Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Pinwheel]

Well, to be fair, with no context those are just 3 words.

So then, if matter is actually not matter but a wave, what is a particle?

A particle is a wave?



edit: EPD post while writing this response

[lamare]

Well, to be fair, with no context those are just 3 words.

So then, if matter is actually not matter but a wave, what is a particle?

A particle is a wave?



edit: EPD post while writing this response

Yes, that is known as the wave particle duality principle:
Wave–particle duality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, a particle is not a classic "Hertzian" transversal wave, but some kind of standing wave phenomenon in the shape of some kind of vortex or swirl in the ether. I think we all accept the existance of a real fluid/gas like ether, so we only have to look at cymatics, sound waves in water, to get an idea what waves in the ether may look like.

And bear in mind that wave-particle duality does not go both ways. What Im mean with that is that a particle is a wave, but a wave is not necessarily a particle. Far from that: longitudinal waves, the kinds of "classic" waves that can actually flow trough a gas/fluid like medium, are not particles! Particles are a particular kind of localized standing wave, shaped like some kind of vortex or swirl.

These pictures may help to visualize the concept of what a particle probably looks like:

I posted more on this here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...phenomena.html

I also can recommend these video's to anyone, because they give you an idea of the complexity of wave forms. They show what is happening in water, etc., but if there is a real fluid-like ether, these are basically blown-up versions of the very small and therefore offer you a way to visualise what the phenomena at the very small scale look like:

Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 1 of 3) - YouTube
Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 2 of 3) - YouTube
Cymatics - Bringing Matter To Life With Sound (Part 3 of 3) - YouTube

As Eric once said:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_...Brown(OCR).pdf

T: What is the medium for the transmission of energy if wires are
not used?
E: Whatever the general media is around us, call it the ether, or air or you can transmit it through the ground. Basically it just flows.

Tesla was dealing with ether type forces that don't involve material or atomic particles , they involve something a little finer than that.

So: the ether "just flows" and is "a little finer" than "material or atomic particles"...

[lamare]

@lamare

Doesn't EPD suggest that there's a paradigm flaw with measuring space in 3 dimensions? "There's only one dimension of space and that's space - not the corner of a cube." He gives the example of calculating the volume of a cylinder with 2 dimensions, circumference and height.

Yes, he does:

Continuing with the concept of the variation of a quantity (or dimension) with respect to time (another dimension). We may say then we are talking about a RATIO of a physical dimension to a metrical dimension.

[...]

Further, hit your erase button on the gibberish of 1, 2, or 3 dimensional space, there is only ONE DIMENSION OF SPACE – SPACE! Coordinates are NOT dimensions. Example, the volume of a cylinder can be expressed in TWO terms, height and circumference. So where is the third “dimension”, erased?

I'm still reading trough all this and trying to get my head around it, which is pretty challenging, because I need to visualize things in my mind before I can understand them.

But he is right, coordinates are not dimensions. And when you look at how Eric talks about dimensions, as far as I can tell, he basically equals the concept of "quantity" to "dimension", because when you can talk about a ratio between a "physical dimension" and a "metrical dimension", you basically say a dimension is some physical property that can be expressed by a number, a quantity.

However, in my view, this is more a discussion about which terms are used to describe what than about physics. Whenever you go to math and numbers, you describe and quantify some aspect of nature/the universe. What you describe using 3D coordinate systems is a geometric structure in space.

When you express the dimension of space by a single quantity (number), you essentially describe some other aspect of space.

Both are just different perspectives, different glasses, for looking at physical reality. Neither is "right" or "wrong". They're just different points of view and Eric's point of view is extremely useful for engineering electrical systems, because he manages to get rid of a lot of complexity in the dimension of space, while at the same time retaining essential aspects of the fields that describe the physics at a deeper level than what is normally done in electrical engineering.....

Didn't Einsteins theory come from some guy in the 1700's? If that whole conspiracy theory angle is valid, then it isn't Maxwell's right or wrong ... ness that would have anything to do with leading Einstein to come up with a 200 year old theory. Funding. Corporate funding led to Einstein's relativity theory.

I don't know where it came from. I just studied a.o. Thornhill and Meyl and came to the conclusion that there is an error in the Maxwell equations, because Maxwell postulated charge carriers to be causing the fields and then Thornhill ( Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill ) explains exactly how that leads to Einstein's flaw, which has to do with coordinate transformation. What is known as the Lorentz transform demands a fixed speed of light and that is eventually what leads to the notion of curved space, etc.

