Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: law of conservation, a pseudo conservational law?

  1. #1 law of conservation, a pseudo conservational law? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    80
    learning alot about the discovery of vacuum state, Ive realised that our law of conservation as defined isnt really truthfully applicable to nature and the universe as a whole by today's understanding, our law only applies to the criteria of the 3 dimensional universe.

    However its quite clear nature itself does not follow such laws of conservation in terms of 3 dimensional energy transformation's, they are just one aspect. Nature goes by 4D conservation, that extra dimension (vacuum space time) being a source of energy shown to be the only strong solution to the presently unexplained source charge problem.

    So I was just thinking.. some sort of natural conservation exist's with this hyperdimensional energy (or the 4th dimension, vacuum space time), If this is so ... isnt this the real energy input source of induced current in a circuit.. not the oil or fuel that turns the shaft, the energy source is hyperdimensional.. we are just stimulating a certain natural effect in 3dimension's to convert potential space time energy into percieveable usable electricity.

    people's thought's?


    "The present is theirs ; the future, for which I really work , is mine." Nikola Tesla
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: law of conservation, a pseudo conservational law? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Clarky
    Ive realised that our law of conservation as defined isnt really truthfully applicable to nature and the universe as a whole by today's understanding, our law only applies to the criteria of the 3 dimensional universe.
    Before considering your other cutting edge thoughts could you explain in what way the First Law is not really truthfully applicable to nature and the universe as a whole by today's understanding.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: law of conservation, a pseudo conservational law? 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Clarky
    learning a lot about the discovery of vacuum state,
    Maybe you could explain your understanding of the "vacuum state". Maybe then there might be some discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: law of conservation, a pseudo conservational law? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Clarky
    learning alot about the discovery of vacuum state, Ive realised that our law of conservation as defined isnt really truthfully applicable to nature and the universe as a whole by today's understanding, our law only applies to the criteria of the 3 dimensional universe.

    However its quite clear nature itself does not follow such laws of conservation in terms of 3 dimensional energy transformation's, they are just one aspect. Nature goes by 4D conservation, that extra dimension (vacuum space time) being a source of energy shown to be the only strong solution to the presently unexplained source charge problem.

    So I was just thinking.. some sort of natural conservation exist's with this hyperdimensional energy (or the 4th dimension, vacuum space time), If this is so ... isnt this the real energy input source of induced current in a circuit.. not the oil or fuel that turns the shaft, the energy source is hyperdimensional.. we are just stimulating a certain natural effect in 3dimension's to convert potential space time energy into percieveable usable electricity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Clarky
    Ive realised that our law of conservation as defined isnt really truthfully applicable to nature and the universe as a whole by today's understanding, our law only applies to the criteria of the 3 dimensional universe.
    Before considering your other cutting edge thoughts could you explain in what way the First Law is not really truthfully applicable to nature and the universe as a whole by today's understanding.
    I agree totally with Ophiolite here, and from Clarky's response to Ophilotes honest request, it seems Clarky does not have much skill in the educator department.

    My guess is that he has read some new fangled interpretation of vacuum fluctations which I am not sure he understands. After all, if he cannot communicate it well then, then how can we be sure that he understands it. If he cannot be bothered to explain it, then he should at least provide a reference.

    EDIT: Oops I mistakenly thought the response to Ophiolite was Clarky. I apologize to everyone here. I totally misinterpreted the situation here.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Mitchell, either you have misread Guitarists post, thinking it to be from Clarky [it does contain the words "Clarky Wrote"], or Clarky's response to me has mysteriously disappeared.
    Judging by previous posts Clarky likes to climb out on a limb - I don't have sufficient physics to saw it off, but I thought (to mix metaphors) I might get the ball rolling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    80
    Yes I do like to go out on a limb :-D , Im really interested in making sense of it all, simple as that, and sometimes that envolves going back over the years to see what we have right, and what possibly doesnt work or compliment other theories, for instance why is there a complete void when it comes to electrical and gravitational relationship and magnetisim and gravity. If our 'theories' where thorough and fundemental enough wouldnt it beable to predict that relationship, theres a massive missing piece of the jigsaw.

    Basically reading up on how it came around , at the time of its creation about 140 odd years ago, when the understanding of the universe brought about classical theory, this was a purely material view of the universe.. the cause of everything was thought to be down to the forcefield's in space. restricting the law of conservation which we still go by to that particular criteria.

    Quantum mechanic's contradict's that intial understanding, the potential's in classical which arnt real, now are very real. and add a new depth to the conventional thought of a material aether, the aether theorised by einstein and discovered to be an invisible sea of energy, bringing virtual particle's the energy to blip in and out of existance as one example... yet classical still went on to assume forcefield's as the cause, and conservation remained in the boundaries of classical understanding.

    Furthermore today in quantum mechanic's we still consider a zero vector to be irrelevant, having no properties of consequence. Although without the zero in the system the other values which are real to us would not exist, obviously we dont dwell on what we consider non existant or virtual... but in a suprising amount of litrature it appear's to of revealed something beyond the quantum realm that can be made to have "real" effect's as the ahranov-bohm effect intially proved.

    So .. why when there are reported experiment's of creating zero vector system's by the cancellation of two EM field's and the consequent reporting of a zero vector wave (soliton, or scalar wave) which ignore's the presence of a faraday cage, going right through the shield to be detected in a circuit inside the cage .. simply by introducing a coil and a magnet in close proximity to that circuit, does somebody from the mainstream scientific community not stand up and say "whats going on here?", or even attempt to investigate or replicate the experiment themselves.

    From my perspective there is still a mind set of material aether, Some with the same mind set from the very birth of recorded science many years ago.. when experimental evidence in the 20th century has proven that to be an incorrect assumtion, and vacuum is infact a dynamic active medium. Virtual to us, but able to induce real world effect's as infact it is doing all the time.The more fundemental underlying processes on the control level of reality, that being the true source of energy throughout the universe.
    "The present is theirs ; the future, for which I really work , is mine." Nikola Tesla
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Yep, I was right. I don't have the necessary physics. I await Mitchell's comments with interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    so all virtual particles coming into existence should just be a manifistation of this sea of energy. (Zero point energy)

    can someone explain a vector. is it just a direction of movement. :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Clarky
    for instance why is there a complete void when it comes to electrical and gravitational relationship and magnetisim and gravity. If our 'theories' where thorough and fundemental enough wouldnt it beable to predict that relationship, theres a massive missing piece of the jigsaw.
    Quantum gravity or unified field theory is the holy grail of modern physics. Physicists keep hoping to find cracks in the Standard model (phenomena where the Standard model fails) which will give them clues to finding the theory that will relate all the forces.

    However, you should know that there is no problem relating only gravity and electro-magnetism in a unified classical (non-quantum) theory. All you have to do is rewrite the General theory of relativity in 5 dimensions (as Kaluza did) and you will get Maxwell's equations for electro-magnetism already included in the theory. Another Swedish physicist even came up with the explanation for the extra dimension that is now routinely used in string theory, that the width of the universe in this extra-dimension is so small that we do not notice it. So this electro-magnetic gravity theory is called Kaluza-Klein theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clarky
    Quantum mechanic's contradict's that intial understanding, the potential's in classical which arnt real, now are very real. and add a new depth to the conventional thought of a material aether, the aether theorised by einstein and discovered to be an invisible sea of energy, bringing virtual particle's the energy to blip in and out of existance as one example... yet classical still went on to assume forcefield's as the cause, and conservation remained in the boundaries of classical understanding.
    Yes, indeed I myself came up with a similar idea ten years back that the sea of vacuum fluctuations could be thought of as a kind of etheric medium (although I did not call it that) and that it could be used as a tool for explaining quantum physics in a new way that clears up some of the confusion. I even wrote up this idea and showed it to one of my professors. (I will have to see if I can find that paper) Anyway, he said he did not like it because he thought that vacuum fluxtuations were an artifact of perturbation theory. I cannot say that I agree with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    Quote Originally Posted by Clarky
    Furthermore today in quantum mechanic's we still consider a zero vector to be irrelevant, having no properties of consequence. Although without the zero in the system the other values which are real to us would not exist, obviously we dont dwell on what we consider non existant or virtual... but in a suprising amount of litrature it appear's to of revealed something beyond the quantum realm that can be made to have "real" effect's as the ahranov-bohm effect intially proved.
    so all virtual particles coming into existence should just be a manifistation of this sea of energy. (Zero point energy)
    I haven't been able to quite figure out what clarky is trying to say, but yes. There is nothing new in this. I am still puzzled by his talk of dimensions in his first post.
    can someone explain a vector. is it just a direction of movement.
    I think he is refering to kets, which is a vector like notation used in quantum mechanics, and he should not call them vectors. I fear his mixing of terminologies is contributing to confusion. But in any case I think he is just vaguely describing a revolutionary development in the history of quantum mechanics. It did and still does have profound implications but it is only one of a great many revelations like this in modern physics. I would love to hear what he thinks it implies since I have a passion for the topic of metaphysical implications of contemporary physics.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clarky
    So .. why when there are reported experiment's of creating zero vector system's by the cancellation of two EM field's and the consequent reporting of a zero vector wave (soliton, or scalar wave) which ignore's the presence of a faraday cage, going right through the shield to be detected in a circuit inside the cage .. simply by introducing a coil and a magnet in close proximity to that circuit, does somebody from the mainstream scientific community not stand up and say "whats going on here?", or even attempt to investigate or replicate the experiment themselves.
    Well you seem to find this particular phenomenon very interesting, so maybe you should get involved and do some work in that area. Or maybe you could explain why you think this is so significant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Clarky
    From my perspective there is still a mind set of material aether, Some with the same mind set from the very birth of recorded science many years ago.. when experimental evidence in the 20th century has proven that to be an incorrect assumtion, and vacuum is infact a dynamic active medium. Virtual to us, but able to induce real world effect's as infact it is doing all the time.The more fundemental underlying processes on the control level of reality, that being the true source of energy throughout the universe.
    Part of the problem may be that there are many ways of conceptualizing things in quantum physics, and not everyone agrees on a "right way". It is clear that quantum physics is something that the physicists are still very much in the process of trying to digest and understand more clearly. I have thought that quantum physics is just as much a conceptual stumbling block for the physicists as relativity is for the uninitiated public. Just as relativity contradicts much in the common sense logic about space and time for the non-physicist, quantum physics contradicts the common sense logic that physicists have relied upon in physics for a long time (reductionism and determinism). I'll will never forget the reaction of one of the brighter students in my quantum physics class when he finally got what the teacher was trying to say. He suddenly stood up and said "but that doesn't make any sense". This was Einstein's reaction and is still the reaction of many physicists even today. Some even like to say that if you think you understand quantum physics, then you probabably don't get it.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    80
    Wallaby youve basically nailed it, on the quantum plane as I understand it vector's are used for calculating direction and spin, when vector's sum to zero 3 space observable action stops, but what appears to be happening in those experiment's is the information that creates the observable system is stored in that zero as a real dynamic virtual counterpart.

    I completely agree with mitchellmckain, this idea is not new, but i feel it deserves higher priority attention. Going back to the origional post in question Ive read about heavside and poynting's calculation's on the circuit and from their work its clear that the energy flow within a circuit from the battery is not the source of the energy, that detectable flow is just energy dissapation.

    the Heavside componet is interesting because it takes into account all that energy that misses the circuit, for example if you where sailing on the ocean poynting flow is the wind that is captured in your sails, the rest of that potential wind misses and is never used , now if you could channel more of that heavside component into the poynting flow you would be in buisness. So basically no battery or drive shaft ever really powered a circuit.

    To clarify on the dimension's, talking about kaluza klien.. he theorised the 5D Gravity field, which is Vacuum space time. hence why i mentioned vacuum in context of a dimension.

    I find that experiment significant because Tesla conducted similar experiment's in his lightning patent's and reported the same instances of a wave that does not seem to interact with the electron shell under normal condition's. He reported speeds of upto 80 times the speed of light with these soliton waves, and also recorded using them to transmit electricity over vaste distances.

    A higher group symmetry phenomenon, I mean the U1 electrodynamic model doesnt even assume a curved space time from the user's perspective. Just being in and around the earth puts us in a curved space time!, you cant unify U1 with general relativity that way. U1 assumes incorrectly and it destructively limit's its use to 3D conservation, When with 4D conservation its clear nature is a giant neg entropy operation.

    higher group symmetry models have been developed but they dont seem to get any attention. but if the experiment's are replicateable its the theory that should change it shouldnt get the deaf ear. You have to have theories that compliment each other, or your running into a brick wall, at the moment the mainstream theories contradict in major areas preventing any real step forward to a practical unified theory. Mainstream needs to give these higher symmetry models a trial run..

    for example Myron Evans's theory has higher symmetry O(3) electrodynamic's models stemming from soliton wave experiment's. Also claimed to be an engineerable theory.
    "The present is theirs ; the future, for which I really work , is mine." Nikola Tesla
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •