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: 88
39
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

By the way Bob, who exactly is forcing you and Buddhasystem to 'admit that the universe is a “mental” construction'? Lipton isn't very specific about who is forcing you to do that, and come to think of it, I haven't even heard you admit it yet?
Exactly! First law of pseudophysics: never underestimate the things you've already been forced to admit in someone else's mental construction of the universe!




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You challenging Lipton... A wildebeest going up against a lion. What Lipton refers to is "signal input" creating protein polymers. How life develops into complex forms. I highly doubt you've done your homework.

Continuing... Much of what you complain about Bearden is an earlier work of Tesla:



Considering the spread through space of the Whittaker-structured potential formed with the dipole, the dipole's formation initiates a giant reordering of a fraction of the vacuum energy, spreading at the speed of light in all directions and continuing as long as the dipole is intact.


Tesla's intention was to tap into this "wi-tricity" by tethering a dipole throughout our ionosphere. The same result would ensue.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Make that two wildebeests going up against a lion. Still, not very good odds.

Or something like this perhaps:



edit on 12-5-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 
Another logically compelling case from the 'I heart Tesla' camp.

Sweet.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Americanist
 
Another logically compelling case from the 'I heart Tesla' camp.

Sweet.



Major contributions to society... Tesla is on the board. You're not. If you don't have enough insight, look to the greats.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


If half the nonsense spoken about Tesla is true, and not just people taking creative liberties with his views, then he's a crank who invented a few things, and was wrong about many things.
edit on 12-5-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Americanist
 


If half the nonsense spoken about Tesla is true, and not just people taking creative liberties with his views, then he's a crank who invented a few things, and was wrong about many things.
edit on 12-5-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


You should take it upon yourself to file a complaint with the DOE.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


So before everyone gets all carried away again into meaningless bickering... (too late?
)

I still think, and have said since the beginning, that we need to address the differences in presuppositions and assumptions about physical definitions that are being used by either party.

I had thought Arbitrageur and I were going to discuss about it a little bit a few pages back (click on the post I have replied to) but I guess it got lost in the race to outpost each other.

This discussion should NOT be focused on complex issues, but rather should focus on main philosophical assumptions, implications, and logical aspects of theoretical physics and interpretations of models.

Vortex based mathematics has certain assumptions and interpretations, which are quite within the bounds of possible physical interpretations. I am not saying their specific constellation in his model is 100% correct, but the antagonists here ignore any attempt made to explain why he isn't a crackpot - which they have conveniently shifted the debate into the subject of ad hominem rather than addressing the philosophical presuppositions and theoretical aspects of his model.

We can work our way up, when we have established a starting point for the discussion...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


Damn Beebs, you scary!


I'm not quite sure how you reconcile the two camps. BS has yet to chime in on galactic formations. Plus not a single one of these guys explains the lack of gravitational waves/ detection sufficiently or the illusion of time dilation.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
You challenging Lipton... A wildebeest going up against a lion.
And the challenge still stands:

Let him prove his claim about creating his own mental construction of the universe by creating a universe without gravity where he can hover outside Sokal's 21st floor window. Using a helicopter is cheating, that's a physical construction, not a mental construction. I want to see him do it with a mental construction. The challenge is extended to you too.


What Lipton refers to is "signal input" creating protein polymers. How life develops into complex forms.
I fully expect Lipton has written some things that made some sense at some point, like the thesis he used to get his PhD. But the quote I cited from his website says nothing about signal inputs, protein polymers, or evolution. If that quote is true, you know how you can prove it. The challenge stands.


