Posted on

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 David, jhafner, Juan, Don86326, Peter, Edo, Lukas, Neil, Buddy, Jeff, jakechateauwork
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/R3 ratio is the same for Earth as it is for mars. In fact, if the same T2/R3 ratio 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/m3 could be predicted for the T2/R3 ratio. 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 * pi2 * R2) / T2

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

(Mplanet * 4 * pi2 * R2) / (R • T2) = (G* Mplanet * MSun ) / R2

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

T2 / R3 = (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

T2 / R3 = (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?

 

 




 

 




 

 

 

Posted on

015 EU Meetup December 5, 2017

 

Jim Weninger

8:05 PM 
to jhafner, Edo, don, Juan, David, Buddy, Neil, Peter, frank

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 don, Juan, David, jhafner, Jim, Buddy, Neil, Peter, frank

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’.

——————————–

https://youtu.be/oJcZyitiwrw

Res Cogitans and Res Extensa

 

 

Juan Calsiano

 
to Jim, David
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 r 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 x = 2.4048. That’s the radius where the central lobe of j and B ends – where the z 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/r = 2.4048 / 0.3 = 8.016. That is a constant, not a variable that depends on r or j  or anything else. The next realistic orbit would (IMO) be at x = 8.6537, or r  = 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 r 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 Juan, Jim

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 r 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 x = 2.4048. That’s the radius where the central lobe of j and B ends – where the z 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/r = 2.4048 / 0.3 = 8.016. That is a constant, not a variable that depends on r or j  or anything else. The next realistic orbit would (IMO) be at x = 8.6537, or r  = 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 r 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
http://www.cmsim.eu/papers_pdf/january_2012_papers/23_CMSIM_2012_mandour_et_al_1_257-271.pdf
-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
http://www.cmsim.eu/papers_pdf/january_2012_papers/23_CMSIM_2012_mandour_et_al_1_257-271.pdf

 

Juan Calsiano

10:42 AM 
to don, David, jhafner, Edo, Jim, Buddy, Neil, Peter, frank

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)
https://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-lenr-transmutation-networks-can-produce-goldmay-19-2012
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

Gerald Pollack – Revitalizing Science

Donald E. Scott – An FFA Model of Birkeland Currents

 

 



https://youtu.be/BIVNvyOCs2Y







ORMUS

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

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ORMUS

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

Posted on

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.

https://youtu.be/B7S0iIelToY

 

Posted on

013 EU Meetup November 14, 2017

 
to jhafner, Jim, Juan, Don86326, Peter, Edo, Buddy, Neil

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:
 
 
Posted on

012 EU Meetup November 13, 2017

 
to jhafner, Jim, Juan, Don86326, Peter, Edo, Buddy, Neil

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”:

 
 
For:
 
Against:
 
 
Posted on

011 EU Meetup November 6, 2017

Greetings all 🙂
Please join us for the Skype meetup tomorrow:
Monday: November 6, 2017 at
UTC-3       8:00pm
ET             7:00pm
Mountain   5:00pm
PT             4:00pm
Listed below are some recent discussion topics.

​

http://www.vortex-world.org/viktorschauberger.htm

November 4, 2017
IS THERE A LIFE FORCE THAT TRANSCENDS MATTER? (WITH RUPERT SHELDRAKE)
Episode #34
 



 
​



 

​
Controversies of Science – Chris Reeve

 

Implosion Magazine

  • “You must look at the processes of motion in the macrocosmos and microcosmos accurately, and copy them!”
    • Implosion Magazine, No. 14, p.19 (Callum Coats: Energy Evolution (2000))
  • “Everything is governed by one law. A human being is a microcosmos, i.e. the laws prevailing in the cosmos also operate in the minutest space of the human being.”
    • Implosion Magazine, No. 8, p.6 (Callum Coats: Energy Evolution (2000))
  • “If we wish to influence our own life in a particular direction, which is constantly threatened by the danger of the emergence of alien life-forms, and protect it from deterioration, then we must either allow Nature to rule or, if we wish to intervene, we must first acquaint ourselves with the simplest principles of life.”
    • Implosion Magazine, No. 86, p.11. (Callum Coats: Energy Evolution (2000))
  • “All motion consists of two components. One component serves inwardness (internalisation) and the other outwardness (dispersion). Both preconditions for motion regulate the eternal flow of metamorphosis (panta Rhei).”
    • Implosion Magazine, No. 57, p.5. (Callum Coats: Energy Evolution (2000))
  • “Whoever accelerates the media of earth, water and air centrifugally perishes unconditionally, for in so doing they reduce the Blood of the Earth (water) to a pathogenic state and make it the most dangerous enemy of all living and growing things.”
    • Implosion Magazine, No. 96, p. 4. (Callum Coats: Energy Evolution (2000))
  • “The scientist states that pressure is exerted outwards in all directions equally, whereas natural pressure (e.g. air pressure) is exerted inwards from all directions equally.”
    • Implosion Magazine, No. 114, p. 29 (Callum Coats: Energy Evolution (2000))
  • The inner climate stamps each individual with its character. Every life-form has its own individual anomaly point of health, which makes the orderly reproduction of the species possible. This also explains why the world of parasites increases with fever.
    • Implosion Magazine, No. 71, p. 12 (Callum Coats: Energy Evolution (2000))
  • “Equivalence signifies uniformity and thus immobility.”
    • Implosion Magazine, No. 113, p. 23 (Callum Coats: Energy Evolution (2000))
  • “I think it would have been much better if Newton had contemplated how the apple got up there in the first place!”
    • Implosion Magazine, No. 35, p. 16 (Callum Coats: Energy Evolution (2000))
  • “What is the present outlook in the field of energy generation? One word suffices – catastrophic! Through over-illumination and overheating of the media of earth, water and air in Nature’s household, a short circuit – ‘cold fire’ – and the development of cancer has been triggered off. With nuclear fission a conflagration was kindled, whose ashes and slag residues alone will extinguish all life. Thus a reporter stated recently, “For the time being this radiating thing is there and with it the attendant worries as to how we can protect ourselves against these lethal ray, which penetrate even the thickest lead shields.” The sheer lunacy of using nuclear power for peaceful purposes will be just as short-lived as the subsequent remorse will be long.”
    • Implosion Magazine, No. 56, p.29-30 (Callum Coats: Energy Evolution (2000))

“Without doubt, therefore, there is a definite intention to teach young people upside-down methods of working with which they have to miss-earn their daily bread. That is to say, instead of moving forwards, they go backwards all the more rapidly in step with the improvements in the contrary methods of motion. For only thus can today’s teaching principles flourish.”

“Already from earliest childhood it was my deepest wish to understand nature and through this to come closer to the truth I could not find at school or at church. I was repeatedly drawn to the forest where I could watch the flow of water for hours on end without getting tired or irritable. At that time I did not yet know that water is the bearer of life or the source of what we call consciousness. Totally oblivious, I let water flow past my searching eyes and only years later did I become aware that this running water attracts our consciousness magnetically, takes a piece with it, with a force that is so strong that one loses consciousness for a while and involuntarily falls into a deep sleep. And so, gradually I began to play with these forces in water and I gave up this so-called free consciousness and left it to the water for a while. Little by little this game turned into a very serious matter because I saw that it was possible to release my own consciousness from my body and attach it to the water. When I took it back again, the consciousness borrowed from the water told me things that were often very strange. And so the searcher became a researcher who could send his consciousness on expeditions, so to speak, and this way I found out about things the rest of mankind has missed because they do not know that people are able to send their free consciousness everywhere, even where the seeing eye cannot look. This so-called sight practiced with blindfolded eyes finally gave me ties to the secrets of nature which I slowly began to recognize and understand in their own fabric. And in due course it became clear to me that we human beings are used to seeing everything backwards and wrong. The biggest surprise, however, was that we human beings let the most valuable part drain off as useless and from all the great intellectuality that flows through us, we retain only the feces.”

“An American aircraft consortium offered me 3.5 million dollars; a similar offer was made by Canadian interests. You didn’t want it in Europe, so now you’ll have to get it back from America expensively!”

1958 (from Callum Coats: Living Energies (2002))

 


​
​

​
🙂