+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

  1. Link to Post #1
    United States Avalon Member lightwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2010
    Location
    Southern CT USA
    Age
    72
    Posts
    167
    Thanks
    788
    Thanked 831 times in 132 posts

    Default A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Hi ,

    This is a video that came from a friend in Australia. It is 8 minutes long. Below is what he said in his e-mail to me.

    lightwalker




    "The video was recorded at an informal inaugural meeting of Global Innovation Alliance (GIA) at the property of former Apollo Astronaut the late Dr Brian O'Leary in Vilcabamba, Ecuador in February, 2010 (I was present and am a founding member of GIA). The link below will take you to an 8 minute clip of a 92 minute video that explains how and why the current model contains 23 fundamental errors that, when corrected, opens the door to a whole new era of science and technology. It also explains how and why the "Big Bang" model is not only flawed but has taken science on a path of having to "explain away" an endless series of anomalies (exceptions to the rules) in order for the current theories of the Standard Model of Physics to be accepted.

    This New Scalar Model of Physics is not only far simpler to understand but also fundamentally explains how physicality comes into existence and, what is more important, how and why it is now possible to the "extract" an inexhaustible supply of non-polluting very cheap energy that can power ALL our equipment, machinery, transportation, factories, etc. without the use of fossil fuels. Imagine that! This would mean that we could even produce all the clean water we need from the oceans or even from the moisture in the air in arid desert areas.

    By the way, don't worry if you don't understand the technicalities discussed because you will understand the "guts" of this brilliant presentation... and believe me this is mind-boggling and ground-braking information.

    Hopefully, humankind is ready to grasp and embrace this because if, and when they do, fundamentally this will give us the tools to rapidly solve the majority of ecological, humanitarian and global problems."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsppA_E0Zu8



  2. The Following 25 Users Say Thank You to lightwalker For This Post:

    00101 (8th January 2012), Aurelius (24th December 2011), Blake Elder (8th January 2012), conk (9th July 2014), Elethia (7th January 2012), Ernie Nemeth (8th January 2012), GaelVictor (24th December 2011), Gardener (23rd December 2011), Herbert (24th December 2011), John Parslow (6th January 2012), JRS (23rd December 2011), Kano (6th January 2012), Kindred (6th January 2012), mountain_jim (23rd December 2011), nomadguy (23rd December 2011), Old Snake (24th December 2011), onawah (23rd December 2011), Paul (7th January 2012), Rantaak (6th January 2012), sandy (8th January 2012), shadowstalker (8th January 2012), Sophocles (14th February 2013), TargeT (23rd December 2011), tonton (8th January 2012)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    40
    Posts
    7,515
    Thanks
    21,385
    Thanked 39,713 times in 7,043 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Google Nassim Harriem

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79_HwQ-92f8

    You'll love his work in physics as well I think... (several threads here on him..)
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    Jake (6th July 2014), sandy (23rd December 2011)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Netherlands Avalon Member Old Snake's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th September 2011
    Age
    73
    Posts
    96
    Thanks
    224
    Thanked 305 times in 84 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Lightwalker,

    Thanks for the link, where dear friend can I find the papers discussed in this video ?

    I could do with some enlightenment on the scalar side of electronics !

    Old Snake

  6. Link to Post #4
    Avalon Member Sophocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th February 2011
    Location
    Nanset
    Age
    38
    Posts
    752
    Thanks
    13,644
    Thanked 3,849 times in 713 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    First I would like to thank lightwalker for this thread.
    I watched the 8 min clip and received the full 92 min presentation after having sent an e-mail to Trevor@world-harmony.com.
    Below are some excerpts from what is being talked about in the full 92 min video for those who are interested:
    (the following are the words of the guy in the video, I have only written them down)

    "Many of the errors in the standard model have been the subject of remediation attempts. A lot of really smart people have worked very hard to fix the errors. In the late 90s a team of mathematicians and scientists got together and they rewrote Maxwells electrodynamic equations. Well, why did they do that? Electromagnetic equations 1854 constitute the basis of everything we do in the electrodynamics. But in the original equations, which was called quaternions, there were four simultaneous unknown variables. One of which was time. So in 1905 Hendrik Lorentz, a mathematician, came along and imposed the Lorentz-Transform. What the Lorentz transform does, is it takes mathematics and it eliminates the Delta T, thatís gone from the equation. Now you have just three dimensions. So now you only have three variables to work with. And then it begins to eliminate any consideration of the underlying stressors, tensors, vectors. The analogy I like to use is that it did to mathematics what is equivalent to taking a big, long, powerful river, covering it with ice and then claiming that what you see is all there is, that the river is not under there anymore. Because they did that it simplified electrodynamics and that gave them a way to design motors, generators and all of the electrical equipment, but the reason the electrical equipment doesnít work with anywhere near the right kind of efficiency, is because they left the other stuff out. So today, in any PHD-program in electrodynamics in any university in the world, not one of the equations that Maxwell derived is in the textbook. Not one. And none of the text- formulas was part of his original formulations. They`ve all been altered. All. So what the union of distinguished scientists did was rewrite all this pieces. 60 different papers, they put it into one volume and it is called Reformulation of Maxwells Electromagnetic Equations. They corrected 23 fundamental errors in electrodynamic formulation.

    In addition to that, Ruggero Santilli rewrote the laws of hadronic mechanics; what goes on with neutrons and protons and electrons and neutrinos and all 26 of the hadronic particles. He wrote a brand new model for that. We use it. It works. It is wonderful. A guy named Mahmud Mehli reformulated the laws of thermodynamics. And his reformulation of the laws of thermodynamics fundamentally alters how you talk about the second law of thermodynamics. The conservation of mass and energy. Fundamentally rewrites that rule. Cause many of the technologies we are talking about are related to things that go on in electrodynamic equations that violates the way the second law of thermodynamics is written. It is wrong. Doesnít mean it isnít conservation, but the way it is characterized is wrong. And then, in 2008 the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent to Ted McGrath, a physic professor at the University of Miami, it is called ďphysical quantum model for the atomĒ. They issued a patent on the way he describes the quantum relationships and dynamics that operate in the atom. And he is right on the money.

    One of the issues that you deal with in the standard physical model is that definitions of attributes and properties are circular. For example, if you go to the physics dictionary and you look up mass, you will discover that according to physicists mass is defined as an intrinsic property of matter. Nobody says where did the mass come from. It is presumed that in all matter all mass is simply present by definition. What it means is that science doesnít describe, what is mass, in terms of what the hell is it? Where did it come from? How does it come into being? How does it interact? What is it all about? What are the dynamics of mass? Science doesnít give you an answer because the standard model does not provide it. We do.

    What Tom Bearden solved is what is called the source-charge-problem. And the problem simply stated is that when you have a physical interaction in an atom, for example, that emits electrons, like thorium, where do those electrons come from? Ultimately there has to be a source. The Big Bang Ėmodel says that they were all created in the instant of the big bang and they are everywhere ubiquitously available in free space and there is an unlimited supply of electrons. Well, we know that itís not true. Because we know that electrons can be split (Humphrey Maris is splitting them), we know that they can be altered in their form to either act as a particle or to act as a quantum bundle of energy with waveform, we know that they have complementarity, we know that hadrons in the nucleus can be broken down to quarks, we know the quarks can be broken down into sub-quarks. The standard model denies that there is such a thing as a sub-quark. Even though 450 scientists at Fermilabs signed a paper in 1999 that said not only are they real, we reproduce them at will. And the guys who controlled the landscape on that stuff threatened Fermilabs and that entire 450-men team with professional and economical extinction, on condition that they retracted their paper.

    Murray Gell-Mann, resident senior physicist at CalTech, received the Nobel Prize in physics 1969 (wiki) for his verification of three kinds of quarks, and the presumption was that the quark then became the smallest indivisible particle of matter, and that was it. And entire institutions reputations, credentials and values are all defined now in terms of that being true. Science is not interested now in finding out whether it is true or not, deeply invested in protecting the notion that it is. Then along comes a whole bunch of Gell-Manns students, using the same device that he used, 9 years later, and they split his quarks into sub-quarks. And that is not in the literature. But we have the report, we have the data. We got it off the internet before it was erased. It was not published. We know that quarks are made up of smaller stuff and we know where that smaller stuff comes and thatís what this model is about. Ruggero Santilli got into much trouble because he proved mathematically that quarks are not an indivisible particle of matter because they are not matter at all, because they violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

    It is like the blind men and the elephant. You got a bunch of very dedicated, hard working, disciplined, really focused people with all kinds of tools and training and competence and rigor and discipline, and they take a piece of the elephant and they examine it and they examine it and they examine it and they take what they know and they throw it on the wall, called published literature (laughter). And then along comes guys like Brian O`Leary and he sees all this stuff scattered on the wall, and he starts trying to figure out how does all this crap fit together. It is all part of the same science, so how does these pieces fit? Then he makes some horrifying discoveries. One of them is that few branches of science use the same language, so they donít communicate with each other. Much of the information they produce is contradictory, because they are asking different questions. It is hard to sort out who is asking the right questions or whether the questions are asking is the same or similar, because the language they are using, the mathematics they are using, the context of the questions is different, deeply siloed.
    These assumptions are that before the Big Bang, there was gravitational field effects, there was electrodynamic field effects, there was a strong nuclear force that binds the nucleus together in the atom and there is a weak nuclear force that binds the electrons to the nucleus. And thatís it. As far as science is concerned, those four fields are sacrosanct, mutually exclusive, a priori and there are no others. Well ok, sometimes we see this non-local effect, but thatís just a special condition. So Einstein now has a whole new section of this general, called the special theory of relativity, which deals whit some of this otherĒ stuffĒ that doesnít fit in that nice little package. Well, when you know things about non-linear field effects, about non-local field effects, when you take Alain Aspects theoretical construct put into motion where the decision of the observer exerts an effect on that which is being observed and it is measurable and quantifiable, when you go to Drexel University and a series of subjects are able to bend a laser beam without touching it, just by focusing their concentrated attention on it, and literally able to bend a laser beam, when guys like Brian O`Leary come along and bend spoons by thinking about it, this relationship between the non-local non-linear holographic nature of mind and consciousness, coupling the physicality suddenly becomes utterly unexplainable.

    We can actually produce holograms that are truly non-local, but the formulas they use donít describe the non-locality, they describe the software thatís used to produce them.

    In 1903 a guy named E. T. Whittaker published a paper. We still have copies of it even though it`s been erased from the internet. You can`t get it online anymore. It is pretty interesting. E. T. Whittaker was a Scottish mathematician who figured out using partial differential equations what the waveform structure functions and dynamics of gravitational field effects are. And he demonstrated in his papers that gravitational field effect is a product of finer scale interactions. It has a waveform, it can be mitigated by the imposition of external forces, it is predictable and it operates according to certain rules.

    Gravitational field effect now becomes the engine that drives the physical embodiment of the fractal. Fractals are the geometric physical historical record of holographic interactions. This is not anything you will hear anyplace else, but there is a direct causal feedback loop that operates at every scale in the universe, from the finest to the largest, in which gravitational field effects play a role. And gravitational field effects only operate where mass is present, and at the first three scales of evolutional complexity, there is no mass. Thatís why at those scales, all the interactions operate in a timeless, distanceless holographic environment.

    We discover that there is at the core of all things at below the finest scale -which is called the Planck constant- we find what we call the physical vacuum. The physical vacuum has been scientifically validated, and the way that we know there is such a thing, is that a guy in 1948 named Casimir did a mathematical formulation which was then physically experimentally verified four years later. The Casimir principle says this: It says that if I have a plate of any material and it is perfectly polished at the surface, and I take a sphere of any other material and begin to move that sphere in closer and closer proximity to the flattened surface of the metal plate, there is a point in time at which when the space becomes close enough because of the dielectric constant differentials in the materials electrons will exchange from one to the other.

    We`ve been able to identify the ten scales of organizational complexity that operate in the universe and describe at which point in those scales certain phenomena begin to occur and how they come together.

    So here is how it goes; from the physical vacuum you then proceed to an event in potential which we referred to as a virtual ensemble that creates one kind of potential that somehow comes into relationship with another kind of potential and hooks up, however briefly, in that realm there is no such thing as time, cause time is an arbitrary event denominator, itís a discriminator, it doesnít exist in that realm, there is no time, its holographic. Virtual ensembles then come in contact with other virtual ensembles to create what science is now referring to as the qubit. The quantum bit. The guys at Fermilabs referred to it as the sub-quark.

    So you now have fractal geometries, punctuated equilibrium, power laws, quantum thresholds and then you have the Fibonacci numbers. These distributions, the distance between, the space in between electron orbitals; pure Fibonacci numbers. The configuration of fractals absolutely complies with Fibonacci numbers. The distribution of the planets in the solar system. In our solar system the planetary orbitals are within .00043 percent of a perfect Fibonacci distribution, all the way to Pluto.

    You donít get gravitational field effects at all until you are five scales up. Cause the first time you see mass, true mass that is the product of underlying interactions, is in the 26 hadrons that make up the nuclear particles. Below that scale there is no gravitational field effect, none. What that tells us is that mass is a product, and the key point of the whole thing is if you read through seeing pass the edge the very first statement and the very first paragraph, it says everything is information, absolutely everything. How that information is organized is what creates the universe we live in. Itís just information.

    The virtual ensembles are rising from and disaggregating back into the physical vacuum, at the center of everything, they are doing that in a cycle. And the qubits, therefore, are connected to that cycle, and the quarks are connected to that cycle, and the neutrons and protons and electrons and atoms and molecules and matter and all of the aggregations are connected to that cycle, from the inside out, all the time. Thatís the local linear part of the progression. If these same rules are consistent for the interactions that occur in non-locality and non-linearity in that holographic place that is timeless and without distance, where identity and mind operate, it is no wonder then that there is a constant that defines the place at which speciated functions in consciousness couple with physicality. Thatís no mystery anymore because they both derive from exactly the same source in exactly the same way by precisely the same rules. They are organized together and inextricably connected at the core. At the core. That is why when you figure out how to connect your consciousness in a way that couples with physical matter, you can alter the matter. In fact you cannot observe matter without exerting an effect on it. And we have the hard experimental evidence that proves that to be true.

    There is a term called the falaco soliton, itís a standing wave in the form of a vortex. And what it demonstrates is that all vortices are connected by local linear and non-local non-linear effects in the real world in a way you can do yourself. Here is how you do it. Go stand in the shallow end of a swimming pool. Wait until the surface of the water smoothes back out. Take a frisbee or a pot lid with a handle. Put it down on the water and spin it, and then remove it. After a few tries you will create a vortex. And that vortex will self perpetuate, it will self organize, it will go right down into a little Viktor Schauberger vortex down to the bottom. And then very shortly thereafter in the surface of the pool, you will see its complementary half emerge. And if you want to see how they are connected, take on drop of ink and drop it in the water. And you can take a picture of it. The ink goes right down that filament then comes right up the other side, and you can do that all by yourself. Thatís how scalar communications is going to operate. Weíre going to build communications devices that can do that holographically. That is how we are going to do it and the data is the drop of ink. No wires, no radio frequency. Purely holographic. We built them and we know they work.

    So now you look at science with a different pair of eyes. Light is not the upper limit to the velocity of data transport, it never was, but its construct is wrong. And gravity is not an underlying field effect, itís a product. Therefore it can be mitigated. And the same is true with every other a priori field effect. And you can create a unified model that describes how locality and non-locality, and linearity and non-linearity are related in a single set of field effects that are the result of self organizing criticality. Thatís what this model tells you. That they are fundamentally related by form and function, at every scale. And theyíre absolutely dynamic.

    For example, in the electrodynamic reformulation, one of the things we learn by reconstituting part of the quaternion is that Einstein was absolutely right about one thing. Before he died he explained the importance of magnetic potential in scalar interactions. The magnetic potential is everything, he said. Physicists donít want to hear that, because it undoes everything else they are trying to talk about. There is a point in the continuum at a fine enough scale where electrons travel at a finite upper limit, and the time it takes an electron to go one centimeter a photon will go eleven meters. In the physical world that is a big difference. Electrons have this finite velocity in a vacuum. Well, that velocity is always headed toward a magnetic potential. The charge always leads the ion, this magnetic potential always leads the physical element; the electron. The gap is at five nanoseconds. Five nanoseconds, thatís the gap. If we can do switching in electronic devices at five nanoseconds, we can perform work across the charge barrier without any amperage, zero. Tesla knew that. This says why (pointing at the laptop). So if we have switching in our ultra high speed switching systems, if we had superconductive room temperature conductive materials, and we can conduct that charge barrier in a way that follows the potential at a fine enough scale, we never have to put an electron in there. We can perform work across the charge barrier with no electrons. Itís all about the switching. So when we are design engineering motors and generators, instead of being at sixty cycles a second, we need to be at six nanoseconds duration, thatís where we need to be. Cause at that place there are almost no electrons required to drive the work function, because the magnetic potential always leads the charge. Nobody in any physics class in America knows that. Itís not taught, but we know itís true."

    Link to the 92 min video: http://www.world-harmony.com/Data/Ne...of-Physics.mp4


    With love to all...

    §=[Post Update]=§

    Falaco Soliton:

    Last edited by Sophocles; 1st June 2019 at 00:01.

  7. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Sophocles For This Post:

    00101 (8th January 2012), Artemis (8th January 2012), Elethia (7th January 2012), joedjemal (8th January 2012), Kano (6th January 2012), Old Snake (6th January 2012), Paul (7th January 2012), Rantaak (6th January 2012)

  8. Link to Post #5
    Avalon Member Kindred's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th February 2011
    Location
    At Peace, within the Noise
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,051
    Thanks
    1,898
    Thanked 4,751 times in 935 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    This means the 'patent', is null and void, because it describes Prior Art...

    Now, do these reformulations of the 'Standard Model' support or refute Nassim Haramein's postulates?

    In Unity and Peace... And, Free Energy!
    Last edited by Kindred; 6th January 2012 at 15:21.

  9. Link to Post #6
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,166 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    Google Nassim Harriem

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79_HwQ-92f8

    You'll love his work in physics as well I think... (several threads here on him..)
    Not all of us love Nassim's physics .

    The "Scalar Physics" that Trevor Osborne describes in the video on this thread, speaking from the late Brian O'Leary's home, sounds very interesting to me ... and consistent with Paul LaViolette's Subquantum Kinetics, which I have also found very interesting.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Jake (6th July 2014), pathaka (12th July 2014)

  11. Link to Post #7
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,166 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Tom Bearden's website has much more on the sort of physics that Trevor Osborne speaks of in the opening video of this thread. See for example:

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Jake (6th July 2014), TargeT (7th January 2012)

  13. Link to Post #8
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    40
    Posts
    7,515
    Thanks
    21,385
    Thanked 39,713 times in 7,043 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    Google Nassim Harriem

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79_HwQ-92f8

    You'll love his work in physics as well I think... (several threads here on him..)
    Not all of us love Nassim's physics .

    The "Scalar Physics" that Trevor Osborne describes in the video on this thread, speaking from the late Brian O'Leary's home, sounds very interesting to me ... and consistent with Paul LaViolette's Subquantum Kinetics, which I have also found very interesting.
    I hate to be the "lazy guy" here, could you link to some of that matieral (I'm sure you have a fav. lecture or paper... I could google myself but I bow to your expertise )? I read a lot but I've never heard of those guys & would like to take a look
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    Jake (6th July 2014)

  15. Link to Post #9
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,166 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    The "Scalar Physics" that Trevor Osborne describes in the video on this thread, speaking from the late Brian O'Leary's home, sounds very interesting to me ... and consistent with Paul LaViolette's Subquantum Kinetics, which I have also found very interesting.
    I hate to be the "lazy guy" here, could you link to some of that matieral (I'm sure you have a fav. lecture or paper... I could google myself but I bow to your expertise )? I read a lot but I've never heard of those guys & would like to take a look
    I just discovered Trevor Osborne and Tom Bearden myself yesterday, thanks to this thread. So I have many open tabs in my browser and no particular favorites yet (outside of a couple links I offered, in my last post above.)

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Jake (6th July 2014)

  17. Link to Post #10
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,166 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    I just discovered Trevor Osborne and Tom Bearden myself yesterday, thanks to this thread.
    Here's someone who thinks Tom Bearden is full of nonsense: Arkadiusz Jadczyk: Bearden and Hoagland.

  18. Link to Post #11
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,166 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Here's someone who thinks Tom Bearden is full of nonsense: Arkadiusz Jadczyk: Bearden and Hoagland.
    A quote from Jadczyk's web page:
    Quote A collection of AIAS papers was published in the winter of 1999 by the Institute of New Energy: Higher Symmetry Electromagnetics: A Collection of AIAS Papers
    Jadczyk's critique is of these AIAS papers, and listening again to Trevor Osborne's video that is the initial topic of this thread, it seems more than likely to me that the 60 papers Trevor refers to in the above video (papers by Dr. Myron W. Evans, Tom Bearden, and about a dozen others) may well be about the same papers as the 50 papers (plus reprints and notes) that are the AIAS papers that Jadczyk is critiquing.

    Jadczyk wrote:
    Quote What does Waldyr Rodrigues have to say about all of this? Well, now it gets more interesting:

    "The non sequitur mathematics and physics of the ''New Electrodynamics'' proposed by the AIAS group." (Download as pdf)

    "Abstract: We show that the AIAS group collection of papers on a ``new electrodynamics'' recently published in the Journal of New Energy, as well as other papers signed by that group (and also other authors) appearing in other established physical journals and in many books published by leading international publishers (see references) are full of misconceptions and misunderstandings concerning the theory of the electromagnetic field and contain fatal mathematical flaws, which invalidates almost all claims done by the authors."
    The link Jadczyk provides this pdf to download is no longer working, but the same paper appears to be here: The Non Sequitur Mathematics and Physics of the 'New Electrodynamics' of the AIAS Group, by A. L. T. de Carvalho, W. A. Rodrigues Jr (Submitted on 6 Feb 2003 (v1), last revised 25 Jul 2006 (this version, v5)).

    As I listen to Trevor Osborne speak in Brian O'Leary's living room again ... I no longer trust him. His critique of the standard model of physics is glib, but agreeable, since I, like others considering alternative physics, find the standard model deeply flawed. But his alternative seems to have more glib words than coherent detail.

    With de Carvalho and Rodrigues' critique, as quoted by Jadczyk, my doubts increase. I am not competent to judge the mathematics myself ... so I cannot be certain. But I'm quite skeptical of Tom Bearden and his spokesman Trevor Osborne.
    Last edited by Paul; 8th January 2012 at 04:23.

  19. Link to Post #12
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,166 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    The collection of AIAS papers published in 1999 at Higher Symmetry Electromagnetics: A Collection of AIAS Papers discuss in part "O(3) dynamics", which evolved later (circa 2003 and beyond) into the Einstein Cartan Evans (ECE) theory.

    Many papers and other work by Myron Evans and others on this ECE theory are available at the AIAS website.

    I remain skeptical, but cannot find anything of substance that I can understand. All I've found is either mathematics that is over my head, or glib talk with little substantive physics outside of deprecating the standard model.

  20. Link to Post #13
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,166 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Gerhard W. Bruhn has a number of posts also skeptical of Myron W. Evan, at Myron W. Evans' Grand Covariant Unified Field Theory (GCUFT).

  21. Link to Post #14
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,166 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Myron Evans has two more websites, besides AIAS:The second of these two websites has this paper introducing ECE: Einstein, Cartan, Evans - Start of a New Age in Physics? (pdf).
    Last edited by Paul; 8th January 2012 at 05:49.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Ixopoborn (8th January 2012)

  23. Link to Post #15
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,166 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Aha - besides the works of Tom Bearden and Myron Evans, two other works were evident in Trevor Osborne's talk, such as:I am finding these other two works to be quite interesting at first glance.

  24. Link to Post #16
    United States Avalon Member GlassSteagallfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st January 2011
    Location
    The Berkshires
    Posts
    1,218
    Thanks
    2,248
    Thanked 4,525 times in 987 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    I just discovered Trevor Osborne and Tom Bearden myself yesterday, thanks to this thread. So I have many open tabs in my browser and no particular favorites yet (outside of a couple links I offered, in my last post above.)
    Here's some more Paul - some may not be the home page and others not of interest to you:

    http://www.overunity.com/
    http://www.panaceauniversity.org/
    http://www.perendev-power.com/index.htm
    http://peswiki.com/index.php?title=S...Howard_Johnson
    http://jnaudin.free.fr/
    http://www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/meyerhy.htm
    http://waterfuel.t35.com/
    http://www.byronnewenergy.com/wiki/i...itle=Main_Page
    http://www.sonoran-sunsets.com/scalar.html
    http://tapwaterforgas.com/

  25. Link to Post #17
    Avalon Member Sophocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th February 2011
    Location
    Nanset
    Age
    38
    Posts
    752
    Thanks
    13,644
    Thanked 3,849 times in 713 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    The full version of the video is now on youtube (or since last year):


  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sophocles For This Post:

    Jake (6th July 2014), pathaka (13th July 2014), Star Tsar (12th June 2019)

  27. Link to Post #18
    Avalon Member Sophocles's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th February 2011
    Location
    Nanset
    Age
    38
    Posts
    752
    Thanks
    13,644
    Thanked 3,849 times in 713 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Bumping this thread


    PS! Below is a (very long) transcript (I did some years ago) of the first hour or so of the above talk.

    "We are going to talk about a new scalar model of physics. The following abstract is really the heart of the matter:

    The quest of modern physics has been to develop a model which correctly describes the role and dynamics of the interactions by which Nature works. In order for the model which describes these interactions to be robust, it must not only accommodate phenomena which are known to occur, but must also accommodate all rigorously documented phenomena, predict phenomena which are as-yet undiscovered, and allow for the inclusion of all rigorously observed, impeccably documented, carefully reported data derived from all valid sources. To be adequate, any universally applicable physical model must also accommodate the contemporaneous interaction between Descartes` ďphysical stuffĒ and what he referred to as ďspirit stuffĒ with equal cogency and grace.

    The physical model as we`ve inherited it, this legacy from Descartes, really cuts the universe in half. It arbitrarily separates anything that cannot be seen or measured directly as spirit stuff, which remained the soul and undisputed territory of the catholic church at their request, as a deal they made, cause they were still suffering from the repercussions of Copernicus and Galilee at the time. They were aware, that the doctrinal discord between what they said was going on and what science really demonstrated was going on, was so indisputable clear that they could not argue about it.

    So they decided to pick their own battlefield and claim all the unseen spirit stuff as the soul province of the church. And Descartes did not disagree with that because he did not think it was anything to it anyway.

    So he gave that up, Descartes and his gentlemen friends, wealthy, royal, gentry, who were the only ones who could afford to do this naturalist observation stuff in the first place, everybody else were working for a living, trying to survive, Descartes and his rich buddies went out and did science.

    And that deal remains very much intact today. In fact our legacy is so strongly embedded in the way our culture operates, that anybody who pretends to be a serious credentialed scientist, who embarks on a journey intended to rigorously inspect, report and validate on the unseen ďspirit stuffĒ, the stuff of mind and consciousness and scalar interactions, non-local field effects, holographic coupling, all of those kinds of things, outside the mainstream of science, runs the risk of being stripped of their credentials and ostracized from the scientific community.

    There are some fundamental issues with the standard model notwithstanding the not-physical stuff, that are either flawed by concept or seriously misinformed, not fully illuminated. One of these is the notion of the big bang. The big bang is fundamentally a statement based on the cultural requirement that all things have a beginning and an end. This is cultural.

    So science says there is a beginning point and call this beginning point the Big Bang; singularity, 15.3 billion years ago that over a period of micro-seconds everything in the universe that was going to be created was instantly created, and since then there is nothing new in the universe, just exchanges of things from one form to the next. Thatís it.

    But there are some things about the Big Bang Ėmodel that are fundamentally indefensible. You just canít explain them away without going to such extreme lengths by creating all kinds of special conditions and variables even in the most rigorous mathematics that you canít defend it.

    So what we do in this thing (the model) is say look; here are some issues that canít be accommodated, in the science of it. Non-local effects at a distance; we talked a little about that last night. About splitting a positron electron pair and shooting it out through fiber optic and being able to change one of them and have the other one automatically, instantaneously altered to accommodate zero sum at reintegration with zero time-lapse, at sixty kilometers, ten to the nine times faster than the speed of light, which is essentially an infinite difference. Canít accommodate that.

    There is the high density charge cluster Ėphenomenon developed by Ken Shoulders. Itís not accommodated by the standard model, but we use it in apparatus and it works. And we have pictures of them. So we know theyíre not a figment of somebodyís imagination.

    Many of the errors in the standard model have been the subject of remediation attempts. A lot of really smart people have worked very hard to fix the errors. In the late 90s a team of mathematicians and scientists got together and they rewrote Maxwells electrodynamic equations. Well, why did they do that? Electromagnetic equations 1854 constitute the basis of everything we do in the electrodynamics. But in the original equations, which was called quaternions, there were four simultaneous unknown variables. One of which was time.

    So in 1905 Hendrik Lorentz, a mathematician, came along and imposed the Lorentz-Transform. What the Lorentz transform does, is it takes mathematics and it eliminates the Delta T, thatís gone from the equation.

    Now you have just three dimensions. So now you only have three variables to work with. And then it begins to eliminate any consideration of the underlying stressors, tensors, vectors. The analogy I like to use is that it did to mathematics what is equivalent to taking a big, long, powerful river, covering it with ice and then claiming that what you see is all there is, that the river is not under there anymore. Because they did that it simplified electrodynamics and that gave them a way to design motors, generators and all of the electrical equipment, but the reason the electrical equipment doesnít work with anywhere near the right kind of efficiency, is because they left the other stuff out.

    So today, in any PHD-program in electrodynamics in any university in the world, not one of the equations that Maxwell derived is in the textbook. Not one. And none of the text- formulas was part of his original formulations. They`ve all been altered. All.

    So what the union of distinguished scientists did was rewrite all this pieces. 60 different papers, they put it into one volume and it is called Reformulation of Maxwells Electromagnetic Equations.

    They corrected 23 fundamental errors in electrodynamic formulation. In addition to that, Ruggero Santilli rewrote the laws of hadronic mechanics; what goes on with neutrons and protons and electrons and neutrinos and all 26 of the hadronic particles. He wrote a brand new model for that. We use it. It works. It is wonderful.

    A guy named Mahmud Mehli reformulated the laws of thermodynamics. And his reformulation of the laws of thermodynamics fundamentally alters how you talk about the second law of thermodynamics. The conservation of mass and energy. Fundamentally rewrites that rule.

    Cause many of the technologies we are talking about are related to things that go on in electrodynamic equations that violates the way the second law of thermodynamics is written. It is wrong. Doesnít mean it isnít conservation, but the way it is characterized is wrong.

    And then, in 2008 the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent to Ted McGrath, a physic professor at the University of Miami, it is called ďphysical quantum model for the atomĒ.

    They issued a patent on the way he describes the quantum relationships and dynamics that operate in the atom. And he is right on the money.

    There`s some fundamental things in physics that nobodyís really been able to explain, and we have to give credit to Tom Bearden for solving this specific problem.

    One of the issues that you deal with in the standard physical model is that definitions of attributes and properties are circular. For example, if you go to the physics dictionary and you look up mass, you will discover that according to physicists mass is defined as an intrinsic property of matter. Nobody says where did the mass come from.

    It is presumed that in all matter all mass is simply present by definition. What it means is that science doesnít describe, what is mass, in terms of what the hell is it? Where did it come from? How does it come into being? How does it interact? What is it all about? What are the dynamics of mass?

    Science doesnít give you an answer because the standard model does not provide it. We do. A second kind of question you ask, is what is magnetism? Magnetism is a property of certain classes of materials in the periodic table (laughter). There are only six of them that are naturally occurring magnetic, we know a lot of things about magnetic fields, but we do not have a definition of what magnetism is. How is it derived? Where does it come from? Exactly what is it and how does it work? Standard model doesnít tell you.

    What Tom Bearden solved is what is called the source-charge-problem. And the problem simply stated is that when you have a physical interaction in an atom, for example, that emits electrons, like thorium, where do those electrons come from? Ultimately there has to be a source.

    The Big Bang Ėmodel says that they were all created in the instant of the big bang and they are everywhere ubiquitously available in free space and there is an unlimited supply of electrons. Well, we know that itís not true. Because we know that electrons can be split (Humphrey Maris is splitting them), we know that they can be altered in their form to either act as a particle or to act as a quantum bundle of energy with waveform, we know that they have complementarity, we know that hadrons in the nucleus can be broken down to quarks, we know the quarks can be broken down into sub-quarks. The standard model denies that there is such a thing as a sub-quark.

    Even though 450 scientists at Fermilabs signed a paper in 1999 that said not only are they real, we reproduce them at will. And the guys who controlled the landscape on that stuff threatened Fermilabs and that entire 450-men team with professional and economical extinction, on condition that they retracted their paper.

    Murray Gell-Mann, resident senior physicist at CalTech, received the Nobel Prize in physics 1969 (wiki) for his verification of three kinds of quarks, and the presumption was that the quark then became the smallest indivisible particle of matter, and that was it. And entire institutions reputations, credentials and values are all defined now in terms of that being true. Science is not interested now in finding out whether it is true or not, deeply invested in protecting the notion that it is.

    Then along comes a whole bunch of Gell-Manns students, using the same device that he used, 9 years later, and they split his quarks into sub-quarks. And that is not in the literature. But we have the report, we have the data. We got it off the internet before it was erased. It was not published. We know that quarks are made up of smaller stuff and we know where that smaller stuff comes and thatís what this model is about.

    Ruggero Santilli got into much trouble because he proved mathematically that quarks are not a indivisible particle of matter because they are not matter at all, because they violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

    So in the standard model there are some fundamental things that donít work and there are some pieces that are missing. What I want to get across here, in this short session, is to let you know that in the late 80`s and early 90`s a guy named Ilya Prigogine and his partner Isabelle Stengers got the Nobel Prize for publishing a paper called dissipative structures.

    And this was the time in which science pretended to prove that the entire universe is now headed to entropy. That having been created by the big bang, everything was now slowly dissipating. And they didnít stop to talk about the constellations that we now have high definition Hubble photographic images of, in which new stars are as yet being born.

    And the question Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers couldnít answer was how is it that in the same universe in the same regions of space at the same time we are seeing evidence of catastrophic annihilation literally in the same address as self-organizing criticality, organization with complexity. Self driven.

    How is it that if the universe is proceeding to entropy that both those things are operating in the same place at the same time, and half of it is not entropy, half of it is self-organizing criticality. How does that work?

    And then along came Per Bak. He worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory until they expelled him for heresy. He wrote a book called ďHow nature worksĒ. And in his book he used an example of the simplest of experiments. Imagining at the beach. He said look, let us build a pile of sand.

    And let us build a set of predictors that predict which grain of sand is going to precipitate a deconstructive avalanche in the sand pile. Let us see if we can predict when, where and at what magnitude with what frequency these avalanche events are precipitated.

    They took finely particulated sand, silica sand, dried, and generalized the granules so that they now only had one variable. How many of them are there? That was the only variable.

    And they began stacking these grains of sand on top of each other, and they began counting, and they went through all kinds of rigorous protocols and at some point or another, at some place or another, with some frequency or another, with some magnitude or another, eventually at some spot on that cone of sand it would snuff away.

    They determined after several tens of thousands of these sample events, that the sand pile at a point, which is not knowable, ceases to be a stack of individual granules, and becomes an open complex self organizing system, that precipitates these critical events called avalanches and that those avalanches respond to four basic rules and these are really critical. In the science of this, we have an issue. And one of the issues is the way science works by its methodology; it is like the blind men and the elephant.

    You got a bunch of very dedicated, hard working, disciplined, really focused people with all kinds of tools and training and competence and rigor and discipline, and they take a piece of the elephant and they examine it and they examine it and they examine it and they take what they know and they throw it on the wall, called published literature (laughter).

    And then along comes guys like Brian O`Leary and he sees all this stuff scattered on the wall, and he starts trying to figure out how does all this crap fit together. It is all part of the same science, so how does these pieces fit? Then he makes some horrifying discoveries.

    One of them is that few branches of science use the same language, so they donít communicate with each other. Much of the information they produce is contradictory, because they are asking different questions. It is hard to sort out who is asking the right questions or whether the questions are asking is the same or similar, because the language they are using, the mathematics they are using, the context of the questions is different, deeply siloed.

    So there isnít much relationship between the information in one brand of science and any other discrete brand of science. And all the soft sciences have now bought on to the idea that even psychology can be reduced to numbers. In a masters degree course in psychology about two thirds is about predictors and statistics and probability and different catalogue numbers. Even psychological disorders are catalogued in terms of their numerical equivalence. It is called taking the unreasonable to insane lanes.

    So what you find out in the model of science is that science makes some assumptions. And here are the basic assumptions that science makes. One of them has to do with the speed of light. Science assumes that there are four underlying a priori local linear field effects that existed before the Big Bang. They have no idea how that happened, but these four field effects operated as mutually exclusive distinct field effects that are theoretically mutually exclusive and therefore unrelated.

    That idea came around because the guys who developed these ideas didnít know each other. And they didnít talk to each other and they operated in the vacuum with the respect to each other and by the time those things got formulated to a certain point, they became sacred. And the underlying assumptions were considered to be so indisputably true that they were now longer subject to question. Thatís the way that goes.

    These assumptions are that before the Big Bang, there was gravitational field effects, there was electrodynamic field effects, there was a strong nuclear force that binds the nucleus together in the atom and there is a weak nuclear force that binds the electrons to the nucleus. And thatís it. As far as science is concerned, those four fields are sacrosanct, mutually exclusive, a priori and there are no others.

    Well ok, sometimes we see this non-local effect, but thatís just a special condition. So Einstein now has a whole new section of this general, called the special theory of relativity, which deals whit some of this otherĒ stuffĒ that doesnít fit in that nice little package.

    Well, when you know things about non-linear field effects, about non-local field effects, when you take Alain Aspects theoretical construct put into motion where the decision of the observer exerts an effect on that which is being observed and it is measurable and quantifiable, when you go to Drexel University and a series of subjects are able to bend a laser beam without touching it, just by focusing their concentrated attention on it, and literally able to bend a laser beam, when guys like Brian O`Leary come along and bend spoons by thinking about it, this relationship between the non-local non-linear holographic nature of mind and consciousness, coupling the physicality suddenly becomes utterly unexplainable. Cause it doesnít fit. Non-local non-linear field effects are not accommodated by the standard model of physics. Except in extreme and arbitrarily imposed conditions, very special conditions.

    One of the evidences of that is that we have no mathematical expressions to express true non-locality. We can actually produce holograms that are truly non-local, but the formulas they use donít describe the non-locality, they describe the software thatís used to produce them. So we began asking this question, if the gravitational field effect existed prior to the Big Bang and everything after that is a product, is an effect of this prior condition, how is it that we can mitigate gravitational field effects? How does that work? If there is an underlying governing principle, how does its product exert sufficient effect to mitigate the source?

    In 1903 a guy named E. T. Whittaker published a paper. We still have copies of it even though it`s been erased from the internet. You can`t get it online anymore. It is pretty interesting. E. T. Whittaker was a Scottish mathematician who figured out using partial differential equations what the waveform structure functions and dynamics of gravitational field effects are.

    And he demonstrated in his papers that gravitational field effect is a product of finer scale interactions. It has a waveform, it can be mitigated by the imposition of external forces, it is predictable and it operates according to certain rules.

    That paper created a firestorm in its day and was absolutely ignored, because right behind it within months, remember this was not the time of the internet, it took sometimes 2-3 years for this stuff to get from one continent to the next, within months after Whittaker published his paper in Physics Review, Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Brownian Movement. And general relativity became the order of the day and E. T. Whittakers information was absolutely ignored. It was absolutely correct, but it was ignored. He gives us the basis for considering what our model needs to look like.

    In gravitational field effects there is, in some formulations, the use of a term that constitutes a self feedback loop in the transverse wave function of a gravitational field, and the term is called ďzĒ. That is the same term that is used to generate fractals (Wikipedia: A fractal has been defined as "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole). And you`ll notice that in this description of z there is no equal sign. There are two errors.

    Z leads to and gets feedback from itself squared at the speed of light, which connotes instant teneity. So when you generate a fractal, you start with a value, and that value then self replicates with a feedback loop at the speed of light throughout whatever the continuum of the function is. If you substitute the ďzĒ thatís found in fractal definition for the ďzĒ thatís used in Plotnikovs gravitational field equation, you come up with a whole different animal.

    Gravitational field effect now becomes the engine that drives the physical embodiment of the fractal. Fractals are the geometric physical historical record of holographic interactions.

    This is not anything you will hear anyplace else, but there is a direct causal feedback loop that operates at every scale in the universe, from the finest to the largest, in which gravitational field effects play a role. And gravitational field effects only operate where mass is present, and at the first three scales of evolutional complexity, there is no mass. Thatís why at those scales, all the interactions operate in a timeless, distanceless holographic environment.

    That dynamic converts what happens at these scales of increasing complexity into physical embodiments, like the geography of a coral reef, or the geography of a riverine delta, or the geography of the human brain, or the geography, the topology of mountain ranges or trees in the way they form forests. All of those physical embodiments are fractal.

    Every single one of them in their natural state are fractal. And they are all driven by interactions that occur in a holographic field that couple with physicality that create the record of the interaction. Fractals and holograms are the engine of creation.

    There is a set of numbers, called the Fibonacci set, and the Fibonacci series of numbers works like this, it starts out with 0, plus itself is 0, plus the nest integer is 1. 0 plus 1 is 1. 1 plus 1 is 2. 1 plus 2 is 3. 2 plus 3 is 5. 3 plus 5 is 8. If you plot these numbers some very interesting things happen. The Fibonacci series is the only series in all of mathematics in which the inverse has the same proportions as the direct product. And it is fractal. When you plot those numbers in you get that favorite curvature.

    And you can see that curvature everywhere, for example in the m-51 galaxy and in billion of others. So, what we then find when we start looking at these pieces is if we take some fundamental assumptions away from the standard model and start from scratch and reevaluate it, what do we discover?

    We discover that there is at the core of all things at below the finest scale -which is called the Planck constant- we find what we call the physical vacuum. The physical vacuum has been scientifically validated, and the way that we know there is such a thing, is that a guy in 1948 named Casimir did a mathematical formulation which was then physically experimentally verified four years later.

    The Casimir principle says this: It says that if I have a plate of any material and it is perfectly polished at the surface, and I take a sphere of any other material and begin to move that sphere in closer and closer proximity to the flattened surface of the metal plate, there is a point in time at which when the space becomes close enough because of the dielectric constant differentials in the materials electrons will exchange from one to the other. That can only happen when there is nothing else in between.

    We know today that for example if you take two pieces of marble and you polish them to five hundred thousands of an inch tolerance -we can do that on demand, a lot of people can do it now- you put those two pieces of marbles together and you can`t get them apart. You can`t even slide them. Because the only thing that exists in that space between them at that fineness is the vacuum of the space that has the wavelengths of electrons and smaller particles, everything else presses from the outside, from all directions. At above that tolerance, any less fine tolerance, you can move them apart. If you polish them to a millionth of an inch tolerance the outer shells of the electrons, the atoms at the surface begins to overlap at a millionth of an inch separation. If I cover those pieces with a thin film so that there is zero overlap and I take that down to a billion of a meter tolerance the materials begin to migrate into each other, so that the atoms and the molecules and crystallites no longer are able to recognize which material they belong to. There is a physical vacuum.

    This physical vacuum is a timeless, dimensionless field of undifferentiated potential. It is pure unadulterated potential. Richard Feynman talked about it in his writings. He even calculated it. Our challenge then is to say, what do we know about ďstuff ď if we start at the center.

    What do we know about stuff that tells us how nature works in a way that informs how we use it to do what we want to do. So what we have done then is two things in this model with this background.

    We`ve been able to identify the ten scales of organizational complexity that operate in the universe and describe at which point in those scales certain phenomena begin to occur and how they come together. And the mathematics that describes how this is done and how it works was just published in Hawaii in October.

    They reformulated all of the general theory of relativity and came up with the equations that describe these interactions. So we have a patented model of the atom, we have a new model of interactions and we now have physical validation that the principles work and we now have the mathematical formulation to say it is absolutely right. It took 5 years for all that to happen.

    So here is how it goes; from the physical vacuum you then proceed to an event in potential which we referred to as a virtual ensemble that creates one kind of potential that somehow comes into relationship with another kind of potential and hooks up, however briefly, in that realm there is no such thing as time, cause time is an arbitrary event denominator, itís a discriminator, it doesnít exist in that realm, there is no time, its holographic. Virtual ensembles then come in contact with other virtual ensembles to create what science is now referring to as the qubit. The quantum bit.

    The guys at Fermilabs referred to it as the sub-quark. And they identified two specific kinds of sub-quarks, each of which possessed variables on three different sets of properties. Those sub-quarks then come in to combination and they form six different kinds of quarks with six different sets of behaviors and six additional sets of what they call colors. Virtually everything in the universe, except the most exotic theoretical particles, are comprised at just three different kinds of quarks in different combinations.

    The question you have to ask yourself is as these things become more and more complex in their construction, what rules apply to govern this interaction? That are five that we know for sure, and they operate at every scale as far as we can tell. Here`s what they are:

    One of them is called punctuated equilibrium. In the sand pile model; it doesnít just kind of go away in one place a little bit at the time, all of it goes away right now. Punctuated equilibrium, big changes occur very quickly. These changes in complexity occur either as increasing complexity or as catastrophic annihilation, quickly, not gradually. What we also know is that for every avalanche of a certain magnitude there are x number of other similar events of a smaller magnitude that is related to the original one logarithmically.

    There is a logarithmic power law relationship between avalanche events, we see that in nature. If you take the distribution of earthquakes along the fault zone, you take the distribution of tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, any naturally occurring event, when you map those, you find that not only is there a logarithmic distribution with regard to frequency, or magnitude, but when you plot those that becomes a single line with a single slope. Itís not a curve.

    So when you do the plotting of these events, animal extinctions, mass extinction events, corona mass ejections, they all follow exactly the same rule. And thatís problematical because they organize themselves according to the fundamental principles of fractal geometry. The distribution is fractal, that is that it operates in a way that is self referential, and it operates in a way that discriminates next rule in quantum leaps, except with specific kinds of fractals that operate in the interstitial spaces between, and those are fractals of a different order.

    Fractal geometry operates with quantum thresholds. Thatís why, in electrons for example, thereís nothing between one orbital and the next. Itís either this one or that one, theyíre quantum. When you try to move a boulder you can work yourself to death and die and never move it if you donít exert enough force to break the threshold. Itís called a quantum threshold and in the physics itís described as a noise threshold (one over F function).

    So you now have fractal geometries, punctuated equilibrium, power laws, quantum thresholds and then you have the Fibonacci numbers. These distributions, the distance between, the space in between electron orbitals; pure Fibonacci numbers. The configuration of fractals absolutely complies with Fibonacci numbers.

    The distribution of the planets in the solar system. In our solar system the planetary orbitals are within .00043 percent of a perfect Fibonacci distribution, all the way to Pluto. And itís true for every constellation we know about and itís true for every galaxy that we know about, where these organizational functions take place. Thatís why there are archetypal forms. Here`s how archetypal they are. Have you ever heard of the Bose-Einstein condensate?

    The Bose-Einstein condensate (showing an image on the laptop). Now, I want you to look at that image. Thatís an image of a Bose-Einstein condensate, the guys who created that product deserved and got the Nobel Prize in Physics. What this is is all the matter that remains in a hard vacuum, a virtually perfect vacuum, with only just a few molecules of anything, at one tenth of one degree above absolute zero, .1 Kelvin.

    At .1 Kelvin all of the relationships that we identified as archetypal are embodied in that shape (pointing at the image). You have three quarks in each of two halves and they rotate with respect to each other so that the net rotational value is zero. Three quarks in each of those hemispheres are also operating and their net sum is zero. This is the perfect embodiment of primal mass. At .2 Kelvin that thing becomes 26 different kinds of mass in the same space. Just like that, nothing in between. And that they didnít expect, that was a discovery.

    What this means is that thatís a picture of how the universe works in a capsule. And everything does what this does. These relationships, the angles are optimal angles, and they are the same exact angles as the slope angle on the great pyramid of Giza, 54.73 degrees. Itís an optimal angle, we find it everywhere in nature. We find it in tornadoes, in the dynamic structure of clouds, in hurricanes, waves, and earthquake predictors, we find them everywhere. This (image on laptop) is a standing wave, this is a galaxy.

    That (another image) is the Boson-Einstein condensate as it begins to dissipate, and in the next frame it becomes a vortex, it becomes the Fibonacci numbers taken out into its natural expression. Viktor Schauberger intuited this. And thatís why his implosion engine technologies served to unwind gravitational field effects in the local. You donít get gravitational field effects at all until you are five scales up.

    Cause the first time you see mass, true mass that is the product of underlying interactions, is in the 26 hadrons that make up the nuclear particles. Below that scale there is no gravitational field effect, none. What that tells us is that mass is a product, and the key point of the whole thing is if you read through seeing pass the edge the very first statement and the very first paragraph, it says everything is information, absolutely everything. How that information is organized is what creates the universe we live in. Itís just information.

    So if we know that, and we know how all this hangs together, then when weíre trying to figure out how to do a technological integration were trying to design a device that has a specific form and function and purpose. When we understand these dynamics then we can build our apparatus to take advantage of what we know, and we donít get caught up in a lot of nonsense.

    What you know about this, is that once these interactions begin at every scale at the nucleus of the atom and above, where you have both local linear interactions, for the first time, thereís no linearity in the interaction until the nucleus of the atom, for the four scales before that thereís only non-locality and non-linearity, nothing has time and everything is holographic everywhere. From the inside out, and remember that this is not a static process, this is happening all the time. In every instant everywhere, all the time.

    The virtual ensembles are rising from and disaggregating back into the physical vacuum, at the center of everything, they are doing that in a cycle. And the qubits, therefore, are connected to that cycle, and the quarks are connected to that cycle, and the neutrons and protons and electrons and atoms and molecules and matter and all of the aggregations are connected to that cycle, from the inside out, all the time. Thatís the local linear part of the progression.

    If these same rules are consistent for the interactions that occur in non-locality and non-linearity in that holographic place that is timeless and without distance, where identity and mind operate, it is no wonder then that there is a constant that defines the place at which speciated functions in consciousness couple with physicality. Thatís no mystery anymore because they both derive from exactly the same source in exactly the same way by precisely the same rules. They are organized together and inextricably connected at the core. At the core.

    That is why when you figure out how to connect your consciousness in a way that couples with physical matter, you can alter the matter. In fact you cannot observe matter without exerting an effect on it. And we have the hard experimental evidence that proves that to be true.

    In fact, John Archibald Wheeler, non other, formulated an experiment which he showed, means he measured photons originating from galaxies fifteen billion light years away. And he sat up an apparatus to determine whether they came straight from the source or whether they were curve linear and lensed by the field effects that are found in the universe.

    So he measured for non-linearity and he got that result. And just as a matter of interest he changed the experiment and measured for linearity and he got that result. And then he did the same thing that Alain Aspect did with electrons in the double slit Ėexperiment. He sat it up so that it would operate in both modes and the only thing that changed was his choice. From the same source. And when he decided to measure for linearity, it was linearity. And when he decided to measure for circularity, that was the result he got.

    So something interesting is happening here. Either the human mind in its function is coupling with that source fifteen billion years ago to alter the course of the photon, in a way that is without time and distance; cause the same photon from the same source canít operate in both modes at the same time. At least not according to what we know. So, it works at all scales.

    So when we talk about doing technologies, when we talk about building devices and doing our science, thatís one of the pieces of the equation, what we now know, is that itís evident everywhere in nature, from qubits right on up through the largest grandest scale of organization of all, which is the universe, which is truly infinite, which has no end, it has no center, it has no bounds, it didnít have a beginning and it will never end.

    This is (showing another image on the laptop) a buckey ball. It is a picture of it with a electron microscope. This technology, the nano technology used to make carbon nano tubes, is going to change the way the world works. From the bottom up. Itís going to change copper wires, itís going to change communications, itís going to change batteries, itís going to change medicine, itís going to change energy delivery and storage, itís going to change everything.

    There is a term called the falaco soliton, itís a standing wave in the form of a vortex. And what it demonstrates is that all vortices are connected by local linear and non-local non-linear effects in the real world in a way you can do yourself. Here is how you do it. Go stand in the shallow end of a swimming pool. Wait until the surface of the water smoothes back out. Take a frisbee or a pot lid with a handle. Put it down on the water and spin it, and then remove it. After a few tries you will create a vortex. And that vortex will self perpetuate, it will self organize, it will go right down into a little Viktor Schauberger vortex down to the bottom. And then very shortly thereafter in the surface of the pool, you will see its complementary half emerge. And if you want to see how they are connected, take on drop of ink and drop it in the water. And you can take a picture of it. The ink goes right down that filament then comes right up the other side, and you can do that all by yourself. Thatís how scalar communications is going to operate.

    Weíre going to build communications devices that can do that holographically. That is how we are going to do it and the data is the drop of ink. No wires, no radio frequency. Purely holographic. We built them and we know they work. So you look at hurricane Cathrina (image on laptop) and notice that the patterns are the same, you`re looking at a water spout and the patterns are the same, you look at all these manifestations; the soliton, a standing wave. The earth and the moon are a standing waves, by definition. Electrons; standing waves. Atoms are standing waves. And when you organize them together you get all of these extraordinary shapes.

    A standing wave is a stable toroidal organization of information. It is stable enough that it can move through time and space from one address to another. And as it becomes dynamic, it is a static form, except for the tensors and stressors that operate down inside there, but as it begins to become dynamic, to self organize, it then becomes a vortex.

    We were talking the other night about where two rivers come together; a clear river and a muddy river. If you examine with real precision what is going on at the interface between those two flows of fluid, youíll see standing waves that become vortices. It is exactly the same phenomenon that creates tornadoes, that creates hurricanes. And it operates in much larger scales out in the universe.

    If you look at the Hubble images (on the laptop) you will see they are fantastic. Here you see a galaxy of galaxies. And this galaxy is referred to as the wheel within the wheel. What you have is a galaxy with a very bright light star circled by a ring of galaxies. And there is the sombrero galaxy where its center are the birthplace of stars, and when theyíre formed that dynamic operates just like high density charge clusters. Itís exactly the same set of dynamics in a form thatís five hundred million light years in diameter.

    That is the universe we live in, but those are the rules. Wherever you have local linear effects you must have non-local non-linear effects, you must, at all scales. They are inextricable interrelated by the dynamic of creation. The world works in a dynamic system that is at every moment being created and uncreated in a cycle. Every instant everywhere, being created and uncreated in an endless cycle.

    So now you look at science with a different pair of eyes. Light is not the upper limit to the velocity of data transport, it never was, but its construct is wrong. And gravity is not an underlying field effect, itís a product. Therefore it can be mitigated. And the same is true with every other a priori field effect. And you can create a unified model that describes how locality and non-locality, and linearity and non-linearity are related in a single set of field effects that are the result of self organizing criticality. Thatís what this model tells you. That they are fundamentally related by form and function, at every scale. And theyíre absolutely dynamic.

    We know things now because of this information thatís not generally available. For example, in the electrodynamic reformulation, one of the things we learn by reconstituting part of the quaternion is that Einstein was absolutely right about one thing. Before he died he explained the importance of magnetic potential in scalar interactions. The magnetic potential is everything, he said. Physicists donít want to hear that, because it undoes everything else they are trying to talk about.

    There is a point in the continuum at a fine enough scale where electrons travel at a finite upper limit, and the time it takes an electron to go one centimeter a photon will go eleven meters. In the physical world that is a big difference. Electrons have this finite velocity in a vacuum. Well, that velocity is always headed toward a magnetic potential. The charge always leads the ion, this magnetic potential always leads the physical element; the electron. The gap is at five nanoseconds. Five nanoseconds, thatís the gap. If we can do switching in electronic devices at five nanoseconds, we can perform work across the charge barrier without any amperage, zero. Tesla knew that. This says why (pointing at the laptop).

    So if we have switching in our ultra high speed switching systems, if we`ve had superconductive room temperature conductive materials, and we can conduct that charge barrier in a way that follows the potential at a fine enough scale, we never have to put an electron in there. We can perform work across the charge barrier with no electrons. Itís all about the switching.

    So when we are design engineering motors and generators, instead of being at sixty cycles a second, we need to be at six nanoseconds duration, thatís where we need to be. Cause at that place there are almost no electrons required to drive the work function, because the magnetic potential always leads the charge. Nobody in any physics class in America knows that. Itís not taught, but we know itís true. And the closer you get to it, the amount of electrons that you need follows a parabolic curve. Its exponential, itís not linear. So the closer you get, you really have an exponential advantage. We got photonic laser switches now that go to femtoseconds (wiki: 0.000000000000001). So we can switch very fast.

    But the other issue of course is conductivity. Conductivity is associated with resistance. When we know what we know about this model, then we have some basis for creating a strategy that creates superconductivity, where thereís zero resistance, zero capacitance, no electron build up, no traffic jams, no need for stoplights. The magnetic potential leads the charge without resistance. No we have a conversation, because if you got that going on, youíre now able to operate at the fourth scale.

    Youíre not at the fifth scale anymore, you`re at the fourth scale. Because youíve taken the Delta T out of the charge barrier. Thereís no time. Superconductive means thereís no time-lapse between the exerting of the magnetic potential and the performing of the work function.

    What if we had a material that has no historisis, so when you drive the magnetic potential across the material there is no loss to heat, because there is no resistance. What if we can make all of our motors and generators out of a material that has zero historisis and superconductivity in its windings, how much amperage would we need to drive that? Zero. You can drive the voltage without amperage. Thatís what Tesla was doing. In 1905 he was doing that. Using all those primitive materials and technologies he still did it and made it work. How he did it is right there (pointing at the laptop). It is right there. That is how he did it."

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sophocles For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (1st June 2019), Hervť (12th June 2019), Paul (1st June 2019)

  29. Link to Post #19
    Madagascar Avalon Member silvanelf's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th May 2019
    Age
    59
    Posts
    143
    Thanks
    1,474
    Thanked 406 times in 119 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Quote Posted by Sophocles (here)
    So today, in any PHD-program in electrodynamics in any university in the world, not one of the equations that Maxwell derived is in the textbook. Not one. And none of the text- formulas was part of his original formulations. They`ve all been altered. All. So what the union of distinguished scientists did was rewrite all this pieces. 60 different papers, they put it into one volume and it is called Reformulation of Maxwells Electromagnetic Equations. They corrected 23 fundamental errors in electrodynamic formulation.
    Who said so? Santilli? Bearden? Please provide a link! I don't take anything for granted.

    But I'm sure that you have never seen Maxwell's original papers. The original formulations were not altered, that's another lame conspiracy theory. Maxwell's paper from 1865 didn't use any quaternions.


    Quote Posted by Sophocles (here)
    In 1903 a guy named E. T. Whittaker published a paper. We still have copies of it even though it`s been erased from the internet. You can`t get it online anymore. It is pretty interesting. E. T. Whittaker was a Scottish mathematician who figured out using partial differential equations what the waveform structure functions and dynamics of gravitational field effects are.

    And he demonstrated in his papers that gravitational field effect is a product of finer scale interactions. It has a waveform, it can be mitigated by the imposition of external forces, it is predictable and it operates according to certain rules.

    That paper created a firestorm in its day and was absolutely ignored, because right behind it within months, remember this was not the time of the internet, it took sometimes 2-3 years for this stuff to get from one continent to the next, within months after Whittaker published his paper in Physics Review, Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Brownian Movement. And general relativity became the order of the day and E. T. Whittakers information was absolutely ignored. It was absolutely correct, but it was ignored. He gives us the basis for considering what our model needs to look like.
    Huh? "That paper created a firestorm in its day and was absolutely ignored, ..." both at the same time? Make up your mind.

    Whittaker's paper from 1903 with the title "On the partial differential equations of mathematical physics." was not erased from the internet. You are promoting a fairy tale. The pdf is available on the web for free.

  30. Link to Post #20
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    71
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,166 times in 20,634 posts

    Default Re: A New Scalar Model of Physics.

    Quote Posted by silvanelf (here)
    Quote Posted by Sophocles (here)
    So today, in any PHD-program in electrodynamics in any university in the world, not one of the equations that Maxwell derived is in the textbook. Not one. And none of the text- formulas was part of his original formulations. They`ve all been altered. All. So what the union of distinguished scientists did was rewrite all this pieces. 60 different papers, they put it into one volume and it is called Reformulation of Maxwells Electromagnetic Equations. They corrected 23 fundamental errors in electrodynamic formulation.
    Who said so? Santilli? Bearden? Please provide a link! I don't take anything for granted.

    But I'm sure that you have never seen Maxwell's original papers. The original formulations were not altered, that's another lame conspiracy theory. Maxwell's paper from 1865 didn't use any quaternions.
    You two might be more in agreement than you realize.

    I think that you're both saying that what's in our current text books, expressed in quaternions and claiming to be Maxwell's equations, is not what Maxwell originally wrote in his 1861 paper, but rather comes from the work of Heaviside in 1864, which "simplified" Maxwell's equations down to the four equations that we are now taught (leaving out key details).

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Bob (12th June 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts