Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[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]

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)

[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.....

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

@Pinwheel: You have a point that it is important to keep focussed.

OTOH, this is complex material, which I have studied quite a lot. To me, cymatics is a very important tool which gives you images and animations that show you not just an analog of what is actually going on in the systems we are discussing, but if there is a real ether, they show you an exact large scale replica of the phenomena we are studying. And that ties directly to one of Eric's statements:

8) Endeavor to be in direct contact with nature while thinking on electrical ideas, the intrinsic archetypes of nature will provide answers to your questions. Social situations weaken this process. Keep your mind and body in good shape by avoiding adulterated food; living food for living people, dead food for dead people.

IMHO, cymatics is can show you some of these "intrinsic archetypes of nature". For example, the fractal growth patterns observed in biology can be shown using cymatics:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post147080

It also ties in directly to this:

The Maxwell-Tompson concept of electric induction, and the of the aether which engenders this induction, considers the dielectric lines of force, and the magnetic lines of force, as CONCREATE PHYSICAL REALITIES. (Read electricity and matter by J.J. Tompson, and also read Theory of Light and color by Babbit, the Un-sterilized version).

These lines can be considered “tubes of force” a hydro-dynamical vortex tube of sorts. Here we find the “hydro-dynamical model of the aether” as given by James Clerk Maxwell. Understanding of this sort has been buried by the relativists and quantum car mechanics.

[...]

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.

In some of the cymatic images I posted, you can actually see examples of what these tubes look like, only at a different scale and non-rotating. So, cymatics may seem like a distracting mistake, IMHO they give you tremendous insight about what is actually going on, which I think is very important to understand what Eric is saying and that is why I posted them.

So, how do you decide what to post and what not? I guess you pointed us where to look and I will watch the vids when I'm able.



Update: for those only reading the last part of the thread: I collected all Eric's posts and put them on my wiki, together with some additions, notes and links to the material Eric referred to:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Energetic Form Posts

[Sputins]

Space Sphere?

Space the Final Frontier: – Wow what a post. Thank you Mr Dollard.

I have found this post and explanation very helpful in attempting to understand the dimension-space relations.
I have been wrestling with and purging the co-ordinate '3D' style, mind virus concept of Space. I understand, there is only one dimension of Space, which is Space. The Dimension of Space being eternal and empty. – Ok. (I like the term eternal).

I have been attempting to visualize the dimension of space as a Sphere (of eternal size, large or small).- A Red Sphere to indicate the “Space Operator” to the positive degree – For conventional space in the units of cm's.
Visualising this same sphere (an inverse sphere)? only now being a Blue Sphere to indicate the “space operator” to the negative degree, or counter-space in "Per-cm's". The Red / Blue Sphere are the same Sphere, or dimension and the colour of the sphere only indicating the time direction or the "Space Operator". The blue colour also indicating the magneto-dielectric flux and the red colour indicating the electro-magnetic flux.
Perhaps? - the Electro-Magnetic induction being centrifugal in nature and the Magneto-dielectric induction being centripetal? – I might be wrong here however?

Nevertheless I am finding all of these T-Rex postings very helpful in developing a higher understanding of the works and teachings of Eric Dollard. It appears some of the regular poster's (students) are also slowly gaining an bettter understanding. - History is happening right here. -

[lamare]

I have a device, built for the Army Air Corps during World War 2, A/N number PP-18/AR Power Converter, which self-sustains the electrical system in my car. It uses the same theory of operation as Chris’s device but involves a different mechanical implementation utilizing a vibrator, several capacitors and 12V and 24V batteries that are connected in parallel through the device, rendering them as one.

One of these was for sale at eBay recently:
"PP-18/AR WW2 Military Radio 13-24 Volt Converter"
PP-18/AR WW2 Military Radio 13-24 Volt Converter | eBay

Took some screengrabs of the eBay photographs:
Dropbox - Photos - Simplify your life

Also added Raui's photo's and wiring diagram posted here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post109991

Update: Integrated all this to my copy of Eric's posts here:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Energetic Form Posts

[Pinwheel]

To me, cymatics is a very important tool which gives you images and animations that show you not just an analog of what is actually going on in the systems we are discussing, but if there is a real ether, they show you an exact large scale replica of the phenomena we are studying.

This is why I'm talking of logical fallacies with respect to cymatics. You postulate that these patterns are a visual macrocosm of what is going on at a sub-atomic level within the aether.... but there's really no proof of that other than they're trippy to look at. The entire body of knowledge of cymatics as it exists will be formulated with no consideration for the aether what so ever. This poses a problem for us because we are operating from the hypothesis that there is an aether even though it isn't recognized in the main stream. So then, synthesizing the mainstream aspects of cymatics into our little bubble of "incorrect physics" almost can't be fruitful except perhaps by accident. We would have to change the way we perceive the cause and effect of the phenomenon of cymatics, or perhaps change our aether theory.

That's why I call it a Red Herring (Fallacy: Red Herring). To me it is an aspect of the discussion that seems relevant but isn't - because it's explanation doesn't take into account our fundamental precepts (aether). So then, because the aether is a reality, when fluid or whatever (sand acts as a fluid) is being vibrated by sound (kinetic) on some kind of plate, then an aether based hypothesis on cause and effect, I think, will lead to a different conclusion than "what we see is a macrocosm photograph of the aether in action (paraphrased)".

You know what I mean? Nobody in the discussion of cymatics has mentioned anything about the actual plate that is doing the vibrating (or the fact that the earth is hurtling through space at God knows what velocity, right through the aether) - instead we are mesmerized by the trippy patterns. This brings to mind another possible fallacy : Fallacy: Misleading Vividness

Fallacy: Appeal to Novelty Could also be a fallacy involved with cymatics. It's new so it must be better. Well between Maxwell, Babbit, Thompson bla bla bla - between all those old timers we're supposed to have a solid picture of the aether. But then you get this new thing and it's like "oh hey look at this" - do we really understand the old stuff?

To be fair and complete, cymatics might very well have lots to do with something down the line. If the aether based theories of physics are legit then an aether based theory of cymatics would be especially interesting because it would help to verify other aether based phenomenon - while already being replicable and measurable.

If there was a solid aether based theory to explain the cause and effect of cymatics then my argument falls apart (in my eyes), but I don't see that yet. What I see is, "hey this(cymatics) is mysterious (missing data because not based on an aether theory), and the aether is mysterious (missing data because of suppression)... what if they go together?"

I'm not trying to be a dick, and you'll have to believe me when I say I'm not really comfortable contrasting dudes with large educations (they can always do the Fallacy: Appeal to Authority and there's not much you can do about it.), but I truly do think you are being mislead or misleading yourself. The thing that's so important is that we can recognize when this happens and how to avoid it, which is why I'm beating it like a dead horse. I think it's possible that if we were to make real progress, over time with Eric's guidance and theories, towards some kind of goal of more efficient energy synthesis (or whatever), then we will attract attention from people that have vested interests in not seeing ... ie: energy synthesis from the static field.

With this information we guard ourselves against purposeful and accidental misinformation, like when EPD made his rant about the term "Scaler". He clued lots of us in that talking about "scaler waves" or "scaler weaponry" made no sense in respect to the somewhat remedial level of basic waveforms/mathematics/engineering.

[Pinwheel]

What if it is the plate that is undergoing the changes and not the sand on top?