It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 50
39
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 09:30 AM
Going back to Rodin’s math:

Originally posted by beebs
I highly recommend watching the John Searl Story, because he does something similar with The Law of the Squares.

Searl’s The Law of the Squares states:

The history of Magic or Latin squares dates back thousands of years, to the pyramids of ancient Egypt, and possibly even further back to the first Chinese dynasties. In fact, today, the Chinese people still use magic squares for cutting and trimming bonsai trees to the correct mathematical ratios of nature. By understanding these natural laws, one can argue that the Universe exist according to precise mathematical laws.

The Law of the Squares (LOS) or Magic Squares is not a new technology but an old technology that's been reborn after John Searl at a young age developed it independently and discovered his numbered matrix has three dimensional properties that can model the quantum energy states of mass in time and space.

There are three groups of squares - group one, two and three, and there can be no others. Group one squares consists of all odd numbers. All even numbers that are divisible by four are in group two. All the rest of the even numbers not divisible by four are in group three.

When the correct matrix of random numbers sum up to the same line value across, down and diagonally, then it is just as valid as the physics regarding the known laws of conservation where energy is neither created nor destroyed, but can be converted from one form to another.

The LOS matrix demonstrates these conservative laws precisely by correctly transposing the random numbers of the squares into line values that all add up to the same value in any direction results in a non-random or uniform state of summation without creating more or less value than the total sum of the cube.

LOS technology along with appropriate stimulation is a transformational solution to random quantum energy state conversion into a useful non-random (uniform) state of resonance and coherent electron motion within the atomic lattice or simply put, can form electrical currents out of chaos.

Keywords “correct mathematical ratios of nature”?

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 09:39 AM

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

In fact, this is precisely one of the problems Larson mentioned.

However, the natural and logical inference on first consideration does not always stand up under more deliberate and thorough analysis, and so it has been in this case. The original argument based on the known characteristics of radioactivity may be summarized as follows:

(a) Under certain conditions atoms disintegrate.
(b) Electrons are found among the disintegration products.
(c) Therefore, electrons are constituents of atoms.

At first glance this argument may seem sound, and in the formative years of the nuclear hypothesis it was accepted without question. Even today it is still orthodox doctrine. But the true status of the argument can be brought out clearly by stating the analogous argument concerning the photon.

(a) Under certain conditions atoms disintegrate.
(b) Photons are found among the disintegration products.
(c) Nevertheless, photons are not constituents of atoms.

He is referring to Rutherford's experiments, about a decade after J. J. Thomson's experiments.

Why aren't photons part of the atomic structure? Are they there when the atom is stable and functional? Or only created when it disintegrates?

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.

Yeah, so not like a 'particle' at all. In fact, the whole thing reeks of waves in a fluid...
edit on 30-3-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
LOS technology along with appropriate stimulation is a transformational solution to random quantum energy state conversion into a useful non-random (uniform) state of resonance and coherent electron motion within the atomic lattice or simply put, can form electrical currents out of chaos.

LOS technology? Where can I buy a LOS transformer?

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 09:52 AM

Originally posted by beebs
Why aren't photons part of the atomic structure? Are they there when the atom is stable and functional? Or only created when it disintegrates?

I frankly cringe when I read something as ignorant as this. Atom does not have a function, so you can't talk about its functionality. Further, photons are not "created when atom disintegrates". Atom can go through transitions between various energy levels, and so in some cases photons are absorbed (gasp!), and in others emitted (wow!). I guess you could call it "created" but that's not the terminology we use. There is disintegration of the nucleus of course, but using the term "atom" is grossly incorrect in that case.

Photons are not a part of atomic structure because they don't have either strong (color) or electric charge. There is nothing to bind them into the stable system that the atom is.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 09:55 AM

Originally posted by beebs

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

In fact, this is precisely one of the problems Larson mentioned.

However, the natural and logical inference on first consideration does not always stand up under more deliberate and thorough analysis, and so it has been in this case. The original argument based on the known characteristics of radioactivity may be summarized as follows:

(a) Under certain conditions atoms disintegrate.
(b) Electrons are found among the disintegration products.
(c) Therefore, electrons are constituents of atoms.

At first glance this argument may seem sound, and in the formative years of the nuclear hypothesis it was accepted without question. Even today it is still orthodox doctrine. But the true status of the argument can be brought out clearly by stating the analogous argument concerning the photon.

(a) Under certain conditions atoms disintegrate.
(b) Photons are found among the disintegration products.
(c) Nevertheless, photons are not constituents of atoms.

He is referring to Rutherford's experiments, about a decade after J. J. Thomson's experiments.

Why aren't photons part of the atomic structure? Are they there when the atom is stable and functional? Or only created when it disintegrates?

We may not know for sure if photons are part of the atomic structure, but is it useful to assume it is? Does it give us any additional insight if we assume it is? Can we make predictions of phenomena that would not occur if the photon is not a part of an atom? If not, it is useless to assume it is.

Yeah, so not like a 'particle' at all. In fact, the whole thing reeks of waves in a fluid...

And yet when we measure it, it shows up as a tiny dot, not at all like a wave in a fluid.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 09:57 AM

Originally posted by beebs
Yeah, so not like a 'particle' at all. In fact, the whole thing reeks of waves in a fluid...
edit on 30-3-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)

What do you mean like "at all"? They behave like both particles and waves, both discrete and have a wave-like probability inference pattern of where they collide.

Fact is, scientists both hypothesize about new particles and confirm them. Nature seems to be fundamentally quantized.
edit on 30-3-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 10:10 AM

Totally irrelevant question. Changing the subject from a principle involved to the constraints placed on bringing innovative technologies to market when they obsolete the profits of some and the careers of some and the existing infrastructure invested in of some, etc., etc.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Totally irrelevant question. Changing the subject from a principle involved to the constraints placed on bringing innovative technologies to market when they obsolete the profits of some and the careers of some and the existing infrastructure invested in of some, etc., etc.

Au contraire, Mary. You are talking about this "technology" as if it's a done deal. In reality, there is no demonstration of how that "matrix" relates to physical reality in any way. Just same as Rodin's sudoku.

What profits or careers are you talking about when there is no device? Yeah, yeah, I know, it is perpetually two months away from a commercial prototype.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 10:27 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

When I see someone talk about technology I think about products. It seems to me LOS technology does not exist, unless you mean loan origination software. There only seems to be an untested and unproven idea of someone.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by beebs
Why aren't photons part of the atomic structure? Are they there when the atom is stable and functional? Or only created when it disintegrates?
I know you didn't like my other analogy but I'm going to give you another one anyway, maybe you'll like this one better.

Try going to the car dealership and ordering a "part" for your car called "gasoline".

The parts counter will probably tell you the gasoline isn't considered a "car part" you can order from the "parts counter". This doesn't mean the car doesn't contain gasoline, or that gasoline won't be released when the car crashes.

Now let me ask you a question, do you think the formula E=mc^2 is correct? Because as far as I can tell, the only way you can think Larson's theory is correct is if you think E=mc^2 and the conservation of mass and conservation of energy are incorrect, yet Larson doesn't seem to question the E=mc^2 equivalence and fails to recognize its significance in relation to his theory as Isaac Asimov did:

www.reciprocalsystem.com...

The existence of electrons in the outer reaches of the atom--a different matter entirely--was deduced chiefly from the photoelectric effect. Here a quantum, as low in energy as that of red light, is able to bring about the ejection of electrons from cesium metal. It is possible to conceive of the creation of an electron in the course of radioactive breakdown, which involves large energies. To suppose an electron can be created by the energy of a quantum of red light is, however, inadmissible if one is to accept Einstein’s mass-energy conversion formula, and this formula even Larson does not seem disposed to question.

If no electrons exist within the atom, as Larson suggests, I do not see how the photoelectric effect can be explained. From this I conclude that however stimulating Larson’s book might be as an intellectual exercise, it need not be taken seriously as anything more than that.
Someone wrote a rebuttal to Asimov's statement I just quoted, but they didn't address the photoelectric effect and the fact that when the electron is ejected by this effect, a net positive charge is left in the atom where the electron was emitted. In fact, before the discovery of the photoelectric effect, Larson's theory was certainly considered:

The Photoelectric Effect

It remained to be determined whether there was any connection between the electron and the atom. The electron might be the particle of electricity and the atom might be the particle of matter; and both might be structureless, ultimate particles, completely independent of each other....
So they did consider the possibility, but observations of the photoelectric effect clarified that the electron was indeed a component of the atom:

positive charge might be created by withdrawing an electron or two from the atom, an electron or two that had been present as part of the atom itself.

This revolutionary possibility was made the more plausible because of a phenomenon first observed in 1888 by the German physicist Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (1857-1894) during the course of experiments in which he discovered radio wave.

While sending an electric spark across an air gap from one electrode to another, Hertz found that when ultraviolet light shone on the cathode, the spark was more easily emitted. This, together with other electrical phenomena brought about by the shining of light upon metal, was eventually termed the photoelectric effect.
Can the photoelectric effect be explained with Larson's theory with respect to the mass of the electron emitted, the energy of the light used to emit the electron, and the net positive charge left after the electron is ejected? If you think you can explain it, I'd like to hear your explanation, but the guy who responded to Asimov certainly didn't explain it.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What profits or careers are you talking about when there is no device? Yeah, yeah, I know, it is perpetually two months away from a commercial prototype.

Searl Effect Generator

The Searl Effect Generator developed in the 1960s is allegedly capable of cheaply and safely producing electricity without fuel, pollution, friction, or noise. Anti-gravity effects also involved.
Since it was developed in the 1960's, I'm a little unclear why it didn't go into production in the 1970s. The US had a big energy shortage in 1974 so it would have really come in handy then. Apparently the 5 to 9 prototypes are all on their way to Pluto or Proxima Centauri or somewhere in outer space, yet he's still messing around with making components, I don't see any update from him on what he's doing to prevent the devices from engaging in interstellar travel like his other prototypes did:

John Searl

he claims to have assembled it in his residential home in London, UK.

Searl makes the further claim that, once assembled, it started rotating by itself, increasing speed gradually. It finally left ground and crashed into the ceiling. While Searl was still wondering how this could happen, the SEG drilled itself through the ceiling, then the roof and disappeared. The same happened to the following 5 (other sources quote 9) models.
Shouldn't he have spent the 1970's, the 1980's, the 1990's and the last 11 years figuring out how to stop them from going through the roof? What's going to stop that from happening to the next one like it happened to all the others? I see nothing about that on his site, but they have a nice new lab in SoCal:
swallowcommand.com...

Nice photos but none showing a reinforced ceiling to keep the next one from going into outer space like all the models in the last century did.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 12:54 PM

I always gave credit to Searl for inventing a rather unique way to explain the absence of a working perpetual motion machine in his possession despite his numerous claim to that effect: it simply disappears in a successful test! That's pretty clever, I can tell you that. It's like every time I synthesize a sample of philosopher's stone, it goes "puff" and vanishes. How very convenient. But I swear I saw it happen! ;p

Somehow, as you hinted, Searl neglected to put brakes (maybe automatic ones) on his device to prevent these naughty saucers from flying away. Or explosive bolts. All of that is entirely standard equipment. Remarkable.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 01:05 PM

He may be clever to give that reason for losing the first one, but he doesn't come across as too clever for losing the next 4 or 8 the same way.

If he was that clever, as you said his second unit would have had a means to prevent a recurrence of the problem he had with his first unit.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:04 PM

I frankly cringe when I read something as ignorant as this. Atom does not have a function, so you can't talk about its functionality. Further, photons are not "created when atom disintegrates". Atom can go through transitions between various energy levels, and so in some cases photons are absorbed (gasp!), and in others emitted (wow!). I guess you could call it "created" but that's not the terminology we use. There is disintegration of the nucleus of course, but using the term "atom" is grossly incorrect in that case.

Photons are not a part of atomic structure because they don't have either strong (color) or electric charge. There is nothing to bind them into the stable system that the atom is.

Yes, an atom in nature has a natural function of doing the things an atom does in nature. A diagram of an atom is not a functional atom. A mathematical equation of a wave function is not the actual thing in nature. A particle in collision, at almost the speed of light, is not the same as a whole functional atom in nature.

When the nucleus disintegrates or decays, and photons are emitted, where do they come from? How are they separated? Were they separate from the nuclear particles, or were they part of the nuclear particles? Were they there before the disintegration, or were they just 'dis-associated' with the father 'particle'?

Absorbed and emitted how?

If they are not part of the atomic structure, how can they be 'emitted'?

To me, it seems that in this case it really doesn't make sense to think of them as particles at all. They appear like particles, because they occupy a point-like energetic center in space, but they behave like wave structures.

Form follows function. The functional behavior is wavelike. The form or structure, therefore, makes more sense as a standing wave center of space than a 'material' particle in space.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:19 PM

We may not know for sure if photons are part of the atomic structure, but is it useful to assume it is? Does it give us any additional insight if we assume it is? Can we make predictions of phenomena that would not occur if the photon is not a part of an atom? If not, it is useless to assume it is.

And yet when we measure it, it shows up as a tiny dot, not at all like a wave in a fluid.

I would like to know... I don't want to assume it is, but I also don't want to assume it isn't. I want to know what nature really is, not just how we can apply what we already know about it to make crap.

When we measure it, we collapse the 'superposition' of what it was originally, into a decoherent state. I am concerned with what it is before we touch it.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:24 PM

What do you mean like "at all"? They behave like both particles and waves, both discrete and have a wave-like probability inference pattern of where they collide.

Fact is, scientists both hypothesize about new particles and confirm them. Nature seems to be fundamentally quantized.

Quantized for sure, but what is quantized is up for debate. I argue for the WSM interpretation, rather than classical or Copenhagen interpretations.

Subatomic particles, in this interpretation, are rather more like subharmonic cymatics.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:38 PM

Originally posted by beebs
If they are not part of the atomic structure, how can they be 'emitted'?

I am not really that much of an expert so I can only give my rather layman take on it. It seems to me a photon is just pure energy. When an atom is being excited, it has an excess amount of energy that is emitted in the form of photons. The amount of photons that can be emitted is unlimited, as long as there is a continuous input of energy available. A light bulb works on this principle, where the energy source is the flow of electrons coming from the power supply. The fact light bulbs work is rather conclusive proof that photons are being "created". A light bulb never runs out of photons.

To me, it seems that in this case it really doesn't make sense to think of them as particles at all. They appear like particles, because they occupy a point-like energetic center in space, but they behave like wave structures.

In some situations it makes sense to look at it as particles exactly because they appear like particles. The particle behavior is not explained by a wave function. A wave function does not explain why only a single dot on the screen lights up when a photon hits it.

Form follows function. The functional behavior is wavelike. The form or structure, therefore, makes more sense as a standing wave center of space than a 'material' particle in space.

So you want to describe a photon or electron as a standing wave confined in a small space? Then it still has particle properties. But aside from that, I see some issues with this description. First, what exactly confines the standing wave? What are the borders made of? Secondly, this description does not explain the interference patters in the double slit experiment, as the confined standing wave is still not dividable, and still does not go through both slits at once in the double slit experiment. So it doesn't solve the paradox.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:52 PM

Originally posted by beebs
When we measure it, we collapse the 'superposition' of what it was originally, into a decoherent state. I am concerned with what it is before we touch it.

I don't really know what you mean by collapsing the superposition. Super position of what on what? And how do you collapse a superposition? Or did you mean something else than superposition?

I am pretty sure that when you do not measure it, it still behaves like a particle. Whether we measure it or not, the photon or electron is at a certain position in space, and not at an infinite positions at once, only deciding a single position when we measure it.

But the bottom line is, it doesn't really matter what you are concerned with. Electrons and photons have particle like behavior, with or without your concern. A model would be incomplete if it is ignored.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 02:53 PM

I am unaware of Larson's opinion on your questions. I have not read all of his work. I doubt he and I agree on everything, but I am sure he has very nuanced positions regarding E=mc^2 and how his model accounts for electrons. I will let you know when or if I have located his answers to those questions. If you would like to locate for yourself and criticize his own statements go for it, I am all ears.

Your statements about Searl are unfounded and not at all considering the available evidence. Start watching videos:
videos

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:54 PM

Originally posted by beebs
If they are not part of the atomic structure, how can they be 'emitted'?

Radio waves (essentially photons) are emitted from an antenna. Radio waves are not a part of the structure of the antenna. Photons are just propagating fields, and fields are created by electric charges under certain conditions. It's their property. Look at the Maxwell's equations. There are equivalent mathematical instruments in quantum electrodynamics.

Form follows function. The functional behavior is wavelike. The form or structure, therefore, makes more sense as a standing wave center of space than a 'material' particle in space.

If you insist on "function", you still can't say it's unequivocally "wavelike". You've been given examples here which you promptly chose to ignore.

posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:57 PM

Originally posted by -PLB-
So you want to describe a photon or electron as a standing wave confined in a small space? Then it still has particle properties. But aside from that, I see some issues with this description. First, what exactly confines the standing wave?

Electron and proton are two different beasts. The latter is readily shown in the experiment to be a composite object, and what confines it's components is strong force -- it's an equivalent of an atom, albeit on a more microscopic scale. It's components (quarks and gluons), on the other hand, are more akin to the electron, in that in no experiment did they register any size distinguishable from zero.

Secondly, this description does not explain the interference patters in the double slit experiment, as the confined standing wave is still not dividable, and still does not go through both slits at once in the double slit experiment. So it doesn't solve the paradox.

Right on the money!
Your point shows the paucity of depth in Beebs' argument, in a compelling way.

top topics

39