Question to falsify Gaede's rope hypothesis.

[folaht]

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).

Alright, then it's special.

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?

There's no rule the universe cannot be 1000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion zillion bling bling bang boom lightyears across.
100 billion isn't even so strange, when the latest figure I read was 92 billion.

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

I know Gaede said that. But I'd rather want to observe the universe being finite, before calling it finite.

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".

Well then. Be glad I thought of an experiment that can falsify the "towing along" idea.
I suppose Gaede's Hair Experiment is also a lot cheaper to falsify particle-wave duality and should be done first.
I'd love to see it done.
What would someone need to do such an experiment?
And what would it cost?

[altonhare]

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).

Alright, then it's special.

It is of note that the mass of the neutron is known with less certainty than the proton, a full order of magnitude less certainty. This could be due to the fact that the H atom (and by extension the proton) must by definition contain a convergence of *all* ropes, the neutron only requires some minimum number to cross.

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?

There's no rule the universe cannot be 1000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion zillion bling bling bang boom lightyears across.
100 billion isn't even so strange, when the latest figure I read was 92 billion.

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

I know Gaede said that. But I'd rather want to observe the universe being finite, before calling it finite.

Why is "infinite" the default?

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".

Well then. Be glad I thought of an experiment that can falsify the "towing along" idea.
I suppose Gaede's Hair Experiment is also a lot cheaper to falsify particle-wave duality and should be done first.
I'd love to see it done.
What would someone need to do such an experiment?
And what would it cost?

I don't think it "falsifies" the towing along idea, I just think the "towing along" explanation is needlessly complicated.

The bare basics of what one would need a chamber of stainless steel, a tunable laser, a hair follicle, a phosphorescent screen, a standard mechanical pump, an oil diffusion pump, and probably an ion or turbomolecular pump. Of course also associated piping, a computer, wiring, etc.

The cost? A lot (for a normal individual). Diffpumps, turbopumps, and ion pumps aren't cheap. Neither is the machining work to build the stainless steel chamber. Neither is a good tunable laser. If you get the others I can mail you a hair follicle.

Wild guess of the price... 10 thousand dollars if you eschew the turbopump. More if you go with the turbopump.

In quantum the MFP increases the number of unscatted photons, meaning an increase in intensity. However it could be more complicated than that, considerably so. Consider that all the ambient gasses are also being struck by photons, the re-emitting them. Some of these photons were on their way directly to the hair, some were destined to miss the hair completely and slam into the sides of the chamber, forever lost. Those that are scattered on their way to the hair cause a dramatic decrease in the intensity. According to quantum, those that are scattered while on their way to oblivion should not contribute significantly to the intensity. Under the rope hyp torsions directed away from the hair, but ending in ambient atoms, *increase* the intensity. These ambient atoms expand and re-emit the signal in all directions. A signal reaches the screen from it, albeit greatly diminished.

Low vac: ambient atoms are relaying signals to the screen a lot, but signals are greatly scattered/diluted by atoms between the laser and hair.
High vac: Intervening atoms are mostly gone, there is little scattering. Ambient atom relaying has decreased, but was a very small contributor to the intensity. The intensity increases from low vac.
UHV: Intervening atoms are still basically gone. The increase in MFP doesn't matter (from 1km to 5 km or something). The intensity contribution from direct signals is the same. However intensity from ambient atom relaying has decreased marginally. Overall intensity goes down.

Quantum says intensity will always go up, but the rope hyp says ambient atoms will relay signals to contrib to intensity, and at some point removing them will decrease intensity. This would falsify the particle model of light.

I'm not sure if the effect will be measurable with reasonable apparatus.

[altonhare]

Incidentally, the periscope thought experiment falsifies neither the particle, wave, or the rope hyp. The behavior is identical in all respects.

However diffraction experiments falsify the particle and photoelectric experiments falsify the wave. The rope is a physical union of the two the embodies interference and quantization. Qualitatively, the rope is the only game in town as far as physical unions of the particle and wave model of light.

[junglelord]

The only game in town?
<Man you need to move.

[Solar]

However diffraction experiments falsify the particle and photoelectric experiments falsify the wave. The rope is a physical union of the two the embodies interference and quantization. Qualitatively, the rope is the only game in town as far as physical unions of the particle and wave model of light.

Well, its definitely something that I've been able to qualitatively work with. It also seems complementary to my subjective understanding of the longitudinal propagation of electric currents and/or "fields".

Some conjecture: When you get right down to it we find with previously discussed subjects that:

Graphene
Liquid Crystals
Bloch walls
Neil Walls
Cross Tie-Walls
Domain Walls
’Rays of Light’

…all have characteristics that display preferential ‘lining up’ in “field” dependent directions of propagation if not via the direct application of electric current.

For my own personal taste the analogous ‘mechanism’ is that of the classic lynch pin owing to ‘vectorial orthogonality‘. The phase-space of those constituents composing longitudinal force is perpendicular to the phase space of objects i.e. atoms, electrons, protons etc. This requires a ‘phase-transition’ between the two.

Using the linch-pin representation the linear/longitudinal phase-space concatenates perpendicular to the ‘phase-space’ of the object. The locations wherein they intersect constitute a ‘phase-transition’ between the ‘units’ composing the longitudinal phase-space and the phase-space of the object.

