023 EU Meetup February 20, 2018

 EU Meetup February 20, 2018

 

The thinking of many other scientists, however, has been coloured by the increasingly mechanistic approach towards life – Deus ex machina (God from the Machine) – which is not to imply that all the established facts of science and the painstaking, dedicated research that has been carried out are invalid, but to suggest that their interpretation could perhaps be different. To date there has been far too much emphasis placed on analysis, the pursuit of minutiae, the development of specialist terminology incomprehensible to other scientific disciplines, let alone the rest of a humanity ever subservient to the dictates of a science that has become the infallible new God.

According to Viktor Schauberger, science thinks an octave too low and, due to its purely materialistic approach, neglecting the underlying energetic basis for all physical manifestation, has lost sight of the integrated whole. Prof. David Susuki, the eminent biologist, once stated that there were at least twenty branches of biology, each of which had it own jargon, unable to communicate coherently with the others. The individual feels insignificant in the face of all this vast array of scientific expertise, a condition one has noticed among acquaintances, when confronted by the towering edifice of the apparently all-knowing, ‘Scientific Establishment’.

“The EU theories are more interesting than the Fairy Tale we have been taught” - EU2014

“Science fails at the largest and smallest scales”

“Science is CGI Fakery”

“Science ignores real myths and creates new ones”

“The aim of Science is to confirm what we already believe”

“Today….Science is Computer Generated Mythology"

Read More

021 EU Meetup February 6, 2018

 

 EU Meetup February 6, 2018

 
 
Electrophoresis (from the Greek "Ηλεκτροφόρηση" meaning "to bear electrons") is the motion of dispersed particles relative to a fluid under the influence of a spatially uniform electric field.[1][2][3][4][5][6] This electrokinetic phenomenon was observed for the first time in 1807 by Russian professors Peter Ivanovich Strakhov and Ferdinand Frederic Reuss (Moscow State University),[7] who noticed that the application of a constant electric field caused clay particles dispersed in water to migrate. It is ultimately caused by the presence of a charged interface between the particle surface and the surrounding fluid. It is the basis for a number of analytical techniques used in chemistry for separating molecules by size, charge, or binding affinity.

Electrophoresis of positively charged particles (cations) is called cataphoresis, while electrophoresis of negatively charged particles (anions) is called anaphoresis. Electrophoresis is a technique used in laboratories in order to separate macromolecules based on size. The technique applies a negative charge so proteins move towards a positive charge. This is used for both DNA and RNA analysis. Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) has a clearer resolution than agarose and is more suitable for quantitative analysis. In this technique DNA foot-printing can identify how proteins bind to DNA. It can be used to separate proteins by size, density and purity. It can also be used for plasmid analysis, which develops our understanding of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics.

 

Read More

017 EU Meetup January 9, 2018

Circle closes back to Podkletnov-Znidarsic experimental science

1 message


don mitchell <don86326@gmail.com> Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:11 PM
To: David Johnson <dj@argos.vu>, Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com>, jhafner <jhafner@swcp.com>, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>, Edo Kaal <edwinkaal00@gmail.com>, Buddy Dougherty <goldenscaling@gmail.com>, Neil Thompson <krackonis@gmail.com>, Robert Neil Boyd Ph D <rnboydphd@comcast.net>, Stephen Boelcskevy <ouchbox@gmail.com>
Hey DJ, et al,
Dave, the material you’ve linked us to, the Phoenix theory, proselyted by alien_scientist, closes the circle for me on Znidarsic’s scientific conjecture framing Podkletnov’s gravity-beam experimental parameters.

Alien_scietist’s youtube ‘Antigravity Physics Explained by Alienscientist – Podkletnov – Znidarsic

​’

Alien_scientist emerged from the free-energy intuitive-researcher/populist internet-space, but has evolved to a point that he attracted other scientists (Hover Brothers).  Per another within Youtube comments below:
i have a bro crush on alienscientist. he works construction now but he’s trying to put a lab together. he can’t get a job in physics because he’s been so vocal on conspiracy related issues. he’s the first to admit that may have been a mistake. fact is he is now a responsible father and husband. i wish somebody with a job in physics would give him a chance. i have a feeling he would make a hell of a physicist now that he has sewed his wild oats so to speak.”
I hope you each a happy new year, and hope the video linked above roots into your mental framework; a self-centered hope, perhaps, as I’m very alone in my interests at a conversational level –inviting group magic-of-mind.
Oh yes!  Happy new year all!
The concept that gravity and EM radiation are actions of a single dynamic is resonating with me. One being a convergent action the other being a divergent action. The two in an eternally opposing dance each seeking re-unification.

Re: Edmund Halley’s hollow earth is right, and it shows up in the seismic data

1 message

Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com> Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:24 AM
To: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>
Cc: “David W. Johnson” <dj@argos.vu>, Jhafner <jhafner@swcp.com>, Don86326 <don86326@gmail.com>, Neil Thompson <krackonis@gmail.com>, Buddy Dougherty <goldenscaling@gmail.com>, Peter Alexander Venis <peter.a.venis@gmail.com>, “Lukas K. Womack” <lukas.k.womack@gmail.com>

Hey!

I will not engage deeply in this one, just let me add a few comments that you might find useful:
As shown in the links that Jim provided, the speed of acoustical waves in any medium is not only a function of density but also a function of the coefficient of stiffness (isentropic bulk modulus or bulk elasticity for gases). This second variable basically measures the resistance of an elastic body to deformation by an applied stress in the material (it is the inverse of the compressibility). This second variable is more complex than density, because it is a thermodynamic quantity. This means that in order to fully specify the compressibility you need to specify how the temperature varies during compression. This value also varies widely between solids, liquids and gases, see:
This means that we have to be careful with the seismic data and possible conclusions about Earth’s density. Compressibility must be an important factor. This is evident (at least) in the findings in the Kola Superdeep Bore hole article. Let me provide a full quote from that one:
While data produced by the Kola drilling project continues to be analyzed, the drilling itself was forced to stop in the early 1990s when unexpectedly high temperatures were encountered. While the temperature gradient conformed to predictions down to a depth of about 10,000 feet, temperatures after this point increased at a higher rate until they reached 180 °C (or 356 °F) at the bottom of the hole. This was a drastic difference from the expected 100 °C (212 °F). Also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet.
Anyway, Jim’s remark about how decreasing density produces higher wave speeds is important.

As the totality of the available physical evidence demonstrates, aetheric matter must be highly compressible, probably several orders of magnitude above the compressibility of air. However, aetheric matter is evidently vastly subtler than corpuscular matter–-so much that it’s sometimes confused with “empty space”. In other words, aetheric matter is vastly less dense than air, vast orders of magnitude less dense that any of the endlessly divisible corpuscles like the ones that are part of a gas like air. As shown by Maxwell himself, both aetheric density and aetheric compressibility are the physical variable quantities that combine to provide the measured speed of electromagnetic waves, a speed that is several orders of magnitude above acoustic waves in air, in line with which one would expect from above.

Of course, before talking about aetheric matter, I will need to demonstrate that such a concept is just a rigorous consequence of Deterministic Coherence, i.e. the most general Deterministic Worldview based on the totality of physical evidence available. This is one of the main reasons why I decided to write a book. So I’ll just continue writing now!  =)

Cheers!

Juan

 

Ancient Americans arrived in a single wave, Alaskan infant’s genome suggests

 

SHIP ROCK 

 

 

 

UpHeaval Dome

 

 

 

Re: Presentation – Infinity Theory

1 message


Peter Alexander Venis <peter.a.venis@gmail.com> Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 5:16 PM
To: “David W. Johnson” <dj@argos.vu>

Hello David,

I hope you had a good Christmas.

Yes, I know what subject I would like to discuss. It won’t be long, just 10 to 15 minutes like the previous time. I would like to give my thoughts about the question of what type of vortex a Tokamak exactly creates.
Best wishes,
Peter

2017-12-27 18:27 GMT+01:00 David W. Johnson <dj@argos.vu>:

Peter,
You mentioned you’d be interested in giving a presentation to our EU group a while back. Would you like still do so? Let me know if so and we can schedule and announce it.
Thanks very much and hope you are having a nice Holiday.
Thanks.
🙂
/dj

Edmund Halley’s hollow earth is right, and it shows up in the seismic data

1 message

Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 7:23 PM
To: Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com>, “David W. Johnson” <dj@argos.vu>, Jhafner <jhafner@swcp.com>, Don86326 <don86326@gmail.com>, Neil Thompson <krackonis@gmail.com>, Buddy Dougherty <goldenscaling@gmail.com>, Peter Alexander Venis <peter.a.venis@gmail.com>, “Lukas K. Womack” <lukas.k.womack@gmail.com>
If you are familiar with Edmund Halley’s model, you see that he has concentric shells in his model.
See here:
Evidence shows up in the seismic data here:
Look at the image that shows the plastic,liquid, and solid layers.  We have a solid earth at the surface. The density DECREASES as we move inward towards the liquid layer, and sound is refracted upwards. Then we have the dense solid surface at the plastic/ liquid boundary, where we have a sharp refraction downwards. Then another DECREASE in density as we move inwards to the solid sphere.
This decrease in density was in fact found by the Russians in the Superdeep Borehole
“also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet”
Notice in the “Seismic and the Earth”, they say “because of the increasing pressure,materials are more dense towards the core,travel velocity of seismic waves increases”.  But that is BACKWARDS!
The formula for speed of sound shows speed of sound DECREASES with density. See under “equations” here.
Note that this is a common misperception, as you can see by not just the question, but the first two wrong answers by “real physics guys”, here
Alarmingly, the “backwards” relationship between the speed of sound and density in the “Seismic and the Earth” is from a college level geology class “teaching” this material to up and coming seismic geology  students.
Sound is not curved towards the surface of Earth because of increasing density with depth, but because of DECREASING density with depth.   Edmund Halley’s model of concentric shells, and solid core, appears to be correct.
Jim
P.S. There was another point glossed over in “Seismic and the Earth”.  Sure, solids transmit p waves and s waves, while liquids transmit only p waves.   They didn’t bother to mention that gases also transmit only p waves, and not s waves.  Of course, their reasoning about increasing density would rule out gas inside.
We don’t want to make that assumption.
Jim

The Dangerous Ratio

 

Re: Edo’s nuclear model and the sun

Edo Kael <edwinkaal00@gmail.com> Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:06 PM
To: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>
Cc: Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com>, “David W. Johnson” <dj@argos.vu>

Fascinating thinking here!

My only input is that the principle of distributing “charges” as in protons / electrons would still apply on any scale. However at another scale such as planets the building blocks are tiny in comparison and have many “layers of creation” underneath it. Still the distributing effect of negative and positive would apply for sure i reckon. An atom in SAM is pulling the combined electrons (nuclear) and protons together to a shared common ‘virtual’ center. It is the result of the whole if you will. So as for comparison of an atom to the sun, perhaps the sun is ‘acting’ like an atom ?!
Edo

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Correct. I think we can see this even better on the scale of the heliosphere. Or in the case of the Local Chimney, which is just different geometry.  With the local chimney, we do have a “dense wall” of neutral gas and dust, surrounding a “hot sparse plasma”. A local “bubble” as they say. Same interesting dynamics though as Edmund Halley stated. The dense wall of neutral material “rotating as a solid”, with concentric shells inside, where “magnetism dominates”.

Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 17, 2017, at 7:44 PM, Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com> wrote:

One thing to have in mind is that the evidence for solid body rotation at the tachocline does not preclude a relatively “hollow” sun (“hollow” meaning less density at the geometrical core than at the tachocline spherical surface).

A spinning helium filled balloon also showcases solid body rotation. The density in the interior of the balloon is far less than the density of its plastic surface, i.e. it is “hollow”. Even more, you have a decreasing density gradient from the surface towards the center of the balloon, i.e. the very center is “more hollow” than the rest of the interior of the balloon. This gradient is due to the Bernoulli Principle (which is just a consequence of the conservation of energy in a fluid medium).

On 17 December 2017 at 23:06, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sorry, Juan and David.  I’m a bit behind in answering some of your emails, but this is what has been occupying my time in the last couple weeks:
We’ve talked about the idea of hollow sun,moon, and planets.  Not new at all, and Edmond Halley was more correct than they give him credit for here
But the sun does show solid body rotation at the tachocline, which is just a bit below the differentially rotating surface.  Just read the couple paragraphs under “The Interface Layer (Tachocline)” here
They think the sun’s dipole field is generated there, but they realize the field is more complex. As with Earth, they are modeling more deeply embedded multipoles, as shown for Earth on page 4 here:
Note their “Basic assumption”, and note in the images, how the field lines cross the surface of the Earth, based on those dipoles “located at the center of the Earth”.
But look at the actual magnetic field lines from this image:
Does it look like we have dipoles located at the center of the sun?  Or packed just below the spherical surface?
I’ll argue that Edo’s model is not just right for the nucleus, but for the sun as well.
I’m stating quite point blank now, that the universe is not just fractal in nature, but that the solar system to atom scale is an exact copy.
I’m still working on the list of properties on the solar system scale that become quantized/discrete just by accepting Titius-Bode.    The most recent is this:  We can calculate in advance the amount of energy needed to “strip” a planet from its solar system orbit.
Here also, Juan may remember our conversation on why the only stable spin directions for a planet in the long term, are “upspin” or “downspin”.  i.e., a planets rotation axis aligned with its orbital axis, or opposite to it.    For David and Edo, note that Wal Thornhill was right in stating that orbits should circularize over time (even though he had the mechanism wrong). But what happens in a circular orbit is as we see for Venus.  Venus has one of the most circular of planetary orbits, and of course, has it’s spin axis most aligned with its orbital axis.  (I think David may remember why this happens?)
Next up: read Charles Chandler’s ideas on compressive ionization here:
And don’t worry if you haven’t agreed with me on anything in this email so far.  The compressive ionization idea is why we really don’t get neutron stars forming. But this idea is also key for understanding radioactive decay, if Edo’s model is right.  The same “pressure/density” idea for forcing  electrons out of an atom works for forcing electrons out of a nucleus. And don’t worry, Juan, BOTH scales are best explained in your world view, rather than the particle bias I’m using here.  We both know that what we are talking about is that the increased density outside is refracting waves outward rather than having waves refracted/internally reflected towards the atom or nucleus.
Sorry if all this was too cryptic, but I just wanted to get this out of the way, so everyone knows where I’m headed.  As always, any arguments against this would be greatly appreciated, before I get too far off track!
Jim

 

Stunning New Briefings: Mass Indictments, Targeted Arrests and Disclosure

 

 

 

 

Fractals, Time, and Causality – Terence McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake

Created at: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:32 PM (Delivered after 43 seconds)
From: Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com>
To: “David W. Johnson” <dj@argos.vu>
Subject: Re: Interested in your thoughts on this

On 18 December 2017 at 17:30, David W. Johnson <dj@argos.vu> wrote:

Thank Juan,

Great insights and familiarity with this. I was reading some stuff on Birkeland, his rail gun stuff and the academic ridicule he recieved. Do you know anything about the circumstances of his Suicide in Tokyo?
Curiosity killed/kills/will kill the cat perhaps. 🙂
/dj
Created at: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:39 AM (Delivered after 44 seconds)
From: Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com>
To: “David W. Johnson” <dj@argos.vu>
Subject: Re: Interested in your thoughts on this

Hi Dave,

I’ve read a bit about Keely and I follow Dale Pond in facebook. I claim no expertize, but I’ll just state my current tentative opinion.
As is often the case, this work seems to be a mishmash of crucially important intuitions, a few very interesting and overlooked observations, a whole-lot of meaningless prose, wild speculations disconnected from any sort of evidence, and even possibly some outright scam.
As you may know, Keely was investigated and it was seemingly demonstrated that he was deceiving his audiences. See:
Some years ago I’ve skimmed through the book that you are sharing and I couldn’t find much of value (which means that I was already aware of the few parts that are indeed valuable). That said, both Keely and Pond acknowledge the existence of the subtler levels of matter beyond observation, and their whole worldview is based on the principle of Sympathetic Vibration, which I understand as something incredibly important and foundational. Modern academic scientists studying complexity also acknowledge the crucial importance of synchrony, see:

Created at: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:27 AM (Delivered after 0 seconds)
From: “David W. Johnson” <dj@argos.vu>
To: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>, Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com>
Subject: Interested in your thoughts on this

Jim and Juan,

http://argos.vu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/248462707-Keelys-Laws-of-Being-1.pdf


🙂

/dj​

 ————————————————————————————————-
Created at: Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 7:15 PM (Delivered after 5 seconds)
From: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>Using iPhone Mail (15B202)
To: Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Edo’s nuclear model and the sun

 

Correct. I think we can see this even better on the scale of the heliosphere. Or in the case of the Local Chimney, which is just different geometry.  With the local chimney, we do have a “dense wall” of neutral gas and dust, surrounding a “hot sparse plasma”. A local “bubble” as they say. Same interesting dynamics though as Edmund Halley stated. The dense wall of neutral material “rotating as a solid”, with concentric shells inside, where “magnetism dominates”.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

Created at: Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 6:44 PM (Delivered after 43 seconds)
From: Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com>
To: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Edo’s nuclear model and the sun

 

One thing to have in mind is that the evidence for solid body rotation at the tachocline does not preclude a relatively “hollow” sun (“hollow” meaning less density at the geometrical core than at the tachocline spherical surface).

A spinning helium filled balloon also showcases solid body rotation. The density in the interior of the balloon is far less than the density of its plastic surface, i.e. it is “hollow”. Even more, you have a decreasing density gradient from the surface towards the center of the balloon, i.e. the very center is “more hollow” than the rest of the interior of the balloon. This gradient is due to the Bernoulli Principle (which is just a consequence of the conservation of energy in a fluid medium).
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Created at: Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 6:06 PM (Delivered after 2 seconds)
From: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>
To: Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com>, “David W. Johnson” <dj@argos.vu>, Edo Kael <edwinkaal00@gmail.com>
Subject: Edo’s nuclear model and the sun

 

Sorry, Juan and David.  I’m a bit behind in answering some of your emails, but this is what has been occupying my time in the last couple weeks:
We’ve talked about the idea of hollow sun,moon, and planets.  Not new at all, and Edmond Halley was more correct than they give him credit for here
But the sun does show solid body rotation at the tachocline, which is just a bit below the differentially rotating surface.  Just read the couple paragraphs under “The Interface Layer (Tachocline)” here
They think the sun’s dipole field is generated there, but they realize the field is more complex. As with Earth, they are modeling more deeply embedded multipoles, as shown for Earth on page 4 here:
Note their “Basic assumption”, and note in the images, how the field lines cross the surface of the Earth, based on those dipoles “located at the center of the Earth”.
But look at the actual magnetic field lines from this image:
Does it look like we have dipoles located at the center of the sun?  Or packed just below the spherical surface?
I’ll argue that Edo’s model is not just right for the nucleus, but for the sun as well.
I’m stating quite point blank now, that the universe is not just fractal in nature, but that the solar system to atom scale is an exact copy.
I’m still working on the list of properties on the solar system scale that become quantized/discrete just by accepting Titius-Bode.    The most recent is this:  We can calculate in advance the amount of energy needed to “strip” a planet from its solar system orbit.
Here also, Juan may remember our conversation on why the only stable spin directions for a planet in the long term, are “upspin” or “downspin”.  i.e., a planets rotation axis aligned with its orbital axis, or opposite to it.    For David and Edo, note that Wal Thornhill was right in stating that orbits should circularize over time (even though he had the mechanism wrong). But what happens in a circular orbit is as we see for Venus.  Venus has one of the most circular of planetary orbits, and of course, has it’s spin axis most aligned with its orbital axis.  (I think David may remember why this happens?)
 
Next up: read Charles Chandler’s ideas on compressive ionization here:
And don’t worry if you haven’t agreed with me on anything in this email so far.  The compressive ionization idea is why we really don’t get neutron stars forming. But this idea is also key for understanding radioactive decay, if Edo’s model is right.  The same “pressure/density” idea for forcing  electrons out of an atom works for forcing electrons out of a nucleus. And don’t worry, Juan, BOTH scales are best explained in your world view, rather than the particle bias I’m using here.  We both know that what we are talking about is that the increased density outside is refracting waves outward rather than having waves refracted/internally reflected towards the atom or nucleus.
Sorry if all this was too cryptic, but I just wanted to get this out of the way, so everyone knows where I’m headed.  As always, any arguments against this would be greatly appreciated, before I get too far off track!
—————————————————————————————————————————–

 

 

016 EU Meetup December 12, 2017

 

Packings

 

Radioactive decay rates vary with the sun’s rotation: research

Evidence Against:

 


Edo Kael
Dec 6 (4 days ago)

to Jim, don, Juan, David, jhafner, Buddy, Neil, Peter, frank
If I am understanding this correctly (and I might very not), then up to a certain (small) level the Magnetic forces are able to “push” alike particles i.e protons/electrons closer together.

The question fer me is if this is the same thing i tried to point out? I am inclined to see this as two different principles, One dictates by the larger on the smaller as you describe and the other one the intrinsic forces that are at play at a proton electron level. I am also inclined to believe that the smallest at first dictates the larger, although the other way around is very much there as well. Or.. are both always at play indeed….

Think we need another meet-up 🙂

Edo

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not just electrostatics, but adding in magnetism, and we get what looks like a bizzarre mixture of long range and short range, attractive and repulsive forces.

We know from Birkeland currents, that outside of a B.C., we should have electrostatic repulsion of like charged objects. Within the B.C., we have a binding of like charge, by the magnetic forces of the filament. The B.C. can sort charged matter into shells,but also force matter towards the central radius. The magnetic field of a B.C., does “turn off” at some radius, leaving us with again merely the electrostatic repulsion of like charges, now much higher because of the density of charged material forced to the center of the filament.

A mistake here, would be to forget about the filament (and resulting magnetic forces) in which the particles reside, and try to explain what we are seeing by radial forces between individual particles themselves. Notice that the effect of a B.C. is to push some charged material in to the center of the filament, but only until the radius where the magnetic field “turns off”, and we only have the electrostatic repulsion of like charges, so it appears that there is an attractive force, that suddenly become repulsive at some radius. There are no attractive forces involved ever. We have the Lorentz force pushing material in to the center, and where that turns off, only the repusive force pushing charge apart.

On Monday, December 4, 2017, 12:24:48 AM MST, Edo Kael <edwinkaal00@gmail.com> wrote:
From one of the links…..

“….THE LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTION: SOME CALL IT COLD FUSION / REGARDLESS OF THE THEORETICAL EXPLANATION, SOME SAY THERE’S BY NOW NO DOUBT THAT NUCLEAR REACTIONS CAN BE TRIGGERED USING CHEMICAL ENERGY / ALTHOUGH THESE CLAIMED…

Thunderous Nuclear Reactions

 

Jim Weninger

5:38 PM

to DavidjhafnerJuanDon86326PeterEdoLukasNeilBuddyJeffjakechateauwork
I would like to get a bit into the discrete qualities on the solar system scale, since Edo mentioned it.
If one accepts Titius-Bode (and it does seem to work outside of just planetary orbits, has a mechanism in EU,etc), then that means that possible planetary radii do not form a continuous distribution, but form a discrete series of shells.
   The significance of that, however, is that planetary orbital periods must also fall into discrete “steps”(Kepler’s third law), and masses too (the inverse square law that appears to work whether or not we agree on the mechanism).  From those, you are forced to conclude that a planet’s velocity, kinetic energy, orbital potential energy, orbital angular momentum, etc, are also allowed to occur only in discrete steps. Yep,.. if Titius-Bode is correct, we can calculate all major orbital/energy properties of any additional planet that may be discovered, BEFORE it is discovered, and all using that Bessel function. So, maybe the idea of simplicity and quantization only being a property of the smallest scale, is an illusion after all?
Jim

The Breakdown of the Bohr Atomic Model

Titius-Bode Law: Planets In The Habitable Zone Around Most Stars

Kepler’s three Laws

The Law of Harmonies

Kepler’s third law – sometimes referred to as the law of harmonies – compares the orbital period and radius of orbit of a planet to those of other planets. Unlike Kepler’s first and second laws that describe the motion characteristics of a single planet, the third law makes a comparison between the motion characteristics of different planets. The comparison being made is that the ratio of the squares of the periods to the cubes of their average distances from the sun is the same for every one of the planets. As an illustration, consider the orbital period and average distance from sun (orbital radius) for Earth and mars as given in the table below.

 

Planet Period
(s)
Average
Distance (m)
T2/R3
(s2/m3)
Earth 3.156 x 107 s 1.4957 x 1011 2.977 x 10-19
Mars 5.93 x 107 s 2.278 x 1011 2.975 x 10-19

 

Observe that the T2/Rratio is the same for Earth as it is for mars. In fact, if the same T2/Rratio is computed for the other planets, it can be found that this ratio is nearly the same value for all the planets (see table below). Amazingly, every planet has the same T2/R3 ratio.

 

Planet Period
(yr)
Average
Distance (au)
T2/R3
(yr2/au3)
Mercury 0.241 0.39 0.98
Venus .615 0.72 1.01
Earth 1.00 1.00 1.00
Mars 1.88 1.52 1.01
Jupiter 11.8 5.20 0.99
Saturn 29.5 9.54 1.00
Uranus 84.0 19.18 1.00
Neptune 165 30.06 1.00
Pluto 248 39.44 1.00

 

(NOTE: The average distance value is given in astronomical units where 1 a.u. is equal to the distance from the earth to the sun – 1.4957 x 1011 m. The orbital period is given in units of earth-years where 1 earth year is the time required for the earth to orbit the sun – 3.156 x 107 seconds. )

Kepler’s third law provides an accurate description of the period and distance for a planet’s orbits about the sun. Additionally, the same law that describes the T2/R3 ratio for the planets’ orbits about the sun also accurately describes the T2/R3 ratio for any satellite (whether a moon or a man-made satellite) about any planet. There is something much deeper to be found in this T2/R3 ratio – something that must relate to basic fundamental principles of motion. In the next part of Lesson 4, these principles will be investigated as we draw a connection between the circular motion principles discussed in Lesson 1 and the motion of a satellite.

How did Newton Extend His Notion of Gravity to Explain Planetary Motion?

Newton’s comparison of the acceleration of the moon to the acceleration of objects on earth allowed him to establish that the moon is held in a circular orbit by the force of gravity – a force that is inversely dependent upon the distance between the two objects’ centers. Establishing gravity as the cause of the moon’s orbit does not necessarily establish that gravity is the cause of the planet’s orbits. How then did Newton provide credible evidence that the force of gravity is meets the centripetal force requirement for the elliptical motion of planets?

Recall from earlier in Lesson 3 that Johannes Kepler proposed three laws of planetary motion. His Law of Harmonies suggested that the ratio of the period of orbit squared (T2) to the mean radius of orbit cubed (R3) is the same value k for all the planets that orbit the sun. Known data for the orbiting planets suggested the following average ratio:

k = 2.97 x 10-19 s2/m3 = (T2)/(R3)

Newton was able to combine the law of universal gravitation with circular motion principles to show that if the force of gravity provides the centripetal force for the planets’ nearly circular orbits, then a value of 2.97 x 10-19 s2/mcould be predicted for the T2/Rratio. Here is the reasoning employed by Newton:

Consider a planet with mass Mplanet to orbit in nearly circular motion about the sun of mass MSun. The net centripetal force acting upon this orbiting planet is given by the relationship

Fnet = (Mplanet * v2) / R

This net centripetal force is the result of the gravitational force that attracts the planet towards the sun, and can be represented as

Fgrav = (G* Mplanet * MSun ) / R2

Since Fgrav = Fnet, the above expressions for centripetal force and gravitational force are equal. Thus,

(Mplanet * v2) / R = (G* Mplanet * MSun ) / R2

Since the velocity of an object in nearly circular orbit can be approximated as v = (2*pi*R) / T,

v2 = (4 * pi* R2) / T2

Substitution of the expression for v2 into the equation above yields,

(Mplanet * 4 * pi* R2) / (R • T2) = (G* Mplanet * MSun ) / R2

By cross-multiplication and simplification, the equation can be transformed into

T/ R= (Mplanet * 4 * pi2) / (G* Mplanet * MSun )

The mass of the planet can then be canceled from the numerator and the denominator of the equation’s right-side, yielding

T/ R= (4 * pi2) / (G * MSun )

The right side of the above equation will be the same value for every planet regardless of the planet’s mass. Subsequently, it is reasonable that the T2/R3 ratio would be the same value for all planets if the force that holds the planets in their orbits is the force of gravity. Newton’s universal law of gravitation predicts results that were consistent with known planetary data and provided a theoretical explanation for Kepler’s Law of Harmonies.

 

 

SpinBitz Joel D. Morrison

LIGO

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.141101

https://www.space.com/25088-gravitational-waves.html

What are the Assumptions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

015 EU Meetup December 5, 2017

 

