The Ground Breaking Mathematics That Proves Free Energy Is Possible Has Been Discovered

hurdygurdy
reply to post by rickymouse

 

What if every country was in possession of free energy technology? That would be a paradigm changer for sure.

Like waking from a dream to a NWO with no borders, no greed, no weapons, no war...

I am sure that this free energy technology would be turned into a weapon. That would be the first choice of many countries.

MystikMushroom
Humans would destroy themselves with free energy. Mankind's progress would accelerate far to quickly, and lead to a swift downfall. There are more than just economic reasons for keeping free energy suppressed (if it even is a real thing).

It would be like giving a selfish 8 year old unlimited candy.

I have to disagree with that!
Those in control ALREADY have as much energy as they need, are you suggesting they're out of control?....oh your right, THEY are.
But for the rest of us, well we dont want to rule other peoples lives, all we want is to live quietly and comfortably, and a little energy device running in the basement is all the VAST majority of us would want.

reply to post by purplemer


its more numerological than it is mathematical...you will find a lot of technicality issues with calling VBM "mathematics". Even though they are using mathematical operators the conclusions aren't the same and often times the = sign isn't used properly.

THIS is actually relatively old information...watched some 4 hours of Marko Rodin go over VBM and for me it made understanding NUMBERS much more clearly still has to this day.

Its a different way to interpret numbers into segments or by relationships and properties. 147, 258, 369

If you assign each segment a dimension such as:
X=1,4,7
Y=2,5,8
Z=3,6,9

Draw a line through the number sequence n+1


I've had a desire to post some more fun stuff on this but haven't had the time honestly.

GetHyped
This whole Vortex Math nonsense again? It's appealing to the mathematically illiterate and considerably easier to (cough) "understand" than actual math so that must explain a lot, really.

Complexity is rarely if ever a great indicator of a natural truth...simplicity is actually one of the main goals of the mathematical process...

"Hey, we want this information to go out to the people, to become public! We want to produce a book, a dvd and then give it to the people so that everyone does know about this!"

There is this thing called The Internet, complete with wikis and blogs and arxive and so on - plenty of possible ways to reach A LOT OF PEOPLE. Downside: usually you can't sell access to a wiki/blog/etc like with a book or a dvd.

This, and the fast-forward-style of the presentation (no explanations, just another pic and then an animation and another pic and then you see a metallic ball in a glasscup, which *might* rotate but noone can see it doing so because of the poor quality of the video combined with a possibly fast rotating featureless and smooth ball, and then some more pictures combined with the unrelateable word-throwing of the presenter leaves me with only one possible explanation:

Scam.

And a lot of it. No mathematical proofs, no presentation of continous ideas, just an incoherent speech consisting of hot air.
Would not buy a book/dvd about this.

The first one-way acoustic isolator lets you listen in without being heard

reply to post by purplemer


I doubt we have all the answers regarding physics. Scientist still can't wrap their heads around black holes.

Here's some other stuff being circulated around the net recently on this topic, just thought I'd add it into the thread as I don't have much unique input to offer in this field.

Earlier this year, Irvine’s team used water displacing objects called hydrofoils, created through 3-D printing, to fashion a trefoil knot out of a water vortex — the first vortex knot ever created in the lab.

For decades, scientists have suspected the rules governing these knots could offer clues for untangling turbulence — one of the last great unknowns of classical physics — but any order exhibited by the knots was lost in the surrounding chaos.

Vorticies, Turbulence




I'd also like to add this in, as I think that eventually it will come into play. We have created monopoles in certain material.

Nature: Overwhelming Evidence for Monopoles

WeRpeons

The first one-way acoustic isolator lets you listen in without being heard

reply to post by purplemer

 

I doubt we have all the answers regarding physics. Scientist still can't wrap their heads around black holes.

Hawking is now revamping the understanding of something they don't still fully understand!
www.space.com...

Its kinda like orbiting a sphere of awareness...as you come upon new awareness's on the horizon old ones fade away on the other horizon...

The event horizon is one of awareness and perspective...

is any one point along an orbit more valid than any other?

reply to post by Sly1one

Hawking is now leaning that there never were any black holes...

Not exactly.

From your source:

In reality, the headlines should not be “black holes don’t exist” but “black holes are more complicated than we thought, but we are not going to really know how complicated until gravity and quantum mechanics try to get along”.

www.space.com...

Sly1one

GetHyped
This whole Vortex Math nonsense again? It's appealing to the mathematically illiterate and considerably easier to (cough) "understand" than actual math so that must explain a lot, really.

Complexity is rarely if ever a great indicator of a natural truth...simplicity is actually one of the main goals of the mathematical process...

edit on 31-1-2014 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)

S+ for you man, it gets old constantly hearing how things are not possible.

This kind of thinking is the same type of thinking that leads to:

Isis is not real.

The sound barrier can never be broken.

Monopoles are not possible.

.....you'd think after you reached a certain age and level of knowledge you become less arrogant and assuming. Skepticism is healthy and good but blanket statements of "it's not (mathematically) or otherwise possible" have always been proven wrong with time. Ideas evolve and what may at one time seemed impossible, with new information, becomes probable.

Edit: And yeah Hawking is simply adding more time to the black hole thing not denouncing it.... They ran out of acronyms that they could add onto 'Black Hole' Massive, Super Massive, Neo Massive, etc without incurring copyright infringement from the Final Fantasy Series so now they went 'grey'

It's incredibly silly knowing the fact that all known physics complacently breaks down and changes with sufficient pressure to even presume they could accurately guess whats going on in an already mathematically flawed concept of a black hole (that whole math thing again).

Phage
reply to post by Sly1one

 

Hawking is now leaning that there never were any black holes...

Not exactly.

From your source:

In reality, the headlines should not be “black holes don’t exist” but “black holes are more complicated than we thought, but we are not going to really know how complicated until gravity and quantum mechanics try to get along”.

www.space.com...

You are correct! I fixed my statement to be more accurate!

Science has long attempted to explain what they observe in the Universe through brute force mechanics... the OP is suggesting looking at things through softer eyes; thinking of the Universe as organic, rather than mechanical... not sentient, but organic none the less...

reply to post by madmac5150

Science has long attempted to explain what they observe in the Universe through brute force mechanics.

Not exactly. Science has attempted to describe observations about the Universe and the relationships within it in such a way that inferences and predictions can be made about them. Black holes are a good example. The math predicted certain things should be observed and, son of a gun, they were. Einstein predicted that the Sun would appear to bend the light from distant stars and, son of a gun, it does!

Now, if this "new math" actually describes anything that happens in the Universe there may be something to it. Does it? Does it make any predictions about what other observations may be made in order to support it (or falsify it)? It doesn't seem to (mostly seems to be a bunch of arm waving) but I could be wrong.

There is all kinds of math that bears no relationship to reality. Mathematicians love that kind of stuff. But once in a while a "new math" shows up which actually does a pretty good job of representing aspects of the world. Any indication that is the case here? Other than wishful thinking, I mean.

Interesting but we shall see........

reply to post by Phage


I think its still to soon to say. There is going to be some serious experimentation being done soon, vorticies and turbulence, are the next major area to test entanglement theories and ideas for the standard model now that we are able to control them enough to experiment on, I think this field is probably one of THE fields to watch. Im sure it will generate a resurgence of all kinds on shinangins and bad science etc but this area will be the new ground.


We will see in the end of "vortex math" if you want to call it that, will be found a more efficient way to describe the interactions vs "regular math" you'd have to read the paper in Nature I linked to about the monopole discovery.

reply to post by Phage


The one "constant" with any "new math" is time... will it predict observed behaviors and stand up to the "test of time"... there was a time when the steady-state model was accepted, until new math (at that time) changed perceptions. If it has validity, it should be able to stand up on its own...

reply to post by madmac5150

The one "constant" with any "new math" is time... will it predict observed behaviors and stand up to the "test of time".

Like I said, what predictions does this math make? The predictions of relativity are tested and borne out continually. Where are the predictions of this math? How can it be tested?

there was a time when the steady-state model was accepted, until new math (at that time) changed perceptions.

Actually, it was observations which changed it. "Hey, the expansion of the Universe is accelerating!" The math came afterward.

If it has validity, it should be able to stand up on its own...

If it has validity in the real world it should be able to demonstrate how it relates to the real world. I sure don't see that in the video, other than pretty pictures. "Look at the pretty spiral. The world is a spiral. Energy is a spiral. No wait, it's a torus."

MystikMushroom
Humans would destroy themselves with free energy. Mankind's progress would accelerate far to quickly, and lead to a swift downfall. There are more than just economic reasons for keeping free energy suppressed (if it even is a real thing).

It would be like giving a selfish 8 year old unlimited candy.

as opposed to now where we all hold hands and cut lillies

mbkennel

mrkeen
reply to post by purplemer

 

Mathematics is not something that can be 'discovered'. Every theory is based on a set of axioms, and the rest follows.

In reality, it isn't like that. Mathematics beyond the most elementary actually is discovered. Humans have to make leaps of intuition beyond computer like a->b->c->d deductive computations.

Great mathematicians make extraordinary leaps and then fill in the bricks and mortar in between. if it were 'deducing from axioms' then you wouldn't have some mathematicians making enormous conceptual breakthroughs that eluded hundreds of other equally stupendously intelligent colleagues.

After the initial definitions and axioms are established, you are bound by the limits of your theory. Of course, it does not exclude making discoveries in connection with specific theorems or properties that are not initially obvious, or discoveries of the initial definitions themselves, as well as directions of search. At the same time, without specifically searching for something, you cannot claim it is a 'discovery', because you need some reference point. Also mathematical solution is not identical to physically feasible solution. You can have a theory that explains how the Sun works, but you may not be able to reproduce it in a lab. And you can have a nice non-Euclidean geometry with cool theorems, but you won't be able to see its manifestation in the physical world. So before we can make a conclusion that a math theory supports the idea of 'free energy', we must link this theory to physics, but then it will be a physical theory, not just math theory.

reply to post by purplemer


My PC gets so hot i can literally cook an egg on it, no joke!

Hows that for free energy