PDA

View Full Version : Scalar Technology



Amanda
30th January 2016, 08:08
Knowing a little about the subject of Scalar Technology I recently read through a very detailed and well written article. I thought I would share a link to the article and hope that a discussion will ensue. For those who are already well acquainted with the subject of Scalar Technology - I welcome further education on the subject.

http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons2.html

Much Peace - Amanda

Gale Frierson
30th January 2016, 10:24
Scalar technology is very important. There are a number of folks around the world working on it. I have talked with a few and know at least that it's very effective for a number of important things. Can't say much more at the moment about it, but leave the thread here and let's see who else has something to add. I may get back with more later myself, but I got a lot on my own plate at the moment. Namaste





1

sandy
30th January 2016, 22:41
There is much being done IMHO throughout the Black Projects. The sad part is that most of the ingenuity etc. mentioned in the linked compilation is hear say as we don't see too much of it helping the common person in our daily lives.

DARPA I assume is the most adept with SCALAR WAVES and has been utilizing this technology in warring weapons, weather, geologic mining discoveries and resources, much to their purpose and founder's agendas. :(

jonsnow
31st January 2016, 16:06
Scalar Technology


Tom Bearden :)
http://www.cheniere.org/

1000/1000

Myst
31st January 2016, 18:48
.

Amanda
31st January 2016, 23:11
Myst - can you please explain why you think the author of the linked article - is confused about physics? I would like to know more about your comment. If the article is misleading and you have knowledge of physics - please share your knowledge. I have been reliably informed that much of what amounts to modern physics is only the tip of a very large iceberg. Much of what is known at an elite level is not shared with the masses.

Much Peace - Amanda

johnjen325
1st February 2016, 01:51
I'm reminded of a quote from an article in a back issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology made by a black projects physicist how our physics was described as being "classical" in comparison to what the black projects are using.

JJ

Myst
1st February 2016, 06:43
.

Barbarella
1st February 2016, 13:56
Unfortunately the text was so badly laid out in the "SCALAR WEAPONS: Read it and weep (http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons2.html)" By C Verismo text linked to in post #1, that it was hard-work to plough though, so I didn't get far either. (Has the poster of the article not heard of paragraph breaks columns, etc. if they want people to read technically dense material?)

Having been trained and employed using electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) in the range 10 kHz to over 12 GHz, I can state that the quoted article is just full of nonsense. For example
Maxwell’s equations linked electricity and magnetism and he discovered other waves that were higher than the normal hertzian electromagnetic waves. They are positioned at right angles coming off the electromagnetic wave and are omni-directional, whereas normal hertzian electromagnetic waves are only measurable with normal equipment and travel in a straight line.

Where did that come from? The time line is all wrong for a start. Maxwell's equations explained much of Faraday's work which came a few decades earlier. Maxwell's equations predicted radio waves, which were discovered by Hertz some years later and initially called Hertzian Waves for obvious reasons.

Maxwell discovered no such waves, be they higher than 'normal herzian waves' or not! All that stuff about angles is bunkum. (The E and H fields are at 90 degrees to each other, but that came later.) Maxwell worked out the mathematics that predicted them.

That was enough to completely discredit the article. The whole lot is a dog's dinner of muddled, made up 'facts' and unattributed wild claims.

What's worse, there are no references anywhere in the piece for the data to be checked. Why do people publish such rubbish? All the facts are out there to find, and such rubbish is misleading to those who want to learn for themselves, but through no fault of their own do not have the scientific background to recognise bull s**t when they see it.

An excellent example of pseudo science that litter the internet that, unfortunately, vanishingly few forum members can see though.

Babs

Dreamtimer
1st February 2016, 14:09
Good thing we have you here, Barbarella. There's a lot going around re scalar waves and weapons. Do you know of any good source for the layperson to be able to read about and begin to understand what scalar waves are and how/whether they'd be weaponized? :scrhd::tea:: Sherlock:

Elen
1st February 2016, 14:53
Good thing we have you here, Barbarella. There's a lot going around re scalar waves and weapons. Do you know of any good source for the layperson to be able to read about and begin to understand what scalar waves are and how/whether they'd be weaponized? :scrhd::tea:: Sherlock:

Ditto from me, Barbarella. :scrhd::chrs:

lcam88
1st February 2016, 15:55
Ditto from me Barbarella.

I agree with Myst's and Barbarella insofar as they are pointing out a huge "glaze-over" of cornerstone physics and scientific theory, as though the concentrated distribution of terms and names lends credibility to the author.

PS

I have an intro into scalar waves queued up but I don't want to "pee in the beer"; I'll post if anyone think I should. I'm sure Dreamtimer has seen the material I have in mind.

Barbarella
1st February 2016, 15:56
Thanks for the vote of confidence. :smiley-dance013:

It probably goes against the grain here, but as far as I'm concerned, scalar waves don't exist outside the internet! I know there are pages and pages out there describing what they are supposed to do, using convincing scientific terms, throwing in real well-known scientific giants like Maxwell and Tesla. And although my background has been boringly conventional regarding the use of radio waves, I have never seen a proper, peer-reviewed paper on the generation and use of scalar waves, let alone how they are detected.

That's not to say there is no unknown physics to be discovered - of course there is - but the term "scalar" is used all over these sites without any accurate definition. One minute they appear to be are referring the AC discoveries of Tesla, the next it's some vague connection with zero-point energy - which. incidentally, hasn't been confirmed beyond doubt yet.

If you google "scalar wave detection" it returns just magnetic field or radio-wave detectors. "Scalar wave generators" returns the same sort of stuff, including Tesla coil experiments.

BTW, Tesla was a genius, but his Tesla coil invention is only a high-voltage AC transformer. They are real and there are many amateur hobbyists who make very impressive ones - they can be modulated with music! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aksRAGa9bLk&list=RDaksRAGa9bLk) Very impressive but not a scalar wave in sight - well there wouldn't be would there!

Sorry to be such a wet blanket, but unless someone can point me towards a respectable scientific paper describing scalar waves, I'm inclined to say it's just all woo-wwo. If such things existed they really would be very widely used.

Babs

Dreamtimer
1st February 2016, 16:01
lcam88, this seems like a good place to post what you have. Or a link. :chrs:

Elen
1st February 2016, 16:09
Ditto from me Barbarella.

I agree with Myst's and Barbarella insofar as they are pointing out a huge "glaze-over" of cornerstone physics and scientific theory, as though the concentrated distribution of terms and names lends credibility to the author.

PS

I have an intro into scalar waves queued up but I don't want to "pee in the beer"; I'll post if anyone think I should. I'm sure Dreamtimer has seen the material I have in mind.

I think you should do just that lcam88. :chrs:

lcam88
1st February 2016, 16:28
Ok I'll share, skip to bottom of posting if you want to get to the good stuff fast.


Thanks for the vote of confidence. :smiley-dance013:

It probably goes against the grain here, but as far as I'm concerned, scalar waves don't exist outside the internet! I know there are pages and pages out there describing what they are supposed to do, using convincing scientific terms, throwing in real well-known scientific giants like Maxwell and Tesla. And although my background has been boringly conventional regarding the use of radio waves, I have never seen a proper, peer-reviewed paper on the generation and use of scalar waves, let alone how they are detected.


If you do find such a paper, do share it.

Peer-review processes can sometimes filter out papers that are perfectly valid because they happen to be found disagreeable by the "priesthood" tasked with deciding which papers to publish. That is a valid reason to be careful with conventional "science".



That's not to say there is no unknown physics to be discovered - of course there is - but the term "scalar" is used all over these sites without any accurate definition. One minute they appear to be are referring the AC discoveries of Tesla, the next it's some vague connection with zero-point energy - which. incidentally, hasn't been confirmed beyond doubt yet.

If you google "scalar wave detection" it returns just magnetic field or radio-wave detectors. "Scalar wave generators" returns the same sort of stuff, including Tesla coil experiments.

BTW, Tesla was a genius, but his Tesla coil invention is only a high-voltage AC transformer. They are real and there are many amateur hobbyists who make very impressive ones - they can be modulated with music! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aksRAGa9bLk&list=RDaksRAGa9bLk) Very impressive but not a scalar wave in sight - well there wouldn't be would there!

So indeed it may be a high-voltage AC transformer. The music modulation is done by transforming a signal with "unconventional" input frequencies. The standard 60hz (or 50hz for others outside the US) is a base frequency that happens to industry standards.

Tesla's interesting application of the tesla coils may be using a specific frequency tuned to "one or more natural earth vibrations". After you watch about 5 minutes of the material I share below perhaps it may become clear why his invention is not merely an "AC transformer".


Sorry to be such a wet blanket, but unless someone can point me towards a respectable scientific paper describing scalar waves, I'm inclined to say it's just all woo-wwo. If such things existed they really would be very widely used.

Babs

:)

Aragorn, this is a link with that t parameter queued to exactly where I think the video is important in this thread... :) That is why I am not using the video tool here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtAQdxowpYA&t=35m33s
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtAQdxowpYA&t=35m33s)

Dreamtimer shared another very interesting link in reply to this in another thread.

PS

The introduction lasts about 5 minutes or so... Harald Krautz Vella explains it so well IMO.

Aragorn
1st February 2016, 16:48
Color emphasis mine...


It probably goes against the grain here, but as far as I'm concerned, scalar waves don't exist outside the internet!

Nope. :p


http://users.telenet.be/stryder/The_One_Truth/Miscellaneous/welcome.jpeg




Kerry Cassidy and Project Camelot are that way...

http://projectcamelotproductions.com/images/about/kerrycassidy_4.jpg https://www.servergeneral.com/assets/img/hipaa/arrow-right.png


:ha: :ttr:

lcam88
1st February 2016, 17:00
One more link, where Mr Vella goes into the construction of a scalar wave, a HowTo or introduction into the concept of things scalar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtAQdxowpYA&t=29m53s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtAQdxowpYA&t=29m53s)

PS the host who is questioning Mr Vella really doesn't do the man justice!

Barbarella
1st February 2016, 17:19
Thanks for the videos. I watched from your time settings. Well maybe Mr Vella is a genius, or maybe bull s**t baffles brains. I couldn't make any sense of it.

"The vibration of the field is a sine [wave] is at right-angles to propagation" What? Does he mean the E field or the H field which are at 90 degrees to each other? He's right about two EM waves in anti-phase to each other do cancel out. But that's it. There is nothing left, despite what he says, unless he can measure it for us. To extend his description logically, two waves in-phase do add to each other, but nothing more.

I don't know what kind of music studio he's worked in, but I wish he'd explained more about his little box that removes all acoustic resonance. He could make a fortune!

Then came mention of free energy, though it doesn't look like he's cracked it. Enough I think. Sorry.

The brave interviewer tried his best to get to the 'facts', but he was obviously out of his depth.

lcam88
1st February 2016, 18:12
Fair enough. In reference to the only questions you actually asked above, quoted...


"The vibration of the field is a sine [wave] is at right-angles to propagation" What? Does he mean the E field or the H field which are at 90 degrees to each other?

Why should it matter whether we specify the E field or the H field? (I presume that the H field is a magnetic component)

Did you consider "The vibration of the field" may have meant to be expressed as "The amplitude of the field" in the quote you reference? Could that better satisfy the idea being conveyed?

Could you agree that amplitude, as measured, is a component of a wave that is always perpendicular to propagation? Could you also agree that during cancelation events, where anti-phases cause cancelation, we specifically observe amplitude cancelation? Have you taken the time to observe that amplitude cancelation in nature, for example in water waves, does not [always] result in energy cancelation? Why should EM be different?

Irony apart, Mr Vella is certainly not a genius, but he does strike me as quite a good observer. I don't know how you can tell he cares about that "fortune", at least notice enough fixation on fortune to make mention of it anyway. I thought he taking a dig at how scientific theory and well established acoustic practices are contradictory.

Barbarella
1st February 2016, 18:53
Fair enough. In reference to the only questions you actually asked above, quoted...

Why should it matter whether we specify the E field or the H field? (I presume that the H field is a magnetic component)

Did you consider "The vibration of the field" may have meant to be expressed as "The amplitude of the field" in the quote you reference? Could that better satisfy the idea being conveyed?

Yes.


Could you agree that amplitude, as measured, is a component of a wave that is always perpendicular to propagation? Could you also agree that during cancelation events, where anti-phases cause cancelation, we specifically observe amplitude cancelation? Have you taken the time to observe that amplitude cancelation in nature, for example in water waves, does not [always] result in energy cancelation? Why should EM be different?

I have observed total cancellation of radio waves coming via different paths. When they cancel out completely, they cancel out completely. This can be observed, measured. Any residue means there is incomplete cancellation, because the phase relationship is not precise enough to cancel.


Irony apart, Mr Vella is certainly not a genius, but he does strike me as quite a good observer. I don't know how you can tell he cares about that "fortune", though, at least notice enough fixation on fortune to make mention of it anyway.

I thought his comment was a dig at how things observed in acoustics contradicts scientific theory.

Well if he can prove scientific theory is wrong, by demonstration, I'm sure the music industry will beat a path to his door. Removing all resonances in an acoustic sound studio is an expensive and time-consuming process.


We at least are in agreement one one thing: BS does baffle brains.

I get the feeling we are going to agree to disagree on most all else of this. <shrug/> Thanks anyway.

But IF, by some off chance you are here to play let's try something slightly different.

I think we will make the most progress, if you are really interested in such an idea, directly tackling what seems to be your pet peeve: Free energy.

So you don't believe in free energy. What is wrong with the idea of solar energy or wind energy?

I believe 'free energy' i.e. that which is obtainable outside the current understanding of physics, is very likely possible. Possibly already achieved but kept hidden for the time being for all the usual reasons. I just get peeved at claims of this free energy being obtained, but never actually demonstrated by people doing this. Would they like to borrow my husband's multimeter? From what I've seen most FE experimenters wouldn't even know how to use it properly or understand its limitations. :)

OK, so main stream science pooh-poohs it. Just get some university to push past that and just do it. I knew students that would love prove their 'superiors' wrong! Let's not confuse "free energy" with so-called renewable energy. One is demonstrated to deliver the goods...


I don't think you will will disagree with the notion that those words are part of a strategy to discourage progress and/or original thinking by means of ridicule or ad hominem attacks to discredit whoever. That is the BS point that baffles the brain. Are you intact enough to move past it?

Indeed solar energy can easily described as "free energy", just like anything else even more exotic, especially before solar panels where conceptualized.

I mean how absurd!... Gathering energy from sunlight using such magic panels must be pure "fantasy". The catholic church had great qualms with an idea that the planet was indeed round... and that there may be a different center of the universe.

Surely we are passed all of that now in the year 2016, right?

This could be an interesting discussion...

Babs

Aragorn
1st February 2016, 19:53
[...] He's right about two EM waves in anti-phase to each other do cancel out. But that's it. There is nothing left, despite what he says, unless he can measure it for us. To extend his description logically, two waves in-phase do add to each other, but nothing more. [...]

That is correct. I am a musician. I play the electric guitar, which is an instrument that produces its electric sound by way of electromagnetic induction, and the electromagnetic transducers are commonly referred to as pickups. An electric guitar can have either one, two, three, or in some cases, even four pickups, commonly with a means to switch on the pickups either individually or in combinations — when pickups are selected together, it is usually per two, because with three or even four pickups sounding together, the sound tends to get a bit thick and muddy, although some guitars do offer that option as well in the name of versatility.

The most prevalent configuration among guitars from all manufacturers is a two-pickup setup, with one pickup sitting near the bridge (the "bridge pickup" or "treble pickup") and the other one sitting near the end of the fingerboard (the "neck pickup" or "rhythm pickup"), although the world's bestselling-ever solid-body electric guitar is still the Fender Stratocaster, which in its standard configuration has three single-coil pickups, wired to a five-way pickup selector switch — two-pickup Stratocasters exist as well, but they are less common.

There are two main types of electromagnetic guitar pickups: single-coil and humbucking, although some single-coil pickups actually are humbucking — i.e. hum-cancelling — but with the appearance, form factor and sound of a single-coil pickup.

The humbucking pickup is the most interesting one in the particular context of the discussion we're currently having, because it is essentially comprised of two single-coil pickups wired together in series and electrically 180° out of phase — i.e. one bobbin has the windings going "the other way around". This means that the inevitable 50- or 60-cycle electromagnetic interference — i.e. the hum — picked up by each bobbin will be out of phase as well, and that the phase-inverted hum signal is thus added to the "upright-phased" hum signal, cancelling out the hum.



http://www.guitarrepairbench.com/parts/images/electric-guitar-pickup-parts/26.jpg


The way an electromagnetic guitar pickup works is as follows... The pickup sits underneath the strings, and contains either one or two bobbins, either with magnetic pole pieces inside of them, pointing at the strings, or with a magnet blade inside of them, or with iron pole pieces, which connect to a magnet bar underneath the bobbin(s). The strings are magnetically susceptible — they are usually made from either steel, nickel, or a steel-and-nickel alloy — and when the string vibrates, the back-and-forth motion of the string is pulling the magnetic field, and as such, distorting it. This generates an alternating current inside the bobbin, because the windings of the bobbin also run through that electromagnetic field.

Now, as I've explained higher up, the two coils comprising a humbucking pickup are wired together in series and 180° out of phase — i.e. the windings of the secondary bobbin go "the other way around" — and as such, the hum from the primary coil completely cancels out the hum from the secondary coil, provided that both coils have an equal amount of windings with identically gauged wire of the same material.

Normally, that would then also have the same muting effect on the actual guitar sound. However, this problem is annihilated by having the magnetic field emanating from either bobbin be 180° out of phase as well — i.e. one bobbin will have its pole pieces emanating the north pole of the magnetic field toward the strings, and the other bobbin will have its pole pieces emanating the south pole of the magnetic field toward the strings. As such, while the electric signal is then 180° out of phase, the opposed magnetic polarity will cause the actual guitar sound from the two individual coils to be in phase again, and the sound from the primary coil is then added to that of the secondary coil.



http://www.48chicagoblues.com/EMG%20H1A/Diagramme.jpg


http://images.epiphone.com.s3.amazonaws.com/Products/Les-Paul/Slash-Appetite-Les-Paul-Standard/Features/bridge2.jpg


Humbuckers do sound "fuller" and "rounder" than single-coil pickups, because the two bobbins and their respective magnetic windows correspond to slightly different harmonic nodes of the vibrating string, which — because the coils are connected in series — makes the overall sound "fatter" and the initial attack a little "buttery" sounding, whereas single-coil pickups on the other hand tend to have a strong "bite" and more string-to-string articulation. This is one of the reasons why they still retain their popularity, although pickup makers have then also been looking for ways to cancel the hum of those pickups as well.

The principle of a hum-cancelling single-coil pickup is similar to that of a traditional humbucker, except that in a hum-cancelling single-coil pickup, the secondary coil sits underneath the main coil instead of next to it, and it does not contain any magnets. As such, it only serves as a dummy coil for neutralizing the 50- or 60-cycle hum from the main coil by adding the phase-inverted duplicate from the dummy coil to it, while only the main coil contains magnets and thus acts as an electromagnetic transducer, picking up the vibrations from the strings.



http://wallpapercave.com/wp/eTyg3Pd.jpg

Barbarella
1st February 2016, 20:15
Thanks. That's a very clear description of the workings of an electric guitar pick-up.

I'm surprised hum can be such a problem - but appreciate how it's overcome. Studio microphones (even those working on similar principles to a magnetic guitar pick-up) overcome hum by using balanced cables, usually shielded against extraneous magnetic mains fields, although if properly balanced this shouldn't be necessary! I would have thought a microphone signal was 10 to 20 dB below that provided by a guitar pick-up and anything that worked for a mic would be more than adequate for a guitar. You live and learn.

lcam88
1st February 2016, 20:27
Barbarella:

Thanks for playing. I do appreciate it.

Your comments are much better received by me than where those of the prior posting. Pardon over-cooking things, if that bothered you at all.

I'm going to reply to thinks out of order if you don't mind. Hopefully I will be able to ask some good questions.


Irony apart, Mr Vella is certainly not a genius, but he does strike me as quite a good observer. I don't know how you can tell he cares about that "fortune", though, at least notice enough fixation on fortune to make mention of it anyway.

I thought his comment was a dig at how things observed in acoustics contradicts scientific theory.


Well if he can prove scientific theory is wrong, by demonstration, I'm sure the music industry will beat a path to his door. Removing all resonances in an acoustic sound studio is an expensive and time-consuming process.

Indeed. Dreamtimer once posted a video of an "acoustic hall" that was semi-spherical (half a sphere) in shape with the helmholz right in the middle of the floor. I imagine having the proper shaped studio was expensive as it required a building built to spec.

I don't think Mr Vella is really interested in proving anything to the scientific community. And, personally, even viewing all information the way he as delivered it, I think the law of thermodynamics is sound. But...

The nature of theory is exactly that it is waiting to be challenged, to be revised or thrown out. To be thrown out would be an honorable end to the lifecycle of a scientific theory that has done its "job" well. Rejecting a poor theory is progress insofar as it stimulated new concepts, observations and reasonings that dated it.

If Mr Vella does indeed make any moves to prove anything it will likely be up to a committee to decide. However, the trend has been to ignore accepting any challenges to "established" theories thus carrying a presumption they are sound. That is a real problem, theory presumed true, even in face of evidence to the contrary, a scientific community satisfied by that is no different from a religion.


Could you agree that amplitude, as measured, is a component of a wave that is always perpendicular to propagation? Could you also agree that during cancelation events, where anti-phases cause cancelation, we specifically observe amplitude cancelation? Have you taken the time to observe that amplitude cancelation in nature, for example in water waves, does not [always] result in energy cancelation? Why should EM be different?


I have observed total cancellation of radio waves coming via different paths. When they cancel out completely, they cancel out completely. This can be observed, measured. Any residue means there is incomplete cancellation, because the phase relationship is not precise enough to cancel.

Ok.

Water wave analogy, if your instruments measure amplitude, they too, completely cancel out. If you measure a residue, you can also say that it was incomplete cancellation, that the two waves where not perfect opposites. And as long as you depend on your instrument to measure wave amplitude, measurements taken by that instrumentation would lead an observer to the incorrect conclusion that the energies have been cancelled as well.

To solve the problem someone may design a new instrument that measures longitudinal flow, or that attempts to somehow determine what the energy state of the system is.

EM is more difficult for two reasons, the energy in an EM wave is associated with frequency rather than amplitude. As soon as you observe the amplitude of such a canceling system, all equations that measure frequency and thus energy also are presumed to be cancelled.

Could you comment on why or why not such a presumption is reasonable?

Here are mine:

The essence of any theory of scalar waves rests on that presumption being untrue. I am not familiar enough with Maxwells original equations to comment on them beyond to say that they also did not accept such a presumption. Mr Vella elaborates a magnitude of some kind for each point in space. An ether perhaps?

In 1887 the Michealson-Morley experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment) was designed in a way that attempted to prove or disprove the existence of the ether, the theoretical substance that was thought to be the medium that light propagates through. The conclusion of that experiment was that the ether did not exist, there have been several revisions to the experiment that attempted to reexamine that conclusion that yielded rather similar results.

And indeed if you accept the conclusions there it would seem that self-propagation is a viable answer. But it may also simply be that we do not understand enough about electro-magnetics and energy in general to easily identify the flaws in the Michelson Morley experiment.

The issue can be boiled down to whether we should create a whole new theory that the rest of the energetic universe can follow and that our nature does not. That question was exuberantly answered with a resounding yes! Queue black hole theory, dark matter theory, and dark energy theory. Imagine that, 99,7% of the known universe cannot be measured! How absurd!

Then suddenly our inability to measure energy in a system where EM waves are perfectly cancelled each other out is not far fetched at all.

If you accept the conventional dark energy/matter ideas, we may conclude simply that we know the energy is there, we just can't measure it. OK move along, no more need to try. Case closed its someone elses problem now.

If you challenge the conventional dark energy/matter ideas, you still are left scratching your head, is the energy there or not? If we cannot measure it, does that mean our instruments are somehow not sensitive to it? Is there something worth researching in our concept of neutral? Are there other manifestations of energy that are worth examination?

That is where I am at. I find having questions to be more comforting than having all the answers. Mr Vella says some very curious things that indeed leads to interesting questions.


I believe 'free energy' i.e. that which is obtainable outside the current understanding of physics, is very likely possible.

The underlined word is a tricky thing. It implies the acceptance of something without any solid evidence; it implies faith.

To a certain extent all theories have some aspect of faith in them, they purport a hypothesis which all scientists would be obliged to accept as "challengeable". Ie that they may be untrue. So they are a demonstration of faith insofar as evidence does not arise that would show such faith to be misplaced.

I think defining energy is a good place to start.

The capacity to perform work is an engineering definition if memory serves.

But that doesn't satisfy the requirements of physics because innate in the definition is the presumption that work and even energy are already known and specific. While examining physics to presume we already know the specifics is very much the same nominating current theory as "unchallengable".

Perhaps a better definition would be: a potential between two different states.

Please do elaborate where you can, I certainly might be wrong with my definition.

I will indeed elaborate what I mean:

A state is simply what is in its current configuration as it may exist in any single moment. For example, a car being in neutral is a state of the car different from being in park. Perhaps there is energy between those two states insofar as there is potential (perhaps the car is on a hill) where the dynamic of one against the dynamic of the other is energetic.

If any work can be performed from the potentials is really an engineering issue once the dynamics of the potentials are unknown.

So free energy in solar energy, is only a potential between material and light. In the wind energy example, it is the potential between two moving bodies, the ground vs the air.

I will go so far as to say that when something appears to break the law of thermodynamics, it is only because we do not properly understand the energy dynamics sufficiently and unexplained factors of the dynamic influence the results we see. In our thermodynamic model we need only include the "open" or unexplained aspect of the system to find the law true. Once those aspects are studied, "free energy" is understood better not as breaking the law of thermodynamics, but to be free as in beer for those who know how "to build a windmill, or solar panel".

lcam88
1st February 2016, 20:33
Thanks Aragorn.

Do you know if a magnet is part of the string where they pass over the pick-ups? Then vibrations in the string would induce a current in the pick-ups... By an large guitar strings are pretty elastic (compared with violin strings). Do you know if longitudinal or tortional vibrations are also picked up?

Aragorn
1st February 2016, 21:39
Thanks Aragorn.

Do you know if a magnet is part of the string where they pass over the pick-ups? Then vibrations in the string would induce a current in the pick-ups...

Well, as I explained, that is how an electric guitar pickup works — at least, when we're talking of a genuine electric guitar, as opposed to an electrically amplified acoustic guitar, because those use piezo-electric contact transducers underneath the bridge, and they pick up mechanical vibrations in the (commonly wooden) base of the bridge, rather than magnetic vibrations.

So yes, the string passes through the magnetic field — we call this the "magnetic window" of the pickup — and the vibration of the string causes rapid fluctuations in the magnetic field in opposite directions, perpendicular to the direction of the pole pieces. These fluctuations in the magnetic field induce an alternating electric current on the wire of the bobbins, and that is your electric guitar signal.


By an large guitar strings are pretty elastic (compared with violin strings). Do you know if longitudinal or tortional vibrations are also picked up?

Well, an electric guitar is a system. The thicker the strings — i.e. the bigger their mass — the more tone they provide. However, even the wood types used and the construction of the guitar — e.g. whether the neck is attached by way of screws, or glued into the body, or running all the way through the center of the body, or whether the guitar has functionally resonating cavities or not — and the shape of the bridge and the tailpiece, all make a difference in how the guitar sounds.

The vibrations of the strings are also transmitted into the body and neck of the guitar via the bridge and the frets — or the nut, for open strings — and after having been altered in their harmonic content by the bridge, the frets, the fingerboard and the body of the guitar, these vibrations travel back onto the strings, and as such also affect the vibration of the strings themselves. And this is something that the pickups definitely do register as well.

If you for instance take a Gibson ES-335 (which is a semi-hollow-body guitar) and a Gibson Les Paul Traditional (which is a solid-body guitar), and you mount the same pickups on both guitars, and you put the same type and gauge of strings on them, both of them tuned in standard tuning and at concert pitch, then the sound will definitely be different.

Both these guitars have the same scale length of 24.75", so the string tension would be the same. They both also have a glued-in neck made of mahogany, and a fingerboard made of rosewood. But their construction is different, and there may even be differences in the wood types used for the body. The ES-335 has a solid center block — made of maple, I think — while the rest of the body is made from laminated wood, glued together around that center block like a box. The Les Paul Traditional on the other hand has a solid body made of mahogany, but with a maple top — i.e. the front of the guitar, which faces the audience. The ES-335 will sound "bigger" — i.e. the resonant frequency range will be a bit wider — but it will lack some of the midrange punch of the Les Paul Traditional.

For most part however, what the pickup itself registers are the displacements of the strings along the sideways amplitude, perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field. The amplitude of the displacement along the axis of the magnetic field — i.e., with the guitar lying flat on a table, the up and down motion of the strings as they vibrate — is detected only in negligible amounts, but does not result in the generation of sound. It only effects minute fluctuations in volume.

The height of the string above the pole pieces does however play a role in the nature of the sound as well, and when the string sits too close to the pole pieces, then there's a very real risk of the magnetic pull affecting the string vibration in such a way that the guitar starts sounding flat during the more powerfully picked passages. Lowering the pickup (or raising the strings) too far will cause the signal to become less strong, and will thus result in a volume drop. However, it does tend to allow for more clarity in the higher harmonics. There isn't really any set rule on what the distance should be between the pole pieces and the strings, because the magnet strength may vary between different pickup types, and there's a little room for play on account of getting one's preferred sound.

Now, that which you refer to as "torsional vibrations" — which I interpret as being the elasticity of the strings — does indeed translate into snappier sounding strings and better note definition for strings under higher tension than for strings under lower tension. So yes, in a way, it all does play a role, albeit that I can't really say whether these nuances are detected by the pickups directly, or whether they are the result of the interaction of the string vibrations with the guitar's construction, which would then be registered by the pickups only indirectly because of the effect of these interactions on the way the string vibrates above the pickups.

What does make a difference, however, is the placement of the pickups underneath the strings. The pickup near the bridge will sound brighter because of the higher tension of the string near its anchor point, whereas the pickup near the neck will sound rounder and deeper due to the string having more elasticity at that point of its length. The amplitude of the vibration is also bigger over the neck pickup than over the bridge pickup due to the elliptic nature of the string vibration, which is why the bridge pickup picks up less sound than the neck pickup, which most guitar makers will then compensate for by giving the bridge pickup more windings than the neck pickup, so that both pickups produce an equal volume of sound.

Aragorn
1st February 2016, 22:10
Thanks. That's a very clear description of the workings of an electric guitar pick-up.

I'm surprised hum can be such a problem - but appreciate how it's overcome. Studio microphones (even those working on similar principles to a magnetic guitar pick-up) overcome hum by using balanced cables, usually shielded against extraneous magnetic mains fields, although if properly balanced this shouldn't be necessary! I would have thought a microphone signal was 10 to 20 dB below that provided by a guitar pick-up and anything that worked for a mic would be more than adequate for a guitar. You live and learn.

Well, the wiring inside the guitar itself and the cable from the guitar to the amplifier are not of the balanced type, although many — but not all — modern amplifiers do have a balanced line-out connector for hooking the amplifier up to a mixer by way of a D.I. box, rather than having to put microphones in front of the speaker cones. Well, the latter is still done quite a lot, actually — sometimes mixed with the sound as it comes through a balanced line-out cable — in order to create an ambient effect in the sound.

And unfortunately, the guitar amplifier itself is a huge source of that very electromagnetic interference which generates hum. Other such sources of interference are stage lights, dynamos, generators, rheostats, et al. Many guitarists actually prefer the hum of a genuine single-coil pickup, because they feel that it makes the sound more "authentic", and they feel that the hum-cancelling versions of those single-coil pickups don't do justice to the original sound of a vintage single-coil pickup.

The development of the first humbucking pickups took place in the 1950s, and although there is some contention as to who actually invented them, it was Gibson that filed a patent for the humbucking pickup designed by Gibson engineer Seth Lover in 1955. The Gibson PAF ("patent applied for") pickup was however not introduced on any Gibson guitars right away. The first Gibsons to feature those pickups were the Les Paul Goldtop and the Les Paul Custom in 1957, while the less expensive Les Paul Special and Les Paul Junior retained the P-90 single-coil pickups.

The popularity of the humbucker pickups was however not specifically due to their hum-cancelling property, but rather due to their very specific rich and full sound, which proved very useful in rock 'n' roll first, and in progressive rock, blues and jazz later. (Single-coil pickups on the other hand have always been the preferred choice for country & western guitarists because they have more "twang", although you will find them in many other musical genres as well.)

Musicians are an odd breed. ;)

Amanda
2nd February 2016, 00:02
Thank you everyone for giving life to this thread. I will admit that my poor health does not give me the energy I need to read everything shared but I will read everything shared here - in time. I wanted to include these notes - to give food for critical and lateral thought processes. At the end of the article - supplied via an internet link in the opening post - is a list and it is invaluable as a research tool.

Scalar waves are also known as: Tesla Waves, longtitudinal EM waves, teleforce, Radiant Energy, energetics, gravitic waves, electrogravitational waves, free-energy, zero-point energy, zero-vector EM waves, electromagnetic quantum energy, vacuum field energy, aether/ether-energy,magnetic travelling waves, electrostatic/magnetostatic waves, waves of pure potential.

The above list alone creates questions for me as I engage in critical thought processes. Why so many names? This would surely have made research very difficult for a person with limited scientific experience - yes? So many names/references - is this an attempt to obscure the truth?

The below link will take readers to an article from a scientific journal titled: Journal of Scientific Experiments dated 2001. It was not difficult to locate and I thought it might help this thread to keep chugging along.
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/ScalarWave_meyl.pdf

Here's to learning and to keeping the lines of communication open and flowing in all directions. Much Peace - Amanda : Sherlock::scp::fire:

Dreamtimer
2nd February 2016, 10:47
Hi Amanda. My initial feelings are that the number and variety of names reflects that this is a new area that is being worked on. It's fun to go back to the early days of aviation and see what things were called. This discussion has been informative and interesting and that is always good to see. I will look at your link.

Aragorn, when my son took guitar lessons I would sometimes sit in and I would talk to his teacher who was also a friend. This man was building guitars and writing his own guitar teaching methodology book. He taught me some things about how guitars are built. Your postings are very interesting to me in many ways. Thanks for explaining the twang in country guitars. I always wondered about that. (and didn't ask)

Guitars are scaler weapons...:ttr:

lcam88
2nd February 2016, 11:14
I never thought you to be such a guitar guy.


Now, that which you refer to as "torsional vibrations" — which I interpret as being the elasticity of the strings

Torsional vibrations, is a moment of spin along the string. If you pluck a thick string with a finger, the way the string slides off creates a moment of torque where by the string twists slightly. This twisting oscillation is what I mean by "torsional vibration"; I suppose it may be picked up, I really don't know. It depends on the magnetic properties of the string I suppose.

The instrument I am more familiar with is a violin, certainly torsional vibrations are a part of it's sound. The rosen ladened horse hair that is the part of the bow that makes contact with the strings certainly cause torsional as well as transversal vibrations in the strings. Being that violin strings are much less elastic (they hardly stretch once they are installed and tuned) I expect the torsional aspect of string vibration plays a bigger role in the sound produced.

Barbarella:

Here is a link to an interesting device (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer) I would like to propose for measuring hypothetical scalar potential (moment of energy) produced by an EM cancellation event.

If you are interested I'll elaborate.

PS

Amanda, thanks for mentioning radiant energy above.

Aragorn
2nd February 2016, 12:56
Torsional vibrations, is a moment of spin along the string. If you pluck a thick string with a finger, the way the string slides off creates a moment of torque where by the string twists slightly. This twisting oscillation is what I mean by "torsional vibration"; [...]

Ah yes, I see what you mean now. Yes, that too is registered by the pickup, and will make a difference in the overall sound.

johnjen325
2nd February 2016, 21:30
I've been studying these topics for several decades now (since the 70's) and there remains much confusion, on all sides as to what is, and isn't involved, at least as far as I can see.

'Modern' physics has it's own 'problems' in that it took some turns, early on that still 'influence' their foundation.
One such 'misdirection' is due to the Michelson Morley experiment that was used to determine if the ether was 'real' or not.
The experiment when originally performed was flawed when they 'cherry picked' the data to arrive at their chosen determination, among other discrepancies.

Essentially what they were trying to come to know is, does charge (as in + -) HAVE to be linked to mass, and their conclusion remains yes.
At least in the minds of traditional physics that is the case.
This has some fundamental consequences for our understanding of the way of things.
It's like when the foundation of a fundamental orientation to the way of things is established and it has 'errors' built into it, it can take a really long time to figure out and replace those 'errors' in the conceptual frame work.
We are still stuck in this quagmire, and this is but one small example.

Another example is the 'particles' of matter concept that is firmly 'stuck' in the physics (and the general population) mindset.
Even though it is widely understood that mass is all about fields of energy, the particles framework remains firmly embedded within the fundamental conceptual foundation of the way of things.

There are many other such examples of fundamental errors in not just physics, but chemistry, electrical theory, and materials sciences etc.

I'm reminded of these quotes, which are as true today as when they were first written down…

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
or
"Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out."
or
"Science advances one funeral at a time." Max Planck
and
"Max Planck said in 1944, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." (from wikipedia)

"The time will inevitably come when mechanistic and atomic thinking will be put out of the minds of all people of wisdom, and instead dynamics and chemistry will come to be seen in all phenomena. When that happens, the divinity of living Nature will unfold before our eyes all the more clearly." Johann von Goethe, 1812

IOW folks will stubbornly hang onto and 'defend' what they have come to believe, ofttimes to the exclusion of 'better' ideas and conceptual frameworks because their identity is actively linked to their conceptual framework of the way of things.
Meanwhile these errors continue to impede useful progress, and until a major breakthrough occurs this will continue.

In 1974 the Firesign Theater made an album entitled "Everything You Know Is Wrong" which isn't to far from the truth.
We are already seeing increasing evidence of this, and I expect this trend to accelerate.

JJ

lcam88
3rd February 2016, 02:15
I enjoyed your posting johnjen325.

The following quote is insightful to me.


Essentially what they were trying to come to know is, does charge (as in + -) HAVE to be linked to mass, and their conclusion remains yes.

and


Another example is the 'particles' of matter concept that is firmly 'stuck' in the physics (and the general population) mindset. Even though it is widely understood that mass is all about fields of energy, the particles framework remains firmly embedded within the fundamental conceptual foundation of the way of things.

I will now put forth two series questions interesting to contemplate (for me) in light of these quotes:

1) Is matter actually ever neutral? What is neutral? What does neutral mean when examined in relation to the 4 states of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma)? and lastly, what is actually important to notice about the states of matter?

2) Our chemistry sciences has atoms defining the primary building blocks of material. They join to form molecules in various combinations and complexities... Atoms are defined by certain atomic masses and a structure of neutrons and protons forming a nucleus that is then surrounded by an electron cloud.

But what if that system of subdivision is not the only way materials can be subdivided? What if there is another subdivision where part electron, part proton and part neutron can be separated into another system of elementary particles?

Leadbeater and Besant describes such a subdivision in a 1933 publication where the atom was not viewed as an elementary particle, but as a compound. We know that atoms can be unstable; radioactive decay is a well known phenomena whereby nuclei undergo a type of entropy or decay transmuting into more elementary particles. Can these "fracture" lines where decay is observed in the atom be found in some degree within all atoms? Does everything fundamentally have these lines? What does that tell us about the structure of the universe?

johnjen325
3rd February 2016, 04:00
I enjoyed your posting johnjen325.
Thanks, I debated within myself whether to venture into all of this, mostly because it can turn into a morass all to quickly.
But given that it is here (TOT) and with those who are more willing to consider 'out there' constructs, I figured I'd run it up the flag pole and see who either notices and considers vs takes pot shots at it… :thup:

I will now put forth two series questions interesting to contemplate (for me) in light of these quotes:

1) Is matter actually ever neutral? What is neutral? What does neutral mean when examined in relation to the 4 states of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma)? and lastly, what is actually important to notice about the states of matter?

My answer is, matter is 'condensed' light or tachyons which have dropped down below the speed of light and in so doing and based upon the 'way' in which this is 'accomplished', becomes matter.
But it isn't as simple as even that.

My investigations point to a type of digital (on-off) function for all matter that happens at a VERY fast rate, beyond our ability to measure and observe with our existing techniques. And if this is true, would mean we would never be able to use matter based stuff to examine this on-off functionality.
But if this is true it would explain a great deal of the paradoxes involving motion, existence etc.

IOW matter comes into and dissolves back into the Dirac Sea (ø-4 field, ether, etc. etc.) at an incredible fast rate and is downstepped in a variety of ways all of which create the material universe we interact with.
There are several different versions of this underlying theoretical framework but matter is a consequence or result of this foundation of 'reality'.

So charge or lack of same is determined by the energetic influences that are focused upon this pre-poteniated vast sea of energy during this on-off cyclic function.

The key and 'control' to this down-stepping function is consciousness which all 'things' and no-things have in common, to varying degrees.
This relationship of the 'materialization/dissolution' with consciousness and an energetic 'charge' associated with it (or by the nature of the consciousness of all that is directly involved) by consciousness, seems to be the means of primary 'control' for this.
I figure we will be getting 'clued' into all of this in due course, even as the initial (re)introduction has already begun.
By that I mean our (hue-manities) mass consciousness has been steered away from this understanding and is now being re-introduced back into the awareness of all of us (think asleep/awake and the effect mass consciousness can have during 'directed' meditation, as examples).


2) Our chemistry sciences has atoms defining the primary building blocks of material. They join to form molecules in various combinations and complexities... Atoms are defined by certain atomic masses and a structure of neutrons and protons forming a nucleus that is then surrounded by an electron cloud.

But what if that system of subdivision is not the only way materials can be subdivided? What if there is another subdivision where part electron, part proton and part neutron can be separated into another system of elementary particles?

Leadbeater and Besant describes such a subdivision in a 1933 publication where the atom was not viewed as an elementary particle, but as a compound. We know that atoms can be unstable; radioactive decay is a well known phenomena whereby nuclei undergo a type of entropy or decay transmuting into more elementary particles. Can these "fracture" lines where decay is observed in the atom be found in some degree within all atoms? Does everything fundamentally have these lines? What does that tell us about the structure of the universe?
Another chemical approach to examine is Dewey Larson's reciprocal theory which started out as an alternative method of understanding chemical interactions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XgUCkID_n4

Another is the work of Dr. Paul LaViolette and his theory of Subquantum Kinetics.

But to me the whole idea of dividing mass, which sorta works for particles begins to fail when fields enter the picture.
IOW change (of the chemical compound) is an aspect of this but it doesn't really involve dividing.
I see it as consciousness influencing the re-creation of matter during its 'normal' on-off cyclic nature.

And ALL of this ties, quite neatly, into the whole concept of creation as an active, ongoing, in real time function that all of consciousness is directly and fundamentally tied together with, us included.

We are after all, creator beings.

JJ

Aragorn
3rd February 2016, 08:17
[...]

2) Our chemistry sciences has atoms defining the primary building blocks of material. They join to form molecules in various combinations and complexities... Atoms are defined by certain atomic masses and a structure of neutrons and protons forming a nucleus that is then surrounded by an electron cloud.

But what if that system of subdivision is not the only way materials can be subdivided? What if there is another subdivision where part electron, part proton and part neutron can be separated into another system of elementary particles?

Leadbeater and Besant describes such a subdivision in a 1933 publication where the atom was not viewed as an elementary particle, but as a compound.

This is the basis of quantum physics. Protons and neutrons can themselves be divided into smaller particles, called quarks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark).

In essence, everything is made up of energy — with the word "energy" itself being the smallest divisor we can currently ascertain — but when energy particles bond, they become something else, with different properties, and it would then appear that the more complex the bonds of smaller particles bonding into bigger particles, which then bond into even bigger particles, and so on, the less the resulting end-particle — i.e. a molecule — would be capable of moving freely about the many dimensions, ultimately condensing into what we here perceive as 3-dimensional matter, with time as an additional dimension of (increasing or decreasing) entropy.

With all matter ultimately made up of energy, I personally feel — and share the opinion of Paul LaViolette — that all energy is ultimately made up of information, and that information is the most elementary building block in the universe.


We know that atoms can be unstable; radioactive decay is a well known phenomena whereby nuclei undergo a type of entropy or decay transmuting into more elementary particles. Can these "fracture" lines where decay is observed in the atom be found in some degree within all atoms? Does everything fundamentally have these lines? What does that tell us about the structure of the universe?

Radioactive decay is not a property of all matter. But all matter can and will ultimately engage in either chemical or at the very least crystalline bonds with other compounds. Some elements — e.g. gold and platinum — are more resistant in that regard, but they can be "coerced" into forming chemical bonds nevertheless.

So the answer to the question as to whether anything can ever be neutral — in the widest possible sense — is "no". Furthermore, I define consciousness as the ability of a particular entity — the word "entity" applying to everything in existence — to exchange information with something else, and as such, I believe everything in existence to be conscious to a certain extent.

lcam88
3rd February 2016, 12:17
johnjen325:

Thanks for the vid, will watch unless it turns out to be a mundane monotone of irrelevance.

I made mention of the physical states for one reason: material is self organizing. I will mention fluidity is an important aspect to notice in those physical states.

I have no evidence to suppose that blinking in and out of existence as a type of "binary" operation is necessary. Fundamentally, it may be happening, but there is so much else happening that maybe other considerations are more noteworthy.

Using the current model of atoms and molecules, one must not forget that in even stable molecules like H2O, where the 2nd electron energy shell is filled, and where we presume the molecule is inert and neutral, it is actually not so inert, and absolutely not neutral. It is a polar molecule that wants to create intermolecular structures like those little buckyball magnets you can find at a toy story. Our understanding of atoms and molecules often overlooks the London force or the Van der Waal force.

So take that understanding to the states of matter.

A solid has enough interconnecting molecules held tightly enough together so that fluidity only appears when we examine flexibility, malleability or some other means to "easily" restructure. EI an overwhelming external force. I like to use sand as an example of a solid demonstrating fluidity as well.

A liquid has enough interconnecting molecules that it should hold itself together as a single body (surface tension) in an environment where external forces do not exceed specific somewhat low thresholds. The interconnecting bodies are held tightly enough together that compression is minimal.

Is compression a type of fluidity? I suppose it is if you think of fluidity in terms of degrees of freedom that a medium may be characterized by. A gas is like a liquid in all aspects except that the intermolecular structure is much looser.

Note that in all the three previous states, material is already self-organized in accordance to forces between the bodies. One would expect that even in a gaseous medium atoms or molecules are all engaged in an intermolecular structure where their position is somewhat fixed in relation to their neighbors.

A plasma then would be a medium where another degree of freedom is added to particles composing the medium, a much lower energetic engagement to neighboring particles. We do not need to define the medium in terms of atoms or molecules specifically, only to note that the large interconnecting structure is absent in the medium and that we have more individualized "clumps".

What is interesting to note is simply that this degree of freedom makes it very easy to notice the self-organizing characteristic attributed to material in the plasma phase.

Here is where it gets interesting, it is why we learn the physical states of matter in a way that doesn't tell us much about that material is.

If we where able to lower the electrical tension in a region of space sufficiently to cause a breakdown of intermolecular bonds, and then molecular bonds of a material within, we would have a "soup" of free floating atoms, but suppose the tension was lowered even further to the point there it then becomes a "soup" of free floating quarks, or even quarks clumped up but still permitting enough fluidity between the clumps so that atoms themselves are no longer particulate. Is that possible, a type of super-plasma? The atoms would then be "dissolved" into a body of elementary components (quarks as Aragon identifies or maybe quark like).

Then as electric tension raises, the super-plasma will freeze up in a process where it auto-organizes its materials into a new neutral point where it is again a "soup" of atoms. But these atom are created in accordance to the conditions present during their formation the moment the "soup" of quarks freeze. The original atoms would have provided the quarks for this new formation only, the atoms themselves being only the raw material supplying the quarks now no longer in existence.

With that in mind, atoms and molecules as specific divisions of matter is more for convenience than for accurately representing matter. And yet that convenience has perhaps been used to obscure that else is there to be known.

Please refine the idea where you see the need to.

Aragorn:

Your views are quite traditional. I am using the states of matter above to try and describe the level of particles and their interconnected nature.

Energy is indeed information insofar as we may define energy as a difference in potentials. But I'm still contemplating whether information is abstract, IE an inflection we introduce into the notion of the difference in potentials that is energy.


Radioactive decay is not a property of all matter.

That is a bold statement.


But all matter can and will ultimately engage in either chemical or at the very least crystalline bonds with other compounds.

That is also a bold statement. I'm thinking of Helium; when will it engage in chemical or crystalline bonds with other compounds?


So the answer to the question as to whether anything can ever be neutral — in the widest possible sense — is "no". Furthermore, I define consciousness as the ability of a particular entity — the word "entity" applying to everything in existence — to exchange information with something else, and as such, I believe everything in existence to be conscious to a certain extent.

:) Perfectly stated.

I underlines a portion only because I would like to add a comment or two in regards to it specifically.

1) Human beings also, are only conscious to a certain extent. What that extent is depends on "several" factors...

2) It is not a stretch to associate individual (or collective) experience with consciousness. Is it then the case that our definition of "alive" is based on arbitrary characteristics that also mislead? Can the definition be fixed in a way that the term is still meaningful?

Aragorn
3rd February 2016, 13:52
[...] Energy is indeed information insofar as we may define energy as a difference in potentials. But I'm still contemplating whether information is abstract, IE an inflection we introduce into the notion of the difference in potentials that is energy.

Anything that can be processed in one way or another is information.



Radioactive decay is not a property of all matter.
That is a bold statement.

Maybe, but it's an empirically tested one.



But all matter can and will ultimately engage in either chemical or at the very least crystalline bonds with other compounds.
That is also a bold statement. I'm thinking of Helium; when will it engage in chemical or crystalline bonds with other compounds?

I didn't say that it would necessarily engage in such a bond by itself. But under the right circumstances, it would. And that includes coerced mutation through nuclear fusion or fission — helium can be turned into (radioactive) water, and vice versa. Or think about changing the properties of matter by freezing it to near absolute zero — look up on the Bose-Einstein condensate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate).



So the answer to the question as to whether anything can ever be neutral — in the widest possible sense — is "no". Furthermore, I define consciousness as the ability of a particular entity — the word "entity" applying to everything in existence — to exchange information with something else, and as such, I believe everything in existence to be conscious to a certain extent.
:) Perfectly stated.

I underlines a portion only because I would like to add a comment or two in regards to it specifically.

1) Human beings also, are only conscious to a certain extent. What that extent is depends on "several" factors...

But that is a whole other issue, because now you are attributing a subjective property to the concept of consciousness, i.e. that it is (at least partly) defined by quantification.


2) It is not a stretch to associate individual (or collective) experience with consciousness.

Not in my definition of consciousness. It is an elementary and abstract definition, not a quantifier.


Is it then the case that our definition of "alive" is based on arbitrary characteristics that also mislead?

The human definition of "alive" is indeed a contested one. Viruses are technically alive, and yet there are scientists who are in doubt whether they should be regarded as such, because although a virus can survive for long periods of time, it cannot reproduce without a host.


Can the definition be fixed in a way that the term is still meaningful?

Only in the very broad and abstract sense as I have been using it here, i.e. if it is capable of processing information, then it is conscious, and by consequence, alive. Which means that everything is alive, in my opinion.

Think of it this way: my statement here-above is only the other side of the coin of conventional science's extreme claim that consciousness would merely be a byproduct of electrical activity in neurons, and that life itself can only exist within something that has the ability to reproduce. So by the standards of conventional science, "consciousness" and "being alive" are hollow and subjective terms, which — even though they are conservative enough to avoid saying it out loud — would come to mean that nothing would ever really be either conscious or alive. After all, "alive" only means "electro-chemically active", in their book.

What I am positing on account of being alive and the definition of consciousness is the exact opposite of what conventional science adheres to. And that's because spirituality has traditionally always been the domain of the religious caste, while science has traditionally been the domain of empirical and materialist scholars, and the two of those establishments have come to learn over time that it's better to rule together than wage war on each other. It's a matter of politics and of maintaining their dominion, not of a quest for the truth.

lcam88
3rd February 2016, 14:39
I've watched/listened to the Dewey B. Larson video, thanks! That is food for though, I think I'll need to go over more of his material to really engage.

Aragorn:

So can you give an example of a material that cannot be forced into radioactive decay?

I emphasis forced because it is the premiss by which you later suppose that molecular or crystalline bonds can be formed with all materials. I happen to agree with this.

Regarding consciousness: (oh the riddle of words... :/ )

So you are suggesting that it is inappropriate to attribute any subjective property to consciousness? Do you see the obvious chicken <=> egg problem/paradox?

If you are inclined to describe consciousness as: "It is source finding/giving meaning to information" I will obviously have to point out that even with the abstract nature of the idea, such an idea is not without its own subjectivity.

Insofar as you can say that any information or meaning found can be real, the purpose of finding such meaning (the purpose of source as per the abstract definition above) must be equally real, equally deliberate and equally absolute. To then get lost in the folds of ambiguity and abstraction through objectivity during that moment of real and absolute is in itself subjectivity because choosing to be unwilling to identify anything more specifically (refusing subjectivity) is still a [real and] unique experience in and of itself.

The inverse of all that, if you decide that information and meaning found by "source" cannot be real: choosing to be objective carries its own subjectivity especially in light of what is purely abstract (not real). You still must choose the metrics by which to measure your objectivity.

Lastly, can you clarify where I attribute quantification to consciousness in a way that is not attributed by your wording ( I believe everything in existence to be conscious to a certain extent )

Aragorn
3rd February 2016, 15:45
So can you give an example of a material that cannot be forced into radioactive decay?

Nope. ;)


Regarding consciousness: (oh the riddle of words... :/ )

So you are suggesting that it is inappropriate to attribute any subjective property to consciousness? Do you see the obvious chicken <=> egg problem/paradox?

I should have known you were going jump to that. ;) I was merely trying to describe consciousness in the most elementary (and therefore least subjective) form, without quantifying whether something is more conscious than something else.

The ability to process information — with the verb "to process" meaning "to receive" — is the least subjective and most elementary description of consciousness. If you can come up with a more elementary and even less subjective description for consciousness, then I'm open to changing my mind about that.


If you are inclined to describe consciousness as: "It is source finding/giving meaning to information" I will obviously have to point out that even with the abstract nature of the idea, such an idea is not without its own subjectivity.

That is not my description of consciousness, but my definition — and I would even daresay: not my definition but the definition — of the reason behind Creation.

Insofar as we can ascertain, it is a seemingly universal property of a sufficiently advanced consciousness such as that of Source itself — read: a mind, capable of thought and cognition — to want to create order out of chaos by identifying the received information. (In the particular context of Source, the receiver is also the sender, but that's beside the point.)


Insofar as you can say that any information or meaning found can be real, the purpose of finding such meaning (the purpose of source as per the abstract definition above) must be equally real, equally deliberate and equally absolute. To then get lost in the folds of ambiguity and abstraction through objectivity during that moment of real and absolute is in itself subjectivity because choosing to be unwilling to identify anything more specifically (refusing subjectivity) is still a [real and] unique experience in and of itself.

That's a very nice over-intellectualization of something which is completely beside the point in this discussion. Not to mention that we're already lightyears away from the topic of waves — scalar or otherwise. :)

Maybe return :back to topic: we should, hmm? :yoda:


The inverse of all that, if you decide that information and meaning found by "source" cannot be real: choosing to be objective carries its own subjectivity especially in light of what is purely abstract (not real). You still must choose the metrics by which to measure your objectivity.

And that's exactly what I did, both in this post here and in my previous one. But you rejected it, based upon semantics. :flag:

lcam88
3rd February 2016, 16:39
Well, I only rejected the notion that consciousness could be [conceptualized or envisioned] exclusive of subjectivity. But saying it that way leaves to many of the details lost in abstraction and thus presumed or ambiguous. I am of the view that meaning is real, you see, and cannot be purely abstract. Proof? We exist, that _is_ meaning.

<shrug/>

On topic now.

I'm interested in Crook's Radiometer and how "cancelled EM" might effect it. The device works when exposed to EM, but we really don't know why. If it where to function in some way when exposed to an EM cancellation event... Does that seem interesting to anyone but me?

There are several things I think need to be said about the Radiometer:

1) It is not an absolute vacuum; there is a gaseous substance within the bulb.

2) The composition of that gaseous substance is likely a noble gas (atomic substance). Does anyone have more specific information about the gas?

PS Aragorn, I only elaborate on your explanation of consciousness because it helps me refine my ideas, and not because somehow I think I actually know. I think we both may agree that we actually don't know.

johnjen325
4th February 2016, 02:04
So the thing is, even the 'particle' supporters 'know' that the vast majority (like 99+%) of the 'space' an atom 'occupies' is (supposedly) empty.
Yet these 'particles' have enough influence to overcome this to 'bond' with other 99+% empty atoms to form compounds.

This 'factoid' alone points me to the concept of mass being a collection of condensed energetic fields rather than particles and Larson's reciprocal theory (among others such as LaViolett's Subquantum Kinetics) takes this a few steps further.

And if all IS energy how does energy condense into discrete little teeny tiny balls that when 'disassembled' turn into a huge number of different sub-components (yet more particles?), all of which it is supposed can then in turn be broken down even further…
This alone aims at quantum theory which is ALL about probability and fields and indeterminacy, which has nothing to do with particles.

This whole particle approach violates the idea of what Occam's razor is all about.
And there are a WHOLE bunch of exceptions and discrepancies and examples that point squarely at this being an 'incorrect' approach to the way of things.
Yet this whole framework is 'stuck' in our perceptual construct of the way of things.

This to me is part of the distraction away from what reality truly IS.

And like I stated ALL of our models, theories, frameworks are considered 'classical' by those in the black projects.
I leave it you to, to understand what that means.


JJ

lcam88
4th February 2016, 09:38
Fortunately, I am not a participant in one of those black projects.

Regardless, I do happen to agree with you insofar as to say that all theory is classical once it has been superseded. Once you absolutely know, you no longer depend on theory at all and in that sense it is a crutch.


So the thing is, even the 'particle' supporters 'know' that the vast majority (like 99+%) of the 'space' an atom 'occupies' is (supposedly) [U]empty.

Empty only if you are focused on finding the actual "particles" themselves. And really, no more empty than the space between the stars.


This 'factoid' alone points me to the concept of mass being a collection of condensed energetic fields rather than particles and Larson's reciprocal theory (among others such as LaViolett's Subquantum Kinetics) takes this a few steps further.

Mass is a term used by science in reference to a measurement of material using a balance apparatus within a gravitational field. Let me paraphrase the quote above with that in mind as a sort of mathematical substitution.


This 'factoid' alone points me to the concept of mass being that a collection of interrelating and interacting forces between condensed energy fields...

Perhaps that is a bit more precise? That ALL is better described as energy and forces?


This whole particle approach violates the idea of what Occam's razor is all about.
And there are a WHOLE bunch of exceptions and discrepancies and examples that point squarely at this being an 'incorrect' approach to the way of things.
Yet this whole framework is 'stuck' in our perceptual construct of the way of things.

This to me is part of the distraction away from what reality truly IS.

Well stated.

Here is the thing, knowledge and understanding does not need to be "correct" necessarily for the most basic element of productivity (survival). As knowledge and understanding is refined and becomes more representative, meaningful productivity then increases.

Elaborating: 'particle' is a word, with a definition. When used it serves a purpose by permitting the transmission of an idea and represents a baseline of "knowledge and understanding". Once learned, we can then presume that knowledge and baseline understanding when using the term.

Perhaps a real issue is that we have not found a good way to think in ideas that are unrestricted by words and their definitions. That word and definition create an arbitrary frame of reference for all our knowledge and understandings, and that we miss out on the experience of "true" references. A true reference is hinted at in astrology, in art and imagination when it finds itself accosting something absolute, like a star perhaps.

For some time now, I have understood that idea of the word 'particle' to mean something more than just its mundane definition, especially in certain contexts. Words can also encapsulate experience, intuition and emotions or any other complex of compound idea within the mind.

IF you find it helpful, think of a particle to be a imaginary envelope formed by the specific motion of force and/or energy that has created its own true frame of reference. It can be something clumped up, like a snowball or a grain of sand, something more elementary like a molecule, the vagueness of the term would not exclude describing the solar system as a particle.

Any word is also such a thing: an envelope containing an idea (force and energy of the mind). So then words are also indeed particles. (Insofar as it is the same thing as what mass is in terms of physics you and I are sharing.) Free your mind.

Science has a similar problem to the arbitrary word based thinking in that it operates restricted by what it can measure and detect. Scalar waves, being difficult to detect, is therefore an idea that is easily challenged just as astrology or the defining of exact intrinsic value in art or imagination. Not because conceptually or realistically the scalar wave is of issue, but because science is at issue with measuring and detecting [easily].

Lastly, the biggest problem with personalized or custom understanding of words and terms is that they then become much more difficult to communicate. A presumption of shared references in words can no longer continue as a presumption insofar as you try to be clear. Just look at what I posted to Aragorn above. He has helped me greatly actually; he is a champ! Sometimes it is better to invent new vocalizations for original ideas, but I'm not that as good as the finance industry to yet be doing that.

PS I like your sig.

johnjen325
5th February 2016, 02:27
Kewl!
I like your perspective! :cool:
And as is usual I don't agree with some of what you present, but that is as much if not more a reflection of my take on 'What It IS', rather than a 'direct' reflection of the reality within which we are presenting our views for others to consider.

I suppose I 'harp' on the word/construct 'particle' and why it 'sticks in my craw' just a tad is because it looks to be a deliberate misdirection away from our true basic underlying reality.
And since the mass of humanity is 'aimed' away from (or not at) where it should be, this only further reinforces the particles idea being stuck in our mindset.

A reverse do-loop of sorts.

And the particle concept is a sort of key lynch pin which effectively 'blocks' any major investigations into those realms of reality that Tesla and others of his day, as well as the subsequent 'mainstream science' of today, from investigating.

This would lead us to all sorts of kewl stuff, which looks like might be coming to the surface anyway despite the obfuscation.

Still having to un-learn a whole bunch of stuff just to get on the 'right track' is a PIA, especially for all those folks who are heavily invested in these basic misconceptions.

And it isn't just in the area of physics, but most of the technology in use today is in one way or another bassackwards.
Which makes for huge inefficiencies and many many deleterious side effects (health, safety, massive overkill in execution which uses up way more in resources etc.).

Tesla had tapped into systems that were way more efficient for the use and distribution of energy and information, that were and still are a marvel.
And he wasn't alone.
All of which has been abandoned in favor of the monetary dependent systems we have today.

His 'magnifying transmitter' would have provided energy so cheap, a meter (a way of monetizing use) wouldn't have been necessary.
And that was but one of the consequences of pursuing 'the way of things' vs. the way of controlling things.

So yeah I can say it 'sticks in my craw' that we are 'stuck' in this morass, but fortunately not for much longer.

I do so look forward to learning about the true nature of the way of things.

JJ
ps thanks for noticing my sig lines. They struck me as significant, enough so that I felt I 'needed' to pass them along to others.

lcam88
5th February 2016, 11:18
JJ:

Reverse do-loop! Yes!

It implies a major change to our way of thinking, a turn-about of 180º.

I think such a change needs to be headed by example, and not any amount of dialectic or logic. So it then falls on your shoulder, and mine to continue the trend that Mr Elon Musk has started, perhaps with the unconventional.

There is no need to expend energies in contemplations of the academics of it all, just in making our reality. First, in my case, I need to see (clarity). These conversations help, I think.

PS worth linking here (http://jandeane81.com/threads/8718-American-Journal-of-Modern-Physics-publishes-on-Invisible-Terrestrial-Entities-(ITEs)?p=841945843&viewfull=1#post841945843).

Aragorn
5th February 2016, 14:37
PS worth mentioning here: http://jandeane81.com/threads/8718-American-Journal-of-Modern-Physics-publishes-on-Invisible-Terrestrial-Entities-(ITEs)?p=841945843&viewfull=1#post841945843

In that case, I would like to add this post by myself (http://jandeane81.com/threads/8718-American-Journal-of-Modern-Physics-publishes-on-Invisible-Terrestrial-Entities-(ITEs)?p=841945854&viewfull=1#post841945854) to the mix. ;)

johnjen325
5th February 2016, 23:21
JJ:

Reverse do-loop! Yes!

It implies a major change to our way of thinking, a turn-about of 180º.

I think such a change needs to be headed by example, and not any amount of dialectic or logic. So it then falls on your shoulder, and mine to continue the trend that Mr Elon Musk has started, perhaps with the unconventional.

There is no need to expend energies in contemplations of the academics of it all, just in making our reality. First, in my case, I need to see (clarity). These conversations help, I think.

snip
The 'hard' sciences need the dialectic and the logic and the empirically based results in order to 'bite into' and to make use of their take on the way of things, to make them useful, so to speak.

These results are then passed along to those who make use of all of this to make stuff.
This is the usual path from idea to 'product'.

And this entire paradigm is poised to radically change as a 'new' (which is really going back to reality) understanding comes to the fore.

And what the single most 'important' aspect that will be brought into this new picture will be consciousness.

It has, and will be such a monumental shift, with such far reaching consequences that it's hard to wrap my head around even the initial baby steps we are just beginning to take.

Fortunately, we have the needed understanding 'built in' and what we need to do is learn (remember) how to access all of it, which in a do-loop sort of way is also tied directly into consciousness.
You can see where trying to explain this with words could cause more than a few to tilt their heads in bewilderment (just like a pet does when they are confused).

But when we get plugged back into ourselves (consciousness) with our hearts intelligence coupled with our minds analytic capabilities (consciousness), we are more fully tapping into our own native consciousness, which IS the way of things and the way forward.

This then leads to a more complete awareness of not just what consciousness IS but also more of our essential nature and ability to explore and grow into more of ourselves, using a conscious approach that yields a greater awareness of and ability to know ourselves and what and who we truly are.

IOW as we grow we also come to know ourselves better.
Another do-loop.

All of which is just another way of re-stating all 3 of my sig lines.

JJ :thup:

lcam88
6th February 2016, 14:15
The 'hard' sciences need the dialectic and the logic and the empirically based results in order to 'bite into' and to make use of their take on the way of things, to make them useful, so to speak.

These results are then passed along to those who make use of all of this to make stuff.
This is the usual path from idea to 'product'.

And this entire paradigm is poised to radically change as a 'new' (which is really going back to reality) understanding comes to the fore.

That is if you presume "hard" science is indeed still interested in the scientific method. I see them more as a priesthood these days.


And what the single most 'important' aspect that will be brought into this new picture will be consciousness.

Mind interfering with experiments and observations! Ha!

That is what science has been trying to eliminate from its inception. It even seems that science has gone to deliberate lengths just to be misleading; I can't see how efforts to make these sort of changes in science to be anything but futile.

But I agree with you about what direction needs to be taken. I think it all starts by you and me actually doing something, taking the first steps and finding our own solutions to common problems people have. I am happy to let the science boffins on the sidelines watching, if that is something they are even capable of doing.

johnjen325
23rd February 2016, 03:25
Beed deep bee-deep

This just in…


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M


I'm reminded of Bill Murray emerging from the trunk
and saying…


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1rkDTV1Dd4

JJ :eyebrows:

lcam88
23rd February 2016, 10:19
One way to create a type of scalar potential is using a material where the piezoelectric effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity) can be observed...

Barium strontium titanate suspended in air (one line of speculation as to the composition of chem-trails), for example, here is a diagram of a similar crystalline substance with piezoelectric properties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium_titanate):

http://www.microwavejournal.com/article_images/0405m27_fig01.jpg

So while we may reasonably conclude that spacetime does not provide for particulate of gaseous requisite properties for scalar waves, other mediums do.

After quite a bit of thought about ElectroMagnetic wave cancelation, it became evident to me why it does not result in some type of localised scalar potential. Here is a clue:


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

Notice the hole in the floor? Any idea about what is happening? Any new ideas about what is happening when ElectroMagnetic cancelation occurs?

PS johnjen325, thanks for the links above, will watch.