Question to falsify Gaede's rope hypothesis.

[folaht]

If you're able to drop an extremely long periscope completely vertically and you shine a laser through it, wouldn't photons
hit the 'ceiling' of the periscope if photons were particles but not if it were a rope as illustrated below?

[allynh]

Question, based on your drawing, why would the photons be expected to hit the "ceiling" of the periscope.

The other question is, how can a rope bounce at right angles to follow the red path you've drawn.

[folaht]

My knowledge of physics is only highschool, so I actually was hoping you could answer me.


But here's the idea I have in mind:

A laser is aimed in such a way that the beam travels through a 300,000 km long periscope to reach the detector. We'll forget about the earth being round for a second and imagine the ground being flat.

Let's say you drop this periscope. To make it an ideal experiment, the periscope falls down perfectly vertically in a vaccuum. Gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. Now at the moment the periscope drops, the time it would take a particle photon located at mirror 1 to get to mirror 2 is 1 second. By that time, the periscope has fallen 0.5*9.8*1^2= 4.9 meters. The height of the periscope is 5 centimeters.

I assume that a particle photon will not travel downwards like the periscope does (why should it? Once it is reflected ) and therefor the periscope will hit the particle photon before it can reach mirror 2.
The same is true if the photon were a transverse wave.


In Gaede's theory, light is an electromagnetic rope being twisted. The equivalent of emitting one photon would be the laser twisting a single (red) rope. This twisting would then be detected on the other end of the rope where the detector lies. The rope is already there, so it does not need to bounce. The mirrors are merely pulleys and therefor a falling periscope would have no effect on the piece of rope between mirror 1 and 2.

[allynh]

Oh, so you are dropping the periscope, that's why the beam hits the "ceiling".

I suspect that the "rope" would also hit the ceiling since it would have to follow the same laws of motion that the particle of light does.

So don't worry about this thought experiment as a way to answer your question. Take actual observed events and compare the standard model with the "rope" model and see which explains things best.

[altonhare]

One reason the particle model is so popular is its simplicity. It is simple and intuitive because we treat light (qualitatively, i.e. non mathematically) like a baseball or a pebble, things we have lots of direct daily experience with. How wonderful it would be if life were really so simple. Unfortunately nearly all experiments falsify the particle hypothesis.

Lets build up the scenario sluimers shows from the simplest beginnings. Lets imagine two atoms bound by a rope. One shell expands, the rope torques, and the other shell contracts. Now lets imagine them surrounded by ropes that reach off into the rest of the universe. We still only see two atoms. Now when one contracts it torques *all* ropes attached to it (in every direction), implying it interacts with every other atom in the universe. We see that light always propagates spherically from the source. However its frequency is not always spherically symmetric. A highly asymmetric atom/molecule will torque adjacent ropes asymmetrically, sending light of a particular frequency (such as visible) predominantly in one direction. This is how we get "photon bouncing". Lets assume these two atoms are like this. They expand and contract, sending tiny signals (perhaps in the radio and microwave regions) to every other atom, but sending strong ~600 nm signals to each other back and forth. Now imagine they are near a huge aggregation of atoms (like earth). The two atoms move toward earth. They do so by sliding along existing rope connections like a bead on an abacus or a loop in a wire. They take in rope in their direction of travel and release rope in the other direction. The web of ropes is the "static" canvas on which the atoms move, the atom can only move along an existing rope. The rope does not get carried along by the atom(s), if anything it is the reverse. This is the mistake sluimers has made. He thinks the rope connecting mirror one to mirror two gets "carried along" by the atoms in mirror 1 and 2 as the atoms fall. This is not the case.

Now, what happens when 1 expands, then the two atoms move, then atom 2 contracts? The rope between them does not "come along for the ride" as the two atoms fall. The web of ropes is a permaneantly in place highway.

[junglelord]

Hey Alton, speaking of ropes, did you tie the knot yet?

[folaht]

Hmmm... if that's the case, then isn't every single possible place an atom can occupy a convergence of ropes?
According to Gaede, that's a neutron.

[mague]

Waves and partly rope... almost

Its like a black sheet of paper put infront of the window. The room is dark. Cutting a hole into the sheet is not generating light, although it might look like it. Light is the base of the universe and the laser is just motivating a certain area of space to vibrate as visible light. What we think is lightspeed is actually the speed the motivation is traveling, the light was already there though. The travel is similar to a modulated wave. A sub wave so to speak and this subwave is bound to optical laws and probably a few others, whereas the light never moved and just was there already and follows no rules.

[folaht]

I've illustrated my problem here. $ stands for scenario. The only thing that happens is that the atoms are falling down in frame #2. Frame #1 is the moment the periscope is dropped.
Of course all ropes in frame #2 $3 should be present in the other frames, but I haven't drawn them to illustrate the increasing number of ropes Gaede's theory needs.

[mague]

I am not sure what you are looking for. I do understand the question, but isnt the whole setup flawed ? Isnt it apples and oranges ?

