Philosophy Now Forum

Some things that I've been looking more deeply into today - Vortex Mathematics, and the science of Walter Russell.

Randy Powell: Intro to Vortex Math - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbyc9JW3vtk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEE55gcttqo
Water Russell - http://www.kathodos.com/3RUSSELL.pdf

WanderingLands wrote:Some things that I've been looking more deeply into today ...

When you say 'more deeply' what do you mean by this? Are you implementing these ideas? Creating experiments to prove the theory? Etc?

Arising_uk wrote:When you say 'more deeply' what do you mean by this?

By "looking into things more deeply", I mean to study it more; to concentrate and focus on it more - to think about it more so I can fully understand these concepts that I'm looking at.

Arising_uk wrote:Are you implementing these ideas? Creating experiments to prove the theory? Etc?

I know that Vortex Mathematics is true because I've been doing the simple mathematics myself (particularly "The Metaphysical Papers"). With Walter Russell, though, I'm still learning to digest his ideas since they are more radical. Referring to that PDF compilation of Russell, he said to have done laboratory work to come up with his own radical concept of the Universe (one of which involves splitting carbon and other gases to creates musical notes or octaves - something like that). I mainly learn with intuition and reasoning to make some answers, in contrast to the more empirical methods of science.

You should know these sort of theories are ten a penny, and mostly ignored by science, and it's not because they don't like them per se, it's because they don't apply to anything real, and clearly these people are not really educated enough to apply them to something experimental or real world. Scientists don't like people jumping over the process of science to a conclusion. If it works, show me the money in reality, not on paper is sciences remit, and one should not feel too abused that is the case, I think. This is however a philosophical idea, so in philosophy you can justify things logicaly, although if they have no practical application I think it's a little less relevant in these times, where you need to show relevance to gain interest or funding or both.

You should try general fluid dynamics, that'll give you a major coronary. Vortex science meh... j/k

You might say what does that have to do with Vortex math, it's all energy distribution at the end of the day. Sometimes it's classical sometimes it is not. Physics is an underlying structure where you deal in energy in any form you deal in movement and vectors hence in any form and the forces are all intrinsically related.

I actually ran from the room when I saw the Navier-Stokes equations though, be afraid, be very afraid, because under water no one can here you scream, well unless you are bellowing at the top of your lungs within a few feet.




v is the flow velocity,
rho is the fluid density,
p is the pressure,
T component of the total stress tensor, which has order two,
f represents body forces (per unit volume) acting on the fluid,
nabla (the upside down triangle) is the del operator.

The derivation in cartesian co-ordiantes!. :O

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/9/a/ ... ddc277.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2% ... _equations



relates to this.

You're just lucky you haven't got the first clue what any of that maths gibberish actually means.

This is partly the reason why there are two competing theories on aerodynamics and no one knows why things fly precisely. Aerodynamics is different from fluid flow dynamics, but not that different, it's all materials flow at the end of the day.

I do laud your effort to learn though, that is noble, but how far you dig into the rabbit hole- well it gets curiouser and curiouser.

You should know these sort of theories are ten a penny, and mostly ignored by science, and it's not because they don't like them per se, it's because they don't apply to anything real, and clearly these people are not really educated enough to apply them to something experimental or real world. Scientists don't like people jumping over the process of science to a conclusion. If it works, show me the money in reality, not on paper is sciences remit, and one should not feel too abused that is the case, I think. This is however a philosophical idea, so in philosophy you can justify things logicaly, although if they have no practical application I think it's a little less relevant in these times, where you need to show relevance to gain interest or funding or both.

There's actually evidence that what Walter Russell and Vortex Mathematics is talking about is indeed based upon actual fact and is grounded by empirical (or scientific) data. Here are some examples, which you can see by video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwRNls3TDv8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B9EA7Ktc8w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlziVcARnlU

These videos, which is about dialectricity (and in one video, diamagnetism), is based on Walter Russell's concept, which can be read in the PDF compilation that I have shown.