Tesla's intention was to tap into this "wi-tricity" by tethering a dipole throughout our ionosphere. The same result would ensue.
Actually I read about a project he worked on: A car powered by wireless electricity. But as 547000 correctly guessed, it seems that some wide-eyed believers in Tesla's magic thought he was harnessing some kind of free energy...but he wasn't. He needed a transmitter nearby to send the wireless power. That's a far cry from extracting energy from the vacuum as some people would like us to believe. Here's a video demonstrating Tesla's wireless power technology, it's nothing special to me but some people think it's cool:

Electric test car (small model) driven by Tesla wireless

I think most electrical engineers can probably guess why we don't use this technology to power cars. But we do see wireless power now for charging batteries, and this article mentions the disadvantage:

Wireless Battery Chargers -- A Few Things You Need to Know Before You Buy an Induction Charger


The next problem with inductive charging is its lower efficiency and increased heat problems in comparison to direct contact charging.
That's right. Wireless electricity is inefficient, meaning it wastes energy, the last thing we need to do with dwindling energy supplies and rising costs.

Regarding "tethering a dipole throughout our ionosphere", we've also talked about the possibility of building a space elevator. Maybe the two projects could be combined somehow. I wouldn't claim either device is impossible, someday we may build them and they may work as intended. But both projects have something in common. It's a lot easier to talk about building them, than to actually build them. It's also easier to build windmills, so a lot of people are building those instead.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I found a lecture of his back some 4 years ago where he mentioned signal input specifically. I'll have to search more in depth to find it. Here's a decent place to begin:




As for the wi-tricity Telsa proposed... I'm sure you realize it was un-metered, so I don't consider this an attractive offer for the top 1%. Want to sit down and discuss loan options at JP Morgan Chase?



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
I found a lecture of his back some 4 years ago where he mentioned signal input specifically.


Is this it?

Part 1:


Google Video Link


Part 2:


Google Video Link



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


The video was on google, but they're swapping to youtube... It wasn't the lecture you posted. I'll watch this one though. It was a light background with graphic sections. When I have time this evening I'll get after a search.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Holy crap, have you been promoting that post elsewhere or are there more people following this thread than I thought?!


-------

But seriously... you can still be a fool (or rather not correct) and also know a great deal. This is the worst case scenario, where you become over confident in your own knowledge. This is an ego-tendency, which can overlook anything contrary to certain close-held beliefs.

It seems it is all or nothing with you guys.

1. They are all crackpot charlatans; everything they say is false and a lie.

OR

2. They are completely correct and everything 'conventionally' learned is wrong.


I reject both, as any sane person should.

Of course, your objection would be that they 'spin real facts with outright bollocks'... but this is a cop-out in order to avoid addressing the real philosophical and theoretical issues at play in the discussion - which stem from the real problems plaguing physics in general.

Which reminds me... when are we going to address those real issues here? Namely, the differences in presuppositions and theoretical interpretations that obviously underly every post in this, and other, threads.

I can't even begin to count how many times I have said this...

So, I invite you over to my other thread, which is a more appropriate topic for these issues than this thread, which is focused on VBM.

Quantum Mechanics: Two Rules and No Math

Perhaps we can start anew, without all of the unnecessary baggage in these threads. I hope we can elevate the discussion a bit.
edit on 12-5-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Why is he an interesting read?

I see on Sachs' website this blog post:


May 10th, 2011
The Latest Confirmation of General Relativity Theory

I was delighted to read about the latest confirmation of the truth of Einstein's theory of general relativity (gr). It was found by the Stanford group – the 'Gravity Probe B (GP-B) experiment. The experiment used gyroscopic measurements in outer space, pointing these instruments to a single star, IM Pegasi.

There is a question here on the interpretation of the role of space and time in gravitational phenomena. It has been widely interpreted as an effect of a gravitational field of matter in curving space and time, that this matter is embedded in. In my study of gr, space and time are not a 'physical thing', independent of matter, that can be acted upon by matter. Rather, the space and time form a language that we use to facilitate an expression of laws of physical matter. According to gr, the existence of a physical mass implies a spacetime language for its laws that is curved, that is, the family of geodesics that characterize this spacime[sic] language for the laws of matter are a family of curves rather than straight lines. The Stanford experiment demonstrated this. I have written on this interpretation at length, such as in my book, 'Relativity In Our Time' (Taylor and Francis, 1993), Chapter 18.


I think it is very interesting what he says about interpretation.

I think that people sometimes characterize others who interpret things differently, as being "frauds" or "charlatans."




Thanks for this quote Mary. I found myself partially understanding the gravitational - creation of energy aspect of time, from this.

.. now back to my audio-books about the infinite spirit funnelling out energy through a lotus shape.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 




Holy crap, have you been promoting that post elsewhere or are there more people following this thread than I thought?!


I'm still here beebs

I've finally finished reading my way through, but I am going to go back to the start because the info' was much more concise way back.. and I need more background to get my head around the concepts.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by 547000
 


Holy crap, have you been promoting that post elsewhere or are there more people following this thread than I thought?!


-------

But seriously... you can still be a fool (or rather not correct) and also know a great deal. This is the worst case scenario, where you become over confident in your own knowledge. This is an ego-tendency, which can overlook anything contrary to certain close-held beliefs.

It seems it is all or nothing with you guys.

1. They are all crackpot charlatans; everything they say is false and a lie.

OR

2. They are completely correct and everything 'conventionally' learned is wrong.


I reject both, as any sane person should.

Of course, your objection would be that they 'spin real facts with outright bollocks'... but this is a cop-out in order to avoid addressing the real philosophical and theoretical issues at play in the discussion - which stem from the real problems plaguing physics in general.

Which reminds me... when are we going to address those real issues here? Namely, the differences in presuppositions and theoretical interpretations that obviously underly every post in this, and other, threads.

I can't even begin to count how many times I have said this...

So, I invite you over to my other thread, which is a more appropriate topic for these issues than this thread, which is focused on VBM.

Quantum Mechanics: Two Rules and No Math

Perhaps we can start anew, without all of the unnecessary baggage in these threads. I hope we can elevate the discussion a bit.
edit on 12-5-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)


I'm really not interested in talking philosophy. Given the right axioms you could argue the moon is made of cheese. I prefer leaving out discussion to the scientific method. We'll never hold the same axioms, because what you believe is self evident is not self evident for me. Combined with your constant equivocating of "wave behavior" it makes the discussion ridiculous.

Oh and nice strawman, but I doubt we believe in either one or the other. A bull#ter doesn't care if what they say is true or false. If some things happen to be true it's all well and good, but if most things are false no loss either.

And basically being called a fool is an insult but being called ignorant is not. That was my point, but go ahead and psychoanalyze people online if it gets you jolly.
edit on 13-5-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Yeah, okay...


You believe what you want to believe then, 'cause obviously you have no presuppositions. Obviously your interpretation is the right one.

Have you ever heard of a dialectical argument?

ETA:



Oh and nice strawman, but I doubt we believe in either one or the other.


Rather, it is a false dilemma or false dichotomy.

But again:



Of course, your objection would be that they 'spin real facts with outright bollocks'... but this is a cop-out in order to avoid addressing the real philosophical and theoretical issues at play in the discussion - which stem from the real problems plaguing physics in general.


edit on 13-5-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by squandered
 


Sorry, I was responding to another member's post actually... But glad you are enjoying the discussion. I didn't think many people were following this thread very far in.




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by 547000
 


Yeah, okay...


You believe what you want to believe then, 'cause obviously you have no presuppositions. Obviously your interpretation is the right one.

Have you ever heard of a dialectical argument?


I never said I had no presuppositions. I have presuppositions that are practical and verified by scientists and engineers. These presuppositions have predicted new phenomena that have been proven accurate. Your presuppositions cannot be verified at all given current understanding (what new things does your theory predict?) and accordingly by the scientific method we cannot assume they are correct.

Is it or is it not a strawman to falsely state that they are arguing a false dilemma?
edit on 13-5-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join