Sacred Science - cntd further
How might this possible connection, between the functioning of a piece of technology and the state of mind/morality/moral reality of those who create it and operate it, be explained?
Well one way might be if the wider World (Universe) in which these things occur is itself involved - for instance, by being Alive.
Louis C Kervran (Biological Transmutations, 1972) - quoted on page 89, in Culture and Horticulture by Wolf Storl, published by Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Assoc Inc, 2000, - concluded, after much research into the transmutations of elements which experiments show occur in plants and animals, that: "organic life cannot be explained in terms of inorganic chemistry, that the law of entropy does not work for living organisms".
Thus applying this "higher" (much "higher") - in a Universe which is alive (this one) current notions of it`s future, which rely on the laws of thermodynamics and entropy are, to say the least, somewhat wide of the mark, in fact they are erroneous. (If the Universe is alive that is).
And a living system responds in ways appropriate to itself - thus perhaps the state of mind/objectives and so forth of those within in may create conditions in which certain technologies (and other things) may function? Technologies which will not function without those pre-conditions being met.
A challenge to science this would be - a challenge to scientists as well of course. But that, surely, is one of the joys of science?
"Nothing happens in living nature that is not related to the whole" as Goethe described. (Quoted on P1 in "How to Grow More Vegetables" by John Jeavons - 6th Edition 2002 C Ecology Action of the Midpeninsula).
I can`t help but wonder if these (postulated) further Laws of Nature are what Isaac Newton was looking for when he took up the study of Alchemy and continued it despite the disparagement of his contemporaries?
Evolving as life is - perhaps these postulated Laws of Nature will become more readily evident as evolution continues?
Addendum: (3/6/11)
How to "access" these (postulated) further Laws of Nature?
Many possibilities occur - but it is interesting that many of these anomalous events (such as Cold Fusion working, that finger regrowing) seem almost to occur by accident - when the people/person involved is not expecting anything, when they are not burdened by material desire, - Perhaps this is worth investigating?
Also considering these things (and these postulated Laws) seem more similar to religious or spiritual practice than science, perhaps methods used in spiritual practice might be employed in pursuance of this research?
The person putting up that sign warning of the cliff edge - they make no judgement of any who ignore it, nor do they punish them - Nature simply takes "her" course. Perhaps this POV is useful as well?
Thursday 2 June 2011
Saturday 28 May 2011
Sacred Science - cntd
Sacred Science - ctd
A famous example (perhaps) of the technologies available to those who conform to the Laws of Nature might well be the Brazen Heads as created by such luminaries as Roger Bacon and Albertus Magnus?
These, to us mysterious objects, which well testified to and described by observers at the time. May well be the results of science that cannot be understood and cannot work unless the "moral" Laws of Nature are also being applied?
Of course this might seem to be ludicrous to the purely materialistic, but as Einstein pointed out, most new ideas do seem ludicrous at first (which may not be such a bad thing).
The great blocks of stone at Baalbeck - so large no modern land crane could move them, yet moved they were long ago - might perhaps have been worked upon by practitioners of science who were living according to those "moral" Laws of Nature?
It might well be an interesting undertaking to examine some of the mysteries of the ancient world, in light of this form of science being described?
But - whilst doing so restraining the urge to form a theory. Doing what Goethe suggested and allowing the participation/observation to proceed before any easy (and limiting/blinkering) conclusions are reached.
Something else worth examining would be those enigma`s of contemporary science where experiments are difficult to repeat - for example the apparent success of Cold Fusion (Fleischmann, et al), and the widely reported case of a model shop owner having an accidentally amputated finger regrow after applying some of the powder (dubbed Fairy Dust by the media) developed in the labs of the University of Detroit.
Science, it was assumed near the end of the nineteenth century, had discovered all the major Laws of Nature; then along came Relativity and Quantum Physics.
The same situation, where it is assumed all the major Laws of Nature have been discovered, seems to exist now.
But I would suggest there are many more to discover - ones we already know of but call Morality and perhaps more. The question is how might these Laws be discerned to the satisfaction of Science?
Well perhaps one place to start is by carrying out the examinations as mentioned above? And of course (considering his work led me in this direction) by trying out such methods, applying these postulated Laws of Nature, to get Viktor Schauberger`s machines working.
It might be worth noting that in Alchemy (from which much if not most modern Chemistry - and other sciences - originates) the state of mind of the Alchemical practitioner was considered to be a central part of the practice. Viktor Schauberger himself studied The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus. In fact until relatively recently science was regarded as a Moral Art - with the "Enlightenment" this view was mostly forgotten, apart from some who still carried that Holistic "flame", Goethe being a prime example.
Perhaps like so much else they got right, the Alchemists intuitively were aware of Laws of Nature that (so far at least) contemporary science has not perceived?
It will be interesting to find out?
A famous example (perhaps) of the technologies available to those who conform to the Laws of Nature might well be the Brazen Heads as created by such luminaries as Roger Bacon and Albertus Magnus?
These, to us mysterious objects, which well testified to and described by observers at the time. May well be the results of science that cannot be understood and cannot work unless the "moral" Laws of Nature are also being applied?
Of course this might seem to be ludicrous to the purely materialistic, but as Einstein pointed out, most new ideas do seem ludicrous at first (which may not be such a bad thing).
The great blocks of stone at Baalbeck - so large no modern land crane could move them, yet moved they were long ago - might perhaps have been worked upon by practitioners of science who were living according to those "moral" Laws of Nature?
It might well be an interesting undertaking to examine some of the mysteries of the ancient world, in light of this form of science being described?
But - whilst doing so restraining the urge to form a theory. Doing what Goethe suggested and allowing the participation/observation to proceed before any easy (and limiting/blinkering) conclusions are reached.
Something else worth examining would be those enigma`s of contemporary science where experiments are difficult to repeat - for example the apparent success of Cold Fusion (Fleischmann, et al), and the widely reported case of a model shop owner having an accidentally amputated finger regrow after applying some of the powder (dubbed Fairy Dust by the media) developed in the labs of the University of Detroit.
Science, it was assumed near the end of the nineteenth century, had discovered all the major Laws of Nature; then along came Relativity and Quantum Physics.
The same situation, where it is assumed all the major Laws of Nature have been discovered, seems to exist now.
But I would suggest there are many more to discover - ones we already know of but call Morality and perhaps more. The question is how might these Laws be discerned to the satisfaction of Science?
Well perhaps one place to start is by carrying out the examinations as mentioned above? And of course (considering his work led me in this direction) by trying out such methods, applying these postulated Laws of Nature, to get Viktor Schauberger`s machines working.
It might be worth noting that in Alchemy (from which much if not most modern Chemistry - and other sciences - originates) the state of mind of the Alchemical practitioner was considered to be a central part of the practice. Viktor Schauberger himself studied The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus. In fact until relatively recently science was regarded as a Moral Art - with the "Enlightenment" this view was mostly forgotten, apart from some who still carried that Holistic "flame", Goethe being a prime example.
Perhaps like so much else they got right, the Alchemists intuitively were aware of Laws of Nature that (so far at least) contemporary science has not perceived?
It will be interesting to find out?
Wednesday 25 May 2011
Sacred Science
Sacred Science
It seems to me that the science that Viktor Schauberger (for instance) was discovering and developing was a science of the sacred, a science that acknowledged the sacred and a science that was in harmony with the sacred.
The old view that no good comes from that which is stolen - is thus one of the Laws of Nature, in the same way that (for instance) Boyles Law is,
TBC
Those who have described such Laws (like "do not steal") are thus doing no differently than someone putting up a sign which says "Beware of the Drop" by a cliff edge.
The notion that certain technologies will only work when those things which are considered Moral (Laws of Nature such as indicated in the Eightfold Path or the Ten Commandments) are being adhered to, perhaps seems absurd to most scientists? However the notion that the Newtonian description of how Space/Time operates was incomplete probably seemed absurd to most scientists, that is until Einstein and Planck came along.
Viktor Schauberger himself regarded morality as a vital factor in technology, and he drew on the work of Goethe to show how this might work.
Perhaps, like those scientists at the end of the 19th century who thought all major questions had been answered and it was now just a matter of tying up the loose ends, contemporary science may itself discover that it has barely scratched the surface of what there is to learn?
Addendum: The Nazi`s got one thing right - Viktor Schauberger`s work was worth backing. However the methods they imposed on him (use of slave labour) and the purposes they intended for the results of his work, were so contrary to the Laws of Nature (Laws such as thou shalt not covet another - eg do not seek to own another, and of course "thou shalt not kill") that there was no possibility his work would produce results for them.
It seems to me that the science that Viktor Schauberger (for instance) was discovering and developing was a science of the sacred, a science that acknowledged the sacred and a science that was in harmony with the sacred.
The old view that no good comes from that which is stolen - is thus one of the Laws of Nature, in the same way that (for instance) Boyles Law is,
TBC
Those who have described such Laws (like "do not steal") are thus doing no differently than someone putting up a sign which says "Beware of the Drop" by a cliff edge.
The notion that certain technologies will only work when those things which are considered Moral (Laws of Nature such as indicated in the Eightfold Path or the Ten Commandments) are being adhered to, perhaps seems absurd to most scientists? However the notion that the Newtonian description of how Space/Time operates was incomplete probably seemed absurd to most scientists, that is until Einstein and Planck came along.
Viktor Schauberger himself regarded morality as a vital factor in technology, and he drew on the work of Goethe to show how this might work.
Perhaps, like those scientists at the end of the 19th century who thought all major questions had been answered and it was now just a matter of tying up the loose ends, contemporary science may itself discover that it has barely scratched the surface of what there is to learn?
Addendum: The Nazi`s got one thing right - Viktor Schauberger`s work was worth backing. However the methods they imposed on him (use of slave labour) and the purposes they intended for the results of his work, were so contrary to the Laws of Nature (Laws such as thou shalt not covet another - eg do not seek to own another, and of course "thou shalt not kill") that there was no possibility his work would produce results for them.
Wednesday 18 May 2011
Intuitionism
Intuitionism
A form or school of mathematics -
Intuitionism rejects Infinite Sets - for various reasons -
For this reason I find an affinity with Intuitionism,
Their approach seems more readily to chime with that of Buckminster Fuller and other explorers of the actual world (see previous Post).*
And how can a Mathematical System (Method) which is based on/derived from the use of Infinite Sets - which do not exist, and indeed cannot exist - have any relationship to that which does exist and can exist?
Is it any wonder that all extrapolations (theories) made using Infinities based Math end up with an End? Based as this Math is on something that cannot/does not exist, it seems inevitable it will always produce an outcome that also does not exist, or to put it within the terms of reference of that Math, - the End of the Universe. This Infinities Derived/Based Math proving not the end of the Universe, but rather the End (or non-existence) of itself.
Of course Math based on the actual - however contradictory and surprising that is & might be - could well take much longer to develop and may indeed never be fully explored - but perhaps show that there is no End? Naturally.
* One possible place to begin might by using Buckminster Fuller`s math to study Viktor Schauberger`s inventions - perhaps it might be quite revealing?
A form or school of mathematics -
Intuitionism rejects Infinite Sets - for various reasons -
For this reason I find an affinity with Intuitionism,
Their approach seems more readily to chime with that of Buckminster Fuller and other explorers of the actual world (see previous Post).*
And how can a Mathematical System (Method) which is based on/derived from the use of Infinite Sets - which do not exist, and indeed cannot exist - have any relationship to that which does exist and can exist?
Is it any wonder that all extrapolations (theories) made using Infinities based Math end up with an End? Based as this Math is on something that cannot/does not exist, it seems inevitable it will always produce an outcome that also does not exist, or to put it within the terms of reference of that Math, - the End of the Universe. This Infinities Derived/Based Math proving not the end of the Universe, but rather the End (or non-existence) of itself.
Of course Math based on the actual - however contradictory and surprising that is & might be - could well take much longer to develop and may indeed never be fully explored - but perhaps show that there is no End? Naturally.
* One possible place to begin might by using Buckminster Fuller`s math to study Viktor Schauberger`s inventions - perhaps it might be quite revealing?
Tuesday 10 May 2011
Mathematical Modelling
Mathematical Modelling
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
This is of course true
In the strictly limited terms
Of the pure maths world
In the daily world of this
No two things are really the same
So to add and make a 2
We need to insert a category
between the the things
and the numbers we use
This might seem a trivial point
A case of nitpicking
Or just being "difficult"?
But perhaps a math
With no extra concepts
Like categories to count with
Might be quite practical?
And even
Like the world itself
Rather beautiful?
Where the concept "category"
Is now regarded as the reality
It`s existence as concept
No longer noticed
The math based on concept
Seeks to create it`s own reality
Blind to itself
It knows not
That this is what it`s doing
Shaping a world
Where it isn`t based on concept
But is this a world
Where life can live in?
A math without concept
Is this the world
Gaudi`s Cathedral "explore`s"?
Were Fuller`s dome`s
A form from that world?
Did Schauberger show us
How it worked?*
But without the familiar concepts
It seems easier to ignore?
Surely in a world
With so many
Many individuals
With searching minds
And numerical skills
A few could give
This math a go?
Explore our world
With a math non-conceptual?
If you can`t be lost
If you have no destination?
Then exploring without concepts
Might seem not so daunting?
And
Practice a playful math
While prepared to withhold
from the grandeur of theorising?
(Linguistically speaking the word theory derives from Theo, like the word theology. That may or may not be worth bearing in mind? Or perhaps ignore the desire to believe one might know the "mind of God" and simply . . . . . . well as suggested above and indeed as practised by some? A method that might not suit many, especially perhaps those motivated by good grades [read Persig`s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for an exploration of that - and perhaps as a primer for a math without concept?])
* Viktor Schauberger and Buckminster Fuller both occasionally lectured to groups of engineers and scientists. During these lectures the audience was held spellbound and found themselves in agreement with what they were hearing. Yet afterwards those same audiences could hardly remember anything they had heard. Perhaps this illustrates how for those used to working via Concepts a method without Concept is at one level easy to understand but at another so apparently contrary to how things "should be done" that although it might seem better it is easier to ignore. Apart from waiting for exceptional or unusual individuals like Viktor Schauberger and Buckminster Fuller to appear (and for people like Persig to explore) how is this approach to be continued or explored?
Intuitionism (the School of Maths) which I only came across yesterday (17th May 2011 - I`m adding this in) by accident (too early to say if it was more serendipity than accident) seems to . . . . . well I`ll put it in the next Post
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
This is of course true
In the strictly limited terms
Of the pure maths world
In the daily world of this
No two things are really the same
So to add and make a 2
We need to insert a category
between the the things
and the numbers we use
This might seem a trivial point
A case of nitpicking
Or just being "difficult"?
But perhaps a math
With no extra concepts
Like categories to count with
Might be quite practical?
And even
Like the world itself
Rather beautiful?
Where the concept "category"
Is now regarded as the reality
It`s existence as concept
No longer noticed
The math based on concept
Seeks to create it`s own reality
Blind to itself
It knows not
That this is what it`s doing
Shaping a world
Where it isn`t based on concept
But is this a world
Where life can live in?
A math without concept
Is this the world
Gaudi`s Cathedral "explore`s"?
Were Fuller`s dome`s
A form from that world?
Did Schauberger show us
How it worked?*
But without the familiar concepts
It seems easier to ignore?
Surely in a world
With so many
Many individuals
With searching minds
And numerical skills
A few could give
This math a go?
Explore our world
With a math non-conceptual?
If you can`t be lost
If you have no destination?
Then exploring without concepts
Might seem not so daunting?
And
Practice a playful math
While prepared to withhold
from the grandeur of theorising?
(Linguistically speaking the word theory derives from Theo, like the word theology. That may or may not be worth bearing in mind? Or perhaps ignore the desire to believe one might know the "mind of God" and simply . . . . . . well as suggested above and indeed as practised by some? A method that might not suit many, especially perhaps those motivated by good grades [read Persig`s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for an exploration of that - and perhaps as a primer for a math without concept?])
* Viktor Schauberger and Buckminster Fuller both occasionally lectured to groups of engineers and scientists. During these lectures the audience was held spellbound and found themselves in agreement with what they were hearing. Yet afterwards those same audiences could hardly remember anything they had heard. Perhaps this illustrates how for those used to working via Concepts a method without Concept is at one level easy to understand but at another so apparently contrary to how things "should be done" that although it might seem better it is easier to ignore. Apart from waiting for exceptional or unusual individuals like Viktor Schauberger and Buckminster Fuller to appear (and for people like Persig to explore) how is this approach to be continued or explored?
Intuitionism (the School of Maths) which I only came across yesterday (17th May 2011 - I`m adding this in) by accident (too early to say if it was more serendipity than accident) seems to . . . . . well I`ll put it in the next Post
Saturday 7 May 2011
Victor Schauberger - Cold Fusion and other technologies
Victor Schauberger - Cold Fusion and other technologies
Victor Schauberger the Austrian Inventor* who developed such practical things as Water Flumes for transporting logs and copper tools for farming and horticulture (see - here ) which for some as yet undiscovered reason have been shown to increase the productivity of the land and reduce pests such as slugs:
Had many fascinating and practical ideas based on his experience and insights -
For instance he spoke of the cold fusion which produces helium from hydrogen as a natural process which could be used as a non destructive (non polluting) source of energy.
Whether Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons the Cold Fusion experimenters who momentarily found cold fusion was working, knew of Victor Schauberger I do not know. But as Schauberger made his comments many years before those experiments (he died in 1956) perhaps researchers in the field might benefit from studying his work? Could well be a lead worth following!
Two good introductions to his work are below - though only brief mention is made of fusion. There are more technical books on his work available.
To add a personal comment - It seems to me somehow cruel to split atoms - to kill them.
Water
Victor Schauberger (VS) - had a moment of insight when (as he described it) his consciousness entered/merged with that of water - and during this experience the water "told him" how it needed to move, it told him what made it happiest and healthiest.
From that experience most (maybe all) his later work and inventions - from his highly successful log flume on - came (aided by serendipitous events along the way).
What does not seem to be discussed by those interested in Schauberger`s work is the method he used to enter the water`s consciousness.
Possibly for this age when water will apparently be more important than oil (so the pundits and experts say) fittingly perhaps as this is supposed to be the beginning of the Age of Aquarius (something most of those experts/pundits are not interested in and who would probably deride :-) the Water Bearer.
How to become "one with water" as VS did - and learn from Water? Learn, as VS did, not just by observation (though that is important), but by "participation".
Working not just with theory but from the actual experience from which theory is derived. It`s an interesting question and quite possibly a useful avenue for exploration. The story of Newton`s experience with the apple might well be another example of that same "participation"?
In Australia the increasing problem of salts in the topsoil is probably a result of processes VS described - and crucially - provided practical solutions for.
Anyone with an interest in improving the health and vitality of rivers (Anglers and Angling Societies for instance) would gain much from reading Alick Bartholomew`s book.
* Post war many condemned Schauberger for having worked for the Nazi`s. However he did this under threat of his life and unlike the rocket engineers who went on to help build the Moon rockets, he never produced anything to assist the Nazi war effort - if anything he simply tied up resources. Schauberger himself hinted at the possibility that certain scientific advances and technical creations would only work when there was sufficient goodness to allow them to do so.#
"Only people who love it should care for the forest. Those who view the forest merely as an object of speculation do it and all other living creatures great harm" (Victor Schauberger - quoted on p167 of Hidden Nature). It gives an indication of VS`s perspective - love being the crucial ingredient that is so often overlooked by science that cannot appreciate things it cannot measure. And actually, you might say, rather good careers advice - do what you love, with love, and as a consequence nature will respond.
# Working WITH nature perhaps meaning a different approach is required than controlling nature/bending her to will? Maybe working with nature requires the same approach as working with any living thing, love, empathy and so forth? Especially a living thing much larger than any human, nature "herself" that is.
Victor Schauberger the Austrian Inventor* who developed such practical things as Water Flumes for transporting logs and copper tools for farming and horticulture (see - here ) which for some as yet undiscovered reason have been shown to increase the productivity of the land and reduce pests such as slugs:
Had many fascinating and practical ideas based on his experience and insights -
For instance he spoke of the cold fusion which produces helium from hydrogen as a natural process which could be used as a non destructive (non polluting) source of energy.
Whether Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons the Cold Fusion experimenters who momentarily found cold fusion was working, knew of Victor Schauberger I do not know. But as Schauberger made his comments many years before those experiments (he died in 1956) perhaps researchers in the field might benefit from studying his work? Could well be a lead worth following!
Two good introductions to his work are below - though only brief mention is made of fusion. There are more technical books on his work available.
To add a personal comment - It seems to me somehow cruel to split atoms - to kill them.
Water
Victor Schauberger (VS) - had a moment of insight when (as he described it) his consciousness entered/merged with that of water - and during this experience the water "told him" how it needed to move, it told him what made it happiest and healthiest.
From that experience most (maybe all) his later work and inventions - from his highly successful log flume on - came (aided by serendipitous events along the way).
What does not seem to be discussed by those interested in Schauberger`s work is the method he used to enter the water`s consciousness.
Possibly for this age when water will apparently be more important than oil (so the pundits and experts say) fittingly perhaps as this is supposed to be the beginning of the Age of Aquarius (something most of those experts/pundits are not interested in and who would probably deride :-) the Water Bearer.
How to become "one with water" as VS did - and learn from Water? Learn, as VS did, not just by observation (though that is important), but by "participation".
Working not just with theory but from the actual experience from which theory is derived. It`s an interesting question and quite possibly a useful avenue for exploration. The story of Newton`s experience with the apple might well be another example of that same "participation"?
In Australia the increasing problem of salts in the topsoil is probably a result of processes VS described - and crucially - provided practical solutions for.
Anyone with an interest in improving the health and vitality of rivers (Anglers and Angling Societies for instance) would gain much from reading Alick Bartholomew`s book.
* Post war many condemned Schauberger for having worked for the Nazi`s. However he did this under threat of his life and unlike the rocket engineers who went on to help build the Moon rockets, he never produced anything to assist the Nazi war effort - if anything he simply tied up resources. Schauberger himself hinted at the possibility that certain scientific advances and technical creations would only work when there was sufficient goodness to allow them to do so.#
"Only people who love it should care for the forest. Those who view the forest merely as an object of speculation do it and all other living creatures great harm" (Victor Schauberger - quoted on p167 of Hidden Nature). It gives an indication of VS`s perspective - love being the crucial ingredient that is so often overlooked by science that cannot appreciate things it cannot measure. And actually, you might say, rather good careers advice - do what you love, with love, and as a consequence nature will respond.
# Working WITH nature perhaps meaning a different approach is required than controlling nature/bending her to will? Maybe working with nature requires the same approach as working with any living thing, love, empathy and so forth? Especially a living thing much larger than any human, nature "herself" that is.
Wednesday 27 April 2011
Universal Translator
Idea for a Universal Translator
Chinese Ideograms -
Someone who speaks only Han Chinese can write a document in Ideograms and this document can be read by someone who speaks Mandarin but not Han.
The written form acts as the translator.
Thus: using either Chinese Ideograms or something similar - perhaps a new form of notation even.
Then develop software which writes any given language into this Ideogram form. (ie someone writes a document in their own language on a computer and the computer produces the document in "native form" and simultaneously in the form of Ideograms).
Whatever is written is now no longer in any particular language - a reader of this Ideogrammatic form (who is a speaker on any language) can now read it -
& of course if a software program exists that can write any language in this form then it must, by extension, be able to read it (provide a version of said document in the chosen language of the user).
Might help things along?
Chinese Ideograms -
Someone who speaks only Han Chinese can write a document in Ideograms and this document can be read by someone who speaks Mandarin but not Han.
The written form acts as the translator.
Thus: using either Chinese Ideograms or something similar - perhaps a new form of notation even.
Then develop software which writes any given language into this Ideogram form. (ie someone writes a document in their own language on a computer and the computer produces the document in "native form" and simultaneously in the form of Ideograms).
Whatever is written is now no longer in any particular language - a reader of this Ideogrammatic form (who is a speaker on any language) can now read it -
& of course if a software program exists that can write any language in this form then it must, by extension, be able to read it (provide a version of said document in the chosen language of the user).
Might help things along?
Saturday 12 March 2011
Idea for sustainable home "battery"/generator
Idea for sustainable home "battery"/generator
During daylight - take surplus power from a Solar array (Solar Electric Panels) and use this power to pump water.
The water is pumped into a tank - in the tank is a heavy object. As the tank fills this object rises with the level of the water.
At night - when Solar Power no longer available - this heavy object in the tank is allowed to drop, by releasing the water in the tank.
The object is connected by cables and pulleys (or gears) to a generator.
As the object drops down it thus generates power.
This system could also be utilised by Wind Power or other forms of renewable energy production.
Potentially a bit "Heath Robinson"* and/or rough and ready - but has the advantage of being relatively simple and could be made from readily available materials.
An alternative approach to achieve same end -
A lightweight but strong container - raised on it`s cable and then filled when raised by water pumped by surplus energy,
* Or Robinson Crusoe or indeed Swiss Family Robinson - lateral improvisers, all.
During daylight - take surplus power from a Solar array (Solar Electric Panels) and use this power to pump water.
The water is pumped into a tank - in the tank is a heavy object. As the tank fills this object rises with the level of the water.
At night - when Solar Power no longer available - this heavy object in the tank is allowed to drop, by releasing the water in the tank.
The object is connected by cables and pulleys (or gears) to a generator.
As the object drops down it thus generates power.
This system could also be utilised by Wind Power or other forms of renewable energy production.
Potentially a bit "Heath Robinson"* and/or rough and ready - but has the advantage of being relatively simple and could be made from readily available materials.
An alternative approach to achieve same end -
A lightweight but strong container - raised on it`s cable and then filled when raised by water pumped by surplus energy,
* Or Robinson Crusoe or indeed Swiss Family Robinson - lateral improvisers, all.
Wednesday 12 January 2011
"Bucky" Sphere Horticulture/Agriculture
"Bucky" Terrariums
Sudden idea occurred to me regarding the ongoing need to feed the worlds expanding population, while not depleting the natural world.
Geodesic Spheres (as designed by Buckminster Fuller) - at a certain size become naturally airborne (when in the sun) - due ot their lower internal air pressure (same way a hot air balloon rises).
Might such structures be used as giant Terrariums? In them plants growing Hydroponically (or in some similar method) while the sphere floats above land (or sea).
Doing this would mean no land would be required - so a city (say) might be able to literally feed itself if it chose to invest in such things?*
Now there's a thought.
Interesting to me - anyway (a bit of blue sky thinking - excuse sort of pun - to others maybe)?
* For instance by paying for one to be built - and locating it over an ocean.
Sudden idea occurred to me regarding the ongoing need to feed the worlds expanding population, while not depleting the natural world.
Geodesic Spheres (as designed by Buckminster Fuller) - at a certain size become naturally airborne (when in the sun) - due ot their lower internal air pressure (same way a hot air balloon rises).
Might such structures be used as giant Terrariums? In them plants growing Hydroponically (or in some similar method) while the sphere floats above land (or sea).
Doing this would mean no land would be required - so a city (say) might be able to literally feed itself if it chose to invest in such things?*
Now there's a thought.
Interesting to me - anyway (a bit of blue sky thinking - excuse sort of pun - to others maybe)?
* For instance by paying for one to be built - and locating it over an ocean.
"Bucky" Sphere Electricity
Sphere
A geodesic sphere (as discovered and designed by Buckminster Fuller) a half mile or more in diameter could/would act like a hot air balloon and rise in the air as it warmed in the sun,
So much air within it - the expansion of that air would push such a weight of it out that the sphere would be lighter than the surrounding air and thus rise.*
Habitats was one idea Bucky suggested for these - but another that occurs is:-
If the surface of the sphere was made of Photoelectric (solar) panels then the sphere could simply rise up into where the sun is brightest and then generate power regardless of clouds, etc at lower altitudes
And could still function as habitat - energy on tap - while also providing energy for use on the surface?
A thought - perhaps a bit radical?
Be a neat solution tho!
* If the air pressure thus attained within the sphere was maintained - by valves and so forth - the sphere would stay airborne even when cooled.
A geodesic sphere (as discovered and designed by Buckminster Fuller) a half mile or more in diameter could/would act like a hot air balloon and rise in the air as it warmed in the sun,
So much air within it - the expansion of that air would push such a weight of it out that the sphere would be lighter than the surrounding air and thus rise.*
Habitats was one idea Bucky suggested for these - but another that occurs is:-
If the surface of the sphere was made of Photoelectric (solar) panels then the sphere could simply rise up into where the sun is brightest and then generate power regardless of clouds, etc at lower altitudes
And could still function as habitat - energy on tap - while also providing energy for use on the surface?
A thought - perhaps a bit radical?
Be a neat solution tho!
* If the air pressure thus attained within the sphere was maintained - by valves and so forth - the sphere would stay airborne even when cooled.
Kaluza-Klein Theory
Circling Gravity
Kaluza-Klein Theory -
Theodor Kaluza proposed that there were 5 dimensions (resulting from devpt of relativity theory) -
Oscar Klein then proposed that the 4th spatial dimension (resulting from relativity theory) was curled up as in a circle - which became known as Kaluza-Klein theory.
