Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

New theories about free energy systems => Theory of overunity and free energy => Topic started by: Khwartz on November 14, 2013, 08:47:19 PM

Title: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 14, 2013, 08:47:19 PM
Hi all! Here I open a new thread for theoretical discussions about the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter, as a fundamental base for the "free" clean disposal energy" quest.

One of its secondary purposed is to free the pure experimental thread from such discussions so that experimenters could focus on their stuff.

I will paste here few starting points of discussions, especially from I and Verpies as our discussions brought us to this necessary new thread.

Cheers, Khwartz.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 14, 2013, 09:03:33 PM
Quote
from: verpies on November 11, 2013, 11:46:13 AM
No, pressure differential is potential energy, not the pressure alone.

Fish don't feel the pressure because thy don't experience any pressure differentials. If they have gas bladders or other empty cavities inside their bodies that cannot resist the external pressure, then pressure differentials are created and fish can feel them.

At least in the fish example you have water (a proven tangible thing) that is the carrier of the pressure.  In energetic devices, you don't have any such medium, unless you postulate an ephemeral and unmeasurable Aether - a concept that has been tried and failed.

Electric charge (just like water) by itself, is not energy, either - just look at the units W=½QV
Likewise, water (and analogous media) is not energy unless you can decompose it to cause a pressure differential.

For example, you could make water electrolysis on the bottom of an ocean.  The bubbles of oxygen and hydrogen would rise to the surface performing useful mechanical work. Finally you could burn the hydrogen and oxygen at the surface in a flame or fuel cell and recover even more energy.
Maybe you could even get more energy that way than you had put into the electrolysis at the ocean's floor ;)
Not sure dear Verpies that the eather concept has failed, there are coherent complete theories in physics equivalent to the old eather concept, and as I have alreday noticed, Dirac himself, when speaking of his plenum were speaking a full energy "vaccum" but where the different energies (instabilities of potential differences) are all balanced, so why we call it ZERO Point Energy. And personaly, to conceive waves in an suppose "nothing suport" is just a big nosense, but it is just an opinion ;)

Cheers.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 14, 2013, 09:06:53 PM
Quote
from: verpies on November 12, 2013, 01:41:58 AM
But here we go again: Are there any takers that are willing to define Aether and its properties to me without falling in conflict with empirical observations?
See Dirac plenum theory and others I will try to find back, but for me, still EM waves without any substract (what ever we call it: "ZEP", eather, "plenum", etc.), makes much more sense than "waves of nothing" ("vacuum")
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 14, 2013, 09:14:56 PM
Quote
from: verpies on November 12, 2013, 02:04:54 AM
IMO the old Aether concept as a fluid that fills space has failed.
I came to the SAME conclusion too! Nevertheless...

Quote
Yes, there are but they are not equivalent to 19th century Aether concept.
Indeed! BUT they keep the idea that EM waves could be propagations of changes of energetical potential with specific caracteristics which make RF or light and so on.

Quote
We need to be careful with the word "Aether" because there is not a universally agreed-on set of Aether's properties.
Very agree with you!

Quote
It's much better to explicitly define its properties and verify them with the empirical reality, rather than argue about the word itself.
That what Maurice Allais have done by checking the Miller's experiment and the checking of the Lorentz's symetry: all what said "Einstein's theories" explain looks been explained with the concept of a substrat of infinitesimal step to step changes of energetic potentials. In this page you will find (but you probably know :) ) a extention of the Standard Model doing so, explaining indirectly the Allais's anomalus gravitational effect when eclips occur that contradict Lorentz symetry and so Einstein's vacuum emptyness theory.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard-Model_Extension

But of course, the point of view I defend is in an opposition with near only corpuscular point of view for the light. If light is seen as a pack of waves ("waves" => parterns of changes in the susbrat), it makes more sens having of course this substrat. If only corpuscular, so we reasonning with particles through an empty space, that I well understand. But about me, I just bent on the pure waves of changes of potentials (exitations) in a substract. Then, PARTICLES are CONCENTRATED REPETITIVE CLOSED PARTERNS OF CHANGES IN A LOCAL AERA AROUND AN AVERAGE POINT, THE CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE SAID PARTICULE. Then MATTER is only an CONCATENATION OF PARTICLES WHERE FLOWS OF "ENERGY" (UNCLOSED PARTERNS OF CHANGES GOING TO A POINT OF THE SUBSTRAT TO AN OTHER) GLUE THE WHOLE THING.

Quote
Dirac is a famous guy but he does not have the respect of my mind.
May I know why?


Quote
As a counterpoise I will quote Mathis:That's sound thinking, but you are assuming that waves in vacuum/space or Aether are needed to explain light, photons, or RF EM.
No! I know other models can and are used with much effectiveness! But it doesn't mean that we can not do better with the "substantial" viewpoint I have chosen to follow.


Quote
You appear to be still stuck in the infantile paradigm that we are like fish stuck in a 3D aquarium (space) and clocked by an ever advancing 1D river of time.
The ONLY infantile is The One who treat others of infantile and can not accept others to have others point of view! I am very sad to see you could have gone so low! :(

Quote
If I thought that, light propagating through an empty space (nothingness) would also be a preposterous idea to me.
I can understand and accept this idea, especially if you see photons as pure particles, but interferometers show since long they are not pure solid particuless but have waves aspects in their inner structure; so the question is: "Waves of what?", "Changes of what?" in the space if the space has nothing inside?
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 14, 2013, 09:21:14 PM
Quote
I know I should respect another viewpoint, but it is very hard for me when I see the underlying conceptual error in plain sight.  It is like seeing some child struggle with that 9-dot puzzle that needs to be connected with 4 lines and seeing the error he makes over and over, knowing that he will never solve that puzzle that way.  It would be very hard to be respectful towards such error and treat it as "another point of view".  My dilemma is similar.

I do understand you despite I could feel exactly the same about you! ...

Quote
Well deserved.  I apologize if I offended you with the phrase "infantile paradigm". Perhaps I should have used the words like: simplistic, routine, common, fashionable, trendy, ubiquitous, etc...  I meant no malice - it's just that I had this discussion so many times that I am getting exasperated with repetition.  You're just an unlucky guy that came as last to that discussion...
If you say so ;)


Quote
Please distinguish a discussion about a different point of view from a discussion about a conceptual error that is well known to one party.
I do understand what you mean; except that from my point of view I make no conceptual error and you rather do.


Quote
I've been there, done that 23 years ago when I was that proverbial pup trying to solve that 9-dot puzzle.
I don't see them as particles nor waves and I don't see them as traveling through space nor Aether but I understand how they can appear to do so.
OK, so how do you see that please?

Quote
There is no answer to this, because in this question you falsely assume waves.
Falsely for your concern, as I understant now, ... but not for mine.

Quote
There are no such changes in space as you are asking for.
Prove it! Or demonstrate it, please; if you can!!

Quote
This question indicates to me, that you did not take my comment to heart and you are still stuck in that bleeping 3D/1D paradigm (s3/t1).
Space as you know it is just an emergent 3D geometric reference system created by motion of gravitating observers through projective geometry.
As a reference system space cannot be curved or distorted or have waves in it.  Yes, Einstein would turn in his grave if he could read that...
We do not need Einstein's complications of screwing the space, fields theories can do much simpler for the same results.

Quote
Do you really want to discuss such stuff on OU forum?
Most people here will not understand it anyway and soon start objecting to too much abstraction and too little engineering....and they probably would be correct.
Well, if made on a specific thread, who cares?! If at least 2 people are interested ;) and could one or a other day someone else be interested. "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter", is that a name you would approuve or have you a better name, dear Verpies ;)
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 14, 2013, 09:25:18 PM
Quote
So let's define these conceptual errors so we have something concrete to discuss:

I claim that space (and time) of our daily lives are just geometric reference systems and their only properties are magnitude and direction.

You on the other hand, seem to claim (and correct me if I'm wrong) that space is a 3D container that envelops us all and is endowed with myriad of properties, such as permittivity and permeability and is filled with something called Aether that acts as a fluid or gas and has the following properties (list them) needed to support propagation of light between atoms as waves.  You do not address the properties of time at all, other than its one-dimensional nature.
Most likely you think that time represents one dimension of some 4D continuum, while space represents three dimensions of the same continuum.

I realize that I'm putting a lot of words in your proverbial mouth but this is to provoke you to revise the paragraph above according to your framework of understanding the physical universe.
Much groundwork would need to be covered first.
Read this with a rigorous understanding and follow the links in it (even if it takes you a week), but remember that this is not my framework.
While I agree with most of Mathis' conclusions, my framework is much more fundamental because it addresses the composition of charge, photons as well as the nature of space and time (Mathis' framework does not).

I'm starting with somebody's else's framework because you have mentioned Dirac's concepts and they need to be addressed first (Mathis addresses legacy concepts much better than I) before we jump into the more fundamental framework of mine.
As a teaser of what's coming when we get to it - I will ask you a simple question:
What is "motion" and what are the units of it?

P.S.
Let's create another thread for such discussions before we upset people here with this off-topic stuff.

Hi dear Verpies!

Very thanks for your answer and the very rigourous and constructive approach looks to me you take.

I will open soon the new thread where I will probably paste our former posts here on the subject so that the discussion could be understood from its beginning, and let you know. I will take too the necessary time to study the material you gave me. And yes, I do understand your way to put in my mouth words so I could react and so specifying my point of view.

Thanks for the opportunity you give me to discuss this very fundamental subject.

Cheers, Khwartz.

PS: did you have look on my suggested schematic-test for possible EM pumping effect?
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: forest on November 14, 2013, 09:32:20 PM
I agree with Tesla : space is abstract used to measure nature. It has no own properties. All is defined by metric. About time I'm not sure. Aether surely exists and it's properties are responsible for all forces in nature.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: TechStuf on November 14, 2013, 09:33:33 PM

Perhaps it's time to reconsider the phrase that started it all.  "Let There Be Light"....and there was light.  "Light" or EM waves encompass all that we know.  Of course it includes the visible spectrum, but goes much further than we know.  Upon consideration of the experiments of John Hutchison and many others, one begins to see that matter itself is truly a form of condensed energy. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOi5RMM7wVc

The magnetic beam amplifier of Lockheed Martin also exhibited similar results.  The miracles mentioned in the Bible, become easier to understand in light of the demonstrable fact that subtle energies are often used to control what we consider more potent forms.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - A.C. Clarke

And with advanced technologies come advanced directives and commensurately advanced responsibilities.  Those now exercising such powers on our planet are sorely behooved to consider Who came before, what was foretold, and what is promised to come AFTER.....

ALL is belief.  And what is accomplished through belief based upon accurate knowledge is incomparable.

Strong Faith, based upon accurate knowledge IS a form of "subtle" energy that directs much greater perceived energies.  Man only glimpses these truths as he is currently unfit to gaze at length upon them. 

"For the wisdom of this world is nonsense to God, for it is written: “He has seized the wise in their craftiness.”


Blessings


TS

Title: On the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter
Post by: verpies on November 14, 2013, 10:14:01 PM
Here I have a schematic. :)
What happens with the electric field of the capacitor in- and outside of the Faraday cage?
I do not like discussing things that are not defined.
The electric field is a spatial field of various hypothetical forces that would move a test electric charge, if it was there.  Formally, it is a derivative of the electrostatic potential.
When the test charge actually is located in that electrostatic field, these forces are transmitted to it by bombardment ( no, not by Aether - read this (http://milesmathis.com/disp2.pdf) if you care by what ).

A test charge is compelled to move from a high electric potential to a low electric potential.  In other words it reacts to difference in potentials, just like dust is compelled to move from a point of high air pressure to a point of low air pressure, by uneven bombardment of air molecules (air pressure differential = wind).

When Faraday's cage is closed, its inner surface becomes equipotential because it is conductive and matter affects the direction of the charge bombardment, mainly because of its nuclear structure (that's why different elements affect the charge interactions differently).

Equipotential means that the same electrostatic potential is everywhere on its inner surface (but it is not zero!).
When potentials are the same, a test charge inside the Faraday's cage has no reason to move (zero electrostatic potential differential).  That creates an illusion that no forces act on it, and for the mental construct such as the "electric field", "no forces" means "no electric field".  However the charge bombardment still occurs all around - it is just equal in all directions thus it has no preferred direction (there is a word to describe this situation - it is "pseudoscalar"). 
Fish also don't feel the pressure of water because the pressure acts on them from all directions equally (in that analogy water pressure is equivalent to the electrostatic potential)

When you open the cage, the bombardment of the charge stops being pseudoscalar (uniform in all available directions).  It becomes unequal in some direction and that means that unequal electrostatic potential is created on one side of the test charge in the cage.  Now the charge is compelled to move away from the direction of higher potential (away from more intensive bombardment).
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Zeitmaschine on November 14, 2013, 11:45:44 PM
And now what does that all mean in reference to the Faraday cage on Kapanadze's table? Each time I point out that there is a Faraday cage (an old Sadolin pot) in plain view right in front of the camera on Kapanadze's table that subject gets quickly buried under tons of unrelated stuff. What could this tell us?

Could this »spatial field of various hypothetical forces« have something to do with the high output current of that paint can? Does Miles Mathis know the principle of work of the Kapanadze device? Maybe he should study the Kapanadze equations as soon as they are out. :)

So I have a cage and this cage is bombarded (by something). Then how to convert this bombardment into an electric current? It should be so simple you'll ...
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 15, 2013, 12:25:49 AM
That is different because in that case we have a time a time varying magnetic field that does work by pushing the charges away.
In your pot/cage system, the work was supposed to be done by the attraction of separated opposite charges coming together.
But we do have a time varying component: it is the closing and opening (electronically) of the Faraday cage that creates incoming waves of an otherwise static electric field.
But you are missing the point. 
The issue here is not that some field is time varying but the difference in the type of force that drives the charges. 
In the case of electrostatic induction it is the force created by another charge that causes the separation of opposite charges in the cage material. 
An energy recuperation in this case can be only upon relaxation of those separated charges as the try to attract back together.

In case of the coil the force driving the charges is different and it acts differently. Most importantly it causes the usable motion of the charges immediately - without intermediate energy storage in the separation of opposite charges.

Can we convert a static magnetic field into a varying magnetic field without the consumption of (much) energy? I don't think so, but maybe, who knows.
Can we convert a static electric field into a varying electric field without the consumption of (much) energy? Since contrary to a static magnetic field a static electric field can be shielded easily, therefore I think it is more likely that this could work.
Yes, canceling the forces acting on electric charges is possible in case of electrostatic phenomena.
We cannot easily shield that 'something" that causes those forces, but we can redirect it and symmetrize it out ...with matter.

P.S.: Since we don't know what an electric field actually is, then maybe it doesn't matter that we also don't know what a magnetic field actually is, does it?
We do and it matters.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 15, 2013, 02:01:52 AM
And now what does that all mean in reference to the Faraday cage on Kapanadze's table?
Not every closed metal box must purposefully function as a Faraday's cage, even if it inadvertently functions as such.
Maybe its function is sociotechnic or anti-EMI or even a container for a transformer oil.
But for the purpose of your proposition we may assume that it purposely functions as a Faraday's cage.

Could this »spatial field of various hypothetical forces« have something to do with the high output current of that paint can?
It's your baby.  We can discuss it and see where it takes us.

Does Miles Mathis know the principle of work of the Kapanadze device?
He does not even know who he is.

So I have a cage and this cage is bombarded (by something).
Yes, by "something" that is 108 smaller than electron and has mass (and all the consequences that go with it), but is not that mysterious vacuum Aether.
We will not discuss the composition of that "something" for now, in order not to get sidetracked.

Anyway, the directionality of that "something" is affected by matter.  The nuclei of different elements affect it differently.  These nuclei can divert it, redirect it, spread it around or generally directionalize it differently, but they can never slow it down nor stop it nor absorb it.  I don't think that matter can reflect it 180º and with 100% effectiveness, either.

As a side note, I should mention at this point that this opportunist Joseph Newman, somehow got it it right that this "something" moves not only linearly but also spins as it travels.  This rotational motion can be clockwise or counterclockwise relative to the direction of its linear movement and that spin is the cause of magnetism.

