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: 78
39
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by -PLB-
 
You're reinforcing the point I made earlier, which was that the macro world is often intuitive, because we have more experience with it. The quantum world is often not intuitive, because most of us don't have much experience with it. I only took one post-graduate level course in quantum mechanics and I haven't used it much since aside from reading papers like the one I linked you to. It may be a lot more intuitive to Buddhasystem than to me because he works with it frequently, and I don't.

en.wikipedia.org...

.. the subjective nature of intuition limits the objectivity of what to call counterintuitive because what is counter-intuitive for one may be intuitive for another. This might occur in instances where intuition changes with knowledge. For instance, many aspects of quantum mechanics may sound counterintuitive to a layman, while they may be intuitive to a particle physicist.


Buddhasystem, is that true? Does quantum mechanics become more intuitive the more you work with it?

Feynman left me with a different impression:
en.wikiquote.org...


Richard Feynman-
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"
-The Character of Physical Law (1965) Ch. 6; also quoted in The New Quantum Universe (2003) by Tony Hey and Patrick Walters


There are different level of understanding, obviously. I'm just a minion in a realm of giants when it comes to physics. A person of Feynman's caliber looks at nuances of math and phenomena that ordinary people can't possibly start to grasp. At a more basic level accessible to a common physics professional, however, I can tell you that quantum mechanics does become extremely intuitive. You have to both read books on phenomenology and then do some math to make a connection. Thus, for example, you understand that Feynman's diagram is not a picture of an actual process as it occurs, but rather a representation of an integral, just one of a few, and diagrams help count the terms in series essentially (with all different amplitudes, of course). But you start thinking of path integrals in a completely common way. Same goes to things like matrix formulation of quantum mechanics -- I was a big fan of linear algebra and this sort of things just kind of comes to you naturally.

You see, even some chapters in classical mechanics aren't that intuitive to begin with. Do you remember when you were a kid and looked at a gyroscope? Or a ping pong ball in a stream of air? Then you get used to these common miracles and take them for granted. Then they become second nature.

It's like playing a musical instrument




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Not my problem, if you're unable to understand at least one application of teaming the coils with thermoelectric plates. My point is... I'll be able to build most anything to spec soon and report back.
Cool. When you find yourself possessed of limitless powers to lord over the world, I beseech you use them for good and not evil, to bring happiness and enlightenment to your fellow man, regardless of race, creed or subculture, and to remain humble and true to your values. Which are clearly elevated and pure and noble and learned. With great power comes great responsibility. Go well, my friend, boldly into the future.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You see, even some chapters in classical mechanics aren't that intuitive to begin with. Do you remember when you were a kid and looked at a gyroscope? Or a ping pong ball in a stream of air? Then you get used to these common miracles and take them for granted. Then they become second nature.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. When I was little I had a toy gyroscope to play with. But it wasn't until high school when the physics teacher brought a bicycle wheel to class on a short axle that I appreciated how odd the effect was. It's really the same effect with both, but that little toy was so easy to turn that I just didn't appreciate how powerful it could be until I tried to change the direction of the bicycle wheel when it was spinning really fast. Like you said, that didn't seem intuitive at first, like other types of motion, so that's a good example. Here's the demo for anyone who hasn't seen it:
MIT Physics Demo -- Bicycle Wheel Gyroscope

Maybe quantum mechanics would become more intuitive for me if I had more exposure to it then. I am taking a refresher course in quantum mechanics now just for fun.

But in the meantime, here's another Feynman quote to make PLB and I feel better since it doesn't seem as intuitive to us:

en.wikiquote.org...


Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

-Richard_Feynman: On the apparent absurdities of Quantum behavior, in The Character of Physical Law (1965) Lecture 6 : Probability and Uncertainity — the Quantum Mechanical view of Nature
Actually, the Casimir effect seems more intuitive to me than wave-particle duality. How can it be like that?
Oops, just a rhetorical thought, I'm not supposed to say that



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Thus, for example, you understand that Feynman's diagram is not a picture of an actual process as it occurs, but rather a representation of an integral, just one of a few, and diagrams help count the terms in series essentially (with all different amplitudes, of course).


I think this is the tricky part. With for example an EM field I can at least somewhat visualize what is going on in the real world (given the setup is not too complex). In quantum mechanics the visualizations don't even model reality, but they visualize the math. I always have a hard time to understand concepts and phenomena when I can not visualize them. I usually didn't have too much trouble with the math itself, but I often lost the overview of how the math relates to the real world. "A physical understanding is a completely unmathematical, imprecise, and inexact thing, but absolutely necessary for a physicist" (Feynman).
edit on 29-4-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . 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.


Why is that? Why would EEs not incorporate vacuum energy into their calculations or designs?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . 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.


Why is that? Why would EEs not incorporate vacuum energy into their calculations or designs?


I'm thinking because of practical reasons, like when friction is neglected in some calculations, or why programmers don't write formal proofs to guarantee a program is running correctly before/after writing programs.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Regarding the MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator), invented by Stephen L. Patrick, Thomas E. Bearden, James C. Hayes, Kenneth D. Moore, and James L. Kenny, on Bearden’s website there is a 7 page document entitled “EXPLANATION OF THE MOTIONLESS ELECTROMAGNETIC GENERATOR BY SACH'S THEORY OF ELECTRODYNAMICS” available. It is stated that it is published in Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2001.

Checking Bearden’s page "Selected Correspondence," I see the most recent one that has the MEG in the title is dated 6 February 2009. Here is a short excerpt:


You may also wish to check my website, www.cheniere.org, for new papers on other related subjects.

E.g., we give some references and a bit of details on the astounding seizure and hiding by our Department of Energy of a developed process for easily and cheaply making permanent magnets with asymmetric (anisotropic) strength magnetic fields laterally. Given such permanent magnets, just about anyone can easily assemble a self-powering permanent magnet motor or motor-generator, powering a load, in 15 minutes for peanuts. Our own DoE has apparently suppressed this manufacturing process deliberately, while keeping its implications hidden from the President, the Congress, the Scientific Community, and the American Public since at least 2001. The process has a U.S. patent in 1990, completely before DoE involvement and taking over control of the patent.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . 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.

Why is that? Why would EEs not incorporate vacuum energy into their calculations or designs?
I said "most other EEs". The distinction made was one of scale. The smaller the scale the engineer is working on, the more they will have to pay attention to quantum effects. The casimir effect we have been discussing may be significant for micromachines as the auhors of the paper I cited stated.

For the engineers not paying too much attention to quantum field theory on larger objects like power plants, generators, motors and transmission lines, perhaps a better question to ask is, why would they incorporate vacuum energy into their calculations or designs?

Engineers are always looking for better ways to do things. so if someone can show them how doing this will help make things work better or more efficiently, they would be very interested in doing that.

Bearden claims there are things the engineers could do, but I couldn't help but notice that he's selling DVDs, not improved machines or generators. He's claiming he has a machine with 100, or alternately, a million, times more output than input, why isn't he selling that instead of DVDs? If he was, and it worked as Bearden claims, engineers would be all over it. But until you or Bearden or someone else can show engineers the benefit of incorporating vacuum energy into their calculations, I don't see why they would, do you?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
God, that kind of math can really suck you in and there is just no escaping it.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is a short excerpt:

The process has a U.S. patent in 1990, completely before DoE involvement and taking over control of the patent.
An interesting claim. Where's the evidence?
My first question is, what's the patent number?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is a short excerpt:

The process has a U.S. patent in 1990, completely before DoE involvement and taking over control of the patent.
An interesting claim. Where's the evidence?
My first question is, what's the patent number?



The more you know, the less you understand." --- Tao Le Ching

Arbitrageur follows to many mathematical laws that when it does not follow the mathematical laws, he does not understand because he knows to much and will rule out anything that makes know sense to him.

The ancient Masters
didn't try to educate the people,
but kindly taught them to not-know.

When they think that they know the answers,
people are difficult to guide.
When they know that they don't know,
people can find their own way.

--- Lao Tzu

Arbitrageur thinks he knows everything Mary doesn't know, that is why he tries to prove Mary wrong all the time.
Maybe Marry has a better intuition on Judging other people for telling the truth far better than Arbitrageur although she is not as knowledge in science as them. I don't think all the those Electromagnetic free energy device people are crazy. Some of them are even scientist themselves. What is wrong with the idea of a electromagnetic device providing free energy.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My first question is, what's the patent number?


The patent for the MEG is US 6,362,718 B1 dated March 26, 2002. The link is on his website.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Bearden claims there are things the engineers could do, but I couldn't help but notice that he's selling DVDs, not improved machines or generators. He's claiming he has a machine with 100, or alternately, a million, times more output than input, why isn't he selling that instead of DVDs?
Precisely precisely precisely. We can – and do – ask the same question of all of those we call fake or fraud or charlatan. Where are the answers?

Story-tellers can rewrite reality however they choose, and pretend to be whomever they wish, with no regard for honesty or consequence. All they have to do is strike a chord with the wishful thinking of the gullible.

Especially the gullible who REFUSE to look at themselves, and will defend, like silly barking dogs, whatever pretence they've come to believe. And there are so many of them. So many.


Only story-tellers can do this. Nobody else.

Nothing but DVDs, people. And sham courses and seminars and talks. WHY.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is a short excerpt:

The process has a U.S. patent in 1990, completely before DoE involvement and taking over control of the patent.
An interesting claim. Where's the evidence?
My first question is, what's the patent number?


U.S. Patent 6,362,718:

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 30-4-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
Arbitrageur thinks he knows everything Mary doesn't know, that is why he tries to prove Mary wrong all the time.
Maybe Marry has a better intuition on Judging other people for telling the truth far better than Arbitrageur although she is not as knowledge in science as them. I don't think all the those Electromagnetic free energy device people are crazy. Some of them are even scientist themselves. What is wrong with the idea of a electromagnetic device providing free energy.


We are not in a psychology class or in a psychic reading session. The criterion of truth is experiment. Science is not a religion where one needs to blindly believe a perceived "prophet", as Mary does. There is no working prototype of any of these cr@p science machines that would do whatever the charlatans claimed that they do. Period. A few of these claims seem quite simple to verify. You are welcome to build a Rodin coil and prove him right by simply measuring the resistance of the wire _before_ and _after_ it's wound on the torus. Rodin said that the pattern suggested by him leads to reduced resistance. You want to try that?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The patent for the MEG is US 6,362,718 B1 dated March 26, 2002. The link is on his website.

OK. I can see the patent just fine here:
www.google.com...
My second question is, where's the evidence the DOE took control over the patent, as Bearden claims?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN

Arbitrageur thinks he knows everything Mary doesn't know
No he doesn't. Try to notice when you're just making something up or believing something with no reason at all. It's important.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN

We are not in a psychology class or in a psychic reading session. The criterion of truth is experiment. Science is not a religion where one needs to blindly believe a perceived "prophet", as Mary does. There is no working prototype of any of these cr@p science machines that would do whatever the charlatans claimed that they do. Period. A few of these claims seem quite simple to verify. You are welcome to build a Rodin coil and prove him right by simply measuring the resistance of the wire _before_ and _after_ it's wound on the torus. Rodin said that the pattern suggested by him leads to reduced resistance. You want to try that?



I know Rodin is a fraud. He isn't the point. The point is the device that uses magnets to generate a spin all on its own to create free energy is real to me.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN

We are not in a psychology class or in a psychic reading session. The criterion of truth is experiment. Science is not a religion where one needs to blindly believe a perceived "prophet", as Mary does. There is no working prototype of any of these cr@p science machines that would do whatever the charlatans claimed that they do. Period. A few of these claims seem quite simple to verify. You are welcome to build a Rodin coil and prove him right by simply measuring the resistance of the wire _before_ and _after_ it's wound on the torus. Rodin said that the pattern suggested by him leads to reduced resistance. You want to try that?



I know Rodin is a fraud. He isn't the point. The point is the device that uses magnets to generate a spin all on its own to create free energy is real to me.


How can it be real to you but not real to everybody else? Do you hold that reality is subjective or that the perception of reality is subjective? Do you think all truth is relative, or that the perception of truth is relative? I disagree with such postmodern notions.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
My second question is, where's the evidence the DOE took control over the patent, as Bearden claims?


This question takes us into a discussion of the huge topic of the powers that be and their goal of a New World Order.

By using google advanced search for "DOE" of Bearden's site, I found another piece of correspondence, this one dated 29 January 2009 entitled "DoE should release fraudulently obtained asymmetric magnets Patents." Here is the beginning of it:


I think you are absolutely right. Everything happening seems to fit the scenario of deliberately flushing the U.S. right down the toilet—and it seems to fit if for many decades, at least since the late 1920s.

The reason for wishing the U.S. destroyed is that the Control Groups are in fact derivative of the old Dark Ages. They regard humanity exactly that way: the “elite” or “royalty” at the top, who are the only real “humans” and are automatically the owners of the money, the “castles”, the land, etc., and then the serfs who are subhuman and more like ignorant slaves. Unfortunately much of the “environmental” community is secretly desirous of killing off about 90% of the humans on earth, and the destruction of the U.S. etc. is a part of that plan (in my opinion).

The easiest way to frustrate those plans—or to have a good chance to frustrate them—is to get the "special folks" to forcibly tear back out of U.S. Department of Energy hands the 1990 patented process for easily making permanent magnets (PMs) with anisotropic (asymmetric) field strengths laterally (left and right) to the line between N and S poles. In short, the PM can be made with a stronger field on its left than on its right; flipping it on the other side will reverse which side is the stronger magnetic field. Two inventors originally obtained a U.S. patent on the process in 1990. DoE, finding out about it, took the lead inventor and gave him a U.S. government grant. Then they had him refile the same process for an international patent obtained in 2001. In that patent, the DoE stated what apparently is a blatant lie, stating that all the work had been done under that U.S. Government grant, and thus the U.S. government has certain rights to this invention. In other words, the U.S. government (DoE) took over the complete control of it.

Then they had the key inventor obtain yet another U.S. patent in 2004, again essentially on the same process with a “good energy product” (strong effect).




top topics



 
39
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join