[Pinwheel]

I wish I was more educated

[lamare]

In defining the hydro-dynamical tubes of force as concrete realities, a distinct phenomenon taking place with the aether, the constitution of the Planck sticks its snout out of the sand. The tubes of force are discrete, fiber-like, quanta as some would say. Experiments by J.J. Tompson indicate this. Lines of force are a quantum phenomenon, distinct concrete entities.

Further, we have the idea of “Planck’s Constant”, any variation in the total density of electric induction Q, in Planck’s, cannot vary continuously but must exhibit its variation in discontinuous, or discrete steps. Hence a distinct quanta Q. We may infer that the union, or CROSS PRODUCT, of a single tube of DIELECTIC induction, with a single tube of MAGNETIC induction, gives birth to a single unit of ELECTRICICATION Q. This idea embodies the concept of the photon, a QUANTUM UNIT of electro-magnetic induction. Also consider the J.J. Tompson concept of the “electron” (his own discovery). Tompson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction. One tube, one electron. So then, how big is a unit Planck, the quantum unit of electric induction, Q?

Eric wrote about this before:
INTRODUCTION TO DIELECTRIC & MAGNETIC DISCHARGES IN ELECTRICAL WINDINGS

FARADAY AND LINES OF FORCE THEORY

Faraday felt strongly that action at a distance is not possible thru empty space, or in other words, "matter cannot act where it is not." He considered space pervaided with lines of force.
Almost everyone is familiar with the patterns formed by iron filings around a magnet. These filings act as numerous tiny compasses and orientate themselves along the lines of force existing around the poles of the magnet. Experiment has indicated that a magnetic field does possess a fiberous construct.
By passing a coil of wire thru a strong magnetic field and listening to the coil output in headphones, the experimenter will notice a scraping noise. J. J. Thompson performed further experiments involving the ionization of gases that indicate the field is not continuous but fiberous (electricity and matter, 1906).

Thomson's book can be downloaded here:
Electricity and matter : Thomson, J. J. (Joseph John), Sir, 1856-1940 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
pdf : http://ia600209.us.archive.org/4/ite...01thomgoog.pdf

This raises a fundamental question. Can you perform a real-life experiment in order to establish wether or not the lines of force and hence the ether is continuous or fiberous?

As I said before, the only means we have to interact with the ether is trough interactions with what we know as matter, which we know is quantized. In other words: no matter what you do, your measuring instrument is quantized. And therefore, I'm afraid you cannot conclude the ether itself is quantized and neither can you conclude the lines of force are quantized.

Right?

Update:

There are also indications that the Universe is a fractal. Nassim Haramein does a very good job explaining this. I posted about that before:

You know, there's an old programmers joke:

In order to understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.

So, the point is: there is no elementary particle. It's a fractal!

And that is mind blowing. Because that means the fractal goes on both ways up to infinity. Up to infinitely big, and down to infinitely small. And *that* is quite something. It means that in theory you can have billions and billions of complete galaxies and everything else you can find out there withing every single piece of matter.

Go look for the lectures by Nassim Haramein ( The Resonance Project ). Very interesting stuff. You are going to love his "string theory".

And finally, that suggests the Universe may be a hologram:
Is Our Universe a Hologram? In 1982 a Litttle Known but Epic Event Occured at the University of Paris (Today's Most Popular)
The Universe as a Hologram

Update: If you read this, you have a second reason why General Relativity should go to the trash can.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light.

The first reason is given by Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill : http://www.etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf - The whole idea of a fixed speed of light basically originates in a mathematical error. Because they got the Maxwell equations wrong, they used some freak coordinate transform known as the Lorentz transform, which can only work if the speed of light is constant. Now, we *know* the speed of light is not constant in the vicinity of matter. So, really, this is a piece of junk. Sorry, Einstein, you were wrong on this one.

And of course, Tesla got it right all along:

PowerPedia:Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity - PESWiki

"... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena."
"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

The Universe as a Hologram

"A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

So, there we got our fractal again.

[Pinwheel]

K ... I can handle this. Bear with me.

I'll look at the wiki page and do my best but I hate Wikipedia because everything is so damn complicated in there. For example:

Inductance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Waaayyy over my head^^. That's the type of things I have to look at while trying to learn about induction. So I usually go elsewhere - probably easier to just go with pure Steinmetz lol. I think they do it on purpose so people can't learn anything useful and spend their lives chasing red herrings and misdirection.

But on the surface I get what you are saying. Particles are complex standing waves.

What's confusing me at this point is 2 things - well, 2-ish things.

1) Wave-particle duality I thought was built upon the foundations of Einsteinian physics - the result of experiments with light traveling through slits in a board that give the appearance of being a wave and the appearance of being a particle. For me, I 'm going with "there is no energy in matter" - Nikola Tesla. Right? He was saying that there is no energy in matter except that which comes from the environment.

So then, is this standing wave/particle an independent system? What I mean is where does it get it's energy to undulate (I'm assuming perpetually) in it's standing wave pattern such as it apparently does? If we are to take Tesla at face value then doesn't that mean that even ... IDK, like if we take 1 single atom of iron, my understanding is that the electrons whizz and whirl about the nucleus in a cloud pattern. If all energy comes from the environment and there is no energy in mater then even on the atomic and sub atomic level the energy supplied to electrons so to enable their motion isn't generated from within the atom. It would come from the environment.

So then if Tesla was right but also wave particle duality was right, then what I wonder is where does the energy for the motion in the system of the particle come from? ZPR? Then there would be hysteresis too - which probably accounts for retaining heat and stuff.


2) I don't remember #2 anymore. I think I mixed it in with #1.

My original point is that wave/particle duality is born from a corporate brand of physics and that same brand of physics seems so often to be at complete odds with understanding Tesla (and therefore also EPD).

Perhaps there's an alternative, Tesla-ish, idea that explains the results given in slit experiments?

On the same hand I have't read the wiki page yet and perhaps you are talking about something else altogether.

[Pinwheel]

@ lamare

you posted while I was slowly writing my above response. I'm about to go out for a couple of hours and then get back to all this interesting stuff but what I did see in your post was this:

This raises a fundamental question. Can you perform a real-life experiment in order to establish wether or not the lines of force and hence the ether is continuous or fiberous?

Are you asking if it is has been verified, or weather or not the verification is valid? I do know I've heard somewhere in EPD's material that the fibrous nature of the l.o.f. are legitimate. Can't remember where but I could find it I'm sure.

[lamare]

@ lamare

you posted while I was slowly writing my above response. I'm about to go out for a couple of hours and then get back to all this interesting stuff but what I did see in your post was this:



Are you asking if it is has been verified, or weather or not the verification is valid? I do know I've heard somewhere in EPD's material that the fibrous nature of the l.o.f. are legitimate. Can't remember where but I could find it I'm sure.

I'm questioning the validity of the notion that the fields are fundamentally fibrous, because as far as I can tell, any measuring method has a limited resolution because the matter your measuring device consists of is quantized.

However, it is very well possible (or even likely) that the lines of force emanating from materials such as conductors are fibrous in nature. And if that is the case, I would say you would be able to verify the fibrous nature of those lines of force by experimentation.

But if matter is a standing wave phenomenon and the Universe is fractal in nature, then you could have the same kinds of phenomena on much smaller scales, up to the infinitely small, which would be beyond our capabilities to detect experimentally.

In other words: I think the fibrous nature of the lines of force that can be measured is likely related to the scale of the phenomena by which they emanate (atom, cristal structure of material, etc.) and are not a fundamental property of the ether.

Update: OTOH: they may also be a fundamental property of the [forces occuring in] the ether if the Universe is some kind of fractal. If that were true, and I believe that may very well be, then you would have lines of force that are fibrous in nature, so distinct physical entities, but that would go on unto the infinitly small. So, you would never be able to reach a point where you could talk about "the elemental lines of force", just like the search for "the elementary particle" is futile in a fractalic Universe.

This is one of my favorite cymatic images (see http://www.energeticforum.com/147013-post1.html ):

If you look at the left structure, I think this gives you an idea about how the lines of force may be structured around a particle. It seems like the ether somehow is directed/flowing along these lines of force. It also seems that there is a flow of ether going into a "particle" as well as an outgoing flow, and there are also these scattered spheres that are much more sprayed out in the picture.

Now if you look back at the animated pictures, an image appears which suggests that particles have (a number of) vortexes trough/towards the center, which rotate and "suck" up ether along the magnetic lines of force, while it "pushes" the ether out trough the other end of the vortex. And that may very well be such a distinct line of force, which "connects" one particle to the other.

If these lines of force are vortexes, that would mean rotation. And if the magnetic field is related to a rotation in the ether and the electric field is more like a "steady flow", without rotation, one tends to think in the direction that polarization ("plus" and "minus", "positive" and "negative") has to do with rotation, and that longitudinal electric (pressure) waves are rotation-free movements of the ether and therefore have no magnetic component.

And if "mass" or "particle" is intrinsicly coupled to "magnetism", then you cannot have "mass free magnetic energy", only mass-free electric energy, be it longitudinal waves or a steady-state flow of ether, which is very likely what "gravity" is, because it is known from the Bielefeld-Brown effect that the electric field and gravity are related to one another, even though to main stream science this is still a mystery:

Biefield-Brown Anti-Gravity Effect - Unexplained Mysteries Encyclopedia

While researching the effects of X-rays generated from a Coolidge tube, American physicist, T. Townsend Brown found a relationship between gravity and high voltage. Press reports state that a 2 foot diameter disc was made to fly around a central pole when tethered and excited with a potential of 50 KiloVolts.

So, it seems to me that the fibrous nature of the lines of force is very real for magnetic lines of force, but the electric field is likely to be non-fibrous in nature.

But I'm just thinking out loud here, so I may be wrong...

[Pinwheel]

@lamare

btw, this conversation is what I think it would be like to have an internet conversation with Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory.

But lines of force are induced right? They're the phenomenon that people are trying to describe with the word Induction. So Faraday, in trying to make sense, was saying that the aether particles link together to form the rays of induction. Not to say that the matter, "(atom, cristal structure of material, etc.)", doesn't perhaps influence how that induction happens - but as far as I can tell, what you are talking about (weather or not the fibrous nature is a legitimate reality due to it's admitted quantum nature) isn't considering at all the reality of induction. That is, that induction exists and this arcane science is trying to describe it. What you are talking about isn't trying to make sense of induction.

Like, if l.o.f. aren't fibrous, because of some aspect of quantum physics (that I am truly weak when it comes to understanding), then what are the implications that you are inferring with respect to induction?

[Pinwheel]

Ah! Today I learned what quantization is. Lol how frustrating.

[lamare]

@lamare

btw, this conversation is what I think it would be like to have an internet conversation with Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory.

Ye could be right:

Sheldon Cooper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reviewers and fans have speculated that Sheldon's personality traits are consistent with a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome and/or obsessive–compulsive personality disorder.

I have been diagnosed with "a" disorder in the Autism spectrum:
Autism spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But it seems like I may be in good company:
Historical figures sometimes considered autistic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Fitzgerald, of the Department of Child Psychiatry at Trinity College, Dublin, has speculated about historical figures with autism in numerous journal papers and at least three books: The Genesis of Artistic Creativity: Asperger's Syndrome and the Arts,[4] Unstoppable Brilliance: Irish Geniuses and Asperger's Syndrome[5] and Autism and Creativity, Is there a link between autism in men and exceptional ability?[

[LtBolo]

I have been diagnosed with "a" disorder in the Autism spectrum:

I run an engineering company, and am a degreed engineer myself. I have stated on many occasions that virtually all engineers are mildly autistic, perhaps not in the clinical sense, but certainly in a practical one. The problem is that society doesn't seem to know how to deal with our 'gifts'.

I was playing golf with a group and one of our foursome hooked the ball toward a slope that ended at a road, so I matter-of-factly stated "that's in the road". Another of the foursome looked at me...visibly annoyed...and said "could you be any more negative?!?" It never crossed my mind that it was a positive or negative thing. With my understanding of gravity, trajectory, and momentum, it simply was true, and it a purely pragmatic way it made sense for the player to know so he could hit another ball.

Oh well...at least we produce intelligent offspring.

[t-rex]

Space the Final Frontier

Space, the Final Frontier

As a dimension space is distinct from the dimension of time, and is devoid of any physical dimension. It is hereby eternal, and empty. Like time, space is a metrical dimension, it exists to quantify. Bounded space can define a volume, area, distance, span, or density.

