Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Raui]

Thanks for your transmission Eric!

I'm pretty sure Raui's forum signature is of use.

It's the artistic realization of a particular canon of Bach's. See Bach: Endlessly Rising Modulation Canon (with score!) - YouTube for the particular canon. The idea is discussed in greater detail (and is where I got the idea from) in Doug Hofstader's Godel, Escher, Bach and the Eternal Golden Braid. Basically the canon changes key by the time it gets to the end of the sequence and it seemlessly blends meaning it doesn't make the song tune sound off and can continue to be played over and over with every time corresponding to a heightening of the key. Same thing with Drawing Hands by Escher with this infinite loop type situation occuring. I don't fully understand how this ties in with what Eric is saying but I do know that it does.

DanDman,
I have assembled a list of freely downloadable books, alot of which Eric has referenced, here; http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post97489 It contains every single book Eric has referenced on the forum with the exception of Ernst Guillemin's Communication Networks plus some references he has referenced in his books. I stress that anyone who is reading Eric's posts should check them out especially Heaviside's Electromagnetic Induction and its Propagation.

Raui

[t-rex]

[Pinwheel]

I'm pretty sure Raui's forum signature is of use.

[lamare]

Might I suggest that cutting a pasting Eric's work alone - together in one place and reading it - in its entirety -may be the way to see this in a cohesive manner. It is one way to remove the disjointed thoughts.

You may want to take a look here:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Energetic Form Posts

[wizofid]

Might I suggest that cutting a pasting Eric's work alone - together in one place and reading it - in its entirety -may be the way to see this in a cohesive manner. It is one way to remove the disjointed thoughts.

That - and Eric has posted the textbooks that he started with. I some 35 years ago, found the very same thing, when I was reading Mech and EE Eng books, back in high school - The NEW texts, were 300 pages and left out all of the steps from question to solution. Going back 5 or 10 editions - and maybe 20 to 40 years of publishing, allowed me to find the very same questions, asked and answered - for 40 years. The simple truth was that during the 70's and 80's, Texts got cut 2 and 300 pages - but what was left on the floor was the math and word explanations - of how you sorted things out in "First Principles". I found - the older the book - the better the explanation.

[DanDMan]

I get it

I totally get it Eric. This has been my thought about the electrostatic for while, but knowing who to bring this to practical application has been hard for me. I have been working on a capacitor with one metal plate and one plasma plate. The idea to very capacitance over time at extreme frequencies. Am I headed in the right direction at all?

I have only now found your work. I gave up on understanding Tesla years ago, because I made the mistake of seeking education from Babylon. I have only now picked it up again. Tesla has been my primary hero since I was 10 years old. Your last post just broke my heart. I am so sorry. I have nothing to offer you, but if you ever need a place to stay the door is open.

There are years of time span in your work and I would guess that you have refined your ideas, but being at the beginning, I need a way to get to the relevant info and not wast time with outdated ideas. I assume from your frustration you have, like Tesla, already explained everything but have not been perceived. I beg this one request from you Eric in the name of Tesla and all that is Good. Can you please provide a list of your works and/or others which gives us the secrets of Tesla?

Having all the relevant material specifically listed in one place would greatly speed the learning/relearning curve! With this info I promise to learn it, build it, and teach it worldwide!

Right now, I don't even know where to look for all your data, math, ect..

[Raui]

Eric,
Very informative post indeed! I'm going to read more of Transients in Space tonight (For anyone interested in doing the same it's located in Steinmetz - Theory and Calculation of Transient Electric Phenomena and Oscillations) I eagerly await your next transmission

Does it go on from there?




The ratio of the dielectric flux density over the dielectric induction is the ... (I have no idea).

Or,

The ratio of the magnetic flux density over the magnetic induction is the ... (I have no idea).

Similar to how impedance and admittance were treated earlier?



