Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 60
39
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I think it is interesting that both Marko Rodin and Walter Russell combine science and religion in their work. The Preface for Russell's The Secret of Light:


Jesus said, "GOD IS LIGHT," and no man of that day knew what He meant. The day is now here when all men must know what Jesus meant when He said "GOD IS LIGHT."

For within the secret of Light is vast knowledge yet unrevealed to man. Light is all there is; it is all we have to deal with, but we do not yet know what it is. The purpose of this message is to tell what it is.

Today's civilization has advanced far in knowing HOW to deal with matter but we do not know WHAT matter is nor the WHY of it. Nor do we know what energy, electricity, magnetism, gravitation and radiation are. Nor do we know the purpose of the inert gases and WHAT they are. Nor do we know the structure of the elemental atoms nor the gyroscopic principle which determines that structure. Nor are we aware of the fact that this is a two-way continuous universe of balance in all effects of motion and not a one-way discontinuous universe. Nor have we even yet heard of or suspected the most important of all principles in physics, THE VOIDANCE PRINCIPLE and the mirrors and lenses of space which are the cause of illusion in all moving things.

Nor do we even consider the entire material electric universe to be the illusion which it is; there being no reality to it whatsoever.

Nor have we the slightest inkling of the cause of curvature of space, nor the voidance of that curvature in planes of zero curvature at wave field boundaries. No one now knows how it is that crystals get their various shapes. It will amaze the world to know that those shapes of crystals are determined in space by the shapes of the wave fields which bound the various elemental structures.

Nor have we the slightest conception of what constitutes the life principle, nor the principle of growth, nor the simultaneous unfoldment-refoldment principle which repeats all patterns in Nature sequentially and records and voids them as they are repeated. Nor are we aware of that recording principle by means of which the Creator carries forth the sum totals of every sequential cycle in His unfolding and refolding universe unto the very end of its manifestations upon one planet and its beginning on a new one.

Nor are we dynamically aware of the souls and seeds of things. These roots of universal repetition are now but metaphysical abstractions to religion and physical guesswork to science.

Within the secret of Light is the answer to all of these heretofore unanswered questions, and many more, which the ages have not yet solved. This revelation of the nature of Light will be the inheritance of man in this coming New Age of greater comprehension. Its unfoldment will prove the existence of God by methods and standards acceptable to science and religion alike. It will lay a spiritual foundation under the present material one of science.

The two greatest elements in civilization, religion and science, will thus find unity in marriage of the two. Likewise human relationships will become more balanced because of greater knowledge of universal law which lies behind all of the processes which light uses to interweave the patterned forms of this electric wave universe.

There is no department of life which will not be vitally affected by this new knowledge of the nature of Light, from the university to the laboratory, from government to industry, and from nation to nation.

I therefore give it to you with all of its clarity as I myself have become aware of it from behind the scenes of this cosmic cinema of light illusion which is our universe.


I like fusing science with religion - not organized religion but religious thinking. Otherwise, our picture of the universe is incomplete.




posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I like fusing science with religion - not organized religion but religious thinking. Otherwise, our picture of the universe is incomplete.
Have you researched Einstein's views on this?

Einstein Quotes on Science & Religion

...Einstein seems to have thought there existed a 'true' religion that couldn't conflict with science.


Religion and Science, by Albert Einstein



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Jason Verbelli's playlist description states right at the beginning, "People have a lot to understand regarding Searl Technology. Lets go over some basic misconceptions in science."

If you are familiar with the vast amount of links to documents and comments that Jason has posted you know that there are alternative science sources which explain Searl technology.

One of the links is to a page about Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat, who has a theory which may help explain the discrepancy you are pointing out.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I've read a biography of Einstein and I like the quote, "God doesn't play dice with the world." Do I have that right?



