antigravity forum

[wdavidb]

Makado

No dichotomy present....

Hey Trickfox, do you get the feeling that we are being setup and/or used? I feel as if I am being pumped, happened once, ain't happenin' agin, pilgrim! Let's slow down here mate

I know you are addressing trickfox, but what are you getting at here?

I assume you have read Smith's work, as far as he got and you can understand that okay.

I did post an explanation on the "field", maybe you missed it, as trickfox had asked me to explain the field.

I sometimes get the impression that the dynamics of field are supposed to fit someone's idea of the way it must be, but if that was the case you would already have it and we would not be having this discussion.

I will not apologize if it is difficult, because that's not my fault. Of course its difficult, what would anyone expect it to be.

You make these sarcastic remarks about geometry and throwing stuff in the garbage. I didn't suggest that or even hint at such a thing, I simply said the internal dynamics don't fit our existing concept of geometry. Maybe its just your way of expressing yourself.

If the rate of change, frequency, energy etc. increases to the center of field you cannot expect that the application of our existing concepts is going to fit when you encounter the internal underlying dynamics of field.

Everything has its place and purpose, but somethings are not applicable to all circumstances.

As an example, we assume we know the radius of the earth, but the radius of the earth involves a dynamic situation, just as space involves a dynamic situation. You cannot simply pull out your tape measure and expect it to do the job, but a tape measure is very handy and has quite a variety of practical applications, but this is not one of them. I don't see that as such a terrible thing.

The singularity of the earth, moon, sun is not the same, as each system is itself a unified field system unto itself. So there is a non-uniform differential existing between all three at the singularity level. This is what determines the space and motion of each system relative to the sun, in relation to our solar field system.

This is why I say that our existing geometry does not help us in this respect.

The field of the earth is a dynamic state and the non-simultaneous condition of unverse remaining relative to the earth is determined on the basis the earth's underlying potential of energy being focused to the center of field, which is continuously increasing at an accelerative rate.

Therefore the condition of universe remaining relative to the moon and or the sun is not the same as the condition remaining relative to the earth.

You can take this to an atomic level and each element corresponds to a different condition of universe and between atoms of the same element there are slight vatiations in the condition of universe remaining relative to each of them, and despite the fact that each of them shares a non-uniform relationship they collectively exist within the uniform field of the earth, in the case of materials existing on or within the earth.

If we are talking about simultaneous communication, I don't see what geometry has to do with a condition void of space and time. There is no geometry involved in a simultaneous condition.

If we are talking about space communication via a simultaneous communications system, you are communicating beyond time and space within the realm of past and or future conditions existing simultaneously to both the sender and receiver.

[wdavidb]

Trickfox

Not at all surprised that Cameron's work would continue, but Montreal is not the only place this type of work would continue to be conducted, if it continues, as I suspect it does. And yes it is a sad commentary.

Considering that Cameron's work was an open book, with little or no security involved you can only imagine what the rest of it is all about, very nasty stuff.

Yes, I do think it would be good to take this outside or out to the lake with a good supply of chalk.

Yes, the weapons side of this is disturbing, horrid I think is a good word.

Deception is the key word in keeping information silent, a layered effect.

Yet, the journey continues..............

Best of the season to all, David

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

I have to admit, I have never been to Canada.

David, would you indeed bring the box of chalk? It could be that the site for the blackboard has already been set up.

If nothing else a meeting by the lake might make it easier to visualize what is happening here. Someone ( I believe it was Trickfox) said that he liked to shake a persons hand before he read his poetry. Well, I think that we can have it all, actually.

So, something to think about as the holidays approach. ..... summertime by a lake! I always am thinking ahead!

Elizabeth

[Mikado14]

Therefore a decrease in acceleration corresponds to a decrease in energy and an increase in resistance to a further increase in energy.

David,

Resistance is defined as the opposition to the flow of Current.

Reluctance is defined as the opposition to Magnetic lines of Force.

How would you define or better yet, what would you call the resistance you are describing? Resistance is already taken as above.

Mikado

PS: I believe you have a dichotomy going on in the above quote, I have assumed you typed it in wrong. You can't have energy going up and then down at the sametime, that is, if we are talking about the same energy.

There is the post with the dichotomy.

First off, I am not illiterate and my comprehension skills in the English language are not rudimentary. Your statement above has energy going down and then up, AT THE SAMETIME??? I asked politely in a postscript and you ignored.

And do yourself a favor, the fact that you cannot spell my name correctly speaks enormously in many volumes about you after so many posts. If it is unintentional it tells a story, if it is intentional, that says something as well.

Mikado

[Mikado14]

I assume you have read Smith's work, as far as he got and you can understand that okay..

Don't assume, I have not for you just posted the link yesterday from my frame of time and my hands are full. I went to the link and will read when I have time.

I did post an explanation on the "field", maybe you missed it, as trickfox had asked me to explain the field.

Apparently I have.

I sometimes get the impression that the dynamics of field are supposed to fit someone's idea of the way it must be, but if that was the case you would already have it and we would not be having this discussion.

I will not apologize if it is difficult, because that's not my fault. Of course its difficult, what would anyone expect it to be.

Your statement implies a closed mind. If that were the case I wouldn't be attempting to understand, in a coherent manner, your diatribe.

You make these sarcastic remarks about geometry and throwing stuff in the garbage. I didn't suggest that or even hint at such a thing, I simply said the internal dynamics don't fit our existing concept of geometry. Maybe its just your way of expressing yourself.

If the rate of change, frequency, energy etc. increases to the center of field you cannot expect that the application of our existing concepts is going to fit when you encounter the internal underlying dynamics of field.

There's your geometry, you used it, not I. Do you understand the words you are using? Any frequency calculation involves geometry, the rate of change within 360 degrees. That is why Trickfox mentioned Polar coordinates and/or Rectangular coordinates.

Mikado

[Jim]

Mikado, hello, I see you're in fine fiddle.

In your David quotes you fail to include him saying 'there is no space involved' (paraphrasing) there is just time, so there is no geometry.

Just instantaneous. No propulsion, no going from here to there linearily.

Now, please, someone, tell me more abut quantum entanglement.

Jim

[Mikado14]

Mikado, hello, I see you're in fine fiddle.

In your David quotes you fail to include him saying 'there is no space involved' (paraphrasing) there is just time, so there is no geometry.

Just instantaneous. No propulsion, no going from here to there linearily.

Now, please, someone, tell me more abut quantum entanglement.

Jim

And salutations to you as well!

I see that you feel the need to explain David, OK, we can go that route.

Since David refuses, how about you? Want to give a Glossary of Terms? Also, you failed to mention to explain the Dichotomy ...... oh yeah "there is no space involved", I suppose that is how energy can increase and decrease, all at the same time!! Imagine that! That is what the quote was about, a request to clear up what he himself has written.


Neither one of you can give any mathematical relationships other than what is proportional or inversely related, therefore all the questions. If you want to theorize, that's ok, sooner or later theories have to be proven but don't come across as if you know what you are doing for you yourself admitted that in a thread somewhere else on this forum. From my perspective you want someone to fund, build, iron out all the problems all the while you sit back and take the credit.

Now let's see, I suppose David will respond for Jim. How about this, David respond for David and Jim respond for Jim, just a thought.

Mikado

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Andrew,

Are you monitoring this conversation? I believe that you were the one who recently told me about a particular college which had two divisions .... theoreticians on one side of the campus and the practical engineers on the other side, and I was amazed when you said that they never spoke to each other!

Well, maybe thats the easy way out. The HARD way is what is happening here on this forum. I am going to mangle the proper phrasing here but someone important once said this to me .... or something close ..... "The TRUE mark of intelligence is the ability to consider two opposing facts and realize that they are both true." (forgive me here on the misquote, but I hope that you all will get what I am trying to say. This is a different world here, we are called on to use a different set of tools.

Quantum entanglement? I am not the scientist enough to explain it. But there is quite a bit of information out there on it. If you follow some threads you will run into talk of the new age of "super computers" which is the extent so far of the vision for the technology.

This entanglement counts on the fact that there ARE other dimensions. Maybe before we launch into discussions about how a certain scientist may have been "communicating" with another dimension .... perhaps we should all brush up on what is being said in more or less main stream science now about quantum entanglement. I am sort of pleased that the world has taken a bit of a break out there because it will give me a chance to study some too.

Meet you all back here after recess? And everyone, drive carefully out there. Its amazing how Christmas spirits affect the driving of others! Elizabeth

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

"stumbled onto this"

"According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, instantaneous action-at-a-distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. If one of the interacting objects were suddenly displaced from its position, the other object would feel its influence instantaneously, meaning information had been transmitted faster than the speed of light."

( found the above here, which has some interesting tidbits) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_ ... physics%29

Paul.
Remember this conversation with Linda Brown and the salt and pepper shakers ?..... or was it the sugar bowl? Dr. Brown was saying the same thing specifically to his daughter while they spoke about Einsteins contributions. Of course, this was in 1955 I believe so we have a way to go with the story line.

(Need a picture of Zoe being a cowgirl!) ( Zoe for those who don't know, is the name of Ann and Paul Schatzkins beloved terrier mix. She is a wonderful little dog and apparently has been helping with the book. (It takes alot to keep a human properly walked you know) Recently saw a great shot of her scuba diving (thanks to photo shop I am sure but its great!) Now we need a real yipee wahoo picture! How about Zoe and an Adamski saucer? Elizabeth

Elizabeth

[Trickfox]

please, someone, tell me more abut quantum entanglement.

Jim

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/life/sto ... 12,00.html

or try also http://www.observer.guardian.co.uk/life ... 12,00.html

The article is called: "A Machine Called Z"

It will give you goose bumps Jim!!! Happy reading!

WHERE IS STEVE?!! Doesn't he have internet in Kelowna?

Perhaps you guys are keeping the real genius in the back room hey!!!

Hey... I'm just another hoser here...hey....OK.... So break out that case of 50...ok?....

Trickfox

(PS; only Canadians will understand that last line)

[Trickfox]

Want to give a Glossary of Terms?
Mikado

That's a GREAT idea Mikado! How about if we simply decide to use the SAME glossary of terms in WIKIPEDIA. That way we can all agree on the language we are going to use.

Want to begin with "The field"? Can we agree to either use the wikipedia definition or should we change that definition so that we are all talking the same language.

As for other scientific terms. I'm partial to the GSE units of measurement myself. I use the Berkely Physics Course as a reference manual, and I'll send the reference pages to anyone who wants it!!

Last but not least, Are we using Minkowski's definition of the time interval or is anyone here trying to recalibrate the time interval to some other known or unknown "negative square root" reference?

Does anyone else in this thread understand what I'm saying?

I'm just concerned about the necessity to Engineering Hardware. If we are going to be building hardware, we need relevant points of reference on the above named issues, otherwise it's all HOT AIR and we can't build anything, because we can't agree on basic definitions.

Mikado is trying to understand issues which are directly related to hardware engineering, and I believe he deserves a practical answer to his questions, otherwise we will never actually build anything.

Oh, and by the way "The planck length" is a practical demonstration of "Action at a distance". When an electron jumps orbit it leaves one orbit and instantly shows up at another orbit without actually traversing any space. That odd behaviour does not prevent an ordinary match from lighting up when you strike it. -Nor does it prevent us from measuring energy or manipulating it.

The point is.... we understand the Planck length and we can still use it to engineer amazing technology even though we still don't know where the electron goes exactly when it jumps orbit.

That is why we use the Plank length in engineering. It's still a known and practical unit of measurement with a major unknown element associated to it.


Trickfox

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Absolutely agree with you Trickfox. If we had to wait to figure out where an electron actually GOES ..... and why it decides upon an altered speed when it does resume its circle after its " quantum "leap" " We would get absolutely nothing done. Neils Bohr went around and around in circles on that one <g> and admitted to his associates that it led him to talking to himself. Somethings perhaps you just don't need to have explained.

