already saw the same interference pattern when multiple electrons were fired. It is important though as it shows a single electron can interfere with itself. So what is it you think should be in the article that was removed for political reasons? That certainly addresses the single electron issue, it's not left out, right?

And I noticed wiki doesn't know whether to call them particles or waves: "(or waves — for consistency, they are called particles here)" ; too bad the "wavicle" term never caught on or perhaps that would solve the problem of not knowing which to call it.

I'm still waiting for your answer to my question of what we see in the movie of single electrons hitting the screen, if single electrons are not hitting the screen as you claim.
edit on 4-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I agree with what is stated on feandft.com in the article "Quantum Quackery of Quackademia,"


I see, you agree with calling scientists (including Einstain, Hawking etc) morons ans stooges. It's pretty rich for a person with pre-K level of knowledge of anything.
Here's another quote from that page:


The truth is, even though einstein's was wrong with his ideas relating to: relativity, a limit to the speed of light, the absolute definite size of atoms, bodies warping space and time, time being a fourth dimension, mass becoming infinite when accelerated to the speed of light, "space/field" possessing the properties of what was formerly known as the "ether", he was at least searching for causality in physics,...
Apparently the list of things Einstein was wrong about is pretty long and relativistic mass increase is among his mistakes. I've got an idea on how he can test Einstein's theory that an object gains relativistic mass as it approaches the speed of light.

The emergency beam dump of the LHC at CERN is supposed to be able to take a discharge equivalent to 80 pounds of TNT. Here's one of the tunnels under construction, but I don't know what it looks like now (access is probably restricted):

Are we all going to die...


This calculation is based on what he says is Einstein's incorrect theory. So if Einstein is wrong, and he is right, he should be able to stand in front of the emergency beam dump, and he won't experience the equivalent of 80 pounds of TNT.

He also says we are all about to die, so with that perspective, he may see the downside risk of the experiment as pretty low since he thinks he's about to die one way or the other anyway. So do you think this experiment could be arranged?

We better hurry, according to him there's not much time for the human race.

If he was joking like this site which explains the dangers of the chemical DHMO and how even inhaling small amounts of it can cause death, then it would be pretty funny.

Of course I'm joking about performing a dangerous experiment on a human, like the reference to discussing whether gravity is real or an illusion outside the window of a high-rise apartment. And I'm pretty sure Feynmann was joking too when he said "If you don't like it, go somewhere else, where the rules are more aesthetically pleasing". Unfortunately it looks like Gaede took Feynmann seriously and did go somewhere else, mentally at least. I think he's checked out of this reality already.

But I do find it interesting to consider what consequences he would face in the LHC beam dump tunnel if he were to test his own cognitively disconnected perceptions there.
edit on 4-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arb,

Good pics of the beam dump structures

(coincidentally I've met the guy who took those pix)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
From the Arb's DHMO link:


The causative link between Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) and Cancer is currently not established, although a significant amount of evidence seems to suggest that DHMO at least plays a role in the formation of cancer, including:

Hodgkin's Lymphoma,
Ewing's Tumor,
chondrosarcoma,
fibrosarcoma,
multiple myeloma,
colorectal cancer,
Leukemia,
basal cell carcinoma,
squamous cell carcinoma, and
malignant melanoma.


Detection and Treatment
What is known about these cancers is that Dihydrogen Monoxide is found in detectable and biologically significant levels in virtually all tumors and other cancerous and pre-cancerous growths.

Cancer research has made significant advances in the detection and treatment of many forms of cancers. With each new advancement, the role DHMO plays in the cause of cancer is likely to be better understood.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Why do we only see one electron strike the screen at a time if that's not what's happening?


I watched that video back in May and printed "Double-slit experiment" from hitachi.com.

I don't believe the statement:


Electrons are detected one by one as particles.


I don't believe it because the sum total of all the reading I've done indicates to me that scientists have not isolated an electron.

That set-up in that video strikes me as a gimmick. This is my intuition speaking to me. It's too showy. It doesn't ring true to me.

This statement sounds inappropriate to me, as well:


It is all right to think that each electron is detected in an instant after it is emitted.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Another one of those mindblowing threads on ATS.
I am halfway through the 4h video, fascinated. I can't contribute much to the thread yet, this post is like a reminder to myself, to keep on the topic.

Will get int the subject deeper.

Especially with the rodin knowledge it should be interesting to look back again into two subjects or work of two people which i ve been into, but left because it literally did my head in, since i knew there is something big, but important pieces of puzzle have been missing: viktor schauberger and ed leedskalnin (corral castle).

Back to the thread.

Well actually maybe one question here: how did this end up in the skunk works?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by svetlana84
Well actually maybe one question here: how did this end up in the skunk works?


Here's the post regarding that which was on page 6: Link

Here's what Arb wanted done:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . this thread should be moved to the [HOAX] forum.




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't believe it because the sum total of all the reading I've done indicates to me that scientists have not isolated an electron.


We didn't?

edit on Tue Dec 6 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: please do not alter the words in sentences in member quotes



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by svetlana84
Well actually maybe one question here: how did this end up in the skunk works?


Here's the post regarding that which was on page 6: Link

Here's what Arb wanted done:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . this thread should be moved to the [HOAX] forum.

Buddhasystem made a convincing argument that Rodin probably actually believes much of what he says, in which case, he's technically delusional rather than an intentional hoaxer.

However I would like to point out that an ATS member was pointing their telescope/camera in the sky, and taking pictures of what he claimed were large objects or even life which may not be from this planet surrounding the Earth. I think the photographer may have really believed that they really were alien ships, but when it was demonstrated that it was just a delusion, the owners of ATS moved it to the HOAX! forum anyway, apparently because there is no separate forum for "DELUSIONS!", I suppose. So I think that sets precedent to move threads to the hoax forum where the poster is merely delusional, and not an intentional hoaxer, which may in fact be the case with Rodin.

With some of the other folks we've discussed, like Rodin's endorser, Bearden, it's difficult to say how much is delusion and how much is intentional hoaxing.

But when Rodin's other endorser was contacted, he did confirm the following:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I tacked down Russell Blake to an Australian firm, and have swapped a couple of emails with him.

His comments about Marko's maths are:


Most of Marko’s stuff is fanciful nonsense. I found some of what he was involved with rather interesting, and ended up formalizing some of the mathematics around his various series, which I discovered to be decimal parity series. I wrote this up in a paper for him, but can’t vouch for any of the rest of it.

Here is something that is perhaps more enlightening:

www.youtube.com...

I have one paper published on this topic, and a second I am presenting in Hong Kong in December. Unlike Marco’s fantasies, this is real.
So when Rodin's own endorser says most of his stuff is "fanciful nonsense" and "unlike Marco’s fantasies, this is real.", you don't even need a skeptic to point out the nonsense when his own endorser does it for you. But if anyone wants to pick out any one single claim by Rodin and claim it's not a hoax or a delusional fantasy, and it hasn't already been discussed in the thread, feel free to present it and why you think it's not a delusional fantasy. I suspect you will be able to find just as much proof of the claim you selected from Rodin, as you can find for proof of this claim: "Thousands of green elves with stealth technology to make them invisible have emerged from hollow Earth to the surface and have surrounded all the major cities on Earth and are preparing to attack". If you believe that claim, feel free to believe Rodin's claims also because they have the same amount of evidence: zero.

Like the satellites which were believed to be alien ships, there is precedent for moving threads which contain "fanciful nonsense" and "fantasies" to the hoax forum.
edit on 5-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
First request:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't believe that we have actually isolated an electron particle.
Do you want to watch this movie of electrons hitting the screen one at a time and run that by me again after you watch the movie?

Direct link (opens movie in browser unless you right click and save it to your hard drive):
rdg.ext.hitachi.co.jp...


Second request:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm still waiting for your answer to my question of what we see in the movie of single electrons hitting the screen, if single electrons are not hitting the screen as you claim.


So this is the third request, I'm still waiting.


Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think this because I don't believe that we have actually isolated an electron particle.


We didn't?
Mary's explanation of the single electrons in that movie should prove interesting.

Here's the problem with the site she cited:

www.feandft.com...

The lie and the devious manner of their proposition is revealed by the fact that the electrons they are firing through the slit are not balls or marbles in reality. They are electro-magnetic wave forms created as emission products in their electron gun. The academicians play a shell game with their audience. They swap balls and marbles for electro-magnetic waves by implying that the electrons they are shooting from their guns are the same mythematical electrons in their "theoretical" table of elements called the "Mendeleev Table".


Two major problems with this are:
1. He doesn't address the fact the experiment is also conducted with things much larger than electrons, like atoms, or even molecules, like the buckyball. He can't claim those came out of an electron gun because they aren't electrons.
2. Even if electrons and photons are waves, then how does he explain why they sometimes behave like particles instead of waves? He doesn't. Basically he just claims the experiment is bogus, but he doesn't offe a better explanation for what is observed. That's a pretty silly thing to do, but then, he's a pretty silly guy.

Another problem is implying that that movie "what the bleep do we know" presents an academic viewpoint. In fact, academics were highly critical of that movie as incorrect in many respects. So he's created quite a strawman using a movie which academics rejected to claim that academics are wrong.

Thanks for the better picture of the emergency beam dump tunnel, that's what I was looking for but couldn't find it!
edit on 5-12-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So when Rodin's own endorser says most of his stuff is "fanciful nonsense" and "unlike Marco’s fantasies, this is real.", you don't even need a skeptic to point out the nonsense when his own endorser does it for you.

We know, Arb. It's been discussed:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
Yes, as has been pointed out previously, there was a split between Blake and Rodin - something to do with a patent that Blake was pursuing.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Second request:



I'm still waiting for your answer to my question of what we see in the movie of single electrons hitting the screen, if single electrons are not hitting the screen as you claim.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So this is the third request, I'm still waiting.


Why would you do that?

Why would you think I would be interested in explaining something that you think is a demonstration of reality, but I've made clear that I think it is bogus, and why.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Thanks arbitrageur for your answer on why it is in this part of the forum.

Still catching up on the subject, so much info to consume and digest.

I am not yet through the 4 hour lecture, nor the thread. so please be patient with me.

one important point, which was discussed on pages 4 and following, i d like to adress: the definition of = or "equal" in the 9er system.

how 2x9=18 and 18= 9
I see in "classic math" this would not work..
though it seems logical if you look at the watch (as one guy in the audience of the 4h lecture mentionend)
you see the time go around from 1 to 12 then on the full circle you have either 13 o clock in the 24hr system or 1 o clock in the 12 hr system. so 13 equals 1.
or adapted to the 9system: 10 equals 1

be the language is unsharp here, but it s the way i understand it.
in the lecture when they calculate the prisms in the 3d model they also say:
5 plus 7 equals 12, 12 IS 3.
so maybe we should go with "is" instead of "equals"?




top topics



 
39
<< 133  134  135    137  138  139 >>

log in

join