"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Surprise surprise.

DePalma's a fraud, too.

Do we have any reason to believe otherwise?

He also never produced anything that works in the real world, right?

Here's a fraud, There's a fraud... Everywhere's a fraud, fraud:

Originally posted by Americanist
Here's a fraud, There's a fraud... Everywhere's a fraud, fraud:

I posted the claim about fraud with Depalma.

The guy in that video is more likely a victim of his own incompetence. It astounds me that people who think they know how to measure over unity have no clue what they are doing, especially when the device involves a battery. I think some of them really fool themselves with their own measurement incompetence, so you could say it's more a case of delusion than fraud, if they don't know it doesn't work, and they really believe their own incompetent measurements:
peswiki.com...:Magna_Coaster_Motor_Company#.241_Million_Deal

There is nothing new about this company. I've seen dozens of such claims over the last 12 years. There are very common power mismeasurement mistakes that lead people to believing they have an over unity machine. Joe Newman has also claimed imminent mass production of such systems for more than 30 years now. I don't claim to know which people are mistaken and which are knowingly operating a criminal enterprise. My open offer to all these companies and now magnacoaster via this email is:

"If you really do have a power multiplier or something that makes net energy out of nothing, then your device would usher in a golden new age of cheap energy. It would greatly turn around our dying world economy, reduce pollution, roll back global warming and help every people group except a small number of oil producing countries who tend to hate us. But what stands between you and massive wealth and world adoration is credibility. You must have a problem of being considered delusional or out right crooks by the majority of people you deal with. Allow me to take part in a simple test that would give you instant credibility and help you more clearly stand apart from a pathetic century of history of crooks and kooks who pretty much have been regularly making the same claim as you. Please take a look at my open $10,000 offer for real proof of one of these things at: www.phact.org... "

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Bearden . . . talks about the need for an overhaul of classical electrodynamics. He says that the EM wave in the vacuum flux is like a sound wave, that it's longitudinal, not transverse, and that Tesla knew this from his experiments.

Without taking us off-topic by attacking Bearden the individual, who can comment from their own expertise on whether or not the EM wave in the vacuum flux is like a sound wave? And what the significance is?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Bearden . . . talks about the need for an overhaul of classical electrodynamics. He says that the EM wave in the vacuum flux is like a sound wave, that it's longitudinal, not transverse, and that Tesla knew this from his experiments.

Without taking us off-topic by attacking Bearden the individual, who can comment from their own expertise on whether or not the EM wave in the vacuum flux is like a sound wave? And what the significance is?

If you read what I posted earlier you would know this is crap. Transverse EM waves are a fact.

Seriously, educate yourself on basic things like this.

Originally posted by 547000
If you read what I posted earlier you would know this is crap. Transverse EM waves are a fact.

You left out the words "in the vacuum flux."

Is that significant, or not?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 547000
If you read what I posted earlier you would know this is crap. Transverse EM waves are a fact.

You left out the words "in the vacuum flux."

Is that significant, or not?

No. In vacuum the waves are still transverse.

reply to post by 547000


Thank you. This helps direct my research.

There is no such thing as a vacuum.

Please consider this fact.

There is a medium, whether we call it aether, or a dense and quantized spacetime.

Originally posted by beebs
There is no such thing as a vacuum.

Please consider this fact.

There is a medium, whether we call it aether, or a dense and quantized spacetime.

Of course there is no indication of its existence, so I pick the word "bloviating" to describe your behavior.

reply to post by buddhasystem


There is a difference between absence of evidence, and evidence to the contrary.

There is evidence to the contrary regarding the physical existence of such a concept or theoretical presupposition as a literal 'vacuum'.

reply to post by buddhasystem
It's not dense. Some things are dense, like a neutron star or other things I can think of, but not a vacuum.

Einstein referred to "new aether" to distinguish what relativity describes, from the older concept of luminiferous aether.

en.wikipedia.org...

Einstein explained that the "aether of general relativity" is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the aether, just as matter influences the structure of the aether.[A 20]

So the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, as historians such as John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. For, as Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. In addition, Einstein's use of the word "aether" found little support in the scientific community

So even what Einstein called "new aether" had no substance, so you certainly can't call it dense.

But I was excited to read that gravity probe B finally confirmed that the Earth does drag something around with it when it rotates, what Einstein called "new aether" and which we now commonly call space-time.

Gravity Probe B Data Confirms Frame-Dragging and Geodetic Effect in Support of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity .

The geodetic effect—the warping of Earth’s local space-time due to Earth’s mass––has been confirmed to 0.28% accuracy. The frame-dragging effect—the dragging or twisting of Earth’s local space-time due to Earth’s rotation––has been confirmed to 19% accuracy.

But saying it's dense is just so wrong.

Great post, but I think your argument and interpretation of Einstein's statement is vague and very much up for contention.

The entire idea of gravitational waves is only viable if there are certain properties or non-zero values associated with space.

I don't see why 'density', or rather 'energy density' cannot be a proper term in this discussion.

There is no such thing as a vacuum, and therefore no such thing as 'empty space' or 'nothing' without properties or values.

Perhaps it is more proper to say there is no manner(currently known?) in which we could possibly observe or detect such a thing as a literal vacuum, or empty space. This makes the strict notion of a real 'vacuum' almost entirely subject to the domain of metaphysics.

If, however, we instead acknowledge vacuum density and ZPE and focus on understanding them... a coherent description of a propertied space medium will emerge. The energy density of this space approaches zero, or a true vacuum, but can never reach that point. It is quantized in its approach towards zero.

Originally posted by beebs
Great post, but I think your argument and interpretation of Einstein's statement is vague and very much up for contention.

Thanks but what part is vague?

The entire idea of gravitational waves is only viable if there are certain properties or non-zero values associated with space.

I didn't even mention gravitational waves.

I don't see why 'density', or rather 'energy density' cannot be a proper term in this discussion.

Matter density is probably the default interpretation of dense if you don't specify another kind of density. "Energy density" can be an ambiguous term, as the wiki on that term shows at least three different applications of that term, and in the context of the third usage, "Energy density of Empty Space", the article immediately refers to the less ambiguous references of "vacuum energy" or "zero-point energy", so my suggestion would be to use those terms if that's what you mean, simply because they are less ambiguous than "energy density".

There is no such thing as a vacuum, and therefore no such thing as 'empty space' or 'nothing' without properties or values.

I wasn't arguing that a vacuum is empty, just that it's not dense. Observations do show there's a little bit of something in the vacuum. But I don't know of any observations that show it's "dense", do you?

Perhaps it is more proper to say there is no manner(currently known?) in which we could possibly observe or detect such a thing as a literal vacuum, or empty space. This makes the strict notion of a real 'vacuum' almost entirely subject to the domain of metaphysics.

To me this is like saying we can't observe absolute zero. The coldest objects in the universe are a few degrees Kelvin. We can imagine something getting a few degrees colder even if it's not observable. Likewise, the least dense regions of space still have some particles, atoms, or molecules floating about, but it's not that hard to imagine that space with the few particles per cubic meter removed. Then all that would be left is the true vacuum energy. Some people think that may be related to dark energy which may be related to the cosmological constant of general relativity. Just because physicists haven't got that part figured out yet, doesn't mean they won't figure it out eventually, they're pretty clever. I see no need to resort to metaphysics for that.

If, however, we instead acknowledge vacuum density and ZPE and focus on understanding them... a coherent description of a propertied space medium will emerge. The energy density of this space approaches zero, or a true vacuum, but can never reach that point. It is quantized in its approach towards zero.

Before 1998 I might have thought that makes sense. But since "dark energy" observations were published in 1998, we are no longer sure it will approach zero. If the cosmological constant of relativity interpretation is correct, the vacuum energy may have some small non-zero value.

Dark Energy

Two proposed forms for dark energy are the cosmological constant, a constant energy density filling space homogeneously,[3] and scalar fields such as quintessence or moduli, dynamic quantities whose energy density can vary in time and space. Contributions from scalar fields that are constant in space are usually also included in the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is physically equivalent to vacuum energy.

Note the suspected relationship between dark energy, the cosmological constant, and vacuum energy. Now that part I admit is vague, because we suspect these relationships but have yet to prove them.

That article goes on to support my rebuttal of your claim that it's dense. The article says specifically that it's not very dense:

The nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. It is known to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is not very dense—roughly 10E−29 grams per cubic centimeter—it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory.

Even if you use E=mc^2 to convert that into energy terms, "roughly 10E−29 grams per cubic centimeter" is still not dense in terms of matter or energy, is it? On the other hand, it's definitely not zero.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Bearden . . . talks about the need for an overhaul of classical electrodynamics. He says that the EM wave in the vacuum flux is like a sound wave, that it's longitudinal, not transverse, and that Tesla knew this from his experiments.

From correspondence on Bearden's site:

The Whittaker papers (1903 and 1904) show that all normal EM fields, waves, and potentials are "envelopes" built of longitudinal EM waves and their dynamics. Further, a longitudinal EM wave is also a curvature of spacetime, and in a proper higher group symmetry electromagnetic theory such as O(3) such things can be and are modeled. In the West, however, this rich and vast internal structure -- comprised of a much more fundamental and vastly capable electrodynamics --- of what we accept as conventional electrodynamics has been ignored.

Bearden writes about the Whittaker papers in "Superpotentials, Scalar interferometry, and Internally Structuring of Fields and Potentials."

These things have nothing to do with the status of a device or the selling of DVDs, of course. So let's not get off on a tangent.

Let's focus on this information about non-classical electrodynamics. I'm hoping people knowledgable in electrical engineering will read this paper by Bearden.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

There is a difference between absence of evidence, and evidence to the contrary.

There is evidence to the contrary regarding the physical existence of such a concept or theoretical presupposition as a literal 'vacuum'.

In the scientific method absence of evidence might as well be evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Bearden . . . talks about the need for an overhaul of classical electrodynamics. He says that the EM wave in the vacuum flux is like a sound wave, that it's longitudinal, not transverse, and that Tesla knew this from his experiments.

From correspondence on Bearden's site:

Further, a longitudinal EM wave is also a curvature of spacetime,....

I thought this was already covered.

In a vacuum, longitudinal EM waves do not exist.

Can Longitudinal Electromagnetic Waves Exist?

Plane longitudinal electromagnetic waves do not exist. We supplement this by showing that longitudinal spherical electromagnetic waves have the same pleasant property: They don’t exist.

At least they don't exist in a vacuum. It's possible to have longitudinal waves in a plasma, but plasma isn't a vacuum. Guided waves are mentioned also, but waveguides aren't really a vacuum either.

Notice Bearden is referring to Whittaker in 1903-1904, not many years after the electron was discovered around 1897. I think it's fair to say that we didn't understand electron behavior as well having only known about the existence of the electron for 6 years, as we do today after knowing about the electron for 114 years. One of our learning experiences has been that some early ideas about longitudinal EM waves were wrong.

Longitudinal wave

In the early development of electromagnetism there was some suggesting that longitudinal electromagnetic waves existed in a vacuum. After Heaviside's attempts to generalize Maxwell's equations, Heaviside came to the conclusion that electromagnetic waves were not to be found as longitudinal waves in "free space" or homogeneous media. But it should be stated that Maxwell's equations do lead to the appearance of longitudinal waves under some circumstances in either plasma waves or guided waves

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Further, a longitudinal EM wave is also a curvature of spacetime,....

I thought this was already covered.

I don't recall and a search of the thread for "curvature of spacetime" didn't bring up anything...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Longitudinal wave

But it should be stated that Maxwell's equations do lead to the appearance of longitudinal waves . . .

This is what Bearden has emphasized in his writings: Maxwell's original equations.

I need someone who is an expert on them to comment.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From correspondence on Bearden's site:

Further, a longitudinal EM wave is also a curvature of spacetime, and in a proper higher group symmetry electromagnetic theory such as O(3) such things can be and are modeled.

Is anyone an expert on O(3) theory?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
One of our learning experiences has been that some early ideas about longitudinal EM waves were wrong.

Did you read "Superpotentials, Scalar interferometry, and Internally Structuring of Fields and Potentials" and are you familiar with the references?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I wasn't arguing that a vacuum is empty, just that it's not dense. Observations do show there's a little bit of something in the vacuum. But I don't know of any observations that show it's "dense", do you?

I propose we stop using the word vacuum then, since a non-empty vacuum is not a vacuum at all. Is space a suitable alternative term for you? If there is a little bit of something there, I don't know a better term to use in a general fashion than 'density'. We can perhaps say 'quantized energy levels approaching zero', but of course there are differing areas and fluctuations in the 'quantized energy levels approaching zero'. Differing in what? 'Density' is a nice term in this case. Some physicists regularly use this terminology, it doesn't mean its right but if we are going to go in a different direction we have to be systematic in agreeing upon our own terms.

google search: vacuum energy density fluctuations

To me this is like saying we can't observe absolute zero. The coldest objects in the universe are a few degrees Kelvin. We can imagine something getting a few degrees colder even if it's not observable.

Thats exactly what I am saying. Imagining something at absolute zero is a metaphysical extrapolation on the existence of a theoretical limit called 'absolute zero'. Our evidence is against the physical existence or reality of something actually existing at 'absolute zero'. Do you agree that even if such a state existed in the universe, we currently do not have the means to be able to observe such a phenomenon?

Likewise, the least dense regions of space still have some particles, atoms, or molecules floating about, but it's not that hard to imagine that space with the few particles per cubic meter removed.

What is your definition of density? And is there something in-between the particles, atoms, or molecules floating about? Again though, imagining the space as empty doesn't mean it actually exists like that...

Then all that would be left is the true vacuum energy. Some people think that may be related to dark energy which may be related to the cosmological constant of general relativity.

It seems like you agree with me, but are averse to doing so explicitly. This 'true vacuum energy' is a property of space, if we exchange the terms as proposed above. There is energy there... which means there is 'quantized energy levels approaching zero' (density), and not all of space has the same level of quantized energy (or density).

Especially here:

Before 1998 I might have thought that makes sense. But since "dark energy" observations were published in 1998, we are no longer sure it will approach zero. If the cosmological constant of relativity interpretation is correct, the vacuum energy may have some small non-zero value.

And in your further clips about dark energy, a propertied space medium with density is further confirmed.

'Not very dense' is still dense, IMO.