Looked at individually; elemental ‘units’ (electrons for example) occupying a spatial region, or composing a substance, under an applied electrical force would ‘line up’, concatenate, ‘chain’ forming filamentary “ropes”, “threads“, “currents“ etc.

Looking at those ’units’ collectively under the application of electrical force the electrical influence would appear as a “wave” across, or through, the substratum composed of said ‘units’. Just as with Graphene and Liquid Crystals.

I’m really not seeing a successful refutation of “Thread Theory”, “Chain Theory”, the “rope” hypothesis et al. Just some form of a nomenclature problem. Point of fact if you investigate the various “domain walls” listed above one will find that they are small “transition regions” wherein the ‘units’ “flip” their orientations and concatenate along an axis.

This same axis in the direction of propagation is to me no different than the ‘magnetic lines of force’ that we’ve also discussed in the rather marvelous Superconductivity thread. According to what I recall of that thread the ’magnetic lines of force’ penetrate the superconducting materials forming individual vortices on material surface as the individual ’units’ of this force ’tunnels’ into the superconducting material via a ‘pinning site’. To me, these aspects are demonstrative of those regions wherein the longitudinal force is dominant.

Perhaps, for example, a continuous ‘chaining’ of photons produces an effect analogous to Light ‘pressure’ which is then collectively perceived of as a “field”. So that, “fields” longitudinally propagate via concatenation of the ‘units’ composing them.

Can someone please explain how it is that the concept of ‘longitudinal’ propagation could occur without some form of concatenation, or re-orientation of the constituent ‘units‘ composing the affected substratum?

[altonhare]

Okay, let's clear up this "towing along" versus "sliding along" thing once and for all.

The answer is that the rope does get "towed along", as it must, since it connects the two atoms. If one atom were to fall faster then the rope connecting them does not have to stretch, rather the atoms simply unwind a little. So all the ropes attached to an atom get "towed along" insofar as they have to be in order to stay connected, but they do not have to stretch like silly putty in order to do so. The atoms just wind/unwind some rope.

Otoh, if the universe is really "expanding" this would imply that the rope is everywhere stretching. Atoms get further apart without their weight (grav pot). However, stretching the rope decreases its amplitude (to stretch it must get thinner). In TT the grav constant G is proportional to the rope's amplitude. If we were to look far back in time we would find matter interacting gravitationally much stronger than it does today.

Solar I'm reading through your post and will respond when I can.

[seasmith]

~
Solar wrote:

... the concept of ‘longitudinal’ propagation could occur without some form of concatenation, or re-orientation of the constituent ‘units‘ ..?

Solar,

Would you consider Resonance to be dependent on " orientation of the constituent 'units' " ?
Would you consider resonance to be an essential dynamic of 'longitudinal propagation' ?
I tend to lean that way.

A fart in church seems to resonate no matter which way one's facing.


s

[earls]

Remind me how Gaede's rope theory explains symmetry breaking?

How do we get the positive and negative charge differences?

How does ropes explain fusion? As in, how or why do atoms get bigger? If they're instantaneously connected to every other atom in the Universe, why does some of the EM energy increase in density on certain atoms and decrease on others? What's stopping everything from instantaneously reaching equilibrium? What's playing the role of the Higgs field, per se?

Sorry, I didn't see a video for such.

Does this reconcile with the Big Bang or a Universe with an beginning and an end, or is this an "infinite" Universe model?

[Plasmatic]

Does this reconcile with the Big Bang or a Universe with an beginning and an end, or is this an "infinite" Universe model?

Huh? Id say niether because all of those are nonsense. If Im not mistaken Its a finite, eternal universe.

[earls]

Finite space with infinite time, eh. Is there an explanation of the recycling mechanism?

[Plasmatic]

Finite space with infinite time, eh. Is there an explanation of the recycling mechanism?

Universe- all the entities that are. To say the universe is infinite is to say that it has no specific amount of entities. Like a bucket with no specific amount of marbles. Time is not "infinite" it is conceptual.Eternal means out of time.

[earls]

"Eternal - Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See synonyms at infinite."

I really don't understand how eternal can be disconnected from infinite, but that is neither here nor there, I suppose. By "time", I meant "existence."

Regardless, is there a description or definition of this system? All I can find is angry rants laden with insults.

[Solar]

~
Solar,
Would you consider Resonance to be dependent on " orientation of the constituent 'units' " ?
Would you consider resonance to be an essential dynamic of 'longitudinal propagation' ?
I tend to lean that way.
s

Yes. Especially as relates structural organization/formation into larger 'systems' and 'systems'-within-'systems' such as orbital resonance for planets and their moons within a solar system. From the smallest to the largest resonance would be an integral part.

[seasmith]

Solar,
Looking back at my previous post, i may have been unclear.

I should have said:

Solar,
Would you consider Resonance to be dependent on " orientation of the constituent 'units' " ?
I think Not so much, except on a Macro scale.


Would you consider resonance to be an essential dynamic of 'longitudinal propagation' ?
I Do tend to lean that way.

[Thus my poorly analogized comment about direction faced in a church. A better image might be a drop of water hitting a still pool of water, in a cavern.]

s

[altonhare]

.

Otoh, if the universe is really "expanding" this would imply that the rope is everywhere stretching. Atoms get further apart without their weight (grav pot).

Should be:

Otoh, if the universe is really "expanding" this would imply that the rope is everywhere stretching. Atoms get further apart without their weight (grav pot) changing.