Marko Rodin - Smart Lazer Technology

cern is going mental !!!

.....................The point, as relates the question “What is Electricity”, in considering and contrasting the work of others as opposed to simply broadcasting such overly vague consensus driven cul-de-sac statement such as “Electricity is Charge” is to delve deeper into not only the ‘accepted interpretations’ of measurement and experiment but to also contrast these with other experimental evidences which may speak to transient phenomena that have all but been eliminated by ‘filtering’ from the variety of activities culled ‘neath the term “Electricity.”

In this case, and as of late specifically, the ‘by products’ that may occur as a result of the superposition of incident and reflected waves in addition to the appearance of “standing waves” are ripe for discussion consider the opening question of this thread. All of which by their very nature as “waves” must necessarily have their existence in a dielectric-like ‘meduim’ surrounding a wire since wire itself; doesn’t ‘wave’. Only the amorphous characteristics or ‘quality’ of spatial “energy” can do that.

All that is being offered here are other interpretive perspectives or frameworks garnered from First Principles directly from experiment. Ivor Catt, for example, needed to reexamine the concepts responsible for the origin of the idea of “charge” and/or “voltage” owing to the result of experiment and testing. There is nothing wrong with reexamining the implications of the very existence of the impedance of “free space” aka the “reference medium” Z0[377] and to posit that owing to said impedance mismatch induced by reflective interaction i.e. “superimposition” of TEM Energy Current with reflections of different impedance characteristics that ‘secondary’ quantifications (or read actual secondary quanta) might be produced and measured as ‘cross products’, by products etc. of not only secondary but tertiary reflections as well - and subsequently labeled as “charge” or “voltage.”

Lastly, insofar as being “entities that act” what exactly is Planck ’s constant supposed to represent? – the smallest “energy quanta” i.e. IT ACTS to convey, transmit, and itself BE “energy.” Considering that the definition of “energy” is the ‘capacity to do work’ i.e. ACT-ion, how would this be an affront against credulity??

To then broadly assert that “Electricity is Charge” without such an interdisciplinary approach is simply absurd when considering the vast scope that the term electricity encompasses. Now, one can hopefully understand the ‘knowledge filters’ that prevented the contradictory contemporaries of Ivor Catt (he is not alone) from peeking their heads from beneath the umbrellas of their ‘comfort zones’. How dare anyone reexamine and/or reinterpret the interpretive framework of “scientific” gnosis and all of its wonders.

Pft, I do it with glee!! Its called First Principles and the day this dies in "science" is the day "science" dies and mere automatons run about regurgitating vague postulates as though they are self-evident facts.

everything expanding pro rata to all else hence never noticed
it that what it says?

In part. It does a great job of explaining energy and you can extrapolate into electricity.

A comment regarding the electricity conversation here - its my observation it's over complicated and not clearly conveying what electrical charge is.

I would appreciate a simplification.

[link to www.physorg.com]

"Since matter is created from photons, and photons are entirely electromagnetic, it follows that matter is indeed made up of EM fields. They are arranged differently, in light and in particles.

I have found a way to arrange the EM fields to achieve the particle properties of charge, mass, angular momentum, spin, and stability. The paper is posted on arxiv under physics/0611266. The electron can be modeled as a dipolar B field that morphs into a toroidal E field, and back, at the Compton frequency. The electric and magnetic fluxes are
quantized. Precession of this spinning model about a different axis then creates "charge". Mass is the encapsulated kinetic energy of these changing and spinning EM fields. Charge is created by a vxB mechanism of the spinning dipolar B field."
[link to lofi.forum.physorg.com]

Is the electron a photon with
toroidal topology?
[link to docs.google.com]

Beautiful. That feels real.

I was asked to play in my lucid dream sandbox about this.

So, I played last night in my sand box. I am getting ready for work, so I can't write it out now, but I saw why this statement must be true. This is from the paper quoted.

[link to arxiv.org]
"An answer to “why no magnetic monopoles?” is now clear. So long as there were thought to
exist the electrical monopoles known as charges, a deep belief in symmetry demanded that we consider
and look for magnetic monopoles. This study concludes that there are no electrical monopoles. To this
extent, symmetry has been recovered."

My study (hehe) also concluded there cannot be any monopoles. Monopoles instability actually LEADS TO dipoles. They either collapse, or form dipoles. (I need to explain why...but later) Funny, I am looking at the stuff they cannot see. It has to do with contained spin forms that are spiral. What creates the spin forms? Light. Light is the only TRUE constant, therefor there are no fluctuations in the speed of the spin. The only way for dipoles to remain absolutely stable like they do, is with an absolute constant defining it.

More later.

Also, I played for about 2 hours with Klein Bubbles. Awesome. You know what I requested to 'see'? That's right. Black holes. BTW, they come in all sorts of shapes, not merely spherical. I imagine the ones nested at the center of the galaxies must be mainly spherical...but, they are absolutely incredible things! I even experimented with a supernova entering a black hole. WHOA! The result the volume was annihilated, but the skin still existed, although very shriveled up and emaciated. For relation, the size of the volume would be a house, and the skin would be a quarter after the interaction and implode/explode of the two.

Also, I experimented with injecting a massive object into the Klein Bubbles, and it resulted in a Klein Bottle effect.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

morning

Morning.

I was asked to play in my lucid dream sandbox about this.

So, I played last night in my sand box. I am getting ready for work, so I can't write it out now, but I saw why this statement must be true. This is from the paper quoted.

[link to arxiv.org]
"An answer to “why no magnetic monopoles?” is now clear. So long as there were thought to
exist the electrical monopoles known as charges, a deep belief in symmetry demanded that we consider
and look for magnetic monopoles. This study concludes that there are no electrical monopoles. To this
extent, symmetry has been recovered."

My study (hehe) also concluded there cannot be any monopoles. Monopoles instability actually LEADS TO dipoles. They either collapse, or form dipoles. (I need to explain why...but later) Funny, I am looking at the stuff they cannot see. It has to do with contained spin forms that are spiral. What creates the spin forms? Light. Light is the only TRUE constant, therefor there are no fluctuations in the speed of the spin. The only way for dipoles to remain absolutely stable like they do, is with an absolute constant defining it.

More later.

Also, I played for about 2 hours with Klein Bubbles. Awesome. You know what I requested to 'see'? That's right. Black holes. BTW, they come in all sorts of shapes, not merely spherical. I imagine the ones nested at the center of the galaxies must be mainly spherical...but, they are absolutely incredible things! I even experimented with a supernova entering a black hole. WHOA! The result the volume was annihilated, but the skin still existed, although very shriveled up and emaciated. For relation, the size of the volume would be a house, and the skin would be a quarter after the interaction and implode/explode of the two.

Also, I experimented with injecting a massive object into the Klein Bubbles, and it resulted in a Klein Bottle effect.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

hey ss, I appreciate the clear way you summarize this info. Agree on your principles. Disagree with you on the higgs though - there will be a particle expression of the logic if complexity stacks the way I envision.

Ok, when Aether shoved me in Doc's Delorean the other day, it messed with my head... because I saw a shift in myself... not one I detested, mind you. But one who censored herself heavily and talked in circles around what she wanted to say. I'm tired of all the dick measuring, someone's always gotta be bigger, thicker, smarter, blah, blah, blah. I don't use profanity here to shock or as an attention getter, it's just the only analogy or metaphor that actually fits. There's no equality because everybody gotta be the prettiest one... and they're too stupid, myself included, to realize they already are, lol. You are what you are and you are the me I see in you. Until we let go of this idea of other, what the hell are we accomplishing. Because if we were all alike? If we all agreed? How fucking horrible would that be? What would we do then when there were no more excuses?

hey sickscent, you know, after so long knowing you it still flips me out you do this accurately

hope you ear gets will quick

It probably flips me out more.

The standard model of particle physics implies that there is a "Higgs field" that permeates all space. This field interacts with particles, and does so with varying strengths. Particles that interact more strongly experience more resistance to their motion and appear heavier. Some particles, such as photons, do not interact with the field at all and remain massless.

In this way, the mass of everything is determined by the existence of the field, and mass is an accident of our circumstances because we exist in a universe in which such a background field happens to have arisen.

What is the Higgs boson and why does it matter?
13 December 2011



[link to www.newscientist.com]