Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[lamare]

Hi Pinwheel and all,

First of all, @Phinwheel: thanks a lot for your input in the discussion. You are critical and bring in new information that is relevant, at least to me.

I have listened to the Alex Jones interview with Jan Irvin in the train to work this morning and was is very interesting. My conclusions now is that the story of the trivium comes very close to how I work, even though I apply it unconsciously. However, the principle of gather date - understand/reason - explain to others, immediately reminded me of the way software engineering was done, say, 15 years ago compared to now.

Previously, the software engineering process was considered as consisting of a number of steps: specify - design - implement - test. But when computer programs became much larger and thus much more complex, this did not work anymore. Simply, because in the translation of specification to design the human brain is not capable of keeping track of all consequences of your design decisions on all layers and modules of the program you're designing. So, today software develepment methods known as "scrum" and "agile" are evolutionary in character. You start with some small base that does some aspects of what you want, and gradually expand that base, while basically performing the classic "specify - design - implement - test" cycle on the fly over and over again until finally you get it "right".

In other words: when you're dealing with complex problems, you cannot just "gather data - think logical" and only when you're finished thinking "communicate and explain to others". You need a process that involves feedback and the correction of errors and inconsistencies, simply because "IT" is far too complex to be tackled by one person.

To me that means that it is very important to share your thoughts and data with others and discuss it. That is the only way to become aware of any flaws in your logic and/or the incorporation of false data you thought was reliable.

So, I'm afraid we're all in this together....

The story about the Quadrivium seems what Eric is trying to teach us about with the discussion about dimensions.

This seems to sum the principles of Trivium and Qadrivium, the seven liberal arts, up pretty nicely:

Realization

Simply put, the Trivium and Quadrivium method of education is a SYSTEMATIC method that teaches people how to think, not what to think, and thus, allows one to become an autodidact. The three constituents that make up the Trivium are General Grammar or Knowledge, Logic or Understanding, and Argumentation also called Rhetoric, and can also be seen as Wisdom. The four parts of the Quadrivium are Mathematics which is used in its ancient meaning of the term, which means Science, Geometry, which deals with numbers in space, Music, which deals with numbers in time, and Astronomy, which deals with numbers in both space and time.

[...]

It is also interesting, that in the Trivium which is the core of the method of the Trivium and Quadrivium, General grammar or knowledge is the first subject that is taught, and it is all about defenitions. It also is interesting that Socrates was all about definitions, he said something like, you can anything about a given thing unless you know what the thing IS.

There is a nice page which talks about that here: Socratic Definitions

Also see: Liberal arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, I'm definately going to listen to the other two vids.

[lamare]

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.

[...]

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.

[...]

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?"

Looks like you just fell for this one: Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate.

To me, the most convincing argument that cymatics actually are "a macrocosm photograph of the aether in action (paraphrased)" can be found in the work of Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill:

Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill

Since 1939 he has been singularly uninterested in non-ether theories of non-Newtonian relativity.

http://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf

The real space-time of Newtonian mechanics and the ether concept is contrasted with the imaginary space-time of the non-ether concept and relativity. In real space-time (x, y, z, ct) characteristic theory shows that Maxwell’s equations and sound waves in any uniform fluid at rest have identical wave surfaces. Moreover, without charge or current, Maxwell’s equations reduce to the same standard wave equation which governs such sound waves. This is not a general and invariant equation but it becomes so by Galilean transformation to any other reference-frame. So also do Maxwell’s equations which are, likewise, not general but unique to one reference-frame. The mistake of believing that Maxwell’s equations were invariant led to the Lorentz transformation and to relativity; and to the misinterpretation of the differential equation for the wave cone through any point as the quadratic differential form of a Riemannian metric in imaginary space-time (x, y, z, ict). Mathematics is then required to tolerate the same equation being transformed in different ways for different applications. Otherwise, relativity is untenable and recourse must then be made to real space-time, normal Galilean transformation and an ether with Maxwellian statistics and Planck’s energy distribution.

Thornhill argues that the equations by which waves are described, both in fluids and in the ether, are the same *if* you remove the concepts of "charge and current" from the Maxwell equations, the equations that describe the electro-magnetic waves. And here I argued that there is ample reason to remove these notions from the Maxwell equations:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ain-wrong.html

The root of the error can be found in the Maxwell equations in their currently accepted form. These equations are the foundation for our current understanding of the electro-magnetic fields. Maxwell, a mathematician, formulated his theory on electromagnetic phenomena based on the experimental results by Faraday. At some point, he postulated that the fields he was describing mathematically were being caused by so-called charge carriers, matter. The essential mistake with that is that this assumes that the electric and magnetic fields cannot exist without being caused by some kind of particle, while we now know for decades that is not the case, because from QM we know that particles and electro-magnetic waves are one and the same thing and are nothing more than alternating/vibrating electric and magnetic fields.

So, essentially the error is that the same fields that cause electromagnetic waves (and thus particles when alternating/vibrating in a certain way) supposedly cannot exist without being caused by some kind of electromagnetic waves (particles). Or, the Maxwell equations say electromagnetism and thus electromagnetic waves are caused by particles while at the same time QM says particles are nothing but electromagnetic waves.

And you simply cannot have it both ways at the same time. Either particles cause the electro-magnetic fields, or the electro-magnec fields cause the particles, but not both.

So, once we correct for that error, "recourse must then be made to real space-time, normal Galilean transformation and an ether with Maxwellian statistics and Planck’s energy distribution" according to Thornhill.

Now I must admit that I haven't looked into "Maxwellian statistics and Planck’s energy distribution", but if "Maxwell’s equations reduce to the standard wave equation which governs sound waves" then it's tempting to conclude that the waves in the ether and inside a fluid are very, very similar, under certain conditions. One of them is wether or not you can see the fluid at hand as a "uniform fluid at rest".

So, at this moment I can't prove without any doubt that you can see "waves in water" as "a macrocosm photograph of the aether in action" in every aspect, but there are certainly very strong clues that suggest waves in the ether and waves in water are very similar and at least "have identical wave surfaces".

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.

Seems to me that pulling in Fallacy: Appeal to Authority is the best way to shoot yourself in the foot as an "authority", because it is a sign of weakness, a sign that you don't really know what you are talking about, a sign you are uncertain of yourself and your beliefs.

If you're not prepared to make a case for what you are saying, you are a dogmatic preacher, not a scientist. And if you assume you are some kind of God figure that "is right" just because you have a piece of paper at home that says you are a "Master" or "Doctor" or whatever, you are a parrot and not a scientist.

And of course being able to "do math" and all does not stop you from putting common sense aside and come up with a "scientific" theory that is utter nonsense. "Relativity" is a perfect example of that. Let's quote Tesla on that one, because his reasoning is so simple and powerfull:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Tesla Prepared Statement80st Birthday

According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.

Also see: Tuks DrippingPedia : Tesla Promises To Transmit Force

[wizofid]

Please dont think of me as being too rude, but is thread crapping a job that gets pay?

I ask, because I am here to read Rex's posts and I see pages of posts that go in all kind of directions. I am trying to follow Rex, that;s it.

So - maybe I am wrong, so be it - I figured I would comment as most all of the time, I do not need to see my words in print. I'll listen to others.

[lamare]

Please dont think of me as being too rude, but is thread crapping a job that gets pay?

I ask, because I am here to read Rex's posts and I see pages of posts that go in all kind of directions. I am trying to follow Rex, that;s it.

So - maybe I am wrong, so be it - I figured I would comment as most all of the time, I do not need to see my words in print. I'll listen to others.

Eric posted this on the yahoo group:

Yahoo! Groups

Got Too Quiet

Howdy All,

I have about 5 more T-Rex writings done for the Energetic Forum, but my means to output them are slow. Is seems all discussion on these matters has kind of dried up, everyone is busy, lack of interest, or etc.? I plan to post two installments per week from now on, tentatively Mondays and Fridays. There are still many, many more to go before we can attain any solid understanding of electrical engineering. Do not over-complicate the writings, they are basic and absolute. Anything unclear or questionable will most likely become clear later down the line. Due to my limited access I cannot answer questions that drifted too far off course, or express complete misunderstanding. So I say again do not make a mountain out of a molehill. This is very basic. However I will answer questions when able for those on the track. Hopefully all this keeps moving forward, financially it has been very helpful, if not lifesaving and in comprising these messages it gives me something functional to do while sitting in the bushes.