These two opposite electric conditions which form the basis of the constitution of matter are the compressed condition of gravity pressure and the expanded condition of radiation pressure. These two electric conditions are the equal - and - opposite pressures which make motion imperative and without which motion is impossible. The positive electric condition compresses large volumes of light - waves into small volumes by winding them up centripetally into spiral vortices by thrusting inward from without. That is what gravitation is. The negative electric condition expands small volumes of light - waves into large volumes by unwinding them centrifugally into voiding equators where matter disappears. That is what radiation is. Radiation thrusts outwardly from within to depolarize matter and void motion. The light of suns and the dark of space are but two opposite conditions of the same thing. They interchange constantly. Each becomes the other sequentially.

See page 5 of the PDF document.

Vortex Mathematics, I believe, is describing the vortexes that we see in things and I believe, likewise with Water Russell, is explaining the mechanics of the entire universe in full unity. Vortexes is also explained by Viktor Schauberger, who made implosion/vortex machines which were based on his observation of vortexes seen in water.

These are all examples, and possibly more, that are evidence for what is being talked about and presented on this thread.

I love the way people use evidence it's not gone through the process of peer review, it's not actually been independently tested and yet it is scientific evidence. You might as well have said I went into the back garden did a big shite, and then posted it on the internet. I don't care if God has tested it and shown experiments if God did not use the proper channels, I'd tell God he's not going to be believed either. You can't just jump in unannounced claim what you are doing is science and bypass all the decades of work other people do to even get a shot at a journal article. It's not fair, it's not even remotely science, and it's certainly not something any Scientist would give a damn about. You have to play the game. If you play by your own rules, use loaded dice, cheat, and by pass the system you get not to pass go, and you will not collect 200 pounds. Whine about it all you want but no one cares.

The reason why all these hurdles exist is to filter out the wheat from the chaff, it's not something to keep people down, it has to be hard to prove anything or any mindless wank would be science. It's just common sense based on all the dumb assed things that people who were or were not Scientists have claimed in the past.

Blaggard wrote:I love the way people use evidence it's not gone through the process of peer reveiw, it's not actually been independantly tested and yet it is scientific evidence. You might as well have said I went into the back garden did a big shite, and then posted it on the internet. You can't just jump in unnanounced claim what you are doing is science and bypass all the decades of work other people do. It's not fair, it's not even remotely science, and it's certainly not something any Scientist would give a damn about. You have to play the game. If you play by your own rules, use loaded dice, cheat, and by pass the system you get not to pass go, and you will not collect 200 pounds. Whine about it all you want but no one cares.

The reason why all these hurdles exist is to filter out the wheat from the chaff, it's not something to keep people down, it has to be hard to prove anything or any mindless wank would be science.

Just because it is not accepted in mainstream academia does not mean that it is false. In fact, when it comes to what I am saying, things promoted in mainstream academia are false and/or are questionable, which is why I say that we shouldn't simply rely on academia, and instead rely on our own minds to find actual and absolute truth. If you don't like it, then that's fine with me.

WanderingLands wrote:

Blaggard wrote:I love the way people use evidence it's not gone through the process of peer reveiw, it's not actually been independantly tested and yet it is scientific evidence. You might as well have said I went into the back garden did a big shite, and then posted it on the internet. You can't just jump in unnanounced claim what you are doing is science and bypass all the decades of work other people do. It's not fair, it's not even remotely science, and it's certainly not something any Scientist would give a damn about. You have to play the game. If you play by your own rules, use loaded dice, cheat, and by pass the system you get not to pass go, and you will not collect 200 pounds. Whine about it all you want but no one cares.

The reason why all these hurdles exist is to filter out the wheat from the chaff, it's not something to keep people down, it has to be hard to prove anything or any mindless wank would be science.

Just because it is not accepted in mainstream academia does not mean that it is false. In fact, when it comes to what I am saying, things promoted in mainstream academia are false and/or are questionable, which is why I say that we shouldn't simply rely on academia, and instead rely on our own minds to find actual and absolute truth. If you don't like it, then that's fine with me.

No one said it was false but it is not even wrong, which is probably worse to any Scientist, hear that and it's like hearing your last words on Earth as you fall through a big hole in the ground into hell. No one relies on acadaemia either, they rely on more than that, if it isn't repeated in experiment it's worth less than an early morning wank, it's just something that makes someone feel better, and no one else.

Our own minds are fickle, subject to bias, completely subjective and about as reliable as a cat on acid. Rely on your own personal bias and you might as well rely on trains to run on time, or governments to be adequate.

We use all these hoops we make people jump through because as history as shown we are wrong about everything, even when we are right about something. It's not that difficult a reasoning to understand. WE know almost nothing, if we ever want to know something, we need to be particular about shit.

Blaggard wrote: No one said it was false but it is not even wrong, which is probably worse to any scientist, hear that and it's like hearing your last words on Earth as you fall through a big hole in the ground into hell. No one relies on acadaemia either, they rely on more than that, if it isn't repeated in experiment it's worth less than an early morning wank, it's just something that makes someone feel better, and no one else.

For me, it's nothing more than a label by academia to dogmatically denounce dissents who question their ways. None of what I am saying is "not even wrong", and you can watch the videos and read all of the sources to see for yourself.

Blaggard wrote: Our own minds are fickle, subject to bias, completely subjective and about as reliable as a cat on acid. Rely on your own personal bias and you might as well rely on trains to run on time, or governments to be adequate.

By that logic of that statement, that would also make academia subject to subjectivity and scrutiny for bias as well.

We use all these hoops we make people jump through because as history as shown we are wrong about everything, even when we are right about something. It's not that difficult a reasoning to understand. WE know almost nothing, if we ever want to know something, we need to be particular about shit.

You are simply using the subjectivity argument, which is also called Relativist fallacy, and as well as the "not even wrong" label, to justify not looking into Vortex Math and Walter Russell. All about questioning things that you have been told and examine yourself and the things around you.

This is science mate, a relativist fallacy has no place in it, you are mixing philosophy with science, in science there is no fallacy, there is experiment, and then there is non experimental stuff, you have evidence or you don't, relatively speaking if you don't you are wasting everyones' time, no one cares. Logical fallacies do of course apply, but most of them are pointless. Resort to authority fallacy, not a fallacy in science, resort to popularity, if many people have tested it and found it to be true it's not a bad thing it's a damned good thing. You need to understand the difference between an evidence based medium, and a matter of logic with or without evidence which philosophy relies on. No one's saying they are wrong, that would mean someone had tested it and found them wrong, if you can't even do that because it's wide eyed specualtion it's not wrong, it's just not anything.

So not even wrong means: you haven't even got a hypothesis that could or maybe has been tested, and if you haven't it's about as worthwhile to science as an elevator without any buttons.

Science does not dismiss dissidents, it doesn't, what it does do is reward people who are against current theory who can prove it, (in fact if you can do that you will get a Nobel prize and probably tenure at any position within any institution you so choose). This whole thing about how science is keeping people down is just ridiculous, sure it's keeping half baked ideas from nowhere down, opinions, even uneducated numpties who think they know better, but evidential ideas well that is a different matter entirely. Play the game, and refute science you win, don't play the game, moan about how your half baked nonsense is being kept down, without doing the first thing to prove it, no one cares. And they shouldn't either, because like opinions everyone has an arsehole, and I am quite sure anyone can speak out of it. Science isn't perfect but one thing it has learned is if you have an idea and can't prove it, it is wise to remain skeptical on it.

Science is pragmatic, it asks for evidence because it has been burned in the past, it does not give a fuck if that pisses you off.

Well Blaggard, congratulations. All you did was reiterate what you've said on this forum, despite all of the evidence to the contrary which you dismiss, just because it does not agree with your dogmatic brain of yours. But anyways, let me make a final refute to your repetitive arguments; even though you practically begged the claim.

