PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-08-03, 08:16:45
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Untapping the Energy of the Versine: The Sagitta Key  (Read 17901 times)
Group: Guest
This is a short preview of my book the Sagitta Key.  It finds that there is a vast amount of untapped energy existing in the versine.  What's the versine or sagitta?  It's what's left over when you subtract the cosine from a unit circle radius of 1.  sagitta=1-cosine.


I'm attaching a very brief preview of the book.  A few excerpted chapters.  Let me know what you think.
« Last Edit: 2015-01-13, 01:54:51 by GFT »
   
Group: Guest
Oh. I haven't put it on sale yet. Will do so very soon, though.
   
Group: Guest
I'm attaching a very brief preview of the book.  A few excerpted chapters.  Let me know what you think.

Will need some time to wrap my head around it all, but one thing that clearly stands out:

Counter Space.

This is mentioned by Eric Dollard and Ken Wheeler in their respective works.  I think what you write at the bottom of section 3.2 fits very comfortably with this notion of Counter Space.  This is the Yang that necessitates beyond our understanding of the Ying.

In Ken and Eric's writing, dielectricity lives in this Counter Space domain; precession and inertia do too.

We cannot fully understand many phenomena without seeing the whole.  I hope your work helps bring into focus the other half of the puzzle that has been largely ignored up to this point.
   
Group: Guest
opps.                 

In section 3.4 I said E=mars.  That should be h=mars. Sorry for the mistake.
   
Group: Guest
 I personally think this notion of an innerspace, of an active space, is conclusively proven via the work of Steinmetz, Dollard, and especially Tesla. Smudge addresses this in his papers also,e.g., The Case For an Active Aether.  I'm amused when mainstream scientists will call the aether everything but that because that immediately opens one up for ridicule, but it's clear to  me that this active ijk space exists. In fact the reason for this book was a discussion on this board with Smudge who suggested that my R=30 ohms times 4pi equaled the zero point impedance of space.  This is where I immediately saw this idea of innerspace take shape in my mind algebraically.  So for  the next 5 months I banged out this book.  It took on a life and direction of its own that  I had no idea would evolve into what it finally did.  508 pages!!!!!!To get to the bottom of this innerspace thing I had to go to the vectors xyz which lead to ijk which lead Euler's equation e^ix which led me to discover the versine which has always been hidden in plain sight.  It's considered as being obsolete so it isn't even mentioned anymore in trig textbooks. This one simple concept, a sine being parallel to  the cosine, forms the heart of not only innerspace but of calculus and QM as well. Again, this is an algebraic theory based upon manipulation of units.  The book is specifically written so that the reader doesn't get bogged in the complexities of the math.  Just follow the units.
« Last Edit: 2015-01-14, 04:52:51 by GFT »
   
Group: Guest
Just follow the units.
I've found this method to always show the actual relationships involved.


Something that really caught my attention when reading your preview...

Take a simple inductor, get it resonating; watch on an oscilloscope the current and voltage sit nicely 90 degrees out of phase.  Look at those two waves and notice how you see a sine wave and a cosine wave.  If that doesn't spark some inspiration as to the dynamics really going on, I'm not sure anything will.  It's not so much that one wave is a derivative of the other, it's that one wave is in "our" space and the other is from counter space.  Call them voltage and amperage if you like, but clearly they reciprocate bank-n-forth through unity, through that membrane that separates two distinct worlds.
   
Group: Guest
Since i was first introduced to physics I intuitively/desperately started doing this type of dimensional analysis( didn't know at the time that there was a name for it) because it was the only way I could keep up with all the different quantities. It will occasionally trip you up on constants but other than that the physics always follows the units. You are absolutely correct about the two worlds, the scalar cosine and the vector, isin.  But here is the true breakthrough in this this theory and it is sooooo simple.  Duh simple.

Every radius in the unit circle is 1.  

Every radius in the unit circle is mathematically defined by Euler's equation that says e^ix=cosx + isinx.

Every one of those radii -EVERY ONE- forms an hypotenuse of 1 to a right triangle whose sides are cosx and isinx.

So every radius and every hypotenuse it forms obeys  hypotenuse=e^ix=cosx + isinx=1.

But we also have  along the x axis that the versine or sagitta obeys  versine=sagitta=1-cosx.  

Therefore

sagitta+cosine=1.  

But if

hypotenuse=e^ix=cosx + isinx=1

and

sagittax+cosx=1

Then it must be the case that

versine=sagitta=isinx.

Nothing spooky or otherworldly.  Just following the algebra.  The result? The sagitta is a lateral sine.  It is a sine that runs along the the x axis collinear with the cosine.
This is the bombshell with seismic consequences in both calculus and QM. To test it just try it.  Draw a unit circle and a right triangle and simply move the cosine up and down the x axis  to see that as the cosine gets bigger both the isin and sagitta get smaller by the same amount.  Whatever the cosine gains the sagitta and isine simultaneously loses and vice versa.  This is the heart of the limit.  No more delta/epsilon proof and dancing around division with zero.  The sagitta solves that. The sagitta and the cosine coexist along the x axis in the unit circle each gaining a maximum of 1 and a minimum of zero.  The cos reaches a maximum of 1 at the circumference  while simultaneously the sagitta reaches  a minimum of zero at the circumference.  The opposite is true at the origin.  AS X OR THE COSINE GOES TO ZERO THE SAGITTA OR VERSINE GOES TO 1. This is the foundation of the limit and actually the reformulation of the FTOC. What everybody has completely glossed over including Newton and Liebnitz is that at the end of the day, calculus is still just plain old trig.  Yes, taking x to zero is still taking the cosine to zero.  But what everyone has failed realize is that we are taking x to its trigonometric zero not its algebraic zero. As soon as we take the cosine to zero we instantly and simultaneously take the sagitta to 1.  So we have division by 1 or the quotient or slope  y/y since the sine=sagitta=y axis and f(x)=y.  It's that simple and yet that seismic in it's implications. The cosine and sagitta are conjugates or pseudo opposites.

Again. I've done nothing but follow some  simple high school trig.

As far as QM goes.  QM does its computations based on integrals and integrals necessarily cannot get you an exact on the dot value. It is necessarily an aggregation of points.  That's why you get probabilities with Psi squared in QM theory.  But with the sagitta we can do all our sine calculations on the  x axis and derive a derivative which is necessarily an exact on the dot value.  The sagitta allows us to dispense with probabilities and get exact results.  Yes Psi is defined as being a complex function which ostensibly prohibits it for being restricted to the x axis but the sagitta, although collinear to the cosine, still retains sine characteristics and it is the sagitta that lends Psi its requisite "complexity" or imaginary quality.

Psi is the real physical quantity vorticity.  Psi squared is no longer a probability but vorticity squared or enstrophy.    Enstophy is energy per volume.  But volume can also be ijk so Psi squared can be considered as energy per ijk.  But  ijk=-1 so we can  have Psi squared as being negative energy.  But enstrophy can also be force/area or force per jk or force/i or force per particle or an EMF.  The upshot is enstrophy is inherently magnetic.


Psi squared is no longer considered to be normalized to achieve a value of 100 percent but simply the product of conjugates which always equal 1.  The sagitta allows us to make QM unquestionably causal and therefore unquestionably classical.









« Last Edit: 2015-01-15, 00:10:18 by GFT »
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3480
tExB=qr
Please let me know when this is published.
   
Group: Guest
It's published already.  I'm just waiting to get the first copy from the publisher so I can proofread it again and see if it printed ok.  They shipped it today.  Hopefully before the week is out I'll get a copy. So in about a week I should be making it available to the public.

The big book (the GFT book) lays the foundation and is admittedly not that easy to read and digest.
But this Sagitta Key is written in a completely different style.  I wrote it more for the student and the novice but it's enough rigorous math in here to interest professionals as well.  The GFT lays the predicate but the Sagitta Key pulls everything together.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3480
tExB=qr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enstrophy

Enstrophy can be a current.

I don't understand the full significance, but I have never taken trig or calculus.  Trig is next fall.
   
Group: Guest
Got the book back from the printers about a week ago.
Proofreading it now.  Hope to have it done and released to the public by this weekend.
I'll list it at cost once again for a short while to get it into the hands of a few readers.

I loved algebra and geometry when I was in school.  Trig, besides the Pythagorean theorem,
seemed useless and calculus was easily doable but made no sense to me.
Nobody thinks of calculus as being trig but I don't know why we don't since calculus is all about finding the tangent.
I'm only just starting to really appreciate the power of trig.  Euler's equation is trig in a nutshell.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2263
The versine becomes the Sagitta equation for very small angles.

The versine was used by Newton to prove the value of centripetal acceleration in circular motion.
Mathis demonstrates that Newton made a mistake in his analysis and that mistake propagates throughout physics till this day.  See the article about it here.

Counterspace is a natural consequence of motion where space is frozen at one unit by directional reversals and time progresses outwards in 3D as usual.
   
Group: Guest
The versine becomes the Sagitta equation for very small angles.

The versine was used by Newton to prove the value of centripetal acceleration in circular motion.
Mathis demonstrates that Newton made a mistake in his analysis and that mistake propagates throughout physics till this day.  See the article about it here.

Counterspace is a natural consequence of motion where space is frozen at one unit by directional reversals and time progresses outwards in 3D as usual.

Thank you for finding this paper.  See my attached response. I think your interpretation of counterspace is spot on and has great utility in this area of research.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3480
tExB=qr
GFT,

Do you have a reference document that lists all of the units to the variable that you work with in your books?
   
Group: Guest
GFT,

Do you have a reference document that lists all of the units to the variable that you work with in your books?

No, not really.  I'd say 90 percent of the units I use are pretty much standard.
Watch out though when it comes to dealing with h-bar and also units of magnetism.
Units starts getting real strange.
   
