"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8fcfbc4990ee.jpg[/atsimg]

The problem is already in #1, as the misuse/abuse of terms makes is next to impossible to understand what the theory accurately states. Which is, I suspect, done deliberately, as without an accurate description of the theory, you never have to prove anything.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Implosion of ambient energy from the vacuum; explosion of fuel to get energy.

Wait, what does "implosion" have to do with the impossibility of electrons passing through teflon? You can buy a chunk of teflon an multimeter and see for yourself.

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

You didn't.

Then why on Earth did you say I did? When cornered you are compelled to say something for the sake of saying something.

I'm comparing your approach to physics and technology to the approach of alternative physics and technology.

Again, what the hell "solo particles" have to do with my professional approach to physics? Where did you get "solo"? That just sounds senile.

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

OK, so you are saying that stating a fact (that a magnet doe NOT function as a diode is an indication of a closed mind? And, stating that "radioactive particles" are NOT attracted to a magnet is also such an indication?

Do you know how a diode works? Do you understand magnetism? I don't think so. As physics goes, your knowledge base is cold, flat, dead zero. From that reference point, it's pretty pathetic to assume on whether someone's observations are an indication of a closed mind.

Originally posted by -PLB-

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.

Reminds me of the successful cold fusion experiment every body and their mother tried to replicate yet failed. It was later revealed labs we're on the receiving end of the same craptastic batch of palladium.

reply to post by buddhasystem


There's only one thing worse than an idiot. An arrogant idiot.

Keep us informed, if you find the new force of nature recently referred to as the "bump" in data. I must say this seems awfully familiar to another recent discovery. Perhaps peering into the equivalent of a singularity at the center of each and every galaxy.

reply to post by Americanist


From Tom Bearden's website:

Cold Fusion

Today, hundreds of scientists worldwide—in multiple nations, in multiple laboratories—have obtained positive results in cold fusion and transmutation of elements in them, at low energy compared to "normal" nuclear reactions. . . .

From a correspondent:
For what it may be worth, some time ago the University of Texas approached me wanting help to buy some palladium (I am a coins and precious metals dealer). Palladium had been around $85.00 an ounce but had begun going up. I sold two research scientists from UT a 10 ounce palladium bar, around $120.00 an ounce as I recall. Shortly after, maybe a month or two, the two scientists sold the bar back to me (it had a couple chunks cut out of it) and told me they were warned that if they continued their research, University of Texas would lose funding and they were ordered to stop their project. They were researching cold fusion, palladium is a catalyst in cold fusion. Palladium continued to rise in price to over $600 an ounce (now it has fallen back to about $220 an ounce last time I looked). The phenomenal rise in price can be attributed to savvy investors who knew something about what was really going on. Cold fusion is strange physics, according to the laws of cold fusion as we learn from the media, cold fusion does not work in this country, but it does work in other countries. Similar to those high MPG carburetors that do not work here but do work in, say, Brazil.

Originally posted by Americanist
Reminds me of the successful cold fusion experiment every body and their mother tried to replicate yet failed. It was later revealed labs we're on the receiving end of the same craptastic batch of palladium.

I do find it interesting that the source of the Palladium seemed to make a difference, I was wondering if it might have something to do with the purity level and the types of impurities in the Palladium, or something like that. I read about the palladium source making a difference, but if anyone ever figured out why, I never read that explanation.

But apparently the US Navy apparently got a hold of a "good" source of Palladium, as they have reported what they think seems to be some kind of LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) as they now prefer to call it instead of cold fusion.

Cold fusion experimentally confirmed

The fat lady hasn't sung yet on this though, or the jury is still out, pick your metaphor that means "more research is needed".

reply to post by Mary Rose
I doubt the laws of physics are different in Brazil than anywhere else.

Originally posted by ArbitrageurI doubt the laws of physics are different in Brazil than anywhere else.

Yes, you understand the point the correspondent was making.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Yes, you understand the point the correspondent was making.

Not really, the last I checked the US Navy is in the same country as Bearden who was in the US Army, so no I don't really get his point about it only working in other countries when I posted the study from the US Navy saying they found a positive result.

Regarding carburetors, they're mostly obsolete since fuel injection is more efficient, but I suspect the author of this article knows more about the high MPG carbs than Bearden:

Has a 200 mpg carburetor been suppressed by the oil industry?

the vapor carb's inventors are trying to solve a nonexistent problem. According to John Heywood, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT and an authority on internal-combustion engines, incomplete burning of fuel is insignificant in modern cars. Fuel combustion today typically exceeds 97 percent. While it's true cars aren't very efficient--only 20-35 percent of the fuel energy is converted to useful work--that's mostly due to heat loss (through the engine block, out the exhaust pipe) and unavoidable energy loss during burning itself...

Truth is, vapor carbs are the equivalent of the improved buggy whip. Forget 'em.

This is not to say super-high-mileage cars couldn't be built. On the contrary, there are plenty of proven energy-efficient technologies available, none of which has lacked for publicity or industry backing...

Cars are indeed inefficient, but carburetors or fuel injectors aren't the problem, contrary to Bearden's implication.

reply to post by Mary Rose


But still Navy researchers claim they have experimentally confirmed cold fusion. How is that suppression of new technology?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But apparently the US Navy apparently got a hold of a "good" source of Palladium, as they have reported what they think seems to be some kind of LENR (low energy nuclear reaction) as they now prefer to call it instead of cold fusion.

Cold fusion experimentally confirmed

The fat lady hasn't sung yet on this though, or the jury is still out, pick your metaphor that means "more research is needed".

I've done neutron detection myself in the lab, and had classes covering a wider range of conditions for such detection. By and large, detecting neutrons is a b!tch. I'll read the paper if I have time, but there needs to be a convincing analysis of systematic error and the background.

You see, the fusion enthusiasts build the hot fusion machines (more or less an arc at low pressure) and have no problem detecting neutrons using commercially available detectors. Plastic? I mean there is more than one way to detect a neutron so if I was running the thing, I'd be sure to install 3 different detectors to zero in on systematics. Do you see my point?

I can't exclude that cold fusion is possible, but I don't have consistent data to conclude either way. When I was much younger, blue LEDs didn't exist. Now they do.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I was running the thing, I'd be sure to install 3 different detectors to zero in on systematics. Do you see my point?

I think you hit on several key points. The level of neutrons detected has historically been so close to background that previous studies were inconclusive, so this is the first one that claims conclusive results. Regarding using three different detectors, while I like the idea and fully understand the logic, the metrology problem as I understand it was coming up with ANY detector that would work at levels this low, so I'm not sure if there are three different types that work effectively at this low level but I'm just getting that from reading the popular press so don't take it as a scientific claim, there may be plenty of detectors the folks reporting on this don't know about.

www.eetimes.com...

While excess heat has been detected by researchers, no group had yet been able to detect the missing neutrons.

Now, the Naval researchers claim that the problem was instrumentation, which was not up to the task of detecting such small numbers of neutrons. To sense such small quantities, Mosier-Boss used a special plastic detector called CR-39.

In fact some of these questions were the same questions raised by the Pons and Fleischmann experiment if I recall correctly. The Pons and Fleischmann claims of neutron detection were not confirmed so that's why the US Navy researchers are claiming theirs is the first confirmed report of high energy neutrons. I don't know that much about neutron detection so if you can shed some light on things like the availability of detectors for such low levels of neutrons, that's something I'm really not sure about, regarding the accuracy of the sources I'm reading.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't know that much about neutron detection so if you can shed some light on things like the availability of detectors for such low levels of neutrons, that's something I'm really not sure about about the accuracy of the sources I'm reading.

I didn't do much of neutron physics outside of my mandatory course work (I did some, not much). I think you are right about the low levels of the signal to be detected, then again (naively, perhaps) I have yet to read about the shielding they used. Put some lead in and around, I'm not sure if they did. I would build a proportional chamber or a TPC and look for tracks with a spectrum dropping off at 2.2 MeV dE/dx, that would nail it down in a godly way. Serious. TPC is helpful because you can look at kinematics and see a peak instead of a drop, that's easier.

The following is my transcript of the video embedded below:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Addressed to the particle physicists of the world

In video #7, we reviewed the architecture of light. I argued that light does not consist of a stream of particles, or of transverse waves, as orthodoxy claims. Light has the physical configuration of a DNA-like rope. This rope permanently unites any two atoms of the universe. Light consists of a torsion running along the rope. The question now is, how does the atom fit in to this scheme of things? How do we justify its architecture under the rope hypothesis?

In 1911 Ernest Rutherford shoots alpha particles at a sheet of gold and was surprised to find that some bounce off the foil. Rutherford's results led him to develop the planetary model of the atom, where a tiny, negative bead known as an electron orbits a bowling ball known as a proton. The debate of the day centered around why the electron doesn't lose energy and spiral into the nucleus? Niels Bohr answered that the electron jumps back and forth between orbits. He offered no reasons for this strange behavior. Louis de Broglie proposed instead that the electron does not spiral into the nucleus because it is stretched around its alleged orbit in an integral number of waves. Now, a wave stretched around the perimeter of an atom and a bead that orbits the nucleus are two radically different physical interpretations for how an atom works. The mathematicians never resolved the paradox.

Schrodinger and Born developed a notion that the atom was more like a cloud that envelopes the proton. However, the quantum mathematicians clarified that this cloud is nothing like the cloud you see in the sky on a sunny day, or after the bomb falls. This mathematical cloud is just a cloud of probability - the probability of finding the electron bead somewhere around the nucleus. The cloud model of the atom that quantum sells today is misleading. The cloud model is no different conceptually than the planetary model. But rather than roll around the plane like a Saturnine ring, as de Broglie proposed, the mathematicians concocted the story that the electron bead orbits around a shell that encapsulates the proton. A cloud model is a movie of one electron at different locations around the nucleus. The mathematicians called this movie the cloud model of the atom. If atom man were to take snapshots of the cloud model of the quantum hydrogen atom, each photograph should still reveal a proton bowling ball in the center, with an electron bead next to it.

Here are two close-up pictures of atoms. In the first one was are told that we are looking at silicon atoms. In the second one we are staring at cesium and iodine on a copper background. The quantum mathematicians want you to believe that the smooth globular objects you see in these still images are movies of electron beads. You are allegedly staring at traces made by particles. The establishment's claims that it has experimentally verified the quantum version in the lab. The Brookhaven National Accelerator alleges that this picture shows the debris from a collision of two gold ions. It is quite easy to show that this is not true. The mathematicians will tell you that they cannot detect anything smaller than a quark, because they don't have enough energy to peer beyond this level. There are allegedly three quarks per proton, and per neutron. A gold atom has 79 protons, 79 electrons, and about 120 neutrons. If what you are staring at is the total number of particles that we can detect from such a collision, we should see no more than 1400 particles. In this cross section alone without factoring the three dimensional radial components, we see thousands upon thousands of particles. The claim becomes even more dubious when the researchers urge you to believe that each of the lines you are seeing is a movie of a particle leaving the scene.

So, if the quantum particle model is false, what does an atom really look like?

Let's first illustrate the atom. Then, assess it by its architecture under the rope hypothesis and see how its physical configuration relates to its behavior.

Consistent with the Schrodinger - Born cloud, the electron is a balloon that encapsulates the atom. Up close, the electron looks like a ball of yarn. The proton is a tiny dandelion, with its quills stretching out like a sea urchin. The electron and the proton merge to give us the hydrogen atom, the most common element in the universe. Recall that under the rope hypothesis, the electromagnetic ropes from every atom in the universe converge upon our tiny atom. The incoming electric and magnetic threads of a given rope fork out at the perimeter of the atom. Consistent with de Broglie's hypothesis, the magnetic threads curl around and form a wavy surface. The electric thread continues straight towards the center of the atom. This architecture explains why the electron does not spiral into the nucleus. It also justifies quantum jump. Consistent with Bohr's theory, when the electron expands, it can do so only at the expense of the electromagnetic rope, which it instantly torques. Conversely, when the electron balloon contracts, it releases a link of the electromagnetic rope, while also sending a signal. We call the aggregate of links, released and absorbed, energy: the physical interpretation of c squared in Einstein's famous equation, is that an atom sends electromagnetic signals to every atom, and every atom sends signals to it, via electromagnetic ropes. We refer to the aggregate of friction generated at each point around the electron balloon as charge.

So now, let's compare the thread version of the atom against the irrational and inconsistent versions proposed by quantum.

On the one hand the mathematicians would have you believe that an atom is comprised of discrete beads that orbit the nucleus. On the other, they treat the orbits of the electron beads as balloons. The mathematician needs the bead model of the electron to explain ionization and electric current. They need the balloon model to explain how two atoms physically bind to form a molecule. The mathematicians have, in effect, blended the orbiting bead and the cloud into a single model in order to cover all the bases. They have thus rendered quantum theory unfalsifiable. To make the model even less credible, the mathematicians have the negative electron bead going through the center of the positive nucleus and out the other end in figure 8 pea orbitals. Those mathematicians who realize the implications try to con you by stopping the electron at the doorsteps of the proton. But neither group can justify either behavior. Therefore the merged particle and balloon models proposed by quantum guarantees that you will never have a chance to win an argument against the quantum mathematicians.

On the other hand, the balloon version of the electron enables us to treat the atom in the same way it is treated daily by chemists. We are looking at what is plainly there: a skin. The skin of an atom is a surface weaved by gazillions of threads. This model enables us to visualize how two atoms bind with each other and form a molecule. The orbitals that the chemists illustrate in no way can be confused with the orbits of electron beads. The picture of two colliding gold atoms presented by the Brookhaven Accelerator show that atoms are the convergence of threads from every atom in the universe. It does not show that we are staring at traces of particles. Likewise, the illustrations and descriptions of hybridized atomic orbitals as well as pictures of smooth skinned atoms can never be confused with particle orbitals. The particle model of quantum has no scientific basis whatsoever and is in direct violation of what is plainly in front of us. The claim of particle physicists that they accelerate particles is fundamentally flawed.

The mathematicians will never relinquish their beloved particles, because this is their bread and butter. But in mathematical description, what happens at each point in space has nothing to do with the architecture of the atom, the proton, and the electron.

The images of collisions and of the individual atoms summarily debunk the particle version offered by quantum, and instead, support the thread model of the atom.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually it wouldn't matter to the mathematicians. Mathematicians could easily switch to a different model.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The following is my transcript of the video embedded below:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the one hand the mathematicians would have you believe that an atom is comprised of discrete beads that orbit the nucleus.

I notice he doesn't name any mathematicians, what mathematicians? It's a common misconception by people unfamiliar with the subject.

Atomic orbital

Despite the obvious analogy to planets revolving around the Sun, electrons cannot be described as solid particles. In addition, atomic orbitals do not closely resemble a planet's elliptical path in ordinary atoms. A more accurate analogy might be that of a large and often oddly-shaped "atmosphere" (the electron), distributed around a relatively tiny planet (the atomic nucleus).

Originally posted by Mary Rose

On the other, they treat the orbits of the electron beads as balloons. The mathematician needs the bead model of the electron to explain ionization and electric current. They need the balloon model to explain how two atoms physically bind to form a molecule. The mathematicians have, in effect, blended the orbiting bead and the cloud into a single model in order to cover all the bases.

Again, what orbiting bead model? There is no such thing, is there? It's a probability cloud model, he's right about the cloud. I showed you what the shapes of the clouds look like before and you said they were "pretty", as I recall. Remember this collection of wave function probability density plots?



You can call those "clouds", but I don't know where he's getting this "discrete beads that orbit the nucleus" idea from, unless it's from a picture he saw in junior high school, and he never figured out what the real model was.

A very important passage, from "Free Energy and Free Thinking":

I never heard a word about, Alternative Physics, Plasma Physics, Free Energy, Over-Unity, Zero Point Energy, Tesla, Schauberger, Moray, Townsend, Gray , Giordano Bruno, DB Larson, or especially, Walter Russell, in any Physics class during High School, two Junior Colleges or at the University of California, where I graduated from. One must ask immediately, why? It's called social engineering and most folks don't have a clue that their thoughts are not even their own. They are just programs loaded into the minds of the non-thinking and servile lemmings who will lash out at anything that threatens their comfort zone within the Matrix and who cling to the very lies which enslave them perpetually.

Are you interested in doing some research? Click on the link above for links to Alternative Physics, Plasma Physics, Free Energy, Over-Unity, Zero Point Energy, Tesla, Schauberger, Moray, Townsend, Gray , Giordano Bruno, DB Larson, and Walter Russell.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Bearden is featured in the first 5 1/2 minutes of this video (the rest is an ad for a DVD). He talks about the need for an overhaul of classical electrodynamics. He says that the EM wave in the vacuum flux is like a sound wave, that it's longitudinal, not transverse, and that Tesla knew this from his experiments.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Addressed to the particle physicists of the world

In video #7, we reviewed the architecture of light. I argued that light does not consist of a stream of particles, or of transverse waves, as orthodoxy claims.

I’ve gathered that the longitudinal vs. the transverse wave is important to this debate.

Jason Verbelli has uploaded a new video. Here is the description:

How the SEG Operates and Eliminates Radioactivity
www.scribd.com...

www.JohnSearlStory.com...
www.SearlSolution.com...
www.SwallowCommand.com...

Add me on www.Facebook.com...

Mainstream science has yet to discern the dynamics of positive and negative electricity. The TWO Spectrums of the Universe:

Electromagnetic Radiation and Magnetoelectric Gravitation
Thermodynamics & Conservation / Cryodynamics & Liberation
Observation / Intuition
Explosion / Implosion
Science / Spirituality
Physical / Aetheric
Linear / Non Linear
Random / Uniform
Friction / Freedom
Particles / Waves
Modern / Ancient
Straight / Vortex
Chaos / Order
Loud / Quiet
Death / Life
Yang / Yin

This is a demonstration of the MOCK UP, not the Prototype.
www.youtube.com...

What you are seeing in the above video is 8 pounds of weight turning 200 orbital RPM and 14,500 Centripetal RPM all from 1.5 volts @.06 amps.

(Just imagine if we got funding... you would see a 3 ringed model with harmonically magnetized parts. The 3 dimensions of magnetism would create helical gears. The combination of gyroscopic waveforms find an equilibrium and an idle speed is achieved of 2000 RPM with only it's own magnetic waves powering it.)

NOTE: A magnetic reaction is Not equal and opposite to an electric action.
There is an exponential magnetic reaction for a given electric action.
Here is a recent test conducted by the European Space Agency validating Searl's work and many others.
www.esa.int...

According to the ESA, "It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field." "the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts."
"We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement."

And they were only spinning a FLAT magnet!!!
The reason they measured such huge variations was because it was vibrating at high RPMs which made it WOBBLE.
Imagine the readings they'd get if they angled that big magnet at a 45 degree angle! They would see a dramatic loss in weight and more.

This is a new era of clean technology based on implosion, gravity, and creation of life rather than explosion, nuclear reactions, destruction and death.

Magnetoelectric Spectrum and Magnetic Sine Waves:
www.youtube.com...

Searl Magnetic Sine Wave Simulation using Angled Magnets in a Cylinder
www.youtube.com...

Oscilloscope Affected by Spinning an Angled Magnet
www.youtube.com...

Fist Fights with Physicists:
www.youtube.com...

My playlist of strange research and magnetic experiments.
www.youtube.com...

Free Energy and Free Thinking:
www.feandft.com...

A few of Walter Russell's books for free.
A New Concept of the Universe:
www.scribd.com...

The Universal One:
www.scribd.com...

The Genero - Radiative Concept of Continuous Motion:
www.scribd.com...

The Secret of Light:
www.scribd.com...
.
.
Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat
www.feandft.com...

Helical Helix:
www.feandft.com...
.
.
Magnetic Current by Ed Leedskalnin
www.scribd.com...

www.Leedskalnin.com...
www.CoralCastleCode.com...

John Keely and Dale Pond:
Universal Laws Never Before Revealed:
www.scribd.com...
.
.
A couple of my notes on www.scribd.com...

The Apple of my Eye:
www.scribd.com...

Cartesian Coordinate Misconception and Geometry of Light:
www.scribd.com...

The Fallacy of a Straight Line and Misconception of Black "Holes"
www.scribd.com...
.
.
DB Larson:
library.rstheory.org...

The Case Against the Nuclear Atom
library.rstheory.org...

Originally posted by Americanist
While you're at it detail the double-slit experiment.

From "Free Energy and Free Thinking," this is very interesting:

The type of sophistry used in the heavily falsified theories of quantum eggheads are easily debunked by anyone who understands the devious path of their arguments. For example: the infamous and fallacious double slit experiment, is a concocted lie which insures those in academic control maintain that control. It is asserted by this devious theory that they are firing electrons "balls or marbles" through the two slits. producing interference patterns which look like light wave patterns created as light travels through the same two slits.

The lie and the devious manner of their proposition is revealed by the fact that the electrons they are firing through the slit are not balls or marbles in reality. They are electro-magnetic wave forms created as emission products in their electron gun. The academicians play a shell game with their audience. They swap balls and marbles for electro-magnetic waves by implying that the electrons they are shooting from their guns are the same mythematical electrons in their "theoretical" table of elements called the "Mendeleev Table".

reply to post by Mary Rose


when I did the double slit experiment at high school we (my physics teacher and other students) used flashlights.

I don't see how that, or trying to explain the results with a cartoon that uses balls, confuses the theoretical scientists at the forefront of research into the nature of light, matter & energy in the least.

I do see that someone is taking explanatory models far too seriously!