Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 241
39
<< 238  239  240    242  243  244 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


I have just discovered this website and am reading it and taking notes on it.

I've also posted about gravity on primalfractal's thread based on the book I have by Patrick Flanagan, a source I think is very reliable: Post on "The Aether Reality"




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Time for a game of logic; I play for hypothetical's to create a hypothesis so bare with me...this will not be any theory, just logical assumptions that may lead to a theory.

If photons do not have a charge; from where does their energy derive? That energy has to derive from somewhere yes? It has to either come from within or come from without.

For the energy to come from within; it has to some how genesis it's energy, or else consume itself in the process and decay; can a particle decay? If it does decay through consumption, then there will be a remainder with different properties(such as wood turning to ash).

For the energy to come from without; it has to either have a charge that attracts it, or a larger mass through gravitation, or be set in motion from a source, or pulled in by a source such as the gravity of a black hole/vortex.

If we are have certainty that the big bang was a mass ejection outward, then we must also ascertain that; there was something that pulled an unknown amount of mass and particles, into a cohesive whole. Taking those two logical assumptions, there has to be a certain threshold when this reaches critical mass; thus starting a chain reaction, known as the big bang. Is it more logical to assume that; there was just a singular big bang that; created the entire universe? Or is it more logical to assume that; each galaxy was formed by a big bang? That this is not just a singular event; triggered by a single singularity.

If certain particles pass through other mass seemingly unimpeded and unaffected; it is logical to assume that the mass itself was affected in some way. Just as waving an arm through air particles is virtually unimpeded; the arm is seemingly unaffected yet, it creates a turbidity/vortex on the air particles. On a larger scale, this vortex is a tornado, water spout etc.

An important question needs to be asked of photons, we know when photons reach nearer the singularity of a black hole, they accelerate this phenomena has been called super light. If photons can be accelerated it is a logical assumption, to assume that they also can be slowed. The question is; when light is bent...Does that have a slowing effect, on a very minuscule scale? Logic says yes.

If a black-hole is a process of repetition...IE. pulling particle mass into a singularity, reaching critical mass and then ejection. It is also logical to assume, that for the process to restart; it must start pulling particle mass back into the singularity. It is also logical to assume; that the particles with least mass, would be pulled back into the singularity first. Much like a vacuum cleaner will pick up many particles of dust before enough turbidity around the larger is sucked into it.

This seems to create a logical paradox...How is it that...a particle with zero mass; is even affected? If a particle has zero mass; gravity is logically rendered as a non issue. That would mean; it just, is what it is...or that a mass-less particle, does not exist in the first place, or that; it is an anti gravitic particle. Particles that have more of an effect on each other; coalesce forming a mass that is, less affected by a singularity/vortex than the particles that have less of an affinity for binding...that stay; more or less what we refer to as a mass-less particle.

As a fun question...for those skimming the topic, when we turn on a flashlight; are we creating photons, or just illuminating them, causing them to reflect back, making them appear in the visible spectrum, or what else is happening to create this effect? To those engaged; the answer may be all too obvious to enjoy, so please feel free to ignore it...creating such questions; and wondering about them, is what got me excited about science in the first place.
edit on 14-1-2013 by BigBrotherDarkness because: sp/clarity



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


If photons do not have a charge; from where does their energy derive?
Their velocity and wavelength.
pveducation.org...


we know when photons reach nearer the singularity of a black hole, they accelerate
No they don't. They decrease in wavelength.


How is it that...a particle with zero mass; is even affected?
Because they follow the increased curvature of space time.
edit on 1/14/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for filling my gaps Phage; particle physics is not my field, so it's hard to keep updated and informed on all my side interests.


If you do not mind do you think you could source your last two entries?[ If they are derived from your own personal logic game...care to share your logical chain leading to the conclusion?
edit on 14-1-2013 by BigBrotherDarkness because: to create an open dialouge



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 



1) The result of the first entry. When light gains energy it cannot go faster, it increases in frequency (blue shift).

2) General relativity. Gravity bends space time. Light travels through space time. Light follows the curve of space time.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Yes, I have also come to the same conclusion as that quote. This 'dark energy' is just a name born from incomprehension to refer to the non-zero energy density of spacetime (which is caused/due to/explained by the WSM and MAP). Since most of the universe is space, adding up all of the non-zero values will give a majority percentage of total energy/mass to this 'darkness'.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





2) General relativity. Gravity bends space time. Light travels through space time. Light follows the curve of space time.


Don't mean to be picky, but mass bends spacetime... and gravity is the 'effect' between two massive bodies. The 'bending' of light is from traveling over that curved space (not that the light wave itself is bent, only that from our reference it appears to be). Right?

Even so, I think this is much better explained by the WSM as light traveling through more dense space near massive bodies that increase the nearby energy density of space. The two explanations (GR and WSM) are more or less equivalent in this case, but the WSM is more comprehensive regarding other phenomena.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Post on "The Aether Reality"

I like Flanagan's model for the proton, electron, and neutron, which incorporates the ether/aether:


And I like his statement that gravity is probably etheric pressure, and electrostatic and magnetic forces are the movement of ether in whirls and eddies.

The following description of a dynamic ether (which creates a vortex electron) is from "IS THERE A DYNAMIC ETHER? - A NEW REALITY FOR 21ST CENTURY PHYSICS (Pertinent History & Comprehensive Version of Gravity Theory) by Lew Price":


Properties of Dynamic Ether

Dynamic ether is a perfect, non-particulate fluid. For this reason, it is without friction, completely frictionless. In Book Four of the series called Behind Light's Illusion, this is explained as part of the reason for lightwaves behaving as they do. This is also the reason why an object in space continues to move according to the original dictates of its inertia. . . .

Assuming that electrons are simple vortices and that all matter is made of some grouping or configuration of vortices, dynamic ether must have the property of inertia. A vortex is formed because of inertia and cannot form without it. . . .

Omnipresence must be a property of dynamic ether if everything in the known universe is composed of it.

Compressibility is one of the properties of dynamic ether . . .

Dynamic ether is energy-conscious. It reacts to any change in a manner that requires the least possible expenditure of energy. . . .

As a consequence of the foregoing properties, dynamic ether has variable density. According to the stresses administered to it, its Mass per volume can vary drastically from one place to another.

Dynamic ether is constantly in motion. Its velocity cannot be detected by normal means. Its acceleration can be detected easily by the acceleration of matter within it. All energy is the consequence of motion within it. All energy is transmitted by means of motion within it.


Flanagan's and Price's models make more sense to me than mainstream physics. I think the terminology "ether" should be revived but its properties clarified.

It seems that the ether is fundamental to the universe and that its differentials in pressure is what creates forces.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I like Flanagan's model for the proton, electron, and neutron, which incorporates the ether/aether:


And I like his statement that gravity is probably etheric pressure, and electrostatic and magnetic forces are the movement of ether in whirls and eddies.


Sure. People like different things. I like daisies, you like roses maybe. You also like things that are "philosophically pleasing", as Dr. Feynman said - even if it means radical departure of reality. You saw the video. You know it full well.

You quote a source which contains a few sketches, wiggly lines, spirals and circles, and because you like spirals and circles, you think it's cool. It doesn't matter to you that all those arrows and wiggles have nothing to do with what we observe in experiment, and in many cases in a rather reliable, reproducible and consistent manner. And of course if asked, Flanagan will gladly produce more wiggles and spirals to describe pions, K, and other mesons, and baryons as well. Thing is, this daycare level sort of exercise has neither the power to explain the experiment, nor the predictive power. In view of this, it can be characterized as yet another piece of mental excrement, which some people find philosophically pleasing, mostly for the reason that they are too lazy to learn. Doodles are easy. Science is not.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


If photons do not have a charge; from where does their energy derive?
Their velocity and wavelength.
pveducation.org...


I don't like this explanation. Energy cannot be "derived" from wavelength, unless you mean the simple formula with the Planck constant in it. Then it's true. But I think the question was different.

Photons are manifestation of the propagating field. It is the field that has the capacity to do work. The field does not have to have charge for that, in fact it is charges that the field is acting upon.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 23432

Published on Oct 2, 2012
Description: In this video, British biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, describes how science is being constricted by unexamined assumptions that have hardened into dogmas*.

I've just come across that word "dogma" as I continue to study Lew Paxton Price's work.

Again from

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"IS THERE A DYNAMIC ETHER? - A NEW REALITY FOR 21ST CENTURY PHYSICS (Pertinent History & Comprehensive Version of Gravity Theory) by Lew Price":



In 1887, Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward William Morley published the results of an experiment which was the successor to a similar experiment which Michelson had performed in 1881. The purpose of the two experiments was to prove the existence of the luminiferous ether. It was supposed that light would travel at different velocities, according to the direction of movement of the earth's surface relative to the ether. A light beam, split to go in two directions at ninety degrees to one another, converged after taking paths of equal distance. When the beams converged they interfered with one another. By rotating the apparatus, a maximum interference was found which showed the difference in the velocities between the two parts of the split beam, and thus showed the presence of ether.

The difference between the light velocities was used to calculate an ether velocity relative to the earth's surface. However, the relative ether velocity that they found was much lower than anticipated. Through the years that followed, similar experiments were performed with much greater accuracy. The last was in 1932 (see Volume 7, Issue 38 of Infinite Energy Magazine, Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments - A Fresh Look by James DeMeo). In the most detailed experiments, a seasonally consistent low relative velocity was found. But rather than acknowledging the results of the experiments and moving on with the information provided, the lower relative ether velocity was considered a flaw in the experiment. The proponents of corpuscular theory later asserted that these experiments had found no relative ether velocity whatsoever, and the myth they started became dogma. Today, we know that the lower ether velocity was in accord with a particular quality of the ether which was not known at that time (see Why).



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
After reading many pages on special relativity, general relativity, blue shift/red shift, relative Doppler effect, fictitious force, gravitational acceleration, Etvos experiments, gravity well, and time dilation to update/refresh my knowledge on the topic being discussed...my take away on it is:

Particles appear to bend to an observer due to; a gravity well which creates a relative time dilation (curved space time). Because of this relative time dilation; particles appear to slow down or speed up (blue and red shift) relative to the observer. However, this bend; is only relative to the observer, located inside of a gravity well. The particle does not actually speed up or slow down. Instead; blue and red shift is a side effect, of this special relativity. The time dilation only occurs; in relation between a gravity well, the particle and observer. If the observer; were to start increasing in speed away from the gravity well, time dilation becomes more interesting...once the observer and the particle; are at the same rate of speed, the particle will appear motionless to the observer...everything else; will appear to time dilate, around the particle and observer from; the observers perspective, due to the passing of gravity wells.

Much in the same way a Doppler effect occurs with sound. The listener is standing by a road, the horn sounds different when approaching the listener and passing the listener(red/blue shift) for an instant between the shift the actual non distorted or bent sound is heard...in that fraction of time the listener and horn occupied a non angular reference point. Place the listener inside the car and the horn will never sound distorted, yet the side of the road will now appear to bend to the listener/observer; because the frame of reference for relativity has changed.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I've just come across that word "dogma" as I continue to study Lew Paxton Price's work.

Again from "IS THERE A DYNAMIC ETHER? - A NEW REALITY FOR 21ST CENTURY PHYSICS (Pertinent History & Comprehensive Version of Gravity Theory) by Lew Price":

And the word I've used on this thread, "suppressed," in reference to technology that results from an all-pervasive ether teeming with energy which can be tapped, also appears:


In 1905, Albert Einstein published his special theory of relativity. There are several versions of why Einstein proposed relativity. Each faction has its own version tailored to its own agenda. Einstein's theory became used as an alternative to ether and the proponents of corpuscular theory grasped it as an anchor for their side. Einstein was a figure who looked like everyone's conception of the humble scientific genius, and relativity quickly became popular with both the scientific community and the public.

An experiment was performed in 1914 by Sagnac in which a light beam was split into two parts. One part moved along a path which was square in shape. The other part moved along the same path but in the opposite direction. The apparatus was set spinning so that, if there were an ether, the two parts of the beam would move at two different velocities. The interfering parts at the termination point would disclose the existence of the ether. And, in fact, that is exactly what happened. Furthermore, there was no strangeness in the magnitude of relative ether velocity. All was as it should have been. Other similar experiments followed which also proved the existence of the ether. There were no discrepancies between theory and results as had been the case with the Michelson-Morley type of experiment.

Unfortunately, relativity by this time was considered to be correct and many reputations (and egos) could be damaged by the disclosure of the existence of an ether. So the Sagnac experiment was suppressed as were all similar subsequent experiments. Einstein ignored Sagnac and his work.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
Because of this relative time dilation; particles appear to slow down or speed up (blue and red shift) relative to the observer. However, this bend; is only relative to the observer, located inside of a gravity well. The particle does not actually speed up or slow down. Instead; blue and red shift is a side effect, of this special relativity.


Whatever you say about relativity, still needs to comply with the limiting case of Newtonian physics. And there, particle do speed up or slow down when moving under the influence of gravity (which may be termed gravity well).



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Einstein ignored Sagnac and his work.

Price goes on to say:


Today, the same kinds of reputations and egos might be damaged, so physicists in general continue to ignore Sagnac. However, engineers use the "Sagnac effect" when they design their navigation systems for transoceanic flights, nuclear submarines, and communications satellites. Without this "effect" the navigation systems could not work properly.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Following that apple up the tree to Kepler, then onto Einstein is a good idea; Newton thought the Earth 6000 years old and Kepler believed it only 4004 in his time. Things change; Einstein used both Newton and Kepler's idea's and calculations when approaching the problem before forming General Relativity and Special Relativity theories. Sure Newton and Kepler got some of their theories labeled as law; when quantum physics enters the picture, they become baffoons and sound just as idiotic in their laws as does their Earth's age calculations pointless, except in relation to a certain effect with certain objects under certain conditions...change those conditions and those laws cease to exist.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
edit on 01/15/13 by Mary Rose because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Sure. People like different things. I like daisies, you like roses maybe. You also like things that are "philosophically pleasing", as Dr. Feynman said - even if it means radical departure of reality. You saw the video. You know it full well.

There is no radical departure from reality in Patrick Flanagan's work. He is a brilliant scientist.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
You quote a source which contains a few sketches, wiggly lines, spirals and circles, and because you like spirals and circles, you think it's cool.

You would do very well to add Flanagan's book to your reading list (if you have one). You could learn a lot from it.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Following that apple up the tree to Kepler, then onto Einstein is a good idea; Newton thought the Earth 6000 years old and Kepler believed it only 4004 in his time. Things change; Einstein used both Newton and Kepler's idea's and calculations when approaching the problem before forming General Relativity and Special Relativity theories. Sure Newton and Kepler got some of their theories labeled as law; when quantum physics enters the picture, they become baffoons and sound just as idiotic in their laws as does their Earth's age calculations pointless, except in relation to a certain effect with certain objects under certain conditions...change those conditions and those laws cease to exist.


A whole paragraph of chaotic writing and you still ignored a simple point I made, simpler than an apple, really.

I find your notion of Newton and Kepler regarded idiots and baffoons, to be incorrect to the point of idiocy. They are both regarded as geniuses and their math work is still top notch. Newton's models work fine in many, many cases. It's telling that some stupid armchair "scientists" simply HAVE to label titans of human knowledge as "idiots". Einstein? Idiot. Kepler? Idiot. But precious self, who never was successful at hard math and science, is in possession of "ancient knowledge" and "sacred geometry". How pathetic.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That is not at all what I said or meant; I meant these laws only apply under certain conditions, change those conditions and the law is useless. Not the people that came up with them by any means...that's just daft.

More nonsense of personal attacks wasn't surprising; fine I'll dish some...do you wait until someone stops ignoring your nonsense and reply's to your trolling to start hurling them? What have you added to this discussion actually? Other than quoted snippets taken out of context; and then twisted to say what you think they mean instead of what they actually say; perhaps you have have poor reading comprehension, perhaps I could refine my words so you understand them better...so I am at fault just as much.

I in no way shape or form said any of those scientists were idiots; they made do with the best they had at the time; somethings still stick and work, some of it doesn't...the several thousand years was an example that these men are just as fallible as you or I in our assumption of how things seem to work based on our interpretation of the given material. Instead of asking for clarification you reaction was: OMG sound the siren freak out and rage, time to take things out of context...and accuse someone of something they never claimed. That should have been apparent when I thanked Phage for his admonishment of some things not up to date with current knowledge in my logic; a know it all isn't humble enough to do that.

I know one thing for certain, just one...impermanence is the only permanent...

If you think I am upset or want me to be I am sorry you're not getting what you want or expect. Make whatever judgement you wish that's your choice, at least have some compassion for the people that still get hurt by insults, perhaps you were hurt and your coping mechanism is to spread that pain around a bit? It's ok you cannot live without spreading suffering in some way shape or form, then mirror what it was that hurt you to ease your own suffering. You have some brilliance and aptitude; but honestly, it is hard to see through all the irrationality you display.

I suppose someone in your life you respected called you an idiot stupid or whatever, then you set out to learn just to prove them wrong. Now that you feel you have reached a level of intelligence, that has surpassed them. You attack anyone who you fear may be above what you feel you know, The fear was obvious by grabbing long dead scientists as a shield; if you were to receive a retort...just so you may have a few more people on your side that just skim posts. It's really sad, I feel for you because I have been there. I hope one day you can lay down the burden you carry; if not that's your choice. Just like I have a choice to not respond to you; but ignoring you wouldn't shed any light on some issues that perhaps you cannot see, or try to hide from. But until you regain some rationality; I choose to ignore you from this point on.

My apologies Mary and other posters save for one, I did not mean to further derail the thread after it managed to hop back on track.





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 238  239  240    242  243  244 >>

log in

join