Jim Weninger

8:05 PM 

to jhafnerEdodonJuanDavidBuddyNeilPeterfrank

And we’ve still not addressed what we can learn from the solar system scale.  On the atomic/ nuclear scale, it’s easy to fall into the trap of “particles in a vacuum”.  On the solar system scale, we now have the Bessel function idea where there are “orbital energy levels”, where we can theoretically have jumps from one stable orbit to another, but ALSO actual changes in the Bessel function orbits themselves.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 4, 2017, at 11:52 AM, jhafner <jhafner@swcp.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Edwin and all,
>
> I was nodding my head as I read this – Edwin’s model and Mills are in sync. Juan, thanks for all the great references.
>
> “It’s commonly accepted that hydrogen’s solo electron is whizzing around its nucleus in its most energetically favorable, ground-state atomic orbital — you simply can’t bring hydrogen’s electron closer to its nucleus. But Mills says you can.”
>
https://plus.google.com/+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourseIsBroken/posts/ZZXJMQyGqB1
>
> Edwin wrote:
>> The key here IMHO is that the electron can go closer to the
>> proton….. This has everything to do with the creation of the so
>> called “neutrons” and as i propose they are not fundamental particles
>> but an electron (tightly) fitted between 2 protons. That is the state
>> whereby the electron moved from orbit position to nuclear (neutron)
>> position. This is Beta + decay! so it is a known thing.
>> On that note, we then have to accept the fact that an electron
>> falling into a lower state is only possible when that electron
>> releases energy (just like normal light emission), meaning it is a
>> condensing effect in essence. Or at least contracting… Soooo by
>> creating a very hot plasma one does not readily get fusion going,
>> hence it might prove quite difficult for hot fusion to really be.
>> “cold fusion” however uses an extremely strong force at small level,
>> namely the electrostatic i would argue / electricity (EM)
>>
>> Edo
> …
>
> /Jean

 

Edo Kael

11:24 PM

to donJuanDavidjhafnerJimBuddyNeilPeterfrank

From one of the links…..

“….THE LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTION: SOME CALL IT COLD FUSION / REGARDLESS OF THE THEORETICAL EXPLANATION, SOME SAY THERE’S BY NOW NO DOUBT THAT NUCLEAR REACTIONS CAN BE TRIGGERED USING CHEMICAL ENERGY / ALTHOUGH THESE CLAIMED

REACTIONS ARE NOT YET WELL UNDERSTOOD, A CANDIDATE HYPOTHESIS IS THAT THE ELECTRON IN HYDROGEN COULD TRANSITION FROM ITS NORMAL GROUND ENERGY STATE TO PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN LOWER AND MORE STABLE STATES, LIBERATING ENERGY IN THE PROCESS / “TELLING PHYSICISTS THAT THEY’VE GOT [HYDROGEN’S GROUND STATE] WRONG IS LIKE TELLING MOTHERS ACROSS AMERICA THAT THEY’VE MISUNDERSTOOD APPLE PIE”



I ain’t gonna tell no mother she misunderstood apple pie….

The key here IMHO is that the electron can go closer to the proton….. This has everything to do with the creation of the so called “neutrons” and as i propose they are not fundamental particles but an electron (tightly) fitted between 2 protons. That is the state whereby the electron moved from orbit position to nuclear (neutron) position. This is Beta + decay! so it is a known thing.
On that note, we then have to accept the fact that an electron falling into a lower state is only possible when that electron releases energy (just like normal light emission), meaning it is a condensing effect in essence. Or at least contracting… Soooo by creating a very hot plasma one does not readily get fusion going, hence it might prove quite difficult for hot fusion to really be.  “cold fusion” however uses an extremely strong force at small level, namely the electrostatic i would argue / electricity (EM)
Edo

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 8:53 PM, don mitchell <don86326@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Juan.  Good stuff.  Looking forward to a deeper look.
-don

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Don (and all),

If you are diving into the subject of LENR (the N usually standing for “nuclear”), make sure you get Steven Krivit’s three-book series.

Krivit was an editor for the American Chemical Society 2008 and 2009 technical reference books on LENRs and editor-in-chief for the 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia. He is the leading author of review articles and encyclopedia chapters about LENRs, including invited papers for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Elsevier and John Wiley & Sons.

Considering the controversial nature of the subject and the dogmatic attitude of academia as a whole, it is a pleasing surprise to see that he could publish books with titles like “Hacking the Atom”, “Fusion Fiasco” and “Lost History” and still be considered an authoritative voice within conventional circles.

Here are the links (each kindle ebook is just 4 bucks):

Of course, LENR is one of the many subjects that will be addressed in Chris Reeve’s incoming Controversies of Science social network. His preliminary controversy card about LENR can be found here (you may also want to check out my comments there regarding a possible relationship between LENR and cavitation phenomena):

https://plus.google.com/+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourseIsBroken/posts/ZZXJMQyGqB1

That card will end up being a part of the website, and here is a preview of that:

Happy explorations!

Juan

On 2 December 2017 at 14:56, don mitchell <don86326@gmail.com> wrote:

Lady and Gents,
About Low Energy Neutron Reaction (LENR)
An impressive index of the slides linked above is on slides #4 and #5.
This topic is about elemental transmutation.
Frank Znidarsic’s data for his theory in ‘Control of the Natural Forces’ came from a cold fusion (LENR) experiment’s frequency data, plus Podkletnov’s gravity beam frequency data (duplicated by Dr. Li in NASA’s Alabama facility), wherein Znidarsic realizes there is a resonant frequency of a nucleus that is caused by a delay of nuclear (Coulomb field) response –which delay IS conjectured to be the root-cause of the infamous fine grain constant (Planck’s constant).  In this line of thought, transmutation occurs during resonance with nuclei driven with electrical or magnetic activation (Podkletov) OR sonic activation driven by EM (LENR) as in cold fusion experiments.  The key is to create a spatial-resonance of the nucleus, vibrating in space, of a sufficient population of atoms.
The magic frequency realized by Mr. Z. is 1.094 megaHz-meters. (I.e., a one meter circumference conductor would magnetically cohere with nuclei at 1.094 megaHz.
Frank Znidarsic <fznidarsic@aol.com> is a really nice guy, though Frank couldn’t follow my home-made vernacular in magnetic resonance of a rotating field (around the axial symmetry of a torus knot array).
Some notes/links on Frank Znidarsic:  http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Frank_Znidarsic
Videos/links on Eugene (Evgeny) Podkletnov:  http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Eugene_Podkletnov_portal
-don in Colorado

 

——————————–

         

The thinking of many other scientists, however, has been coloured by the increasingly mechanistic approach towards life – Deus ex machina (God from the Machine) – which is not to imply that all the established facts of science and the painstaking, dedicated research that has been carried out are invalid, but to suggest that their interpretation could perhaps be different. To date there has been far too much emphasis placed on analysis, the pursuit of minutiae, the development of specialist terminology incomprehensible to other scientific disciplines, let alone the rest of a humanity ever subservient to the dictates of a science that has become the infallible new God.

According to Viktor Schauberger, science thinks an octave too low and, due to its purely materialistic approach, neglecting the underlying energetic basis for all physical manifestation, has lost sight of the integrated whole. Prof. David Susuki, the eminent biologist, once stated that there were at least twenty branches of biology, each of which had it own jargon, unable to communicate coherently with the others. The individual feels insignificant in the face of all this vast array of scientific expertise, a condition one has noticed among acquaintances, when confronted by the towering edifice of the apparently all-knowing, ‘Scientific Establishment’.

——————————–

Res Cogitans and Res Extensa

 

 

Juan Calsiano

 

to JimDavid
Hi again,
Well, you haven’t forward all your exchanges with Don so I may be missing something, but I’ll answer with what I have.
Your email is titled “If alpha is function of j, does it not fall off as j decrease?”. In any relatively meaningful way, and in terms of a mathematical yet physical approach, I agree with Don that alpha is not a function of j. His paper and equations are all about mapping the magnetic field (and the current density) as a function of r. All B, j and r are physical variables, while alpha is just a scalar that appears in the quantitative relationship of the physical variables. So in that sense, it is quite meaningless or even wrong to say that alpha is a function of the current density (even if you can rearrange the symbols to try to make your point).
That said, Don seems to be well aware that he has been assuming alpha to be constant, and he is not dismissing the possibility that alpha may be not constant but a function of r.

In his answer, he said: “we have to choose what alpha will be. If we can find a reasonable function of for it, that’s good.” In his paper, he says: “The step-wise Euler method described here can also be used in the event the state-equations are nonlinear due to choosing an arbitrary α = α (r).”

Also, in his paper he says: “Allowing α = α(r) would distort the radial axis used to plot Bz(r) and Bθ(r)”

That is related to what you want. So, if you choose the adequate α = α(r), then yes, the current density j may fall off more strongly with r (which is not the same as saying that alpha is a function of j). Even more, with the adequate α = α(r) you may get a more convincing argument for the Titius Bode observation to replace the one made by Don in 2015, in which he used a constant alpha of 19.5, seemingly leaving lots of unused possible orbits between real orbits.

Cheers,

Juan

On 2 December 2017 at 02:04, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Juan and David,
     Read especially section 3 and the derivation of equation (14):
then tell me where Don or I made a mistake.  Alpha does to me seem to be a function of j, and then would be the key to fitting the Bessel function to the solar system.  I’m always willing to accept that I’ve made an error, but here I don’t even understand the objection.  Perhaps Either of you can help?
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Donald Scott <dascott3@cox.net>
To: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017, 12:15:10 PM MST
Subject: Re: If alpha is function of j, does it not fall off as j decrease?

Alpha is not a function of j.

Alpha is a scale factor between the dimensionless independent Bessel function variable, x, and the real-world variable, r.
An Example: The first zero of Bessel function of J0(x) is at = 2.4048. That’s the radius where the central lobe of and ends – where the component stops and the encircling wrap-around component is maximum. It’s where the “first orbit” is. So, if we want to use “astronomical units” (Earth-Sun distance) as our real-world radius unit, the orbit of Mercury is at about r = 0.3. That means: alpha = x/= 2.4048 / 0.3 = 8.016. That is a constant, not a variable that depends on or  or anything else. The next realistic orbit would (IMO) be at = 8.6537, or  = 8.6537/ 8.016 ~ 1. (I don’t know what happened to Venus??)
The point is, we have to choose what alpha will be. If we can find a reasonable function of for it, that’s good.
Feel free to disagree, but I want to make sure you understand where I am coming from on this.
Don

 

 

to JuanJim

This keeps ringing for me – The spatial frequency of the bessel function as a function of r:


On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com> wrote:

Don is right in that alpha is not strictly a function of j, and you are probably right in that alpha is not a constant along all the filament but a function of r, thus making j a more complex non-linear function than what is simplistically assumed in Don’s paper. He even says: “If we can find a reasonable function of for it, that’s good.”
I’ll expand later.

On 2 December 2017 at 02:04, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Juan and David,
     Read especially section 3 and the derivation of equation (14):
then tell me where Don or I made a mistake.  Alpha does to me seem to be a function of j, and then would be the key to fitting the Bessel function to the solar system.  I’m always willing to accept that I’ve made an error, but here I don’t even understand the objection.  Perhaps Either of you can help?
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Donald Scott <dascott3@cox.net>
To: Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2017, 12:15:10 PM MST
Subject: Re: If alpha is function of j, does it not fall off as j decrease?

Alpha is not a function of j.

Alpha is a scale factor between the dimensionless independent Bessel function variable, x, and the real-world variable, r.
An Example: The first zero of Bessel function of J0(x) is at = 2.4048. That’s the radius where the central lobe of and ends – where the component stops and the encircling wrap-around component is maximum. It’s where the “first orbit” is. So, if we want to use “astronomical units” (Earth-Sun distance) as our real-world radius unit, the orbit of Mercury is at about r = 0.3. That means: alpha = x/= 2.4048 / 0.3 = 8.016. That is a constant, not a variable that depends on or  or anything else. The next realistic orbit would (IMO) be at = 8.6537, or  = 8.6537/ 8.016 ~ 1. (I don’t know what happened to Venus??)
The point is, we have to choose what alpha will be. If we can find a reasonable function of for it, that’s good.
Feel free to disagree, but I want to make sure you understand where I am coming from on this.
Don
 

 

On Dec 1, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Donald Scott <dascott3@cox.net> wrote:

Jim,
Here are my reactions to your last email.
D
<ForJim2.docx>

Platonic solids/The Structure Atom Model (SAM) by Edwin Kaal from Science to Sage on Vimeo.

 

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 10:14 AM, don mitchell <don86326@gmail.com> wrote:

Found a link to polygons in spinning fluids…
Symmetry-Breaking of Interfacial Polygonal Patterns and Synchronization of Travelling Waves within a Hollow-Core Vortex
-don

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 10:14 AM, don mitchell <don86326@gmail.com> wrote:

Found a link to polygons in spinning fluids…
Symmetry-Breaking of Interfacial Polygonal Patterns and Synchronization of Travelling Waves within a Hollow-Core Vortex

 

Juan Calsiano

10:42 AM 

to donDavidjhafnerEdoJimBuddyNeilPeterfrank

Hi Don (and all),

If you are diving into the subject of LENR (the N usually standing for “nuclear”), make sure you get Steven Krivit’s three-book series.

Krivit was an editor for the American Chemical Society 2008 and 2009 technical reference books on LENRs and editor-in-chief for the 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia. He is the leading author of review articles and encyclopedia chapters about LENRs, including invited papers for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Elsevier and John Wiley & Sons.

Considering the controversial nature of the subject and the dogmatic attitude of academia as a whole, it is a pleasing surprise to see that he could publish books with titles like “Hacking the Atom”, “Fusion Fiasco” and “Lost History” and still be considered an authoritative voice within conventional circles.

Here are the links (each kindle ebook is just 4 bucks):

Of course, LENR is one of the many subjects that will be addressed in Chris Reeve’s incoming Controversies of Science social network. His preliminary controversy card about LENR can be found here (you may also want to check out my comments there regarding a possible relationship between LENR and cavitation phenomena):

https://plus.google.com/+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourseIsBroken/posts/ZZXJMQyGqB1

That card will end up being a part of the website, and here is a preview of that:

Happy explorations!

Juan

On 2 December 2017 at 14:56, don mitchell <don86326@gmail.com> wrote:

Lady and Gents,
About Low Energy Neutron Reaction (LENR)
An impressive index of the slides linked above is on slides #4 and #5.
This topic is about elemental transmutation.
Frank Znidarsic’s data for his theory in ‘Control of the Natural Forces’ came from a cold fusion (LENR) experiment’s frequency data, plus Podkletnov’s gravity beam frequency data (duplicated by Dr. Li in NASA’s Alabama facility), wherein Znidarsic realizes there is a resonant frequency of a nucleus that is caused by a delay of nuclear (Coulomb field) response –which delay IS conjectured to be the root-cause of the infamous fine grain constant (Planck’s constant).  In this line of thought, transmutation occurs during resonance with nuclei driven with electrical or magnetic activation (Podkletov) OR sonic activation driven by EM (LENR) as in cold fusion experiments.  The key is to create a spatial-resonance of the nucleus, vibrating in space, of a sufficient population of atoms.
The magic frequency realized by Mr. Z. is 1.094 megaHz-meters. (I.e., a one meter circumference conductor would magnetically cohere with nuclei at 1.094 megaHz.
Frank Znidarsic <fznidarsic@aol.com> is a really nice guy, though Frank couldn’t follow my home-made vernacular in magnetic resonance of a rotating field (around the axial symmetry of a torus knot array).
Some notes/links on Frank Znidarsic:  http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Frank_Znidarsic
Videos/links on Eugene (Evgeny) Podkletnov:  http://portal.groupkos.com/index.php?title=Eugene_Podkletnov_portal
-don in Colorado

 

ORMUS

http://32youtube.com/search.php?q=david+hudson+ormus

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ORMUS

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/presentations/virginiabeach.htm

014 EU Meetup November 28, 2017

Hey guys,

Happy Thanksgiving!
We’ll plan on having our next meetup on Tuesday November 28
at:
Netherlands   7:00 pm
UTC-3            3:00pm
EST:               1:00pm
MST:              11:00am
PST               10:00am
To accommodate our friends from the Netherlands.
Let me know if this works for you if you get the opportunity.
Don shared this paper with me this morning. Interested in your thoughts.
Then this structure appeared as things often do on the interwebs these days. 🙂



Resonant cavity?
Also LBM:

Laffoley   !?!
🙂

/dj

As a standing wave forms, additional waves can form in the same medium. These waves are called ‘harmonics,’ ‘wave partials’ or in music ‘overtones.’ Harmonic partials to the standing wave are not random frequencies, but instead whole number multiples (1x, 2x, 3x, … nx) of the prime resonant frequency. This is called the harmonic series.

resoance_harmonics

This is what the harmonic series looks like when both opposing phases of interference are superimposed at a constant energy level or amplitude. Notice the stable pattern it creates and the gaps that form around the nodes and other locations. This is universal to all kinds of waves as they ‘resonate’ inside some container.

Question is, what causes standing waves to form in such a regular pattern? What is the underlying physics that prevents fractional or enharmonic waves from forming on the prime resonant frequency?

According to harmonic interference theory, the 7-tone diatonic scale of common practice music can be represented as a frequency doubling (first harmonic) of a 12-tone octave standing wave. Both are centered on the ninth harmonic partial (e.g., D in the key of C), which acts as a harmonic center for the oscillating spring effect known as the Tritone Function.

Pulling and pushing between the diatonic tritone (e.g., B,F) and major third (e.g., C,E) in diatonic scales, the Tritone Function is the central physical and physiological engine behind melodic and chordal progression; consonance and dissonance; and tension and resolution. It is recognized naturally by the human auditory system – not taught through cultural conditioning as many cognitive scientists believe. This recognition of standing wave oscillation and energy flow/ exchange transcends any scale, tuning, or temperament, though the equal octave division by twelve offers the greatest contrast for recognition (not concordance) of standing wave oscillation.

 

013 EU Meetup November 14, 2017

 

to jhafnerJimJuanDon86326PeterEdoBuddyNeil

Greetings All,

We have two meetups scheduled this week

Monday: November 13, 2017 at
UTC-3      8:00pm
EST:         6:00pm
MST:         4:00pm
PST          3:00pm
 
We also have a special EU Meetup scheduled with Edwin Kaal and Peter Venis on
Tuesday: November 14, 2017 at:
Netherlands   7:00 pm
UTC-3            3:00pm
EST:               1:00pm
MST:              11:00am
PST               10:00am
Please feel free to join us if you get the opportunity.
Here are some recent topics that have been “percolating”:

John Reid

 
For:
 
Against: