The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)

[pauldude000]

@all

This is a repost of a post of mine from a completely different section than the "Steven Marks Devices". I thought is might be interesting, and applicable here as well. Enjoy!

".........  It actually makes sense to me. Let me explain why. I will have to use some math, so I apologize if I lose anyone here.

Note: ^2 = "squared" and sqrt() = square root

To say E=MC^2 for matter at rest, or E=(MC^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) with Lorentzian transformations applied for motion, or E=hf for electromagnetic energy, is somewhat cryptical. To state that the energy E referenced is actually the same form, or equivalent, then E=E.

What that means is that (MC^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = hf. It has to be true, or E is not equivalent. In simpler terms, the property known as "energy" (E) is not "energy".

Therefore if we assume that E is truly = E, we may conclude from this that Mass itself is a function of frequency of an energy, since C and h (plank's constant) are actually constant numbers represented by symbolic form.

If mass is a function of energy frequency, then mass may well be transformed to either an increase of either frequency or energy, and vice-versa.

Now, also consider that E^2 = momentum^2 + M^2, or E= sqrt(momentum^2 + M^2)

Guess what, E = E (actually E^2 = E^2) principle yet again.......

In this we can state hf(MC^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) = momentum^2 + M^2

We ten note that momentum is then a relation of a mass frequency in motion, which is true.

This then demonstrates that mass is not some quantity solely owned by "matter", and that "matter" is but another representation, form, or aspect of energy.

Otherwise, E=mc^2 would not be applicable to matter, as it's derivations are based upon ELECTROMAGNETIC formula. (Note the application of the Lorentzian transformations.)

Therefore, it should come as no shock to anyone that energy can manifest itself as any of the forms, or all of the forms, with a change in any of the functional parts of the base form.

Therefore, collision of photons, would equal a change in momentum or possibly even frequency, which might create particles, or release energy of various forms."

[buzz-ard]

Very good post, Paul! I was trying to make this point in another thread several weeks ago whilst disputing parts of Einstein's theory, but did not say it so well as you have here. I'll re-iterate the layman's conceptual guts of my post, in the form of shallow but studied truisms:

Energy and Matter are interchangeable in any equation, with the appropriate conversions (Lorentz, the c^2 component). All 'detectable' energy has frequency (motion). All 'detectable' matter has frequency (motion). Energy without frequency is neutral. Matter without frequency is inert (one interpretation of "dark matter"). Matter can change forms through adjustments to its frequency. (Wanna see for yourself? Fill a saucepan with ice, apply heat until boiling.) Adjustments in frequency always add energy to or reduce the energy from the subject material. A subject material will always seek to rid itself of extra energy retained beyond its normal resting state (in the forms of excess motion in matter or excess charge in electromagnetism). An imbalance in energy distribution will always seek to level itself, just as water seeks its own level. Energy cannot be created, only expended. Matter cannot be created, only transformed. All things require energy to exist. Matter is a by-product of energy expression. The speed of light is not a limitation, only a reference value.

For those of you that like this sort of thing, I highly recommend "Subquantum Kinetics" by Dr. Paul LaViolette.

[pauldude000]

@buzz-ard

Just some thoughts, which I originally thought self evident, yet I guess are not in many "popular" areas. I have been called pretty much everything but "heretic" for such notions, though this was heavily implied. Theoretical physics has many "fun-house mirrors" at the basis for many of its conceptions. Simply put, just because something "appears" to be, doesn't mean that it necessarily is. Look at yourself in a fun-house mirror, and just because you appear to be three times your weight, doesn't mean you have physically changed in any manner.

Take the time dilation thought experiment using two clocks for example. You accelerate from the earth at C, and yes, the clock appears to slow down in your reference frame. Now, accelerate BACK to earth at the same rate....... (Guess what, your clocks match again. It was an optical illusion, as the same clock which "slowed down", now speeds up.) This particular illusion is unidirectional in nature.

Light has never been the "carrier of all information", as Einstein thought. (Electromagnetic energy is only one form or aspect of many FORMS of energy, and all carry information.) SR violates one of the base postulates of SR, in that specific frames of reference are given precedence over others.

Relativity needs to be revised.

@Art

You demonstrate humbleness. That takes Lockheed Martin, and a few others out of the picture. (Where you R&D'd)

Paul Andrulis

[BEP]

@Paul

**CAUTION**

You are now entering the HERITIC ZONE!

Where everything is spin and frequency. There is only one potential and as a result only one magnetic flux. Everything else is an imbalance or a separation of that.

Don't let the screen door hit you on the a** on the way in 

Expending energy is also just transformation....

[buzz-ard]

@BEP 

The HERETIC ZONE - now that's funny! Made me think of Bill O'Reilly and the "No Spin Zone". He definitely doesn't get a new TPU.

Interesting point you make that expending energy is also a transformation. Matter and energy are the same animal, constantly transforming. Kinda brings the whole thing full circle, no?

@Paul

You got my point exactly. One can explain things theoretically until indigo blue in the face, but it's useless without two things: A starting point, and an engaging audience. Theoretical astrophysics is one of my more intense interests, but even the best theories are useless here until we have something to observe. Until I came across Paul LaViolette I thought I would never find anyone who shares my view of the universe, but I still have trouble finding an engaging audience for meaningful intercourse.

My fascination with the TPU and this forum stems from the fact that (as far as I know) none of us here are rocket scientists and aren't trying to be. We're regular Joes with a few extra bucks and a desire to make a difference. I can fit in here. Mostly.