a new kind of visible radiant energy?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

For example::
if you triangulate the squared circle, square the resulting octagon, triangulate that square, square the axis
then circle the square.
You have effectively reduced its size to one third.
And what i just did in one sentence, would have taken a mathematician half a sheet of paper, and a whole lot more time.

But, if you were to just read that sentence, without me explaining this to you......
you would think im crazy, and have no clue about Pi, Radii, and the area of a circle. But as you can clearly see here, there are other ways to solve the problem than the commonly accepted model presented by physics.

Thanks Sm0ky - I get it.  Very cool.

Kindest as ever
Rosie

[WilbyInebriated]

For example::
if you triangulate the squared circle, square the resulting octagon, triangulate that square, square the axis
then circle the square.
You have effectively reduced its size to one third.
And what i just did in one sentence, would have taken a mathematician half a sheet of paper, and a whole lot more time.

But, if you were to just read that sentence, without me explaining this to you......
you would think im crazy, and have no clue about Pi, Radii, and the area of a circle. But as you can clearly see here, there are other ways to solve the problem than the commonly accepted model presented by physics.

simply eloquent sm0ky2.
classrooms tend to make it harder than it really is or should be.

as an aside, i personally think laurence kim peek is the most fascinating person (that i am aware of) in all of history. for those of you who don't know who kim is, he is 'rainman', the real mccoy. the world lost a great man last year...
1/5 blocked by stanford university... boo, hiss
2/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJjAbs-3kc8
3/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auufbu_ZdDI
4/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRPxMDj33S4
5/5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1aA5osvYgY
the corpus callosum, or lack thereof, is an amazing thing.

people, all people, have a need to share a bit of themselves with others.

[twinbeard]

Hi Rosemary,

Hi again twinbeard.  I think classicists consider that the electron is a fundamental particle or what they call a lepton.  But I agree with you.  I also think the electron is a composite of something much smaller. 

Indeed.  It seems as though the classicists suffer not from incorrect logic, but incomplete data collected by their senses and extensions thereto.  A parallel would be our observations of distant stars, and recently, distant planets.  Extrapolate the awareness of the actual structure of these distant solar systems from our view thereof a few thousand years ago, vs our view today... we are no longer looking at "twinkling diamonds in the sky."

If, on a quantum scale, the universe follows the fractal iteration patterns we find evident in just about everything else, then the electron MUST be composed of smaller particles, or depending on your perspective on the matter(pun intended), higher frequency waves heterodyned into frequencies an octave higher than gamma rays.  While observing scope traces of my high frequency alternator, I notice the wave representing the frequency of alternation seems to be amplitude modulated by another wave an order of magnitude lower in frequency.  Only when tuned to resonance does the heterodyned wave showing frequency of alternation reach full amplitude, without modulation.  I recorded this effect... it is shown at about 3:35 into the following video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIZDu7HFmJI  Again, I will use the analogy of the distant solar system.  With our current capabilities, those solar systems appear as atomic structures are represented.  A higher resolution view, however, would visibly show the planets composed of particles like our own, which are in turn composed of smaller particles, and so on.  Since we have a local instance of the remote system structure for reference, we easily make the logical connection that remote planets are like our own planets in basic structure.  We do not, however, have any locally scaled instance of those subatomic particles, so in that regard, we are still looking at "twinkling diamonds" on the quantum scale.

I'm into symmetries and when one uses just two charges - n/s or add neutral - 3 potential charge conditions then one actually is working with something that's closer to a binary system.  Binary systems are good.  We all know how effectively it's used in computer software technologies.  But for me it's essential - because I've had an entire dearth of schooling in math. 

Now I find that very interesting from the inventor of the device that breaks classical symmetry by using an open loop system not accounted for by academia's symmetrical regauging of Maxwell and Faraday's original work on EM! !

Yes, binary systems are very easy to work with in computing (I make my living in the field), but I think for different reasons.  High/low, on/off, 0/1 duality is much easier to manage in a semiconductor environment than a sliding voltage scale.  Can you imagine if we tried to make a microprocessor with a few billion rheostats? 

I as well have studied quite a bit of mathematics, being most enamored with the work of Mandlebrot, et. al. concerning fractal iterations and iterative systems.  I feel that our understanding of things like weather systems will take a massive leap forward when we start to apply this critical mathematics to the models, instead of using traditional linear algebras and euclidean geometries to describe phenomenon which are obviously much more complex.

So.  It's my 'fall back'.  But what it does is sharpen the focus on those symmetries and I find it entirely engrossing.  Definitely finding all sorts of strange configurations in the toroidal magnetic field that's needed to keep the proposed velocity of the fields.  I think it needs a kind of repulsion and attraction - also and always assuming that the field comprises any kind of fundamental particle at all.  Way too many suppositions for a really earnest thesis.  But it's the best I can do.

Of course, we are all kind of prodding and guessing our way through... it is that now we have the opportunity to prod and guess together, regardless of physical location or nationality, in real time, that holds the most promise in finding the real truth, quantifying it into equations, and using that truth for our betterment!

BTW I've also seen an photographic illustration of an electron - in Paul Dyson's book 'Conceptual Physics'.  It looks something like this * * * * *

It's the 'gaps' between that intrigue me.  It seems to drift in and out of our dimensions.  Now you see me - now you don't.  Effectively there's a momentary decay.  The hell of it is that it is still considered to be a stable particle - into INFINITY.  It's very curious.

Almost like a phase modulation?

Cheers,
Twinbeard

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys - Wilby and Sm0ky - that was salutory  - and many thanks.  I would be proud to emulate you both.  I shall give it my best shot.

A lesson well learned.  And Cletus - I'm old and addled and excessively dim witted.  Bear with me.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello again Twinbeard.  What a thoughtful post.  I'm really blown away by the talent on this forum.  Delighted to learn that there's more than one mathematician on board.

I assure you I've invented NOTHING.  I use a simple switching circuit to try and prove a concept related to electric current flow.  But there are FAR more effective systems on these forums and - frankly - the only possible advantage to that circuit is that it's measurable.  It seems that energy values in motors are not so easily guaged.  But I know virtually nothing about motors.  Just a general impression.

Yes I think the answer is in fractals.  I'm actually working with someone who's got the required software.  But our early efforts are simply to show the shapes in my rather eccentric thesis. 

In any event - I'm not sure that we're still on topic.  It's just that there are certain hints at 'gravity' type interactions in Dave's rig that captivate me.  And hopefully, as you say, we'll find the solution on these forums.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary