Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Pinwheel]

@lamare

My post was directed for the overall thread, meaning the entire audience, present and future. So my post is accusatory but also offers a solution. That's what the links and the talk about the 7 liberal arts and the classical education of Pythagoras was all about. In a sense, the videos are the most important part of that post even though the accusatory proclamation at the beginning of it is the most inflammatory.

The part where I was listing logical fallacies was written with some recent posts in mind. My own, yours (particularly the ones about cymatics), MonsieurM's. Now I did that basically for an excuse to post the information about the Trivium and Quadrivium because I think they can be so useful in keeping everyone focused, keeping everyone from making similar distracting mistakes - so as to take advantage of Eric's limited contact.

It wasn't personal attacks in the ad hominem sense (although I have named 2 people now lol). What it is... is I saw these logical fallacies happening, repeatedly, and to me that means that people aren't aware of them. That is to say the perpetrators of the fallacies and the audience - because no correction was happening. So then, keeping these things in mind we can safeguard ourselves, from letting our minds chase after red herrings for example, as well as keep others from getting distracted, going off on tangents etc.

In summation, acquainting ourselves with the subject matter in my earlier post can protect everyone from misinformation, and/or fruitless distraction, intentional or not, throughout the rest of our lives - in any pursuit.

/edit Trivium Education.com | Where Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom Begin

[lamare]

Too me, when I look at this thread, I see mostly instances of... not so much people understanding Dollard, but rather people are trying to interpret Dollard through things they already know or believe.

I don't know if you're referring to me when you refer to "Red Herring". I guess you can interpret some of my posts that way, but I'm not trying to argue for the sake of "winning". I'm trying to make sense of the information Eric provides and compare it to what other sources say. I learn by looking at things from as many perspectives as possible, especially perspectives which I can visualise and find pictures for, and then see what makes sense and what not. That way I also came to the conclusion that Einstein was wrong, for example. Eric's writings were an important guide in that process for me, but not the first and final answer. And also Eric's statement about the particle accelerators that are being built so they can smash atoms together at ever bigger speeds, so they get pieces they can catalog and confuse themselves with, was a very important guide to me, which pointed me to the idea that there is no fundamental particle.

As for the discussion about dimensions and space, for example, to me it is very hard to "connect the dots" just by interpreting "quantities" and the notion that space is "a dimension". But when I draw in the images of fractals, I have an image of "space" which I can keep in my mind when trying to understand what Eric is saying, which is starting to make sense. And my reasoning is that if it is helpful for my understanding, it is probably also helpful for others. And if it does not make sense or goes completely in the wrong direction, someone may note and comment. And that way we can all learn, which is of course what we are all here for....

BTW: will try to watch the YT vids when I have time tonight.

Oh, and the paper "On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton" I posted appears to contain a few interesting concepts which I feel can be helpful in understanding Eric's view. Eric also talks about bounded space and in this paper they use the concept of energy contained in bounded space as a basis to derive some of the physical laws. And they use hologram/fractal principles, which connects very nicely to Eric's statement about the particle accelerators, which points to "no fundamental particle" and therefore "fractals". Now the formula they use for expressing the maximum amount of energy contained in a bounded piece of space is an Einsteinian one, which leads them to the wrong conclusions, but their line of thinking appears to be helpful. So, I see it as a possible piece of the puzzle that may lead to further understanding, which is why I posted it.

[Web000x]

Eric,

I am sure you are getting to all of the definitions but was just curious because some wording was used that confused me a bit.

First of all, in your "Theory of Wireless Power" book, you state: Units Of Electrical Induction(Total) = Psi(total)*Phi(total). You define that there are two different heterogeneous products of "Units of Electrical Induction": One for the transverse component(Crossing Lines of Force) and one for the longitudinal component(Conjunct Lines of Force).

Furthermore, you state that the cross product is equal to Plancks.

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.

Q, the undivided quantity of the total electrification, “Planck”

Since there are two types of "Units of Electrical Induction" and the "Cross Product" is called Plancks, what is the term for the Longitudinal-Magneto-Dielectricity?

Is it also a Planck?

Or were your posts just defining the Poynting Vector?

Thanks,

Dave

[Pinwheel]

Too me, when I look at this thread, I see mostly instances of... not so much people understanding Dollard, but rather people are trying to interpret Dollard through things they already know or believe.

Fallacies

Fallacy: Appeal to Belief
Fallacy: Composition
Fallacy: Division
Fallacy: Biased Sample
Fallacy: Straw Man
Fallacy: Red Herring (the one I see here most often)
Fallacy: Misleading Vividness

For more information on "purging yourself from the mind virus" (as I understand it at this time), the seven liberal arts and critical thinking:

Alex Jones interviews Jan Irvin on Trivium Education (commercial free) - YouTube I personally try to ignore Alex Jones but this interview has a fairly succinct summation of guarding against misinformation (purposeful and accidental) and self-education.
The Trivium Method - Gene Odening (entire) - what you should have been taught in school but weren't - YouTube The first 3 of the classical 7 liberal arts. Logical fallacies are part of the 2nd aspect.
The Quadrivium - Gene Odening (entire) - what you should have been taught in school but weren't - YouTube The last 4 of the seven liberal arts.

This is the education of Pythagoras and Aristotle.

/edit - if one want's to watch the Alex Jones video, and is like me, and doesn't want to really listen to Alex, then you can start that video at about the 8 minute mark. That's when it starts to get onto a topic relevant to this post.

[MonsieurM]

UQ researchers break the law -- of physics

Dr Tony Roberts and PhD student Christophe P. Haynes, from the School of Maths and Physics, showed the fractal-Einstein and Alexander-Orbach laws can fail in some instances, and have derived a new law to replace them.
(maybe this is the 6th law of this fractal universe see post: http://www.energeticforum.com/148789-post127.html )
Dr Roberts said this new discovery had implications for predicting material properties; how disease spreads through society; mapping how wild animals forage for food; and improving the internet.

[lamare]

Someone pointed me to this paper:
[1001.0785] On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton

Abstract:

Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.

It seems to be a very interesting paper, because it derives Newton mechanics as well as Einstein physics using black hole and hologram physics. Even though they start out with what I think is a wrong equation for the bound ( the Bekenstein bound: Bekenstein bound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), which is derived from Einstein physics, it still seems to be an interesting read.

It seems to me that if you would replace this bound with one corrected for Einstein's flaws, you could come up with some interesting theories.

[MonsieurM]

I would like to share with u something i posted in another thread, i think it is relevant to your discussion

Sometimes it does not hurt to hear what Nikola Tesla had to say:

Nature may reach the same result in many ways. Like a wave in the physical world, in the infinite ocean of the medium which pervades all, so in the world of organisms, in life, an impulse started proceeds onward, at times, may be, with the speed of light, at times, again, so slowly that for ages and ages it seems to stay, passing through processes of a complexity inconceivable to men, but in all its forms, in all its stages, its energy ever and ever integrally present. A single ray of light from a distant star falling upon the eye of a tyrant in bygone times may have altered the course of his life, may have changed the destiny of nations, may have transformed the surface of the globe, so intricate, so inconceivably complex are the processes in Nature. In no way can we get such an overwhelming idea of the grandeur of Nature than when we consider, that in accordance with the law of the conservation of energy, throughout the Infinite, the forces are in a perfect balance, and hence the energy of a single thought may determine the motion of a universe.
"On Light And Other High Frequency Phenomena" A lecture delivered before the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia (24 February 1893)

Seeing the forest through the trees

Imagine you are walking through a forest. All around you are trees of different species, age, size and height. It looks pretty random, right? Wrong.

In research funded by the National Science Foundation, Brian Enquist of the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona and his team have discovered a secret in the trees: Hidden among and within the architecture of the branches are fundamental rules that link the size, shape, age and in fact everything about a single tree to all the trees in a forest.

This rule or code reoccurs as the tree grows, creating a fractal – a repeating pattern – like a spiral of daughter branches emanating from the mother branch or tree trunk.

COHERENCE AT ANY LEVEL IS COHERENCE AT ALL LEVELS.
An orderly arrangement between wave lengths establishes a connection between frequencies and fields. But for this connection to last, it must resonate to all frequencies and fields. This can only be accomplished through the resonate structure of golden mean pathways. This harmonic cascade of inter-connected-ness is the structure of our hologramic universe

Check Tesla's Antenna 's Coherence when he describes it

and this is what Tesla Understood: (i got this on a research about water but applies here as well )

Within a coherent system, the range of the coherence (coherence length) becomes the constant quantity instead of the velocity. This makes frequency proportional to velocity apparently without restriction, so long as one remains within the coherence length. There can be many velocities each with a proportionate frequency; there can be as many frequencies as there are possible velocities. Frequency no longer has an absolute value, the system has become fractal in frequency.

ps: The Universe is all Wave (so emf and "solid" is fractal "self similar" )

enjoy...

[lamare]

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

As a matter of fact, space appears to be infinite, indeed. The problem with understanding infinity is that most people only think about that in terms of the infinitely big. But there is also infinitely small. And the idea of fractals ties those two together, because a fractal continues both ways up to the infinitely big and the infinitely small and thus repeats itself an infinite number of times at an infinite number of scales. However, it is one "thing" that looks the same no matter at what scale you look at it. A famous fractal is the Mandelbrot set:

Mandelbrot set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self similarity in the Mandelbrot set shown by zooming in on a round feature while panning in the negative-x direction. The display center pans from (−1, 0) to (−1.31, 0) while the view magnifies from 0.5 × 0.5 to 0.12 × 0.12 to approximate the Feigenbaum ratio δ.

More fractal animations here:
Fractal Animations

And if the Universe is a fractal (and/or hologram) then it makes perfectly sense to talk about RATIO's between different physical qualities that remain constant across all possible scales, all possible "zoom in" factors by which you can look at a fractal. And then you can no longer talk about "the volume" or "length" of an element of the fractal, because it doesn't actually have any. It's infinite! So, all you can really talk about is the proportion of one aspect/quantity to the next, which of course extends to aspects like magnetic flux, dielectric flux, etc.

In that sense, I once again refer to Nassim Haramein. His research suggests that the Univirse is a fractal indeed and that the phenomena we observe at an atomic scale are repeated at different scales all the way up from the size of the Universe down to galaxies, solar systems, ..., atoms, and finally the Planck scale (Plancks distance).

When thinking in terms of fractals, of course "the Universe" and the Planck scale are not really the limits of the fractal, only the limits of the currently observable part of the Universe, from our point of view at a particular scale within the whole. Cause if it's a fractal, then all parts are indistinguishable from the whole. All is one, one is all.....

[Pinwheel]

Yes, I interpreted what Eric was saying to mean that our misunderstanding of space (emphasis mine) is the resting spot of our inability to understand Tesla. Whereas, after skimming "Theory of Wireless Power" last night, I think he's saying that our lack of empirical data about the behavior and metrical relations of the "laws of magneto-dielectricity" is what is stopping people from truly understanding Tesla apparatus and theory.

So then, tentatively, it isn't our lack of understanding of space, but our lack of understanding of how magneto-dielectricity exists in relation to space that is the problem... (?)

Agreed? (I think I'm getting it here)

[Raui]

Hey everybody, sorry I haven't stuck my head in here for a while. I've been quite busy with uni work. May have scored a job though so that'll give me a bit of pocket money to play around with Eric, thank you so much for taking the time out to explain your ways of thinking when dealing with electricity. I'm all ears!

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,


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

Pinwheel,
I'm not 100% on this but the way I see it there isn't much trouble with the way we calculate areas and such but our understanding of space what they mean. So rather than think of the volume of say a square as being 3 dimensions of space it should be thought of as 1 dimension of space. The 3 dimensions we refer to are just different relations of space (or counter-space). So, if I am understanding Eric correctly, you should think of space like this. The distance of 1 meter on a ruler is a measurement of space, the measurement of area bounded by the top of the ruler is also a measurement of space and finally our measurement of the volume of this ruler is also a measurement of space. All 3 give different values because all 3 are different qualities of bounded space BUT they are all space. When most people think of space they think of volume (m to the 3rd power) but any measurement of distance, area, volume, span, density, etc. will all be measuring space. There was no other space you measured other than the one we exist in which is encompassing of the many qualities listed in Eric's post.

Hopefully that made some sense and hopefully Eric can clarify on that point

Raui

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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?[