Group: Guest
To Grumpy and the other members of the board.
The Sagitta Key is finally complete and is available for purchase at

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/j_willie78

As with the GFT book I've initially listed the Sagitta Key at cost so I'm not making a cent off this in the short term.
It's black and white paper back so that keeps the cost down. If you can, get a copy and tell me what you think.
(Lulu usually offers some kind of monthly coupon so you can google for those also.)
Honest, brutal  critique is welcomed.

I've been remiss in keeping up with these book.  In the near future I'll have all the books listed in both black and white
and color  and in paperback and hardback.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3480
tExB=qr
I'm really busy with school, work, and life, but I happened to open to a page near the end of the book where you mention a new form of matter. 

Can you elaborate on this?

I am curious if this new form of energy has "granular" properties.

   
Group: Guest
Grumpy,
I take it you purchased a copy.  Thanks for the support.

To address your question, Euler's equation, e^(ix)=cosx+isinx, is simply the equation of the unit circle. It tells us how we are allowed to "walk around" in the the unit circle.  We can go back and forth across the radius (cosx) or up and down along the sine or along a radius which happens to be a hypotenuse, (e^(ix)).  Mass can operate and is created along these three parameters.  The cosine gives the "grainy"mass you speak of like electrons. The sine gives  wavy "mass" like photons.  The hypotenuse mixes the two so we get affects like the photoelectric effect and matter waves. Cosine is scalar, sine is vector, hypotenuse is a mixture of the two.  But we are also allowed to walk around the circumference.  And if mass is created along the straight lines of the cosine and sine it must also be created along the circumferences.  That is , mass must also have a radian component or an i component.  A quaternion component.  In fact quaternion algebra says that mass is actually arc length.  Not that arc length can be used to represent mass but mass must be considered as arc length.

It is this radian mass, this arc length mass, this circumferential mass, this "h-bar" mass that is new. That has escaped the study of the modern scientist.  Note it is neither scalar or vector.  It is conical or steradian in form.  Just as revolution can present as precession, even though they are not the same, the steradian form of mass can present as a scalar/vector mix even though the two are not the same.  This new mass is one that cannot be divorced from the acceleration that generated it in the first place.  I've discovered a few mathematical laws that govern the  behavior of this radian type of mass.  I think that it is this type of matter that may explain, in part, the presence of dark matter and dark energy.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3480
tExB=qr
Yeah, I ordered a copy the day you said it was published.  I've only thumbed through it, but it looks great.

You state that this mass cannot be divorced from the acceleration that created it. 

Is this mass only present during the acceleration?

Do the different quadrants of the circle have different properties?
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 2
Just wanted to say that the aether, counterspace, whatever you want to call it is real and I have a lot of research into it for those interested.
It is the key to this technology, or at least part of the key as understanding how to affect this phenomena is not the same as understating how to get it to affect matter.

Is there any interest from any here?
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3480
tExB=qr
I'm interested in your research on this subject.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 2
Ok Grumpy, hopefully GFT can forgive me for showing my own research in his subject.

Basically what I have found is that many/most people can feel this "aetheric" energy, and I have found ways to Engauge it that various claims have used.

The aether is quite subtle and is affected by light, I would note that light is a very physical phenomena that places a stress on space.
It can push on matter, cut and burn matter, it possesses a slight gravitational field (that is conventional) and in a reflective box the box will appear to have greater inertial mass (even though light has no inertial mass).

The point is light is a very real physical phenomena and I have found that mere images on a computer screen can place sufficient stress on the aether (incidentally Tesla claimed EM made the aether between two metal plates like jelly), obviously EM can affect the aether.

So I will share some of these images that people have about a 50% chance of feeling, with physical coils demonstrated in person I have had better than 90% success rate but not recently.

How to feel energy from the image (hopefully).
Display the image on screen or print it, if a screen you want the screen to be bright and the room not too bright, if printed on paper the more light thrown on the image the better.
Place your hand (try each) over the image and move your hand toward and away from the center of the image like your hand is making a stop gesture with your palm a little tense.
You want to have your hand move toward the screen for about 3 seconds and out for 3 seconds.

It might take a minute or 2 if it is going to happen, you might feel tingle, pressure, cool, electrical feeling etc..

You can find out more here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Aetheric_Engineering/

Check out recent posts with images, check out titles with poll in the title for more designs.

Getting results requires more than images, you need to embody principles in higher powered embodiments.
But the fact that energy can be felt by many people gives us a way to explore the aether, we don't have to work in the dark!

I have learnt a lot about the underlying physics of the aether as the myriad of designs will show, I can explain the mechanisms pretty well.

This is a science that makes sense and can be easily shared, freely experimented with.

I know very very well how to make matter, light etc...  affect the aether.
What I need to learn is how to make the aether affect non-biological matter.


   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 672
...
Mathis demonstrates that Newton made a mistake in his analysis and that mistake propagates throughout physics till this day.  See the article about it here.
...
um...
I'm not sure that's a good reference. This paper claiming that orbital and tangential velocities are not equal is dubious, he seems not to accept the validity of infinitesimal calculus, and so confused that he made a second paper on the subject, even more dubious (http://milesmathis.com/avr2.html).


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Pages: [1]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-08-03, 08:16:45