But we do have to agree on a terminology and that was also Bohrs concern and message, so looking into the past and casting a glance into the future .... You guys are approaching this the right way.

And there is alot to the fact that you guys are Canadians. Mr. Stephenson would be proud. " Remember the Canadians" Paul was told, more than once. Elizabeth

[Trickfox]

OK How about this?

Directly quoted from Smith's book* here: He is talking about "The field"

To those having a mathematical background this presents no particular problem since the relationships are merely those of established Vector Algebra. To those not having such a background, understanding must be obtained through appreciation of the meanings of the actual words used

So..... can we agree now that Vector Algebra is useful in describing the properties of "The field".

Now we have to work on the "time" reference issue. Again from Smith's book*

We have just satisfied ourselves that spin may be described or measured in terms of subdivisions of an interval and that these units may properly be considered as a field. We have called this field tempic field, rather than a time field, because time for us has a connotation that is not strictly in accord with the characteristics of this field. As a matter of fact, our clocks do not measure either time or tempic field; they measure entropy changes.

NOW THERE IS SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING ABOUT THIS.

What if I told all of you that my friends and I have made very important discoveries about entropy changes. I cannot begin to go into this on the net but I'm interested in finding out if we can get together this comming summer to share some of this past work of ours.

Merry Christmas, Ho Ho Ho.......

I think Santa has a big gift in mind for all of us in the forum this comming year

Trickfox

* http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci~1.htm#foreword
Chapter IV "The Field Fabric"
Chapter 3.1 "The significance of the tempic field"


Who the hell is REX anyway?
TRKFX

[Chris Knight]

Mikado, Trickfox, Jim and David;

I went to Ohio University for a undergraduate school, and was in the Physics program for several years. As I was telling Elizabeth, they had divided the physics department into Theoretical Physicists (in the main building with Geology, Chemistry, and Geography) and Practical Physicists.

It was a Theoretician who said to me, "We know everything there is to know about capacitors. You're wasting your time." There was a huge dichotomy between the two groups (also, this fellow was pretty sure of himself). I eventually drifted over to the Practical Aspect of Physics and then eventually towards the Engineering department where I found a plethora of "can-do" people.

One of the major problems with mixing Practical and Theoretical Physics is that Theoreticians often venture into areas which may not have a defined lexicon, so it becomes necessary for them to create terms to describe concepts, which may or may not be easily translated to a common denominator or words that others can comprehend.

Practical scientists tend to want things described in way that can be applied (practical application) and I tend to fall into this category. I depend on others, such as Raymond, to explain concepts to me in a manner that I can reach out and bridge the gap to a more practical side. Fortunately, Raymond can go way, way out there, and still come back within a reasonable proximity to my extent of comprehension so that I can apply it. Also, I rely on others who are more the MacGyver-type - all practice, little theory.

I can see the frustration that you Mikado, Jim, David, and Raymond are having, and I have to give you all credit for trying to figure out what each other is saying. I can see Mikado's practical nature, and Jim and David's theoretical nature coming out.

Particularly, in this type of forum situation, you are limited to words without inflection or nuances (the limitations of language again), absence of diagrams, inability to look into each others faces, etc. Perhaps a deeper understanding would have to wait for a chance to get together and draw on a chalkboard, rant and rave, do some yelling, order some pizza etc. before reaching a common comprehension - that would be enjoyable. Until then, I definitely encourage you all to continue your great job of finding that middle ground.

BTW, Merry Christmas everyone.

Andrew
Qualight, L.L.C.

[Trickfox]

Andrew
The only frustration I have is living on Macaroni and cheese dinners and working five hours in an attic fishing telephone wires through fiber glass insulation just so that I can pay for the server space for my website.

Otherwise, this forum is the furthest thing from frustration that I can find my friend.

Perhaps you don't know me as well as you think!

Raymond