Schumann Resonances, Electro Magnetism, and the Brain.

page: 60
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:27 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
And yes, I spent too much time looking at muons, and when and if someone tells me what I measured was a figment of imagination, you know what my reaction might be.

I'm not really interested in muons, but I guess some time needs to be spent on them.

Here is what "Albert in Relativityland" has to say about muons, pages 7 & 8:

Muons were first discovered in 1936 by Carl Anderson at Cal Tech, among others, forty-three years after Joseph Larmor first proposed his time-dilation idea. Muons were then called mesons or mesotrons.20

A muon is a charged particle, similar to but about 200 times larger than an electron. Muons are naturally formed in the upper atmosphere as a result of collisions between solar particles and upper atmosphere molecules, such as of oxygen or helium. Upon creation some muons are highly energized and travel at velocities beginning at almost c, but the density of the atmosphere gradually slows them down a little. They scatter in every direction before disintegrating into an electron and two neutrinos. Since 1948, physicists have been able to create muons in laboratory cyclotrons, that are often connected to a particle accelerator, where they can increase or decrease muon velocity.

In a 1941 paper, Bruno Rossi trumpeted muon decay as evidence of relativistic time dilation.21 He claimed that the average lifetime of a muon was 2.4 microseconds, and that any longer life was due to relativistic time dilation. That is to say, he expected people to believe that a muon that travels at almost c and exists for possibly a few thousand microseconds really only exists for about 2.4 microseconds because at a velocity near c time slows down for it! Later that year, Italian physicist Franco Rasetti estimated that the average life of a muon, at least from the time of detection in a laboratory cloud chamber to the time of decay, was 1.5 microseconds.22

Both Rossi and Rasetti seemed to think that they could calculate the average life of atmospheric muons from their momentum (mass x velocity) at sea level. However, this writer would submit that this is not possible as a particle‟s momentum only does not reveal the time and place of its creation. There is a difference between average particle lifetime and average particle decay time from capture within the capturing device (called a scintillator, essentially a block of plastic) on the ground, to decay into electrons and neutrinos.

It is possible today to load atmospheric muon detector equipment onto an aircraft to detect falling muons per square foot per hour at varying altitudes, such as at 10,000 feet, 20,000 feet, 30,000 feet, etc. From such data it should be possible to accurately estimate the average altitude of muon creation. This figure could then be used to calculate average muon lifetime in such experiments as Rossi‟s and Rasetti‟s. However, to this writer‟s knowledge, no such atmospheric muon origin collection project has ever been undertaken. If such a project has been undertaken its results may not have been published because they conflicted with the hypothesis of time dilation.

Although lab muons may not be comparable to atmospheric muons because their respective environments are so different, if particle physicists today can speed up and slow down muons in particle accellerators, then they can keep a group of muons moving at 0.990c for the duration of their lifetime. Then they can keep a group of muons at 0.991c for their lifetime. Then another group at 0.992c, 0.993c, etc. through 0.999c, then plot the average lifetimes of each group with each group‟s velocity. If relativistic time dilation is for real the resulting graph should conform to the gamma curve. But to this writer‟s knowledge, no team of particle physicists has ever done this, although they have had over sixty years to do so.

In 1962, David Frisch and James Smith, professors at MIT and U. Illinois, Urbana, respectively, conducted an experiment similar to Rossi‟s in 1941. They measured muon decay rates on top of Mt. Washington in New Hampshire, and then again at near sea level in Cambridge, Massachusetts. They claimed that the average lifetime for a muon was 2.2 microseconds and that their results supported the hypothesis of time dilation.23


posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 06:43 AM

However, in a disciplined paper published in the General Science Journal, Alan Newman knowledgably and meticulously criticizes the Frisch and Smith experiment to the effect that at sea level they reduced the amount of iron above the scintillator by too much. Correcting this error nullifies their results. Thus, unless errors can be found in his calculations, Newman‟s paper invalidates the result of the Frisch and Smith experiment. And inasmuch as Frisch and Smith relied on and followed the procedures of Rossi, Newman‟s paper also discredits Rossi‟s findings and conclusions. Frisch and Smith may have made this error intentionally to obtain the desired outcome to impress someone in Washington, DC who oversees science research grants, as Rossi may have done, also. Newman concludes, “Muon detection [at Earth‟s surface] is easy to explain without „time dilation‟, provided you know how to apply the ordinary gravitational field equations. In short, relativist scientists are seeing "time dilation‟ where there is none, and where there are more reasonable alternative explanations.” 24

This writer would agree with Newman that Frisch and Smith could have adjusted the thickness of the stack of iron over the scintillator so that experimental results would agree with the time dilation hypothesis. Furthermore, if they did not know the altitude of muon creation, then they could not accurately estimate atmospheric density from that altitude to the scintillator. At this point their whole experimental design falls apart. To their credit Frisch and Smith made a film of their experiment, which is on line at, so the interested reader can watch them confuse average particle lifetime with average particle decay time within the scintillator. This is like trying to figure out how a stage magician appears to take an egg or quarter out of someone‟s ear.

Wherefore, certainly a 2.2 or so average muon life-time cannot be considered a scientific fact, and hence it cannot be evidence for relativistic time dilation. 2.2 microseconds may represent the average time between detection in the scintillator and a muon‟s decay into an electron and two neutrinos, among muons that decay in the scintillator, and depending on the type of scintillator. However, there is a big difference between this figure and the probable lifetime of an atmospheric muon from creation to decay, which is not possible to measure as the time of creation is not known, and it is not known when the muon would have naturally decayed had it not been intercepted by the scintillator. Furthermore, as Frisch and Smith admit, the large majority of muons that enter the scintillator pass right through it without decaying.


posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 07:07 AM

However, for decades, ever since the Frisch and Smith experiment, a 2.2 or so microsecond average muon life-time has been dogma, a law of physics, not to be challenged or disputed. It is found today in textbook after textbook, on website after website, on the subject as dogma, a law of physics. This is not science.

In recent years muons have been created in laboratory particle accelerators to study their lifetime, among other characteristics. It should come as no surprise that every test of muon time dilation since 1963 that this writer has been able to uncover has concluded that the average lifetime of a muon is about 2.2 microseconds, even if by means of fudged data, circular logic and mathemagic. The particle physicists who have conducted such experiments were just pledging allegiance to relativity theory for career advancement purposes.25

Hmmmm. Confusing average particle lifetime with average particle decay time.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Gaede is an original thinker with good ideas and has a reason for his approach.

This thread is about Gaede's work: "What Is Light?"

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

The quote about muons that you put in your post is so wildly inaccurate that it makes me cringe. That's what happens when one insists on avoiding anything "mainstream" (a.k.a. facts).

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

I fail to see how that doesnt make it incomplete? In fact, it seems to support the idea.

Any honest scientist will not claim that gravity, or the mechanisms behind it, are all that well understood. However, the manifested behavior can be successfully predicted.

"Gravity" is a semantically chosen word to represent a behavior. Personally, I feel the mechanism behind this is a magnetism derivative rather than solely a bending of space-time due to mass. I still call it gravity, because the semantic game and dogma do not interest me. That doesnt change the fact that the Earth rotates around the sun in a predictable fashion, and given human context through the idea of gravity. However, relativity due to scale and speed are accurate in their predictions. There is not much of a way around this other than outright denial. They even can apply in a spiritual sense, where ones perceptions are relative to their physical occupation of time and space.

It is definitely true that dogma has surrounded science for a long time, just as it has surrounded "alternative" science. This is represented quite a few years ago with the idea the Earth is flat. The "mainstream" science claimed that the surface of the Earth was a flat plane. To suggest otherwise would subject oneself to ridicule and claims of "woo." Once this was proven false, mass acceptance ensued. What has happened is that the mathematics behind these theories, while incomplete, have allowed us to utilize them in significant ways. There is no way around that. New theories may lead to new utilizations, but it does not change what has been done or what it is based on.

The way it can be seen is that GR says that 1+3+1+6=11 and that "alternative" science says "that is completely false! Its 5+3+2+1 that equals eleven!" The truth is they both represent ways to get a sum of eleven. However, due to the imposed duality of both sides, both will just discard the other calling it "woo." This same idea can be presented in the idea many hold that people can not be equal; they are different, with different strengths and weaknesses! The truth is that 1+3 and 2+2 both equal human(sic). It is in the acceptance of the diversity that we can explore the universe honestly.

It is important to note that this very dogma is also present in "alternative" science. If one is not capable of testing the proposed ideas, but simply accepts them as true or false to confirm preconceived bias, then that is the exact same behavior that we see with much of mainstream science. I am highly critical of either form of dogma. I view both sides of this division as science. Sometimes, some are wrong, sometimes, the others are wrong. The proposed division between the two is the very core of the issue from both sides.

What makes you think Einsteins ideas are completely false, when they can not only be utilized, but used to successfully predict behavior in the universe? They certainly do not explain everything, but that is the definition of incomplete and not necessarily inaccurate.

What tests and experiments have you done personally that discredit.. lets say e=mc^2? And if you havent done any, why would you trust someone who is telling you their version of the truth just because it confirms your present bias? This is the exact same behavior that you use to discredit "mainstream" science as dogma, its just the other side of the coin. I even wrote a thread about "Science as Religion," though I didnt include "alternative" science as I previously viewed it all simply as "Science." Thank you for giving me the idea of my next post on it

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:29 PM

Originally posted by sinohptik
I fail to see how that doesnt make it incomplete? In fact, it seems to support the idea.

What is the "it" you're referring to?

Gravity not working the way Einstein claimed is what I said. That rules out incompleteness. It changes incompleteness to incorrectness.

So, what is your "it" and how does "it" support what idea?

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Can you show where the mathematics behind the behavior for the semantically chosen "gravity" is inaccurate?

Not the ideas or the theory or semantics behind the mechanics, but the mathematics describing the behavior. More pertinent to what Im asking: would you mind explaining how something that Einstein himself continued to explore discredits Relativity as a whole (making it incomplete rather than false)? I apologize if that is not what you have been saying, it certainly seems to be the insinuation though.

You seem to have understood what I meant by "it."

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:25 PM
reply to post by sinohptik

It's not "semantically" chosen gravity.

We all know what Einstein was talking about when he said gravity.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Could you please address my points? I am simply holding you to the same standard as buddhasystem, and it appears you are not fond of that. You were quite friendly up to this point..

Ill quote myself on this:

Originally posted by sinohptik
Perhaps its would be wise to ignore the differences in labels altogether until we have a better understanding of the equations themselves.

It doesnt matter what it is called. Focusing on that is focusing on semantics. You say "we all know" but if that was the case, we wouldnt be having this discussion in the first place. We dont, in fact, know the entirety of Einsteins perspective on this issue as that is how the universe works innately with individual perspectives. I can say the word "chair," but are you able to describe the exact chair I conjure up in my mind?

"Gravity" is a subjective label we have used to describe specific behavior. Equations have been used to describe the behavior objectively (though still limited by the human context). The semantics, etc. are subjectively used to explore the topic, but the behavior itself exists. The difference between subjective hypothesis based on semantics and objective theories based on equations is very, very important. They are different steps in the scientific process. One can be subscribed more aptly to philosophy, and the other can actually be utilized to not only predict behavior but design devices which operate on the observed basis (like accurately launching an item out of the Earths atmosphere).

We can debate the semantics until the cows come home, but what I am asking of you is to show where the accepted equations do not accurately predict behavior. However, and this is very important, we use variables that are unknown that allow the equation to work. You insinuate that this makes the equation faulty, but it is quite the opposite. It actually validates the equation, and shows that it is incomplete. The only thing that it brings into question is the parameters of the explored variable. Defining these variables is the very purpose of science itself. Once they are defined, the equations can then be simplified, but the core of it will not necessarily change as it accurately describes the behavior which was initially hypothesized subjectively. You seem to see this as discrediting, but it is the very basis for objective exploration which foregoes the semantics and turns hypothesis into theory through the scientific method. The issue arises when the experimental data invalidates the initial specified variable put into the equation, and one tries to maintain dogma rather than practice science. This process is what is learned through personal experimentation, and it is why I so strongly suggest personal exploration of the topics at hand instead of taking what "they" say as truth simply because the semantics line up with our own subjectivity. That issue plagues science as a whole, "alternative" and "mainstream."

I mean no insult or disrespect to you with these words. It just seems you do not have the understanding of how the process itself works and take no part in it yourself. This is something that anyone, at any time, can change through personal exploration through the scientific method. I even spent the time to post a brief overview on how you can start! I am more than willing to help others understand the process, so that we may all explore these things as objectively as possible.
This can only be done using math.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by sinohptik

O.K. you want the math to invalidate Einstein's relativity? De Broglie discovered that Einstein's relativity violates time as the inverse of frequency. So as the energy frequency increases time also increases by slowing down and expanding in wavelength. The Law of Pythagoras states that frequency is the inverse to time so de Broglie created a "double solution" with two time clocks, one internally and one externally. So this is the phase of time before it is converted to wavelength amplitude and then the phase relies on a superliminal "pilot wave" that guides the time wavelength. This violates causality according to Einstein -- it goes against locality logic -- but entanglement has shown that the nonlocal correlation exists. De Broglie argued this was not just an artifact of the statistical mathematics but it was an actual frequency wave that is superliminal causality -- only de Broglie could not say what the "frequency" meant. David Bohm called it consciousness -- a holographic interwoven field that is a superposition of the past and future together.

So we think of math as "pure" but actually defining time as wavelength already assumes time is a geometric measurement and this is an error of mathematical logic. Quantum physics has disproven relativity and so quantum physics is the new foundation of math and it's up to relativity to somehow match up with quantum physics. This might not be possible.

My position is that science works -- but for whom and at what expense? Physicists ignore the ecological crisis from left-brain dominant humans making right-handed dominant technology -- Western civilization has caused a mass extinction and environmental catastrophe based on genocidal colonialism spread around the world and conveniently ignored as an "externality" by economists.

So my position is that the acceleration expansion of the universe is inversely proportional to the acceleration contraction of space on Earth and the decelerating time of the universe is inversely proportion to the accelerating time on Earth due to technology.

Science is not objective -- it is a means to pursue an end that is eschatological. You want to do the experiments -- but just study Harry Collins's Gravitational Wave Project

Professor Collins points out -- science is based on negative infinities - proof by contradiction -- but this is a mathematical standard of precision determined by the technology used to make the experiments. The technological precision is in turn arbitrary to the subjective standards of the scientists setting up the experiments.

Quantum physics has proven that the measurement taken is part of the result -- as the Zeno Effect shows -- the collapse of the wave-function can be expanded so that time slows down so that the decay rate of radiation is slowed down or sped up. In other words the supposedly objective results of science are subjective results of the technology.

This has been the case ever since the square root of two which is a mathematical error of logic confusing geometric length with arithmetic distance -- an error of logical type as Bertrand Russell called it -- Russell stated that the real numbers are a "convenient fiction."

So what does Princeton math professor Edward Nelson state? He says Confessions of an Apostate Mathematician by Edward Nelson pdf

Nelson says get over the semantics as Eudoxus did and just focus on the syntax. Well that's very convenient if you ignore the technological results of what science has done to Earth.

The square root of two was originally to center the wheels for chariots. The cube root of two was for catapult technology. 50% of physics is for military technology.

David F. Noble has a great book called The Religion of Technology and his last book builds on that -- Beyond the Promised Land.

Western science is the result of Platonic philosophy that merged with the imperial monasteries which joined with the Freemasonic secret societies to create modern science as an apocalyptic movement.

Math Professor Abraham Seidenberg documents the ritual origins of mathematics in sacrifice rituals as Freemasonry - a secret society to separate heaven and earth through sacred geometry mass sacrifice. As a math professor he promoted this. All of Western math is based on symmetry -- the commutative property with a one to one correspondence of geometry and number as math professor Ian Stewart details in his book "Why Beauty is Truth." Again the time-frequency uncertainty principle is non-commutative so it undermines Western math and Western physics. But the religion will continue.

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 09:55 PM
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Quite the agenda against science there.. Again, many assumptions are made about my stance on the issue. Again, I posted a thread called "Science as Religion" that briefly addresses my feelings on the matter. Again, math is the closest thing we have to objectively communicating our perspective to one another, but is contained within the human context (are people even reading my posts?). In short, I do not necessarily disagree. However, you are making blanket statements based on your bias. Much like someone denigrating all Christians due to the actions of some who claim to be such (it doesnt seem to matter that these people go directly against their own tenets).

Technology and science is a double edge sword. It is not responsible for what we, as humans, decide to do with it. We need to take personal responsibility rather than blame some nebulous entity (which is yet another of my threads, interestingly enough).

Ill answer simply; it is more reasonable to assume that what we view in microcosmic space is not subject to space-time. There does not seem to be a correlation between the behavior we see there, and larger scales. The laws that work for one do not need to work for the other. In fact, it seems that is case. Quantum "X" does not do much to disprove or prove anything in larger scales. It actually seems, to me, to suggest that the laws that govern what we know as the physical world do not apply to all arenas. I believe it would be better to approach it from a different angle, and that is; the "very small" (relatively speaking) is governed by a different set of rules altogether.

I have already stated I do not believe relativity applies in quantum scale (see: incomplete). Nor does the behavior we witness on that scale apply to the behavior we witness in so called macro-cosmic space. I have already stated all this, but I will clarify my question. On scales that are actually applicable, can you show where relativistic equations are not accurate in their predictions? If yes, and this is the important part, can you give an equation which does accurately describe the behavior?

Either way, another question is; do you feel frequency is a relevant function in an arena without space-time?

ETA: Perpetuating the duality and polarizations of this "alternative" vs "mainstream" dogma is significantly less interesting to me than cooperatively exploring the possibilities using our best form of communication: math. Ill bring it, if you do. Though, I am not so interested in parroting of others words, I am more interested in your perspective on the pertinent issues. The best way I have found is through personal exploration. We come to much greater understanding through this rather than bias confirmation.
edit on 25-6-2012 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by sinohptik

haha. Wow for someone promoting science you're not well-versed in the subject.

Living in a Quantum World: Quantum mechanics is not just about teeny particles Sci Am pdf

I also recommend you read math professor Ian Stewart's book which is a structural overview of math based on symmetry -- Why Beauty is Truth: A History of Symmetry.

So yes -- I am defining science as symmetric math -- quantum physics has to be converted back into symmetric math via the Poisson Bracket.

But again there are paradoxes to this -- you're stating that spacetime doesn't apply to this realm but the topics of "quantum chaos" (the focus of Ian Stewart) demonstrate otherwise.

So I don't agree with Ian Stewart but then it's best to "know thy enemy" as it's stated. I contacted Professor Stewart informing him that I had already achieved telepathy so I know it is real because humans have the same innate capabilities as the "quasi telepathy" found in quantum chaos systems modeled for electric fish -- like paddlefish.

Ian Stewart responded to me stating he didn't believe in natural telepathy but that in the future quantum computing would enable real telepathy -- and then he published this letter in the journal Nature -- Play it again, Psam IAN STEWART

Original link here

So call it what you will -- but please don't underestimate the power of Western mathematics to completely transform the planet through mass destruction of ecology and social justice. Automation and machines are taking over -- that's the biggest cause of job loss in the world. David F. Noble exposed the evils of automation in his work as a history professor at M.I.T. -- that's why they fired him as was proven in a lawsuit with the American Historical Association backing him up.

Now math professor Luigi Borzacchini is not afraid to recognize the unresolved logical paradoxes of math -- that are based on a foundation of pre-established deep disharmony, as he details on his website - here

Yeah Borzacchini said I was a "good mathematician" and then math professor Joe Mazur asked me to submit my research to the most read math journal -- despite the fact that I am criticizing the very foundation of math since the logical error of real numbers actually hides the origin of math from music theory.

Math professor Borzacchini also exposed this secret nonwestern music theory origin of Western mathematics -- so the real "objective" truth you seek is actually found in nonwestern music theory.

This was the basis for 90% of human history -- the Bushmen culture going back to 100,000 BCE -- with no warfare and relying on trance dance music healing energy -- paranormal telepathy, etc. that the scientists can not accept since infinite consciousness is not allowed in a system based on containing infinity through symmetric-based geometry as spacetime. haha.

So you are part of a religious cult called science. God in the Equation : How Einstein Transformed Religion

Science writer Powell casts science as the new religion, with Einstein as god. Sci/religion, as he calls it, offers a positive and immensely appealing alternative way to look at the world, a religion of rational hope.

Yep -- if you live in the Western world with all the benefits of 500 years of genocide behind you and 500 years of ecological imperialism and global ecological destruction.

That's about as objective as you can get. haha. Western science is the equivalent of a comet hitting Earth and destroying all life on the planet and so the only hope left is for Western science to enable humans to try to colonize outerspace while pretending it's a great escape. haha.

Have fun with your religion -- read the book Biocosm by a lawyer from Yale -- home of Skull and Bones secret society. Yep scientists must help the universe "evolve" using automated artifical intelligence.

haha. O.K. you want to know why this is inevitable? Mathematics as I exposed -- The Actual Plan for the Matrix: Incommensurability, Harmonic Resonance, and the Religion of Technology by Drew Hempel, M.A.
edit on 25-6-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:49 AM

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Living in a Quantum World: Quantum mechanics is not just about teeny particles Sci Am pdf

I see this is an article dated June 2011 by Vlatko Vedral, who it says made his name developing a novel way of quantifying entanglement and applying it to macroscopic physical systems.

On page 3 of 6:

. . . Until the past decade, experimentalists had not confirmed that quantum behavior persists on a macroscopic scale. Today, however, they routinely do. These effects are more pervasive than anyone ever suspected. They may operate in the cells of our body.

Even those of us who make a career of studying these effects have yet to assimilate what they are telling us about the workings of nature. . . .

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

You are completely missing my points, buts thats ok. Ill take my responsibility in it. You also throw out some insults, while I have been simply sharing my perspective. We could say my math successfully predicted that
You do not know me, keep that in mind for the future..

Telepathy? ...

Apparently there is no growth to be had here, Ill leave you be. You apparently already have all the answers. Buddhasystem provides your mirror, you are just as stuck in your ways as he appears to be.

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by sinohptik

Erhenfest Paradox -- violates Einstein's relativity

The Ehrenfest paradox may be the most basic phenomenon in relativity that has a long history marked by controversy and which still gets different interpretations published in peer-reviewed journals (ie. it is still unresolved).

wiki link

O.K. Dark Energy is a quantum phenomenon -- so of course quantum physics affects large scale reality.

The idea was then to explore the possibility of repulsive matterantimatter gravity, but within the old quantum field theories there was no room for such a possibility. The main arguments, reviewed in [3], were of various kinds including violation of energy conservation and disagreement with experiments of the E¨otv¨os type due to the effects of antigravity on the vacuum polarization diagrams of atoms. More recently however, within the context of modern quantum field theories, it was proven that those arguments were no longer sufficient to exclude repulsive effects and the interest in antigravity increased again.

On light as antigravity pdf The gravity of light∗.
G. Sparano a , G. Vilasi b , S. Vilasi c
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Napoli, Italy.
a Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Universit`a di Salerno, Italy.
b Dipartimento di Fisica E.R.Caianiello, Universit`a di Salerno, Italy.
c Dipartimento di Scienze Farmaceutiche, Universit`a di Salerno, Italy.
January 26, 2011

However there exist (see section 2 and 3) physically meaningful solutions [5, 6, 7, 8] of Einstein equations which are not Fourier expandable and nevertheless whose associated energy is finite. For some of these solutions the standard analysis shows that spin-1 components cannot be killed [9, 10]; this implies that repulsive aspects of gravity are possible within pure General Relativity, i.e. without involving spurious modifications. In previous works it was shown that light is among possible sources of such spin-1 waves [8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

So clearly quantum physics is redefining relativity because relativity does not match the empirical observations -- the math doesn't work so new quantum math has to be used.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 04:44 PM
edit on 7/25/2012 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What about Tesla's longitudinal standing waves?

Sterling Allan of Pure Energy Systems has interviewed Tesla researcher Karl Palsness. In "Karl Palsness and Bringing Tesla Technologies to Market," Allan summarizes Palsness's explanation of the significance of the longitudinal wave as opposed to the transverse wave:

When I asked Karl about the fundamental principles behind the electrical work Tesla did in the latter half of his life, I was expecting a long and complex answer. But for Karl, it boils down to "asymmetric field of circuits" and a term Tesla coined: "longitudinal wave". "Single-event resonance" is also key.

The analogy Karl used to describe the longitudinal wave was a tsunami, whose waves can travel across the ocean at speeds exceeding 600 mph -- the speed of a jumbo jet flying over the ocean. Normal ocean waves propagate slow enough that a person can run along side one on a dock. Those are very different processes, with very different causes and results.

Tsunamis are usually triggered by massive land movements within the water, such as from a large earthquake or meteorite. The large displacement then propagates horizontally away, barely displacing the surface elevation until it reaches shore, where it crests and rushes inland.

Another example Karl cited was in sound production. It takes maybe 50 Watts equivalent of power for a person to blow a trumpet, but it takes maybe a kilowatt of power for a speaker system to reproduce the same decibel level of sound, because the speaker system uses transverse waves to manufacture the longitudinal waves. There is a longitudinal component that the speaker system doesn't directly produce, so it has to make up for it in power. This should be a clue to people in the sound reproduction industry about possible new designs that could reproduce the sound using little power.

Much of Tesla's latter work involved means of creating electrical longitudinal waves, through fast, abrupt change; such as through rapid spark gap discharges, or through shorting the circuit; characterizing their function, and putting them to practical use. "One of the biggest things that Tesla did was create local changes, such as a 'microbubble', or 'microvoid', which nature fills in." Tesla also played with various shapes to stimulate these effects.

In the case of electricity, some funky things happen in the process of creating the longitudinal wave. Energy shows up that was not fed into the system by the operator. Tesla called this "radiant energy".

Karl said that Tesla used asymmetric circuits that involved abrupt changes of voltage or current or both. "The first half of circuit did not match second half of circuit. For example, the first half might have a low resistance, while the second half had a high resistance." The asymmetry could also be in the number of wires, or in shape. High voltage versus high current.

To put it simply: you create asymmetry, and nature steps in to restore the symmetry. The objective is that the amount of energy required to establish the asymmetry is less than the amount of energy that nature provides when restoring the symmetry. A very simple example is a dam. The amount of energy required to put the dam in place, creating an asymmetry, is returned many-fold. We should remember that Tesla was the first to build a hydro-electric dam, at Niagara Falls.

Tesla stated: "To understand radiant energy, you should avoid electrons at all costs", and "Radiant energy circuits are void of electrons."

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:28 PM

Originally posted by HODOSKE
reply to post by pianopraze

If you are interested in emf waves and the effects on the mind and the body, read some of Robert O Becker books. He is a Doctor, and a scientist and his research shows even low emf waves can effect the body and brain negatively. Some of his research showed more of an impact on a the human body with lower frequencies. It changes the cells in or bodies and there is research out there but it gets suppressed. We are bombarded by it everyday with cell phones, laptops, and all the other frequecies running through the air and it gets worse and worse every year with al lthe wireless technologies.

Yes, I just heard a coast to coast AM episode on this very subject... i subscribe tot the podcast and am hopelessly behind listening to them... but i heard this episode which talks about what you are mentioning here:

Coast to Coast AM December 8 2010

Dirty Electricity
Date: 12-08-10
Host: George Noory
Guests: Dr. Samuel Milham

Specialist in occupational epidemiology, Dr. Samuel Milham outlined the frightening link between exposure to electromagnetic fields & pollution and human disease. He cited "dirty electricity," brought about when electrical fields have an arc or interruption in current flow, as being particularly detrimental to health when it occurs at high levels. He listed cancer, diabetes, ADHD, depression, and sleep disorders as among the many problems associated with exposure to dirty electricity.

Dr. Milham was critical of cell phones, comparing their usage to putting one's head into a microwave oven. We're starting to see brain cancers on the same side of the head where people hold their phone, he noted. He also warned that the new DECT cordless phones were dangerous because their base units continually send out radiation which can alter a person's heart rate.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
"Einstein and his idiots"

Gaede is an original thinker with good ideas and has a reason for his approach.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
express disdain for science because supposedly it's all s sham

I have pointed out valid problems with mainstream science. You have a blind eye to them. You're part of the problem.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
vibrational orgone-based donuts like Rodin's.

Alternative science is where progress will eventually be made, despite the sometimes brutal suppression by the powers that be behind mainstream science.
edit on 06/25/12 by Mary Rose because: Clarify

Here is a few problems with modern science, it is schizophrenic:

1. They pretend that they know a lot more than they do, and the current dogma is only thing allowed, which shuts down any true innovation or experimentation (it is very rare, and usually not funded - what is funded is those who follow the dogma of science theory today)... just like we've see several belligerently do in this thread.

2. Think of what "science" knew a 100 years ago.. a 1000... we laugh at what they "knew" to be "fact" and persecuted anyone who didn't believe as they did. A 100 or a 1000 years from now they will look back on what we "know" to be "fact" and laugh at us.

3. While espousing classic physics on one hand, all real science journals know and operate on the basis that classic physics has been superseded... i.e. wrong.... to many experiments have shown it. Yet they still teach it as fact, and all the text books still teach it as fact. They only admit it in technical or insider publications that the laity would not see...

So those in this thread and elsewhere who so confidently "know" all their "facts" make me sick... in reality we don't know much more than we do know. And experiments (even Mainstream ones which i linked earlier in this thread) are showing all the time that Einstein and others were wrong, the universe is a vastly different from what modern science pretends it to be - and it persecutes anyone who won't believe their fantasy.
edit on 29-7-2012 by pianopraze because: ...

new topics
top topics
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in