"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Sometimes, aligning the coil to the earth magfield, it just seems to go nuts and spin a long time.

I'm gathering that the word "aligning" is key.

I've just finished listening to the 2nd Hour of Red Ice Creations' May 12, 2011 interview of Ralph Ring. It was emphasized that smashing things is not the way to produce energy; rather, precise aligning with the natural flow that energy wants to go - aligning with it - is the way to produce energy. This is what Tesla did; this is what Rodin talks about. Sacred geometry is the study of natural law regarding the flow of energy.

The above image is labeled "Toroidal field of a magnet."

It comes from the website of the Thrive documentary.

Their page "The Code / New Energy Technology" is a goldmine of information.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
It was emphasized that smashing things is not the way to produce energy; rather, precise aligning with the natural flow that energy wants to go - aligning with it - is the way to produce energy.

The same sentiment is expressed in this video:

Regarding suppression:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Petty calls his math the Foundational Number System (FNS). He says this about it, from the page on his blog "The Foundational Number System (FNS)":

Some years ago . . . I . . . discovered (or perhaps re-discovered anciently known, but time forgotten) a numerical system which offers the human mind a kind of “tuned interface” with the framework of Creation. I feel that now is the time for me to begin sharing this information with others so as to catalyze the work.

I have the sense that Rodin's math is a re-discovery of "anciently known, but time forgotten" knowledge. Sort of like the knowledge that must have been present at the time the pyramids were built.

Regarding evidence of new energy technology being real and that it works, the fact that the pyramids exist, and the fact that our modern day technology (that's mainstream and recognized) could not provide the ability to transport the stones, and to pull off the level of precision in the alignment of those stones, is that evidence. If one studies alternative information about the pyramids one finds this out.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is an interesting video about Rodin's coil.

That blog linked in the description is also interesting. On it I see that the YouTuber, Alex Petty, is evidently collaborating with the YouTuber Russ Gries who is posted earlier on this thread - "gries petty research - alexpetty.com | rwgresearch.com."

The description:

In this video I am spinning and levitating a 180 gram Neosphere with a 1" diameter. The beautiful coil shown in the video was hand crafted by my friend and colleague David Klingelhoefer. Also working closely with me on this series of testing is Jack Scholze. For more information check out www.alexpetty.com....

-PLB-,

What do you think about the above video?

Is the coil quite fascinating? Is there a huge amount of potential here?

Originally posted by Mary Rose


"A Special Selection from Infinite Energy Magazine"


From the above link, "The 'Lifter' Phenomenoun: Electrogravitics, Antigravity, and More," by Eugene F. Mallove, page 116:

Whenever actual devices come along, such as the gravity shielding experiment of Evgeny Podkletnov and others,8 . . . it can deal with it with a few jokes from
spokesman Robert Park.

I recognize that name “Podkletnov”:

Originally posted by beebs

Are you familiar with Podkletnov regarding his 'alleged' superconductor gravity experiments?

They have provided evidence and done experiments. You just haven't seen them.

Originally posted by beebs
Rodin deserves to be put into proper context: mysticism, philosophy, occult and esoteric philosophy, Tesla, Keely, Mesmer, Wheeler, Leedskalnin, Bohr, Kuhn, Pauli, Jung, Podkletnov, Searl, Einstein, Enlightenment and Rennaissance, Intellectual History in general, etc.etc. etc.

Here is Part 1 of an interview with Podletnov:



The description:

Uploaded by TheRealVerbz on Oct 19, 2010
From AlienScientist:

This rare interview of Dr. Eugene Podkletnov was filmed at Tampere Technical University in Finland, early 2004. I will explain the circumstances under which I obtained such rare and suppressed footage at a later date... I worked really hard to get this to you, we'll just leave it at that... (Don't forget there is a DONATE button on my website www.alienscientist.com... if you want to show your appreciation.)

For more complete background Information on Dr. Eugene Podkletnov and the subsequent drama of competing theories from a variety of different researchers who jumped on the band wagon, please visit:
www.americanantigravity.com...

Reference Papers:

Podkletnov's Original 1992 Paper:
www.scribd.com...

Podkletnov's 1997 Paper
www.scribd.com...

Podkletnov's Paper on Impulse Gravity Generator:
www.scribd.com...

ESA Replication by Martin Tajmar:
www.scribd.com...


I posted this interview for the benefit of scientists and researchers out there who are getting into this field, and I encourage everyone to do their own research in addition to the information provided by Dr. Podkletnov and myself. I also recommend making a review of Frank Znidarsic's Work:
www.scribd.com...

www.scribd.com...

This is a serious, open and emerging field of physics and I encourage those who are young to get involved Now so they can ride the wave into the future and help be part of something extraordinary which will go down in History forever...

Here is the only free portion of the D. Cohen 2002 “Going Up” article in New Scientist:

London

SEATED in a near-empty restaurant in a backstreet of Tampere in Finland, Evgeny Podkletnov certainly doesn't look crazy even when he holds up the superconducting disc he says he used to reduce the effects of gravity. The Russian émigré's claim caused such a storm he was thrown out of his job at Tampere University of Technology five years ago. He now works as a researcher in superconducting materials at the nearby University of Tampere, but he's not about to give up his quest to be taken seriously.

Podkletnov claims others have repeated the experiments with great success, and for the moment at least, influential scientists around the world are giving him the benefit of the doubt. Researchers at Toronto University in Canada, at CNRS France's national research agency and even an employee of Boeing in the US all want to repeat his experiment, Podkletnov says. And perhaps most significantly of all, NASA ...

Hmmmm. Thrown out of his job...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is Part 1 of an interview with Podletnov:

This is the best article I've ever read on Podkletnov, it may be the best article ever written on the subject though if anyone has found a better article, please post it as I'd like to read it:

Breaking the Law of Gravity - By Charles Platt

Podkletnov claims a 2% reduction in gravity. I just gave some examples where you can save 70-90% on your light bill by switching from incandescent to compact fluorescent or LEDs, which surely dwarfs 2%.

The effect he reports is so small it's hard to rule out experimental error, and in fact another researcher working with superconductors reported a similar small deviation in gravity, and as suggested in that article, it turned out to be experimental error related to evaporation of the liquid nitrogen used to cool the superconductor. I've never seen experimental error confirmed in Podkletnov's case but I suspect a careful investigation would find something similar.

However, aside from that, the story has some interesting twists and turns. Podkletnov's co-author claimed his name was used without permission:

The director of the institute promptly denied any involvement and declared that Podkletnov was working entirely on his own initiative. Then the coauthor of Podkletnov's paper claimed that his name had been used without his knowledge - which was highly implausible, but he stuck to his story, presumably because the institute told him to. In the end Podkletnov had to withdraw the paper from publication in the journal, he was abandoned by his friends, and his credibility was impaired.

This is one of those claims where I'm not sure what to believe. Would he really use a co-author's name without his permission, or was the co-author originally involved, and denied it after the waste product struck the rotating blades as Charles Platt suggests?

And even Bob Park, the skeptic we have been quoting earlier in this thread regarding blacklight power and the hydrino, doesn't seem as skeptical about the shielding concept as you might expect:

Bob Park is a physics professor at the University of Maryland. When he's pressed to say something about Podkletnov's work, he comments: "Well, we know that we can create shields for other fields, such as electromagnetic fields; so in that sense I suppose that a gravity shield does not violate any physical laws. Still, most scientists would be reluctant to conclude anything publicly from this." Ironically, Park has made a name for himself by debunking "fringe" science in a weekly column for the American Physical Society's Web page. If scientists are reluctant to "conclude anything publicly," it's partly because they know they may be stigmatized by critics such as Park.

Glad to see that Park is at least a little open-minded which is appropriate since we don't yet have a way to bridge the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, though that fact can't be used as evidence to support any specific claim including Podkletnov's.

This NASA site claims that Podkletnov's experiment has never been replicated:

helios.gsfc.nasa.gov... (scroll to the bottom)

Anti-Gravity

Has anyone ever created an anti-gravity device?

A few years ago, Russian physicist Yevgeny Podkletnov published results claiming he had built a device consisting of a superconducting disc and electromagnets, which reduces the force of gravity on an object by about 2%. However, despite the fact that this research was published in 1992, no other scientists have been able to replicate Dr. Podkletnov's claimed result. Because of this, most scientists in the field of gravitational research consider Dr. Podkletnov's result to be highly suspect.

I also looked at material on the Barbury Gravity Shielding tests and found the claims/results they present difficult to believe. I could find no report of their experimental result in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and by their webpage's own admission the effect they claim has not been duplicated by any other group. I am not convinced there is any validity to these tests and emphasize that anyone can make claims and publish web pages. But without vetting work through peer scientific review and having other scientists perform confirming experiments, their scientific validity is in serious doubt.

At this point in time, it is fair to say that "anti-gravity" devices such as this are purely science fiction.

Dr. Nick Sterling
(February 2007)

I seem to recall that NASA was involved in a replication effort of Podkletnov's experiment at one point, though the details on that are a bit murky. Despite the lack of clarity on the details, every account I've read seems to agree that NASA didn't replicate the effect.

For more complete background Information on Dr. Eugene Podkletnov and the subsequent drama of competing theories from a variety of different researchers who jumped on the band wagon, please visit:
www.americanantigravity.com...

From the above link:

Eugene Podkletnov on Gravity Shielding
· October 28th, 2011
· Posted in Audio

Dr. Eugene Podkletnov discusses gravity shielding effects in rotating superconductors and recent experiments with a gravity impulse generator. Podkletnov achieved notoriety when publishing on gravity shielding in 1996, when pipe smoke rising in a column above a rotating superconductor became the precipitating event that led him into detailed investigation of the gravity shielding effect. He describes the experimental elements of his research and hypothesizes on a number of models that may explain his findings.

Podkletnov first published on the topic of gravity shielding effects in superconductors back in 1992, and achieved notoriety in the media when he submitted an article on the effect to the “Journal of Physics D”. The story was leaked to the press and initially published in the British “Sunday Telegraph” newspaper, and was subsequently was picked up by other publications around the world. Podkletnov has indicated that despite the publicity this provided for his research, it also led to negative feedback from peers in the scientific community, and ultimately pushed him towards private financing for his research.

Podkletnov described the discovery of this gravity shielding effect as a smoke from a colleague’s pipe rose in a column above the rotating superconducting disk, which prompted him to perform measurements that eventually led to him believe that a gravity shielding effect was occurring. Seeking to demonstrate a more pronounced gravity shielding effect, over time he constructed larger superconducting disks, and has additionally proposed stacking arrays of rotating disks as a means for multiplying the gravity shielding effect based on existing experimental designs.

Over the last few years, Podkletnov has continued his research, and published a joint paper with Dr. Giovanni Modanese describing a “Gravity Impulse Generator” capable of producing a non-diverging beam of what appeared to be gravitational force emanating from a superconductor. The impulse generator departed from Podkletnov’s earlier experiments in that it used a mounted, stationary superconducting emitter bombarded by a high-voltage discharge in a high-intensity magnetic field, rather than simply rotating a superconducting disk as in his previous gravity shielding experiments.

Podkletnov’s research has been closely followed by NASA, and a replication of the initial superconductive gravity shielding test was attempted in 2001 by NASA’s Ron Koczor and Tony Robertson of NASA Glenn research center, who performed tests on a superconductive disk designed by Podkletnov and built by SCI Engineered Materials. However, the replication achieved only 200 rpm of the required 5,000 rpm and failed achieve a measurable result.

I recommend listening to this interview. “People who deal with gravity usually suffer a lot...” In my opinion, people who refuse to acknowledge suppression in new energy have blinders on.

ESA Replication by Martin Tajmar:
www.scribd.com...

From the above link:

Conclusion

Present uncertainties in experiments with rotating superconductors and superfluids leave a very high upper boundary of possibly involved gravitomagnetic fields. This shall stimulate the investigation of the gravitomagnetic properties of such rotating superconductors and superfluids, for example by measuring the torque on a spinning gyroscope produced by the gravitomagnetic field possibly generated by rotating superconductors and superfluids. According to the knowledge of the authors, this experiment has not been done. According to our analysis, it could be a worthwhile task however.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I recommend listening to this interview.

"It's my dream to work for the International Institute for Gravity Research..."

I don't see a website for them.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Now, I suppose either of these two topics would be relevant to this thread:

1. Does Rodin’s vortex math model connecting different realities together?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

There is no "vortex math model". Rodin observed some of the properties of number 9 . . .

in Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

I was using "model" as a verb not a noun but no matter - there is a vortex math model that Rodin has proposed.

Wow! That’s an interesting Wikipedia article.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is hardly math and there is no vortex.

A hurricane and water going down the drain are vortices.

What do you mean, there is no vortex?

From Page 58:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . the U-1 model, the U-1 group symmetry electrodynamics . . . assumes no net interaction with the active vacuum. . . .

From Page 87:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

In the Sachs unified field theory, O(3) electrodynamics as spearheaded by Evans is an important subset.

From “Derivation of O(3) Electrodynamics from the Irreducible Representations of the Einstein Group,” Page 6:

Discussion

In this discussion we give empirical evidence for the ability of both the
Sachs and O(3) theories to describe data which cannot be described
by the Maxwell-Heaviside theory of at space-time. The Sachs theory
is able to describe parity violating and spin-spin interactions from first
principles [5] on a classical level; can explain several problems of neutrino
physics; the Pauli exclusion principle can be derived from it. The
quaternion form of the theory, which is the basis of this paper, was first
developed in 1982 [6] and predicts small but non-zero masses for the
neutrino and photon; it describes the Planck spectrum of black body
radiation classically; describes the Lamb shifts in H; proposes grounds
for charge quantization; predicts the lifetime of the muon state; describes
the electron-muon mass splitting; predicts physical longitudinal
and scalar photons and fields. . . .

From Page 8:

In summary, by interlocking the Sachs and O(3) theories, it becomes
apparent that the advantages of O(3) over U(1) are symptomatic
of the fact that the electromagnetic field vanishes in flat space-time
(special relativity), if the irreducible representations of the Einstein
group are used as described by Sachs [1].

Keywords as far as I’m concerned:

In this discussion we give empirical evidence for the ability of both the
Sachs and O(3) theories to describe data which cannot be described
by the Maxwell-Heaviside theory of at space-time.

Maxwell’s original 20 equations researched and commented upon by Col. Bearden comes to mind:

From Page 95

And here is an interesting blog article by Evans:

“The Central Idea of Frame Dynamics”

The central idea is that every equation of classical dynamics can be expressed in terms of the connection of geometry, a radically new approach to the philosophy of relativity. . . .

It’s about geometry.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
There's an article based on Bearden's research written by a person with degrees in nuclear physics and engineering science entitled "Maxwell's Equations." 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 above link:

Maxwell's Equations

New -- March 20, 2004

James Clerk Maxwell is routinely considered one of the greatest physicists to have ever lived – viewed by most modern day physicists as being on the same rarified level as Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. . . .

Fundamental to Maxwell's fame is a set of equations involving electromagnetism, which have come to be known collectively as “Maxwell's Equations”. [2] These equations are discussed in numerous websites, but Wikipedia [1] has one of the best presentations and explanations of the traditional four equations. (4/1/07) Of particular note is the fact that the Wikipedia article includes eight of the original Maxwell's Euqations. The fact there may have been twenty is, alas, not discussed. (See below.) Alternatively, the Hyperphysics site is also excellent, and notes in its introduction the following:

“Maxwell's equations represent one of the most elegant and concise ways to state the fundamentals of electricity and magnetism. From them one can develop most of the working relationships in the field.

“Because of their concise statement, they embody a high level of mathematical sophistication and are therefore not generally introduced in an introductory treatment of the subject, except perhaps as summary relationships.” [3]

In truth the four equations traditionally included in the teaching of physics are more aptly named the “Maxwell-Heaviside Equations” inasmuch as Oliver Heaviside reformulated Maxwell's original equations from a quaternion format into a simple vector format. . . . after a comparatively limited debate among some 30 scientists – a notation advocated by Heaviside, Gibbs, et al – after Maxwell was already dead.

“After publication of the first edition of his Treatise, Maxwell of course also caught strong pressure from his own publisher to get rid of the quaternions (which few persons understood). Maxwell thus rewrote and simplified about 80% of his own 1873 Treatise before he died of stomach cancer in 1879. The second edition of that treatise was later published with that 80% revision done by Maxwell himself under strong pressure, and with a guest editor. But the 1865 Maxwell paper shows the real Maxwell theory, with 20 equations in 20 unknowns (they are explicitly listed in the paper). The equations taught today in universities as ‘Maxwell's equations' are actually Heaviside's equations, with a further truncation via the symmetrical regauging performed by Lorentz.” [5]

Bearden [6] goes on to point out that:

“A higher group symmetry algebra such as quaternions will contain and allow many more operations than a lower algebra such as tensors, which itself contains more than an even lower algebra such as vectors.” [6]

In effect, the reduction of Maxwell's original theory from 20 equations to 4 – purely in order to make the mathematics a bit easier for the poor physicists – severely limits the capabilities of the original theory. This shows up dramatically in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, where the original equations were effectively “regauged” in order to force the theory to obey the law of conservation of energy. In all respects a return to the quaternion format in Maxwell's original equations seems likely to yield astounding results. Quaternions cannot simply be ignored any longer.

[4/1/05] The other equations of the 20 equation set of quaternion equations may have boggled many a mind when they were first introduced, but as others have shown in modern times, the remaining equations may be very useful in engineering the exctraction of energy from the Quantum vacuum. . . .

Keywords:

In all respects a return to the quaternion format in Maxwell's original equations seems likely to yield astounding results.

Regarding that pesky double-slit experiment:

From Page 51:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Right on the money about the "confined standing wave" not being dividable, something not characteristic of a confined standing wave, so indeed this does destroy beebs' assertion.

Double-slit experiment

when a laboratory apparatus was developed that could reliably fire single electrons at the screen, the emergence of an interference pattern suggested that each electron was interfering with itself, and therefore in some sense the electron had to be going through both slits.

Even when the single electron appears to be interfering with itself and goes through both slits at once in some sense, we don't get 2 half electrons, one from each slit to hit the screen, it's always one single electron hitting the screen in exactly one spot, showing it's not divisible even when it's somehow passing through both slits at once.

From Page 55:

Originally posted by -PLB-
I am not talking about the wave-function of an atom, but that of a single particle (electron or photon) in the double slit experiment. The interesting thing is that this is not a localized wave, it can spread over a large area. The particle can be at any place in this large area.

Originally posted by beebs
3. Everything we observe or measure in your 'particle' atomic realm is collapsed/decoherent. It is coherent and in superposition before such interaction takes place. (Heisenberg Uncertainty, Observer effect)

Originally posted by -PLB-
Disagree. In 2 you just said we should see the wave function as a mathematical construct to describe the observed wave like behavior of particles. There isn't an actual wave that we know of. We have never measured it. The wave is pure theoretical. The actual reason why particles behave like a wave is unknown as far as I know.

Originally posted by beebs
4. Given #3, it would seem that when we 'observe' a particle, we are instead observing a changed/collapsed/decoherent state of nature.
5. My interpretation, is that rather than there being a real duality, there is only the appearance of a duality - and that the cohere natural functional state before observation is of a wave nature.
6. The wave is 'transformed' into appearing like a 'particle', because it is collapsed/changed and absorbed into the environment. Kind of like touching a vibrating string.

Originally posted by -PLB-
How does a non-local collapsing wave result in a point like measurement? Shouldn't it show up as a wave? How is decided in what position in space this measurement occurs? Shouldn't it be the first place a reaction occurs, so the closest point on the screen, if it were an actual wave and not a probability distribution?

Originally posted by beebs
7. I am not sure what you are intending with your last two questions. The particle appears only in our interpretation of certain mathematical variables. It isn't like we are actually 'seeing' them. Although, perhaps we are closer now than ever before:

Originally posted by -PLB-
For a moment, lets not call it "detecting a particle" but "detecting a wave collapsing". I think the questions make sense then.

Originally posted by beebs
Again, by 'something' what do you mean? I would say space. I am a little unclear on your subsequent statements.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Whatever you want. Space, fine by me.

Originally posted by beebs
I am describing the functional, cohere state of nature as a vibrating wave structure of space. The point like object is like an extremely dense wave center in cymatics, and perhaps bends space time to a certain extent in order to 'ripple' out giving us the structure we see. There can only be speculation on this point, which would have to be further investigated. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be, or appear like, what we would call a Einstein-Rosen bridge or wormhole. Whether or not we understand enough about what a wormhole is or may be, is another discussion.

Originally posted by -PLB-
What I see as the problem here, it that your wave like behavior is not the same as the wave like behavior that is meant in wave particle duality. What I understand from it, in wave particle duality, the wave like behavior is on a macroscopic scale, not a wave inside the particle. The wave can actually spread over a large area. So it can increase in size and is not localized, like the wave you describe is.

Continuing with the issues surrounding the double-slit experiment:

From Page 57:

Originally posted by -PLB-
I will only answer to this part for now as I think it is the most relevant. This is where I think the idea that an actual real wave exists goes totally wrong. Lets keep it simple and look at a single slit experiment. Take a look at the following image:

micro.magnet.fsu.edu...

You can see that after the slit, the wave propagates in a circular shape. Now we can ask which point of this wave will hit the screen first: it is the exact center, where the "P" is in the image. So if this is the place where the wave hits the screen first, this is also the place where the wave collapses, according to your argumentation. So shouldn't this also be the place where the observation of a particle is made? How do you explain that observations are also made in different places?

Again from Page 57:

Originally posted by beebs
Well, it is the place we measure the 'collapsed' values. I am not sure whether or not the surrounding ripples in space(that have not interacted with the detector) actually cease to exist... this seems to be a good point for further investigation/discussion.

But as of right now, I think the prevailing interpretation would say that what happens is that the wave function superposition of the particle 'realizes' out of probability at the foremost edge of the spherical propagation when it encounters the detector.

Either way the detector is certainly the place where the observation of a 'particle' is made, because we can't measure it until we interact with it.

If observations are made in different places, of the same wave function, even after the leading edge interaction with the detector, then that would appear to be in favor of the WSM interpretation... wouldn't it?

But is that graph for a beam of light? Or one 'particle' at a time?

See, you have brought up one of the best points so far in the argument compared to the 'experts'.

The double-slit experiment, continued:

From Page 61:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "Free Energy and Free Thinking," this is very interesting:

The type of sophistry used in the heavily falsified theories of quantum eggheads are easily debunked by anyone who understands the devious path of their arguments. For example: the infamous and fallacious double slit experiment, is a concocted lie which insures those in academic control maintain that control. It is asserted by this devious theory that they are firing electrons "balls or marbles" through the two slits. producing interference patterns which look like light wave patterns created as light travels through the same two slits.

The lie and the devious manner of their proposition is revealed by the fact that the electrons they are firing through the slit are not balls or marbles in reality. They are electro-magnetic wave forms created as emission products in their electron gun. The academicians play a shell game with their audience. They swap balls and marbles for electro-magnetic waves by implying that the electrons they are shooting from their guns are the same mythematical electrons in their "theoretical" table of elements called the "Mendeleev Table".

Keywords:

. . . the electrons they are firing through the slit are not balls or marbles in reality. They are electro-magnetic wave forms created as emission products in their electron gun.

Not balls or marbles in reality...


From Page 64:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Plato and Aristotle may be great sources for discussing philosophy, but please, how could they know anything about quantum mechanical observations? Did they do the double slit experiment? Study the photoelectric effect? Work with particle accelerators? We have observations today they probably didn't even conceive of. So let's explain the observations, if we can, and stop listing a bunch of names of dead people as if it means something when many of them didn't even know about the observations we have today.

Lastly, regarding the double-slit experiment:

From Page 84:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I've stumbled across a website by a person who describes himself as a retired industrial scientist. I think his article "The Dual-Slit Experiment Myth" is thoughtful. The concluding sentence is:

The inference is that De Broglie's quantum frequency changes are more likely than positional jumps . . .

The above link comes from the website fractaluniverse.org.

The retired industrial scientist, Colin Hill, states:

There are two classic dual-slit experiments. In the first, both slits are illuminated. The second holds that light is made to pass through only one. The accepted error is that there is no difference between the two respective interference patterns. As will be explained, this is not so.

In the latter, light “quanta” passing through one slit are, perforce, represented as knowing of the presence of the second. Worse, it has become accepted that a “quantum” of light can be in two places at once!

This legacy has engendered much of the illogicality in QM and the “dual nature” of light has acquired near-total credence. Indeed it has become a matter of perverse pride that QM is not logical.

Continuing:

. . . the two interference patterns are very different, as made plain by Max Born. In 1935, in his book “Atomic Physics” Blackie and Son, he contrasted the two patterns: the first, with all the maxima “equally bright”, the other, where “their intensity falls off from the middle outwards”.

This mimics pairs of radio antennae. Not surprising. Since both radio and light waves are electromagnetic, both engender interference when two or more sources interact. Radiation diagrams below show the contrasts at both radio and light frequencies.

Here is a screenshot of Hill’s illustration that follows:



Continuing:

Radio and optical interference compared

Hence :

1. A wave-front can, at once, impinge on both adjacent slits.
2. Light behaves much like radio waves.
3 Slits and antennae are both resonant elements.
4. Both can absorb and re-radiate incident electromagnetic energy.
5. A slit can behave like a driven antenna element.
6. A slit can also behave like an undriven (parasitic) antenna element.
7. Two adjacent illuminated slits correspond to the two driven antennae of a standard radio interferometer.
8. Electrons and light “quanta are members of a self-similar fractal hierarchy.

Conclusions

From the radio antenna paradigm:-

Telecomm. technology provides a better explanation of the dual-slit experiment than does the quasi-scientific version.

Slits behave like tuned (resonant) antenna elements.

No evidence is apparent here of particles/photons or of wave/ particle duality. Light is apparent only after the incidence of electromagnetic waves on macro surfaces (groups of atoms).

The purported “awareness” and “consciousness” are neither manifest nor pertinent. Similarly the concept of “Existence through Observation”.

The radio equivalent of an un-illuminated slit is the un-driven, or parasitic, element of the standard Yagi (TV) antenna. As in fig 2b above

The concluding sentence:

The inference is that De Broglie's quantum frequency changes are more likely than positional jumps . . .

Ends with this:

which also fits in with the idea that the universe is fractally organised.

A fractally organized universe...

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is hardly math and there is no vortex.

A hurricane and water going down the drain are vortices.

What do you mean, there is no vortex?

I agree there is a vortex in the toilet. What I said was related specifically to Rodin's table. I can see that 18 can be presented as 1 and 8 and that the sum of these two numbers is indeed 9. Fine. My 5 year old daughter knows that much. But "vortex"? Rodin draws a pretzel shape on a piece of paper and claims that its center is actually a "vortex". And of course the pretzel is "the fingerprint of God". Sorry but a reference to God is in no way "math" or "model".

reply to post by buddhasystem


Mystics are allowed to reference God. That's the way they think.

It's up to others to develop what Rodin has presented to the world.

Yes, the open-source practitioners on this planet will do the work!

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Mystics are allowed to reference God. That's the way they think.

OK, then you really need to scratch "mathematics" from the title of this thread. It can be titles "religious revelations of Marko Rodin".

It's up to others to develop what Rodin has presented to the world.

Aah, but this is exactly an example of how much math/physics and religion diverge. With math, armed with results and predictions, one can develop an experiment or a practical device. With "God's fingerprint", one does not have such luxury. Hence, nothing can be developed, especially if the primary guru (Rodin) can't explain or predict jack.

Yes, the open-source practitioners on this planet will do the work!

As I just said, unfortunately, there is no source. You can find open-source plans for constructing a solar-powered oven and actually bake bread in it, for free. With Rodin, all you have is a reference to Baha'i. Not helpful.