It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 85
39
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:15 AM

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN

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.

Sounds like whoever wrote this does not understand orbital mechanics 101.
edit on 9-5-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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.

From the Royal Society Publishing website, this appears to be a .pdf of the paper: "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field."

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

The Heaviside formulation of Maxwell's equations has been used directly or indirectly in every piece of electrical and electronic technology ever developed. Has anyone ever used these quaternion equations to do anything?

If you have a set of brilliant and useful equations that could revolutionise technology, what would you do.
(a) use them to revolutionise technology, or
(b) complain on the internet about a cover-up.

I think (a). Personally.

If you have a set of fabricated and useless equations that can't do jack, but toy want attention, would you do (a) or (b)?

This time it's (b).
It's not complicated.

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Bobathon

The Heaviside formulation of Maxwell's equations has been used directly or indirectly in every piece of electrical and electronic technology ever developed. Has anyone ever used these quaternion equations to do anything?

The vast majority of people don't even know about them.

Most people don't read or research original papers.

You're making a very weak argument.

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:47 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

His over-hyped website isn't exactly top secret, Mary.

Besides, what about Bearden himself? Is he too incompetent to do anything with these equations, if they're so powerful? Doesn't he know anyone who can use them?

It really is very simple.

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by Bobathon

No, it's not. You are naive. And you are not dealing with specifics. You're making assumptions and sweeping generalizations.

Furthermore, you don't know anything about quaternions, do you?

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

I know something about them, and this link explains a lot:

Multiplying quaternions the easy way

Can physics be done without quaternions? Of course it can! Events can be defined over the field of real numbers, and then the Minkowski metric and the Lorentz group can be deployed to get every result ever confirmed by experiment.
Quantum mechanics can be defined using a Hilbert space defined over the field of complex numbers and return with every result measured to date.

Doing physics with quaternions is unnecessary, unless physics runs into a compatibility issue.
So if researchers find a compatibility issue, someday we may need quaternions to address that. But since the math we're using instead can give us every result ever confirmed by experiment, we don't see the need for them at this point. Perhaps someday somebody will find a result confirmed by experiment where they are needed, I wouldn't rule that out. But I would rule out that Bearden is such a person, as he doesn't appear to have found anything of value.

Originally posted by Bobathon
Besides, what about Bearden himself? Is he too incompetent to do anything with these equations, if they're so powerful?
That's exactly the point. He claims he did do something with them. Bearden built a device called the MEG or motionless electromagnetic generator. I posted a link to a paper about the MEG near the top of page 84, and it's VERY specific. Mary, did you read it?

The paper shows the simple math needed to calculate the device input and output is over the heads of the MEG promoters, using their published data, it in fact produced no excess energy as Bearden claims. So again, if they can't handle the simple math like Ohm's law, etc, and if the device produces no excess energy, what makes anyone think they can handle more complex math like Maxwell's equations or Heaviside's interpretation of them? Moreover, why would anyone believe Bearden's claim that we need to look at quaternions to explain the source of excess energy in his device, when it has been demonstrated using published data, that there is no excess energy from the device.

On the other hand, if Bearden's MEG actually did produce excess energy, and he said it could be explained with the use of quaternions, lots of people, including myself, would be examining this possibility. But his MEG doesn't work as claimed. In fact it's apparently just an ordinary transformer, a very common device to electrical engineers. So it's not even very creative.
edit on 9-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fixed link

edit on 9-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

No, it's not. You are naive. And you are not dealing with specifics. You're making assumptions and sweeping generalizations.

Furthermore, you don't know anything about quaternions, do you?
I'm not dealing with specifics, I'm dealing with the bleeding obvious.

And of course I know about quaternions. You won't find a single theoretical physicist or applied mathematician who doesn't. They're common currency. If they were useful for electrodynamics, they'd be used for electrodynamics. They're not.

Still, it does bring a smile to be called naive in a discussion about science and mathematics, by the most scientifically illiterate and logically absurd person I've ever encountered. Especially when you constantly declare that you don't care at all about mathematics, and there you are arguing about mathematics with people who understand mathematics.

Some of the things you come out with are nutty as a fruitcake! Get a grip.
edit on 9-5-2011 by Bobathon because: ...

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Mary Rose

I know something about them, and this link explains a lot:

Multiplying quaternions the easy way

Can physics be done without quaternions? Of course it can! ...
Doing physics with quaternions is unnecessary, unless physics runs into a compatibility issue.
So if researchers find a compatibility issue, someday we may need quaternions to address that.
That's a lovely little link, Arb. I wonder what the author meant by "a compatibility issue". Any idea?

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

No, it's not. You are naive. And you are not dealing with specifics.

Gosh lee... Mary, you refused to get into specifics either in math or experiment, by your own admission. Now you saying that Bob, as detail oriented as any person in math and physics must be by definition, is "naive" and "not dealing with specifics"? Sorry but you crossed the line into hypocrisy.

Furthermore, you don't know anything about quaternions, do you?

Mary, what are your skills in differential equations? Because let's be specific here, when you pass a judgement about Maxwell equations and all that, you must understand how these work, otherwise it's just bloviating... On second thought, that's what I've come to expect from you anyhow.

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 08:47 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Quantum mechanics can be defined using a Hilbert space defined over the field of complex numbers and return with every result measured to date.

Let's go into specifics shall we... Again, Quantum Scale revolves around statistics. Unfortunately, we're dealing with an exacting force of nature as indicated by known aspect ratios being discovered. Looks like you've already run up against a compatibility issue.

But since the math we're using instead can give us every result ever confirmed by experiment, we don't see the need for them at this point.

Really, so what math defines cold fusion to a T? Rack your brain all you want.

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Bobathon
I wonder what the author meant by "a compatibility issue". Any idea?
I got the link from this page, the third link down that says Math(pdf), so I'm guessing the author is that guy pictured with the MIT alum e-mail address.
world.std.com...
He's got an interesting thread over at physicsforums on some of his independent research:
Unifying Gravity and EM
They brought a relativity expert into the thread who explained why his unified field theory was wrong, but the guy is the complete opposite of Haramein. He admitted he was wrong more than once based on feedback from physics professionals who pointed out the flaws in his theory. And he even said the words we've longed to hear from Haramein, "if the theory disagrees with observation, it must be wrong".

I don't know what he meant by a compatibility issue.

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Americanist
Let's go into specifics shall we... Again, Quantum Scale revolves around statistics.
I don't know if I'd phrase it quite that way but statistics are definitely involved so at least I get your meaning.

Unfortunately, we're dealing with an exacting force of nature as indicated by known aspect ratios being discovered. Looks like you've already run up against a compatibility issue.
I don't understand what you mean by this. I thought you said you were going to talk specifics. I don't see any specifics in that statement.

Really, so what math defines cold fusion to a T? Rack your brain all you want.
The jury is still out on cold fusion, or as they prefer to call it now, LENR for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Yes I read the US Navy paper but I haven't read any follow-up work showing that the researchers have excluded other possible sources for the neutrons, or addressed other issues with the experiment as mentioned by critics of the research.
edit on 9-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Bobathon
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.

Myron Evans, of the Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies (AIAS), is associated with a unified field theory Einstein Cartan Evans (ECE), which renders most of the standard model to be obsolete.

This is from the page of his website “Introduction to the complete scientific works of Myron Evans, British Civil List Scientist, 1973 to date (2008)”:

14. The B(3) Spin Field And Its Effect On Electrodynamics: O(3) Gauge Theory Of Electrodynamics

This is important precursor work to Einstein Cartan Evans (ECE) theory and starts with refs. (372) to (377) in 1992 with the inference of the B(3) spin field from the inverse Faraday effect at Cornell shortly after Evans returned from Zurich. Then the gauge theory of electrodynamics is developed in refs. (380 - 401), (403 - 419), (423 - 430), (432), (435 - 444), (446 - 448), and (453 - 597) with the exception of series edited books on other subjects in this part of the list.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:36 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

You would of course have read this while conducting your research. I wonder what you made of it?

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:41 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

And of course you'll have read this:

Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory is a unified theory of physics proposed by Myron W. Evans, which claims to unify general relativity, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism. The proposed theory was largely published in the journal Foundations of Physics Letters between 2003 and 2005. Several of Evans's central claims were later shown to be mathematically incorrect and, in 2008, the editor of Foundations of Physics published an editorial note effectively retracting the journal's support for the theory.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:43 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Do you still consider the Standard Model to have been rendered obsolete by this theory, or can we throw it on the pile with all the others?

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Myron Evans, of the Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies (AIAS), is associated with a unified field theory Einstein Cartan Evans (ECE), which renders most of the standard model to be obsolete.

From the sister site of AIAS, Unified Physics Revealed:

Welcome

This site is dedicated to Einstein - Cartan - Evans (ECE) Unified Field Theory
The simplest and most complete theory to date which unites General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics using just 4 dimensions. This is done through the use of Cartan geometry a more complete geometry than Reimann geometry used by Einstein. The key insight is that spacetime can be twisted and distorted in more ways than simple curvature. Electromagnetism is simply spinning spacetime. A new era in unified physics has begun.

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:45 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

If you have time and want to watch the full video 1-18, you should, I found it quite interesting in explaining how our world is virtual related to consciousness and quantum physics. Its up to you.

Physics, Metaphysics & the Consciousness Connection 1 of 18

He claims to have done the impossible.

edit on 10-5-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:49 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Are you just ignoring all the relevant links just posted regarding why it's all wrong?

top topics

39