Eric

So, I figured: let's try and discuss some more, which has the disadvantage that the topic gets broader and goes of track every now and then. So, for those people that just want to read Eric's posts and the stuff he referred to, I copied all of Eric's posts to my wiki and added links to the material he referred to, etc:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Energetic Form Posts

I hope that is a satisfactory and workable solution for everyone....

[wizofid]

OK - fair enough! Not an issue! Have a great day!

[Pinwheel]

Ahhh the power of the Red Herring - so interesting how a simple thread can turn into a spider web of confusion so quickly. I'm not sure if turning threads into an incomprehensible state is a paid position (yet), but if I was being paid to do so, and I had to come up with my own devices on how to get it done, I would use logical fallacies.

Ya lamare I probably am guilty of the burden of proof fallacy. I came up with another one I was probably committing but I don't remember it now. I think your premise is weak in many ways, all of which are already mentioned. I think your cymatics are probably more related to the formation of ice crystals on a window, or snow flake formation - rather than giving a picture of what "tubes of force" look like. But I'm not going to back that up either - mostly because I'm lazy and don't care enough.

I don't think I have the educational capacity to follow your view on cymatics and perhaps that is why we aren't seeing eye to eye on the topic.

Also asked earlier was a question that I wanted to answer but then forgot to. "So, how do you decide what to post and what not?"
I have the advantage of being very stupid. Not stupid in a character deficit sort of way but in a lack of data or experience with the subject matter sort of way. So then what I post will almost always be questions. That's not different then anyone else.

As well, I heard that the modern scientific method arises out of the trivium, so it makes sense that it is conjunct with early programming methods.

[wizofid]

Semantics are one thing. I care not a hoot. We are working on the level of basic and complex algebra. Complex Differential equations too. Been through all of it. Still enjoy pulling out my old Texas Instrument calculator - and write program to emulate the ideas presented. Yes - it has been 30 years, but having a photo memory - allows me to just run back until I find the info. then pull it forward.

Sincerely - take the equations and try them. See what they give you!
Cheers - Wiz

[jarvamundo]

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

Good question. The "cross" and "conjugate" refers to the spacial relationships of inductions.

phi.psi = Q (The core relationship of induction, without space)
phixpsi = Q transverse or (spacial cross) component
phi?psi = Q longitudinal or (spacial conjugate) component.

So the core relationship can be expressed in "space" via 2 components. The cross, or the conjugate. To me it's that simple... 2 forms of storage of electricity, and 2 spacial expressions of that storage.

Heaviside/Poynting covered the cross in 'space', and the operators we are familiar with. It appears tRex has/will cover the conjugate product, thought the concept of counter (per) space, and has possibly developed some useful operations there of.

2c

[LtBolo]

Perhaps the group on this thread would be a good one to critique a theory I have. Bear with me, this might take a bit...

If we think of electric charge as a gas, there are some interesting observations that can be made. I started with a simple observation and a simple question. With gas pressure, we are aware that there are relative pressure behaviors and absolute pressure behaviors. Since we existing at the bottom of the sea of gas, there is an ambient pressure that is well established, and we can think in terms of compressing or decompressing that ambient, and we well understand the behavior of compressed gases or a vacuum.

But what is ambient electric charge?

Since (right or wrong) we tend to view electricity as electrons that behave mostly like a gas, then there must be an ambient level of charge that is effectively set by the ground potential of the earth. More positive and more negative are the result of compressing or evacuating charge relative to the ambient level.

Obviously the role of dielectric/dielectricity in altering that gas model is something that is poorly understood. But lets assume for the purpose of the thought exercise that we are operating in a vacuum, and there is effectively no dielectric.

Let's then view a conductor as being an electron pressure vessel. When viewed this way, we can see the possibility of an absolute zero charge at zero pressure, and ambient charge with whatever free electrons that are present, and a virtually infinite charge at virtually infinite pressure. So far, so good.

So then, if I place two plates of copper close together, and if I start stuffing electrons into plate #1, the free electrons in plate #2 will start flowing out due to the impact of the electric field from plate #1. Just a simple cap, right? But here's where it get interesting.

As viewed from the ideal gas law, the pressure of the first plate can extend toward infinity, but the second plate can only be evacuated to a vacuum. Since the capacitance of our simple cap is driven as much by the ability of plate #2 to dump charge, as of plate #1 to accumulate it, when #2 can no longer supply free electrons to balance new electrons in #1, you reach what amounts to capacitive saturation. Presumably, we can continue to raise the pressure of #1, without an offsetting change in the charge of #2...but...this has just created an effective capacitance change of our cap. A parametric change.

And then it hit me. A simple Telsa coil at high pressures will eventually reach a capacitive saturation point where the top of the coil will see negative voltages that extend toward infinity, but positive voltages that begin to 'clamp' as it approaches an electron vacuum.

This suggests to me that any standing wave of sufficiently high voltage, at a high enough level becomes asymmetrical, and as such is a capacitive parametric pump. The energy gain would be given by 0.5*dC*V^2*F. Allowing for even the smallest effective change in C, the numbers I get from this little thought experiment match well with the claimed outputs of devices like Kapanadze's and others. The system's gain would show up as high voltages that are much higher than would be reasonably expected by the input power.

Such a device would then be a simple TT with an addition coil or plate that was converting the gain into usable power by displacement current.

[t-rex]

N.F.G. Interlude

N. F. G. Interlude

After eating up the horse feces the coyote pukes it up in the car. Then Rube Goldberg makes the following propositions:
1. Hyper – Complication
2. Useless info overload
3. Reliance upon a technology understood, untested and infested with bugs.
These serve as the commandment triad of science & engineering today. No other form of behavior is known, nor would it be tolerated if it were.

Advancement will receive only a HINDRANCE, H, in the dimensional relation of B. S. Three primary dimensions give rise to hindrance H, in GOLDBERGS.
1) One will be PENDANTS, the Prostitutes of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the P.E.E.E.
2) Another will be MYSTICS, the Quantum Car Mechanics, the Q.R.M.
3) Finally, will be DIS-INFOS, the Soviet Scalar Xenophobes, the S.S.X.

Real life stories abound, for example;

1) Animal control is notified when a parrot is spotted flapping about with furiously with only one wing, the other is missing. It is screeching “E equals M C squared, E equals M C squared.” 2D and 3Dfecal matter is ejected thru time by the injured animal. It can’t be caught.
2) The S.W.A.T. team is called in when a mass shooting is reported at the School of Energy Synthesis Research by an adherent to the law of energy perpetuity sect. 8 are killed including the gunman, 15 more are injured.
3) Sheriff deputies respond to a report of 20 guys spilling out of the bar engaged in a brawl over the constitution of the aether. Next day the city council passes a resolution forbidding the existence of the aether.

So then, how do we pull the signal out of the noise? It is done by bandwidth reduction, power increase, coherent reception. Taking the inverse of the Goldberg triad gives:
1) Hypo - complication
2) Useful information
3) No belief in any theory or related technology without experimental verification of proof AND disproof.

Thru application of the inverse Goldberg law, and by phasing out the P.E.E.E., Q.R.M., S.S.X. components the signal will come thru loud and clear, 5 – 9 – 9.

73 DE N6KPH

[MJL]

Information Overload

Transmission received. Previous post has been removed for inciting violence ...
Please don't equate a lack of response to a lack of interest. Lamare, myself and I'm sure others have been diligently compiling what we can of your work, Lamare especially has done a lot in this area. This is his internet archive of your work if your in need of any copies for whatever reason

Directory contents of /pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/

I definitely agree we're straying way off topic. People looking for a convenient filter can simply look for the T-Rex posts specifically, but perhaps we can contain the intervening discussion to Eric's theories specifically ... Also, the above document collection is a good place to start if anyone wants to get up to speed and save Eric some typing ...

Looking forward to the next T-Rex transmission

[LtBolo]

Transmission received. Previous post has been removed for inciting violence ...
Please don't equate a lack of response to a lack of interest. Lamare, myself and I'm sure others have been diligently compiling what we can of your work, Lamare especially has done a lot in this area. This is his internet archive of your work if your in need of any copies for whatever reason

Directory contents of /pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/

I definitely agree we're straying way off topic. People looking for a convenient filter can simply look for the T-Rex posts specifically, but perhaps we can contain the intervening discussion to Eric's theories specifically ... Also, the above document collection is a good place to start if anyone wants to get up to speed and save Eric some typing ...

Looking forward to the next T-Rex transmission

I'm not sure if EPD's comments were directed at my post or not, nor am I sure if yours is. I will say that my comments were offered in complete sincerity, and unlike much of what has been posted here, is based on much lab time and even more thought time.

Unlike many that post here, I have actually built a functional inductive parametric generator, and was able to power a load with it. The Mandelstam paper has been cited by several as proof that such a generator will 'synthesize' energy. That was not our experience, as the energy manifested was clearly offset by an increase in load on the drive motor. I think that was also borne out in the paper itself though, when on page 25 of the English translation of the paper, the author suggests that they were not able to increase the current output above 5A due in part to the drive motor capacity. That tells me that they too saw the motor load increasing with the output.

While that doesn't invalidate any of EPD's theories, it does suggest that the problem of 'synthesizing' power isn't simply related to synchronous parameter change alone. While parameter change may be capable of solving this, there is clearly more to the problem. If EPD has solved the full problem, I haven't yet seen the presentation that quantifies that. It is my hope that his recent postings are moving in that direction.

In my prior posting, I attempted to build a case, albeit clumsily perhaps, for a resonant solenoid to reach a point where the coil's internal capacity reaches what is effectively a saturation point, and in doing so will result in what amounts to a synchronously varying capacitance. I hardly consider that to be off-topic, as if true, would support the notion that the Magnifying Transmitter truly was 'magnifying' and its gain came from a capacitive parameter variation.

If any here would like to have that discussion, I would certainly love to as well. If you consider that a disruption, I will keep it to myself.

[t-rex]

Dimensional Meanings

Dimensional Meanings

So far we have strongly emphasized dimensions and dimensional relations. Dimensional representation is the most direct method of analysis and synthesis with regard to the electric phenomena.. Electrical engineering has four primary dimensions;
Metrical,
(1) time, t, second
(2) space, l, centimeter
Substantial,
(3) magnetism, Phi, Weber
(4) dielectricity, Psi, Coulomb
There are no other electrical dimensions, that is it! The electric-dimensional RELATIONS are derived from these primary dimensions, but the relations are not new dimensions. There are no others than “the four.”

Consider a certain hypothetical transmission system, the Integratron system of George Van Tassle. (not the Goddess temple “Integratron” of today) The Integratron effects transmission around space. Let us say one is on earth and another is on mars. If you enter the “in door” on the earth unit, you exit the “out door” on the mars unit.

In performing this operation you did NOT travel from earth to mars thru any intervening dimensional relation of space. No velocity or space per time, was effected. However time has not been altered so it may be said that the dimension of space has been cancelled out. Space was the transmission obstacle and the electro-geometrical structure of the Integratron neutralized the dimension of space. This is called a SPACE SCALAR, no variation in space.

At this point the Einsteiner would say that you traveled from earth to mars in “another dimension.” Then, after a big blast off the bong, now it’s a wormhole!

Another example, long distance D.C. power transmission. Long distance power transmission utilizing alternating current suffers from the effects of electro-motive force, E and the displacement current I both time derivatives. The compounding of E & I over long distances results in serious transmission impairments. The dimension of time is eliminated. Thus the dimensional relations involving time such as E and I disappear, but not into “another dimension”, there is none.

D.C. has zero frequency hence it has no relation to time. It is eternal, invariable, constant. Direct current is a TIME SCALAR, no variation in time. The Quantum Car Mechanics and the Soviet Scalar Xenophobes, each in their self edification, have twisted this basic dimensional reality of the engineer into a distorted labyrinth of utter confusion. Wormholes, scalar waves, and etc. represent an oral/anal equivalency. Such concepts confuse, not clarify, engineering concepts. Yet the parrots lap it up eagerly, it has such a sweet taste. So does anti-freeze.

73 DE N6KPH

[Pinwheel]

At this point the Einsteiner would say that you traveled from earth to mars in “another dimension.” Then, after a big blast off the bong, now it’s a wormhole!

The Big Bong Theory!

[Pinwheel]

@LtBolo

Your variable induction parameter machine - was it your own build or was it an attempted replication of what is in the Russian paper? I thought I saw that you were building it before we had the English translation.