AC/DC

[Jarvamundo]

re: Principles of superposition...

AT&T Archives: Similiarities of Wave Behavior
Dr John Shive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovunOxlY1k

[seasmith]

re: Principles of superposition...

AT&T Archives: Similiarities of Wave Behavior

That video. and those principles, pretty much explain the deep dark mystery of spooky action at a distance
"Quantum Tunneling" as well, if taken to the scale of evanescent waves.

In quantum mechanics, the evanescent-wave solutions of the Schrödinger equation give rise to the phenomenon of wave-mechanical tunneling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent ... e_coupling

[seasmith]

jarv,
Could you expand on those "principles" a tad please?

~

[sjw40364]

Waves require a medium for propagation even if the propagation medium is a wire connecting other wires as in the video. So for a wave to propagate through empty space, i.e., a vacuum, it must in reality not be empty. Not that I personally have a problem with an aether. That or a field of energy pushing against other energy fields. After all the electron does not touch the nucleus. So it's one or the other.

[celeste]

On Sept 23, Solar wrote,
"Maybe this isn't resonating, I'm talking about the electrical formation of spheres such as the Martian Blueberies, the Moeraki boulders of New Zealand which are usually hollow (link), or a planet. Seems to me that one needs some electrical ‘compression’ in order to account for spheres. So, now there is an aspect of "electricity" that seems as if it can account for the property of electrical 'constriction' whether linearly or spherically."


It seems that the very act of discharging would be to make an object spherical, as long as the surface was "fluid". Let's say, for example, we had a peak on the sun's surface that was raised for whatever reason. Wouldn't the sun tend to discharge from that area? Then the protons/ions "pushing off" from the sun would also push back on the sun. Most of this force would be on the nearest charged particles, those at that local peak,pushing them down into the sun's surface. It seems to me that discharging would continue at any peak, until it was no longer a peak. The sun would tend towards a sphere, with uniform discharging across it's surface. That would also work with those smaller objects, as long as they discharged to the surrounding environment (not arcing to some nearby object). I'm oversimplifying again, but I think it works. Yes? No?
It seems that if an object is free to flow (plasma,liquid,etc), discharges to the entire surrounding environment, then it should form a sphere.

[Jarvamundo]

jarv,
Could you expand on those "principles" a tad please?
~

It's interesting that the presenter mentioned that most of this knowledge was accelerated by the study of electric waves. We have Maxwell and Mr Heaviside to thank for alot of this.

Both Maxwell and Heaviside talked in terms of waves of electro-magnetic induction propagating in the aether, guided by the wires. It should not be "difficult" or "absurd" to work with these ideas. For the understanding of this body of knowledge, from the originators, the electron is a useless concept. It really does impede understanding. "forget about it".. IMO, the definition of insanity is declaring space empty, then assigning to it properties. madness.

I pointed out that all the masters (Maxwell, Heaviside, Lodge, Faraday thought in terms of aether, in comments on the Ivor Catt thread, with the response from Ivor... "this is good". He gets it. One just read's Heaviside and it's rendered obvious. Electrons are secondary artifacts, like the grains of sand pushed and dragged about on the beach shore as the primary actors perform the work.

IMO, "tunnelling", "weirdness", "action-at-a-distance" comes from ignoring the study of the other forms of electric waves. We are well aware of one wave, the electro-magnetic wave which travels at C. Other known waves have been partially ignored (see Tesla/Dollard) but are easily reproducible with a single length of wire, and we also have indications that further electric waves may exist in order to 'hold together' a coherent world (the velocity of gravitational propagation). Modelling the world from the EM wave, imo, is futile. So what >is< the EM wave?

I enjoyed the Superposition video as it was a refresher that what you see, nodal phenomena, is often a distributed phenomenon. This, to me, is the core limitation of the newtonian-einstein "mode" of thought; separated "cogs" or "tons" become meaningless, as if the rest of the circuit is forgotten. It took me about a year or two to untrain this mode, and learn some others... re-performing Goethe's prism experiments, and observing plant cycles.... also performing Dollard's experiments resolves that much of the phenomenon (cogs) we think we see is actually a form of nodal appearance. Horrendously complex forms of forward and reverse moving waves of different natures combining to display superposed nature.

Who knows what further waves may be discovered once you are freed from limitations and the cog-tron-mode of thought.... what we see as EM-light wave may in it'self be a superposed phenomenon distributed in nature.

Recommendation: (read the chapters on Newtons light experiments and refraction theory in this book)
http://books.google.com.au/books/about/ ... edir_esc=y

[seasmith]

...actually a form of nodal appearance. Horrendously complex forms of forward and reverse moving waves of different natures combining to display superposed nature.

Who knows what further waves may be discovered once you are freed from limitations and the cog-tron-mode of thought.... what we see as EM-light wave may in it'self be a superposed phenomenon distributed in nature.

Recommendation: (read the chapters on Newtons light experiments and refraction theory in this book)
http://books.google.com.au/books/about/ ... edir_esc=y

I have very well-worn copies of Goethe's Theory of Colors and Helmholtz' Sensations of Tone, here on my bookshelf, and will have a look at the one you've mentioned.
Also agree that sub 'particles': electrons, photons, neutrinos, etc., as recorded by pixilating detectors including the eye, are probably more accurately depicted as wave-nodal events. If sufficiently powerful, the event may be regenerative and the node detachable, as is a quasar or lightning bolt ,
Ultimately, at 3D+t scale, wave phenomena must also be thought of in fractal and holographic terms
imho

Light itself pixilates with progression, until resolution is no longer possible and only a 'blurry'
speck of longitudinal light remains visible.

[kiwi]

Helmholtz' Sensations of Tone....

His name crop's up a fair bit Seasmith, ... a bit of a "problem child" historically?

Helmholtz' theory: linear and wrong

Helmholtz based his theory of human hearing on the same fallacious assumptions. He claimed that the ear works as a passive resonator, analyzing each tone into its overtones by means of a system of tiny resonant bodies. Moreover, he insisted that the musical tonalities are all essentially identical, and that it makes no difference what fundamental pitch is chosen, except as an arbitrary convention or habit.

Helmholtz's entire theory amounts to what we today call in physics a "scalar," "linear," or at best, "quasi-linear" theory. Thus, Helmholtz assumed that all physical magnitudes, including musical tones, can at least implicitly be measured and represented in the same way as lengths along a straight line. But, we know that every important aspect of music, of the human voice, the human mind, and our universe as a whole, is characteristically nonlinear. Every physical or aesthetic theory based on the assumption of only linear or scalar magnitudes, is bound to be false.

A simple illustration should help clarify this point. Compare the measurement of lengths on a straight line with that of arcs on the circumference of a circle. A straight line has no intrinsic measure; before we can measure length, we must first choose some unit, some interval with which to compare any given segment. The choice of the unit of measurement, however, is purely arbitrary.

The circle, on the contrary, possesses by its very nature an intrinsic, absolute measure, namely one complete cycle of rotation. Each arc has an absolute value as an angle, and the regular self-divisions of the circle define certain specific angles and arcs in a lawful fashion (e.g., a right angle, or the 120° angle subtended by the side of an equilateral triangle inscribed in the circle).

Just as the process of rotation, which creates the circle, imposes an absolute metric upon the circle, so also the process of creation of our universe determines an absolute value for every existence in the universe, including musical tones. Helmholtz refused to recognize the fact that our universe possesses a special kind of curvature, such that all magnitudes have absolute, geometrically-determined values. This is why Helmholtz's theories are systematically wrong, not merely wrong by accident or through isolated errors. Straight-line measures are intrinsically fallacious in our universe.

For example, sound is not a vibration of the air. A sound wave, we know today, is an electromagnetic process involving the rapid assembly and disassembly of geometrical configurations of molecules. In modern physics, this kind of self-organizing process is known as a "soliton." Although much more detailed experimental work needs to be done, we know in principle that different frequencies of coherent solitons correspond to distinct geometries on the microscopic or quantum level of organization of the process. This was already indicated by the work of Helmholtz's contemporary, Bernhard Riemann, who refuted most of the acoustic doctrines of Helmholtz in his 1859 paper on acoustical shock waves.1

Helmholtz's theory of hearing also turned out to be fallacious. The tiny resonators he postulated do not exist. The human ear is intrinsically nonlinear in its function, generating singularities at specific angles on the spiral chamber, corresponding to the perceived tone. This is an active process, akin to laser amplification, not just passive resonance. In fact, we know that the ear itself generates tones----http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91 ... _tune.html

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Xy0m ... tz&f=false

The reader must be warned, at this point, against a probable misinterpretation of the import of statements made so far: That would be to assume, that, were my perfectly accurate historical statements to be proven valid to his satisfaction, it would only be necessary to correct some names and dates to make the accounts in existing textbooks more or less valid. The reader’s persisting error would involve, among other things, a confusion over our use of the term relativistic. From Kepler’s rejection of a reductionist treatment of the inverse square law of gravitation discovered by him, through the work of Leibniz, Huygens, and the Bernoullis on the common isochronic principle governing falling bodies and light propagation in an atmosphere, to Gauss’s devastating proof of Kepler’s planetary harmonics, in his discovery of the orbit of Ceres, there prevailed a conception of the foundation of physics entirely different from that taught in today’s respectable institutions of learning. Today, the term relativistic, means a formulaic correction to a system of equations and other formalisms premised on an assumed, self-evident notion of three-fold extension in space and one-fold in time. Up to, approximately, the 1881 seizure of power by Hermann von Helmholtz at Berlin University’s Physics Department, the leading minds of European continental science rejected such an underlying assumption as sophomoric.


Again, the problem is present-day historical illiteracy. It is essential that the reader grasp that the history we sketch here, is not some “alternative current” in physics. The early 19th Century discoveries, originating in Paris, and spreading into Germany through the influence of Gauss and his students at Göttingen University, were not some alternative current in physics. They remained, throughout most of the 19th century, the central line of thought. Today’s academically acceptable physics is built on a radical deviation from that line of thought, imposed, not by reason, but by political maneuverings. (Attempts to provide alternative explanation, rarely represent more than the sort of bureaucratic maneuvering which the advocate supposes to be necessary to maintain job and position.) The proximate source of the errors can be traced to the imposition of the Maxwell electrodynamics and the flawed doctrine of thermodynamics associated with Clausius and Helmholtz. The deeper differences go to the fraudulent representation of the Leibniz calculus by Euler and Maupertuis, and its effect in suppressing the earlier breakthroughs of the French Scientific Academy, as exemplified by the work of Huygens.-----
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... amics.html

Cheers

[seasmith]

kiwi,

Have no argument with any of that, other than even a "circle" is a sophomoric linear construct. Dynamically, all circles are helicoidal, or regressive, entities, imo.

Didn't we have an Ampère-Gauss-Weber thread somewhere onetime ?

[justcurious]

I guess one can argue that all electric currents can have a DC and/or AC component.
An impulse is AC, it is alternating, and can be decomposed into a sum of sine waves (Fourier transform).
I'm pretty sure there are galactic scale AC currents (ie periodic repetitive), look at the sun's cycle and flipping of magnetic field. Galactic scale AC currents would appear as DC to us due to the enormous timescales. Imagine a wavelength that is measured in light years. AC makes a lot of sense in an electric universe, with AC comes resonance.

My 2 cents..

Sam

[seasmith]

~

Lloyd,

Re the link posted to this thread at
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 86#p109386

if you are not making sense of the discussion (here) by Jarvamundo and Solar,
this is an older video on longitudinal (magneto-dielectric) propagation by Eric Dollard:

http://ericpdollard.com/free-videos/tra ... ectricity/

cheers

[seasmith]

Wasn't actually aware of this fellow's work before, but just released by Thunderbolts:

Dr Kongpop U-Yen gave a presentation at the EU2015 conference and provided some good experiential evidence for
Longitudinal power transmission and wave propagations.
Also favoring an ESG/EMG model, he offers very good arguments for an electrically resonant solar system .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOBPzrPY7L4

[Grey Cloud]

I haven't got a horse in the science race here but the arguement by guy in the quote from the Schiller Institute is, logically speaking, rubbish.

Compare the measurement of lengths on a straight line with that of arcs on the circumference of a circle. A straight line has no intrinsic measure; before we can measure length, we must first choose some unit, some interval with which to compare any given segment. The choice of the unit of measurement, however, is purely arbitrary.

The circle, on the contrary, possesses by its very nature an intrinsic, absolute measure, namely one complete cycle of rotation. Each arc has an absolute value as an angle, and the regular self-divisions of the circle define certain specific angles and arcs in a lawful fashion (e.g., a right angle, or the 120° angle subtended by the side of an equilateral triangle inscribed in the circle).

A line, straight or otherwise, does have an intrinsic measure - it has a length, just as the circle has a cycle.
Choice of the unit of measurement is not arbitary it is convention.
Angles of arcs etc result from us dividing a circle into 360 degrees which is something we inherited from the Babylonians who used a base-60 system.

Straight-line measures are intrinsically fallacious in our universe.

A radius and a diameter are straight lines (or at least they were when I went to school).

One could, if one wished, argue that there is no such thing as a circle per se only things which are circular.

[Webbman]

Wasn't actually aware of this fellow's work before, but just released by Thunderbolts:

Dr Kongpop U-Yen gave a presentation at the EU2015 conference and provided some good experiential evidence for
Longitudinal power transmission and wave propagations.
Also favoring an ESG/EMG model, he offers very good arguments for an electrically resonant solar system .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOBPzrPY7L4

I thought that was an excellent presentation. I have a structure that is designed from the ground up for longditudal transmission of waves/power. The humble force strand.

what happens when you apply a longtidual wave to a ring? Does it "vibrate"?

[seasmith]

Webbman wrote:

what happens when you apply a longtidual wave to a ring? Does it "vibrate"?

Probably yes, if there is some inherent 'resonance' between your driving "wave", and the ring;
which usually has something to do with integers.

There is of course also the the possibility of being 'driven-to-destruction'.
That phenom may have something to to with chaos, i don't know...