What is symmetry?

[wayne.ct]

This comment was left in another thread, a thread that I started. It brings up the concept of symmetry. Personally, I think this is a gross abuse of the word symmetry. That is because I don't see any symmetry in the particular physical phenomenon that is being used as an example. Since Dog-One thinks that symmetry is a "first" consideration, it is worth discussing.

Let me be very specific and see what kind of comments I can get in return. I would prefer to have calm, rational, well-thought-out comments but you get what you get.

All electricity is hot in the sense that it has the ability to heat things up because of the EMF or energy present. How do we know there is energy present? Because electricity is moving electrons and moving electrons, in the first case, create a magnetic field which exerts a force and can do work. In the second case, the moving electrons have kinetic energy and the kinetic energy will be transformed into heat in any circuit element that contains resistance. Symmetry, as used in this comment, would imply there is something called "cold" that exists separate from "heat", whereas "cold" is simply a lesser degree of "heat". Cold and heat are actually terms that describe the same thing, not terms that describe opposites.

This comes from the established work of Kepler, Kelvin, Boyle and other scientists of the past. It is why there is such a thing as absolute zero, temperature wise. What we are looking for, if I may be so bold, is something that demonstrates that these proven concepts are in fact wrong.

I don't think the notion of symmetry makes the grade when in comes to proving something new. There are other areas where symmetry makes sense. I just don't think it makes any sense in this context. This context, specifically, is the context of temperature effects of electricity.

So, here is the challenge. If you think you have a newer or better idea when it comes to symmetry, this is your thread. Convince me that I'm wrong. It would be best if you can back your argument up with a demonstration circuit or something that I can build, but that is not likely to stop anyone that reads this forum.

Good luck, and thank you for offering up your thoughts.

This is a good topic to hash out, because I think it lies central to our discovery and understanding of the type of devices characterized as free energy or overunity.

The first consideration is symmetry. If we can agree there is such thing as hot electricity, it only seems natural to suspect there is an opposite, behaving very similar but when the two are combined in equal quantities, you get a neutral or balanced result. Nature has a fascination for ying and yang.

I have been studying the Ruslan Kulabuhov device for months now and Ruslan himself has stated the two key components of this device are Cold Current and Back EMF. This particular device uses a rigid earth ground where it would appear electrical charge is kept in balance.

Another concept I think is key, is inertia. If you have an electrical flow of current and you abruptly stop it, the current itself has inertia, it continues to move some amount, some distance for some time after the gate is closed. So one has to ask themselves what happens just past the gate. Certainly you don't pull an electrical vacuum at that point; something must fill that void. My thinking is the "void" is filled with this mysterious cold current. If you allow the hot current to reverse direction and go back to that void, you lose the cold current, but if you don't let the hot current reverse by adding a second gate, now you have forced nature to show its other side.

The best way to visualize the above scenario is to look at the operation of a hydraulic ram pump.

[dR-Green]

It might be easier to start with a philosophical concept of symmetry.

The idea that cold is less hot is like saying east is less west, or left is less right. Tomorrow is less today.

Dark isn't less light.

Light Darkness And Colours - A Fascinating Journey Through The Universe Of Colours - YouTube

Weight is a measure of unbalance. It indicates the intensity of desire of any mass which is out of balance to find balance.
Every mass in the universe has its proper potential position. Every mass will find that position if not prevented from doing so by the bindings of other masses.
Weight should be measured dually as temperature is. It should have an above and a below zero to measure the intensity of desire in masses to rise from the earth as well as to fall toward it.

Gravitation pulls spirally inward from within to wind light waves into solids to centre space. Radiation thrusts spirally outward to unwind dense solids into space to surround solids. Each is an equal reaction of the other. Each becomes the other sequentially.