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
Close, the "God doesn't play dice" part is how it's commonly paraphrased, though what he said was "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one.' I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."(Letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926)

Though he also knew what others thought about that when he said:
"Even the great initial success of the Quantum Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility."
(Albert Einstein to Max Born, Sept 1944, 'The Born-Einstein Letters')

The first quote almost seems more about gambling but it certainly has religious overtones.


edit on 6-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Let's marvel again at this piece of nonsense from Searl:


The reservoir is the unmagnetized rare earth material Neodymium.
The dam itself is the dielectric material Teflon.
The electrons will accelerate from the rare earth material in an organized fashion
through the teflon like water shooting out of a pressurized and controlled hole
in a dam.
The teflon can only hold back so much electron pressure just like a dam can only
hold so much water pressure.
The electrons will pass through the teflon into the ferrite permanent magnet
layer where they are accelerated outward in a ring. The magnets act as the diode
and one way valve.


Teflon is a pretty good insulator, suitable for high voltage fittings. How do electrons "pass" through teflon? The only way it's possible is the electric breakdown of that material. I've seen it happen in the lab. The result is somewhat like blue cheese, with teflon riddled with grey holes like made by worms. The part needs to be discarded, of course.

And of course, there is no way that a magnet would act as a diode and a valve. It's just stunning what bizarre claims are made there. It could have been only written in a firm hope that most people reading that have no idea about physics (and that's where Searl's expectations were exceeded in life, indeed there is more ignorant people around than he had hoped for).



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
One of the links is to a page about Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat, who has a theory which may help explain the discrepancy you are pointing out.
Here's a quote from that page:


...the planet Earth never maintains a heliocentric orbit at all. Similar situation is observed with all the planets in the solar system. This statement is totally contradicting the existing views of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton and others including the modern astronomers that all the planets in the solar system follow heliocentric orbit.

I saw a survey claiming that 20% of Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth rather than vice versa. The denial of a heliocentric orbit is a fascinating claim, from the view of a psychologist studying cognitive perception.

From the perspective of a scientist, it's quite different. I'd encourage you to read up on some papers scientists have written concerning the Pioneer anomaly. For one thing it opens the possibility that there's something we don't understand about the universe that mainstream science doesn't know about yet, so I think you'd like that. But relative to the link you sent me to, look at the magnitude of the Pioneer anomaly, it's 8.74 ± 1.33 × 10^−10 m/s^2 . This discrepancy is so small that if the Earth's gravity were this small, it would take 72 years for a marble dropped from a height of 1 meter to reach the ground (I did that math quickly and didn't double check it, but the point is, it's extremely small). This is the magnitude of the "apparent force" they're arguing about!!! Isn't that incredible?

The point being that scientists can measure motions of planets and satellites with such precision nowadays that it's positively mind-blowing. So when you stack up that kind of measurement accuracy against the claims of some guy that the Earth's orbit isn't heliocentric where he doesn't even acknowledge much less refute the extremely precise orbital measurements scientists have made, it's impossible to take it seriously.

I am open-minded however to someone pointing out any errors in our measurements of planetary orbits or of gravity in our solar system, because someone needs to explain the Pioneer anomaly. But the only credible way of doing this is to first explain why we're getting the measurements we're getting, then show how the different theory provides a more accurate result. Lots of scientists are trying to do this, since it's one of the more interesting anomalies since the perihelion of Mercury which wasn't explained until Einstein came along. When you dig into the details of this debate and find out the accuracy level of measurements scientists are dealing with, it will blow your mind. I was astonished when I dug into it.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Teflon is a pretty good insulator, suitable for high voltage fittings. How do electrons "pass" through teflon? The only way it's possible is the electric breakdown of that material. I've seen it happen in the lab. The result is somewhat like blue cheese, with teflon riddled with grey holes like made by worms. The part needs to be discarded, of course.
I can vouch for that, I used to run a lab that did that kind of testing to failure. Electromagnetic fields can pass right through it, but electrons can't, not in any substantial quantity anyway.

If there was any kind of leakage current of electrons, it was too small to measure with the equipment we were using, until we increased the voltage to very high levels and then an electric arc burned a hole through the teflon, so it still wasn't going through the teflon, it was really going through a hole in the teflon.

