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: 49
39
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Well, sorry. Not sure I can lay it out any simpler than he has.

Perhaps check out the first two chapters, and the next chapter entitled 'Particle Problems':

Case Against the Nuclear Atom




posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


Sounds to me like you are unaware of the rigors needed by mathematicians before they accept something as a theorem and not a conjecture.

Do you think differential equations and their solution methods as they apply to modeling physics is unnecessary abstraction?
edit on 29-3-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


I am saying that things like string theory, and other exotic theories of everything, are unnecessarily complex if we eliminate our clinging to material particles in space, and instead consider atoms functional cymatics of space.

A lot of our math is really useful regardless of the structure of the atom.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


So you want that the observed particle like behavior is ignored? I don't understand what you are getting at really. The text you linked to isn't helping either. It would help if you express in your own words why the particle like behavior should be ignored or how it is explained by "functional cymatics of space" or any other alternative model.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I get what you're saying. But that's why most theories must be experimented with before they are accepted as valid.

Speaking of which, how do you explain the discovery of new particles in modern day physics if particles are nonsense? Why does the particle model theorize new particles which later are confirmed by experiments?



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I think everything can be explained by cymatics.

For a clear discussion of problems with the classical opinion:
Chapter III



I don't mean to be too personal here, but it's quite disheartening to see that you label as "clear discussion" the following statement in your source which is simply imbecile:


In view of this fact that the atomic electron no longer has even a remote resemblance to the experimental electron, it is manifestly absurd to continue basing physical theory on the fiction that the two are identical.


Let me explain my choice of words here. There is an enormous body of experimental evidence to prove that there are no "two different kinds of electron" which this idiot labels "atomic" and "experimental", and that instead we are dealing with same ole particle. Stating the "opposite" as a fact just really smacks of insanity.

Consider organ donation: when a surgeon extracts a liver from the cadaver, it's in somewhat different condition than it was in a living organism. Blood is not flowing, gull bladder does not function etc. However, you can make an autopsy of its tissue and it's same liver cells. When planted in the recipient, it becomes same part of the body.

Same with electron.

And I asked in a jet before, but please try to contemplate -- are there two or more versions of each particle, such as neutron, proton or muon? "Experimental" and "atomic"?

You always insist on simplicity but ultimately end up with bizarrely complex propositions.

It still seems that there is exactly one criterion for you to profess your faith in a theory -- the less it fits into modern science, the better. It doesn't matter if it's Haramein with his black hole in every proton, or Rodin with a fancy sudoku (which you claimed explains the atomic structure but of course weren't able to back up that cr@p statement), or "experimental electron". This way, you exempt yourself from real learning process (you correctly guess that it's quite painful and takes a lot of work).



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It still seems that there is exactly one criterion for you to profess your faith in a theory -- the less it fits into modern science, the better. It doesn't matter if it's Haramein with his black hole in every proton, or Rodin with a fancy sudoku (which you claimed explains the atomic structure but of course weren't able to back up that cr@p statement), or "experimental electron". This way, you exempt yourself from real learning process (you correctly guess that it's quite painful and takes a lot of work).
You know I was skeptical of Larson's theory at first, because I really thought it was the same electron like you do. But that's before I found the book on a bibliography list on the "Flat Earth Society" website here:

www.theflatearthsociety.org...

They have pretty compelling theories proving the Earth is flat, but of course paramount is, modern science must be wrong to think it's round. They have a whole library of information proving the Earth is flat:
theflatearthsociety.org...

Here's just one example:
theflatearthsociety.org...


An airplane is built to fly level and follow a horizontal line...ask any pilot...he knows and you know, if sane, airplanes fly FLAT.

Also, according to the priests of the delusion of lunatics (science) Earth is spinning and whirling in three directions at once and also zigging and zagging which means it is traveling in four directions at once! How could an airplane fly over such a jumping and gyrating object? Come-on, you know the very idea - Earth a spinning globe, is absurd
I like that! "priests of the delusion of lunatics (science)", first they try to convince us the Earth isn't flat, then they try to convince us the "experimental electron" is the same one as in the atom, what's next?


Anyway I know you had your doubts before, but after seeing Larson's book listed on the Flat Earth Society's bibliography, hopefully you'll reconsider given all the overwhelming evidence in favor of a flat Earth


Actually it's quite entertaining to me to see to what lengths some people will go to reject science. I rather enjoyed reading about the experimental evidence these folks use to convince themselves the Earth is flat. I've circled the globe in airplanes numerous times, and it never even occurred to me to ask the pilot if what he was circling was round or flat
I have to wonder if the guy who wrote that was ever in an airplane, because even at 10 km high, a typical cruising altitude, you can already see the curvature of the Earth (unless that's an optical illusion and NASA faked those photos of the Earth taken from lunar orbit).


So after seeing the Larson's book that Beebs referenced on the Flat Earther's list, doesn't that influence your opinion at all?



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Again, double-slit experiment.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If you layered brain cells as you do with diversions, we'd have reason to discuss.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Science becoming dogma, among other things, is discussed in this 8 part interview of Tom Bearden taped in 2001: "Applied Scalar Wave Technology - Tom Bearden interview 1 of 8"



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Science becoming dogma, among other things, is discussed in this 8 part interview of Tom Bearden taped in 2001: "Applied Scalar Wave Technology - Tom Bearden interview 1 of 8"


Science education in the United States is lagging, among other things, due to population becoming too lazy to actually study.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


In 4 of 8, Bearden mentions Sach's Unified Field Theory. Maybe this is it: "Unified Field Theory
Mendel Sachs."



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


In 4 of 8, Bearden mentions Sach's Unified Field Theory. Maybe this is it: "Unified Field Theory
Mendel Sachs."


Mendel Sachs: an interesting read. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


In 4 of 8, Bearden mentions Sach's Unified Field Theory. Maybe this is it: "Unified Field Theory
Mendel Sachs."


Mendel Sachs: an interesting read. Thanks.



This is representative of a swastika with perpendicular force the voids. It's really a shame very few people pay attention for the full 3-4 hours of lecture.


Hindu Form:

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 30-3-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Let me demonstrate another simple example, of how we take previous experiments for granted - and also their theoretical implications.


At the close of the 19th century, the reductionism of atomic theory began to advance into the atom itself; determining, through physics, the nature of the atom and the operation of chemical reactions. Electricity, first thought to be a fluid, was now understood to consist of particles called electrons. This was first demonstrated by J. J. Thomson in 1897 when, using a cathode ray tube, he found that an electrical charge would travel across a vacuum (which would possess infinite resistance in classical theory). Since the vacuum offered no medium for an electric fluid to travel, this discovery could only be explained via a particle carrying a negative charge and moving through the vacuum. This electron flew in the face of classical electrodynamics, which had successfully treated electricity as a fluid for many years (leading to the invention of batteries, electric motors, dynamos, and arc lamps). More importantly, the intimate relation between electric charge and electromagnetism had been well documented following the discoveries of Michael Faraday and Clerk Maxwell. Since electromagnetism was known to be a wave generated by a changing electric or magnetic field (a continuous, wave-like entity itself) an atomic/particle description of electricity and charge was a non sequitur. And classical electrodynamics was not the only classical theory rendered incomplete


In retrospect, this experiment is ignorant of the knowledge of Zero Point Energy. The experiment was based upon the presupposition that a 'vacuum' was empty. We now know this is not the case. Therefore, in retrospect, the conclusions that there was an 'electron' traveling across a vacuum is null and void, because we know there is a medium in the vacuum that could propagate the traditional theory of fluid electricity.

There would be no reason to hypothesize a 'particle', if Thomson was aware of ZPE. In fact, a decade before this was the influx of anti-aether experiments, which is most likely the reason why Thomson would consider a vacuum as empty, and that there would be no medium inside for an electrical 'fluid' to flow in. So, he came up with a thing called an 'electron'.

This illustrates in particular, why Tesla was incredibly more competent than others around him, who succumbed to the implications of this experiment. He was an aether(ZPE) physicist.

We need to apply our current knowledge, to the experiments of the past - and see where their presuppositions were incorrect, and have mislead us.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Here is a better link: "Unified Field Theory - Mendel Sachs"



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


The way I understand it: the current state of affairs is that we can exactly detect the position an electron or photon (or other particle) hits a screen. It does not split, smear or spread, it is an indivisible unit. Hence the "particle" behavior. The interesting part is that after shooting these units one be one on a screen, after a while we still get an interference pattern as you would expect from a wave, hence the wave-particle duality paradox.

So we know an electron behaves like a particle because we can actually measure it when it hits a sensor. It is a single dot.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Bearden is featured in the first 5 1/2 minutes of this video (the rest is an ad for a DVD). He talks about the need for an overhaul of classical electrodynamics. He says that the EM wave in the vacuum flux is like a sound wave, that it's longitudinal, not transverse, and that Tesla knew this from his experiments.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



The way I understand it: the current state of affairs is that we can exactly detect the position an electron or photon (or other particle) hits a screen. It does not split, smear or spread, it is an indivisible unit. Hence the "particle" behavior. The interesting part is that after shooting these units one be one on a screen, after a while we still get an interference pattern as you would expect from a wave, hence the wave-particle duality paradox.

So we know an electron behaves like a particle because we can actually measure it when it hits a sensor. It is a single dot.


1. Do you mean that the electron and photon are indivisible units? The parenthetical 'or other particle' statement is a bit problematic.

2. 'Particle behavior' (or observations that we interpret as characteristic of a material 'part' of 'matter') does not mean it is an actual, physical grain-of-sand-like particle of matter. It means thats what it looks or behaves like, according to our presuppositions.

3. You are oversimplifying the WPD of the double slit experiment. Is 'superposition' a behavior of a 'particle'?



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
1. Do you mean that the electron and photon are indivisible units? The parenthetical 'or other particle' statement is a bit problematic.


They can not split and the space they occupy can not change without losing the properties that make them an electron or photon. The question whether an electron or photon can be divided into even more fundamental particles is not relevant in this case.


2. 'Particle behavior' (or observations that we interpret as characteristic of a material 'part' of 'matter') does not mean it is an actual, physical grain-of-sand-like particle of matter. It means thats what it looks or behaves like, according to our presuppositions.


A particle doesn't even need to be a 'part' of 'matter', a photon being a good example of that.


3. You are oversimplifying the WPD of the double slit experiment. Is 'superposition' a behavior of a 'particle'?


I assume you mean superposition of the two diffraction patterns, resulting in an interference pattern. The answer would be no, this is not expected behavior from a particle. We expect a particle to fly straight through the slit following the same direction it had before passing the slit. However, it turns out it is randomly redirected according to a distribution matching the interference pattern.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join