We could ask as well if the beam hits the bottom of the tube due to gravity if the periscope is not falling. And if its falling, do those light-thingies that touched mirror #1 accellerate with G ?

However, mainstream is that light is traveling much faster then G force. It will not hit the tube. Not the bottom and not the ceiling. Its to fast. We would have to accellerate the periscope towards lightspeed and then look what happens. What happens at lightspeed falling and what at lightspeed+1 falling. The particle couldnt keep up, while the rope has a probability to keep up at such a falling speed.

[folaht]

I am not sure what you are looking for

A simple way to falsify Gaede's thread theory.

We could ask as well if the beam hits the bottom of the tube due to gravity if the periscope is not falling.

Why would gravity act on weightless particle photons? Or on electromagnetic ropes?

[allynh]

Wait, I have another basic problem with the concept of ropes as you are describing it with your thought problem. If every atom is connected to every other atom by ropes, then you have an infinite number of ropes coming off of every atom.

Each time you talk of the rope model and only discuss the interaction between two particles and the rope that connects them then you are not talking about the rope model, because the rope model is about each particle having an infinite number of ropes coming off it.

That's not a "rope" singular, that is a network of "ropes" connecting all particles. Move one atom and the ropes connecting it to all the other atoms in the universe are altered.

In other words, you can't simplify the rope model to just two atoms and one rope. It is either an infinite number of ropes, or none at all.

I've got to read Gaede's book to see what he is actually saying, because I suspect that the theory is being lost in translation here on the forum. I also suspect that everybody is making a category error here that is confusing the issue.

[folaht]

Wait, I have another basic problem with the concept of ropes as you are describing it with your thought problem. If every atom is connected to every other atom by ropes, then you have an infinite number of ropes coming off of every atom.

That's the main problem I have with Gaede's thread theory. He solution is a finite universe, which I also have problems with because we're not observing a finite universe, nor is there any indication that it might be. But this means that if there are 10^105 atoms in the universe,, then the amount of ropes per atom is 10^105 (I've asked him this on youtube and he confirmed this).

That's not a "rope" singular, that is a network of "ropes" connecting all particles. Move one atom and the ropes connecting it to all the other atoms in the universe are altered.

Gaede has said that. to quote from his book:

Mach's Principle implies that every time you move your little pinky, you tug at every atom in he universe!

I'm surprised he didn't mention The Third Law Of Thermodynamics in his book, because this also implies that atoms can never reach zero Kelvin.

In other words, you can't simplify the rope model to just two atoms and one rope. It is either an infinite number of ropes, or none at all.

Or in this case n(n+1)/2) ropes where n is the number of atoms in the universe.

I've got to read Gaede's book to see what he is actually saying, because I suspect that the theory is being lost in translation here on the forum. I also suspect that everybody is making a category error here that is confusing the issue.

There is not much more in the book than there is on his website and youtube. Most of the book, just like the website, is simply stating why it's necessary to use ropes and yarn balls instead of billiard ball particles, waves and random clouds.
But since I have the book and can look at the pictures, it seems clear to me that the rope will actually travel with the atoms, despite of what Altonhare says.

You know, I'm going to ask Bill Gaede myself and see what he thinks about it..

[folaht]

Here's his answer. Emphasis is mine.

Hi Gaede, I have a question to you. If two atoms are connected by a rope and they drop down due to gravity, then is the rope carried along as the two atoms fall? If not, can you illustrate what happens? Because there's a discussion I've started of a simple experiment I thought of that might falsify particle/wave duality once and for all on the mad ideas forum, but I'm confused about whether the rope is carried along or not.

Hello Mr. Sluimers. Long time, no hear! First of all, it helps to understand the following if you review pp. 349 -353.

Let's keep things within context. Some EM ropes extend from very distant stars and galaxies. These barely move at all within our SS. On the other hand, EM ropes interconnecting the Moon and the Sun cut thru the Earth as our satellite swings around. Therefore, short-range EM ropes are dynamic and long range ropes are practically static.

I will assume that by "two interconnected atoms drop down" you mean towards the center of Earth. Certainly, the effect on the interconnecting rope will be different if one atom is located in the Andromeda Galaxy and the other one near Earth. But let's assume what I think youre proposing. Two H atoms are parallel to the Earth's horizon and they fall towards the Earth.

We will further assume for simplicity's sake that the Earth is perfectly spherical and that matter is distributed homogeneously, isotropically, etc, within it.

Whereas ropes that come from afar THAT DON'T END IN THESE ATOMS slip out of the atoms, the ropes that end in the atoms change their angles by an imperceptible tad. On the other hand, the single EM rope interconnecting the two atoms has no choice but to come down with the atoms.

The effect of gravity (if this is what youre trying to resolve) has no direct bearing on the rope. It is the atoms which bring the rope down with them.

But keep in mind that another EM rope extending from afar and continuing to other atoms, which happens to superimpose with this short range rope, slides right out when the atoms 'fall.'

"particle/wave duality"

But if you are trying to resolve whether light consists of discrete particles, may I propose the following experiment. I call it the Slit-in-a-Vacuum. When editing the book, I removed the experiment because I concluded that it would not convince the idiots of Quantum and Relativity anyway. Extinction will catch humanity praying to Particle Man. He is destined to reign supreme until all is gone.

I am too puny to beat such a monster. One thing is for David to beat Goliath. Another is for an ant to wrestle an elephant to the ground.

Take Youngs setup and put it in a transparent enclosure. Replace the slits with Newt's Hair Exp. (pg 222, Fig 4.59). Much simpler! Turn the source on and verify that you see the fringes on the screen. Replace the screen with a photomultiplier and take note of the reading. Pump the system down to below the micron range, say -8 or -10.

Whether particles or waves, Quantum religion 'predicts' that the count on the multiplier will go up. The reason for this is that you have increased the Mean Free Path (MFP). More 'photon' balls strike the multiplier now that the obstacles have been removed. Intensity should increase. It's a no-brainer.

The Rope Hypothesis explains why the count (intensity) goes down. The atoms from the source are connected to the atoms on both sides of the hairs which are connected to the atoms comprising the multiplier sensor. The atoms comprising the hair also RELAY signals to the multiplier through the atoms comprising the ambient gas. When we remove the ambient gases, the increase in the MFP does not translate into higher intensity. There will not be more signals going DIRECTLY from hair to multiplier.

By removing the ambient atoms that were RELAYING signals to the multiplier, we have reduced the number of EM ropes participating in this phenomenon. Only direct signals from hair atoms now reach the multiplier. Therefore, intensity decreases.

Important word of caution: The lazy idiots of Math Phyz will argue that we already know that when we send a signal through a chamber and pump it down, the intensity increases because of an increase in MFP.

Therefore, they will argue, we don't need to run an experiment because my proposal has already been proven false.

Here we are talking about INDIRECT signals. The Slit-in-a-Vac creates a new situation in that the photon ball now has to curve around the hair. How does it do it? How does the photon ball ricochet against the hair's edge and travel INWARDS towards the multiplier?

I propose using a [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shot]space shot[/url2] to turn my thought experiment into a real one, should someone want to test his theory. You put a laser on top, turn the carriage into a big box that contains a series of tubes and mirrors and drop it. Particle/wave duality should be falsified if the laser beam is still capable of reaching the detector.

[altonhare]

Hey Alton, speaking of ropes, did you tie the knot yet?

July 31st, I can't believe how soon it is.

Hmmm... if that's the case, then isn't every single possible place an atom can occupy a convergence of ropes?
According to Gaede, that's a neutron.

I believe that, a neutron is not *just* a convergence of ropes, but a special convergence of ropes. Specifically, a neutron is the convergence of *every* rope (or perhaps some minimum number).

[quote="_sluimers_]I've illustrated my problem here. $ stands for scenario. The only thing that happens is that the atoms are falling down in frame #2. Frame #1 is the moment the periscope is dropped.
Of course all ropes in frame #2 $3 should be present in the other frames, but I haven't drawn them to illustrate the increasing number of ropes Gaede's theory needs.[/quote]

Nice illustrations sluimers! Scenario 1 looks about right, although the ropes in frame one are actually extending out to the right and left to the stars. Same for frame 2. Additionally there are diagonal ropes extending from each atom out into the stars. As the atomic shell expands, if the atom is moving downward, it torques a rope that connects it directly to atom 2. It moves down a little and now that rope is above the two mirror atoms. The torsion in that rope may eventually hit the "ceiling". After moving into a new location the shell continues expanding. It torques a rope connecting it to atom 2, then moves downward. Again the rope that was torqued is now above the two atoms. Each "microtorsion" now lies on a diagonal line from the source atom to the "ceiling". At least this is how I understand it.

Wait, I have another basic problem with the concept of ropes as you are describing it with your thought problem. If every atom is connected to every other atom by ropes, then you have an infinite number of ropes coming off of every atom.

What? Every atom is connected by a rope, therefore there are an "infinite number" of ropes coming off each atom? What are you talking about?

That's the main problem I have with Gaede's thread theory. He solution is a finite universe, which I also have problems with because we're not observing a finite universe, nor is there any indication that it might be.

I just don't understand this objection. The universe might "look big", or it might look "even bigger". At what point do you make the leap "it's infinite!". Does it need to be 100 billion light years across? 100 trillion? 1000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion zillion bling bling bang boom?

Gaede makes a very convincing argument for why it's irrational to even describe a thing as infinite.

Also, despite what Gaede said in response to you sluimers, he seems to think what I said sounds consistent also. It seems overcomplicated to propose that ropes are "towed along" because they would have to be constantly stretching and compressing. Indeed, when two atoms come near each other the rope between them must compress to (relatively) very very thick dimensions. It makes more sense to me to propose that the atoms are rolling along a quasistatic web. I say quasistatic because there is the possibility that the rope is stretching/expanding universally (not by being towed along). This kind of universal stretching would explain what is called the "expansion of the universe".