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: 86
39
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything that is controversial.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
My my, the AIAS site devoted to this is utterly shameless.


"The progress of ECE theory is remarkable in a historic context since physics has not progressed in its foundations over the last hundred years.... New effects are predicted quite easily and they can be applied to practical problems.... The mathematics have been known since 1925 and are therefore rock solid. Criticism of the mathematics is therefore futile...." Comment made by Prof. Horst Eckardt, AIAS Director, MEU Professor of Physics
What a nutter.


In the case of a scientist like Prof. Myron W. Evans whose ECE theory has recently changed all of physics, one should ask why did not someone do this before, no one knows." John Austen Brown, writer, poet and journalist Quebec, Canada
Changed all of physics. Jesus.

The quotations just go on and on. Awful. Truly truly awful.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything that is controversial.

Yawn. The sources are linked, Mary, just look into it [snip]. This stuff is sickening. It's a scam, it's been proven utterly false, yet they've founded an institution on blatant lies regardless. I just find this stuff horrible.
edit on 10/5/11 by argentus because: removed insult



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
The sad part of all this is she knows squat about math, yet follows all these cranks churning out crap over her head, talking about higher geometries, quaternions, and dimensions. Instead of getting her interested to understand what they're talking about, she just quotes them as if science is similar to english or history



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
This is Gerard t'Hooft, arguably the most brilliant and creative physicists of the last few decades, writing in the journal Foundations of Physics:


Between 2003 and 2005, the former Joumal “Foundations of Physics Letters" (now subsumed into Foundations of Physics) has accepted and published at series of 15 papers by M.W. Evans. A partial list of these papers is given below [1]-[3]. Together they would form a book that was intended to unleash a revolutionary paradigm switch in theoretical physics, rendering well-established results of quantum field theory and general relativity, including the Standard Model, superstring theory, and much of cosmology, obsolete. The magic word is ECE (Einstein-Cartan-Evans) theory, and the theory is claimed to have ignited frantic activities on the lnternet. In fact, however, these activities have remained limited to personal web pages and are absent from the standard electronic archives, while no reference to ECE theory can be spotted in any of the peer reviewed scientific journals. This issue of Foundations of Physics now publishes three papers (G.W. Bruhn, F.W. Hehl, and F.W. Hehl and Y.N. Obukhov) that critically analyse the ECE theory and its claims. M.W. Evans has declined the invitation to respond, referring to his web pages... Taking into account the findings of Bruhn, Hehl and Obukhov, the discussion on BCE theory in the journal Foundations of Physics will be concluded herewith unless very good arguments are presented to resume the matter.

Serious over-selling, manipulation and lies on the part of Evans and the AIAS. Let's drop this one, can we?
edit on 10-5-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Talking of Gerard t'Hooft, his article on How to Become a Bad Theoretical Physicist is wonderfully apposite here



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
Talking of Gerard t'Hooft, his article on How to Become a Bad Theoretical Physicist is wonderfully apposite here


Jesus H Christ, I knew t'Hooft's name for a while, but that he penned such a stunning description of the likes of Rodin and Haramein is just truly outstanding. Good job, professor.

PS. I had to include this for Mary. So, being a bad physicist may involve this:


You may consider the option of connecting your work with mystery topics such as telepathy and consciousness. Make outrageous claims of having solved long standing problems.

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



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Bobathon
Talking of Gerard t'Hooft, his article on How to Become a Bad Theoretical Physicist is wonderfully apposite here


Jesus H Christ, I knew t'Hooft's name for a while, but that he penned such a stunning description of the likes of Rodin and Haramein is just truly outstanding. Good job, professor.

PS. I had to include this for Mary. So, being a bad physicist may involve this:


You may consider the option of connecting your work with mystery topics such as telepathy and consciousness. Make outrageous claims of having solved long standing problems.

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



If that's the definition, you'll have to lump in Tesla. He suffered from hallucinations and dream states. While you're at it... Throw in Aliens and Elvis. That's what nutters resort to... Cheers.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


This was posted earlier I'm sure, but I don't have time to search through the thread:

Golden Ratio Discovered in Quantum World: Hidden Symmetry Observed for the First Time in Solid State Matter

www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   


When applying a magnetic field at right angles to an aligned spin the magnetic chain will transform into a new state called quantum critical, which can be thought of as a quantum version of a fractal pattern.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Bobathon
Talking of Gerard t'Hooft, his article on How to Become a Bad Theoretical Physicist is wonderfully apposite here


Jesus H Christ, I knew t'Hooft's name for a while, but that he penned such a stunning description of the likes of Rodin and Haramein is just truly outstanding. Good job, professor.

PS. I had to include this for Mary. So, being a bad physicist may involve this:


You may consider the option of connecting your work with mystery topics such as telepathy and consciousness. Make outrageous claims of having solved long standing problems.

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



If that's the definition, you'll have to lump in Tesla. He suffered from hallucinations and dream states. While you're at it... Throw in Aliens and Elvis. That's what nutters resort to... Cheers.


Okay, let's lump in Tesla too.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
Okay, let's lump in Tesla too.
Well AC electricity is pretty cool, so we have to give him some credit for that.

But he did seem to kind of go downhill. I think Tesla was trying to get by on 2 hours sleep a night, and I'm not sure that's healthy. In fact Michael Shermer observed he started having visions and disorientation when he didn't get enough sleep:


Strange things happen to us when we don't get enough sleep.

It wouldn't surprise me if Tesla had similar issues with his sleep deprivation, though Shermer's was a one-off incident, while Tesla's was intentional and ongoing.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
Golden Ratio Discovered in Quantum World: Hidden Symmetry Observed for the First Time in Solid State Matter

www.sciencedaily.com...
So is this part of your rebuttal to the quaternion discussion when I said it's not necessary to use quaternion to describe the physics we know so far because it can be described with other math?

If so, I certainly see no need to invoke quaternions to explain those findings, do you?


Prof. Tennant remarks on the perfect harmony found in quantum uncertainty instead of disorder. "Such discoveries are leading physicists to speculate that the quantum, atomic scale world may have its own underlying order.
Of course the quantum world has its own underlying order.

And any time you take two numbers and divide one by the other, you get a ratio. They looked at cobalt niobate, but they don't say if any other materials have the same or different ratios.

Here's another ratio, the proton mass to the electron mass ratio is 1836.15267
physics.nist.gov...
What the heck does a ratio have to do with quaternions?

reply to post by Americanist
 

So you still haven't figured out the tags yet?
EX-TEXT tags are for external sources, the quote tags you're using are for quoting other ATS posters, not Wiki.
And that's the wrong link, it doesn't contain the text you cited.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
Golden Ratio Discovered in Quantum World: Hidden Symmetry Observed for the First Time in Solid State Matter

www.sciencedaily.com...
So is this part of your rebuttal to the quaternion discussion when I said it's not necessary to use quaternion to describe the physics we know so far because it can be described with other math?

If so, I certainly see no need to invoke quaternions to explain those findings, do you?


Prof. Tennant remarks on the perfect harmony found in quantum uncertainty instead of disorder. "Such discoveries are leading physicists to speculate that the quantum, atomic scale world may have its own underlying order.
Of course the quantum world has its own underlying order.

And any time you take two numbers and divide one by the other, you get a ratio. They looked at cobalt niobate, but they don't say if any other materials have the same or different ratios.

Here's another ratio, the proton mass to the electron mass ratio is 1836.15267
physics.nist.gov...
What the heck does a ratio have to do with quaternions?

reply to post by Americanist
 

So you still haven't figured out the tags yet?
EX-TEXT tags are for external sources, the quote tags you're using are for quoting other ATS posters, not Wiki.
And that's the wrong link, it doesn't contain the text you cited.




If so, I certainly see no need to invoke quaternions to explain those findings, do you?




What the heck does a ratio have to do with quaternions?



Oh, the irony. Good enough to generate computer modeled reality, but not for reality itself which is vastly more sophisticated. Notice I refrained from using the term complicated.





So you still haven't figured out the tags yet? EX-TEXT tags are for external sources, the quote tags you're using are for quoting other ATS posters, not Wiki. And that's the wrong link, it doesn't contain the text you cited


I click quote on everything, but thanks... The link I provided was an illustration of spin and perpendicular force. The buddhist swastika symbol.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


And we can debate on where his ideas came from... Even he admitted they were delivered in dreams. Reminds me a little of what this gentleman sees:





posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I see in your link to the Wikipedia article on gauge theory a reference to Chen Ning Yang and Robert Mills:


In 1954, attempting to resolve some of the great confusion in elementary particle physics, Chen Ning Yang and Robert Mills introduced non-abelian gauge theories as models to understand the strong interaction holding together nucleons in atomic nuclei.


I recognized the name Yang from part 1 of 8 of the “Applied Scalar Wave Technology – Tom Bearden interview.” I have in my notes that Bearden said, “The standard electrodynamics . . . the U-1 model, . . . assumes a flat spacetime/local spacetime. That was falsified by general relativity – now almost 100 years ago. It also assumes no net interaction with the active vacuum. That’s been falsified in physics for almost 50 years – particularly since 1957 and the discovery of broken symmetry – they awarded the Nobel Prize to Chen Ning Yang.”



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
Saying U(1) was falsified by general relativity 100 years ago is very silly. Firstly because gauge theories of electromagnetic interaction weren't developed until the late 1930s. Secondly because no general relativistic violation of U(1) electrodynamics has ever been observed.

Saying the gauge theory of electrodynamics assumes no net interaction with the vacuum is also very silly. QED is all about interactions with the vacuum. (It's what predicts the Casimir effect, after all.)

I mentioned the higher symmetries in an earlier post (oops - I just noticed that I said SO(3) when I meant SU(3) in that post). Yang and Mills were the ones who first developed non-abelian gauge theories – their work led eventually to the SU(2) x U(1) unified electroweak theory, and the SU(3) theory of QCD.

There will hopefully be successful theories of higher symmetries in the near future. There are plenty of candidate theories for encompassing the known gauge fields together with general relativity. O(3) is not one of them! They'll be developed by people who know what they're talking about, not people who talk crap and make a living by institutionalising stories for the clueless.
edit on 11-5-2011 by Bobathon because: noting mistake in earlier post



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
(My prediction is that they'll be developed by people who know what they're talking about, not people who talk crap and make a living by institutionalising stories for the clueless.)


Maybe some knowledgeable people who talk science without talking crap will join the thread and shed some light on the subject.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Maybe some knowledgeable people who talk science without talking crap will join the thread and shed some light on the subject.
Mary, I just pointed out the most blatant logical flaws in what you just quoted of Bearden. Didn't you notice that? I have very good reason for saying he talks crap. And that was just adding to all the dozens of other reasons we've already given.

If you're going to insinuate that I talk crap, I hope you'll at least attempt to find something I've said that's nonsense, rather than just name-calling like a child.
edit on 11-5-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


You talk quite a bit of crap.

If you would cut the crap, your posts would be more effective.

I will wade through the substance of what you've said, yes. Later, when I have the time and the inclination.




top topics



 
39
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join