"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 56
39
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You know what, I'm ready to dive in. "Siberian Snakes" by my side, Chinese tanks full of water for my Daya neutrinos, LHC priming up for the next run -- I'm all ready for the challenge. Flying to Geneva tomorrow. Cheers.




posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have Universal Laws Never Before Revealed: Keely's Secrets in my stack of books waiting to be read.

Reading this book now. It's published by The Message Company.


On page 258 Dale Pond focuses on types of waves and Keely's concept:


Perhaps one of the most enigmatic and troublesome of Keely's ideas is that of his triple chords. For years the search has yielded nothing in modern vibration science that resembled his theory on this subject. Recently, there has come to my attention, through applied ultrasonics, a concept of vibration modes that very strongly resembles Keely's concept or that which we perceive to be his concept.

Keely stated that there are three modes of vibration inherent in all vibratory motions. He called these the enharmonic, harmonic and dominant. One, he said travels in a straight line, another is a zig-zag and the third possesses an elliptical motion. In modern ultrasonic technology there are recognized and used three and sometimes a fourth mode. These are the longitudinal or compression waves, the transverse or shear waves, the Rayleigh or surface waves and the Lamb or plate waves. It looks like these may be the modes Keely was trying to identify and wrote about.





posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
I'll introduce a 3rd... The singularity group. All points in a vacuum are 0 where resistance - radiation leads to a static flow of mass.


Please elaborate a little bit!



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Cool. What will you be researching?



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

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


One playlist from this YouTuber's channel is entitled "Professor John Searl's Work" and contains 170 videos. The description that goes with this playlist is thought-provoking, to say the least:


Description: People have a lot to understand regarding Searl Technology. Lets go over some basic misconceptions in science. Newtons math perfectly describes the distribution of light from a prism on a wall. We can PLAINLY see the colors are distributed in Straight lines forever... right? Walter Russell perfectly describes the distribution of light through the Phi Spiraling prism called the Void. Rainbows are curved in reality. Newtons math only describes the behavior of particles AFTER they have been polarized. Newton's prism has a flat surface therefore the distribution will be flat and all your calculations will be based from illusions on a wall rather than reality. Much like Plato's Allegory of the Cave. The difference between Newtonian Mechanics and Searl Technology is the same difference between a prism distributed on a wall verses an actual rainbow. Issac Newton: "The colors are straight!!!" Walter Russell: "The colors are curved!!!" Jason Verbelli: "Gentlemen... you're both right. But under different circumstances. Learn to see how both are a reality." It's the difference between a movie and real life. A map verses a globe. You can watch a movie on a TV or a wall from a projector because it's a Flat surface. You can measure the distance of objects on the the 2D screen with the ILLUSION of 3D. But in real life, those straight calculations of the screen fall apart because of the actual curve of the Earth and vortation of objects in the void. Try watching that same movie projected on a sphere as evenly as you can on the flat screen and use the same straight line calculations. Newton's prism is 2D. John Searl's prism is 3D Reality. The speed of light, c, is only unique to the speed at which our COMET known as the Sun is traveling through the void. (Vortating) We are constantly accelerating down the drain of the void (PHI) which creates constant resistance on the front half of our Sun (anode). We are only viewing the back half of the Sun (cathode) and are measuring the nuclear reactions Within the compacted electric plasma. The Sun is a giant chunk of rock with a surface fire from the friction of "Aetheric Wind." You can call the front half of ANY star a "Black Hole" but it's not some depression in the non existent fabric of space... but rather the anode side of a star. It's coming straight at you so you can't see it. So many people are chasing white rabbits, but little do people know the front half of the rabbit is black. That which happens on a macro scale also happens on a micro scale. An electron is only an electron if viewing the tiny COMET as it moves away from you. You can call that same thing a positron as it comes straight at you. Is the positron a wave? No... it's just coming straight at you and your relative perception gives the false impression of sucking in light an creating a "wave." Is a black "hole" really a hole in the fabric of space time? Hell No... You're looking at a star / comet coming straight at you and the light is trailing behind. It's not sucking things in it's gravity, but rather running into them. There is no such thing as orbit in 3D Phi Spiraling Space. There is only objects following in the wake of other objects in a helical trajectory. From our relative perception.. we THINK we are orbiting the Sun, but we are merely following in the sun's helical wake. Quickly pass your hand over confetti sitting on a table and it will follow in the wake of your hand. Lamestream science and Quackademics say that the confetti will magically orbit your hand as it sits stationary on the table. If a tennis ball is on fire and sitting on the ground, other rocks and objects will not magically orbit the flaming ball. Throw that flaming ball through the air and what do you see? A comet. Now imagine that ball of fire going down an infinite and ever accelerating drain. Nassim Harramein almost has it right in this model... www.youtube.com... But he needs to have his model show the sun traveling in a helical trajectory NOT a straight line. And the front half of all things in motion is the anode while the back end is the cathode. The Sun is NOT a nuclear reactor, but rather a chunk of rock. The so called Law of Conservation only applies to stationary bodies in space... but nothing is stationary, so... NO CONSERVATION. Look into Walter Russell: www... The Secret of Light, Walter Russell: www.scribd.com... A New Concept of the Universe by Walter Russell: www.scribd.com... . . Ed Leedskalnin and Coral Castle: www.youtube.com... Watch at 3mins. Ed Leedskalnin solar system misconception etc. . . and Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat www.feandft.com... Helical Helix book: www.feandft.com...


Under "About the creator" for this playlist description, there is a link to a document entitled "How the SEG Operates and Eliminates Radiation."



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Description: People have a lot to understand regarding Searl Technology. Lets go over some basic misconceptions in science. Newtons math perfectly describes the distribution of light from a prism on a wall. We can PLAINLY see the colors are distributed in Straight lines forever... right? Walter Russell perfectly describes the distribution of light through the Phi Spiraling prism called the Void. Rainbows are curved in reality. Newtons math only describes the behavior of particles AFTER they have been polarized. Newton's prism has a flat surface therefore the distribution will be flat and all your calculations will be based from illusions on a wall rather than reality.
The author doesn't seem to understand that the colors coming out of the water droplets forming the rainbow are just as straight as the colors coming out of the prism. The reason we see the curved shape in a rainbow is that the colors are coming from millions of different sources, all at different angles which form an arc, but all in essentially straight lines. (while the Earth's gravity does bend light by a small amount, that's NOT the reason rainbows appear curved, it bends the light equally whether it's leaving a prism or a condensation droplet, an amount which we could say is typically imperceptible with human vision). There are too many misperceptions to address in the rest of that word soup, but people talking about why rainbows are curved should have some clue about why that happens, and it's not because the light leaving is curved. It's because the sources of the light form an arc, the light leaves in a straight line just like with the prism (aside from a slight gravitational bending which we would not normally see).

Speaking of those playlists and Searl, where can I get a day trip to the moon on one of his contraptions, like he talked about in 1970?

www.youtube.com... @3:00



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 




A short film depicting the beauty of Moebius Transformations in mathematics. The movie shows how moving to a higher dimension can make the transformations easier to understand.

The full version is available at www.ima.umn.edu...



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Speaking of grandiose ideas... Seems like they pop up every decade.

www.virgingalactic.com...

Virgin Galactic to Fly Scientists to Space

Virgin Galactic Announces World’s First Commercial Contracts to Send Researchers to Space

Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, LLC, the world’s first commercial spaceline, announced today the first ever commercial contracts to fly scientists into space for the purpose of conducting research experiments.

Virgin Galactic’s signed contract with the Southwest Research Institute is the first such agreement to fly scientists into space (over 100 kilometers or 328,000 feet above the Earth), enabling valuable microgravity, biology, climate and astronomy research.

As part of the contract announced today, SwRI has made full deposits for two researchers to fly on Virgin Galactic’s spacecraft, with the intent to make similar arrangements for an additional six seats for a total value of $1.6m. As well as flying its own researchers, who will carry scientific experiments developed by its in-house technical staff, SwRI also aims to assist American researchers who do not have direct spaceflight experience to develop and fly their payloads and personnel on suborbital missions.

Commenting on the agreement, George Whitesides, President and CEO of Virgin Galactic said: “This agreement signals the enormous scientific potential of the Virgin spaceflight system. Virgin Galactic will be able to offer researchers flights to space that are unprecedented in frequency and cost. Science flights will be an important growth area for the company in the years to come, building on the strong commercial success already demonstrated by deposits received from over 400 individuals for Virgin’s space experience”.

Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo is the only crewed suborbital vehicle in flight test today, and the only vehicle based on a spacecraft that has already sent humans into space, the X Prize-winning SpaceShipOne. Virgin Galactic offers a significantly larger cabin than any other company taking deposits today, allowing unique technology demonstrations and science experiments.

SwRI’s Dr. Alan Stern, Associate Vice President of SwRI’s Space Division and former NASA Associate Administrator for Science, stated: “We at SwRI are very excited about this agreement. Initially, two of our payload specialists will be flying on Virgin Galactic, conducting biomedical monitoring, atmospheric imaging, and microgravity planetary regolith experiments. We’re excited to be flying with Virgin Galactic to pioneer research missions on their amazing vehicles; we look forward to the not so distant day when entire Virgin Galactic flights are filled with researchers and their experiments.” Dr. Stern is the Principal Investigator of this project.

NASA has recognized the importance of this research platform through its new Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research Flight Opportunities program. While separate from today’s announcement, that program will open significant additional opportunities for researchers onboard suborbital vehicles. The Virgin Galactic-SwRI agreement represents another important endorsement of the value of regular commercial human space access for a wide range of science and educational applications.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


www.sciencedaily.com...

Golden Ratio Discovered in Quantum World: Hidden Symmetry Observed for the First Time in Solid State Matter


Researchers from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie (HZB), in cooperation with colleagues from Oxford and Bristol Universities, as well as the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK, have for the first time observed a nanoscale symmetry hidden in solid state matter. They have measured the signatures of a symmetry showing the same attributes as the golden ratio famous from art and architecture.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I've heard it all now... So you're connected to military, mafia, what? Nice, now I know why you feel inclined to make up your own rules. When I speak of cash cow I'm referring to the oil that is pumped from the ground for next to nothing then slapped with a $108 price tag per barrel. It doesn't get any simpler to control the market and siphon money. Aside from the obvious, a company such as Exxon-Mobile can scam our tax code and pay absolutely zero end of year.

Hard to tell who's the bigger gangsters here... Your people or the CEO's. Anyhow, the company you keep is a litmus test for the attitude you exhibit.
edit on 2-4-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





At the same time I do know what I do know. That seems to supercede anything what you know. Or, what you have ever have known, or, what yo will ever know. Just saying. From where I sit, I know a lot and you know close to zero. Dismissed. Redneck, or blueneck, or purpleneck. Or purpleballs.


I'll give it to you... You sure know how to act drunk even online.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Cool. What will you be researching?


I work for ATLAS.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Good luck. Hope you find the Higgs particle (am on the website now).



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



The particle can be at any place in this large area.


The energy is at any place in this area. Until we touch it. I will elaborate a bit more on the analogy of the situation as a string vibrating, and when we touch the string the vibration stops. Our observation/measurement of the location/momentum is the point at which the skin on our finger comes into contact with the string.

Before we touched it, the location/momentum of energy was in a coherent 'superposition' in a standing wave structure of whatever wavelength/frequency the string was vibrating at. When we touch it, there is no more superposition or standing wave structure, the system is changed into a decoherent and collapsed one. The energy that was in the string before is now dissipated through the fingertip and environment.


In 2 you just said we should see the wave function as a mathematical construct to describe the observed wave like behavior of particles. There isn't an actual wave that we know of. We have never measured it. The wave is pure theoretical. The actual reason why particles behave like a wave is unknown as far as I know.


Sorry, perhaps you misread #2. It is describing the particle like behavior of waves. Quite the opposite of wave like behavior of particles.

I understand where you are coming from, but my entire point is that there is an actual wave, and it is the natural coherent structure of the atom.

This was Schrodinger's position, and I think he was right.


He put together his wave equation and the spectral analysis of hydrogen in a paper in 1926.[10] The paper was enthusiastically endorsed by Einstein, who saw the matter-waves as an intuitive depiction of nature, as opposed to Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, which he considered overly formal.[11]
The Schrödinger equation details the behaviour of ψ but says nothing of its nature. Schrödinger tried to interpret it as a charge density in his fourth paper, but he was unsuccessful.[12] In 1926, just a few days after Schrödinger's fourth and final paper was published, Max Born successfully interpreted ψ as a probability amplitude.[13] Schrödinger, though, always opposed a statistical or probabilistic approach, with its associated discontinuities—much like Einstein, who believed that quantum mechanics was a statistical approximation to an underlying deterministic theory— and never reconciled with the Copenhagen interpretation.[14]


Call me a 'Schrodingerian'.



For a moment, lets not call it "detecting a particle" but "detecting a wave collapsing". I think the questions make sense then.


Yeah.


What I see as the problem here, it that your wave like behavior is not the same as the wave like behavior that is meant in wave particle duality. What I understand from it, in wave particle duality, the wave like behavior is on a macroscopic scale, not a wave inside the particle. The wave can actually spread over a large area. So it can increase in size and is not localized, like the wave you describe is.


You are correct in that I disagree with the WPD in the literal sense, but if we call the collapsed measurement a 'particle' and redefine the term then I guess I would agree again. Not sure what you mean by wave like behavior on a macroscopic scale... and I don't mean 'a wave inside the particle' because I am arguing against particle interpretation and the wave would be the particle not 'inside' of it. It spreads in an area that we interpret as something like a 'probability cloud', but 'probability cloud' is a collapsed, statistical particle interpretation. Whereas I, or Schrodinger, would call it an actual wave density of space.

ETA:

A small disclaimer, the deeper we go into the subject, the harder it is for me to express myself, so I may use incorrect terminology, and of course may be plain wrong sometimes.


No worries, but watch out for Buddhasystem, he is God. As for us regular folk, we can understand the physics of the universe in layman terms, something BS cannot understand. I am quite sure that it doesn't take billions of dollars of equipment and esoteric math parties to understand how nature works and what it fundamentally is.

Think for yourself.
edit on 3-4-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-4-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



I just happen to have worked immediately for, and has been associated with big money (your mileage will vary). Maybe a couple of billion dollars does not seem big to you. It sure did to me and my clients.


Yeah, therefore you should not be trusted in this conversation whatsoever. You have an incredible conflict of interest, and clearly some ego issues. Arrogant crap.


Listen up, kid: an inventor with a viable Big Cash idea would be protected by the Russian Spetznaz from Hell. You don't know these guys. You don't want to know this folk. I personally do know this kind of people. Just sayin' to put this in perspective.


Oh man... you are so awesome aren't you. Its too bad you can't think clearly. Arrogant crap.


At the same time I do know what I do know. That seems to supercede anything what you know. Or, what you have ever have known, or, what yo will ever know. Just saying. From where I sit, I know a lot and you know close to zero. Dismissed. Redneck, or blueneck, or purpleneck. Or purpleballs.


Oh no! Stop, please... I can't stop laughing!


Get help. You sound like Charlie Sheen. Arrogant crap.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



Do the particles disappear at troughs and appear at crests? Can we ever detect a fraction of a particle, rather than a whole or none? If no, then it cannot be considered continuous, unless experimental data suggests it. Again, predictions and experimental data is what gives credence to any theory. Someone might argue the boogie man exists but can turn invisible at will, and that's why we cannot see him, but without actual evidence...


The 'particles' appear whenever we collapse the standing wave structure. Look above for my analogy of a vibrating string, which is much better than basketballs, gasoline, and boogymen.

Yes we can detect a 'fraction of a particle'. I am not sure what that has to do with continuity... it seems you mistakenly argued for continuity rather than against... reconstructed your premise is this:

"If we can never detect a fraction of a particle, then it cannot be considered continuous."

Even so, if you had made your point effectively, I still would maintain that nature is a continuum. And yes, a continuum organized discretely. There is no contradiction in that statement. It would be a contradiction if I said nature was a continuum organized through discrete separation.

I would call the 'fraction of a particle' a 'subharmonic', from the WSM point of view.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


In mathematics what makes rational numbers continuous is the density; that between any two rational points, you can always get another rational number, and so there are infinite numbers between any two points, and the differences between any two numbers can be made arbitrarily small. Can you get 1/10 of a proton? 2/10? 1/55? If it is indeed continuous, you should be able to detect arbitrary intermediate values rather than just extreme values. As far as I know nature doesn't have this property: there are quantized values much akin to a step function, rather than a smooth range of values being detected. The smaller you go, the more the discrete nature shows.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Yeah thats cool. I understand your point, but I am not sure what kind of response you are looking for, but here goes:

Quark

Zero Point Energy

There is no such thing as a vacuum, only the phenomenon of approaching infinitely less energy density.

Quarks are 1/3 of a proton, but always come in threes. To me its a subharmonic, so asking to find random odd fractions(like 1/55) of it is like trying to find a note there is no key for.
edit on 3-4-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


A continuous wave would be able to show values, no matter how small, as existing. But we only see certain fractions in nature; we cannot detect arbitrarily small fractions of what we want to study. So when we make probability graphs, we are assuming the dots connect. But what we know so far is nature doesn't work that way. There are gaps in the graph. If you say nature is continuous, why can't we detect 1/17th of the wave packet? Why can we only detect certain fractions? It should be possible if nature is a continuous wave. This is where the particle nature becomes obvious.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
547000 and Beebs,

Thanks for this stimulating discussion you're having!


I'm enjoying it.





top topics
 
39
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join