.Science history

onepower

Re: .Science history
« Reply #25,  »Last edited
Quote
Of course it may all be in vain if Harald Kautz Vella is correct or partially correct
The solution seems simple enough... stop eating processed industrialized crap and start eating whole natural foods to maintain our health. In places like Kelowna B.C they have started "farm to table" programs and developed "urban farming" practices. Imagine that... real food for real people.

In the near future I would expect to see micro-scale automated vertical farming and aquaponics become more popular. Do you know what the most efficient, most sustainable farm machine is?. A horse... it's input is grass and water which is abundant and it's output is organic fertilizer. Now if we could build a fully automated semi-intelligent organic machine like a horse to perform work it would make present farming practices look primitive by comparison. Our automated horse could simply eat all the weeds and insects as it tends the crops then trim the pasture to refuel.

The fact is that even the most primitive organic machines designed by nature are light years ahead of anything man has built because they are intelligent, sustainable and 100% biodegradable... no batteries required. I have been working on an "organic muscle" for a while now and plan to do some tests this summer. It begs the question... if an autonomous organic machine requires no input from us but can extract energy from the surrounding environment then does this not qualify as a free energy machine?.

Nature never ceases to amaze me... man not so much.




Matt Watts

Re: .Science history
« Reply #26,  »
Man is nothing more than a biological robot, a slave.  Some know it, others reject the idea.  Ask yourself two questions.  Why are we here?  And what is our purpose?

Those are questions we should know the answers to at a very early age, but we don't.  We spend a good part of our lives trying to figure out.  Could be a clue.

haxar

Re: .Science history
« Reply #27,  »Last edited
Quote from Matt Watts on April 9th, 01:12 PM
Man is nothing more than a biological robot, a slave.  Some know it, others reject the idea.  Ask yourself two questions.  Why are we here?  And what is our purpose?
Modern day peonage as creditor & debtor.

The peon debtor collects "Federal Reserve" notes from a job contract to pay-off a creditor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

The debtor can also:
  • issue their own note to pay-off a creditor, when solvent (not declared bankrupt);
  • assign fiduciary duty of account receivables in care of the "United States" Treasury via a "Federal Reserve" agent.

Piero

Re: .Science history
« Reply #28,  »
Cycle,  could  you push here the Whittaker paper about the two scalar equations?

itzon

Re: .Science history
« Reply #29,  »
Quote from onepower on April 9th, 08:05 AM
Now if we could build a fully automated semi-intelligent organic machine like a horse to perform work it would make present farming practices look primitive by comparison. Our automated horse could simply eat all the weeds and insects as it tends the crops then trim the pasture to refuel.
Do you work for Monsanto?  If not, you should apply for a job there.  That's right up there with their GMO objectives.

haxar

Re: .Science history
« Reply #30,  »
Hemp can replace a fictional corporation like "Monsanto."

onepower

Re: .Science history
« Reply #31,  »Last edited
Quote
Man is nothing more than a biological robot, a slave.  Some know it, others reject the idea
If you believe in the self-obsessed, misguided and often destructive beliefs of man then perhaps however the universe is a very big place. I believe in nature and man is highly overrated.
Quote
Ask yourself two questions.  Why are we here?  And what is our purpose?
Ask yourself why you believe a reason or purpose are required?.
Quote
Like the old woman in the story who described the world as resting on a rock, and then explained that rock to be supported by another rock, and finally when pushed with questions said it was "rocks all the way down," he who believes this to be a radically moral universe must hold the moral order to rest either on an absolute and ultimate should or on a series of shoulds "all the way down.
Your question is loaded with turtles all the way down.

Piero

Re: .Science history
« Reply #32,  »Last edited
I  dont  agree   with   Yurth's   affirmation   that  "universe  is information" .
The  fact  we  observe  say, the  'divine proportion' or 'fractal geometry'  is  'information'  that  we , as humans, extract from it  in the  trying  to  reveal a  'model'.  But  we  can not conclude that  universe  is only information. It is certainly 'formation in matter'   .   If  I  find  a  hard silicon drive full  of  these bits,  I certainly  can  affirm  that it is information .
But  what  is  the  coherence of  this information  depends only on the one  that  put it on.  I can not  induce the  cause of that.
Fibonacci,  observing  the growth rate of  rabbit population found  a  certain schema (law)  which  shows itself reproducing  in  many  natural phenomena. 
But  no one  has   seen  , till now,   the  cause  of  that.
And  certainly not, information  is the cause,  but   an intelligence  which  reproduce itself  in  all natural  events,  and   specially in human  being.

Matt Watts

Re: .Science history
« Reply #33,  »
Quote from onepower on April 9th, 09:27 PM
I believe in nature and man is highly overrated.

Ask yourself why you believe a reason or purpose are required?.
Nature tries things--some work, some do not.  Ask yourself this question, what is nature striving for?  Perfection?

I conclude there must be a reason or nature wouldn't bother.  It likely wouldn't even exist.

There is some force at work in the universe and it has a goal, a reason and a method to achieve it.  You and I are a small part of that goal, yet we are oblivious as to why.  It's as if we have been transplanted to this place with no rule book and no insight.  I find that rather odd.  I think someone or something knows and can't allow us to know as well, for that knowledge may spoil the experiment.

onepower

Re: .Science history
« Reply #34,  »Last edited
Quote
Nature tries things--some work, some do not.  Ask yourself this question, what is nature striving for?  Perfection?
I conclude there must be a reason or nature wouldn't bother.  It likely wouldn't even exist.
Piero made a good point and looking at the Fibonacci sequence one could assume divine intervention or a master plan. However one could also say a conductor always growing in length which dissipates energy along it's length tends to form an elongated spiral form following the inverse square law due to the Lorentz force. So yes there is some force at work, the primary fields and the law of least action to name a few.

I conclude nature is what it is and does what it does regardless of what I think. It is not my place to judge nature only to understand how it works.

Matt Watts

Asymmetric Transmission Line
« Reply #35,  »Last edited
Quote from onepower on April 10th, 05:46 AM
.. only to understand how it works.
Okay.  I have something very specific I would like for you to examine.

Look at a transmission line; understand it's principals as well as you can.

Now suppose this transmission line was wrapped as a coil--nothing really special about that until...

You make the transmission line asymmetric.  What do I mean?

Suppose the signal wire is left intact, but the geometry of the shielding is altered (shrunk) and arranged in a way where it is completely neutral to generating any magnetic field.

Next, terminate this modified transmission line to its characteristic impedance so that we do not get reflections on the exit side.

Determine the line delay of this transmission line and input a signal of 1/10th.  At the terminator we should get all the energy we inputted to the transmission line minus trivial losses.  The energy output will only be delayed, but can be recycled.  So far we are at zero sum or nearly so energy-wise.

Here's where things get good.  Via the signal line, we produced a magnetic field.  We did not produce a counteractive, cancelling magnetic field via the shield or return line, because we altered this geometry.  But there's more...

The pulse we put into this transmission line produces a magnetic field that traverses the entire length of the transmission line for the time it takes to get from the input side, to the output side.  So in effect, the magnetic field produced lasts for the duration of the pulse PLUS the duration it takes for the signal to propagate.  If the pulse is small relative to the duration of propagation, we just magnified the energy content of the magnetic field we produced.  This magnetic field could push against a moving permanent magnet performing real work.

There should also be no reason we would need to wait for a pulse to exit the transmission line prior to starting a new pulse.

So my claim is this:

A coiled asymmetric transmission line has the potential to do useful work while reclaiming nearly all the energy supplied.

The energy magnification is related to the ratio of the line delay divided by the pulse width.



Anyone see obvious flaws to this concept or my claim?

~Russ

Re: .Science history
« Reply #36,  »Last edited
Matt watch http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3231 "DC dynoflux motor" and the other things in jims video. (U have seen thses before but again might help?)



"There is alot of waisted magnetic feild... "

He shows running the unit in that one video and the fact that its onlt using 5 watts. In losses. But total its consuming 150watts...

Do the consepts your thinkin of fall under this catagory?

It seems like it dose. In a way. So expect some losses. But expect the efficiency to be over 100% when using our curent understanding of efficiency calulations

~Russ

Matt Watts

Re: .Science history
« Reply #37,  »
Jim doesn't explicitly tell you how to build anything.  His stuff is all proprietary.  If you are able to engineer from his concepts a workable device, then have at it.

I prefer the delay-line concept because I can see how this could work; whether it will or not in practice is another story.  It might not even be engineerable without some extreme componentry.  That's to be determined.  What I do see is a clear path to make an attempt.  I even see how a standard pulse motor can be modified to incorporate a delay-line mechanism and it's worth a try to build such a prototype.

~Russ


Cycle

Re: .Science history
« Reply #39,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from namirha on April 3rd, 01:28 PM
That's the image I wish I had each time I state that vacuum polarization (due to the high charge density around the nucleus of an atom) creates a geometrical transform of the scalar quantum vacuum wave modes to a circular (spherical, given the DOF) orbital path of the bound electron, because a sinusoid is a circular function. This is what feeds energy to a bound electron to prevent it 'spiraling in' to the oppositely-charged proton(s) in the nucleus. At its ground state, the energy obtained from the quantum vacuum exactly equals the energy emitted via virtual photons (magnetism... which all invariant-mass matter exhibits (usually diamagnetism, although certain electron valence configurations allow ferromagnetism to override the underlying diamagnetism)), as Boyer, NASA and Haisch and Ibison showed,

You'll note the peak amplitude of the sinusoid is analogous to the radius of the circle, the peak-to-peak amplitude is analogous to the diameter of the circle, and the frequency of the sinusoid is analogous to the rotational rate of the circle. You'll further note the circumference of the circle is equal to 2 * pi radians, and the wavelength (wave period... the inverse of frequency) of a sinusoid is equal to 2 * pi radians, so the wavelength of the sinusoid is analogous to the circumference of the circle.

Why is this? Well, it's because a sinusoid is a circle, spread out over space and time! It's a spiral. What we see on an oscilloscope is a sinusoid, but a truer representation would show a spiral over space and time... unfortunately, 4-D graphical displays don't exist.





The above image shows the real (cosine... labeled 'Re' in the image above) and imaginary (sine... labeled 'Im' in the image above) components of a sinusoid.

So when viewed in line with its direction of travel, it will appear to be a circle, and when viewed orthogonal to its direction of travel, it appears to be a sinusoid, when in reality it's a spiral.

(click to show/hide)
As an exercise, take a Slinky, stretch it out and shine a light behind it (it's best to do this with strong sunlight, as the light is nearly perfectly collimated, being from a distant 'point source'). You'll see its shadow is a sinusoid. So what we call sinusoids are really nothing more than shadows of a deeper reality. ;)

Why is the electron orbital spherical? The Higgs field causes invariant-mass matter (composed of nothing more than sinusoids of energy) to 'ping' back and forth off the Higgs field in a standing wave, which locks that energy to our frame of reference (which gives that energy the appearance of invariant mass and inertia). The electron (which has invariant mass) is orbiting in a spiral which is bound via the electromagnetic interaction to the nucleus (which has invariant mass), locked in time to our time frame by the Higgs field and thus forced to experience the passage of time, but free to move about the nucleus in 3-D space.

That's why Quantum Mechanics states that an electron orbit must consist of an integer number of de Broglie 'waves' (in actuality, an integer number of loops of a spiral), or it sets up a destructive-interference orbit... that's the 'why' of the quantization of quantum mechanics. That's also why it's so hard to pin down the electron's exact position in its orbit... it's spiraling in a circular orbit (imagine a spiral continually being pushed at a 90 degree angle due to the Lorentz force between electron and nucleus).



You'll note that electromagnetic energy, moving at c (the speed of light), experiences no time.

So the Higgs field causes energy to experience time, and the main difference between energy and invariant-mass matter is exactly that.
Re: .Science history
« Reply #40,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Matt Watts on April 4th, 11:02 PM
Here it is...

The Y-Bias flux capacitor.  :-)

I discussed a similar idea:
Quote from Cycle on November 9th, 2017, 07:27 PM
So what you need is a coil with a lot of windings of very small gauge to build the magnetic field in the inductor, and some way of shunting the current away quickly and put it to good use when that magnetic field collapses. How about a bifilar coil, one with the small gauge wire, one with the large gauge?

I was toying with the idea of creating a 'toroidal bifilar' coil... a large gauge wire fully-wrapped with a small gauge wire, and the whole thing wrapped into a coil like a flat bifilar. A toroidal coil concentrates its magnetic field inside the coil. When the small gauge wire is energized, it'll concentrate the magnetic field into the large gauge wire. When the magnetic field collapses, the large gauge wire can shunt that current away quickly.
I'm unsure what the effect would be when something of that sort is wound into a coil... a traditional toroidal coil concentrates the magnetic flux in its interior, but this sort of setup has two 'interiors'... the interior where the large-gauge wire is, and the interior created when that fully-wrapped wire is wound into a coil.

I'm also unsure of the effect of a magnetic flux outside the toroidal bifilar coil upon the toroidal bifilar coil. I'm assuming in the case of the JWN motor replication that the permanent magnet will induce a current in the smaller-gauge wire, which will focus the magnetic flux into the larger-gauge wire. But I could be wrong.

Matt Watts

Re: .Science history
« Reply #41,  »Last edited
So I'm hearing rumblings about the speed of light kicking our butt.  If you calculate the velocity factor for a delay line, things don't look nearly so difficult.  It's not that hard to slow things down to something manageable.  Here's a quick trial where I can easily pull the velocity factor down to 6%.  We're hardly "SoL", uh hum.  In fact, a ferromagnetic core actually helps us here.  We can get out of the nanosecond range and into the microsecond range pretty easily.

namirha

Re: .Science history
« Reply #42,  »Last edited
God Doesn't Throw Dice
Peter Plichta

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7DV4foC2lk

So wie sich bei der Ableitung des Zusammenhangs zwischen Energie, Masse und der Lichtgeschwindigkeitskonstanten beim Ausrechnen die Gleichung E2 = m2c4 ergibt und ein Kürzen zu E = mc2 jeden Zusammenhang zur Vierdimensionalität gedanklich verhindert, so ist auch für einen Mathematiker die Gleichung e4πi = 12 = i8 bedeutungslos.
http://www.plichta.de/plichta/vortrag-in-illmenau/gehalten-an-der-uni-illmenau-am-7-6-05?epik=0jQ0WE_IWX2Bx



Google translate
Just as the equation E2 = m2c4 results in the derivation of the relationship between energy, mass and the speed of light constant, and a shortening to E = mc2 prevents any connection with four-dimensionality, the equation e4πi = 12 = i8 for a mathematician as well meaningless.
Quote from Cycle on April 11th, 09:01 PM
...
Why is this? Well, it's because a sinusoid is a circle, spread out over space and time! It's a spiral. What we see on an oscilloscope is a sinusoid, but a truer representation would show a spiral over space and time... unfortunately, 4-D graphical displays don't exist.





Mathematical description of the wave function ψ as a standing wave
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/287111/mathematical-description-of-the-wave-function-psi-as-a-standing-wave



Plotting conjugate Binet's formula curves, 180° out of phase, the deeper negative/positive symmetry is exposed as incoming self-canceling tension as dual opposing vortices in the negative Fibonacci numbers.
http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Fibonacci_Sequence&redirect=no&epik=0Ew0WE_IWX2Bx



Standing Electromagnetic Waves
https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-standing-electromagnetic-waves.html

Quote
The electrons, the charge carriers in an electrical circuit, flow in the opposite direction of the conventional electric current.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current

capTret
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=1637.msg27115#msg27115


Cut The Knot
https://www.cut-the-knot.org/do_you_know/GoldenRatio.shtml



Phi in Atomic Structure
http://www.sacred-geometry.es/?q=en/content/phi-atomic-structure



The Spirit in the Realm of Plants
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3056.msg49238#msg49238



WATER
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3023.msg45131#msg45131



Heine:
Hegel demonstrates very sagaciously how the absolute consists in the identity of being and knowing; how man becomes God through knowledge, or, what amounts to the same thing, how God arrives at the consciousness of himself through man. To be sure, this formula is not so clear as in the original words (from the book of Daniel): "If ye eat of the tree of knowledge, ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/756109








One can arrange Phi, Pi and e as an almost perfect Pythagorean triangle, but there is a tiny gap that I labeled
“The Mystery” at the end of my article on Graham Hancock’s site.

http://www.secretsinplainsight.com/macrocosmic-harmony/





Das Phänomen der sechsgeteilten Spirale.
http://www.hores.org/artikel.html?file=tl_files/hores/PDF/Das%20Phaenomen%20der%20sechsgeteilten%20Spirale.pdf



Holding doctorates in chemistry, physics and biology, Peter Plichta applies his multifaceted scientific knowledge to the search for a universal building plan and makes a profound discovery. Plichta shows how a mathematical formula based on priME numbers underlies the mystery of the world. By decoding this fundamental numerical code, Plichta answers questions that have baffled mankind for ages and proves that the universe did not arise out of chance.
http://www.plichta.de/plichta

JAIN, The priME number cross
...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kVhfmnDzb0



In "priME numbers" I show the discoveries of Peter Plichta (in God's Secret Formula) in how the priME numbers are arranged on 8 radiating rays surrounding a circle divided into 24 parts. Just as night and day are divided into 24 hours, the ancient Egyptians had 24 letters (called uni-literals) shown in the ring. The Cross of the Knights Hospitaller (offshoot of the Templars) shares symmetry with the priME numbers.



X
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3122.msg46707#new



CORAL CASTLE priME numbers
The first 7 priME Quadruplets are the most relevant with respect to Masonic Technology
and the 7 Quadruplets have many parallels, including to the 7 Chakras.




Initial revelations regarding priME Quadruplets were disclosed in 2008,
in the Code 144 production 'The Secret of the Universe'.

http://www.code144.com/tech/prime-quadruplets

The priMEs decoded
...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3f6v5kIXyE



priME number patterns by jason davies
https://www.jasondavies.com/primos/


Cycle

Re: .Science history
« Reply #43,  »Last edited by Cycle
From my previous post, we see that a circle and a sinusoid are two views of the same thing.

Sinusoid / Circle Correlations:
-------------------------------
Wavelength = Circumference = 2 * pi * radius
Peak amplitude = radius of circle

Therefore:
Peak amplitude = wavelength / 2 * pi
-------------------------------

Velocity (c) = Wavelength / frequency

Let's assume a 1500 Hz sinusoid:
Wavelength = v / frequency = 299792458 m/s / 1500 c/s = 199861.63866666666666666666666667 meters
Peak amplitude = wavelength / 2 * pi = 31808.967728246281725925988891824 meters

So a 1500 Hz sinusoid would have a 199,861.6387 meter wavelength and a 31,808.9677 meter 'loop' radius to its spiral.

Let's jack that frequency up to 150,000 Hz.
Wavelength = v / frequency = 299792458 / 150,000 c/s = 1998.6163866666666666666666666667 meters
Peak amplitude = wavelength / 2 * pi = 318.08967728246281725925988891824 meters

So a 150,000 Hz sinusoid would have a 1,998.6164 meter wavelength and a 318.0897 meter 'loop' radius to its spiral.

How about visible light, 400 nm (749.481145 GHz) to 700 nm (428.27494 GHz)?

peak amplitude = 0.0000004 meters / 2 * pi = 63.661977 nm

So light at 400 nm has a 400 nm (0.4 micron) wavelength and a 63.662 nm (0.063662 micron) 'loop' radius to its spiral.

peak amplitude = 0.0000007 / 2 * pi = 111.40846 nm

So light at 700 nm has a 700 nm (0.7 micron) wavelength and a 111.408 nm (0.111408 micron) 'loop' radius to its spiral.

I wonder if there is any odd effect if one were to hit a coil with that frequency which gives that 'loop' radius which corresponds to the radius of the coil.
Re: .Science history
« Reply #44,  »Last edited by Cycle
I've been playing around with this a bit more to see if I can predict the wavelength of an emitted photon based upon the circumference (and hence the 'loop' radius) of an orbiting electron.

The Rydberg Formula:
wavelength = 1 / (10973731.56850865 m-1 * (proton number)2 * (1/(N_l)2 - 1/(N_u)2))



The 1st line (called H - alpha) has wavelength 656.1122763984733630045283903292 nm (red region) n = 2 to n = 3.

The 2nd line (called H - beta ) has wavelength 486.00909362849878741076177061422 nm (blue region) n = 2 to n = 4.

The 3rd line (called H - gamma) has wavelength 433.93669073973106018818015233413 nm (violet region) n = 2 to n = 5.

The 4th line (called H - delta) has wavelength 410.07017274904585187783024395575 nm (violet region) n = 2 to n = 6.

656.1122763984733630045283903292 / (2*pi) = 104.42351201209293131772840415877 nm (n=2 to n=3)
The stated radius for n = 2 to n = 3 is 103 nm.

486.00909362849878741076177061422 / (2*pi) = 77.350749638587356531650669747236 nm (n=2 to n=4)
97 nm (n=3 to n=4) + 103 nm (n=2 to n=3) - 122 nm (n=1 to n=2) = 78 nm.

433.93669073973106018818015233413 / (2*pi) = 69.063169320167282617545240845747 nm (n=2 to n=5)
95 nm (n=4 to n=5) + 97 nm (n=3 to n=4) - 122 nm (n=1 to n=2) = 70 nm.

410.07017274904585187783024395575 / (2*pi) = 65.264695007558082073580252599231 nm (n=2 to n=6)
94 nm (n=5 to n=6) + 95 nm (n=4 to n=5) + 97 nm (n=3 to n=4) - 122 nm (n=1 to n=2) - 103 nm (n=2 to n=3) = 61 nm.

So it appears one can get pretty close by calculating the electron's spiral's 'loop' radius, although electron shielding in outer orbitals does mess it up a bit.

I'm following a lead... that a photon's spiral's 'loop' radius as a ratio to the electron's spiral's orbital radius about an atom or molecule determines how that photon interacts with that atom or molecule (ie: whether it is reflected or absorbed).