"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by beebs
Now you are starting to understand how complex this issue is. I will make some statements, please indicate where you think I am wrong, or disagree.

I have no problem seeing how complex it is, I won't claim I solved the paradox.

1. No, the many world interpretation is not a direct consequence of quantum superposition. It is an attempt to rationalize the phenomenon - because where does the 'particle' go when it isn't here?

Not sure what you mean with the last part, but in general, ok.

2. The wave function is a mathematical construct, built to explain and predict repeated observations of the probability of observing a certain charge/density/inertia/spin/field in the atom which we interpret as behavior of a 'particle' such as an electron.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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?

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:

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

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

Whatever you want. Space, fine by me.

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.

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.

A small disclaimer, the deeper we go into the subject, the harder it is for me to express myself, so I may use incorrect terminology, and of course may be plain wrong sometimes.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Oh please, it's just common sense. If a person offers brain surgery and invites his prospect clients into the back of butcher shop, that should raise red flags. Labs are not outfitted with picnic furniture. You don't call some cheap office rental "Headquarters" because it's a lie of omission, actually -- the vast network of Searl enterprise simply does not exist. You don't care about being lied to.

And you are in denial of objective reality, which is the "key concept" of the SEG is emanation of electrons from neodymium. This has NEVER been demonstrated. Never. A bunch of rollers does not demonstrate anything except that a circle is round.

Stop with the false analogies... please.

It has NEVER been demonstrated... until NOW. WTF, why do you think he is making the concept prototypes to demonstrate these things? Its because of people like you who won't believe it until they see it, and even then will still deny it.

The rollers as stationary objects do nothing, but when they rotate its a whole new ball game buddy. You know this.

Since they roll on the copper, there is increasingly less friction the faster they go, so the rollers can make it across the magnetic 'gap' of resistance increasingly more efficiently, as their momentum is enough to make it around again, and again, and again, etc.

Heat/electrons are thrown towards the edges of the system, resulting in a fluctuation in the center which draws in surrounding heat/ZPE that perpetuates the Searl EFFECT.

Named after him... because he found it.

History will not remember scientists like you very well, for denying such simple solutions, and such simple physics.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Except in great many cases the wave formalism is reduced to what is mathematically a particle. When I direct a 50GeV electron at a target, I don't need to bother considering it's "wave nature" to both predict and analyze results. If you prefer to engage in such kind of fruitless masturbation as to keep pondering of how it's like totally a wave, it's up to you. When engineers design a crash test for a new car, they don't use relativistic mechanics. According to you, they are wrong. Different parts of theory have different domains of applicability.

You in particular divert from the topic so often it's hard to tell what's best... Would you like to discuss Universal Theory or crumple zones? I for one have been drawn to Newton's Cradle, so it all ties in.

reply to post by beebs


Researchers type up grant letters all the time to study bird brains... We might be able to make some money off Buddhasystem. If not, work off the same subsidies of the oil and gas industry. Let's not pop any holes in deep sea methane volcanoes though. And you wonder, where the cash goes?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have Universal Laws Never Before Revealed: Keely's Secrets in my stack of books waiting to be read.

Reading this book now. It's published by The Message Company.

On pages 221 & 222 is stated that Keely put forth a theory of Triple Concordant Flows:

Radiant energy is a composite form of energy that does not manifest itself to our senses until it strikes a molecule or atom.

Heat and light are vibrating forms of energy. Therefore we can assume that radiant energy (as used in heat) is a form of vibration we cannot perceive. Light poses the same dilem[m]a because interplanetary space is full of darkness (the absence of light) so we can assume that light does not manifest to our senses until it also strikes a molecule or atom. This is actually the process of modulation or demodulation from a higher or lower frequency to another, newer form or rate of vibration.

What is happening, really happening, between the Sun and the Earth which is full of heat and light yet these two powerful forces are not noticeable until this radiant solar energy strikes molecules or atoms?

First we know several things: that this solar energy has a frequency and that the molecules and atoms have their respective frequencies. We also know that vibrations are not simple sine wave-like entities. We know this because we can create and transmit a longitudinal wave which also possesses transverse, vortex and a whole series of other dissimilar wave patterns and forms. These newer derivatives are dependent on direction and medium of transmission. Might we not say that there is no such thing as a simple vibration? May we also say that any vibration is in truth a composite made up of all these inherently different wave forms? What is it that liberates these newer forms of vibration? Isn't it the direction of propagation alone?

The concept is now clear - the radiant solar energy begins its lengthy trip from the Sun as undifferentiated vibration. This matrixed vibration has within itself all the known forms of manifesting energy: heat, light, sound, etc. These lesser forms of energy are liberated from the greater when the greater strikes a molecule or atom which results in a change of direction and frequency and hence manner of association with other composite vibrations.

Keely maintained that this greater stream of energy was made up of three major components. He called this stream a Triple Concordant Flow. He further maintained that this stream of energy manifested as electricity, magnetism and gravity when it struck the Earth or was assimilated to the Earth. These became what he termed "terrestrial polar currents" and were easily proven (he said) by the manifestations we see in the far north known as the aureos borealis. It has been noted elsewhere that Tesla took great interest in this light phenomenon. If he did determine this process as outlined above he would have been able to find a manner to differentiate this terrestrial polar current into both electrical forces and magnetic forces. It is theorized that it is through this undifferentiated state he meant to transmit electrical energy to any place on the Earth's surface. If he could have tapped into this unlimited supply he could most easily have illuminated the world for next to nothing. The energy is already there, cozy in its undifferentiated state, waiting to obey the man who could fathom its secret key and liberate it into manifestation.

reply to post by Mary Rose


That's some medieval notions right there, incompatible with our knowledge even by 19th century standards.

Word soup of highest degree.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Depends upon who's doing the talking.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Depends upon who's doing the talking.

How about Scientific American?
www.lhup.edu...

Keely Nearing the End

It was announced from Philadelphia on the 17th of March that the Keely motor was practically completed. All the workmen had been discharged, and Mr. Keely was immediately to begin "focalizing and adjusting the vibrators"—a delicate operation but easy for him—and as soon as he obtained "one perfect revolution, though even so slow," the great invention would be complete. The news called forth several funny paragraphs in the newspapers and quite a flutter among the stock holders and directors, who have been for several years investing money to back up this nineteenth century discoverer of "perpetual motion" It is difficult, indeed, to consider seriously this alleged invention, or justly characterize the inventor, who, in this age, not only assumes to get something out of nothing, but would hide all his methods and processes and affect more than the mystery of the alchemists of the early ages. Yet it is a serious matter to those who have been sinking their money therein. Now, however, we seem at last to have reached the "beginning of the end," and the attention of the investors can, at an early day, be "focalized" on their profit and loss accounts. [Scientific American, March 25, 1884, p. 196.]

The Keely Motor Stuck Again.

Keely's first week of solitary confinement with his motor for the purpose of "focalizing and adjusting the vibrators," has resulted, not in the single revolution which is to demonstrate his final triumph, but in another postponement. We learn from one of our contemporaries that the stockholders met in Philadelphia on the 26th, and waited with great excitement for a report from Keely. He sent word that the "focalizing" was making rapid progress, that he was too busy to leave it even for a moment, and that they could fix a date for exhibition on or before April 10. Then the stockholders separated, cheerful and hopeful as usual. [Scientific American, April 5, 1884, p. 213.]

That's some postponement! 127 years later, and still waiting!

Although when new inventions appear it may be necessary to coin appropriate terms, we should not think it essential to resort to heterogeneous cominglement of absurdities. [Scientific American, October 11, 1884.]

I think "word soup" and "heterogeneous cominglement of absurdities" have similar meanings if I interpret buddhasystem and Scientific American correctly. But what would Scientific American know about science?

Or how about what Donald Simanek said:

I confidently predict that if new sources of energy are ever discovered, they will have not the slightest connection with anything Keely ever did or imagined. Present-day followers and admirers of Keely are wasting their time, and will simply get nowhere as they try to implement his ideas to produce an energy generator.

It's your time to waste if you want to, but just think how much more productive your time would be if you studied real science.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Depends upon who's doing the talking.

Regardless of who's doing the talking.

The notion there is that there is literally some mysterious energy emanating from the Sun. Now, according to science (and hence the facts) all aspects of Sun radiation are described by electromagnetism, weak interaction and indeed some aspects of the acoustics.

There is no need to theorize about some metaphysical entity, which in reality does not manifest itself in any way. I can claim there is a pentaform dynometric resonance which absorbs some of the neutrino flux on its way from the Sun, but no amount of important sounding words would make that a valid statement, not any more than Keely's nonsense is.

In the process of making cheese, there is fermentation going on. There is no arcane magic and no astral projection of Osiris that makes milk to curdle and mature into cheese.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Blah, blah, blah.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Blah, blah, blah.

Nice summary of the book you've been reading!

It's amazing that more than a century later, someone is still making money off this fraud.

you CAN'T explain how this "concordance" manifests itself, so who's talking "blah" here?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Wasn't it Morgan who went head to head against Tesla? Brought down his "wi-tricity" tower in any event. Here's a guy who planned to pulse our ionosphere. Moreover, the same crew blasted AC as a danger to society. Hindsight is 20/20.

Originally posted by Americanist
Hindsight is 20/20.

Exactly, which is why I can't understand why anyone is still interested in what Keely said after all the hidden air lines were found in his lab connected to a hidden air compressor that he was using to fool people.

That discovery should give us 20/20 hindsight, but some people put blinders on and ignore it and pretend that Keely wasn't actually a hoaxer. Amazing.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
Hindsight is 20/20.

Exactly, which is why I can't understand why anyone is still interested in what Keely said after all the hidden air lines were found in his lab connected to a hidden air compressor that he was using to fool people.

That discovery should give us 20/20 hindsight, but some people put blinders on and ignore it and pretend that Keely wasn't actually a hoaxer. Amazing.

Tesla is a perfect example of what happens when big money is challenged. Innovation takes a backseat to the cash cow. What I don't understand is why anyone flat out buys rumor and conjecture hook, line, and sinker. I reference Keely as a person namely because of what Dale Pond brings to the table. He has a discussion on the differences between resonance and modulation with actual participants (the piano tuner was classic) aiding listeners.

Hoaxer is the modern day equivalent of heretic. You have to admit... You don't know what you don't know, so you're left to dig up tidbits. Those scraps are often found to be diversions steering you away from truth. Sink to that level enough times, and you get stuck there. Reaching out is where it's at.

I am noticing two camps in here...

a) Particles acting as waves and how so.

b) Wave function simulating particle points.

Now that we have evidence of continuing background radiation and a vacuum producing casimir effect... Which camp wins?

I'll introduce a 3rd... The singularity group. All points in a vacuum are 0 where resistance - radiation leads to a static flow of mass.

Originally posted by Americanist
Tesla is a perfect example of what happens when big money is challenged.

I just happen to have worked immediately for, and has been associated with big money (your mileage will vary). Maybe a couple of billion dollars does not seem big to you. It sure did to me and my clients.

The quest for the next big cash cow is so intense that any prospect inventor with any idea at 10%

Listen up, kid: an inventor with a viable Big Cash idea would be protected by the Russian Spetznaz from Hell. You don't know these guys. You don't want to know this folk. I personally do know this kind of people. Just sayin' to put this in perspective.

You don't know what you don't know

At the same time I do know what I do know. That seems to supercede anything what you know. Or, what you have ever have known, or, what yo will ever know. Just saying. From where I sit, I know a lot and you know close to zero. Dismissed. Redneck, or blueneck, or purpleneck. Or purpleballs.

reply to post by beebs


Do the particles disappear at troughs and appear at crests? Can we ever detect a fraction of a particle, rather than a whole or none? If no, then it cannot be considered continuous, unless experimental data suggests it. Again, predictions and experimental data is what gives credence to any theory. Someone might argue the boogie man exists but can turn invisible at will, and that's why we cannot see him, but without actual evidence...

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by beebs

 

Do the particles disappear at troughs and appear at crests? Can we ever detect a fraction of a particle, rather than a whole or none? If no, then it cannot be considered continuous, unless experimental data suggests it. Again, predictions and experimental data is what gives credence to any theory. Someone might argue the boogie man exists but can turn invisible at will, and that's why we cannot see him, but without actual evidence...

Dear 547000,

I think we should all heed Matthew 7:6 and stop wasting the valuable time just to indulge the base, the uneducated and the obnoxious among us.

We could have a discussion. As for the rest, let them rot.

What do you say about a new forum for the knowledgeable ones? You seem like a good start

The discussion was about VBM, but I've given up on trying to explain why it's BS. You either have the background necessary to see it plainly or you don't. Now it's about the nature of reality, and I'm seeing it's fruitless to argue with people who think they're onto something new or grand and think science is suppressing them because they cannot prove their pet theories. They don't even want to understand the standard model, the model they claim is all wrong; I'm reminded of them not noticing that there's no action at a distance of the rodin coil and that spin wheels can easily explain why the ball was spinning for a while. But no, it cannot possibly be something so simple, it must involve something complicated like harnessing vacuum energy.

There are plenty of forums where people know what they're talking about. I recommend Physics Forums

reply to post by 547000


Thanks I look into these fora.

I think I'm risking to be exposed as ill-equipped, then again I've been known to kick major @ss.

Thank you.