Then it was noticed that resulting from this theory a new (newly discovered) force seemed to result from this - the additional force being similar to electricity and magnetism.
The allure of Quantum Physics has drawn sciences attention away from this theory -
Apologies for stating the Obvious - Gravity seems to operate in a circular manner (ie round planets/stars/etc) - this is described in Kaluza-Klein theory (is it too simple and boring and obvious for theoretical physicists?).
Proposal - Quantum physics has distracted science from a real and practical Field Effect - the Kaluza-Klein Field effect.
Thing is GRAVITY is the elusive Force.
Physics still grappling with it - using ever more elaborate and abstract theories to try to describe it - and getting nowhere.
Maybe this is because a theory found it and then that theory got swallowed up in the apparent need for a theory of everything (the ole GUT)?
Might it be - that a machine that could generate that Kaluza-Klein force (gravity or not), might be useful for such practical purposes as space travel, protective force fields?
Is it the force that holds galaxies together - instead of "dark matter" and other theoretical things?
Amateur - questioning the geniuses - so I`m aware it won`t get anywhere. But bringing the theories back down to earth - for practical purpose . . . . . Worth a try?
Kaluza-Klein Theory -
Theodor Kaluza proposed that there were 5 dimensions (resulting from devpt of relativity theory) -
Oscar Klein then proposed that the 4th spatial dimension (resulting from relativity theory) was curled up as in a circle - which became known as Kaluza-Klein theory.
Then it was noticed that resulting from this theory a new (newly discovered) force seemed to result from this - the additional force being similar to electricity and magnetism.
The allure of Quantum Physics has drawn sciences attention away from this theory -
Apologies for stating the Obvious - Gravity seems to operate in a circular manner (ie round planets/stars/etc) - this is described in Kaluza-Klein theory (is it too simple and boring and obvious for theoretical physicists?).
Proposal - Quantum physics has distracted science from a real and practical Field Effect - the Kaluza-Klein Field effect.
Thing is GRAVITY is the elusive Force.
Physics still grappling with it - using ever more elaborate and abstract theories to try to describe it - and getting nowhere.
Maybe this is because a theory found it and then that theory got swallowed up in the apparent need for a theory of everything (the ole GUT)?
Might it be - that a machine that could generate that Kaluza-Klein force (gravity or not), might be useful for such practical purposes as space travel, protective force fields?
Is it the force that holds galaxies together - instead of "dark matter" and other theoretical things?
Amateur - questioning the geniuses - so I`m aware it won`t get anywhere. But bringing the theories back down to earth - for practical purpose . . . . . Worth a try?
Higgs Bosun and other (amateur) Quantum musings
Quantum time
If Quantum Particles exist that have no gravity and that are "immune" to Gravity (unaffected by it).
And the evidence seems to be that such Particles do exist.
Then here's a thought/possibility.
Time - according to Relativity - is a function of Gravity/velocity.
A Particle that has no gravity/that is "immune" to Gravity: Will thus exist "outside"/beyond Time.
Such a Particle - if paired/coupled with another (so if it is turned its pair/partner will turn also - will appear to operate impossibly - ie as if it is contravening Relativity -
By seeming to affect its Partner instantaneously (faster than the speed of light) -
But actually - as there is no Time for these (pair of) Particles - it has not gone faster than C.
It only appears that way for those not Immune" to Time.
Or so it seems to me.
Wonder what Dr Brian Cox, or Prof Hawking (or Albert himself) - might make of that?
Now that'd be interesting
Tbc maybe - with some interesting implications ........... Following :-)
Gravity, asks, questions
Light
A particle and a wave
As a wave - existing in the world of time
As a particle at home in the Timeless Realm
An interface between the two
An example of other Forms?
A Particle - travelling without Gravity
Timeless free - wandering
As a Friend seeks travelling companion
The Particle joins and forms the
Fellowship of the Wave
And in this association becomes the Form of Time
In this form - this Gravity
Many things become where the Fellowship can play
Higgs Bosun
Boat Swain is the origin for Bosun
Having been compressed over time
Swain is I guess a sort of Shepherd
Maybe a serendipitously suitable name
The Shepherd
The Particle for which so much energy
Cerebral, electrical and so forth
To find is being expended.
A Particle - the god Particle some have called it
Here's a thought -
Was it the first -
There from the beginning,
At Universe birth.
A Particle so hard to find
Is this because it is not in time?
Immune to Time -
Might it be, that Higgs Bosun is literally unique?
Around from the first - just tootling around
How may Bosuns needed to be all places eternally?
One is all that's needed
Every place a different co-ordinate
For the Timeless time is geography, simply another co-ordinate
The Bosun moving through Universe
Every place is visited - Timeless
Present in all places - as if simultaneously
Nothing more simple - each place a different time
Eternally present - everywhere
One is the many
Its Now is all eternity - Present in all locations.
(This post was also written out previously and then when published all but the title lost. Not sure of this retelling, but I've hopefully recaptured the gist)
Point being - if 1 Particle originally existed and if it exists in a reality not seperated by Time, then this 1 particle could conceivably be present at all times in all places without contradicting logic or known laws. The One that is the Many - omnipresent from the perspective of those seperated by/in time.
