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: 84
39
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well, according to this discussion we are currently having you are jumping the gun. What is your definition of 'vacuum' in this case?

If it is a propertied space medium with non-zero values then it is hardly the same as a 'vacuum'.

ETA:

The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also called the pilot-wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum theory. In addition to a wavefunction on the space of all possible configurations, it also contains an actual configuration, even in situations where nobody observes it. The evolution over time of the configuration (that is, of the positions of all particles or the configuration of all fields) is defined by the wave function via a guiding equation. The evolution of the wavefunction over time is given by Schrödinger's equation.

De Broglie-Bohm theory


edit on 8-5-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 8 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   

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

I've stumbled across a website by a person who describes himself as a retired industrial scientist. I think his article "The Dual-Slit Experiment Myth" is thoughtful. The concluding sentence is:


The inference is that De Broglie's quantum frequency changes are more likely than positional jumps . . .



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well, according to this discussion we are currently having you are jumping the gun. What is your definition of 'vacuum' in this case?

If it is a propertied space medium with non-zero values then it is hardly the same as a 'vacuum'.


Since the word "vacuum" does have its place (with all the properties it may have) in the physics dictionary, it's counterproductive to stop using this word. Long before mesons were discovered to be composite particles, people thought of them as a fundamental entity. Later discoveries did not make it necessary to abandon the term.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This is what Bearden has emphasized in his writings: Maxwell's original equations.

I need someone who is an expert on them to comment.
Mary, I just did comment on this in my prior post. I made specific reference to Maxwell's equations and two specific instances which relate to your question. To repeat from my previous post:


But it should be stated that Maxwell's equations do lead to the appearance of longitudinal waves under some circumstances in either plasma waves or guided waves



Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is anyone an expert on O(3) theory?
If they were, and they explained it to you, would you have a clue what they were talking about?

Mary, a large percentage of my classmates failed the course in electromagnetic fields, and they had years of advanced math like calculus and advanced differential equations in preparation for that course. So if they dedicated years to learning advanced math and had trouble with it, what makes you think it will make any sense to you without much math to understand it?


Originally posted by Mary Rose
Did you read "Superpotentials, Scalar interferometry, and Internally Structuring of Fields and Potentials" and are you familiar with the references?
Yes I read it and no I haven't read all the references but a lot of them are very old and we've actually learned some things in the last 8 decades or so. And the more modern reference refers to transverse waves in the title, not longitudinal waves.

Now here's some reading which is written for non-scientists, explaining that even the simplest math like Ohm's law, which requires no more math than algebra to use, is not understood by the folks promoting the MEG (so if they can't understand the simplest math, what makes you think they can understand more complex math?)

In Disdain of Garbage Physics

It is the purpose of this paper to take you, the reader, on a personally rewarding
journey in the use of the scientific method. While this paper is written with the
scientific method as its basis, you will not have to be a scientist to read and understand
it. I invite you to follow along in the pages that follow to see how the application of
basic scientific principles can be used to expose a fraud.
That paper explains the MEG input and output claims, and in the simplest terms, shows how a reinterpretation of the published data shows that there is no over unity from the device at all. So all the BS Bearden wrote about where all this claimed excess energy came from becomes a moot point. This paper clearly shows there is no excess energy. And it's written for non-scientists so hopefully you can understand it.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Since the word "vacuum" does have its place (with all the properties it may have) in the physics dictionary, it's counterproductive to stop using this word.
Precisely.


Originally posted by beebs
What is your definition of density?
Is there something wrong with the dictionary? I have observed two reasons for avoiding use of dictionary definitions (though there may be others):

1. Free energy proponents (the over unity types, not the backyard windmill types) like to abuse the dictionary to try to confuse and trick gullible people into thinking that they have an understanding that others lack, when in fact it is the dictionary abusers themselves whi have the lack of understanding of how to communicate using accepted definitions of words.
2. People who have been confused by reading the claims of free energy or other pseudoscience proponents may actually believe what they read, or may see that if others are abusing the dictionary that maybe it's ok for everybody to do that.


Originally posted by beebs
'Not very dense' is still dense, IMO.

Instead of using your opinion, how about using the dictionary:

I think this is the relevant definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Dense: having a high mass per unit volume

Now note again the density of the following:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Dark Energy

Since it is not very dense—roughly 10E−29 grams per cubic centimeter—it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory.


If the definition of "dense" is a "high mass per unit volume", and if the density of vacuum energy, (which we suspect may be related to dark energy) is so low that we have difficulty imagining how to measure it in a laboratory, do you still insist that something that's possibly "too low to measure in a laboratory" is "high"?
edit on 8-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fixed link



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Mary, I just did comment on this in my prior post. I made specific reference to Maxwell's equations and two specific instances which relate to your question. To repeat from my previous post:


But it should be stated that Maxwell's equations do lead to the appearance of longitudinal waves under some circumstances in either plasma waves or guided waves


Yeah I saw that.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If they were, and they explained it to you, would you have a clue what they were talking about?


You're missing the point. I'm looking for the comments from an expert who can say whether or not the model is in need of an overhaul.

I'm interested in what technology could be available, not in learning the math. I couldn't care less about the math. I started this thread because I admire inventors, innovators, and original thinkers.

I'll take your answer as a no you don't know anything about O(3) theory.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Why does the earth spin and not the moon?
edit on 8-5-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN
 


The moon does spin - once every 28 days.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I'm looking for the comments from an expert who can say whether or not the model is in need of an overhaul.

I'm interested in what technology could be available, not in learning the math. I couldn't care less about the math. I started this thread because I admire inventors, innovators, and original thinkers.
I know quite a lot about O(3).

You're asking whether electromagnetism needs an overhaul using O(3)? The answer is no.

One good reason is that O(3) is a non-abelian theory, which means that the gauge particles in any O(3) theory are necessarily self-interacting.

Electromagnetic waves are not self-interacting except extremely weakly, or at very high energies – all of which fits very precisely with predictions from a combination of very well-understood U(1) QED processes and more complicated SO(3) QCD processes.

Electromagnetism was already overhauled in the 1970s using an SU(2) x U(1) theory, which has been extremely successful ever since. There are many serious candidates for further symmetries, but O(3) is not among them.
edit on 8-5-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


I recognize that term "non-abelian" from listening to the Bearden videos.

Thank you. Now I can listen to the videos again to see whether I can put all this info together.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


What about Maxwell's original equations as opposed to the changes Heaviside made to them and the consequences?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon
 


What about Maxwell's original equations as opposed to the changes Heaviside made to them and the consequences?


That's speculation, not fact.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Are you familiar with Maxwell's original equations?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon
 


What about Maxwell's original equations as opposed to the changes Heaviside made to them and the consequences?
Are you asking about electromagnetism or mathematics now?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


I guess I'm asking about the impact of mathematics upon our present-day understanding of electrodyamics - the model that engineers use in designing our sources of electricity, transportation, medical devices, etc.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon
 


I guess I'm asking about the impact of mathematics upon our present-day understanding of electrodyamics - the model that engineers use in designing our sources of electricity, transportation, medical devices, etc.
It's been very useful.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


The changes Heaviside made?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

The whole mathematical formulation has been very useful. Heaviside's contribution was important for unifying and clarifying the mathematical structure. He didn't change the content.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN
 


The moon does spin - once every 28 days.


I disagree, in fact, I think you are mistaken.




the Discovery Channel has done a documentary on extra solar planets and presented a theoretical planet locked by gravity where rotation of the planet does not occur. In this example, the star and the planet in a mutual orbit presents the same face of the planet. How does this occur with the current theories of Moon rotation?

Let's examine the current status quo for Moon rotation

Currently in 2011, the status quo within the field of Astronomy is that the Moon spins about its axis in a period equal to its approximate 27.322 day rotational period around Earth. So lets looks at the frame of reference used in current theories within the field of Astronomy that has backed this conclusion. When scientists concluded the axis is the Moon rotated in pace with its orbit presenting the same side always, this seemed true, but it was the frame of reference used, which is the source of confusion.

Lets go over a few of mankind's facts pertaining to motion. An orbit is where gravity curves a path of an object to revolve about a central point. The definition rotation considers the point of reference used, if the object rotating about a point of reference outside of the object this motion is an orbit. If the rotation is a reference point within the object, this is rotational spin.

Astronomers have made a basic mistake in orbital mechanics and when given the answer refuse consider that they are wrong. It has been a decade since some of you in the field have seen this paper and debated it on the forums, yet "Ask the Astronomer" still has not learned. The reference frame used included the Earth as the central point, yes a point on the Moon's surface rotates, but this is due to gravity curving the path of the Moon. The Moon does not rotate 360 degrees about its internal axis as rotational spin. Within in this frame of reference, the Moon's axis follows its rotational path as gravity turns the direction of motion of the Moon curving inward, but maintaining orbital distance. Astronomers again when giving a simple explanation involving the motion of the Moon contradict their own words describing orbital rotation and spin. The problem with the current theories on Moon rotation is that those who formulated this theory, confused completing a curved path of rotation around the Earth as the Moon was slowly turning with reference points of the Moon changing in relation to the planet. It is only the illusion of rotation as others in an expanded reference frame can revolve an object about a point and you seem to be turning it. The key here is turning it not spinning about its axis. This is simple orbital mechanics 101.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


There's an article based on Bearden's research written by a person with degrees in nuclear physics and engineering science entitled "Maxwell's Equations." It states that Maxwell's original paper "A Dynamical Theory of Electromagnetic Field," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 155, 459-512 (1865) consisted of 20 equations with 20 unknowns.

The equations were in quaternion format. Maxwell was pressured to get rid of the quaternions because few people understood them. So he rewrote and simplified 80% of his 1873 treatise. This action was followed by Heaviside changing the quaternion format to a simple vector format. Also, Lorentz made the change of symmetrical regauging. This regauging forced the theory to obey the law of conservation of energy.

Bearden is quoted:

A higher group symmetry algebra such as quaternions will contain and allow many more operations than a lower algebra such as tensors, which itself contains more than an even lower algebra such as vectors.


The article concludes with this paragraph:


The great flaw in mainstream physics today is that no one seems willing to look at the effects of accelerating fields. Adding a fourth term to the electromagnetic equations in fact yields such a condition, and lo and behold, conservation laws are redefined in a wholly connected and virtually unlimited universe. It's just the kind of thing Maxwell's Demon (and/or Tom Bearden[8]) could appreciate.




top topics



 
39
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join