Or perhaps,

Planck^4 / (either) phi or psi = something

Like, there's another set of dimensional relations and ratios that one would want to consider now that we are looking at the substantial properties of the electric field density in cm^4.

/edit -and now I realize I was reading it wrong - it's Planck/cm^4.

Good to see your trying to thinking ahead but the ratio of dielectric field density to magnetic field density or visa versa is Impeadence (webers per coulomb) and Admittance (coulombs per weber) since the space to the 2nd power cancels when dividing. See an example here; WolframAlpha

[Pinwheel]

Does it go on from there?

[...]it may be asked, what of the product of the dielectric flux density, and the magnetic flux density?

The ratio of the dielectric flux density over the dielectric induction is the ... (I have no idea).

Or,

The ratio of the magnetic flux density over the magnetic induction is the ... (I have no idea).

Similar to how impedance and admittance were treated earlier?

Weber per Coulomb
Equals Ohms.

Coulomb per Weber
Equals Siemens.

Or perhaps,

Planck^4 / (either) phi or psi = something

Like, there's another set of dimensional relations and ratios that one would want to consider now that we are looking at the substantial properties of the electric field density in cm^4.

/edit -and now I realize I was reading it wrong - it's Planck/cm^4.

[t-rex]

[t-rex]

[madhatter]

Please understand that I'm no way making a preemptive strike against Eric or his work. My only reason for saying I hoped he was above mud slinging was directed at and only at the slur as I see it against quaternions. I can only assume as others that this may be a subtle reference to Beardon, however I don't know for sure as Eric is not clear about it.

I've watched the videos from the 80's and have worked thru his journals and publications and fully understand what he's talking about, I don't think I'm rare in that. I do have some additional background knowledge due to my line of work that I can not disclose that does indeed validate Eric, do not construe that to mean that I'm trying to mislead anyone. I implore all to listen and pay attention as best as they can to what he's posting.

I'm probably from a smaller group though in that I've studied quantum physics for 10yrs and have long strayed along the accepted edge. The eyeopener was taking a step back and really listing to what some physicists are saying and a theme will emerge. There is a fundamental break between physics and our conscience, you may be wondering what any of this has to do with electricity.

I'll tell you, neuroscience deals with the synaptic function of our brain, this occurs on a quantum scale. It's the world of the unknown and full of interesting theories. Now here is Eric who's trying to tell the anyone who'll listen that there is more to the dielectric fields than is taught and we know. I came across Eric's work a number of yrs ago when I was doing research in quantum electro dynamics, preciously because he's done lab work that proves the existence of another dimensional phase, or faster than light travel.

I honestly have no idea how much in depth knowledge Eric has about this or it's implications beyond the macro scale. research and testing requires substantial funding, I'm aware that he's been thru the wringer on that front and I don't begrudge him in his distrust of people due to this.

Eric is free to tell me to go jump in a lake as is anyone. I wanted to make the point that one particular type of algebra or calculus isn't the reason why Eric's or anyone's work is obscure. The reason would be due to the interpretation of the equations that gets pushed forth, and the peer review process itself. classic case of this is found in string theory, it's not the type of mathematics but the input for some very odd theories.

Eric makes a point and it needs to be stressed, understand the relations between the functions and constants. A lack of understanding these basics will get one lost and confused. This is going to be tougher for those who don't have a background knowledge in how the constants were derived and the relations they have to each other. For the terms used, i,j,k, and many many more, there is reason for each and what each mean. The majority of equations use these 'place holders' to reduce the shear complexity of them, however one needs to keep them straight in their mind and know where you can and can't place them. The order and use of them is also related to the type of algebra or calculus used.

Eric is not going to give everyone a math lesson or go thru the fundamentals, that is the responsibility of the reader. He provides numerous sources of reference for this. Take advantage of that.

I apologize for any offense I have made, that was not the intent.

[jarvamundo]

Poopin ended up with hellovalot more than $25,000... try more than 400k by the end of the AT&T episode. And here is the rub, if Heaviside had been backed, he could've demolished the patent fight between AT&T & Pupin. (this being reason why AT&T did not pursue the case with poopin... as OH would've been revealed as the holder of prior knowledge..... so it was in AT&T's interest to endorse the pupin patents). But Heaviside considered it a crime not to publish. An unsung hero.

Also of interest.... Ivor Catt published a biography by Heaviside's friend G.F.C. Searle "The Man". It's a sad read, but also serves as an inspiration to "stick it"... anyways it's as first hand as you're going to get (it's free get it, read it): http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/OHM/...de_the_Man.htm

Ivor Catt's work on logic buses is interesting in it'self (The Catt Anomaly)... as these transmission line effects are now popping up as we reduce the dimension of time and space by studying these effects on a pcb. Turns out 'charge' appears on a parallel conductor (reflector) "instantaneously out of no where".... the conflicting letters between the IEEE officers are hilarious... apparently one of em has a Nobel.

imo historical context is very important when approaching these ideas...

Also when you study Electrical Papers.... be sure to check out "Ido Yavetz - From Obscurity To Enigma"... it's technical & written for engineers, applied mathematicians... however the focus of the author on the method of Heaviside's physical reasoning is as good as i've found. A real gem.

Absolutely no mention should be made of anything Maxwellian without directly quoting Maxwell himself thru his writings! To study his work in its entirety will take a lifetime. So mute thyself.

back to EPD and Coyotes munchin parrots... mute-on

[Pinwheel]

@madhatter

I'm not quite sure what your basic point of contention is. Is it that EPD is not endorsing QM?

It also appears that you are saying that there is many different mathematical methods to achieve (something). Obviously, there probably is many different maths one can use to do this or that. Is this what you are saying? Also, what is that (something) that many different types of maths can explain? The nature of space?
___

After taking a 10 min break in composing this post, what looks to be happening is that you are preemptively critiquing EPD's method of describing something... that he hasn't described yet... with his method that he hasn't fully revealed or explained yet. He hasn't fully revealed it here anyway. This is unless one had a very thorough understanding of his papers he wrote from back in the late 80's - in which case you would be the first person to have that level of understanding that I've personally witnessed. I'm also assuming that EPD's has fully published his idea and methodology in those late 80's publications.

I would think that someone with this level of understanding would be able to re-create those late 80's experiments, that we've all seen, and then, of course, feel free to dissect whatever it is that EPD talking about with something like "the wave propagates through a higher dimension" - and subtle ad hominem shots like your "I just hoped Eric would be above mud slinging though".

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that nobody (and for sure nobody here) has EVER... re-created any of EPD's experiments even 1 time ever.

Should we let the author explain his idea and his proposed method for understanding the idea, THEN call him out on it's legitimacy? You know what I mean? How can we call a guy out when we can't even duplicate what we've all seen him do? He's trying to tell us and we're like "naw.. you mud slingin' bro".

Am I wrong here? It looks preemptive to me.

For those interested, there is an interesting book by a guy named Mortimer J Adler called "How to Read a Book" that talks about things like this - critiquing an author only once you understand him (as well as how to have a better chance at understanding said author, ie: 'How to Read a Book'). Worth at least an investigation, if not purchase. I know the title kinda makes one go "pffft, I know how to read dude" but it's not like that - very very cool book.

[madhatter]

I don't think Oliver liked quanternions, from Vol 1 preface:

"The numerous letter prefixes of the quaternionic system, which greatly contribute to the difficulty of reading quaternionic investigations, are abolished, retaining only the symbol V before a vector product. Another difficulty is in the scalar product of Quaternions being always the negative of the quantity practically concerned. Yet another is the unreal nature of quaternionic formulae. The terms do not stand for physical quantities. Again, in most physical mathematics, the quaternion does not even present itself for consideration, or, at any rate, may be readily dispensed with. Lastly, the establishment of vector-algebra on a quaternionic basis is very hard to understand, as chapter II. of Professor Tait's treatise shows. These troubles are obviated by the method I follow, basing the whole upon the definition of a vector, and of the scalar and the vector product of a pair of vectors."

agreed, Heaviside had an intuitive nature to physics and math can be brutally tedious, if one is not careful you'll loose all sense of what you're doing. The biggest thing is keeping your terms and functions in their proper place and understanding the relations. quaternions are difficult because you can be left with unknown terms and start with them too. Heaviside 'reduced' the equations to what was relevant and needed, not a bad thing in reality it worked well, undefined fields have no physical place here and become difficult to work with. look into the myriad of tunable constants in string theory, it'll cause brain lock!

It is noted that their are waves that travel faster than light, at face value for some it comes out that there is something moving at a velocity faster than light. problem is it isn't that simple, it's propagating thru a higher order dimension. any dimension beyond the ones we inhabit can not be fully understood, the flash of 'string' theory and multiple dimensions bandied about by the media are misinterpreted and this only leads to further confusion. they are mathematical constructs, that's it.

the physical world is translated into mathematics in order to gain a sense of order and predictability. The problem can be when one tries to take the math further than the physical model and then when the physical model does not invalidate the math it's taken as theory. There are physical, tangible phenomenon here now in this dimension that do not have a complete mathematical construct for them or even one that can be agreed upon.

Heaviside was pragmatic and approached the issue in a clear and intuitive manner. This of course angered the community as it wasn't holding to the std in place. No different than today. Honestly I don't care what math anyone uses, show proof and predictability in it and all is well. postulates and theories with no substance are a waste of everyone's time. tossing obscene amount of money into mathematical constructs that have failed time and again is setting the clock back as well.

This is sadly a simple thing, however for most scientist they can't see the forest for the trees. We need the math in order to exploit the world around us, otherwise we will be walking around in the dark. the mathematical equations have to fit the physical model first and foremost, if it does not then it is wrong. What 'flavor' of mathematics one uses is entirely their choice, the fallacy occurs when the driving theory behind the equation is wrong and then the math is blamed.

For the astute reader, yes I've left out the interpretation of the equations. It is one of those 'kinks' that can obfuscate the truth. An equation can have a result that is dismissed due to a lack of understanding of what is being derived. And that is where the line is between the great teachers and the perpetual students. It's a case of you have it or you don't.

The majority here would prefer to have finished results shown to them and explained simply. the problem I see is that for those who have gone thru the educational system it's going to be difficult to get around what's already in place, however you have the advantage of seeing the big picture and where the pieces may fall. If you've managed to extend your studies into QED and the quantum world, it takes a really open mind to start with and you'll really be able to see what's going on. I'd like to point out that quantum physics is more akin to what Eric is talking about, if one gets through the lower classes and enters into QED for example it requires a re-work of what you already know. particle physics is strange, however if you re-work it as a wave function then it becomes so much clearer and the here's the beauty, it validates what Eric knows!

Ok, I'll step off my soap box now.

[john_g]

I don't think Oliver liked quanternions, from Vol 1 preface:

"The numerous letter prefixes of the quaternionic system, which greatly contribute to the difficulty of reading quaternionic investigations, are abolished, retaining only the symbol V before a vector product. Another difficulty is in the scalar product of Quaternions being always the negative of the quantity practically concerned. Yet another is the unreal nature of quaternionic formulae. The terms do not stand for physical quantities. Again, in most physical mathematics, the quaternion does not even present itself for consideration, or, at any rate, may be readily dispensed with. Lastly, the establishment of vector-algebra on a quaternionic basis is very hard to understand, as chapter II. of Professor Tait's treatise shows. These troubles are obviated by the method I follow, basing the whole upon the definition of a vector, and of the scalar and the vector product of a pair of vectors."