Then how to convert this bombardment into an electric current?
I don't know - it's your baby.  I can only tell you if it has arms and legs.

You can certainly "turn-of" the force acting on a charge inside a Faraday's cage.
Perhaps you could trap a carrier of electric charge  (ion, electron, positron, muon, etc...) in a circular orbit in that cage and periodically "turn-off" the force from a charge outside the cage that acts on the trapped charge inside the cage, during that portion of the orbit when that force would slow down orbital speed of the trapped charge.  This would accumulate kinetic energy in the motion of charge carrier (e.g. ion).

The catch is whether the opening and closing of your cage "doors" would be energy efficient, e.g. because the charge trapped inside the cage attracts the "doors" of the cage.

You have to propose some mechanism of closing and opening the door periodically without expending much energy.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Zeitmaschine on November 15, 2013, 03:15:29 AM
That baby has arms and legs, so what do we have besides arms and legs? A metal box that looks like a Faraday cage with something attached that looks like purposeful shielding. Further properties are: this cage has an outside and an inside, the outside is grounded, it is hollow, there is high voltage in that cage and there are holes in it for some wires. Here comes the first question: Is that function that we are looking for (the tapping of an electric field) created by means of that high voltage or is the high voltage created by that function?

Anyway this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEuK1OdYxHk) reminds me somehow of the two Kapanadze heat sinks. So I would rather tend to the former.

Another question would be, do we really need high voltage or could it do grid voltage as well? Maybe the latter works also but it generates less output energy.

The normal way to use (or demonstrate) a Faraday cage is to have high voltage outside and a shielded space inside the cage. But obviously in this case the situation is vice versa. The high voltage is clearly inside the grounded cage. If I'm correct then this high voltage should create an electric field inside that grounded cage. Hence could this field inside work as a periodical door opener for the field outside by means of the outgoing wires which acts as antennas?

Maybe someone could make a quick experiment so we can amend that results to the textbooks. :)

But you are missing the point. 
The issue here is not that some field is time varying but the difference in the type of force that drives the charges. 
In the case of electrostatic induction it is the force created by another charge that causes the separation of opposite charges in the cage material. 
An energy recuperation in this case can be only upon relaxation of those separated charges as the try to attract back together.
I think we both missing the point somehow. What is the difference between the electric field of a charged capacitor (electronic part) and the electric field of a charged capacitor (Earth-Sun constellation)? If the electronic capacitor contains usable energy (a connected lamp shines) then the Earth-Sun capacitor should contain also usable energy, shouldn't it? So that should not be the problem.

Thus I will rephrase my question: What exactly (what physical law) prevents us from connecting a load to that Earth-Sun capacitor (tapping the static electric field of that capacitor)? Except of course that we can't reach the Sun's surface. Why can I get energy out of an ordinary electronic capacitor although its electric field is also static without any time varying factor (oscillations)? That what we need is an artificial second capacitor plate as replacement for the plate that is represented by the surface of the Sun, isn't it?

P.S.: Given what I can see (or not can see) on Kapanadze's table that whole equation stuff looks rather overcomplicated to me. :(
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 15, 2013, 05:27:53 AM
(ADDED)


thought for food....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWkhUwX4D5s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWkhUwX4D5s)

Hmm but they stop at....  a magnetic field changes the direction of a moving charged particle.... how does that explain feromagnetism ... attraction of magnets... which is sort of a gravity... I guess magnetic poles attract.

is a single electron moving a current?


Does the current have to go through the structure of a conductor? (end of video 1 in russian has electrons spiraling around an orbit as they move, which would be a hint towards skin effect).


If two wires with current in the same direction attract each other, because of opposing direction of poles at their mating... why isn't this just a cancelation instead of a composite to build a larger field?

So... to move an electric charge, you would need to have a magnetic field always at a right angle to it vs its direction... that itself moves...


dollard mentions that magnetism results from electrons stopping not moving.  A CRT has electrons moving, but they (are?) magnetic.  If they are moving faster do they have a smaller field?  Or because they have mass they get deflected less?  or deflection happens based on charge only and not mass?


is the magnetic field always everywhere?  Or only where we detect it to be?  would it happen to be somewhere else if we weren't obstructing it? 





(russian, but the animations make some sense)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VELYp3FZnHY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VELYp3FZnHY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-8ZijiWAOE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-8ZijiWAOE)
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 15, 2013, 10:29:14 AM
Hmm but they stop at....  a magnetic field changes the direction of a moving charged particle.... how does that explain feromagnetism ... attraction of magnets... which is sort of a gravity... I guess magnetic poles attract.
Yes, attraction of magnets has a lot to do with gravity (which is just a pseudoscalar 3D motion in all available dimensions).
Anyway, take a look at the illustration below depicting the head-on collision of spinning baseballs, to get a rough* mechanical idea why magnetic phenomena is perpendicular to electric phenomena and read this (http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html) for a detailed explanation.  Take your time reading it - if you just skim it without understanding, then it will be lost on you and you will annoy me with confused questions later.

is a single electron moving a current?
Yes

Does the current have to go through the structure of a conductor?
No

If two wires with current in the same direction attract each other, because of opposing direction of poles at their mating... why isn't this just a cancellation instead of a composite to build a larger field?
Because of spin superposition. Read the article.

So... to move an electric charge, you would need to have a magnetic field always at a right angle to it vs its direction... that itself moves...
Yes, that's why a rotating magnetic field acts like a fan for stationary electric charges.
Take a look at the photo of such magnetic fan that was used to pump out electrically charged dust from a clean-room.
Open this animation (http://www.overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/dlattach/attach/87339/) in your browser to see how 4 coils fed by phase-shifted current can create a rotating magnetic field (2 crossed coils can do the same).

dollard mentions that magnetism results from electrons stopping not moving. 
Well yes, but not electrons.  It is the smaller "entities" driving electrons that get stopped, just like the linear-motion of those counter-rotating baseballs gets stopped (in the direction of their original linear motion).

A CRT has electrons moving, but they (are?) magnetic. 
Not by themselves, but together with motion they will interact magnetically with other entites.

is the magnetic field always everywhere?    Or only where we detect it to be? 
A magnetic field is just an abstract mathematical construct, a name for a region where electric charges would experience forces perpendicular to their relative motion. 
In other words it is a force field (a field of forces that would act on moving charges). 
A field of hypothetical forces is not something real. 
However those little spinning entities (motions or spinning units of space), that cause the magnetic interactions, are real and they are almost everywhere.

If they (electrons) are moving faster do they have a smaller field?
A field is just an abstract mathematical construct that illustrates interaction between motions, in the form of forces that would occur between two entities (motions).  One entity cannot have a field of forces by itself.  It takes two to tango. It takes two entities (motions) for an interaction to occur.

Because of the above, I have to answer "no" electron does not have any fields by itself, but the faster it moves the more it interacts magnetically with other entities, and when these interactions occur, then forces are created.  Those forces can then be predicted and abstracted into a force field ... even if they don't actually all occur.

Or because they have mass they get deflected less?  or deflection happens based on charge only and not mass?
Both. That's the Modus Operandi of mass spectrometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometer#Parts_of_a_mass_spectrometer).

would it happen to be somewhere else if we weren't obstructing it? 
I don't understand that question.

(russian, but the animations make some sense)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VELYp3FZnHY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VELYp3FZnHY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-8ZijiWAOE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-8ZijiWAOE)
I can't stand to watch them despite understanding Russian.
Electrons orbiting the nuclei disgust me too much.



* "rough" because rotational axes are drawn incorrectly.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Zeitmaschine on November 15, 2013, 12:40:27 PM
More theoretical considerations.

»Only true what tariel tell is that coil has a Gravitational field around and Tariel say this very often, but why everybody ignoring this fact (most important thing on Free Energy) i don't know« (http://overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/msg314782/#subject_314782)

I think we should take a closer look at that 30kV High Voltage DC Power Supply (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEuK1OdYxHk) video. Isn't that high voltage supply manipulating the gravitational field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity)? I can see a hovering triangle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZy1Aqleno).

Also interesting in the video: The 30kV voltage multiplier has a focus output that supplies one-third of the total voltage. If I were Kapanadze and I would want to make a little spark as an eye candy then I surely would use this output for that.

Now what if that high voltage makes not aluminum foil fly but a 50Hz resonant circuit in a Faraday cage? What do all the scientific equations say to such a thing and its very nature? :D
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 15, 2013, 12:50:25 PM
I think we should take a closer look at that 30kV High Voltage DC Power Supply (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEuK1OdYxHk) video. Isn't that high voltage supply manipulating the gravitational field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity)? I can see a hovering triangle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZy1Aqleno).
It hovers because of ion wind thrusting.  It does not hover in a vacuum
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 15, 2013, 01:08:54 PM
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=44&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19991224&CC=JP&NR=H11356033A&KC=A
Bye
      OCL
p.s.: pardon -for the short- dog JunoII is waiting and I am the dog-sitter (gassi-walker)
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Zeitmaschine on November 15, 2013, 01:20:05 PM
So perhaps we can do something useful with an ion wind in a Faraday cage? ???

Although the main issue here is not about levitating, but are you sure it does not hover in a vacuum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 15, 2013, 07:10:55 PM
are you sure it does not hover in a vacuum?
Yes, the contraption from the video, needs air to ionize and accelerate and it does not hover in vacuum. 
It would need to bring its own supply of air to ionize (e.g. in a gas tank) to work in vaccum. 
Those ion thrust engines, that are used in space probes, bring their own suply of gas to convert to ions and accelerate.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Zeitmaschine on November 15, 2013, 07:20:00 PM
What else could be accelerated by ionization except air? Electrons perhaps?

One should ask Kapanadze whether his device works in a vacuum or not.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 15, 2013, 08:25:24 PM
What else could be accelerated by ionization except air? Electrons perhaps?
All elements can be ionized.
Electrically accelerated can be: ions, electrons, protons, positrons, muons, charged dust, ping-pong balls, etc...
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 15, 2013, 08:40:48 PM
Yes, attraction of magnets has a lot to do with gravity (which is just a pseudoscalar 3D motion in all available dimensions).
Anyway, take a look at the illustration below depicting the head-on collision of spinning baseballs, to get a rough* mechanical idea why magnetic phenomena is perpendicular to electric phenomena and read this (http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html) for a detailed explanation.  Take your time reading it - if you just skim it without understanding, then it will be lost on you and you will annoy me with confused questions later.
Still following through the information...


I can't stand to watch them despite understanding Russian.
Electrons orbiting the nuclei disgust me too much.
Haha :) 


sure; but one way or another the electrons are moving through the cloud of atoms, even if it's in a probability field and not a distinct point.

re: the question you didn't understand; doesn't matter.  Just a suggestion that putting a magnet near the wire modifies the expected path; shrodinger's cat... or maybe heisenberg; if you are measuring the field for example putting an obstruction in it that reacts to the field, you change where the field is.... (sorry to use the word obstruction... ferromagnetic substance in this case, something that definatly participates with the force that is magnetism... like putting a rock in a river is an obstruction, it changes the path of the river....)



But isn't abstracting the behavior of particles to an external particle still making that external particle react to force at a distance? It just pushes the bump in the rug down in one spot, but it pops up in another?  I guess because of the presupposed density of these virtual particles, there is a much shorter distance to operate at....


 It makes the point of observation a mechanical byproduct, but the virtuals still go towards a mass... or clear out electrostatic and allow gravity to attract... Or otherwise experience force at distance...


but if the electrostatic was increased between N-N poles, wouldn't you get a sensation of a charge field? (like a van degraff) which generates a large electrostatic field(composed of composite, discrete electron fields), but the attraction/repulsion is still very weak.


(maybe you can ignore this, I'm only halfway through the first paper, and should go back and reference the papers before hand)


I'll throw  this out too, if gravity is driven by these virtual particles, how do they escape the gravity and get back out and around to continue pushing a mass?  Or is every gravity source essentially a black hole?  (again, just got to halfway where he provided a link about this sort of behavior, and haven't finished)



(Added) I see.  Gravity isn't a virtual photon force.  It's an impossibility.  If bodies are expanding to keep pushing against you, and to... no actually the theory makes no sense what so ever.  Take Earth and Jupiter.  Jupiter would have to be expanding faster than the earth; and in turn extending the orbits of everything else proportionately; but in different proportions.  (another paper on how to keep acceleration without expansion) Well, since his basic idea has to be revised, how is anything else built on the platform even stable?
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 15, 2013, 11:14:46 PM
All elements can be ionized.
Electrically accelerated can be: ions, electrons, protons, positrons, muons, charged dust, ping-pong balls, etc...
But not neutrons! Isn't it? ;)
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 15, 2013, 11:41:05 PM
But not neutrons! Isn't it? ;)
Yes.
However if neutrons are removed from the nucleus and exposed to the environment outside, then in 14.7 sec. half of neutrons will decay into  protons, fast electrons and anti-νe.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 16, 2013, 01:23:09 AM
As Mathis's theories are pretty huge work to study for a not good at english tongue, I answer you on the items I can already answer to advance the discission a few:

Quote
So let's define these conceptual errors so we have something concrete to discuss:

I claim that space (and time) of our daily lives are just geometric reference systems and their only properties are magnitude and direction.
OK, I get what you state. Looks to me we have a rather similar concept of space. Except that for me this space could be filled uniformly of "something".

More precisely and to go all the way along in my present paradigme, I start with METAPHYSICS, and specifically ONTOLOGY:

As I see it:

 • SPACE IS A METAPHYSICAL CONSIDERATION, AS TIME IS ALSO.

As in eastern very old concept,

• REALITY IS AN CONSIDERATION OF EXISTENCE. THINGS EXIST BECAUSE WE AGREE THEY EXIST.

• UNIVERSES ARE CREATED BY THE CONSIDERATIONS WE MADE AND AGREEMENTS WE TAKE, IF NOT A VERY PERSONAL UNIVERSE (TO EXIST, A COMMON UNIVERSE, NEEDS AGREEMENTS LIKE A COMMON SPACE AND TIME CONTINUUM, WHILE A VERY PERSONAL UNIVERSE ONLY NEED OUR OWN PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS).

• WHAT WE NAME "PHYSICAL UNIVERSE" IS A HUGE COMMON UNIVERSE WHICH LOOKS VERY STABLE, AS STABLE INDEED THAT THE AGREEMENTS UPON IT IS BASED ARE FORGOTTEN OR LOST SINCE A WHILE. CORROLARY: RECOVERING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THESE BASIC AGREEMENTS SHOULD PROVIDE THE CAPABILITY, FOR THE BENEFICARY OF THIS KNOWLEDGE, TO CHANGE THE PROPERTIES OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, AT LEAST FOR ONESELF.

• "SPACE", IS THE CONSIDERATION OF "DISTANCE". IT NEEDS A VIEWER AND IT NEEDS AT LEAST ONE "POINTS TO VIEW". "3D" SPACE OCCURS WITH AT LEAST 1 VIEWVER AND 3 OTHER "POINT TO VIEW" WITH NO OF THEM ARE "IN BETWEEN EACH OTHER" (MEANS NOT "ALINED").

• "TIME", IS THE CONSIDERATION OF DURATION. A VIEWER CAN HAVE IT EVEN FOR A FULL FIXED UNIVERSE WHERE NO "PTV" ("POINT TO VIEW") ARE CONSIDERED TO "MOVE", SO "PTV" NOT BEING SUBJECT TO CONSIDERATIONS OF "CHANGING DISTANCE CONSIDERATION". CORROLARY: CHANGING CONSIDERATION OF DISTANCE OF A VIEWER UPON A PTV IS EQUIVALENT TO A CHANGING CONSIDERATION OF DISTANCE OF THE VIEWER UPON ITSELF RELATIVELY TO A PTV.

• "ENERGY", IS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE NEED OF TIME FOR A CHANGE TO OCCURE. CORROLARY: "INERTIA" IS THE RATIO TIME NEEDED UNDER DEGREE OF CHANGE. CORROLARY: WITHOUT THIS CONSIDERATION, "INSTANT CHANGES" CAN OCCURE, WOULD BE IS A SAME LOCATION ("LOCATION" = CONSIDERATIONS OF RELATIVE DISTANCE), OR NOT.

