Originally posted by Mary Rose
Under "About the creator" for this playlist description, there is a link to a document entitled "How the SEG Operates and Eliminates Radiation."
www.feandft.com...
Some key people to look into:
Walter Russell, Ed Leedskaln, Professor John Searl, Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat, John Keely, Nikola Tesla, Viktor Grebbenikov, Dan Winter, Dr. Masaru Emoto, Cleave Baxter, Viktor Schauberger, Marko Rodin, John Hutchison, Karpen's Pile, Steorn, Wilhelm Mohorn.
.
Read my papers on scribd.com
The Helical Wake of the Sun:
www.scribd.com...
The Fallacy of a Straight Line and Misconception of Black "Holes"
www.scribd.com...
Cartesian Coordinate Misconception and Geometry of Light
www.scribd.com...
.
.
A New Concept of the Universe by Walter Russell:
www.scribd.com...
.
.
Magnetic Current by Ed Leedskalnin
www.scribd.com...
www.Leedskalnin.com...
www.CoralCastleCode.com...
www.Code144.com...
.
.
Please enjoy this video playlist with over 28 hours of material on PROFESSOR JOHN SEARL's work with magnetics, free energy and inverse gravity:
www.YouTube.com...
www.JohnSearlStory.com...
www.SearlSolution.com...
www.SwallowCommand.com...
A Message From Searl Magnetics
www.scribd.com...
.
.
Universal Laws Never Before Revealed by John Keely, Tesla and more:
www.scribd.com...
www.keelynet.com...
.
.
1) All objects travel in a CURVED path unless acted on by an outside force with constant resistance. That Natural path is a Phi Spiral, NOT a straight line.
The shortest distance between 2 points might be a straight line, but an object can still travel to point B faster using the correct proportion Phi spiral even though it's a longer distance. After a certain point within that vortex, the speed at which it travels will exponentially increase.
If the vortex is large enough, you could theoretically arrive at your destination before you even leave point A.
2) The so called "speed of light" is only unique to the speed at which our Comet we call the Sun is traveling through the void. We are measuring particles fly off from the Sun and we run into them as we follow in the Helical Wake.
3) Like a comet, an "electron" is black on one side while all the heat and light trail behind. If that particle is coming straight at you... you can call it a "positron". If it's traveling away from you... you can call it an "electron." It's the same thing just viewed from different angles. A star is to an electron as a black hole is to a positron.
4) Opposites DO NOT attract.
Like potential seeks Like potential. We are viewing the magnetic current flow, NOT Polarity.
5) Work in = Work Out .... but the amount of work and geometric precision you put into making a system will determine the amount of power you reap back.
So if you make standard gears, you'll get standard power.
If you take a year to make one hand made helical part and THEN started up a system using that... you'll see that it runs more efficiently because you put unique ingenuity and much more Human energy than a conventional and standard machine. The work you put in BEFORE you start up your device will determine how much energy you get back from that device. You can't say there is a standard for power in Every device anymore.
Welcome to the 21st Century Reality of Free Energy and a renewal of Ancient Knowledge of the Universe and beyond.
I have A LOT more to present. I tried to cram a bunch in this 15 minute video.
Please add me on Facebook.com/Verbelli
If something has validity, it has a sense of urgency.
--Jason Verbelli
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Read my papers on scribd.com
The Fallacy of a Straight Line and Misconception of Black "Holes"
www.scribd.com...
Rainbows are curved because the prism of the Phi Spiraling void is curved.
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.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
The Fallacy of a Straight Line and Misconception of Black "Holes"
www.scribd.com...
Cartesian Coordinate systems do not work in 3D space because they deal
with straight lines. (See my paper link above)
They work just fine for our tiny universal frame of reference at this point in
Humanity. But if we wanted to travel really really far, I think we would need
to use a spherical coordinate system or something even more complex
because of Vortation according to Phi. Water doesn’t go down a drain…
water stays put while the universe vortates around it. Think about that one
for a while.
Originally posted by beebs
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.
I explained why they're curved a few posts back. Here's more:
Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading this one right now and I'm struck by this:
Rainbows are curved because the prism of the Phi Spiraling void is curved.
The rainbow is curved because the set of all the raindrops that have the right angle between you, the drop, and the sun lie on a cone pointing at the sun with you at one tip. The rainbow may look semicircular if the sun is setting or rising (a good time to see a rainbow because the sunlight at that time can get under rain clouds because it is traveling horizontally). If the sun is higher in the sky, the earth gets in the way and you may see less than a semicircular rainbow.
Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by beebs
Your idea of what constitutes a continuum is strange. Density is precisely what makes something a continuum. Otherwise you are just connecting the dots and assuming continuity, which is imprecise. Think of the difference between an infinite summation and an integral from calculus II.
Have you thought about why despite being continuous, you cannot observe intermediate values (think about why continuity implies this), but only special multiples? That's a sign right there that the assumption of continuity fails, and you're trying to reconcile that by making a more complicated theory. In either case, experiments show that nature is discrete. Without evidence of density, you're putting a more general assumption that may not be warranted, which experiments do not show.
Originally posted by 547000
You might as well subscribe have solipsism syndrome, because unless you can detect this hidden phenomenon experimentally, anything goes. For all you know all this everything is a wave theory is wrong, because you can't detect the implied continuity. Without any evidence it's just speculation. Occam's razor suggests what to do in a case like this. Unless there is something about this that can be verified or denied experimentally?edit on 3-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)
You can see that after the slit, the wave propagates in a circular shape. Now we can ask which point of this wave will hit the screen first: it is the exact center, where the "P" is in the image. So if this is the place where the wave hits the screen first, this is also the place where the wave collapses, according to your argumentation. So shouldn't this also be the place where the observation of a particle is made? How do you explain that observations are also made in different places?
Your idea of what constitutes a continuum is strange. Density is precisely what makes something a continuum. Otherwise you are just connecting the dots and assuming continuity, which is imprecise. Think of the difference between an infinite summation and an integral from calculus II.
Have you thought about why despite being continuous, you cannot observe intermediate values (think about why continuity implies this), but only special multiples? That's a sign right there that the assumption of continuity fails, and you're trying to reconcile that by making a more complicated theory. In either case, experiments show that nature is discrete. Without evidence of density, you're putting a more general assumption that may not be warranted, which experiments do not show.
In probability theory, a probability density function (pdf), or density of a continuous random variable is a function that describes the relative likelihood for this random variable to occur at a given point. The probability for the random variable to fall within a particular region is given by the integral of this variable’s density over the region. The probability density function is nonnegative everywhere, and its integral over the entire space is equal to one.
Originally posted by beebs
Well, it is the place we measure the 'collapsed' values. I am not sure whether or not the surrounding ripples in space(that have not interacted with the detector) actually cease to exist... this seems to be a good point for further investigation/discussion.
But as of right now, I think the prevailing interpretation would say that what happens is that the wave function superposition of the particle 'realizes' out of probability at the foremost edge of the spherical propagation when it encounters the detector.
Either way the detector is certainly the place where the observation of a 'particle' is made, because we can't measure it until we interact with it.
If observations are made in different places, of the same wave function, even after the leading edge interaction with the detector, then that would appear to be in favor of the WSM interpretation... wouldn't it?
But is that graph for a beam of light? Or one 'particle' at a time?
See, you have brought up one of the best points so far in the argument compared to the 'experts'.
At least the first part of that agrees with relativity, the coordinate system used for relativity isn't for 3D space, but for 4D space-time with time being sort of a 4th dimension:
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Cartesian Coordinate systems do not work in 3D space because they deal
with straight lines. (See my paper link above)
They work just fine for our tiny universal frame of reference at this point in
Humanity. But if we wanted to travel really really far, I think we would need
to use a spherical coordinate system or something even more complex
because of Vortation according to Phi. Water doesn’t go down a drain…
water stays put while the universe vortates around it. Think about that one
for a while.
Because of Minkowski's involvement that coordinate system is sometimes referred to as "Minkowski Space-time"
Spacetime is a four-dimensional coordinate system containing three spatial dimensions and one time dimension...
The concept of a spacetime coordinate system was introduced in 1907, two years after Einstein originally proposed the theory of special relativity. Hermann Minkowski, a former professor of Einstein, presented the idea of this spacetime coordinate system. The ideas were inherent in Einstein's version of the theory, but he hadn't thought of it that way. In a 1908 talk called "Space and Time," Minkowski elaborated on these concepts and they began to gain popularity.
If you can understand those simple conversion formulae, you will see there's nothing about the conversion that will affect the direction of light. But in Minkowski space-time and in general relativity gravity certainly can and does curve light. Here's a picture of light being curved by gravity:
The polar coordinates r and θ can be converted to the Cartesian coordinates x and y by using the trigonometric functions sine and cosine:
x = r sin θ
y = r cos θ
Furthermore, the x and y Cartesian coordinates may be converted to the polar coordinate r using the following:
r2 = x2 + y2