It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 71
39
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
Buddhasystem, yes, it is a term i made up. When i communicate, i try to put words together to match the concept i am trying to relay. If one is trapped in the context, it is hard to understand the underlying concept (and almost impossible if one doesnt even try).


Context is the only reason humans understand each other in the first place. Hramadubya jerimot shunskarat? Krake omga fuken zee!


Apologies for coming up with a way to describe electromagnetic behavior in various toroidal wraps and iterations without peer review


Look, one must have a clue about physics involved before trying to describe anything...

edit on 24-4-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
An important article on Bearden's website is "The Deliberate Discard of Asymmetric Maxwellian Systems, Thus Preventing COP>1.0 and Self-Powering Energy-from-the-Vacuum Systems" by T. E. Bearden and Leslie R. Pastor, 21 June 2007.

The headings within the article are:


Foreword
Introduction
Morgan Recognizes Tesla As a Mortal Enemy
Economic Paralysis of Westinghouse
How Morgan Trapped Tesla and Destroyed Him
The Rest of the Story
Lorentz’s Symmetrization of the Heaviside Equations
Elimination of Heaviside’s Giant Curled EM Energy Flow Component
Justification for Removal of the Giant Heaviside Curled Energy Flow Component
Tesla’s Statements Showing His Intention
Deciphering Energy Flow
The Result Is the Horribly Crippled CEM/EE Model We Have and Use Today
What Must Be Done
We Must Also Recognize the Source Charge Problem and Its Solution




posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Under:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
Lorentz’s Symmetrization of the Heaviside Equations



Hence our electrical engineers – almost from the beginning – have thought, designed, built, and deployed only that subset of Maxwellian systems that self-destroy any use of excess energy from the vacuum, hence self-preventing having COP>1.0 and self-powering EM systems taking their excess input energy directly from the active vacuum.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
The alternate science model is horribly crippled and there is a massive conspiracy silence all opposition by its main players. There's a massive agenda to suppress certain scientific discoveries so that alternate scientists do not discover the missing pieces that will allow them to better understand the universe. Much of it has to do with the brainwashing of these scientists, inflicted upon them by elitist thugs like Haramein, Bearden, and the like so that they do not properly understand conventional science. What we need are open-minded alternate scientists freedom of thought so they can overcome the barriers of alternate scientific assumptions and help find new scientific discoveries for the betterment of mankind.
edit on 24-4-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
An important article on Bearden's website is "The Deliberate Discard of Asymmetric Maxwellian Systems, Thus Preventing COP>1.0 and Self-Powering Energy-from-the-Vacuum Systems" by T. E. Bearden and Leslie R. Pastor, 21 June 2007.

The headings within the article are:


Foreword
Introduction
Morgan Recognizes Tesla As a Mortal Enemy
Economic Paralysis of Westinghouse
How Morgan Trapped Tesla and Destroyed Him
The Rest of the Story
Lorentz’s Symmetrization of the Heaviside Equations
Elimination of Heaviside’s Giant Curled EM Energy Flow Component
Justification for Removal of the Giant Heaviside Curled Energy Flow Component
Tesla’s Statements Showing His Intention
Deciphering Energy Flow
The Result Is the Horribly Crippled CEM/EE Model We Have and Use Today
What Must Be Done
We Must Also Recognize the Source Charge Problem and Its Solution



I can agree that Maxwell's equation was discarded by someone or somebody. What a shame to those that discarded it, thank god we just rediscovered it.
edit on 24-4-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Under:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
The Result Is the Horribly Crippled CEM/EE Model We Have and Use Today



. . . Everything – from our electric lights to our refrigerators and heat pumps, radios and television sets, auto ignitions, lights and power for our cities, etc. – is now using this horribly emasculated CEM/EE model.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Under:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
What Must Be Done



Every charge in the universe already totally violates both the second law of equilibrium thermodynamics and the sad old electrical engineering model. From its very formation, the charge simply sits there and unceasingly pours out real photons – real, usable, observable EM energy – in all directions at light speed. This process forms the so-called “static” EM fields associated with that source charge; the “static” fields are not static at all, but are nonequilibrum steady state (NESS) thermodynamic systems associated with that charge.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Where there's money and control... There's little reason to let go.

edit on 24-4-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Americanist
 
Temperature and time are relative? omfg. Good luck with this one, Arb


Perhaps we're lucky to begin with... We're here as a result of time and temp.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Under:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
Lorentz’s Symmetrization of the Heaviside Equations



Hence our electrical engineers – almost from the beginning – have thought, designed, built, and deployed only that subset of Maxwellian systems that self-destroy any use of excess energy from the vacuum, hence self-preventing having COP>1.0 and self-powering EM systems taking their excess input energy directly from the active vacuum.

There is a subset of electrical engineers (and physicists) who work on designing ever smaller transistors for the CPU that is at the heart of the PC, phone, or whatever you're using to post here on ATS. Those EE's are concerned with quantum effects which become more significant as the transistors become smaller. They probably have some awareness of zero point energy though that is not the quantum effect they are concerned with, so even they may not include any provision for vacuum energy in their models, calculations, and designs.

But other than EEs working on microscopic components, most other EEs are probably guilty of what Bearden accuses them of, which is not incorporating vacuum energy into their calculations or designs at all. In spite of this "shortcoming" as perceived by Bearden et al, these same EEs have managed to design every electrically powered device in our homes, in addition to the power generation and distribution systems which deliver the electrical power you want, and everything actually works.

What has Bearden produced besides a book with outlandish claims?

This:

www.cheniere.org...


So here's what I suggest you do. Make one of those gizmos in that picture. Then hook it up to your household circuitry and tell the power company you don't need their stinkin' power based on "Maxwellian systems that self-destroy any use of excess energy from the vacuum" because you got your own power source that uses vacuum energy.

All I ask is that you make one last post here to let us know that's what you're doing, because my guess is, once the power company cuts off your power based on "Maxwellian systems that self-destroy any use of excess energy from the vacuum", and you rely on Bearden's advice and vacuum energy contraption, you won't be able to post here anymore. I'd love to be proven wrong, so go ahead and try it.



Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Americanist
 
Temperature and time are relative? omfg. Good luck with this one, Arb


Perhaps we're lucky to begin with... We're here as a result of time and temp.
I'm a relative of my aunt Edna, and while I like the temperature thermostat set at 72 degrees, she likes it set at 78 degrees, and as for time it takes 12 hours to get there by car though I could get there faster if I drove over the speed limit. If you can't see how that's relevant, now you know how I feel reading your posts when you try to confuse temperature and pressure with time and frequency.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


At least get it right... Frequency/time and amplitude. They're both part of the same component. I'm thrilled you have a connection with your Auntie. The nature of energy in a nutshell.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Make sure you suggest feedback to a battery array and manage the overall load. You might be surprised what that sort of idea would power. Laptop, modem/router, and a few low energy light bulbs. Might even throw a fan into the mix to keep you cool.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by sinohptik
Buddhasystem, yes, it is a term i made up. When i communicate, i try to put words together to match the concept i am trying to relay. If one is trapped in the context, it is hard to understand the underlying concept (and almost impossible if one doesnt even try).


Context is the only reason humans understand each other in the first place. Hramadubya jerimot shunskarat? Krake omga fuken zee!


The difference, which i will assume you choose not to see rather than are completely unaware of it, is that i was trying my best to actually communicate. You are obviously doing the exact opposite. It actually illustrates my initial and main point of looking at it with a debate mindset instead of exploratory. You have already decided such things are nonsense, and act as if you could not figure out what was meant by electromagnetic toroidal mechanics. i am sure you are intelligent enough to figure out what i am saying, but decided to turn it into a debate on something that you, yourself, claim to be ignorant of (by comparing what i might be relating to be as meaningful as "Hramadubya jerimot shunskarat?"). As i said, everyone comes at it through our own context and we should try to learn from one another.



Look, one must have a clue about physics involved before trying to describe anything...


Everyone has equal access to the universe around them. One can look at something conceptually and have an understanding, and explore things simply by approaching everything in life with a (notice i did not say "the") scientific method. A concept that someone might come up with will need actual testing to learn how to use and apply it, but can be just as accurate of a description even if the person knows nothing about the science of physics. It is simply observation and patterns.

However, this goes to show another area where you have decided to argue rather than not assume and explore, as i simply said i have no idea what im talking about. i would rather others explore it for themselves than believe a word i say. i did not mention level of education, knowledge, or experience. Even within your context, i feel comfortable with using the term though.

If everyone had worked together to explore the concept, even if it was one side falsifying.. (well, what would you be falsifying? the idea of a magnetic field in a certain toroid? Or simply rodins context?) Using the same allegory, if scientists did nothing but argue contexts, they would have been too busy degrading the idea of moving spirits in the sky to have ever explored what they might have been speaking towards. If we explore it within our own context, even communally, we come to a better understanding of what those cultures spoke about as well as learn so much more about the concepts through our own limited understanding.

It would have been really great to see a change in the cycle, a thread of 70 pages of research and data into electromagnetics, with an initial focus of toroids, "because Rodin has it wrong." It would be great for ATS to hold itself to a higher standard where the debate and argument on scientific topics is done by science and data from proper research and testing into the subject. The idea is obviously not welcome amongst some, but perhaps some others will see the value in such an approach (if time is to be spent on the subject at all). Say we came to a similar conclusion and saw rotational behavior, but feel another context rather then "vortex" might be more applicable to the behavior. edit: forgot to add that research into this has already resulted in better inductors for audio crossovers.

Ya keep pullin me back in
Anyway, if someone wants to discuss the topic and learn by doing research and gathering data, feel free to send me a U2U. i will help out where i can.
i feel i have said what im trying to say in all the contexts i can, and its technically off topic anyway

edit on 24-4-2011 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
The difference, which i will assume you choose not to see rather than are completely unaware of it, is that i was trying my best to actually communicate. You are obviously doing the exact opposite. It actually illustrates my initial and main point of looking at it with a debate mindset instead of exploratory.


If you did in fact have an "exploratory" mindset, you would have spent time poring over physics textbooks and doing experiments. You don't seem to be indulging in either.

As to your attempt to "communicate", you probably tried your best to relate to a subject in which you have ZERO expertise. But if this is the case, why bother? It just sound as ridiculous as if I would post in an OBGYN forum (area where my expertise is a solid zero) and say that real gynecologists should definitely consider hermitian matrix behavior of a complex symmetry group whose isopotential surface is the uterus. It's that ridiculous.


You have already decided such things are nonsense, and act as if you could not figure out what was meant by electromagnetic toroidal mechanics.


I could not. I did a fair amount of mechanics and E&M in my life, and your word soup does sound pretty idiotic.


i am sure you are intelligent enough to figure out what i am saying


No I'm not, despite being regarded by many as a pretty sharp fellow.


but decided to turn it into a debate on something that you, yourself, claim to be ignorant of (by comparing what i might be relating to be as meaningful as "Hramadubya jerimot shunskarat?")


At least it sounds cool, imho. Karesh mimong surachyara?



Everyone has equal access to the universe around them. One can look at something conceptually and have an understanding, and explore things simply by approaching everything in life with a (notice i did not say "the") scientific method. A concept that someone might come up with will need actual testing to learn how to use and apply it, but can be just as accurate of a description even if the person knows nothing about the science of physics. It is simply observation and patterns.


I'm sorry but easy concepts were all scooped up and studied in detail, and applied, many hundreds of years ago. Anything above a child's level, high school level and run of the mill graduate school level is a battlefield, where amateurs don't really belong, especially those who decline to learn.

You talk about "electromagnetics" (a term you felt you should make up). Unless you really mean electromagnetism and the mathematical models that are useful in solving problems related to same, and are willing to lay down math to that effect, this is just venting your ego and in general waste of everybody's time.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Make sure you suggest feedback to a battery array and manage the overall load. You might be surprised what that sort of idea would power.
You're talking about this idea?

www.cheniere.org...

I love surprises! Surprise me! Make it work.

In the meantime, I'll keep doing my part to design and manufacture real products that really do work.

And I'll continue to be entertained by people who think those perpetual motion machines that don't work, actually might work, if only the inventor could get a little more funding from some gullible people who don't have any idea what the inventor is doing or the physics involved, but think "vacuum energy" sounds cool.

Or you can just buy the 23 DVDs for $689 and amuse yourself with all kinds of other perpetual motion machines, like those from Bedini. I guess if they can't make machines that actually work, they can make money selling DVDs explaining how it would work, if they weren't being suppressed by TPTB, though they don't really explain how they're able to sell the DVDs and the experimenter's kits, if they're being suppressed.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





"vacuum energy" sounds cool.


I'm highly entertained. You think we "create" energy with generators then pipe it to your little workshop?



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





"vacuum energy" sounds cool.


I'm highly entertained. You think we "create" energy with generators then pipe it to your little workshop?


In my humble opinion, Arbitrageur, as nice as he sounds, does not think much about "your generators" or their pre-supposed creators. When you have evidence, come back. Absent that, remain the laughing stock. If you feel "highly entertained" in this role, oh well.


edit on 24-4-2011 by buddhasystem because: typo



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





"vacuum energy" sounds cool.


I'm highly entertained. You think we "create" energy with generators then pipe it to your little workshop?


In my humble opinion, Arbitrageur, as nice as he sounds, does not think much about "your generators" or their pre-supposed creators. When you have evidence, come back. Absent that, remain the laughing stock. If you feel "highly entertained" in this role, oh well.


edit on 24-4-2011 by buddhasystem because: typo


Same question of you... Do you think we "create" energy with the generators found at power stations?



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


"Same question"... Did I even ask you a question?



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Same question of you... Do you think we "create" energy with the generators found at power stations?
No, do you?

A hydroelectric dam converts potential energy from the elevation of the water into electrical energy as it flows downhill. Ultimately that energy really came from fusion in the sun which caused the water to evaporate in the first place so it could condense and fall into the river leading to the dam. Other forms of electric power generation convert other sources of energy to electricity.

What's your point?



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join