This is a still universe of the Light of knowing. In it is no activity.
But what about our senses? Our senses tell us otherwise. Our senses are inadequate. They deceive us mightily. And that is good. Else the play of Creation could not be played. The senses record but little of the whole. If the senses could but see the whole there would be no play. The senses record motion alone for the senses themselves are but motion. Motion is an illusion which only seems. It has no being.
The senses do not know, but man believes that his senses do know and in that belief lies man's confusion.
The senses, being but motion, sense moving things and moving light mirrored as moving things. They sense the forward movement of an airplane piling up compression ahead of it but they do not record the mirrored invisible counterpart of that plane equal to it in potential and speed moving backward into a vacuum behind the plane which simultaneously voids the compression ahead of it.
This inadequacy of the senses to record the backward flow of forward moving things causes the illusions of sequence and of time.

The fundamental cosmogony of the then-accepted science, which so amazed me, was what might be termed a transient, discontinuous, unbalanced, on-way universe, which had a beginning eons ago, by the unexplained and unexplainable formation of a tremendous flaming mass of heat, which is slowly radiating away by splitting into smaller masses, which expand within themselves and from each other until they eventually end in heat death.
Out of this unnatural theory came the first and second laws of thermodynamics that have no validity whatsoever, for the premise that heat is energy, upon which they are founded has no validity. The resultant one-way universe allowed for no compensating generation to counterbalance its radiation, despite the accepted law of equal and opposite action and reaction. Energy cannot run up hill, science says, it can only run down hill. It so happens in God's plan that energy runs neither up nor down hill.

[med.3012]

Hi wayne.ct,

i hope i am able to add something to this very deep topic , i think mathematical symmetry is faraway from physical symmetry... the difference between the two is what made a lots of erroneous theories that unfortunately are still taught at schools.. take a brief example from wikipedia about Symmetry in mathematics :

Symmetry occurs not only in geometry, but also in other branches of mathematics. Symmetry is a type of invariance: the property that something does not change under a set of transformations.

in mathematics we work with solely variants for example if i say x=y this is my equation, it's invariant all the time, in physic if i say x=5 apples y must be another 5 apples, right ? but in physic X will never ever equal to Y simply because we are not able to find 5 apples equal exactly to another 5 apples in color, weight, etc...

in physic the symmetry have to be broken.. so instead of mathematical symmetry we must deal with the broken symmetry, let's explain this; there's no heat without something called cold, how do i know if this thing is hot without knowing the coldness, the coldness maybe any reference point below what called heat ...! when i move between the two i call this the broken symmetry, in term of energy this movement is energy also, take the heat from something or make it more heater is a power with positive or negative sign.

[Aaron]

opposites, complements, etc.

That is a good point that hot and cold refer to the same thing since there is absolute zero - just different points on a scale of anything above absolute zero (hot or cold). So if we are monitoring anything above absolute zero in a circuit, hot or cold in a common context is simply a matter of perspective because 60C is going to be considered quite warm to an Eskimo living in an Igloo, which for me, its time to put on a jacket.

So if we have a circuit that does not produce absolute zero, we are literally just comparing various degrees of temperature above absolute zero and hot or cold are subjective adjectives. But we could use ambient as a baseline.

We do know that at absolute zero, movement actually does not cease to exist as predicted and there is still movement so is it a real baseline. That movement is the very cause for the term "zero point energy" - so at absolute zero, there is still heat. At absolute zero, what is causing movement when there should be none? The aether, "vacuum energy", virtual photons or whatever name you want to give to the primary substance, which is influencing matter and causing movement - at least according to the aetheric or vacuum energy ideas.

Yin and Yang are feminine and masculine and are claimed to be opposites, but it is very well agreed upon in Eastern philosophy that they are not opposites but complements.

With light and dark - light is considered to be a something but dark is not since dark is not less light but is the absence of light. And they are not equals. Light always has the intrinsic advantage over dark. If you have a dark room and you shine just the slightest bit of light into that room, the entire darkness is diminished by so much. But if you have a room of light and open a door into a dark area, none of the darkness will diminish any of the light in the room. So, light is intrinsically superior in this respect.

In more of the mind power or metaphysical realms, the concept of opposites is known as dichotomies. Sad-Happy, Depressed-Elated, etc... when is something an opposite and when is something a complement or is there really any difference at all?

With cold/hot and the concept of absolute zero, cold/hot certainly are not opposites if we're using those terms subjectively or as comparisons.

But a +1 and -1 seem to be actual opposites, possibly, since there is a recognized neutral point of 0. We don't hear about -10 below absolute zero. But do we even recognize that there is such a thing as minus 3 objects or that there simply are no objects since -3 is more of an abstract?

The most common use of "symmetry" that I know of in terms of electricity, energy, etc... is about the symmetry of vacuum energy or symmetry of the aether. The + and - charges are equal so there is no potential difference and therefore no dipole. But even when the aether is symmetrical supposedly, there still is enough + so to speak to give an observable universe because if it was truly absolutely symmetrical, there would be no universe so there still is some positive movement like at absolute zero, there is still positive movement.

We know that heat can be used by a circuit to create electricity. MIT even admits this with the 2.0 COP LED they demonstrated, which uses ambient heat to contribute to the light output and the total light is 200% compared to what they are spending on electricity on the front. Graham Gunderson has done extensive work with magnetic concepts that can utilize ambient heat as a source of potential energy. Can the circuits cool below ambient? I guess they can but does that mean cold electricity? These processes are still time-forward processes but they can get cold I suppose.

But in some of the more exotic claims, the Kromrey for example is supposed to demonstrate not just cooling, but time-reversal processes. They not only cool, but are negentropic in a way that goes beyond heat simply moving into a circuit.

Any self-ordering process in a circuit, time reversed or not, appears to be the "opposite" of a circuit that is only entropic or hot. But any circuit that has self-ordering processes don't necessarily show evidences of being cold.

Not new or better ideas, but just wanted to chime in.

[dR-Green]

With light and dark - light is considered to be a something but dark is not since dark is not less light but is the absence of light. And they are not equals. Light always has the intrinsic advantage over dark. If you have a dark room and you shine just the slightest bit of light into that room, the entire darkness is diminished by so much. But if you have a room of light and open a door into a dark area, none of the darkness will diminish any of the light in the room. So, light is intrinsically superior in this respect.

If you have a lit room and expand the boundary of the room then the light will diminish as the reflected light which is what you are seeing scatters, and darkness will prevail. So you could equally say that the less matter there is for light to reflect off, the light diminishes and is consumed by the darkness. So darkness has the intrinsic advantage over light, because darkness is wherever light is not. And light can't be where matter is not. As I believe Goethe would say, the darkness still exists in front of you but you are seeing the light reflecting off matter through it. The darkness of space doesn't go away when the sun rises in the sky, but you are seeing the light reflecting off matter in the atmosphere in front of the darkness. The sun doesn't diminish the darkness of space, except when viewed from earth.

But even when the aether is symmetrical supposedly, there still is enough + so to speak to give an observable universe because if it was truly absolutely symmetrical, there would be no universe so there still is some positive movement

I think in the simplest terms it's like Walter Russell puts it, your senses only sense "one direction", you sense space but not counterspace, because if you did then nothing would exist.

In which case also darkness can't be "nothing" because it is in space which is "something" and you see it, space is filled with whatever darkness is and it exists inasmuch as space exists. Apparently all the way down to absolute zero and beyond.

[Aaron]

light and dark

If you have a lit room and expand the boundary of the room then the light will diminish as the reflected light which is what you are seeing scatters, and darkness will prevail. So you could equally say that the less matter there is for light to reflect off, the light diminishes and is consumed by the darkness. So darkness has the intrinsic advantage over light, because darkness is wherever light is not. And light can't be where matter is not. As I believe Goethe would say, the darkness still exists in front of you but you are seeing the light reflecting off matter through it. The darkness of space doesn't go away when the sun rises in the sky, but you are seeing the light reflecting off matter in the atmosphere in front of the darkness. The sun doesn't diminish the darkness of space, except when viewed from earth.



I think in the simplest terms it's like Walter Russell puts it, your senses only sense "one direction", you sense space but not counterspace, because if you did then nothing would exist.

In which case also darkness can't be "nothing" because it is in space which is "something" and you see it, space is filled with whatever darkness is and it exists inasmuch as space exists. Apparently all the way down to absolute zero and beyond.

I get your point but you're talking about changing the size of the room but the source of light stays the same. If you have a 100 watt bulb in a 10x10x8 size room and expand the room to a ridiculous size, of course we won't have that light on all walls, area, etc... except what is near the bulb. But that changes the concept from a fixed size room.

If we open a little hatch in the wall to a dark room, the light obviously won't reflect off that hatch anymore, but the philosophical point is that darkness is not able to pervade the room from the dark room and is still the inherent advantage of light over dark. In that dark room where the hatch was open, the light enters the dark but the dark doesn't enter the light. Dark is the absence of light and is not a something in and of itself. Philosophically, light is knowledge of course and dark is simply the absence of knowledge or ignorance.

We see almost no light in the Universe and it is mostly dark - apparently. But you are talking about a perspective looking through the veil just like we can't see counterspace because of the same veil. We only know it theoretically or philosophically, etc. Without the veil, there is nothing but light and the darkness we see in the Universe is the illusion just like the emptiness is an illusion. Philosophical but... we know or at least some of us believe that space is not empty and that space is the aether - not filled with aether, but is the aether. Where there is no aether, there is no space and that is the only true vacuum or void. The plenum of the aether in "dark" space is there and is the all pervasive light, while the illusionary perspective is one of no aether and no light. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean there is no light, it means there is no visible light and there is a difference worth distinguishing.

I completely agree with the idea that light is not visible in space. It doesn't mean it is not there, just that it is not visible. I tell people all the time to look up in the night sky and explain why we don't see the bright sun rays streaming past the Earth illuminating the night sky if light is visible in space - so we're on the same page for sure.

What it brings up is the distinction between visible light and light that is not visible. Is there no light because we can't see it? Is there no aether because we can't see it? I don't believe so - just my opinion. The only true darkness if darkness is an absence of light as I mentioned in the technical sense - not the parable or metaphorical sense, but in a technical sense is an area that lacks aether in a true vacuum or void because there is no medium to transmit the light whether it is reflecting off of anything or not. That would be the only place where there can be true darkness and in this Universe as we know it, even by these unpopular aetheric ideas is that there is almost no where that aether doesn't exist and therefore, there is almost no area where light doesn't exist - whether it is visible or not is a different subject.

The ancient idea to convey wisdom about light and dark is definitely not going to include ideas of the aether, light reflecting off of matter, etc... because it suits the point to convey an idea - it isn't meant to argue aether physics.

[boguslaw]

Symmetry is the proof of excess energy
All our electronic/electric circuit works on the balanced of power dissipation state when the output has less energy the the input or roughly the same.
There must be also because of symmetry circuits which have output energy larger then input .

[Bob Smith]

Symmetry/Assymetry - Closed/Open Systems

For me, the term "symmetry" in the area of electronics, implies a closed system. That is, a system which is designed to draw on its own battery or power supply to furnish a charge that drives the system to perform a desired task.

I would also say that this notion of symmetry that implies a closed system exists as a mindset. This symmetrical (closed system) mindset is mistakenly used to discredit open systems claiming overunity. Sometimes this discrediting is expressed in terms of inefficiency, which indeed the open system will exhibit, according to closed system measures of efficiency.

An open system designed to tap into the energy of say, the ambient or aether, may not run with great efficiency, in the closed system sense. However, it may be able to access levels of electric charge that are far greater than what comes from the initial power source (e.g., battery or power supply). So, while it may be inefficient in a closed system symmetrical sense, it might in fact make available great quantities of additional electric charge for far greater amounts of work than it can provide as a closed system. Closed (symmetrical) systems will always have losses, and cannot by their nature be overunity.

But asymmetrical open systems, even a simple oscillator, can be a gateway to accessing large amounts of electricity for the purpose of doing work - much more than a closed symmetrical system can furnish.
Bob

[Aaron]

no symmetry in input vs output

Eric Dollard, Paul Babcock and others with results do clearly state that there is an inequality or algebraic inequality between one side of the equation and the other when it comes to certain circuits such as in the circuits people are looking for that exhibit over 1.0 COP. And it is equally important to recognize that a circuit that has a certain input that outputs less where the losses in heat, etc... cannot be found (energy desynthesis as demonstrated with the CIG) are also just as important in the research. In all of these, there is no symmetry as far as input vs output.

[med.3012]

completing the idea about symmetry and broken , i will propose two devices give a great opportunity to study these complicated phenomena, they are the Extended Tesla bifilar coil and its neighbor the mixed Extended Tesla bifilar coil.

more details about the E-TBC can be found here : www.free-energy-info.com/Mohamed.pdf

about the mixed E-TBC please take a look at my thread the resonance energy device explained in the same thread more extended information about the simple E-TBC, now this is a simple drawing about the mixed E-TBC :



when i oscillate the E-TBC in high voltage when CD is open i found there's radiant energy, doing the same in the mixed E-TBC there's no such energy!! this lead me to think there's a phase shift 90° between the voltage of the two sides in the mixed E-TBC, the scope graph showed me this result also ( you can see it in my thread ).

The mixed E-TBC prove the concept behind the simple E-TBC, so we have a kind of energetic symmetry between positive and negative energy, the two energetic sides meet each other in just one point, it's the one dimensional capacitor, i call it X point also, there the symmetry have to be broken, negative energy is an immense ocean of power, in the E-TBC X point provide an energetic door so what i got in positive side is a tiny tiny amount of power compared what negative energy can provide us.... !

the two energetic oceans must be connected through one point, in this device this point is the reference point where the symmetry is broken in equal, it's also the responsible for Ozone gas production by electrons spin separation mechanism, this mechanism is another serial resonance which make it possible for power exchange between the two sides, real and imaginary.

[wayne.ct]

Physical Symmetry vs. Abstract Symmetry

In considering the comments so far, I make the following observation.

There are some abstract ideas about symmetry and there are some physical devices that exhibit physical symmetry. If you consider a regular solid, it can have symmetry in regard to zero or more (positive integer number of) planes. For example, a cylindrical coil has zero planes of symmetry. A pancake coil has 1 plane of symmetry. The E-TBC has one plane of symmetry, if and only if the two coils are flat pancake coils and the two halves are situated on a single common plane. A perfect sphere has an infinite number of planes of symmetry. To repeat, the typical cylindrical coil, all wound in one direction, does not have physical symmetry.

From a logical (mathematical) point of view, physical symmetry is extremely rare and the vast majority of objects in nature have no physical symmetry.

It takes a lot of work to create physical symmetry. However, we can create abstract symmetry, where physical symmetry does not exist.

For example, the mass of copper wire (let's say) in the two halves of the E-TBC could be the same, or close to the same. Now we have a form of symmetry. Both "sides" have the same amount of copper. Perhaps they have the same "length" of copper, the same resistance, the same AWG, etc.

All these non-physical symmetries. This leaves a lot of things to be manipulated and specified if we are to understand how to replicate someone's experiment.

If we are to say our device is in some sense symmetrical, it should have two "sides" that are in some sense the same.

I think talking about symmetry is important and can be helpful, but we seem to have a long road ahead of us to meaningfully describe where, how and when we see symmetry play into our understanding.

[med.3012]

HI wayne.ct.


i found myself interested in this thread because the symmetry is the key that gave me the understanding of one of Tesla great secret ... in one of Tom Bearden document he stated that in cold electricity the coil will transform into capacitor and the same happen to the capacitor when it transform into coil !! at that moment my mind was frozen because it seem impossible how this could happen

But soon Tesla gave me the respond in his patent about the Bifilar coil, this coil has a special built in capacitor, if we take the mathematical symmetry it's possible to transform a coil into capacitor in negative energy ocean .. this is exactly what modern physic tell us about how negative energy act.

so the symmetry is the key but not the objective because we have to deal with the contact point between the two symmetrical sides, because there's only one sense where the energy must flow the symmetry have to be broken.. this is why i prefer the term broken symmetry, the symmetry is there but in physical world you have to work only with one side at a time! if you do this and you are correct in doing so you have just broken the symmetry !

what does this mean ? it mean the two side have to talk to each other ... this is why we have a perfect atom ... there's a sequence where the energy flow! the same as heart beat... this is important for the continuity of life, i guess there's a kind of quantum valve provide this kind of mechanism, so the symmetry is there but it have a control mechanism so it have to be broken to form a kind of special language, take the mirror as an example :



there's a symmetry but the right hand is the left in the mirror ! even the mirror can't replicate real physical things !!!

[dR-Green]

Light isn't "always on" or a scalar like DC. It has a frequency, and if it has a frequency then it oscillates, and if it oscillates then it does so between two opposing balanced symmetrical poles.



At 0 or the centre of the wave is stillness, no motion, and hence the appearance of darkness to the senses.

The intensity of light is represented by the amplitude of the wave. If the light diminishes then the amplitude is less, until eventually there is no amplitude or oscillation, and we say there is darkness. A constant 0 with no variation.

But the oscillating wave passes this point of darkness twice during each cycle. "Light" begins at darkness, completes one half cycle, returns to darkness, before completing the second half of the cycle and retuning once again to darkness before beginning the next cycle.

Hence "light" is an illusion which only seems to be due to this oscillating action. Without darkness, light wouldn't exist as the oscillation would be impossible. If not for the dark period between each half wave cycle of light it would simply be a constant, and so light to the senses would appear to be no different to darkness. The rate of change = 0 = no light.

A constant gives rise to the appearance of "nothing", and things in rapid motion give rise to the appearance of a constant "something". All of which is an illusion. The entire universe is constantly and sequentially popping in and out of existence so quickly that it appears to always be there, but it's not.

[Aaron]

light

That is why I'm saying the philosophical principles are not meant to argue the physics but to allow one to grok our own relationship with the Universe - one application anyway. And in that sense, there is only light and darkness is simply a lack of light.

There is an abundance of infrared in open space but it is dead cold so the warmth on the Earth is realized locally and is not carried to us by the sun - only the infrared comes from the sun and by itself, there is no heat. Heat happens when the infrared touches something but the infrared is still there in abundance in open space just like the visible light spectrum is in abundance in space but is invisible until it can interact with something. This was actually known in very ancient times and it was believed that the heat on the Earth was an "Earthly force" generated locally and did not come from the sun.

As far as the sine wave, that is literally showing that regardless of light diminishing as the amplitude reduces, light is still there 99.999999999999+% of the time with an infinitesimally small period at the 0 line compared to above and below the line.

[dR-Green]

As far as the sine wave, that is literally showing that regardless of light diminishing as the amplitude reduces, light is still there 99.999999999999+% of the time with an infinitesimally small period at the 0 line compared to above and below the line.

Yes but the point is light isn't "pure light" as in a constant or DC, light itself necessarily consists of that much darkness.

Although it leads to another question, which is if anything + of 0 is "light", and in terms of sound it's a higher pressure which moves the ear drum in one direction, what is the equivalent - of 0 when speaking of light, when in sound it's a lower pressure that moves the ear drum in the opposite direction to complete the cycle. In other words if +1 = light and assuming 0 = darkness, then what does that make the -1 region. If it was the same "light" then I imagine it would be like rectifying AC where you'd end up with DC pulses at twice the frequency, or like a south pole being the same as a north pole on a magnet. So what is this opposite pole of light.