It is customary to consider space boundaries as a CUBIC, or third degree set of co-ordinates. The three co-ordinates are length, width, and height, taken from a corner of the cube. Think of a sugar cube, the sugar is the space and the corners define the boundaries. These three co-ordinates, length, width, and height are WRONGLY known as the three dimensions of space. This is a major mind virus and is hard to erase.

There is only one dimension of space, SPACE, a metrical dimension. Any number of co-ordinates in any number of geometries can serve to define the boundaries of said space. The use of the cubic three is habitual.

The dimension of space is considered to exist in degrees, or powers of a unit space dimension, here centimeters, l (lower case L). So we can say cubic centimeters, or square centimeters, etc. hereby, on a cm basis;

cm to the +1 power , distance
cm to the +2 power , area
cm to the +3 power , volume
and
cm to the -1 power , span
cm to the -2 power , density
cm to the -3 power , concentration

Cm to a positive degree is called conventional - spatial relations, or simply space relations, whereas cm to a negative degree is called counter - spatial, or simply counterspace relations, all the above constitute a single dimension, space, this space bounded by a co-ordinate construct upon a given degree.

Hence cm to the Nth degree serves as our "space operator", operating upon a physcal dimensional relation. For example, Q times cubic cm, the volume of electricity, psi per square cm, the metrical dimension of space is applied to a physical dimension of substance. Even aether is a substance.
*mathematically;
l (to the third) Q gives Planck - cm cubed
l (to the second) Psi gives Coulomb per cm squared

In situations involving the dimension of time, the system of algegra serves well in expressing dimensional relations. It may even be said that algebra is the mathematics of time. (see Alexander McFarlane, American Association for the Advancement of Science). For situations involving the dimension of space no suitable algebra has yet been developed. All efforts by the great mathematicians during the 19th century were fruitless, except Oliver Heaviside's. Heaviside gave a system of vector expressions, divergence, curl, and potential, which today are WRONGLY called "Maxwell's Equations." They are not, they are Heaviside's equations, and they are NOT algebraic. But these equations have become the "Tablets of Moses", bringing from the skies the laws of electro-magnetism. But no mention os ever found on the laws of magneto-dielectricity, a serious drawback. (see space versor part in "Theory of Wireless Power", by E. P. Dollard). Therefore at present there is no true understandiing of the spatial relationships of electricity. It is this algebraic absence that, in general renders occult the real workings of electric induction, and specifically renders occult the work of Nikola Tesla. Space is then the final frontier.

73 DE N6KPH

[Pinwheel]

I wonder if space can be treated as infinity (or maybe it's inverse) and then whatever it is we're trying to measure or describe would be some kind of function related to that infinity. So then, no problem . We just have to figure out infinity - a problem that drove some of the last centuries greatest mathematicians into clinical insanity.

See documentary "Dangerous Knowledge" for reference:

Philosophy, Physics, Mathematics - “Dangerous Knowledge” Google Video

[Pinwheel]

Okay, so my above post is really just a thought that crossed my mind after reading the last EPD post. Meaning his post reminded me of that documentary - I was't actually serious.

But now I'm reading and re reading the last post and trying to make sense of it. Let me see if I can put it into my own words and see if anybody agrees that I am understanding the jist of the post (in summation form):

The algebraic math systems used to describe and analyse time work well because time is usually dealt with in a linear fashion. Forwards and backwards on a number line. Space, on the other hand, doesn't have an intrinsic value the way time does - because space has no physicality outside of the metrical dimensions we ascribe to it. Further, space is often more complex then just a straight line.

That's all I can glean out of that part for right now. What I'm not really getting is why aren't the conventional methods used to describe and analyse space adequate? Like L * W * H = does actually calculate a volume of space. We can calculate distance, area, and volume. And I'm sure there are ways to measure span, density, and concentration.


And yet,

But no mention (is) ever found on the laws of magneto-dielectricity, a serious drawback. (see space versor part in "Theory of Wireless Power", by E. P. Dollard). Therefore at present there is no true understandiing of the spatial relationships of electricity. It is this algebraic absence that, in general renders occult the real workings of electric induction, and specifically renders occult the work of Nikola Tesla. Space is then the final frontier.

meh, I'm lost now - I've got reading to do.