Note: All these statements are open to constructive critics, and will remain still only in they can stand the critics and bring better understanding (= clearer, simpler, more efficient explainative and predictive theories about any universe and specifically to "THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE").

Khwartz.



Quote
  You on the other hand, seem to claim (and correct me if I'm wrong) that space is a 3D container that envelops us all and is endowed with myriad of properties, such as permittivity and permeability and is filled with something called Aether that acts as a fluid or gas and has the following properties (list them) needed to support propagation of light between atoms as waves.  You do not address the properties of time at all, other than its one-dimensional nature.
Most likely you think that time represents one dimension of some 4D continuum, while space represents three dimensions of the same continuum.
 
I have specified just before my concept of time.

For me, in this specific universe we call "physical universes", I will cal then "PHI", the greeck letter, SPACE is A DIMENTIONAL THING. Then we need TO FILL this SAPCE with "DIMENSIONAL POINTS" to which we will give propertises, FOR THEMSELVES and IN RELATION WITH OTHERS "DP".

CORROLARY: "EATHER", IS A "GRID" (OR "MATRIX") OF INFINITESIMAL "DP" WHICH CAN CHANGE THEIR BASIC STATE ACCORDING TO THE PREVIOUS SAID PROPERTIES WE HAVE AGREED THEY HAVE FOR THEMSELVES AND IN RELATION WITH OTHERS.

CORROLARY: AN "E.M. WAVE", IS A PROPAGATION OF CHANGES  IN THE GRID (OR "MATRIX") OF THESE THINEST D.P.

CORROLARY: THE SPEED AND GENERAL BEHAVIOUR OF AN E.M. WAVE IS ONLY DETERMINED BY THE CONSIDERATIONS OF BEHAVIOUR OF THE D.P.

CORROLARY: A "MOUVEMENT" IN SPACE, IS THE CONSIDERATION THAT SUCCESSIVE STATE CHANGES IN INFINITESIMAL LOCATIONAL DIFFERENCES, HAVE A "SAMENESS" AS A WHOLE (IS A SAID/CONSIDERATED "SAME THING" THAT CHANGE OF SPACE LOCATION).

CORROLARY: "ENERGY", IS A CONSIDERATION OF TENDENCY FOR CHANGE AGAINST A "COUNTER-CONSIDERATION " OF CHANGE (INERTIA, RESISTANCE). IT CAN BE A CHANGE OF SPACE LOCATION, OR IT CAN BE A CHANGE OF STATE OF PD WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF MOUVEMENT.

CORROLARY: A "CHARGE" IS THE "INTENSITY" OF THE CONSIDERATION OF SENSIBILITY TO A CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE OR ITS OPPOSITION TO. (Like in gravity, GRAVITATIONAL MASS acts as a "POSITIVE SENSIBILITY" in reciprocal attraction but as "NEGATIVE SENSIBILITY" in "pulling" or "tracting" modes in sideral space for a spacenef with  rocket motors.)


CORROLARY: WE CAN HAVE "ENERGY FLOWS" (MOUVEMENT), OR "STATIC ENERGY" (WITHOUT MOUVEMENT, OR "PURE STATE ENERGY".

CORROLARY: "A PARTICLE", IS A CLOSE 3D LOOP OF ENERGY FLOWS AROUND AN AVERAGE LOCATION. THIS AVERAGE LOCATION WHICH CAN BE THE "GRAVITY CENTER" (IF HAVE GRAVITY BEHAVIOUR CONSIDERATIONS), CAN ITSELF MOUVE IN THE "MATRIX" AND HAVE A TRAJECTORY.

CORROLARY: "MATTER" IS BASICALLY A CONDENSED ENERGY, AS A PARTICLE IS, BUT HAVING NECESSARELY A CONSIDERATION OF "GRAVITY BEHAVIOUR".


Quote

I realize that I'm putting a lot of words in your proverbial mouth but this is to provoke you to revise the paragraph above according to your framework of understanding the physical universe.
Done ;) and thanks for the opportunity to do so, dear Verpies. :)

Quote
Much groundwork would need to be covered first.
Read this with a rigorous understanding and follow the links in it (even if it takes you a week), but remember that this is not my framework.
While I agree with most of Mathis' conclusions, my framework is much more fundamental because it addresses the composition of charge, photons as well as the nature of space and time (Mathis' framework does not).
OK, I will try to care of that difference with you in my study. Thanks for sharing. :) :)


Quote
I'm starting with somebody's else's framework because you have mentioned Dirac's concepts and they need to be addressed first (Mathis addresses legacy concepts much better than I) before we jump into the more fundamental framework of mine.
OK.

Quote
As a teaser of what's coming when we get to it - I will ask you a simple question:
What is "motion" and what are the units of it?
Done already partially.

For the UNIT OF MOTION, it is all about CONSIDERATIONS AND COMMON AGREEMENT UPON.

But if you talk about something like "THE THINEST UNIT OF MOTION", it would be related for me to THE THINEST CONSIDERATION OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THE "D.P." I conjectured earlier.

Cheers.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 16, 2013, 01:28:20 AM
Yes.
However if neutrons are removed from the nucleus and exposed to the environment outside, then in 14.7 sec. half of neutrons will decay into  protons, fast electrons and anti-νe.
Understand but then it is no more neutron; right? ;)

Still need to go through Mathis's theories but you can already react on my previous "proverbial" conjectured axioms and corrolaries...

Thanks for your attention and constructive efforts until now,
Cheers, Khwartz.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: tinman on November 16, 2013, 07:17:25 AM
My late dad would have been all over this thread like a bad nappy rash on a baby.
He was the reason i got into all this free energy stuff in the first place-befor that,i was just a mechanical/industrial engineer.

My dad !David Fincher! has many pattents to his name,one of which is listed below.

http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patents.html?patnums=US_4926398&language=&patnum=US_4926398&language=en&query=&stemming=&pid=p0

But his true passion was in reserch,in the way of free energy generation.He always believe that the answer lye in motion,space and time.His reserch went as far as having a small working device,which remains in the hands of the remaining company share holders-1 being myself.

As there is two other share holders,i cannot simple forward the device itself.
BUT,i can however forward a coppy of his book that containes the information the device was based around.

If those dedicated (posted )to this thread would like a copy of his book,then email my personal email,and i will forward a coppy to you.
Apon doing so,you agree not to share or forward the book to any other person,as it is PTY LTD reserved-avalible to purchase on amazon.

My personal email is  sidewinder350@westnet.com.au
And please,only people on this thread.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 16, 2013, 09:32:21 AM
I tinman!

I am honoured you joint this thread and share your very personal family history and the work of your late daddy.

I send you my mail in pm and if I see this book enrich me intellectually or personally, it will be my very pleasure to purchase it then on Amazon but be very patient cause I do not read english fast! ;)

Thanks To Be Here And To Communicate With A Constructive Purpose For The General Interest :)

Cheers, Khwartz.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 16, 2013, 09:40:55 AM
I started working on a simulator.  I got as far as rotation and failed; always seems like rotation forces work differently; maybe they done.

If I apply a force of 1 to an object of mass 1, it moves a distance of 1 in 1 unit of time.
if I apply a force of 1 to a position of an object of mass 1, and diameter of 1, does the perimeter rotate 1 distance in 1 time also? (I've read and reread the equations of torque and I still can't get it)

Here's most of a structure for a particle.... though since most aren't programmers it might as well be alpha-centurian....


// I use RCOORD for a floating point value, but then can switch to double/float for all computations
struct particle
{
   int frame;  // used for collision resolution.

   RCOORD size;  // this might be extended someday/ but let's start spherical.  default 1.0

   RCOORD mass;  // default of 1.0

   RCOORD location[DIMENSIONS]; // where the mass is; affects other masses.

   RCOORD velocity[DIMENSIONS]; // normalize to get heading

   RCOORD acceleration[DIMENSIONS]; // has to be maintained for magnetic falloff D^3

       RCOORD up[DIMENSIONS];  // up (what spin is relative to when crossed with velocity?)

       RCOORD spin; // a scalar of rotation around the normalized heading.  It is a rate of change.

   void (*gravity_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function, default 1/d applied as change to velocity which is t^2

   RCOORD charge; // default of 1.0
   void (*charge_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function, default 1/(d), applied as acceleration, so distance will square


   // location is shared between mass and charge


        RCOORD magnetism; // apply a scalar ... default of 1.0 - the strength of it's field
   RCOORD north[DIMENSIONS];  // north (or south)  separate from velocity direction.  In a digital world it would be possible for north and another particles inverted north could be parallel, and no spin applied...
   void (*magnetic_torque )( RCOORD *result_spin, RCOORD *north1, RCOORD separation, RCOORD *north2 );


   void (*magnetic_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function default to 1/d

        void (*deflection)( RCOORD **result, RCOORD *velocity ); // a computation for when one particle's size overlaps another particle's size, also needs parameters like spin, depth of collision (ie. how hard it hit)
};

started to sketch the idea an ended up with lots of text in an image; very sorry....


which ends with... how do I compute the rotation?  And then.

Does the direction of rotation affect motion in other ways than during colision?  Does a force applied to a direction have to account for the spin and cause a gyroscopic deflection of the axis of spin?

There is a seperate axis of spin from the magnetic moment; so the poles could be rapidly spinning around the equator instead of aligned with their direction.... When attempting to align with other influential particles then.  Since the pole effect is really manifested as a size from the origin, this rotation should cause a linear shift in velocity too?  Or is it a torque relative to the origin?

Oh; but then this is totally classical thinking, allowing for action at a distance as just givens for the system.  Does everything really have to be cause and effect?  or can we just take it that two particles can't occupy the same space etc.

It seems pretty arbitrary that two different objects of different size, composition, and mass would fall at the same rate subject to gravity; seems much more like a 'and that's the way it is'.

While considering initial conditions, I figured I would start all particles at the origin, and allow the collision resolution to displace them; but that's big-bang sort of thinking...

And then there's the idea that a particle isn't a thing but somehow becomes 'energy'.  Energy is thermic?  It just imparts motion on other things what things, why?  is it energy as in watts?, so suddenly without any sort of conductor it would make a light?  no... so what really is E?

does it have a location?  Does it just lose size but maintain charge, et al. ?  does it have infinite size instead, causing displacements of other matters? 

My simulation so far seems to lack enough to model particles, since additionally a StrongForce that is another binding force...

What about vacuum, does the lack of particles provide a influence on the particles; or is it just a higher pressure that drives particles to scatter?  Pressure?  Why because of electrostatics repulsion... well that wouldn't account for neutral overall conglomerate particles like dust... could just be the entropy of the collisions, followed by momentum... so anyway I guess there is no natural suction...

but other than simplifying the complex interactions into expressible equations and quantifications... does all this quantum theory really 'fix' anything broken with the classics?

I guess then there's this stuff called light that's not a particle... but can't we all just live in the dark?  :)  Is this light the result of collision? does it take from the velocity? not really; lasers are pumped energy (again, that word) to make electrons bounce shells, which translates into photons emitted... and like magnet fields..., light causes other particles to receive energy also (something like as it began, so does it end)  (as in, making a current flow, causes other currents to flow in other things, as a result of...)

Masses of particles can themselves be combined as particles; but might better be called cells;

Alright I've rambled enough :)
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: tinman on November 16, 2013, 10:37:03 AM
I started working on a simulator.  I got as far as rotation and failed; always seems like rotation forces work differently; maybe they done.

If I apply a force of 1 to an object of mass 1, it moves a distance of 1 in 1 unit of time.
if I apply a force of 1 to a position of an object of mass 1, and diameter of 1, does the perimeter rotate 1 distance in 1 time also? (I've read and reread the equations of torque and I still can't get it)

Here's most of a structure for a particle.... though since most aren't programmers it might as well be alpha-centurian....


// I use RCOORD for a floating point value, but then can switch to double/float for all computations
struct particle
{
   int frame;  // used for collision resolution.

   RCOORD size;  // this might be extended someday/ but let's start spherical.  default 1.0

   RCOORD mass;  // default of 1.0

   RCOORD location[DIMENSIONS]; // where the mass is; affects other masses.

   RCOORD velocity[DIMENSIONS]; // normalize to get heading

   RCOORD acceleration[DIMENSIONS]; // has to be maintained for magnetic falloff D^3

       RCOORD up[DIMENSIONS];  // up (what spin is relative to when crossed with velocity?)

       RCOORD spin; // a scalar of rotation around the normalized heading.  It is a rate of change.

   void (*gravity_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function, default 1/d applied as change to velocity which is t^2

   RCOORD charge; // default of 1.0
   void (*charge_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function, default 1/(d), applied as acceleration, so distance will square


   // location is shared between mass and charge


        RCOORD magnetism; // apply a scalar ... default of 1.0 - the strength of it's field
   RCOORD north[DIMENSIONS];  // north (or south)  separate from velocity direction.  In a digital world it would be possible for north and another particles inverted north could be parallel, and no spin applied...
   void (*magnetic_torque )( RCOORD *result_spin, RCOORD *north1, RCOORD separation, RCOORD *north2 );


   void (*magnetic_falloff)( RCOORD *result, RCOORD distance );  // translate distance by a function default to 1/d

        void (*deflection)( RCOORD **result, RCOORD *velocity ); // a computation for when one particle's size overlaps another particle's size, also needs parameters like spin, depth of collision (ie. how hard it hit)
};

started to sketch the idea an ended up with lots of text in an image; very sorry....


which ends with... how do I compute the rotation?  And then.

Does the direction of rotation affect motion in other ways than during colision?  Does a force applied to a direction have to account for the spin and cause a gyroscopic deflection of the axis of spin?

There is a seperate axis of spin from the magnetic moment; so the poles could be rapidly spinning around the equator instead of aligned with their direction.... When attempting to align with other influential particles then.  Since the pole effect is really manifested as a size from the origin, this rotation should cause a linear shift in velocity too?  Or is it a torque relative to the origin?

Oh; but then this is totally classical thinking, allowing for action at a distance as just givens for the system.  Does everything really have to be cause and effect?  or can we just take it that two particles can't occupy the same space etc.

It seems pretty arbitrary that two different objects of different size, composition, and mass would fall at the same rate subject to gravity; seems much more like a 'and that's the way it is'.

While considering initial conditions, I figured I would start all particles at the origin, and allow the collision resolution to displace them; but that's big-bang sort of thinking...

And then there's the idea that a particle isn't a thing but somehow becomes 'energy'.  Energy is thermic?  It just imparts motion on other things what things, why?  is it energy as in watts?, so suddenly without any sort of conductor it would make a light?  no... so what really is E?

does it have a location?  Does it just lose size but maintain charge, et al. ?  does it have infinite size instead, causing displacements of other matters? 

My simulation so far seems to lack enough to model particles, since additionally a StrongForce that is another binding force...

What about vacuum, does the lack of particles provide a influence on the particles; or is it just a higher pressure that drives particles to scatter?  Pressure?  Why because of electrostatics repulsion... well that wouldn't account for neutral overall conglomerate particles like dust... could just be the entropy of the collisions, followed by momentum... so anyway I guess there is no natural suction...

but other than simplifying the complex interactions into expressible equations and quantifications... does all this quantum theory really 'fix' anything broken with the classics?

I guess then there's this stuff called light that's not a particle... but can't we all just live in the dark?  :)  Is this light the result of collision? does it take from the velocity? not really; lasers are pumped energy (again, that word) to make electrons bounce shells, which translates into photons emitted... and like magnet fields..., light causes other particles to receive energy also (something like as it began, so does it end)  (as in, making a current flow, causes other currents to flow in other things, as a result of...)

Masses of particles can themselves be combined as particles; but might better be called cells;

Alright I've rambled enough :)
The reason that a feather will fall at the same speed as a marble(in a vacume ofcourse),has nothing to do with the amount of mass. It is how gravity reacts with atoms.As all things(well not all)that have mass are made from atoms,and gravity reacts on those atoms in the same way,then we know why the feather falls at the same speed as the marble.
There are things that ofcourse dont have atoms that still have mass,and an example would be a neutron star.These have no kind of distinguishable atoms,but this is a clasic example of man not knowing all there is to know !yet!.

Put aside what you have been taught in school about our motion in space,as that is incorrectly described. Remember,we DO NOT orbit the sun as such,infact our motion throughout space just happens to resemble the DNA strand or helical rotation-in more ways than one.

The video below is a close representation of our actual motion throughot our galaxy.
The truth can some times amaze.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 16, 2013, 01:08:13 PM

That IS a good animation: [size=78%]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws)[/size]



re the book; having now read it; I did do all of that work and pondering before receveing your mail...


but: if I may an exerpt:


"Here is the enlightening discovery of the stability of the atom: consider the following; the electron, which is electrically attracted to the more massive proton nucleus in a simple hydrogen atom, is moving through the cosmos at 600,000 metres per second with the rest of the atoms of the galaxy (referred to as “cosmic motion”), travelling in the same direction as the atoms’ proton nucleus. Therefore the distance and direction of the more massive proton motion is superimposed on the less massive electron, and as such that they must be both considered as moving together through the cosmos in the same physical direction. "


and in opposite charge are repelling fields in all directions...


I started such a discussion on physicsforums.com (?); was quite a mistake, but a hint of other direction to go was electric universe - thunderbolts; which neglects a medium, I objected that the theory really was electric as a secondary; but anyway....


I guess I was mixing some ideas in my equations; the falloff of magnetic force is 1/d^3, or the volume of the area of sphere of radius distance... electrostatic and (I dunno I still think gravitation is a basic field itself) gravity falloff at 1/d^2, or the surface of the area of the sphere of radius distance... which is a wonderful balancing mechanism. given that one gets stronger faster, and the other gets weaker slower. 

back to reading :)  Oh wasn't much mroe.


That makes it somewhat disheartenting... if travelling... fairly fast, to a system that is backwards in the rotation of the galaxy will be very hard as particles begin to unravel.... taking a bad left turn at albequeque could be really bad; or something :)

Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 16, 2013, 03:31:59 PM
I will share a criticism though.  A lot of the numerical math ratios are composed of simple numbers that are just a number decimal 0's to shift, and a simple integer... 600000 = 6 and 5 decimal shifts; etc
7000, 12000, 3000...


a lot of it could line up as coincidence; but proving that hydrogen is different on venus or mars from what it is on earth could be an interesting thing
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 16, 2013, 08:47:45 PM
re: the question you didn't understand; doesn't matter.  Just a suggestion that putting a magnet near the wire modifies the expected path;
It does. It is called the Hall Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect).

But isn't abstracting the behavior of particles to an external particle still making that external particle react to force at a distance? It just pushes the bump in the rug down in one spot, but it pops up in another? 
I am delighted that you have noticed that.  Formally it is called "adding another level of indirection" - a phrase you should be familiar with if you are programming in real computer languages (not some uncompilable pseudocode like Java).

I had you read Mathis' papers because he is mostly correct and all of his interactions are mechanical and he is not a proponent of action at a distance other than bombardment or collisions of his B-photons (which he sometimes calls "the charge field").

Where Mathis is deficient at, is that he does not delve into the nature of his photons and B-photons (bombarding photons) he just stops his logical breakdown of the universe there.  He can go up from them but not down, e.g he shows how adding orthogonal spins to photons converts them into electrons, and adding even more spins converts electrons into protons and neutrons - the very building blocks of matter.

In a way it is understandable because every theory must start from some axiom - a simple fundamental entity or entities that can define all the other observable entities, through different relationships between them.  In other words something that just is.

For example the CGS system starts from the centimeter, gram and second and proceeds do define all the other measurable quantities (e.g. volt) from them.
The SI system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit) defines the following as base units: metre, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, candela, mole.
Furthermore each of these systems defines some fundamental entities such as quarks or electrons or photons and asking any question about their compositions as an axiomatic no, no.

Mathis, starts by placing his axiom at the photon and goes up from there, I on the other hand place my axiom much lower and go up from there.
Read this (http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp) and guess what my axioms are.

It makes the point of observation a mechanical byproduct, but the virtuals still go towards a mass... or clear out electrostatic and allow gravity to attract... Or otherwise experience force at distance...
To me virtual particles and intrinsic spins are just crutches for simple minds and belong in the same basket of wrong ideas as big-bang.
However, I agree that the "point of observation" is very important and makes a great difference, but it is not a "point" of the Cartesian coordinate system that most people are so blindly attached to.  That system is emergent of something much more fundamental.

but if the electrostatic was increased between N-N poles, wouldn't you get a sensation of a charge field? (like a van degraff) which generates a large electrostatic field
No, because Van de Graaf generator produces a gradient of electric potential (like a pressure in the "charge field").  Gradients can be felt, pressure alone - not.


I'll throw  this out too, if gravity is driven by these virtual particles, how do they escape the gravity and get back out and around to continue pushing a mass?
Gravity is not driven by any particles. If anything, bombardment by such particles opposes gravity (subtracts from it)

Or is every gravity source essentially a black hole? 
Gravity does not have a source.  Gravity is a 3D pseudoscalar motion of every atom (I'll get back to it later).  It is this motion that creates the 3D Euclidean geometric reference system of our daily lives.  You can attach the origin of a Cartesian XYZ coordinate system to each atom, but they will still be a part of one big Euclidean reference system, since the only difference between them will be in translation (or rotation) - both Euclidean transforms.
Now pay attention:  Just because something is not moving in that Cartesian XYZ coordinate system does not mean that is not moving in a reference system of a different type.


(Added) I see.  Gravity isn't a virtual photon force.  It's an impossibility. 
Correct.  Anything that is called "virtual" might as well be called imaginary and unreal.

If bodies are expanding to keep pushing against you, and to... no actually the theory makes no sense what so ever. 
It does make sense but not in the way you imagine.
If all matter was expanding, then you'd never know it because your eyes and your ruler that you use to measure distances would be expanding too and the proportions would remain the same. 
Now the puenta:  Your perception of 1D distance, 2D areas and 3D volume (measures of space as you view it) is not only related to the distance between your eyes, but also to interval (a.k.a. distance in time).

You should always consider how distance in space is effected by the motion between the observer and observed and not limit your consideration to motion in space only but also to their motion in time too.[/quote]
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 16, 2013, 09:08:00 PM
OK, I get what you state. Looks to me we have a rather similar concept of space. Except that for me this space could be filled uniformly of "something".
An this "something" is made of what?

More precisely and to go all the way along in my present paradigme, I start with METAPHYSICS, and specifically ONTOLOGY:
As I see it:
• SPACE IS A METAPHYSICAL CONSIDERATION, AS TIME IS ALSO.
As in eastern very old concept,
• REALITY IS AN CONSIDERATION OF EXISTENCE. THINGS EXIST BECAUSE WE AGREE THEY EXIST.
I do not want to discuss metaphysics, but only physics.

If you are considering time and space as metaphysical and you predicate their existence on ontological belief or consentual agreement, then we have noting left to discuss.

If you meant that the same space and time can appear differently to different observers than we have a lot to discuss.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 16, 2013, 11:21:32 PM

For example the CGS system starts from the centimeter, gram and second and proceeds do define all the other measurable quantities (e.g. volt) from them.
The SI system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit) defines the following as base units: metre, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, candela, mole.
Furthermore each of these systems defines some fundamental entities such as quarks or electrons or photons and asking any question about their compositions as an axiomatic no, no.

Mathis, starts by placing his axiom at the photon and goes up from there, I on the other hand place my axiom much lower and go up from there.
Read this (http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp) and guess what my axioms are.
To me virtual particles and intrinsic spins are just crutches for simple minds and belong in the same basket of wrong ideas as big-bang.
However, I agree that the "point of observation" is very important and makes a great difference, but it is not a "point" of the Cartesian coordinate system that most people are so blindly attached to.  That system is emergent of something much more fundamental.
Okay I can accept a new system of measuring; although for calculations, I'm sure keeping the specifically named units can be useful to simplify the numbers you're required to use.


It would be nice to have what the conversion constant is also; like what is the constant for Farads to S^3/T ?


It is interesting that voltage is an acceleration, and current is a velocity; resistance is a strange thing... well no should be able to work that out....

E = IR
R = E / I
R = S/T2  /  S/T
R = S / T2  *  T/S
R = 1/T.
; you claim resistance is T2 S-3
;Resistance R   Ohms   m2Kg/sec3/Amp2   T2 S-3

P = IE
P = S/T  * S/T2
P = S2/T3
; you claim power is 1/T
;
Quote
You can attach the origin of a Cartesian XYZ coordinate system to each atom, but they will still be a part of one big Euclidean reference system, since the only difference between them will be in translation (or rotation) - both Euclidean transforms. [/font]Now pay attention:  Just because something is not moving in that Cartesian XYZ coordinate system does not mean that is not moving in a reference system of a different type

I wouldn't nessacily be so specific; the coordinate system should be a module that has it's own information.  It could be higher or lower, it could be spherical/quaternion based.  But you need at least 2 points; and every system has a defined origin that's a given point. So any other point alone can have position. 

Yes translation functions allow viewing sub-frames from other perspectives;did you see  the solar system through the galaxy animation?  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws)  several frames represented :)  I dunno I sometimes dislike the word frame, since as a picture that implies boundary, or as applied to a building implies structure; and there is no requirement that the same space is addressed with exactly one coordinate; other than influence(collision/gravity/electrostatic etc) resolution in such a system might be tricky...
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 16, 2013, 11:55:05 PM
I started working on a simulator.  I got as far as rotation and failed; always seems like rotation forces work differently; maybe they done.
A software simulator of interacting baseballs is a good idea because you will be able to show it to Mathis, regardless whether it works to illustrate his point of view or not.

If I apply a force of 1 to an object of mass 1, it moves a distance of 1 in 1 unit of time.
if I apply a force of 1 to a position of an object of mass 1, and diameter of 1, does the perimeter rotate 1 distance in 1 time also?
First of all you cannot have a linear distance along a curve in kinematic situations, when something is moving and time is involved.  Read this (http://milesmathis.com/avr.html) for an explanation why.

Secondly, if you push a point on the perimeter of a massive disk thats not afixed to an axle (e.g. floating in "deep space") then its center of mass will move linearly AND the disk will rotate.  This is basic Newtonian kinematics.



Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 17, 2013, 12:30:36 AM
Okay I can accept a new system of measuring; although for calculations, I'm sure keeping the specifically named units can be useful to simplify the numbers you're required to use.
This is not only about new system of units.  This is to illustrate to you that everything, and I mean everything - the whole freakin' physical universe can be expressed in terms of motion that has two reciprocal aspects: space and time.
In other words, every photon, electron, proton, neutron, atom, mass, stone ...any entity (even your body), is a motion or combination of motions and every distance, duration/interval, acceleration, force (Elec, Mag. & Grav.), voltage, current, flux, charge is a relation between motions.

Also, the space and time of our daily lives is a product of those motions. That's why I have been writing that the space and time of our daily lives is emergent.  It is created by the motion of mass which defines the 3D Cartesian reference that most people identify as space.  Humans, also composed of gravitating matter (also a motion) have a difficulty comprehending it.

Motion defines scalar space & time. The relation between two motions can define the Euclidean geometric reference system that humans are are so attached* to.  Before this relation is established, geometry just does not exist (but scalar space and time do). The space in Euclidean system acquires directional properties (e.g. angles) and just then we can write things like below:
• "Space", is the consideration of "distance".  It needs a viewer and it needs at least one "points to view". "3D" space occurs with at least 1 viewer and 3 other "point to view" with none of them colinear.

All that is needed to begin to understand this is the realization that there can be motion without anything moving.  The mere relation between space and time is motion.  This is evident in the common equation: speed = space / time.
Notice that there is no trace in this equation of any object that is moving.  As we progress I will prove that every "object", even if appearing stationary in the 3D Euclidean reference system of our daily lives, is in fact a motion or combination of motions.

It would be nice to have what the conversion constant is also; like what is the constant for Farads to S^3/T ?
We will get to this shortly.  This will be possible because the basic motion in the physical universe is the speed of light. In fact the speed of light is the condition of rest (a datum) of the universe, from which everything can be measured.  Speed of light is the progression of one unit of space in one unit of time (the magnitude of those units will be given shortly).  Any deviation from the speed of light constitutes some phenomenon. This deviation can happen only as an average of multiple units of motion, because at the scale of one unit the speed must be the speed of light, always!. From the point of view of this universal datum humans and their preciously constructed Euclidean reference system, is moving very quickly inward (gravitating).  This creates the illusion that anything that is not gravitating (e.g. photons, distant galaxies) is moving very quickly outward.  This is also the the basis for the trendy theory of Big-Bang and Mathis' B-photons.

Note, that in the dimensionless equation speed = space / time, both aspect of motion are reciprocal to each other. In other words more space means less time and more time means less space, as well as, less space means more time and less time means more space. 
This applies to the scalar space and time as well as to the vectorial space of Euclidean reference system. In case of the latter, it is obvious that 6m/10s is the same speed as 3m/5s.  Taking this reasoning further, if we keep the speed constant and increase one of its aspects, then the other aspect must decrease proportionally.

The above observations also apply, to non-linear motion, e.g. expanding or shrinking of 3D volumes.  For example: looping space (the basis of the famous spin in legacy science and Mathis' theory) freezes the progression of space (taken as an average) but the progression in time remains unimpeded (expanding).  If orthogonal spins freeze the progression of space in all three dimensions, but leave the progression of time unimpeded, we will have an illusion of shrinking 3D volume (an inward 3D motion).

I should also mention one last important thing. All motions in the universe are quantized, e.g their speeds are ...4, 3, 2, 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4...
Also, by the reciprocal relation time has all the properties of space but the magnitude of time is reciprocal to the magnitude of space.  This also means that 3D motion in time is possible and 3D properties of time can be identified.  This does not mean some 6-dimensional space, because time has no direction in space and vice versa, thus they are not a part of some one big all-encompassing continuum.  Space and Time are merely aspects of motion and as such they are interrelated.  By their very definition, dimensions are completely independent variables - any interrelation between two variables destroys their qualification as dimensions (mathematic or geometric dimensions), and here we have a very strong relation, namely: speed = space / time.

Gravitating observers expand in time in all dimensions equally (pseudoscalarly), thus their temporal motion can be described by one number (instead of three). This motion is the clock time of our daily lives.  It is also the reason why time appears 1-dimensionally to us.  Any deviation from this universal 3D expansion in time manifests itself as strain between normalized** reference systems, and because of this. 1D interaction with another motion gives rise to electric phenomena, 2D interaction gives rise to magnetic phenomena, and 3D interaction gives rise to gravitational phenomena.

In this manner my system is different, from Mathis' but as entities are built up of from basic motions it starts converging with his.
Since we are both computers programmers and physicists, I can write it this analogy.  Mathis C code is almost like mine, but it compiles to different machine code for the CPU that runs the universe... or it doesn't compile at all because Mathis does not consider anything below the photon. 
His essay on time (http://milesmathis.com/time.html) is very insightful for novices, though.

It is interesting that voltage is an acceleration, and current is a velocity; resistance is a strange thing... well no should be able to work that out....
Xavier Borg's compilation of units is only 80% correct, because he does not have the insight into the universal progression of space and time (not vectorial s&t) and he is unaware of the 3D symmetry between space an time.  Larson's is 99% correct (1% because of the Statcoulomb), but his article is over 900 pages long so I opted to direct you to the shorter but less accurate compilation of those units.
But yes, many such identifications are possible. For example energy is inverse speed [t/s], but let's leave that for later, because from my experience with other people your head should be spinning by now ;)

I wouldn't necessarily be so specific; the coordinate system should be a module that has it's own information.
It could be higher or lower, it could be spherical/quaternion based.  But you need at least 2 points; and every system has a defined origin that's a given point. So any other point alone can have position.
We shall be as specific as possible or we risk degenerating into metaphysics.
The Euclidean coordinate system is emergent.  It is created from the relation between at least two motions (gravitating observer and Observees).  It actually is a result of restrictions placed on the Projective Geometry which is the least restrictive geometry where only only cross-ratio is invariant and where pseudoscalar*** motion dwells.
Affine Geometry is more restrictive, Metric Geometry is even more restrictive and Euclidean Geometry is the most restrictive. See this (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~marc/tutorial/node32.html).

Yes translation functions allow viewing sub-frames from other perspectives;
That is true, but that reasoning applies only to perspectives in the same type of reference systems (e.g. Euclidean reference systems).  It should be clear to you by now, that other types of reference systems exist and they can be moving pseudoscalarly in respect to the Euclidean system.  No amount of translations and rotations will transform motion in one system to the other, because they belong to different class of systems. In fact there is an inherent strain between such systems and phantom forces appear between objects that are stationary in them.

there is no requirement that the same space is addressed with exactly one coordinate;
and there is no requirement that the same "space" is represented in only one reference system of the gravitating observer such as a human pair of eyes.


Notes:

* (pun intended)

** This begs a question "normalized to what?". The answer: Normalized to the average gravitating motion of a material observer, which means, space frozen to one unit by looping (or directional reversals) and uniform progression/expansion in time in all available temporal dimensions, in other words "pseudoscalarly".

***  "Pseudoscalar" is a term taken from Geometric Algebra - a very pleasant and clean piece of math.  It means a multidimensional vector (a multivector) that has the same count of dimensions as the space in which it resides.  Magnitudes descried by it don't have an identifiable direction because the pseudoscalar occupies all avaiable dimensions and thus no dimension is special/preferred.  Pseudoscalar is different from a true scalar, which is a 0-dimensional quantity devoid of any direction by its very definition, e.g. like the sweetnes of sugar.  Thus scalar motion is an oxymoron, but pseudoscalar motion is not.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 17, 2013, 12:48:50 AM
A software simulator of interacting baseballs is a good idea because you will be able to show it to Mathis, regardless whether it works to illustrate his point of view or not.
First of all you cannot have a linear distance along a curve in kinematic situations, when something is moving and time is involved.  Read this (http://milesmathis.com/avr.html) for an explanation why.

Secondly, if you push a point on the perimeter of a massive disk thats not afixed to an axle (e.g. floating in "deep space") then its center of mass will move linearly AND the disk will rotate.  This is basic Newtonian kinematics.
(this was formatted better when I wrote it :) )

Right see, it all gets to be complex when you start introducing rotation. 


But; in the case of following another magnet, there is a translation acceleration based on the current alignment of poles [strike] (Cos of the north's... or projection of one north on another north... is +1 to -1, and if, perfectly, the magnets are at right angles, there is a 0 attraction... which can be felt as short of a null zone; [/strike]
okay but then again the position of the two matters. 

(darn, nested [  LI ] tags don't work)

   
(given that projection of north on north is 1)
          If the delta in position is projected on the north...
          at 0 is a repulsion (side-by-side) and 1 and -1 is attraction  (s-n and n-s) at a minor change above or below zero there is an attraction, I'll throw in at the size of the magnet in the direction of the north/south axis... (height)
 given- projection of north on north is -1
     if the delta position projected on the north is
     
0 - they are attracted 1 and -1 they are repelled... and it follows that a delta more than their size projected on north begins repulsion.
[/li][/list]


and some other curves thrown in there, but probably using these new consistent units I can finish that.


But this interaction isn't the result of a collision - or a bump on the edge of something.  Because also at 90 degrees where the projected norths are 0 (dot product), they experience a torque about their center of (mass?); independent of the direction or other velocity changes, and it's in a direction so that... hmm there seems to be conditions to this...

 if N.N < 1,... this is more about the horizontal projection... which is a plane at the equator defied by north and the origin... so using a point-normal form to define that equatorial plane...
 
 at positive delta on the height
   
 at 0 delta on this plane, the desire is to have N dot N = 1.
 > 0 delta the desire is to have -N align to the pole projected on the surface of the particle.  this is more of a look-at function.

 at near-zero delta on the north axis, the tendency is to align N dot N to -1.
 at negative delta greater than the height, the tendency is a negative operation of (case 1).


all of that probably boils down to some simple algorithm


 And I guess I just need a constant to apply for radian T-1  per density of space
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Excal on November 17, 2013, 01:26:09 AM
Quote
It is interesting that voltage is an acceleration, and current is a velocity; resistance is a strange thing... well no should be able to work that out....

E = IR
R = E / I
R = S/T2  /  S/T
R = S / T2  *  T/S
R = 1/T.
; you claim resistance is T2 S-3
;Resistance R   Ohms   m2Kg/sec3/Amp2   T2 S-3

P = IE
P = S/T  * S/T2
P = S2/T3
; you claim power is 1/T


Voltage is an acceleration? I guess you could say that it is an acceleration of inverse velocity (t/s2)

V = IR
R = V / I
R = T/S2  /  S/T
R = T/S2  *  T/S
R = T2/S3

P = 1/S on same basis. 1/T = frequency
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 17, 2013, 01:59:45 AM
First of all you cannot have a linear distance along a curve in kinematic situations, when something is moving and time is involved.  Read this (http://milesmathis.com/avr.html) for an explanation why.
So I was reading the Clarification of the equation paper so he's saying that at tangent=1, radius=1, arc=1 (but it doesn't)... and A=1 and V=1  etc ... and in that special case then I'm thinking, so by that math, you're saying PI is ; so I jumped over to that other paper to make sure that wasn't what he was saying and.....


"Abstract: I show that in kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static situations. I am analyzing an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. When measuring your waistline, you are not creating an orbit, and you can keep π for that. So quit writing me nasty, uninformed letters."


Well.  That's interesting... hmm is there some sort of time scalar involved?  Oh look that's the next paragraph :/
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 17, 2013, 02:23:35 AM

E = IR
R = E / I
R = S/T2  /  S/T
R = S / T2  *  T/S
R = 1/T.
; you claim resistance is T2 S-3
;Resistance R   Ohms   m2Kg/sec3/Amp2   T2 S-3

P = IE
P = S/T  * S/T2
P = S2/T3
; you claim power is 1/T
;


Is that comparing apples to oranges? and missing dropping some fruit components that can make them equate?  Like velocity and acceleration in circles to result in 4 or pi ?  Think I actually did that derivation once back in high school calc class... since the distance is the integral of the velocity, for a thing moving a v=1 around a radius r the sum of the position under the curve is r... so covering 4 quadrants yields 4... I dismissed it as meaning anything, figuring it was an error that yields 1=0... but it's talking about the time around a thing to yield a distance not just a distance that can be measured with strings.


It does make sense that the distance traveled for an orbiting body is actually 4 compared to its radius...because it does it more slowly...  and that the acceleration force is actually really ... sqrt( vo^2 + r^2 ) -  r ... which looks like pythagorean triangle minus r;    v=S/dT + r=S/dT?


radius is used, but assigned velocity units? can't add or subtract different units, but can multiply, so .. r is a velocity?




For simulation purposes; doesn't really matter(?)... the result will happen because the accelerations are applied continuously... well I guess it should be applied with the curve scaled by the interval...


;
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 17, 2013, 03:00:23 AM
Is that comparing apples to oranges? and missing dropping some fruit components that can make them equate?  Like velocity and acceleration in circles to result in 4 or pi ?
Are you referring to Mathis or Xavier Borg ?

BTW: I edited my previous reply (http://www.overunity.com/14007/of-the-very-nature-of-space-time-energy-and-matter/msg377224/#msg377224) to you a lot, so you'd better reread it.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 17, 2013, 03:49:17 AM
It does make sense that the distance traveled for an orbiting body is actually 4 compared to its radius...because it does it more slowly...  and that the acceleration force is actually really ... sqrt( vo^2 + r^2 ) -  r ... which looks like pythagorean triangle minus r;  v=S/dT + r=S/dT?
For simulation purposes; doesn't really matter(?)... the result will happen because the accelerations are applied continuously... well I guess it should be applied with the curve scaled by the interval...
For simulation purposes you should go through the exercise of simulating a spaceship flying straight through deep space and then suddenly firing its thrusters in such manner as to enter and maintain a circular orbit.  You will quickly discover that maintaining centripetal or strictly tangential thrust is not enough...  so what should be the angle of the thrust to maintain a circular orbit around an imaginary point in a Euclidean reference system?
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 17, 2013, 08:48:41 AM
Back in high school, on my tandy 1000; partially for class project; I made a space simulation with different colors (classes) of stars that had their own gravity.  Mind you this did not have the optional math co-processor.... So hooray for scaled math, and lots of other optimizations but before that, I was interested most to see how much multiple gravity sources affected the path. 
I already understood that from what basic math I knew and could cobble together that a real orbit was impossible to simulate.  But I blamed it on the imperfection of the process; lack of precision...


Many years later, I began on this path that has brought me here apparently :)  But early in my discovery of incredible energy technologies of many forms that all were not pursued; based on this one little thing '2nd law of thermodynamics'  and if you demonstrate that doesn't apply to the system in question then it's just 'it won't work.  ANd if you knew anything about physics you'd know why'.  Turns out I do know a few things, and I don't understand why they can't perceive of a model that would work, without having to have a thing in front of them... but anyway...


I as reflecting on magnetic fields, and magnetic fields of earth, and realization formed that was astonishingly simple.  Given that we know the shape of the earth's field, it is distroted from the shape it would be all on its own, much like a similarly poled magnet is pressing against it.... probably with almost exactly the force as it is being pulled by gravity.  And then I realized there were different falloff rates that were expiramentally confirmed repeatedly... and that the whole problem with the simulation was a lack of opposing force against the gravity.  And that the calculation for the density of the sun is entirely wrong.  We may have some clue about earth's density, but really that's an arbitrary number on which all other relative densities must be from that as an origin...


And then they said 'only earth has a magnetic pole because of its iron core' but then it turned out all celestial bodies have a magnetic pole.  And I'm pretty sure if these poles are computed, they are all mutally north... for instance uranus rotates on it's side, but it's field is still in-line with everyone else's.... that really we're more like all ferro-magnetic masses in one big field... and our mutual norths will repel.... and in fact do repel to provide a stable trough through which we orbit with slight in/out bounce as the magnetism becomes stronger and pushes and the gravity weakens slower, so when the magnetism isn't pushing so hard, the gravity pulls.


(Here's the full writeup and thread that got me banned.... )  (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=442922)

but one can hardly blame them.  I thought the link I had to the graph included the parameters for the graphing calculator, didn't think it wouldn't demonstrate repeatedly the trough condition.... Fortunatly other links in that post still work


Oh an by the way; they also tell me it's the slight particle breeze from the sun that deforms a magnetic field.  Have you ever seen a magnetic field get bombarded with particles and change shape?
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 17, 2013, 09:07:20 AM
I know; two posts is hard to combine and quote :) but... to go further back.  I'm not swiming.  I read several books on fractal geometry and fractal dimensions... and abstract ways to conceive of dimensionality from 0 to N....


I've begun to simplify things in my own mine, like a vector is just a parameter list... and math is a horrible syntax for programming... but it can suffice.


I spent some time attempting to derive the slope of a mandelbrot... ended up converting it to polar coordinates and had a relatively good shot at it, but... it was just a more complex calculation and wouldn't simplify predicition of failure any more than just evaluating the position.


I'm having a little hard time wrapping my mind around T^3 per cubic space... that really means 3 seperate parameters for the function to T... although it's T*T*T it's really AT*BT*CT  or (Ai*Bj*Ck) with units of T^3.....


and that also means we can take a derivitive of mass....


But if I can make another leap, it sounds like you're heading to say that M/S is really A unit, and all other things are built around that metric.


Keep it as simple as possible and no simpler...
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 17, 2013, 10:38:43 AM
The reason that a feather will fall at the same speed as a marble(in a vacume ofcourse),has nothing to do with the amount of mass. It is how gravity reacts with atoms.As all things(well not all)that have mass are made from atoms,and gravity reacts on those atoms in the same way,then we know why the feather falls at the same speed as the marble.
Hi, tinman.

You stated that "the reason that a feather will fall at the same speed as a marble(in a vacume ofcourse),has nothing to do with the amount of mass" but here the trivial demonstration it has all to do with masses:

Indead, the equation:

• F [N] = g [m.s^-2] * M [kg]   (1)


is very known but we forget often that "g" depends on:

• M [kg]    (2)


where "M" is the Earth-mass ("m" will be here the mass of the object CONSIDERED as "falling down" on the surface of the Earth).

The truth as you could know is that both masses (object and Earth) are attracted with the same intensity and "fall on each other".

The complete equation is:

• F [N] = k [(m.s^-2)kg^-1] * (M [kg] * m [kg]) / d^2 [m^2]   (3)


Where " k [(m.s^-2)kg^-1]" is what I call personally (because of a generalisation I try to clear-up for any kind of energy): "SPECIFIC (ENERGETICAL) SENSIBILITY" OF THE "(ENERGETICAL) CHARGE" (here the MASS).

So, from (1) & (3) we can express "g" as A DIRECT FUNCTION of the  "CHARGES" involved:

• g [m.s^-2]  = k [(m.s^-2)kg^-1] * M [kg]  / d^2 [m^2]   (4)


So, you can see that ACCELERATION here is depending on the Earth-mass and of the "SPECIFIC SENSIBILITY" of the MASS (MASS = "GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE").

Correct me, anyone, if I have made any error in my maths ;)

Cheers.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: forest on November 17, 2013, 12:13:42 PM
Yup, again the effect of the most basic law : Newton III law. ;D
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 17, 2013, 12:17:09 PM
Good morning(Vila Cha time view) ;) ,
did you all ever seen a poolbillard-championship ? ( other sports: how a volley-ball may be treaten :punshing the ball with the hand palm)
Motion with no motion: a ball that is moving on one fixed XYZ-point/pinion ( f.e. XYZ-ZeroPoint)
with 3-movement potentials : rotatory -translatory-linear

a natural/artificial spin-filament with a water-drop( or buckyball) : moving/rotating (centrifugal/peripetal) the filament : in(n)ert X(=different)-haerent drop forces !
what happens and how inside the tube of agriculture drop-watering process ?

Sincerely
             OCL
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 17, 2013, 12:41:27 PM





There is an experiment to measure gravity between two similarly sized, uncharged, non-magnetic objects. 
When the difference between the two is great, then the smaller is neglegable in effect of accelerating the other.  It does not additionally accelerate itself, only the other.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#History_of_measurement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation


I've misremembered the equations :) 


F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2  in m-s-2


where:
F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant, (arbitrary scale conversion factor)
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.




newton did propose a correction factor for gravity...
F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 + B * m1 * m2 / r^3;  // look a B field :)
kepler had something to do with that....


... I don't remember... the forces exerpted are not symetrical, and the gravitational acceleration of the object never accelerates itself.
It's not equal and opposite halves added together.


Under a constant of a different cosmic scale of object vs another insignificant object simplifies to just


F = g m d-2


g = gravity constant for the gravity field reference
m = is mass
d = is distance of the mass from (the center of mass)
...


okay so if I approach this as a limit...


as m2 approaches 0 compared to m1....


F = G * m1 * 0 ; no that doesn't work...


I should sleep on it maybe


-------------
re notes on relativity being better than newton for explaining things...
Ug nevermind, I can't even bear to read that.
Yes it just a bunch of mislabled words, but it's the same thing the dyslexic russian alphabet does to me.  P is R and H is N and there's like 12 B's :)


the corrections applied are all electromagnetic effects.  Gravity does NOT bend light.
But magnetism does all the time - in crystal lenses for instance.  and hence the dark 'matter' isn't matter at all, but magnetic fields... measuring distance star light bend around the sun, or bend around jupiter is equally pointless not having seperated the extreme magnetic fields both of these have.



Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 17, 2013, 12:49:00 PM
the corrections applied are all electromagnetic effects.  Gravity does NOT bend light.
But magnetism does all the time - in crystal lenses for instance.  and hence the dark 'matter' isn't matter at all, but magnetic fields...

"light (wind)shadow" ?
How great is a "Komet"-core and how long his "Schweif/wing" ? (Material ? Movement direction !)