Blaggard wrote:This is science mate, a relativist fallacy has no place in it, you are mixing philosophy with science, in science there is no fallacy, there is experiment, and then there is non experimental stuff, you have evidence or you don't, relatively speaking if you don't you are wasting everyones' time, no one cares. Logical fallacies do of course apply, but most of them are pointless. Resort to authority fallacy, not a fallacy in science, resort to popularity, if many people have tested it and found it to be true it's not a bad thing it's a damned good thing. You need to understand the difference between an evidence based medium, and a matter of logic with or without evidence which philosophy relies on. No one's saying they are wrong, that would mean someone had tested it and found them wrong, if you can't even do that because it's wide eyed specualtion it's not wrong, it's just not anything.

Logical fallacies are meant to make the argument coherent and clear, without any form of bias or contradiction. Without examining science by using logical fallacies, then we can't really process all of the empirical or abstract mathematical data that science has churned up over the last hundreds of years. Thus "resort to authority" and "resort to popularity" still do apply when examining scientific theories, because science, like philosophy, is supposed to be about explaining and making good concise conclusions and explanations of how things work, just as of course, observation is used. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense; just as the modern scientific paradigm with its Standard model doesn't make sense, which has been pointed out many times.

Anyways, since you aren't even interested in Philosophy, like I said before it's better for you to step off and go to a science forum.

Blaggard wrote: So not even wrong means: you haven't even got a hypothesis that could or maybe has been tested, and if you haven't it's about as worthwhile to science as an elevator without any buttons.

Science does not dismiss dissidents, it doesn't, what it does do is reward people who are against current theory who can prove it, (in fact if you can do that you will get a Nobel prize and probably tenure at any position within any institution you so choose). This whole thing about how science is keeping people down is just ridiculous, sure it's keeping half baked ideas from nowhere down, opinions, even uneducated numpties who think they know better, but evidential ideas well that is a different matter entirely. Play the game, and refute science you win, don't play the game, moan about how your half baked nonsense is being kept down, without doing the first thing to prove it, no one cares. And they shouldn't either, because like opinions everyone has an arsehole, and I am quite sure anyone can speak out of it. Science isn't perfect but one thing it has learned is if you have an idea and can't prove it, it is wise to remain skeptical on it.

There you go: reiterating the same argument, without even making proof of it. The modern scientific establishment, like all academia, is about as dogmatic as they claim religion and the church to be. They promote incoherent theories such as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and promote Materialism and mechanistic paradigm as they shun and dismiss those who present different perspectives in whatever branch of science there is. I've actually brought sources that I have documented and presented on this forum, so I believe that I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

Blaggard wrote:Science is pragmatic, it asks for evidence because it has been burned in the past, it does not give a fuck if that pisses you off.

And so slave morality becomes dominant over society, and becomes even more oppressive than the oppressive master morality. Congrats!

WanderingLands wrote:
Logical fallacies are meant to make the argument coherent and clear, without any form of bias or contradiction. Without examining science by using logical fallacies, then we can't really process all of the empirical or abstract mathematical data that science has churned up over the last hundreds of years. Thus "resort to authority" and "resort to popularity" still do apply when examining scientific theories, because science, like philosophy, is supposed to be about explaining and making good concise conclusions and explanations of how things work, just as of course, observation is used. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense; just as the modern scientific paradigm with its Standard model doesn't make sense, which has been pointed out many times.

Speaking of reiterating the same argument... Metaphysics doesn't provide and explanation as to how things work in terms of testable theories. Instead it explains what things exist, or can exist and their purpose.

Science deals with posited entities that can be tested by way of experimentation. In other words the extent to which experimentation can explain observations. Metaphysics doesn't use experiments because it is not part of its methodology.


The Standard Model does make sense. Can you outline the reasons it doesn't make sense to you?

Well Blaggard, congratulations. All you did was reiterate what you've said on this forum, despite all of the evidence to the contrary which you dismiss, just because it does not agree with your dogmatic brain of yours. But anyways, let me make a final refute to your repetitive arguments; even though you practically begged the claim.

And I will go on doing it until the basic logic of it sinks in. So prepare for me to post it again when you post groundless opinion, and anecdotal stuff. It's the way it is, cry me o' river if you hate pragmatism, and overwhelming evidence based on experiment. I doubt science will care much either, in fact probably much less than I do, and that is logical.

Logical fallacies are meant to make the argument coherent and clear, without any form of bias or contradiction. Without examining science by using logical fallacies, then we can't really process all of the empirical or abstract mathematical data that science has churned up over the last hundreds of years. Thus "resort to authority" and "resort to popularity" still do apply when examining scientific theories, because science, like philosophy, is supposed to be about explaining and making good concise conclusions and explanations of how things work, just as of course, observation is used. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense; just as the modern scientific paradigm with its Standard model doesn't make sense, which has been pointed out many times.

Anyways, since you aren't even interested in Philosophy, like I said before it's better for you to step off and go to a science forum.

Once again you have missed the point, if 1 person did an experiment and it got x results is that better than if 10 million people did it and got different results, hence a resort to popularity is better than a resort to a singular opinion is it not? It's not even basic logic, its common sense. 10 million scientist got x results 1 got y results, the ten million are hence wrong. That is in fact what you are saying is it not? That's the difference, now I am not saying all logical fallacies don't apply, by an means, but when you have something you can tangibly prove, and thousands of people who have repeated the same experiment and got the same results agree, it is perfectly valid to point to popularity, and against a lone or small minority of dissent.

Peer review, independent repitition of others work, if you hate that so much, please explain why?

Also can you show me where and why the standard model doesn't make sense?

There you go: reiterating the same argument, without even making proof of it. The modern scientific establishment, like all academia, is about as dogmatic as they claim religion and the church to be. They promote incoherent theories such as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and promote Materialism and mechanistic paradigm as they shun and dismiss those who present different perspectives in whatever branch of science there is. I've actually brought sources that I have documented and presented on this forum, so I believe that I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

How many scientists do you know, and in fact more importantly how do you propose to judge an establishment, may I ask?

Also can you explain where quantum mechanics and special relativity are either wrong or incoherent and in what way?

Blaggard wrote:Science is pragmatic, it asks for evidence because it has been burned in the past, it does not give a fuck if that pisses you off.

And so slave morality becomes dominant over society, and becomes even more oppressive than the oppressive master morality. Congrats!

Asking for someone to prove it or shut up and take his opinions elsewhere because, and I want to make this perfectly clear, such anecodtal- I am right and you are wrong stuff is so much more logical and well founded than asking someone to actually do some objective experiment - is a slave mentality. Asking people to verify their opinions is slavery, just blindly accepting someone's opinion at face value and without any physical experiment or evidence at all, because it happens to meet with your own biases, is not. Ooookay then. That's got to be the most ironic argument I have ever read by a long shot. Ludditism at its most pure and most banal is what that is WL.

Found a PDF document called "The Missing Secrets of Magnetism". Goes into detail about the misconceptions of magnetism, and also looks into what it really is.

www.kathodos.com/magnetismsmall.pdf

WanderingLands wrote:Found a PDF document called "The Missing Secrets of Magnetism". Goes into detail about the misconceptions of magnetism, and also looks into what it really is.

http://www.kathodos.com/magnetismsmall.pdf

I am not going to read this paper and I would advise other people not to as well. It fails before it begins. The beginning is peppered with insults towards people such as Einstein and quantum physicists such as Richard Feynman. So, no Feynman's theory of quantum electrodynamics doesn't make him a demon.

Is Wheeler with any sort of serious countenance going to expect any person with any sort of academic background to read this?

One doesn't read any sort of credible scientific journal expecting it to be peppered with insults because it is tiresome and tedious and totally irrelevant to the subject of physics.

A proper study of relativity and quantum mechanics would reveal to Wheeler that Einstein was "not the puppeteer of the cult of quantum" he was fundamentally opposed to its implications.

Wanderlinglands I know this is a public forum, but let's try and maintain at least some semblance of standards when posting sources relevant to physics.