I suppose it's easier to fool people that don't have real-world experiences that contradict the bizarre claims.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Let's marvel again at this piece of nonsense from Searl:


  1. You are referencing conventional machines where they heat up and experience resistance.
  2. You're referring to solo particles.
  3. Searl technology uses implosion or magnetics rather than explosion.


Using the word "nonsense" to describe Searl's technology is a typical mainstream/establishment response. This is an indication of closing off alternative science and technology. But it doesn't make the alternative wrong.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
We could be in for a rare surprise or fess up...


US atom smasher may have found new force of nature

www.abovetopsecret.com...#
edit on 6-4-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 
I think this is the paper:

Invariant Mass Distribution of Jet Pairs Produced in Association with a W boson in ppbar Collisions at sqrt(s) = 1.96 TeV
Maybe buddhasystem can comment on the significance because I don't work with this stuff like he does.


In conclusion, we study the invariant mass distribution of jet pairs produced in association with a W boson. The best t to the observed dijet mass distribution using known components, and modeling the dominant W+jets background using Alpgen+Pythia Monte Carlo, shows a statistically significant disagreement. One possible way to interpret this disagreement is as an excess in the 120- 160 GeV/c2 mass range. If we model the excess as a Gaussian component with a width compatible with the dijet invariant mass resolution, and perform a (Chi-squared) test for the presence of this additional component, we obtain a p-value of 7:6 x 10^-4, corresponding to a significance of 3.2 standard deviations, after accounting for all statistical and systematic uncertainties.
I've never seen that many names and institutions on a single paper before.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Let's marvel again at this piece of nonsense from Searl:


  1. You are referencing conventional machines where they heat up and experience resistance.
  2. You're referring to solo particles.
  3. Searl technology uses implosion or magnetics rather than explosion.




Mary, implosion of what? Or, explosion of what? Please be specific. So, explain. Also, in many places Searl is talking about neodymium magnets. In the excerpt, there is un-magnetized neodymium. Which one is true? Please comment. Further, where did I refer to solo particle? Can you provide a reference to my post where I did? I'm all ears. Please do comment on this one. I'm waiting.


Using the word "nonsense" to describe Searl's technology is a typical mainstream/establishment response. This is an indication of closing off alternative science and technology.


This is an indication of a functional mind, Mary, where word soup and claims totally unsupported by either theory or more importantly experiment don't fly.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Americanist
 
I think this is the paper:

Invariant Mass Distribution of Jet Pairs Produced in Association with a W boson in ppbar Collisions at sqrt(s) = 1.96 TeV
Maybe buddhasystem can comment on the significance because I don't work with this stuff like he does.


What a coincidence. We just discussed this earlier tonight in the CERN cafeteria with my colleagues.Truthfully, we don't know yet what it is. And also, D0 doesn't see same signal although they see a "hint". So until there is a cross check, a claim is not entirely incontrovertible. I'm sure our people in ATLAS will try to find same signature, but analysis is not a trivial business.


I've never seen that many names and institutions on a single paper before.


I have. The ATLAS author list is way longer. I'm on it, too.

So, it's fresh data and it's 100% fascinating.
edit on 6-4-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

Thanks for the feedback, that's sort of what I expected, it will take more investigation.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Also, in many places Searl is talking about neodymium magnets. In the excerpt, there is un-magnetized neodymium. Which one is true?
As I complained in an earlier post, some of the material in the video is contradictory like Fernando claiming it's EM affecting the rollers and Searl claiming it's gravity.

But here's my take which could be wrong so someone correct me if it is.

The 4 layers are unmagnetized Neodymium, Teflon, magnetic ferrite, and lastly copper, apparently for both the stator and the rollers, to start with. See the cutaway illustration, second down:

peswiki.com...

Then one of the videos talked about a proprietary magnetization method for the 8 roller components used in each roller, so the initially unmagnetized rollers would be magnetized in that proprietary process. I never heard him say anything about magnetizing the neodymium in the stator, so I don't really know if that remains unmagnetized, I'm not sure why it's there. The Ferrite layer in the stator just inside the outer copper layer would seem to be the functional magnetic material for the stator, that IS magnetized.

Edit to add: Found this which implies the unmagnetized neodymium in the stator never gets magnetized, just the ferrite:
www.rexresearch.com...

"The iron element in the SEG "plate" (the big ring) is magnetized with a combined DC and AC magnetizing sequence which causes many poles to form all over the surface of the iron, in a wave like pattern corresponding to the AC frequency used. The iron element is then combined with the others (which are NOT involved in the magnetizing process) in a process called sintering - pushing them together under pressure. The same is done for the smaller magnets, or "rollers", except that each roller consists of eight stacked segments held together by the magnetic field.
edit on 6-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: added text



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, implosion of what? Or, explosion of what?


Implosion of ambient energy from the vacuum; explosion of fuel to get energy.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Further, where did I refer to solo particle?


You didn't. I'm comparing your approach to physics and technology to the approach of alternative physics and technology.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
This is an indication of a functional mind, Mary . . .


No, it's an indication of a closed mind.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
No, it's an indication of a closed mind.
As my signature says, and as I try to follow, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.

My theory is that some people notice when their brain falls out and other people don't.

For me, free electrons traveling even singly through solid teflon is brain-falling out open-mindedness, without some extraordinary evidence to back up the claim. Free electron pairs doing that is an even more extraordinary claim, requiring even more extraordinary evidence. If Searl can show the evidence, let's see it. But saying something is so doesn't make it so, and all I've seen is Searl saying some highly improbable things are happening, with no proof (in addition to some clearly wrong things like gravity causing the rollers to be attracted to the plate, it's actually electromagnetism as Fernando said).



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You are seeing everything they say through the filter of mainstream "laws" of physics.

Ridiculing alternative physics and related technology accomplishes nothing. And it eliminates any basis for discussion.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
I ask to see evidence first. If there's evidence, there can be discussion.

This video provides an overview of some of the issues we're dealing with here:

Skewed views of science


This is how scientific theories are properly challenged, and in this thread the request for #2 has been made over and over again (from 5:40 in the video):

And from 9:00:

So again, where's the evidence?

What you're asking scientists to do is this:


As buddhasystem and I have both said, there's a monumental body of evidence regarding the insulating properties of teflon, it's also personal experience in labs. So on the one hand we have a description about how electrons don't flow through teflon until electric arcs burn holes in the teflon at high voltage in the lab, while on the other hand we have Searl just making a claim with no objective evidence. Searl provided no discussion of his lab results that led him to conclude electron pairs are flowing through in what I have seen, so You're not only asking scientists to accept the right hand scenario, a claim with no evidence, but also to reject the monumental evidence which is available as in the left hand scenario of that screenshot.

Do you see the problem with that?

What's needed to continue the discussion is production of objective evidence that electrons, or electron pairs, can travel through teflon. Is there any such evidence?
edit on 6-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arb -

Don't you see that you are missing completely the analogy of Searl's intention?

No, not even that, I am sure deep down you recognize its an analogy... you just deny that it has any meaningful relevance on the topic he is speaking about (kinda like what I do about your basketball/gasoline analogies).

You are purposefully making this tiny metaphorical analogy out to be the end-all argument against Searl's credibility, which it isn't in the slightest.

Searl was not institutionalized like you are, words can be used for the layman. He was not told what to think about how things work. Kind of like Einstein.

He thinks for himself.

At this point, it does seem that the only thing that matters is that I understand what Searl intends, because you already have established your belief that he is wrong/delusional.

“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” - Max Planck

I will not be convinced until you, or I, falsify Searl's claims experimentally with a replication of the SEG.

Until then, the evidence solidly rests in Searl's camp.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
I will not be convinced until you, or I, falsify Searl's claims experimentally with a replication of the SEG.


Most people won't be convinced until independent labs confirm Searl's claims experimentally with a replication of the SEG. Not you, nor Arbitrageur, nor any independent lab will ever do this so nobody will ever be convinced.






top topics



 
39
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join