It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by beebs
I highly recommend watching the John Searl Story, because he does something similar with The Law of the Squares.
The history of Magic or Latin squares dates back thousands of years, to the pyramids of ancient Egypt, and possibly even further back to the first Chinese dynasties. In fact, today, the Chinese people still use magic squares for cutting and trimming bonsai trees to the correct mathematical ratios of nature. By understanding these natural laws, one can argue that the Universe exist according to precise mathematical laws.
The Law of the Squares (LOS) or Magic Squares is not a new technology but an old technology that's been reborn after John Searl at a young age developed it independently and discovered his numbered matrix has three dimensional properties that can model the quantum energy states of mass in time and space.
There are three groups of squares - group one, two and three, and there can be no others. Group one squares consists of all odd numbers. All even numbers that are divisible by four are in group two. All the rest of the even numbers not divisible by four are in group three.
When the correct matrix of random numbers sum up to the same line value across, down and diagonally, then it is just as valid as the physics regarding the known laws of conservation where energy is neither created nor destroyed, but can be converted from one form to another.
The LOS matrix demonstrates these conservative laws precisely by correctly transposing the random numbers of the squares into line values that all add up to the same value in any direction results in a non-random or uniform state of summation without creating more or less value than the total sum of the cube.
LOS technology along with appropriate stimulation is a transformational solution to random quantum energy state conversion into a useful non-random (uniform) state of resonance and coherent electron motion within the atomic lattice or simply put, can form electrical currents out of chaos.
A particle doesn't even need to be a 'part' of 'matter', a photon being a good example of that.
However, the natural and logical inference on first consideration does not always stand up under more deliberate and thorough analysis, and so it has been in this case. The original argument based on the known characteristics of radioactivity may be summarized as follows:
(a) Under certain conditions atoms disintegrate.
(b) Electrons are found among the disintegration products.
(c) Therefore, electrons are constituents of atoms.
At first glance this argument may seem sound, and in the formative years of the nuclear hypothesis it was accepted without question. Even today it is still orthodox doctrine. But the true status of the argument can be brought out clearly by stating the analogous argument concerning the photon.
(a) Under certain conditions atoms disintegrate.
(b) Photons are found among the disintegration products.
(c) Nevertheless, photons are not constituents of atoms.
I assume you mean superposition of the two diffraction patterns, resulting in an interference pattern. The answer would be no, this is not expected behavior from a particle. We expect a particle to fly straight through the slit following the same direction it had before passing the slit. However, it turns out it is randomly redirected according to a distribution matching the interference pattern.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
LOS technology along with appropriate stimulation is a transformational solution to random quantum energy state conversion into a useful non-random (uniform) state of resonance and coherent electron motion within the atomic lattice or simply put, can form electrical currents out of chaos.
Originally posted by beebs
Why aren't photons part of the atomic structure? Are they there when the atom is stable and functional? Or only created when it disintegrates?
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by -PLB-
A particle doesn't even need to be a 'part' of 'matter', a photon being a good example of that.
In fact, this is precisely one of the problems Larson mentioned.
However, the natural and logical inference on first consideration does not always stand up under more deliberate and thorough analysis, and so it has been in this case. The original argument based on the known characteristics of radioactivity may be summarized as follows:
(a) Under certain conditions atoms disintegrate.
(b) Electrons are found among the disintegration products.
(c) Therefore, electrons are constituents of atoms.
At first glance this argument may seem sound, and in the formative years of the nuclear hypothesis it was accepted without question. Even today it is still orthodox doctrine. But the true status of the argument can be brought out clearly by stating the analogous argument concerning the photon.
(a) Under certain conditions atoms disintegrate.
(b) Photons are found among the disintegration products.
(c) Nevertheless, photons are not constituents of atoms.
He is referring to Rutherford's experiments, about a decade after J. J. Thomson's experiments.
Why aren't photons part of the atomic structure? Are they there when the atom is stable and functional? Or only created when it disintegrates?
Yeah, so not like a 'particle' at all. In fact, the whole thing reeks of waves in a fluid...
Originally posted by beebs
Yeah, so not like a 'particle' at all. In fact, the whole thing reeks of waves in a fluid...edit on 30-3-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by -PLB-
Totally irrelevant question. Changing the subject from a principle involved to the constraints placed on bringing innovative technologies to market when they obsolete the profits of some and the careers of some and the existing infrastructure invested in of some, etc., etc.
I know you didn't like my other analogy but I'm going to give you another one anyway, maybe you'll like this one better.
Originally posted by beebs
Why aren't photons part of the atomic structure? Are they there when the atom is stable and functional? Or only created when it disintegrates?
Someone wrote a rebuttal to Asimov's statement I just quoted, but they didn't address the photoelectric effect and the fact that when the electron is ejected by this effect, a net positive charge is left in the atom where the electron was emitted. In fact, before the discovery of the photoelectric effect, Larson's theory was certainly considered:
The existence of electrons in the outer reaches of the atom--a different matter entirely--was deduced chiefly from the photoelectric effect. Here a quantum, as low in energy as that of red light, is able to bring about the ejection of electrons from cesium metal. It is possible to conceive of the creation of an electron in the course of radioactive breakdown, which involves large energies. To suppose an electron can be created by the energy of a quantum of red light is, however, inadmissible if one is to accept Einstein’s mass-energy conversion formula, and this formula even Larson does not seem disposed to question.
If no electrons exist within the atom, as Larson suggests, I do not see how the photoelectric effect can be explained. From this I conclude that however stimulating Larson’s book might be as an intellectual exercise, it need not be taken seriously as anything more than that.
So they did consider the possibility, but observations of the photoelectric effect clarified that the electron was indeed a component of the atom:
It remained to be determined whether there was any connection between the electron and the atom. The electron might be the particle of electricity and the atom might be the particle of matter; and both might be structureless, ultimate particles, completely independent of each other....
Can the photoelectric effect be explained with Larson's theory with respect to the mass of the electron emitted, the energy of the light used to emit the electron, and the net positive charge left after the electron is ejected? If you think you can explain it, I'd like to hear your explanation, but the guy who responded to Asimov certainly didn't explain it.
positive charge might be created by withdrawing an electron or two from the atom, an electron or two that had been present as part of the atom itself.
This revolutionary possibility was made the more plausible because of a phenomenon first observed in 1888 by the German physicist Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (1857-1894) during the course of experiments in which he discovered radio wave.
While sending an electric spark across an air gap from one electrode to another, Hertz found that when ultraviolet light shone on the cathode, the spark was more easily emitted. This, together with other electrical phenomena brought about by the shining of light upon metal, was eventually termed the photoelectric effect.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
What profits or careers are you talking about when there is no device? Yeah, yeah, I know, it is perpetually two months away from a commercial prototype.
Since it was developed in the 1960's, I'm a little unclear why it didn't go into production in the 1970s. The US had a big energy shortage in 1974 so it would have really come in handy then. Apparently the 5 to 9 prototypes are all on their way to Pluto or Proxima Centauri or somewhere in outer space, yet he's still messing around with making components, I don't see any update from him on what he's doing to prevent the devices from engaging in interstellar travel like his other prototypes did:
The Searl Effect Generator developed in the 1960s is allegedly capable of cheaply and safely producing electricity without fuel, pollution, friction, or noise. Anti-gravity effects also involved.
Shouldn't he have spent the 1970's, the 1980's, the 1990's and the last 11 years figuring out how to stop them from going through the roof? What's going to stop that from happening to the next one like it happened to all the others? I see nothing about that on his site, but they have a nice new lab in SoCal:
he claims to have assembled it in his residential home in London, UK.
Searl makes the further claim that, once assembled, it started rotating by itself, increasing speed gradually. It finally left ground and crashed into the ceiling. While Searl was still wondering how this could happen, the SEG drilled itself through the ceiling, then the roof and disappeared. The same happened to the following 5 (other sources quote 9) models.
I frankly cringe when I read something as ignorant as this. Atom does not have a function, so you can't talk about its functionality. Further, photons are not "created when atom disintegrates". Atom can go through transitions between various energy levels, and so in some cases photons are absorbed (gasp!), and in others emitted (wow!). I guess you could call it "created" but that's not the terminology we use. There is disintegration of the nucleus of course, but using the term "atom" is grossly incorrect in that case.
Photons are not a part of atomic structure because they don't have either strong (color) or electric charge. There is nothing to bind them into the stable system that the atom is.
We may not know for sure if photons are part of the atomic structure, but is it useful to assume it is? Does it give us any additional insight if we assume it is? Can we make predictions of phenomena that would not occur if the photon is not a part of an atom? If not, it is useless to assume it is.
And yet when we measure it, it shows up as a tiny dot, not at all like a wave in a fluid.
What do you mean like "at all"? They behave like both particles and waves, both discrete and have a wave-like probability inference pattern of where they collide.
Fact is, scientists both hypothesize about new particles and confirm them. Nature seems to be fundamentally quantized.
Originally posted by beebs
If they are not part of the atomic structure, how can they be 'emitted'?
To me, it seems that in this case it really doesn't make sense to think of them as particles at all. They appear like particles, because they occupy a point-like energetic center in space, but they behave like wave structures.
Form follows function. The functional behavior is wavelike. The form or structure, therefore, makes more sense as a standing wave center of space than a 'material' particle in space.
Originally posted by beebs
When we measure it, we collapse the 'superposition' of what it was originally, into a decoherent state. I am concerned with what it is before we touch it.
Originally posted by beebs
If they are not part of the atomic structure, how can they be 'emitted'?
Form follows function. The functional behavior is wavelike. The form or structure, therefore, makes more sense as a standing wave center of space than a 'material' particle in space.
Originally posted by -PLB-
So you want to describe a photon or electron as a standing wave confined in a small space? Then it still has particle properties. But aside from that, I see some issues with this description. First, what exactly confines the standing wave?
Secondly, this description does not explain the interference patters in the double slit experiment, as the confined standing wave is still not dividable, and still does not go through both slits at once in the double slit experiment. So it doesn't solve the paradox.