| Author |
Message |
harman16
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 28
Helped: 1
|
 06 May 2008 21:23 Do you believe? |
|
|
|
| yes cloaking
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mr.Cool
Joined: 20 Jun 2001
Posts: 526
Helped: 16
|
| 07 Jun 2008 21:07 Do you believe? |
|
|
|
gtaank - yes i have studied it a great deal.
in fact, the theory is sound and mathematically rigorous. it is self checking and provable algebraically using computer software for theoretical physicists such as maple.
we have moved on to build machines that operate with the intention of exploiting the new insights of the mathematics. hey, this is what engineers do afterall.
the machines work as expected. we have made some amazing discoveries.
you read about about nikola tesla and his search to extract energy from the very wheel work of nature. did you know he succeeded? in 1895 no less. he went on to do other amazing things with this technology, and indeed in one embodiement he took the invention and split it up into several key ingredient pieces. then he gave each world government the piece. useless on its own.. but if world governments ever worked together in peace then they could share their knowledge and put together the one invention.
unfortunately that day is far away.
in the mean time, the busy bees among us work hard every day to make the reality of tesla's genius available for free to all people of the earth.
the internet is the binding tool that makes this possible. which is why i say the internet can be used for tremendous bad and good.
back to the math.. go look at carniegee mellon university. they offer free download j.c. maxwell's original treatise on electrical theory. here you find his mathematical equations that describe electromagnetic field theory based on his EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS .. his equations are 20 equations, NOT FOUR! it is written in quaternion mathematics not vector calculus.
this is a good starting point. you must realize that quaternion calculus is useful because that form of mathematics when appiled to electric field theory because it allows open and dissipative systems. but on the other hand, the math itself is inconsistent and not rigerously proven (i.e. it is too abstract). so you take the essense of the quaternion math and the original equations and reformulate them based on GEOMETRIC math, i.e. curvature and torsion of space-time, and you can come up with the maxwell equations AND OTHER equations... this time based on a rigerously proven mathematics.
now you can play with these other equations.. 
ps. nothing i or others in the research group is secret. it is all open source and available publically. perhaps a particular application is proprietary (hey, gotta make a living some how) but the method is free to all.
Mr.Cool
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chokfung
Joined: 30 May 2008
Posts: 2
|
| 08 Jun 2008 23:49 Do you believe? |
|
|
|
| Probably yes, but I don't think we (at least in this and next generation at least) will find the equation?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
QMA
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 28
|
| 11 Jun 2008 10:52 Re: Do you believe? |
|
|
|
i have read all the posts. i m surprised to know that still there are some phenomenon that does not obey the science and mathematics. is there any example.
can v control this universe with the help of scientific and mathematical rules. now or in the near future, is it possible? can prediction b 100% perfect.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tiv-1
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 1
|
| 02 Jul 2008 1:48 Do you believe? |
|
|
|
Hi QMA. Real science does not pretend to know all the rules. Rules are modified as we find out more. eg Newtons laws of motion modified by Einstein's ideas. Often necessary only in extreme cases, but without these mods, GPS would not work. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dipchip
Joined: 07 May 2001
Posts: 55
|
| 09 Jul 2008 1:13 Re: Do you believe? |
|
|
|
simple equations are reassuring and make us think we understand. I don't think the situation has changed much since I was a physics major -- back then they could solve the 2 body central force problem and hooks law. (Note, these are idealized case that do not reflect any reality!) It was implied that the hydrogen or helium atom was almost solved, but that gets into some assumptions and is open to debate. Everything else is an approximation. We can make some darn good approximations, but ..
The problem of what a particle is is wide open. Then there is that duality thing with the waves. How many dimensions will it finally take to describe an intermediate reality that we can calculate with? What will that intermediate reality be, string theory, quantium gravity or something we haven't even guessed at yet? Then there are those invariance things, our perspective shouldn't mater. (Why is that?)
I'm sure that we can understand more of the universe, but we are limited. Our perception and our existence fall right in the middle between the very small and very large. We can be aware of the large size of the universe and the infinitesimal smallness of some of its details and parts, but can we put everything together and see reality as a whole? Remember the psych 101 illustration that you looked at one way and saw a vase look at it another way and see a profile? Funny how our brains only allow one view into our conscious mind at a time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
