"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by shagreen heart


No worries, when I make such an invention, I will provide undeniable proof confirmed by as many independent parties as I can find. I will not post it on Youtube but publish it in a science journal. As for the extremely high costs, he already made several units he claim, all eaten by the dog. So they are not that expensive.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by 547000

 

Nature is discretely continuous. Its continuity is characterized by discrete behavior.

Um, what? An oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

You really seem hellbent on denying the particle nature of reality. Don't you see the quantized nature of reality and see how particles or energy packets are the perfect analog? You'll never find an experiment discovering 0.76 of a particle. It's either a whole particle or no particle. How do you explain such things by saying everything is a wave? It maybe more aesthetically pleasing, but if it doesn't confirm experimental data...

reply to post by Mary Rose


And you need to get educated in the area of physics and electrical engineering. Your feelings are not good enough to determine if something in those areas is real or not.

The "HQ" moniker implies a nationwide or even global enterprise with multiple functioning outlets. HQ also implies multiple personnel coordinating the workflow at all these locations. From what I've seen, Searl does not have such network and the HQ term is simply used to impress potential marks, er, investors. Too bad he decided to make do with collapsible chairs and crap furniture in this video, it really makes a bad impression of his outfit. Same goes for that lady (an acquaintance or a temp) posing as a secretary, and the tech. No amount of techno music can make up for that. I've seen small operations manufacturing electronics for neutron logs, now these did look real. I suppose it doesn't make a difference for persons out of touch.

If he produced 8 working prototypes in the past, working alone and on a modest budget, how come that after all the advances in technology in all these decades, he doesn't have even a small, p!ss-poor unit that maybe would not perform as well as to fly away to outer space but just spin long enough to be captured in a convincing video?

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by 547000

 

Nature is discretely continuous. Its continuity is characterized by discrete behavior.

Um, what? An oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Wiki:

An oxymoron (from Greek ὀξύμωρον, "sharp dull")

How very appropriate...

reply to post by -PLB-

So basically, according to your definition saying that something behaves like a discrete quantum does not mean it behaves like a particle? It seems to me that you simply handle a different definition of particle. When I see a physicist talk about particles, this is exactly how I imagine particles; a discrete, in-dividable quantity of "something". Can you describe what you mean by particle? (not too familiar with Democritus particle atomism)

Anyway, the main issue still stands. Whether we call it discrete quanta or particles, it can't go through both slits simultaneously, so the paradox is not solved.

A 'discrete quantum' does not imply behavior of a particle.

What is this 'something'?!

Classical particles are pieces of matter in space. Atoms in particular.
Atomic Hypothesis

I also recommend reading Larson's chapter 4 that I linked to earlier.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

And please read this message from Searl Magnetics as of October 14, 2010

In English:
www.scribd.com...

the SEG uses the abundant electrons in the rare earth material to kick start the system.

It maintains continuous output 24/7 regardless of the weather conditions and self-adjusts to the variations in demand for electrical output. The only side effect is a lowering of temperature by a few degrees around the local environment.

Originally posted by -PLB-
So where are the lab test results from all those independent laboratories that confirm there is over unity? Let me guess, the dog ate them.

It's not over unity, it's converting thermal energy around the unit into electrical energy, but he has no test results to prove that.

So if we use just the exact right amount of them we can cancel the greenhouse effect of global warming.

And if they're really popular, they can start another ice age by reducing the temperature everywhere! And that effect would really snowball because they would replace carbon based fuels that are creating the excess CO2 so it wouldn't even have carbon excess to offset anymore, and we'd encounter the ice-albedo feedback with billions of these devices in use that reduce the local temperature:

www.snowballearth.org...


We've been waiting for him to deliver something from his claims since the 1940s, and will still be waiting in the 2040s to see anything that does what he says from his successors, so don't worry too much about the snowball Earth, that will only happen if it actually works like he says.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Unified Field Theory - Mendel Sachs"

Here is what I glean from this essay:

1. Atomism dominated thinking about matter from the time of the ancient Greeks until Michael Faraday introduced field theory in the 19th century.
   
2. Atomism sees a system of a collection of singular things interacting in space, whereas the field view sees a system that is continuous and holistic.
   
3. The field view sees protons, people, planets, stars, galaxies, etc. as correlated modes of the continuum.
   
4. Faraday tried unsuccessfully to show empirically that the gravitational field of force was included in the electromagnetic field.
   
5. Einstein's theory of general relativity extends from Faraday's, but Faraday's is an open system, while Einstein's is closed. Faraday's had test particles that probe fields; Einstein's had no discrete particles.
   
6. Relativity holds that the apparent "things" we respond to are the infinite distinguishable, correlated, modes of the continuum which is the universe.
   
7. The way these modes interact with each other in terms of force depends on the circumstances of their coupling in a continuous way. There are no sharp cut-offs.
   