Sincerely
               OCL
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 17, 2013, 12:52:39 PM
Dear Verpies, thanks for sharing the link to this very relevant page, i.m.o.:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp

Here a "short" excerpt of I would like to react on:

"Unfortunately, the term 'dimension', has two completely different meanings, both of which are going to be used in this paper, so the reader should be aware of both meanings in order to apply the correct meaning of the word according to the context in which it is being used. In mathematics the 'dimension' of a space is roughly defined as the mimimum number of coordinates needed to specify every point within it. For example the square has two dimensions since two coordinates, say x and y, can be used to specify any point within it. A cube has three dimensions since three coordinates, say x,y, and z, are enough to specify any point in space within it. In engineering and physics terminology, the term 'dimension' relates to the nature of a measurable quantity. In general, physical measurements that must be expressed in units of measurement, and quantities obtained by such measurements are dimensionful. Quantities like ratios and multiplying factors, with no physical units assigned to them are dimensionless. An example of a dimension is length, expressed in units of length, the meters, and an example of a dimensionless unit is Pi. An engineering dimension can thus be a measure of a corresponding mathematical dimension, for example, the dimension of length is a measure of a collection of small linked lines of unit length, which have a single dimension, and the dimension of area is a measure of a collection or grid of squares, which have two dimensions. Similarly the mathematical dimension of volume is three. The prefix 'hyper-' is usually used to refer to the four (and higher) dimensional analogs of three-dimensional objects, e.g. hypercube, hypersphere..."

You point out a important mistake here oftenly made, a little but significant and fundamental about "dimensions" in maths:

There is only a like "spaces" as the "physical space" in maths, and there are only ideal ABSTRACTS.

Since 3 MATHEMATICAL DIMENSION VECTORIAL SPACE can be used to express the 3 PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS, we tends to confuse them.

This is indeed the very reason many badly informed about maths, think that "relativist vortex" could exist as "a tonel" in "an other dimension" or "a door to an other universe".

This mistake comes from said "scientific journalism" which has shown an abstraction which has no physical space reality: the picture of a "gravitational vortex" in 3 physical dimensions.

Indeed, in these pic where the vortex is shown as a tunel, a hole without end in a 2 physical dimensions grid, we foget that 1 physical dimension has been suppressed to represent a MATHEMATICAL dimension, an ABSTRACT dimension (which represent the quantities that you call "PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS" and which I call "PHYSICAL MAGNITUDES" to not confuse with the 3 "PHYSICAL MAGNITUDES OF THE PHYSICAL SPACE" I call "PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS", but this may be discussed further).

This ABSTRACT/MATHEMATICAL 3rd dimension in these pictures stands for the INTENSITY of the gravitational force field.

I.m.o., the guy who first publish these graphs would have much better done to keep the MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATION of the third PHYSICAL DIMENSION, and TO REPRESENT THE FIELD INTENSITY by colours going from light to dark, we would have not have so much confusion then in the mind of uninformed people about physics and maths.

In maths we can have "n-DIMENTIONAL SPACES", but these "SPACES" are pure "ABSTRACT SPACES", like as I said before "VECTORIAL SPACES", which are indeed AN ABSTRACTIVE GENERALISATION of  the MATHEMATICALLY (NEAR) EQUIVALENT 3 physical dimensions space.

In an "VECTORIAL SPACE", a "VECTOR" is just anything which has "n" number of ORDERRED "COMPONENTS", which can REPRESENTS each anything real or subjective QUALITY able to be expressed in terms QUANITITY. E.g.:

• 1rst component: the price of an object ;

• 2sd component: the cost of this object ;

• 3rd component: the number of buyers of this object ;

• 4th component: the delay this object to be sold ;

• 5th component: the degree of appreciation of this object by the customers, expressed as a grading/notation system.

This can by written like this:

• Vi(Ai, Bi, Ci, Di, Ei)

Where Vi is a one example of an ABSTRACTIVE VECTOR, and Ai, Bi, ..., the VALUES of each ORDERED QUANTITY exprissing this specific vector.


This is where the confusion takes place too in the "STRING THEORIES" speaking about 10 or more "dimensions". THESE DIMENSIONS ARE NOT///// PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS BUT MATEMATICAL DIMENSIONS REPRESENTING (PHYSICAL) MAGNITUDES! . But as for the counter-productive 3d representation of a gravitational wortex: more something looks crazy more it attracts interest from the large uninformed public and makes people talks and sells books... so it just continues and is nourish to be be continued! :/ (Which has nothing to do with the validity of the strings theories themselves which are absolutly relevant, at least mathematically.)

But true that MATHEMATICAL DIMENSIONS is very productively used as a TOOL to express any kind of "MAGNITUDE" in physics. Just we would all progress a few if we could realise more the very difference between the two concepts.

Note 1: In my terminology "MAGNITUDE" is hyperonyme of "PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS". Means that:

• "PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS" =>  "MAGNITUDE"

but it is not reversal ("PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS" are a case, an example of "MAGNITUDE" but there are other kind of "MAGNITUDES" in physics).

Note 2: We could label too the "PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS": "GEOMETRICAL DIMENSIONS", but as maths are concerned, it woul be a mistake cause "n-DIMENSIONS SETS" in maths, can have any imaginable "n-GEOMETRIES" inside while having nothing to do at all with THE 3 PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS but are pure ABSTRACTS.

Any way, for me your (?) paragraph, as subject and question to run through, is MOSTLY RELEVANT and is i.m.o. ONE OF THE MOST BASIC PROBLEM TO SOLVE TO GO ANY FURTHER IN PHYSICS. :)

Cheers.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: tinman on November 17, 2013, 01:11:11 PM
Hi, tinman.

You stated that "the reason that a feather will fall at the same speed as a marble(in a vacume ofcourse),has nothing to do with the amount of mass" but here the trivial demonstration it has all to do with masses:

Indead, the equation:

• F [N] = g [m.s^-2] * M [kg]   (1)


is very known but we forget often that "g" depends on:

• M [kg]    (2)


where "M" is the Earth-mass ("m" will be here the mass of the object CONSIDERED as "falling down" on the surface of the Earth).

The truth as you could know is that both masses (object and Earth) are attracted with the same intensity and "fall on each other".

The complete equation is:

• F [N] = k [(m.s^-2)kg^-1] * (M [kg] * m [kg]) / d^2 [m^2]   (3)


Where " k [(m.s^-2)kg^-1]" is what I call personally (because of a generalisation I try to clear-up for any kind of energy): "SPECIFIC (ENERGETICAL) SENSIBILITY" OF THE "(ENERGETICAL) CHARGE" (here the MASS).

So, from (1) & (3) we can express "g" as A DIRECT FUNCTION of the  "CHARGES" involved:

• g [m.s^-2]  = k [(m.s^-2)kg^-1] * M [kg]  / d^2 [m^2]   (4)


So, you can see that ACCELERATION here is depending on the Earth-mass and of the "SPECIFIC SENSIBILITY" of the MASS (MASS = "GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE").

Correct me, anyone, if I have made any error in my maths ;)

Cheers.
Hi Khwartz

Complicated mathmatics is wonderful stuff,is it not lol.
But the fact remains that a feather has less mass than that of the marble,and yet are effected by the acceleration of G the same???.
If we break it down to the atom,then gravity must have the same pull(if we will call it that)force on each of those atoms. So the more atoms(mass) you have,the heavier something will feel,but the acelleration of G will act on each atom with the same amount of force.
Maybe we should say(relative to earth)that the acelleration of G on the atom is 9.8m/s squared at sea level?.
If we exchange the feather for the moon,the acceleration of G will be the same.Only this time the earth will move more toward the moon than the earth moved toward the feather.
This is ofcourse as i stated,in a vacume where air resistance plays no part.This also dose not take into concideration magnetic fields of the two masses,which are secondary forces.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 17, 2013, 01:53:21 PM

There is an experiment to measure gravity between two similarly sized, uncharged, non-magnetic objects. 
When the difference between the two is great, then the smaller is neglegable in effect of accelerating the other.  It does not additionally accelerate itself, only the other.
I does accelerate too, relatively to the center of gravity of the system. But true, and it was what I told you, we can neglige it, but "negliging" does means it does exist ;)

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#History_of_measurement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation


I've misremembered the equations :) 


F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2  in m-s-2
No, it is kg.m-s-2, so Netowns of course.

Quote

where:
F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant, (arbitrary scale conversion factor)
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.




newton did propose a correction factor for gravity...
F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 + B * m1 * m2 / r^3;  // look a B field :)
kepler had something to do with that....


... I don't remember... the forces exerpted are not symetrical, and the gravitational acceleration of the object never accelerates itself.
It's not equal and opposite halves added together.


Under a constant of a different cosmic scale of object vs another insignificant object simplifies to just


F = g m d-2


g = gravity constant for the gravity field reference
m = is mass
d = is distance of the mass from (the center of mass)
...


okay so if I approach this as a limit...


as m2 approaches 0 compared to m1....


F = G * m1 * 0 ; no that doesn't work...


I should sleep on it maybe


-------------
re notes on relativity being better than newton for explaining things...
Ug nevermind, I can't even bear to read that.
Yes it just a bunch of mislabled words, but it's the same thing the dyslexic russian alphabet does to me.  P is R and H is N and there's like 12 B's :)


the corrections applied are all electromagnetic effects.  Gravity does NOT bend light.
But magnetism does all the time - in crystal lenses for instance.  and hence the dark 'matter' isn't matter at all, but magnetic fields... measuring distance star light bend around the sun, or bend around jupiter is equally pointless not having seperated the extreme magnetic fields both of these have.
Could you prouve or deminstrate gravity doesn't bend light please?
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 17, 2013, 02:00:24 PM
Hi Khwartz

Complicated mathmatics is wonderful stuff,is it not lol.
But the fact remains that a feather has less mass than that of the marble,and yet are effected by the acceleration of G the same???.
If we break it down to the atom,then gravity must have the same pull(if we will call it that)force on each of those atoms. So the more atoms(mass) you have,the heavier something will feel,but the acelleration of G will act on each atom with the same amount of force.
Maybe we should say(relative to earth)that the acelleration of G on the atom is 9.8m/s squared at sea level?.
If we exchange the feather for the moon,the acceleration of G will be the same.Only this time the earth will move more toward the moon than the earth moved toward the feather.
This is ofcourse as i stated,in a vacume where air resistance plays no part.This also dose not take into concideration magnetic fields of the two masses,which are secondary forces.
Sorry tinman, but indeed the acceleration of moon will be higher, respect to the formulas. An astronef for example (respect to the same distance), will "fall" faster towards Sun surface than Earth and less again towards Moon surface.

For your other considerations, need to recharge my mobile battery to answer you futher! Lol (or to go on a comp somewhere ;) ).
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 17, 2013, 02:40:46 PM
German has to physical expressions : Wichte + Gewicht + the formulas
this related to "Die Zukunft der Technik",Aut(h)or Otto Stein
in german: http://wolfganghann.fruchtesser.de/zukunft.pdf (http://wolfganghann.fruchtesser.de/zukunft.pdf)
in english (by googlematics:)
http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwolfganghann.fruchtesser.de%2Fzukunft.pdf


Sincerely
             OCL
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 17, 2013, 08:23:51 PM


Could you prouve or deminstrate gravity doesn't bend light please?


Can you prove an experiment that gravity bends light that doesn't also fall under this....


"On 13 September, 1845 Faraday discovered the magneto-optical effect that bears his name. This day�s entry in his [/size]Diary[/size] reads: �Today worked with lines of magnetic force, passing them across different bodies (transparent in different directions) and at the same time passing a polarized ray of light through them and afterwards examining the ray by a Nichol�s Eyepiece or other means.� After describing several negative results in which the ray of light was passed through air and several other substances, Faraday wrote in the same day�s entry: �A piece of heavy glass which was 2 inches by 1.8 inches, and 0.5 of an inch thick, being silico borate of lead, and polished on the two shortest edges, was experimented with. It gave no effects when the [/size]same magnetic poles[/size] or the [/size]contrary[/size] poles were on opposite sides (as respects the course of the polarized ray) � nor when the same poles were on the same side, either with a constant or intermitting current� BUT, when contrary magnetic poles were on the same side, there [/size]was an effect produced on the polarized ray[/size], and thus magnetic force and light were proved to have relation to each other. This fact will most likely prove exceedingly fertile and of great value in the investigation of both conditions of natural force.�"[/size]


Since it is known that magnetism; especially when light is slowed by a dense atmosphere; does affect the path.


-------
Fixed up my math a bit; now I know where my confusion was; you were right in stressing I was forgetting Kg units....



1) masses apply the same total force to each body
2) each body based on its own mass reacts different to the same force


body a = Ma  kg
body b = Mb  kg
dt = delta time
d = distance between object centers




acceleration resulting on a is
   Pa += Va * dt
   Va += G * Ma * Mb / d^2  * dt  / Ma
     : A's mass is divided here to get the resulting velocity
   Aa = G * Mb / d^2
     : so to back calculate the acceleration of A from its velocity...
 
acceleration resulting on b is
   Vb += G * Ma * Mb / d^2 * dt  / Mb 
     : b's mass is divided here to get the resulting velocity
   Ab = G * Ma / d^2


not really sure how to work backwards...
At = Aa + Ab
Ft = Ma * Aa + Mb * Ab


Ya...somehow they composite into the total...

Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 17, 2013, 09:59:48 PM
Dear Verpies and tinman.

I am very late to fully answer you both and I am still stuck on you respective posts #33 and #30.

I need to clear-up things for myself before to answer you both more deeply, more precisely and with more accuracy.

Still for now just want to tell you dear Verpies that I am very inerested by your sharing which meets exactly my focus point in metaphisics and remember me discussions I had on the dimensions reduction in the french forum "Futura Science" last year, and you own axioms go very closely of what we were discussing, even if for my concern I was convince of nohing; and still I am not and look for a wishfully ultimate stabilization.

You will note my enphasy on "SPACE" and "TIME" in my metaphysic any way (if you have not yet ;) ), and that other concepst are derived from, like if it was a PHILOSOPHIC JUSTIFICATION TO THE REDUCTION OF ALL MAGNITUDES TO THE ONLY TWO PRIMARY CONCEPTS OF "SPACE" and "TIME".

Still I need to go through Mathis so I could communicate with you on his concepts optimizing our time ("time is money", they say, and an other to say: "money is energy", so here still we are in our subject, the relation between "ENERGY" and "TIME" ^^ ).

To you, dear tinman, looks to me that the focus on ACCELERATION would  mean that we NECESSARELY take the viewpoint of 1 MASSIVE-OBJECT as THE ORIGINE OF REFERENTIAL FOR THE MOUVMENT but still need to be surer about that statement.

Nevertheless. G, "k" in my equations, is A CONSTANT, and shows by its said "DIMENSIONS", it is "AN INTENSITY", the "(ENERGÉTICAL) SENSIBILITY" of the "GRAVITY CHARGES" (the MASS). So it true for any MASS and any QUANTITY of...

See you all later, and THANKS TO EVERYBODY FOR PARTICIPATING.

Cheers.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 17, 2013, 10:21:48 PM
A last one for today ;)



Can you prove an experiment that gravity bends light that doesn't also fall under this....


"On 13 September, 1845 Faraday discovered the magneto-optical effect that bears his name. This day�s entry in his [/size]Diary[/size] reads: �Today worked with lines of magnetic force, passing them across different bodies (transparent in different directions) and at the same time passing a polarized ray of light through them and afterwards examining the ray by a Nichol�s Eyepiece or other means.� After describing several negative results in which the ray of light was passed through air and several other substances, Faraday wrote in the same day�s entry: �A piece of heavy glass which was 2 inches by 1.8 inches, and 0.5 of an inch thick, being silico borate of lead, and polished on the two shortest edges, was experimented with. It gave no effects when the [/size]same magnetic poles[/size] or the [/size]contrary[/size] poles were on opposite sides (as respects the course of the polarized ray) � nor when the same poles were on the same side, either with a constant or intermitting current� BUT, when contrary magnetic poles were on the same side, there [/size]was an effect produced on the polarized ray[/size], and thus magnetic force and light were proved to have relation to each other. This fact will most likely prove exceedingly fertile and of great value in the investigation of both conditions of natural force.�"[/size]


Since it is known that magnetism; especially when light is slowed by a dense atmosphere; does affect the path.


-------
Fixed up my math a bit; now I know where my confusion was; you were right in stressing I was forgetting Kg units....



1) masses apply the same total force to each body
2) each body based on its own mass reacts different to the same force


body a = Ma  kg
body b = Mb  kg
dt = delta time
d = distance between object centers




acceleration resulting on a is
   Pa += Va * dt
   Va += G * Ma * Mb / d^2  * dt  / Ma
     : A's mass is divided here to get the resulting velocity
   Aa = G * Mb / d^2
     : so to back calculate the acceleration of A from its velocity...
 
acceleration resulting on b is
   Vb += G * Ma * Mb / d^2 * dt  / Mb 
     : b's mass is divided here to get the resulting velocity
   Ab = G * Ma / d^2


not really sure how to work backwards...
At = Aa + Ab
Ft = Ma * Aa + Mb * Ab


Ya...somehow they composite into the total...
Dear d3x0r,

Please, read me better next time cause I didn't say that magnetisum can't bend light (note that I didn't say the opposite too while I did not yet have enough studied the subject to say anything), but you looked to say that in case of the deflection of light by the Sun it is not a GRAVITY BENDING at all but MAGNETIC BENDING, and still:

• DEMONSTRATION OF POSSIBILITY IS NOT DEMONSTRATION OF OCCURENCE

(my own words ;) ).

What I wanted you to demonstrate it is the ACTUALITY of the MAGNETIC BENDING in the case of the light passing near a stelar object.

Cheers.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 17, 2013, 10:24:03 PM
A last one for today ;)
Dear d3x0r,

Please, read me better next time cause I didn't say that magnetisum can't bend light (note that I didn't say the opposite too while I did not yet have enough studied the subject to say anything), but you looked to say that in case of the deflection of light by the Sun it is not a GRAVITY BENDING at all but MAGNETIC BENDING, and still:

• DEMONSTRATION OF POSSIBILITY IS NOT DEMONSTRATION OF OCCURENCE

(my own words ;) ).

What I wanted you to demonstrate it is the ACTUALITY of the MAGNETIC BENDING in the case of the light passing near a stelar object.

Cheers.
See michelson-morley :) 

Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 17, 2013, 10:51:45 PM
An this "something" is made of what?
I do not want to discuss metaphysics, but only physics.

If you are considering time and space as metaphysical and you predicate their existence on ontological belief or consentual agreement, then we have noting left to discuss.

If you meant that the same space and time can appear differently to different observers than we have a lot to discuss.
Wow! Sorry, I didn't see this one! Lol

So, good luck with your own paradigm, I have myself nothing to discuss either with someone who makes not the necessary effort to read my post in their entierty and not makes to effort to try to open his own mind to new concepts or views, like I will continue to do with yours.

Any way, I am near quoting yourself:

• ONLY IN THE POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE LAYS THE ENERGY;

will understand anyone who wants to ;)

Cheers and bye! Dear Verpies.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: Khwartz on November 17, 2013, 11:01:35 PM
See michelson-morley :)
Thanks d3x03 :) but I do know already, even the work done later by the french Maurice Allais and others, and I do not see in them a proof of MAGNETISM BENDING, only that COULD BE an EATHER having few LIKE FLUIDE PROPERTIES COULD exist.

So, if you see yourself the link in between, please show me dear d3x0r :)

See you soon, 3 times I try to stop! Lol ;)
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 17, 2013, 11:07:16 PM
Gluonen
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 17, 2013, 11:35:44 PM
The link before remebering http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilona_Staller "the outing" ! :-*
Hey guys,behaving like parlament-arians :P ,I do not play based by this hide&seek game anymore !
99% of the thermodynamic process is concluded, to discuss about the last 1% is:
RhabarbarrhabarbarRhabarbar !
Our earth has not a limited validation : this one % the over/-generation shall conclude !
Bye-bye
             Oliver Christoph Waldhelm -Lanca
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 18, 2013, 10:50:52 AM
http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/ (http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/)


" [/font][/size] The researchers effectively produced a macroscopic pilot-wave system capable of reproducing all of the features previously considered to be exclusive to the quantum scale, such as: single-particle diffraction, tunneling, quantized orbits, and orbital level splitting.  Now such systems are known as hydrodynamic quantum analogs."[/font][/size]
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 18, 2013, 11:41:29 AM
So, good luck with your own paradigm, I have myself nothing to discuss either
It's not about "your paradigm" vs. "my paradigm" - it's about "physical" vs. "metaphysical" methodology of discussion.

I will not discuss metaphysics. I will discuss only induction or deduction from some axiomatic entities and principles based on logic and mechanistic processes.  That means: no virtual particles, intrinsic spins that don't really spin, no fields of forces that arise from nothing, no action at a distance and no ontological beliefs as basis for existence.

with someone who makes not the necessary effort to read my post in their entierty and not makes to effort to try to open his own mind to new concepts or views, like I will continue to do with yours.
But, I did read that post (http://www.overunity.com/14007/of-the-very-nature-of-space-time-energy-and-matter/msg377118/#msg377118) several times, because I had problems understanding it due to its grammatical structure.
I still don't fully understand the word "consideration" as used multiple times in the context of this post.  I suspect that is because it refers to ontological belief as the basis of existence. e.g. something comes into existence because it is merely considered by a sentient observer/considerer, a la "Cogito Ergo Est".

Any way, I am near quoting yourself:
• ONLY IN THE POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE LAYS THE ENERGY;
That's difficult to understand.  I think it is because of the unusual meaning of the verb "lays".
If "lays" means "defines" then I get its meaning, however that statement does not address the proper subject, because the topic of our discussion is the question:
"what are the basic ingredients of the physical universe?"
not
"what are the basic ingredients of energy?"

Anyway, you probably know, that I will immediately ask: What is this "potential" and how it came into existence?
If you chose to make a starting axiom out of this "potential", then I can be open minded about it and I will not ask you how it came into existence, but I will ask you what are its properties and how all other observable entities of the universe can be derived from it.

For example, the Bible states that in the beginning, there was God and everything (heavens & Earth) was without form and void and then God created light. So according to the Bible, the basic ingredients/axioms of universe are: God, formless void and maybe light.

If you want to state that the basic axiom or ingredient of the universe is "potential" then that is fine and I can be open minded about it and see where that takes us, as long as you do not state that potential exists only because we "consider it" as that would be make us humans an axiom and constitute metaphysics.

For the record, I claim that the basic ingredient of the universe is motion and it has two reciprocal aspects: space and time.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 18, 2013, 03:04:44 PM
d3x0r,thank you for the #64 link !
verpies: cogito( Inf.:cogitare) ergo ...            sum,es,est sumos,estis,sunt


Sincerely
             OCL
here verpies who exagerated the Nobilitas with this pro- vocation:
http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCogito_ergo_sum (http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCogito_ergo_sum)
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 18, 2013, 08:24:10 PM
http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/ (http://www.aenertec.com/talon_rms.htm)


                   LOGIK-KETTE           (logere: inne-/beiwohnen s.a. Kost und Logis , L'O)




http://www.aenertec.com/talon_rms.htm (http://www.aenertec.com/talon_rms.htm)

                                     
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19850314&CC=DE&NR=3330899A1&KC=A1 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19850314&CC=DE&NR=3330899A1&KC=A1)


http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=false&ST=advanced&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&PA=toribio+bellocq (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=false&ST=advanced&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&PA=toribio+bellocq)


https://www.google.pt/?gws_rd=cr&ei=aGqKUtb4LYqx0AX8xYCIDg#q=mandelstam-paplexi (https://www.google.pt/?gws_rd=cr&ei=aGqKUtb4LYqx0AX8xYCIDg#q=mandelstam-paplexi)
 
                                               O:       
                     in-or out-sider ? or in-and-outsider ?

                                  Your own decision !   
                                   in- et ex-  cell-ent



Sincerely
              OCL
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 18, 2013, 11:30:40 PM
There is an experiment to measure gravity between two similarly sized, uncharged, non-magnetic objects. 
As usual Mathis has a paper about this Cavendish experiment here (http://milesmathis.com/caven.html).
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 19, 2013, 09:47:10 AM
Yes, but mathis is disproving G not the x/d^2... which is guess is what cavendish was about so was a bad way to approach that problem.  Would like to know other than the 'assumed behavior of surface fields' that the falloff isn't 1/D...


I started to iterate it by hand, but the recursive function got pretty messy... so made an iterator program that I could see... and there isn't a lot of difference between 1/d and 1/d^2 for acceleration... in the first case the step is bigger, but because the velocity increases sooner, the total steps are decreased... in the second case the force isn't applied as much, so it's slower to accerlate, so there's more frames at a longer distance ... so the curve really ends up approximately the same...  so if I curve fit in the trough of the curve, I'm not sure there's enough resolution to predict which acceleration was used...


White is position, red is velocity, blue is accerleration.  X is T, and Y is from 0 at top to 2000 going down


used a distance of 900... (2nd pic) when the distance is 1000... I got a curl... so I was going to add some sliders and make it
interactive.... and improve that curl... has something about the slope of the velocity at the time of intersection... makes a neat yin-yang tough :)


3rd is 1/(d*d)  * 2 (assuming similarly sized bodies, acceleration is 2x ...)
1st is 1/d  [size=78%]* 2 (assuming similarly sized bodies, acceleration is 2x ...)[/size]
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 19, 2013, 09:53:38 AM
co-incidence (incendium:flame):
http://www.overunity.de/1528/eru-elementar-resonanz-unit/msg32364/#new
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 19, 2013, 12:51:35 PM
co-incidence (incendium:flame):
http://www.overunity.de/1528/eru-elementar-resonanz-unit/msg32364/#new (http://www.overunity.de/1528/eru-elementar-resonanz-unit/msg32364/#new)
It's in German language.
How is that relevant to this thread?
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on November 19, 2013, 01:25:24 PM
Would like to know other than the 'assumed behavior of surface fields' that the falloff isn't 1/D...

or 1/D^3 as it would be for magnetism....


...For circular orbits, Kepler's 3rd Law is also commonly represented as
4pi2 / T2 = G M / R 3


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss's_law_for_gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss's_law_for_gravity)  Alright; besides being proven by application... here's a different perspective that arrives at the same conclusion;
so 1/d2 it is.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 19, 2013, 01:54:07 PM
It's in German language.
How is that relevant to this thread?
Shall I see your question ??? as "not thread" 8) -related joke ::) ?! :D ;) :)
Sincerely
             OCL
p.s.: has your com-puter[(-e:(zusammen-)setzen,-stellen,-legen im Sinne des calculare/Zaehlens/rechnen somit zu differenzieren vom
ponere ( z.B. Deponie) und positare(Deposit),aber trotz allem thesaurierend(Thesaurus/Tesoro/Tresor/Treasure) ]
not a translation app/function ? make your own one

p.s.II: "Venus",backstage: http://nakedonstage.forumfree.it/?t=50286085 (http://nakedonstage.forumfree.it/?t=50286085)
 (Franzi,von der Seite hatte ich wenig Ahnung,zu unserer Ahrensburger Religionsunterrichtzeit an der katholischen Kirche,wir ::) waren ja noch sooooooooo keusch und sitt-sammmmmmmmmm : hast di ja nu gemausert)
          Besame,besame mucho .....(nur spanische Version,bittschaeh,Flaegel alberne)
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 20, 2013, 12:34:53 AM
verpies: Nature of Space,Time,Energy and Matter
                                 Raum-Zeit-Dia  /-gramm
                              Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow

          http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/ (http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/)                                                        Thermodynamics                                                 Carnot cycle

                                          Ranque      -         Hilsch

                                         Spintronics/Spin-dynamics

                              Einstein-de Haas  -           Barnett

                                         Questions more,verpies ?


                         About "Venus" lovetronics-/love-dynamics ? Glove net !


Bye-bye
             OCL

p.s.: overunity.de tread translated :


 Hello dear community of researchers,

First of all, you know, that we are at our research with real and imaginary
States have to do.
So almost our mirror images. We can also be applied to the elementary!

Am now, come on to me, magic number 9, and each of their doubling!!!

Why?

10-01 is -9
20-02 is -18 sum -9

Calculating method:
01-10 is -9
02-20 is -18 sum -9

If we all now extrapolate to 100, resulting in time several decades with minus 9 and 9?
100 and there is then a jump to minus 18 and plus 18, that an amplitude increase, and strangely a time reduction!

Have here again a sketch for a decade reingestellt.

It would be great if there would be someone here in the forum, the one with Exel or another Prg. so 1000 figures according to this scheme could list, and could represent a sine wave.
Would be ideal, of course, if you could be with the whole movement in three dimensions.
If we could then look at two waves against each other, then I think we would see a pumping action?

As I said 10 to 01 is a mirror image. And as the number -9 comes out!

You can see on my sketch very closely, with a bit of imagination, as the positive wave, the negative empty sucked until they are symetrieren?, And only a numbers game?

Very mysterious to me!!!!!

The number 9, must have a background?

greeting LASSYLES


 Positive wave sucks aus.jpg negative (98.7 KB, 2210x1092 - viewed 148 times)
 «Last Edit: 17 November 2013, 23:21:39 Afternoon of LASSYLES »
 Logged
Free Energy - Free Energy - OverUnity.de
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 166 on: 17 November 2013, 23:13:41 PM »
 Peter
Sr. Member

Posts: 304
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 167 on: 18 November 2013, 01:15:16 PM »
I once made a beginning with Excel, but only the beginning, there is still much to do.

The difficulty was to find a formula for the sum: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/505378/de (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/505378/de)

I have this extended for negative numbers.
 Spiegelbild_Quersumme.xls (29 KB - downloaded 11 times)
 Logged
Free Energy - Free Energy - OverUnity.de
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 167 on: 18 November 2013, 01:15:16 PM »
gesponsorter link:

 LASSYLES
Full Member

Posts: 182
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 168 on: 18 November 2013, 17:29:06 PM »
Hello Peter,

great that you've taken the trouble you with the formula.

But the formula is a little something wrong.
It should read B-A.
But it does not matter, you have to exchange only the number with its mirror image.

My Zeichnug begins on the left with 01-10, and with an increase of 01 the curve moves to the right!.
It would be interesting if one toward the left side could further consider the curve!
If you then enter in Column A minus -0.9 -9.0 to get back on the sum +9
So just to let go minus 1.

Of course it begs the question? Where do we start?

I would start at 0.001 in all cases that we also get a Aulösung leftward

But I just noticed that the column A, 0.001 does not accept! That you certainly can easily change?
But then the sum formula must be modified.
Since it is then again maybe tricky. because -0.9 minus0-9, 0 = 8.1, since we have a comma in it.
There is again sum +9

Have it now so attached, as I imagine it. But since it comes from one go! Just as a pattern.

As you can see on my drawing, the positive part is lin quite narrow.
That would possibly be called, if we further resolve to the left, the positive area disappears?
Would be strange!!


But it may be that in this version of your old Exel file does not work properly, from the formulas etc.

Please tell me whether my Excel file works for you. Then I will enter to the file on.

Greeting LASSYLES, evening'm online

 Änderung.xls (36.5 KB - downloaded 12 times)
 «Last Edit: 18 November 2013, 19:15:24 Afternoon of LASSYLES »
 Logged
Free Energy - Free Energy - OverUnity.de
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 168 on: 18 November 2013, 17:29:06 PM »
 Peter
Sr. Member

Posts: 304
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 169 on: 18 November 2013, 19:15:53 ​​PM »
Hello LASSYLES

Yes, the Excel file works for me.
You must enter a dot instead of a comma, ie 0.1 instead of 0.1

I'm still strictly in overtime mode for the employer.

If one examines the EXCEL formula for the sum, one can deduce how to generate the mirror image of a number. Just as a hint. Normally I could do that, but not right now.

The Excel formulas for mirroring, you must understand, are LEFT (...) LENGTH (...) PART (...)






 Logged
Free Energy - Free Energy - OverUnity.de
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 169 on: 18 November 2013, 19:15:53 ​​PM »
gesponsorter link:

 LASSYLES
Full Member

Posts: 182
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 170 on: 18 November 2013, 23:37:42 PM »
Hello Peter,

have all now once resolved from 0,00001 to 200 bar.
Very strange structure when you make the file smaller.
We have a number of people and reflection subtracted, and get such a structure.
Absolutely incredible. Above all, it just goes with the magic number 9
What it has prudential with the number?
To me it looks as if the chart the movement between the real and the Spiegelweld?
We must continue to develop the chart. The level parameter may be the time when an applet is moving.
That would be interesting

The blue area decreases and the red area increases? Outwardly, it also looks funny.
Perhaps you would dissolve even more?

Greeting LASSYLES
 Änderung1.xls (67 KB - downloaded 8 times)
 «Last Edit: 18 November 2013, 23:59:47 Afternoon of LASSYLES »
 Logged
 OpaquePlacebo
Newbie

Posts: 36
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 171 on: 19 November 2013, 17:10:47 PM »
The Nine comes out because there are only 9 numbers in principle and the zero does not contribute to Quärsumme.

"1" to reflect a "10" is arbitrarily used. 1 could also reflect as 1000 depending on how many zeros put it.
Infinitely many zeros before the 1 an infinite number would then result that starts with "1". Of these, then gently peel 1 and receive back an infinite number of 9s.

1 -> 9999999 '-> 9
2 -> 199999'8 -> 9
3 -> 299999'7 -> 9
4 -> 399999'6 -> 9
9 -> 899999'1 -> 9
10 -> 999999'0 -> 9
55 -> 54999'45 -> 9
99 -> 98999'01 -> 9
100 -> 9999'900 -> 9


 «Last Edit: 19 November 2013, 17:13:00 Afternoon of OpaquePlacebo »
 Logged
Free Energy - Free Energy - OverUnity.de
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 171 on: 19 November 2013, 17:10:47 PM »
 LASSYLES
Full Member

Posts: 182
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 172 on: 19 November 2013, 20:43:32 PM »
Hello placebo,

have not mirrored 1_10, because that is not the mirror image, but 01_10, that's something else.
This has nothing to hang with any number of zeroes to do.
Fact is: it is only in conjunction with the number 9, and multiples of those!.
And why this structure comes out, see Excel file.

Since we have a uniform structure, and even in the middle of a symmetrical area.

Firstonce the reason you have to tell me.

And it will be shown here only opposites (mirror images) in the form of numbers. You do not necessarily represent numbers with this. Nature knows no numbers.

As written, we now have the data, now you should all pack into a three-dimensional graphics.
Better still a moving Aplett.

Had a bug in the Excel file, the small numbers were not indicated by the decimal point right here. Current file attached

Greeting LASSYLES
 Änderung1.xls (66 KB - downloaded 4 times)
 «Last Edit: 19 November 2013, 21:47:07 Afternoon of LASSYLES »
 Logged
 LASSYLES
Full Member

Posts: 182
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 173 on: 19 November 2013, 23:03:09 PM »
have here again the graphics reingestellt.

you can see quite clearly the mutually running structures, and auserhalb this area it looks anderst out. Strange?
In the middle we have a symmetry!
And right and left of the same 4 areas!!!!
Somehow this reminds me of Walter Russell's representations
Or run into each other since two waves?
And as an illustration, if you subtract Mirror image numbers from each other.
The blue area increases from left to right, and the red area increases from right to left!!!


Maybe our mirror image is also only in a certain area, and is limited?

Greeting LASSYLES

 balkendiagramm2.jpg (4:12 KB, 792x54 - viewed 9 times)
 «Last Edit: 19 November 2013, 23:22:53 Afternoon of LASSYLES »
 Logged
Free Energy - Free Energy - OverUnity.de
 
Re: ERU Elemental Resonance Unit
«Reply # 173 on: 19 November 2013, 23:03:09 PM »
Print
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] Go Up
...

Google Übersetzer für Unternehmen:Translator Toolkit
Website-Übersetzer
Global Market Finder
Sofortübersetzung deaktivieren
Über Google ÜbersetzerMobilDatenschutzHilfeFeedback geben
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: verpies on November 20, 2013, 02:59:38 AM
verpies: Nature of Space,Time,Energy and Matter
http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/ (http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/) 
The German machine translation does not do it justice.
Fluid dynamics shows some similarity of wave interaction but it certainly does not explain the fundamental nature of time, space and matter.
I find this (http://milesmathis.com/super.html) superposition of waves and angular momenta much more illuminating.
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 20, 2013, 03:53:54 AM
He descripes from the is-(present)-stadium
     without to interpolate the was and will be !
Then it would be clearer !When begins/began the matter- m(n)emory-effect ?

Please do not answer( in your language): "..und ES hauchte das Odem...."

Sincerely
              OCL

 Mein ES kann zu jederzeit auch wuerfeln koennen wollen
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siezdg-fZ9U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siezdg-fZ9U)
 "12 horas no continente e 11 horas nos Aczores" zurueckgeblieben ? matter-space-time-zone


                                          Position: Class ?,Class ??, Class ???

                                   Superposition:  Class !,Class !!,Class !!!   
                                                    Priority:
                                    Unity-question to Unity-answer         
                                    Duty-question to Duty-answer
                                    Trinity-questions to Trinity-answers 


                                      Wer und was beraet die Berater ?
                         

  Marx/Engels                matrielle Dialektik oder dialektischer Matrialismus
 Schumpeter                schoepferische Zerstoerung oder zerstoererische Schoepfung

                              this all  made/written by my personal wave dynamics expression
                             from S.F. view(without external drugs) : Ich- UeberIch - ES -UeberES
                                            TRAUMZEIT,timeless, but not TIMEX(=TM )
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 20, 2013, 09:56:46 AM
                                     Wer und was beraet die Berater ?



Guiding spirit
 Jump to: navigation , search

Guiding spirit ( Latin : spiritus rector = "[the] leading [r] directing [r] spirit," literally, "[the] Spirit for their guide") is a Latin Phraseologismus and refers to a person from a community in less common use of the term also an individual who can spiritually guide.

 Depending on the context, so that a leadership role in religious, philosophical, political, artistic or other issues meant his not less or results from a particular office, but primarily from the recognition of the special spiritual and intellectual abilities of the person concerned.  For example, Russian lobbyist Andrey Bykov was called to military uranium from Russia as a "guiding spirit" of the deal in the EnBW affair. [1]

 In traditional alchemy guiding spirit was the name for the spiritual principle that holds all things in medicine , building on Paracelsus, a name for the Archaeous maximus, the primal force that dominates the organism of living beings, in chemistry the term was then in the 18th  Century by Herman Boerhaave introduced as a technical term for a volatile fiery, water-soluble and mixing with the air substance to his own and the cause of its smell and taste all vegetable oils.  Boerhaave's theory of spiritus rector ( French esprit recteur, Italian : spirito Rettore) was in the natural sciences even into the 19th  Century discussed and gradually replaced by newer theories that smell and taste ( flavor attributed) no longer on its own substance, but to the oxidation mixture and the components involved.
See also [ edit ]
 Wiktionary: Spiritus Rector - Meaning meanings, word origin, synonyms, translations
References, Sources [ Edit ]
↑ businesses German energy companies with uranium from Russia only a normal business? , Süddeutsche Zeitung of 15 September 2012
Category : Latin phrase


Alma Mater (von lateinisch alma „nährend, gütig“ und mater „Mutter“) ist heute eine im deutschen Sprachraum und Nordamerika geläufige Bezeichnung für Universitäten.Inhaltsverzeichnis  [Verbergen]
1 Etymologie
2 Geschichte
3 Siehe auch
4 Weblinks

Etymologie[Bearbeiten]

Im Römischen Reich war alma ein Epithet für nährende, segenspendende Göttinnen, so z. B. alma Ceres, alma Tellus oder auch alma Venus. Im Mittelalter war mit alma mater meist die Gottesmutter Maria gemeint (z. B. in der Marianischen Antiphon des Breviers in der Advents- und Weihnachtszeit, Alma redemptoris mater).
Geschichte[Bearbeiten]

Universitäten werden als Alma Mater bezeichnet, da Studierende dort metaphorisch mit Bildung und Wissen genährt werden. Der Ausdruck in dieser Verwendung stammt vom Motto „Alma mater studiorum“ der Universität Bologna, die als älteste Universität Europas im Jahr 1088 gegründet wurde. Im deutschsprachigen Raum findet sich die Bezeichnung beispielsweise bei der Alma Mater Lipsiensis (1409) und der Alma Mater Viadrina (1506).

Diese Begriffsverwendung, die im britischen Englisch eher selten ist, wird im amerikanischen Englisch neben der Universität auch auf andere Schulen bis hin zur Grundschule ausgedehnt. Außerdem bezeichnet alma mater dort häufig Schul- oder Universitäts-Hymnen, die in den USA oft mit diesen Worten beginnen (→Incipit).
Siehe auch[Bearbeiten]
Alumni
Weblinks[Bearbeiten]
 Commons: Alma Mater – Sammlung von Bildern, Videos und Audiodateien
Kategorien: Hochschulsystem
Lateinische Phrase


                                                           internato or/and externato !
Vale bene
                 OCL
"Die Bildungsleise hat sich doch gelohnt,odel nit ?" Obelix 2 Astelix (Gallien: r zu l) :
http://www.welt.de/geschichte/article122069834/Im-Circus-gierte-Rom-nach-Koerperfluessigkeiten.html (http://www.welt.de/geschichte/article122069834/Im-Circus-gierte-Rom-nach-Koerperfluessigkeiten.html)
"Die sin doch lomantischel als wil dachten !" (klingt fast bletonisch)
http://www.filmreporter.de/kino/24667-Willkommen-bei-den-Schtis
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: lancaIV on November 21, 2013, 05:11:11 AM
http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/ (http://www.aenertec.com/talon_rms.htm)


                   LOGIK-KETTE           (logere: inne-/beiwohnen s.a. Kost und Logis , L'O)




http://www.aenertec.com/talon_rms.htm (http://www.aenertec.com/talon_rms.htm)

                                     
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19850314&CC=DE&NR=3330899A1&KC=A1 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19850314&CC=DE&NR=3330899A1&KC=A1)


http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=false&ST=advanced&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&PA=toribio+bellocq (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=false&ST=advanced&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&PA=toribio+bellocq)


https://www.google.pt/?gws_rd=cr&ei=aGqKUtb4LYqx0AX8xYCIDg#q=mandelstam-paplexi (https://www.google.pt/?gws_rd=cr&ei=aGqKUtb4LYqx0AX8xYCIDg#q=mandelstam-paplexi)
 
                                               O:       
                     in-or out-sider ? or in-and-outsider ?

                                  Your own decision !   
                                   in- et ex-  cell-ent



Sincerely
              OCL
complaining the list ,tornar(winden)2Tornado(in/out centrifugal/peripetal-incl. Auge-but also as shaft)forces:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4723367/#.Uo2GLeWWj6Q (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4723367/#.Uo2GLeWWj6Q)    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windhexe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windhexe)

and this Vortice-amplificaion (in- or decreasing or also terming it as im-/expression) method example (googlematics translation ):

                               With the progress techniechen are also an increasing mass of bearings , such as Ball, roller , tapered roller , barrel and needle bearings and the like , provided conditions that they only partly or can not meet in their traditional embodiments .

 Especially at high load high speeds are very narrow limits . Often must be avoided to a large utility- top full speed or it falls an important project or its major advantages , because the storage of large loads at the moment, unusual , but necessary speed is illusory.

 At high speeds, previously known Rolling naturally , very high rolling speeds of those rollers , whereby the friction coefficient significantly aneteigt especially under stress and gives rise to excessive wear and eventually leads to the destruction of the camp.

 In order to eliminate these and other well-known in the art drawbacks and limitations , is erfindungsemä0 proposed to create roller bearings or the like, which have a relatively low value of the coefficient of friction at extremely high demand speeds and large load , preferably in that the for Rrzielung höcheter speeds required Rollgeschwindigkei th its rollers can be reduced to any desired or required fraction .

 The reduction of the rolling speed of the rolling elements can be in accordance with the invention as achieved by dividing the shaft speed in two or several steps and in such a way that preferably the shaft , and the fastest- rotating body which is itself mounted in a rotatable ring or the like , the effective Bigendrehung again or in a rotatable ring is mounted in the bearing housing . If one assumes the bearing housing in which a rotatable bearing ring is rotatable with a bearing ring for supporting the shaft , one achieves a potential increase in the speed in the 3 Power , if for example an auto sync mechanical control of the speed - multiplication or division to Brehzahlbestimmung is specifically attached to structurally con .

 For a simple , moving into this inventive bearing mechanism can explain such installing a bearing ring rotatably mounted in a bearing housing and rotatably support the shaft in dieeen ring. It rotates the rotating bearing ring , for example, 600 r / min, and it then reverses the direction in this ring rotatably mounted shaft also having an effective speed of 6NN U / min with respect to the rotating bearing ring , so there is a multiplication of the rotational speed of 60 to itself and a relative speed of the shaft of 360,000 U / min with an effective roll speed of the rollers as obtained at 600 U / min.

Developer Heinrich Kunel
                                       

                                                              a-/symmetrical thinking
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: stivep on November 26, 2013, 05:56:36 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Nl6c7ZtS8&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Nl6c7ZtS8&feature=youtu.be)


Wesley translation and comments About Akula video #11






Wesley
Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on December 27, 2013, 01:09:48 PM
I've Stumbled on this guy...



https://www.youtube.com/user/rdistinti/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/rdistinti/videos)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Txd4G92Eno (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Txd4G92Eno)  (Induction)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sUP_iL6NIU  (magnetism)




who has some interesting perspectives on magnetic fields also...
and a new ether model (not based on aether (or soemthing like that ) )


-----------
On hydrodynamic vortex generation;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine)


and specifically the [size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_turbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_turbine)[/size]  which evolved into [size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan_turbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan_turbine)[/size]


The francis turbine takes most of the work of spinning the water and turns a generator, resulting in water that is axial out with basically no spin; I would think that rather than being an 'evolution' that one could attach a kaplan after the francis and have just that much more power...



Title: Re: "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"
Post by: d3x0r on December 29, 2013, 11:43:44 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current)


I learned a new thing; apparetly there is 'displacement current' which happens between the plates of a capacitor; in that the magnetic field is also present there...


This leads to more questions
How far away can the plates be before they are no longer a capacitor?    How does the displacement current know it can find the other end of the capacitor?


If it really only applied in basically a closed loop of a single loop of wire with two parallel plates in a minor arc of the circle; how is it not the original induction field and not a separate one?


Turned out to be needed that that field is also part of the original field(?)


Started at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations)


But to go back to displacement which apparently is inarguably present...
then this field is also in the capacitive interchange between the wire and its shielding diaelectric and is a magnetic field...


Similarly if I wind a tape capacitor, then the current displacement of that should be able to be picked up by a  conventional toroidal winding on top of that... (one of the latest self powered things had such a capacitor)


Hendershot has a foil capacitor like that, but I don't know what the pickup of that displacement current would be... but then that capacitor can apparently be replaced with a conventional foil capacitor (of large enough size?)


does displacement current induce the same umm..


That split core experiment; where the pickup was over the split of the transformer... was there a current flow in the ferrite that ended at that capacitve gap the projected a field?


------
Edit3: Thought I was onto something; just some figures... DC current is sensed across a resistor shunt...thought there was a way to have a coil get it

Figure (F1) - a normal wire, carrying a current, has a continuous displacement current that induces into a coil wound around the wire;

Figure (F2) - Two near wires, one with a charge, the other nearby should get an induced current for the time that the current is rising (graph upper left (I) )


Figure (F3) - Two pancake coils, convetional all-encompasing magnetic field...(same as straight wire)
Figure (F4) - Two solenoids near end-to-end(same as straight wire)
FIgure (F5) - Two solenoids, joined by a ferrous core(same as straight wire)
Figure (F6) - bifilar solenoid (same as straight wire)


Edit: sorry forgot the picture