And from this Particled perspective its experience of Now comprising all places at all times.
Now
In the Timeless Realm -
For a Particle immune to Time -
What is Now?
Experiencing it the same as anyone?
Unaware of Time -
To us its Now
Might seem as Everything/Eternally?
Ordinary to itself - Mu is bigger Now
Clapping
In time
And when not in time
How many hands needed
To make a Sound?*
*from a time - separated - perspective
In the world of appearances (not experiences?)?
Participation
Now - is it created by the Timeless?
The Particle - that is not of time - that is always in Now -
Who's Now is everything / eternally
To Experience -
That Eternal - by sharing the Now
That it is Creating -
Always - left, right, up and down - in all and every direction.
Participating in its Experience - by Experiencing Now
One Now - for everyone -
Made by one -
Tiny, tiny (smaller than the smallest seed) -
Be-ing
(Possibly - or so seems to me, in all my fallibility, weakness and failure - and so I learned from my next of kin, in my " apparent" life that all colleagues apparently hated me in my last workplace. If only they had told me I mebbe could have learned what I could do to improve relations. Though the exclusion that foisted upon me - well one of those things you have to live with).
If Quantum Particles exist that have no gravity and that are "immune" to Gravity (unaffected by it).
And the evidence seems to be that such Particles do exist.
Then here's a thought/possibility.
Time - according to Relativity - is a function of Gravity/velocity.
A Particle that has no gravity/that is "immune" to Gravity: Will thus exist "outside"/beyond Time.
Such a Particle - if paired/coupled with another (so if it is turned its pair/partner will turn also - will appear to operate impossibly - ie as if it is contravening Relativity -
By seeming to affect its Partner instantaneously (faster than the speed of light) -
But actually - as there is no Time for these (pair of) Particles - it has not gone faster than C.
It only appears that way for those not Immune" to Time.
Or so it seems to me.
Wonder what Dr Brian Cox, or Prof Hawking (or Albert himself) - might make of that?
Now that'd be interesting
Tbc maybe - with some interesting implications ........... Following :-)
Gravity, asks, questions
Light
A particle and a wave
As a wave - existing in the world of time
As a particle at home in the Timeless Realm
An interface between the two
An example of other Forms?
A Particle - travelling without Gravity
Timeless free - wandering
As a Friend seeks travelling companion
The Particle joins and forms the
Fellowship of the Wave
And in this association becomes the Form of Time
In this form - this Gravity
Many things become where the Fellowship can play
Higgs Bosun
Boat Swain is the origin for Bosun
Having been compressed over time
Swain is I guess a sort of Shepherd
Maybe a serendipitously suitable name
The Shepherd
The Particle for which so much energy
Cerebral, electrical and so forth
To find is being expended.
A Particle - the god Particle some have called it
Here's a thought -
Was it the first -
There from the beginning,
At Universe birth.
A Particle so hard to find
Is this because it is not in time?
Immune to Time -
Might it be, that Higgs Bosun is literally unique?
Around from the first - just tootling around
How may Bosuns needed to be all places eternally?
One is all that's needed
Every place a different co-ordinate
For the Timeless time is geography, simply another co-ordinate
The Bosun moving through Universe
Every place is visited - Timeless
Present in all places - as if simultaneously
Nothing more simple - each place a different time
Eternally present - everywhere
One is the many
Its Now is all eternity - Present in all locations.
(This post was also written out previously and then when published all but the title lost. Not sure of this retelling, but I've hopefully recaptured the gist)
Point being - if 1 Particle originally existed and if it exists in a reality not seperated by Time, then this 1 particle could conceivably be present at all times in all places without contradicting logic or known laws. The One that is the Many - omnipresent from the perspective of those seperated by/in time.
And from this Particled perspective its experience of Now comprising all places at all times.
Now
In the Timeless Realm -
For a Particle immune to Time -
What is Now?
Experiencing it the same as anyone?
Unaware of Time -
To us its Now
Might seem as Everything/Eternally?
Ordinary to itself - Mu is bigger Now
Clapping
In time
And when not in time
How many hands needed
To make a Sound?*
*from a time - separated - perspective
In the world of appearances (not experiences?)?
Participation
Now - is it created by the Timeless?
The Particle - that is not of time - that is always in Now -
Who's Now is everything / eternally
To Experience -
That Eternal - by sharing the Now
That it is Creating -
Always - left, right, up and down - in all and every direction.
Participating in its Experience - by Experiencing Now
One Now - for everyone -
Made by one -
Tiny, tiny (smaller than the smallest seed) -
Be-ing
(Possibly - or so seems to me, in all my fallibility, weakness and failure - and so I learned from my next of kin, in my " apparent" life that all colleagues apparently hated me in my last workplace. If only they had told me I mebbe could have learned what I could do to improve relations. Though the exclusion that foisted upon me - well one of those things you have to live with).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
