"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Mary Rose
Some of my posts involve pointing out that you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about, Mary. Because you usually are and don't. I guess you think that's crap. I beg to differ.

I think perhaps what you'd like is someone to talk straight science with you, in a purely matter-of-fact way, without ever disagreeing with your ridiculous views, and without you needing any understanding of any of the concepts involved. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by Bobathon
Some of my posts involve pointing out that you're wrong and don't know what you're talking about, Mary. Because you usually are and don't. I guess you think that's crap. I beg to differ.

You assume the experts I quote don't know what they're talking about; therefore, I don't know what I'm talking about because I choose to quote them. You talk crap about the experts. You use name-calling and other invalid debate techniques when you post about these experts. I reject your invalid debating techniques.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

You assume the experts I quote don't know what they're talking about; therefore, I don't know what I'm talking about because I choose to quote them. You talk crap about the experts. You use name-calling and other invalid debate techniques when you post about these experts. I reject your invalid debating techniques.

Most of the people you quote are not experts, they're self-publicists. I don't assume anything about them, I investigate, and give reasons. If they're manipulative liars, I believe they should be seen for what they are. That isn't name-calling.

Science is simply not open to whatever opinions anyone wants to publicise. It's about honest observation of reality. I never accuse someone of talking crap without having very good reasons, which I will explain and debate in as much detail as you like, and invite others to give reasons to disagree.

Rodin, Bearden, Haramein, Evans... full of crap. That's not name-calling. Reason after reason after reason as to why these people definitively cannot be trusted have been given on this thread alone. You want to cling to them and quote them as 'experts', that's up to you. You want to do it in a public forum in spite of all that, you'll probably find people don't take you very seriously. That's all.

reply to post by Bobathon


This is your opinion, which I reject.

Now, you can call me a name in response. And I guess my recourse will be to alert your post, which may, or may not, be acted upon.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

This is your opinion, which I reject.

You are rejecting not an opinion but a statement of a real-world, hard fact that comes in the form of observations of physical reality around us. Something akin to: the great Russian poet Pushkin was killed in 1837. Or: our observations of the proton demonstrate plenty of phenomena incompatible with fantastical claims of Haramein. Or: despite what Rodin says on record, there is no evidence that he in fact created a black hole.

*Can't call these statements "opinions".

REMINDER

Let's stay focused on the topic, and not on each other.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Science is simply not open to whatever opinions anyone wants to publicise. It's about honest observation of reality.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

This is your opinion, which I reject.

Mary, that is not my opinion. I'm afraid you really do need to somehow get that into your head.

reply to post by Mary Rose
Can I remind you that you wrote a post about gauge theory, to which I gave a considered, honest and informative response here. Which you've ignored. Perhaps we could get back to the subject.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

This is your opinion, which I reject.

Now, you can call me a name in response. And I guess my recourse will be to alert your post, which may, or may not, be acted upon.

Being called ignorant is not the same as being called a fool. The fact is you are ignorant of even the most basic scientific facts.

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective
1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
2. Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".

It's not an insult to say you are ignorant of science. It's a fact. Just pointing that out to you before you accuse others of insulting you.

Originally posted by Bobathon
Which you've ignored.

You are incorrect:

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

Originally posted by Bobathon
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.

You didn't say anything about assuming flat spacetime/local spacetime, which is what Bearden said was falsified by general relativity.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Saying the gauge theory of electrodynamics assumes no net interaction with the vacuum is also very silly.

Bearden used the term "active" vacuum. Perhaps there is significance to "active"?

~~~~~~~

I watched the video again.

I understand him to be saying that potential/clear voltage is actually an inflow of energy from the time domain/4th axis; the translation of it is in 3-space; and the output in longitudinal wave energy is in 3- space. He says that is quantum field theory and you can transform that into wave theory. He said you then have the solution to the so-called source charge problem that he published in the year 2000. I don't know whether I've picked the right paper, but this one sounds like it may be what he's talking about. The title is "Giant Negentropy From the Common Dipole."

The Abstract:

Decomposing the scalar potential between the end charges of a dipole reveals a
harmonic set of EM waves flowing into the dipole from the complex plane, and a
precisely correlated set of EM waves flowing out of the dipole in 3-space. The wellknown
broken 3-space symmetry of the dipole in its energy exchange with the vacuum
thus releases 3-symmetry in EM energy flow, while conserving 4-symmetry in the
manner indicated. The dipole thus becomes a universal kind of negative resistor
extracting electromagnetic energy from the vacuum. Specifically, it absorbs EM energy
from the time domain (complex plane) and emits the energy in real 3-space.

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.

By considering an isolated charge and its clustered virtual charges of opposite
sign, the charge becomes a set of dipoles, each with a decomposable potential. The
"isolated" source charge thus exhibits the giant negentropy mechanism. This explains
how a source charge, once created, continuously pours out the electromagnetic energy
comprising its fields and potentials and their energy.

Some non sequiturs in the present definition of field and potential, and in the
electromagnetic energy flow theory, are corrected. The vast nondiverged Heaviside dark
(unaccounted) energy flow component surrounding every circuit and accompanying
every field interaction is restored, and the historical background of how it was and is
arbitrarily discarded is given. Applications to circuits are given, particularly to using the
new giant negentropy principle for permissible open dissipative Maxwellian systems
which permissibly extract electrical energy from the vacuum and use it to power their
loads. Because of the increasing world energy crisis and oil supply peaking with
subsequent declining, a high priority project under U.S. government auspices is
recommended, to rapidly develop such open dissipative electrical power systems using
electrical energy from the active vacuum.

Yes, I could be not understanding what he said in the video because of my lack of a science background. But people who do have a science background can watch the video and correct me.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

You didn't say anything about assuming flat spacetime/local spacetime, which is what Bearden said was falsified by general relativity.

What he said was plain wrong. I gave two very clear reasons why.

Bearden used the term "active" vacuum. Perhaps there is significance to "active"?

Nope. The QED vacuum is active as anything.

I watched the video again.

I understand him to be saying...

Yes, I could be not understanding what he said in the video because of my lack of a science background. But people who do have a science background can watch the video and correct me.

I'll pass, if that's ok. I'm tired of looking at claims by people who have been definitively established as untrustworthy. I understand that somehow it's not obvious to you, in spite of all the reasons you've been given, but it is to me and I don't see the point in trying to talk any more to a brick wall. Perhaps someone else will be good enough to help.

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."

reply to post by Bobathon


You've made no mention of "Giant Negentropy From the Common Dipole," but in view of the fact that you are convinced Bearden is a fraud, I can see why you would not be interested in reading it, or any of Bearden's other scientific papers.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

You've made no mention of "Giant Negentropy From the Common Dipole"

That's right, I haven't. Or marmalade-powered submarines. Or the discovery of Eskimos on Uranus, I haven't mentioned that either.

reply to post by Mary Rose


In what way is that paper "scientific"?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Sach's theory is mentioned in this quote from Bearden's Glossary under "Electric Field":

Defined in older classical electromagnetics (CEM) as a force field, by E º F/q. However, this only defines the entity after an interaction with mass. In short, it defines the E-field as an effect existing only in matter.

In the early days of electrodynamics, Maxwell and the other "founding fathers" assumed a material ether filling all space. Hence any field in space was indeed such an "effect" field existing in mass. Maxwell died in 1879 of stomach cancer. In the 1880s, the Michelson-Morley experiments falsified the luminiferous (material) ether as a material medium. Hence the accepted use of the E = F/q type of "effect" electrical field as the electric field in space was also destroyed, but the equations were never changed to eliminate this error in the foundations of CEM. Instead, electrodynamicists more or less announced one day that, "Since there is no (material) ether, we are not using one!"

There is some rationalization mathematically for such an approach, if the limiting process is used for the interaction of the "causal field" in vacuum with the charged mass q, as q is allowed to approach zero. However, from a foundations view, it is still the interaction of the field in space with charged mass that is being described in the limit, and therefore it is still the "effect" entity rather than the "cause" entity.

This serious foundations problem is still unresolved in much of CEM theory and modeling to this day. The standard by which other EM texts are measured is J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd edition, Wiley, New York, 1975. In several places, Jackson opts for this avoidance of the use of the " effect" field for the "cause" field: quoting p. 28: "...the thing that eventually gets measured is a force..." "At the moment, the electric field can be defined as the force per unit charge acting at a given point. It is a vector function of position, denoted by E." Quoting p. 249: "Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge and field."

The problem is further increased by use of this flawed definition of E-field to "define" the electrostatic scalar potential (Jackson, p. 34) by the equation E = -Ñf. First, no equation is a definition; it merely equates the magnitude of the entities on the left of the = sign to the magnitude of the entities on the right of the = sign. It has nothing at all to say about the definition or nature of any of the entities, but is merely a comparison of relative magnitudes. Any definition, a priori, must be expressed by an identity sign. In all of classical electrodynamics, there is no available proper definition of (x) in the identity E º (x). Indeed, there is no such identity available for force F. To quote Feynman: "…in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present… One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. … If you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it!" Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2.

In the Sachs unified field theory, O(3) electrodynamics as spearheaded by Evans is an important subset. Hence in that approach there is a solution to the problem of defining force and field. The EM fields (E, B, etc.) when in spacetime, are in fact curvatures of spacetime identically. When these ST curvatures interact with a charged mass, the effects of the interactions are the well-known force-fields in matter, which Maxwell started with in the 1860s. So in this way, the definition problem can be rigorously resolved.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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

Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)

– the wonderful Alan Sokal, who knew exactly how to tell whether someone was interpreting things differently or whether they were just full of crap. Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from him (see link).

Originally posted by Bobathon

Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)

– the wonderful Alan Sokal, who knew exactly how to tell whether someone was interpreting things differently or whether they were just full of crap. Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from him (see link).

If Sokal stepped outside his window, he would fall like a rock because the reality he has created as an observer is that gravity is actually a law.

If he had watched the video Mary posted here, and gone on to buy the DVD for $29.95, or just read Dr. Lipton's website, he would have learned that "As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality", so I suppose that means you can just create a reality without gravity and hover outside Sokal's apartment so you won't fall like he does?
www.brucelipton.com...

A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the “observer creates the reality. “As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality! Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction.

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?

Maybe if I meditate on that topic, I can think of a way to hover outside Sokal's window with my mental construction of a gravity-free universe, without having to spend $29.95 on Lipton's DVD?

Yes Mary, I'm poking fun at the video, but is it really worthy of any more than that? Those three guys, Lipton, Haramein, and Braden, are pretty detached from reality. The real reality, not my mental construction of it. And if you disagree, then I agree with bobathon, that outside Sokal's 21st floor apartment window would be as good a place as any to prove you're right and Sokal is wrong. Of course the offer is also extended to Lipton, Haramein and Braden, but my guess is, rather than prove they can create their own observer reality, they will just stick to selling DVDs claiming that.