Giantkiller moves forward into Full Heterodyning.

[armagdn03]

@acerzw

Thanks for the link. Not trying to be mean or discount..........but I went to the page, jumped to page 26, definition of electric field, read about 6 lines and closed it. This may be a good article but.........what it is trying to do is bridge the gap between Russlian / SVP / Schauberger-eske phisics and what we have now.

This is a large mistake. The gift these men gave us was not meant to work with modern understanding, it was meant to replace it. What we have now is a half truth, and quite frankly we dove so far into it that we cannot really revisit these concepts until we understand the the fundamental wheelwork of nature.

For example, on page 26, it starts talking about positive and negative particles. Lets look at a bar magnet for sheits and giggles.

It has a positive pole a negative pole and a neutral. Hmmm, where are the positive negative and neutral particles? shouldn't every bar magnet look like 3 separate spheres? That is what modern science tells us! We assume that the nucleus of an atom has these particles, but the deeper we delve into this the more confusing things get.

A while back our eminent scientists declared that we could no longer call the electron a point particle and it is now to be considered more of a cloud, since it is mathematically impossible to pinpoint its location at any given time (thanks Heisenberg) Now So now we have a nucleus and a gas of negativity........or space. How is this different from our planet? We are a large chunk of matter separated by a large expanse of space, and Lowe and be hold, we do not have separate sheres for each of these polar states.

I think when you are a few Yeaps ahead, you will notice that I interchangeably used a planet with an atom, and threw a bar magnet in there as well (of which our planet is a variation) This is not a mistake, and serves a valid point.....I will let you guys think about that one a bit.

Think nothing but polarization. even a ball rolling on the floor displays this characteristic. It has its negative region (where it has been) it has its positive region (where it is going)  and there is a point in between, so when re roll a ball, we should See it separate into 3 different polar spheres.  I mean thats how we model the atom.

Lets all take a moment and laugh at the idea of an "electron" HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

[acerzw]

@arma

good points, as always well made. However since a hypothetical ball can always continue rolling in theory say on a planet, the middle point at any given time would be in a different place, or are we only to assess this once it has stopped rolling. I find it difficult to compare the ball with all the other examples you mention as they have fixed neutral points when the ball in this way of thinking does not. Also the neutral in a planet and a magnet is part of its 'physical' makeup where as the balls neutral is not part of the ball but a place in relation to its movement over time.

I know time is an illusion, but is there a better understanding of this from what your have learnt of Russell's philosophy?

A

[giantkiller]

The current realization here is 'We are way beyond copper'. That is good.

--giantkiller. Frequency equals matter. Don't think it. Live it!

[armagdn03]

@arma

good points, as always well made. However since a hypothetical ball can always continue rolling in theory say on a planet, the middle point at any given time would be in a different place, or are we only to assess this once it has stopped rolling. I find it difficult to compare the ball with all the other examples you mention as they have fixed neutral points when the ball in this way of thing does not. Also the neutral in a planet and a magnet is part of its 'physical' makeup where as the balls neutral is not part of the ball but a place in relation to its movement over time.

I know time is an illusion, but is there a better understanding of this from what your have learnt of Russell's philosophy?

A

The ball moving on the ground is not an example of  a magnet in the way you are thinking, I just simply gave many different examples of polarization and the ball was an example of  how to view motion as polarization. You could think of it in terms of the Doppler Effect if you like, the soundwaves will be decompressed behind the ball (negative) and compressed in front (positive) and if you are traveling right along side it, you will hear the sound at its true pitch (neutral) or if the ball has stooped moving, it has returned to neutral, and all will hear the sound at its correct pitch. Moving the ball creates polarization, stopping it depolarizes it.

As for  earth. It is actually like two bar magnets with a gap in between in the center, try this for yourself, if iron fillings are placed in the gap it creates a sphere in the center that pulls iron  inward towards its center (gravity?) But lets take a different look at earth, what if the earth itself is positive (matter, concentrating, gravity) and the vacuity of space is negative, like two concentric spheres sharing the same center (I know that is the definition of concentric, so please refrain from a correction). The difference is that space forms in cubes, and matter forms in spheres they are polar opposites. This is getting way ahead of the curve here though, and you will find this in a few Yeaps I'm sure.

You see polarization is key to everything, matter has its polar opposite space, movement is a  manifestation of polarization itself. I suggest looking for this in whole objects, movement, everything. Notice that there is even polarization within polarization. Movement is the polar opposite of peace, yet within movement there is a positive and negative as well that gives it magnitude and direction. Much the same as earth being positive, space being negative, yet earth has still a positive and negative polet itself.

If you cannot see movement as polerization, if you cannot picture everything and I mean everything as polarity, then you do not understand electricity........this is the first step.

[acerzw]

@arma

Thanks again for yet another clear explanation, it kind of makes sense to me that everything in existence is part of a fractal of polarisation, which seems to be the ultimate level of understanding from what you are saying. I suspect as you say if I invest enough Yeaps I will get there... and I will invest my Yeaps for sure...

It seems quite clear that while all matter equals energy, obviously not all energy equals matter, which makes E=MC² a joke. It is increasingly clear that the existence of particles have been adopted as a convenient mathematical fiction, which as time goes on is really proving to be less than convenient to theoretical physicists who are clearly beginning to run out of ways to patch the glaring contradictions in non-ether based physics... clearly there may well be multiple dimensions of reality but not as envisaged by string theory etc... ho hum interesting times...

A