8. Present day claims in elementary particle physics that search for a grand unified theory are attempts to generalize the categories of data with more "boxes." This approach does not have the meaning of unification put forth by Faraday and Einstein as interpreted by Mendel Sachs.
   

reply to post by -PLB-

It seem to me that you either accept the many world interpretation, or you see the wave function as a pure mathematical construct, that has no basis in reality and only describes how particles distribute. But maybe you can elaborate. Do you think there is an actual wave, but no particle, before any reaction takes place? And do you think the particle only starts existing at the moment the wave reacts with something? In that case, how is the wave transformed into a particle? Isn't that a bit of a crucial question you would need to answer and explain? Another issue, shouldn't the wave always reacts to the object it hits first? And shouldn't that also be the place where the particle appears?

Now you are starting to understand how complex this issue is. I will make some statements, please indicate where you think I am wrong, or disagree.

1. No, the many world interpretation is not a direct consequence of quantum superposition. It is an attempt to rationalize the phenomenon - because where does the 'particle' go when it isn't here?
2. The wave function is a mathematical construct, built to explain and predict repeated observations of the probability of observing a certain charge/density/inertia/spin/field in the atom which we interpret as behavior of a 'particle' such as an electron.
3. Everything we observe or measure in your 'particle' atomic realm is collapsed/decoherent. It is coherent and in superposition before such interaction takes place. (Heisenberg Uncertainty, Observer effect)
4. Given #3, it would seem that when we 'observe' a particle, we are instead observing a changed/collapsed/decoherent state of nature.
5. My interpretation, is that rather than there being a real duality, there is only the appearance of a duality - and that the cohere natural functional state before observation is of a wave nature.
6. The wave is 'transformed' into appearing like a 'particle', because it is collapsed/changed and absorbed into the environment. Kind of like touching a vibrating string.
7. I am not sure what you are intending with your last two questions. The particle appears only in our interpretation of certain mathematical variables. It isn't like we are actually 'seeing' them. Although, perhaps we are closer now than ever before:

Maybe first we should clear up something:

It seems you are describing a particle itself as a wave. You still see it as a point like object, but this small object is a vibration of "something". But the whole idea of describing light as a wave is that is no longer is confined. It is wave just like in the ocean. It diffracts, it can be divided infinitively. But that is not what you mean by "wave like behavior", right?

Again, by 'something' what do you mean? I would say space. I am a little unclear on your subsequent statements.

I am describing the functional, cohere state of nature as a vibrating wave structure of space. The point like object is like an extremely dense wave center in cymatics, and perhaps bends space time to a certain extent in order to 'ripple' out giving us the structure we see. There can only be speculation on this point, which would have to be further investigated. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be, or appear like, what we would call a Einstein-Rosen bridge or wormhole. Whether or not we understand enough about what a wormhole is or may be, is another discussion.

reply to post by -PLB-

If it was real he would be selling working generators that do not require fuel, he had enough time to put them in production. He isn't so its a scam.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my link...

Those statements are a fallacy.

reply to post by beebs


In that case I advice you to revise your definition. When physicists talk about particles they do not mean "pieces of matter in space". And when they talk about particle behavior they do not mean "behave like a piece of matter in space". What they mean is that it is point-like, and is a quantum.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

So in other words, there isn't one video you can point to that proves anything?

omfg... I linked you to dozens. Its not my problem if you don't watch them. They are a crucial part of my argument, so I will have to consider your antagonism as lazy and uninformed.

I don't know why people have video obsessions, unless it's that watching hours of videos lulls you into some state of hypnosis that makes you more receptive to believing BS. I reviewed his website and saw only claims with no evidence there.

You are so full of crap, and lazy, and uninformed. Watch the damn videos. You do know that a lot of people are visual learners?

I didn't say anything was impossible, I said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Searl has none on his website. I watched the video you pointed me too and just saw a motor in pieces, nothing extraordinary. What is it that convinces YOU it's real? So far you've presented nothing definite other than an abstract statement about watching hours and hours of miscellaneous videos. Let's say I do watch hours and hours of Searl videos. What am I supposed to be looking for? We have different world views so something you find convincing I may find quite ordinary. There's nothing extraordinary about the first Searl video you pointed me to.

Hmmm... extraordinary evidence does not come in the form of a website, it comes in the form of books and videos of experiments and documentaries. I linked you to a playlist, not one video.

You have absolutely no right to say that all i've presented so far is an abstract statement to 'watch more videos'. I take this to mean that you are absolutely NOT going to be a scientist anymore, and instead sit in your comfy establishment box spouting off fallacious statements that are automatically more true than anything I could possible present to you. They are not even worth checking out in any depth whatsoever because you are AN EXPERT and KNOW BETTER than I do.

What a load of crap. Let me know when you get back to reality.

"Nah, don't worry! I looked at the guys website and a two minute video, and could tell from there than he was a scam artist. Being an expert, I can tell by the books cover whether or not it is a good one."

reply to post by Mary Rose


Yep. I guess Max Planck was right after all:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”

I do disagree with our universe as deterministic aka; linear only. We perceive things at our, the Classical level of Physics, but thats just one of at least three known levels all affecting the other, though in (to us) not in an obvious way most of the time. The Quantum Level, The Meso Level, (or what is perceived to be the "between" quantum and classical) Then Classical Level. But the path is not "one way" only that one "level" affects all levels.

reply to post by 547000

You really seem hellbent on denying the particle nature of reality. Don't you see the quantized nature of reality and see how particles or energy packets are the perfect analog? You'll never find an experiment discovering 0.76 of a particle. It's either a whole particle or no particle. How do you explain such things by saying everything is a wave? It maybe more aesthetically pleasing, but if it doesn't confirm experimental data...

I am hellbent on making people like you realize that what appears like a particle, is not necessarily a material particle.

Don't you see how energy packets are different than particles?

They are vibrating structures of space.

I do not deny quantum, only certain interpretations of it. There are several explanations for the quantized nature of reality, and a classical particle interpretation is not necessarily correct.

You are conflating particles with quantization. Just because something is quantized, doesn't mean it is a particle.

The wave interpretation is consistent with all known experimental data in the conventional context, to my knowledge, because of the WPD.

I just am arguing for wave only, because to me the particle part is just an illusion.

reply to post by buddhasystem

The "HQ" moniker implies a nationwide or even global enterprise with multiple functioning outlets. HQ also implies multiple personnel coordinating the workflow at all these locations. From what I've seen, Searl does not have such network and the HQ term is simply used to impress potential marks, er, investors. Too bad he decided to make do with collapsible chairs and crap furniture in this video, it really makes a bad impression of his outfit. Same goes for that lady (an acquaintance or a temp) posing as a secretary, and the tech. No amount of techno music can make up for that. I've seen small operations manufacturing electronics for neutron logs, now these did look real. I suppose it doesn't make a difference for persons out of touch.

If he produced 8 working prototypes in the past, working alone and on a modest budget, how come that after all the advances in technology in all these decades, he doesn't have even a small, p!ss-poor unit that maybe would not perform as well as to fly away to outer space but just spin long enough to be captured in a convincing video?

Ad hominem, Argumentum ad Igorantium, and just plain ignorance of the primary source material and the working prototype models demonstrating the key concepts.

I hope you feel smart!

Originally posted by beebs
You are conflating particles with quantization. Just because something is quantized, doesn't mean it is a particle.

You kept arguing about "function" a few times. OK, I'll follow that and say that I personally observe in an experiment that a bunch certain objects behave like well, particles, and so I (and other physicists) call them that. If you want to call these entities "burkendorf", it's entirely up to you, just don't expect others to jump on that wagon.

The wave interpretation is consistent with all known experimental data

Except in great many cases the wave formalism is reduced to what is mathematically a particle. When I direct a 50GeV electron at a target, I don't need to bother considering it's "wave nature" to both predict and analyze results. If you prefer to engage in such kind of fruitless masturbation as to keep pondering of how it's like totally a wave, it's up to you. When engineers design a crash test for a new car, they don't use relativistic mechanics. According to you, they are wrong.

Different parts of theory have different domains of applicability.

I just am arguing for wave only, because to me the particle part is just an illusion.

You should get out more.

Originally posted by beebs
Ad hominem, Argumentum ad Igorantium, and just plain ignorance of the primary source material and the working prototype models demonstrating the key concepts.

Oh please, it's just common sense. If a person offers brain surgery and invites his prospect clients into the back of butcher shop, that should raise red flags. Labs are not outfitted with picnic furniture. You don't call some cheap office rental "Headquarters" because it's a lie of omission, actually -- the vast network of Searl enterprise simply does not exist. You don't care about being lied to.

And you are in denial of objective reality, which is the "key concept" of the SEG is emanation of electrons from neodymium. This has NEVER been demonstrated. Never. A bunch of rollers does not demonstrate anything except that a circle is round.

I hope you feel smart!

Under these circumstances, that's actually quite easy.

reply to post by -PLB-

In that case I advice you to revise your definition. When physicists talk about particles they do not mean "pieces of matter in space". And when they talk about particle behavior they do not mean "behave like a piece of matter in space". What they mean is that it is point-like, and is a quantum

Thanks! I think you agree with me more than you know...

But still... what is this 'point like something'? 'A quantum' hardly explains what it is...

reply to post by buddhasystem

When I direct a 50GeV electron at a target, I don't need to bother considering it's "wave nature" to both predict and analyze results.

So you don't adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation?