Question to falsify Gaede's rope hypothesis.

[webolife]

Either way, ropes or field vectors [rays] are carried along with their centroids, as they are defined by [in my model, directed toward] those centroids as a source [in my model, sink]. Because these local fields are simply small scale manifestations of the universal field, it doesn't matter where they are, where they are going, or how fast. The interactions of various local fields define the stuff of physics and chemistry. The interconnection determines that interaction across distance is pervasive, and in my model, instantaneous. For two objects to move apart in space requires the addition of energy, ie and increas in potential energy in the system. I don't personally "get" the unravelling of rope from an atom, or the unravelling of an atom from itself... however the net result of either "look" is that the greater potential between the objects eventually tends toward the objects moving back together.

[altonhare]

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?

The theory is in its infancy so more complicated phenomena are still in development.

Symmetry Breaking:

If every atom was an H atom there would still be symmetry breaking in the rope universe. This is because there are a finite number of atoms. Recall that the atom consists of a "dandelion" spreading out to every other atom. Atoms that are near the edge of this cosmic ball are very different than the ones on the inside. The dandelion does not spread out in all directions for these atoms but is rather extremely anisotropic. In their quest to seek equilibrium they are drawn inwards (where their shells/dandelions can be made more spherically symmetric). They also obviously absorb/reemit light very differently than their symmetric counterparts.

Charge:

This is rather complicated. If you name specific experiments/observations we can interpret them under TT. Thread theory has no "direct" analogue of charge in terms of transporting the usual notion of point particle charges directly to thread theory.

Structure of the atom:

I think the rope is a semi-permeable entity. By this I mean that, when two ropes come into contact, they at once resist moving toward each other. This would cause a decrease in velocity. If the velocity decreases to 0 the tope ropes rebound and travel in opposite directions. If the velocity is high enough however they penetrate and blend with each other. I think the velocity needed to achieve this is probably infintesimal.

However, in the case of an electron shell we are not talking about a single rope or thread penetrating another single one. The electron shell contains at least as many threads as there are atoms in the U (a lot more actually). The atom is structured the way it is because of the tension on the threads combined with their semi-permeable nature. See, when the thread is wrapped in a circle/loop, it resists being wrapped tighter just like any macroscopic wire you work with. Every other atom in the U has these loops also, and they all are resisting becoming tighter, ultimately they'd all like to simply be pulled straight instead of being under tension. What ends up happening in the atom is a tug-of-war. Each loop ends up more or less the same size, the typical measured radius of the atom. Except threads are slightly obstructive, so they can't *all* be the same size or they'd all be packed in together. Imagine a zillion threads packed in together and how hard it would be to pack in another one? Eventually the pull of a loop under tension is not enough to overcome the multitudes of threads beneath it, and it stays on the exterior. Of course if there are loops on the exterior of the most stable radius there must be another loop somewhere on the interior. These two cannot overcome the dense multitude of threads at the equilibrium radius value and instead remain at a non-equilibrium value. This explains the so-called "probability distribution" of the electron in the atom. It is simply a thread density. But why isn't the distribution symmetric about the expectation value? Because of the dandelion, the other threads converging upon the center. The density of these increases as you get closer to the nucleus. So you can pile electron threads on exterior to the equilibrium density without anything getting in your way, but interior to the equilibrium and the proton threads start crowding you out.

So as two H atoms approach their first electron threads meet. They deform a little, bending inwards as the velocity of the H atom decreases, then the threads blend. Eventually thread density becomes too high and after deforming/bending, instead of penetrating, the deformed threads spring back to their normal shapes, sending the H atoms back the way they came.

If 2 H atoms approach each other a little faster the shells penetrate deeply. When they rebound they do not break free, however. If they have penetrated past a certain point (region of highest thread density) then they encounter a situation where they do not have the velocity in either direction to penetrate the threads. They ricochet back and forth. Strong excitation by light can send them ricocheting harder until they do manage to break free.

The electron shell is also probably "spinning". If two H atoms approach each other and their shells are spinning in opposite directions (one CW and one CCW) the resistance to their shells melding is extraordinarily great. On the other hand if they're spinning in the same direction there is almost no resistance to the blending of the two shells.

Fusion is a very complicated process but qualitatively not much different. The center of the atom is the densest region of threads you will find so we'd expect enormous barriers to fusing two nuclei. We'd also expect a massive restructuring of the electron shells as the threads pull, tug, penetrate, recoil, and so on to find their new equilibrium positions. Of course all this activity will be associated with the release of a great deal of "energy".

There is no need to "give" atoms mass in thread theory as in the standard model. When an atom moves it is pulled on by every other atom in the U via the rope.

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?

I think that longitudinal propagation is basically, by definition, a successive motion of individual units that affect each other in sequence. Am I understanding your question?

[earls]

So how many atoms are there in the Universe? We should just be able to take one Hydrogen atom and count the number of threads on it, no?

[junglelord]

The electron shell is also probably "spinning". If two H atoms approach each other and their shells are spinning in opposite directions (one CW and one CCW) the resistance to their shells melding is extraordinarily great. On the other hand if they're spinning in the same direction there is almost no resistance to the blending of the two shells.

Well that contradicts the rule of thumb concerning spin...you had better rethink that.
Opposites attract, same spins repel.

[altonhare]

So how many atoms are there in the Universe? We should just be able to take one Hydrogen atom and count the number of threads on it, no?

Astrophysicists don't even really *know* how many stars there are in the universe, much less H atoms.

How many grains of sand at the beach eh? Start counting, let me know when you find out.

Well that contradicts the rule of thumb concerning spin...you had better rethink that.
Opposites attract, same spins repel.

I misspoke, reverse that.

[earls]

The difference, alton, is that their theories don't propose that all the stars and grains of sand are connected together by (supposedly) quantifiable ropes.

If I made the statement "all grains of sand at the beach are all strung together by a physically existing object." A reasonable person would assume I had demonstrable evidence or quantifiable measurements. I would be able to pick up one grain of sand, count the ropes, strings, threads, connections, coming off of it and accurately tell you how many additional grains of sand were present.

Your aversion is not surprising though. I suppose any proponent of a theory that disavows mathematics, measurements, and experiments would avoid providing physical evidence and quantification for a physical theory when we can just "talk it out" while proposing even more unsubstantiated claims.

You mentioned the theory is in its infancy... Do you assume it will ever mature? Who is doing the research? When can I expect to see rope theory in textbooks? Ah, I forget, there's a "conspiracy", Bill Gaede is being held down by the man! *shakes fist* Damn the stupid, idiotic, moronic man! How dare he suppress the truth! I can accurately, reproducibly demonstrate ropes are the future! Ropes are everywhere! Ropes are objects! Ropes "exist!" Oh wait... I can't? DAMN THE MAN!! STUPID IDIOT!

_sluimers_, if you want to falsify Gaede's theory, simply read it. There's nothing there. He's concocted new mechanisms for light and gravity, yet fails to incorporate the into big picture. He even admits, that he's giving the "facts" but not an entire theory. He redefines half the English language to support is assertions, but never once demonstrates any physical physics. Not on his webpage, not in his videos, not one single time does he actually show he knows what he's talking about.

Anyway, speaking of counting things, I've got some interesting numbers from youstupidrelativist.com:

idiot: 72
idiotic: 77
stupid: 115
moron: 25
morons: 82

371

Oh man, now there's a paradigm I want to be part of. Who needs math and experiment when "idiot" and "moron" should be enough for anyone to understand? "Just take my word for it - everyone involved in centuries of study are complete idiots!" I'll explain (or think I am) in dozens of tearful, angry rants about how no one will listen to me. Hrm, I wonder why?

The only rope BIll Gaede will be known for is the one his lifeless body is found dangling from.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Earls,
Nice one. Looks like you've got Alton on the ropes. Rope theory is beginning to look a bit frayed.

[altonhare]

The difference, alton, is that their theories don't propose that all the stars and grains of sand are connected together by (supposedly) quantifiable ropes.

If I made the statement "all grains of sand at the beach are all strung together by a physically existing object." A reasonable person would assume I had demonstrable evidence or quantifiable measurements. I would be able to pick up one grain of sand, count the ropes, strings, threads, connections, coming off of it and accurately tell you how many additional grains of sand were present.

Your aversion is not surprising though. I suppose any proponent of a theory that disavows mathematics, measurements, and experiments would avoid providing physical evidence and quantification for a physical theory when we can just "talk it out" while proposing even more unsubstantiated claims.

You mentioned the theory is in its infancy... Do you assume it will ever mature? Who is doing the research? When can I expect to see rope theory in textbooks? Ah, I forget, there's a "conspiracy", Bill Gaede is being held down by the man! *shakes fist* Damn the stupid, idiotic, moronic man! How dare he suppress the truth! I can accurately, reproducibly demonstrate ropes are the future! Ropes are everywhere! Ropes are objects! Ropes "exist!" Oh wait... I can't? DAMN THE MAN!! STUPID IDIOT!

_sluimers_, if you want to falsify Gaede's theory, simply read it. There's nothing there. He's concocted new mechanisms for light and gravity, yet fails to incorporate the into big picture. He even admits, that he's giving the "facts" but not an entire theory. He redefines half the English language to support is assertions, but never once demonstrates any physical physics. Not on his webpage, not in his videos, not one single time does he actually show he knows what he's talking about.

Anyway, speaking of counting things, I've got some interesting numbers from youstupidrelativist.com:

idiot: 72
idiotic: 77
stupid: 115
moron: 25
morons: 82

371

Oh man, now there's a paradigm I want to be part of. Who needs math and experiment when "idiot" and "moron" should be enough for anyone to understand? "Just take my word for it - everyone involved in centuries of study are complete idiots!" I'll explain (or think I am) in dozens of tearful, angry rants about how no one will listen to me. Hrm, I wonder why?

The only rope BIll Gaede will be known for is the one his lifeless body is found dangling from.

A lot of ad hom and straw man. Very scientific earl.

[altonhare]

Hi Earls,
Nice one. Looks like you've got Alton on the ropes. Rope theory is beginning to look a bit frayed.

Earl's just upset that I answered his questions in a mature and intelligent way, which is not the way he would like to run things. He prefers to not discuss science or theories but to rather tear down what he doesn't like via insult, dismissal, and putting on a show.

[junglelord]

Alton, earl has spoken the truth.
This is all talk, and nothing but...a mind experiment gone horribly wrong.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
So you don't consider Gaede's serial use of words such as: idiot, idiotic, stupid, moron and morons, as ad hominem? But Earls' counting of them is? How do you think your academic qualifications would have done had you littered your exam papers with such words?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Earls,
Are you planning on counting the number of times Gaede's wiggles his eye-brows in the vids?

[altonhare]

Alton, earl has spoken the truth.
This is all talk, and nothing but...a mind experiment gone horribly wrong.

Earl obviously has a very strong opinion on the matter. He thought he was gonna ask some "stumper" questions and get some satisfaction out of it. When I responded in a level headed, scientific way that didn't fit in with how he wanted things to go. When he didn't get his way he threw a little hissy fit and baby Grey Cloud cheered him on. This is typical behavior I've come to expect, take it with a grain of salt. Some people would just rather throw tantrums and get personal than do any thinking. Having a good thought and making good points (whether bolstering to the incident issue or brazenly critical) is more difficult than just acting out.

Hi Alton,
So you don't consider Gaede's serial use of words such as: idiot, idiotic, stupid, moron and morons, as ad hominem? But Earls' counting of them is? How do you think your academic qualifications would have done had you littered your exam papers with such words?

Technically Bill defines these words such that they refer to anyone who works in/believes relativity, quantum, or string theory. But that's really just part of the circus atmosphere Bill wantonly creates. Yes Bill's use of such words is immature ad hom. He explains why he has resorted to it on his site also.

I don't consider anyone's use of such words relevant at all to science. All I care about is content. That's the point. Earl asked some questions, which I answered as best I could, and instead of following this rational/reasonable line of thought and discussion he chose to turn things personal.

I don't have a desire to discuss Bill's personality or engage in further metadiscussion. If anyone would like to talk science I'd enjoy that.

[earls]

lawl. Stumper questions? No, I know there is no such thing for dogmatic zealots. They have the answer... For EVERYTHING!

Originally, I was hoping to learn more to reconcile the rest of the Universe with the very few things Gaede said that made sense and give "Thread Theory" one more chance. Unfortunately, the rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper.

Thread theorist "know" all of these things about the Universe, but HOW do they know them? Where is the evidence for the claims? The "proof" to backup the statements? You claim "scientific" but you must be using Gaede's definition, because it's utter speculation. Pure philosophizing. Thread theory doesn't belong in Physics, let alone Science.

Personally, I thought my reply was clear, rational and made many valid points, none of which you cared to address. But as I said before, that's pretty typical of pseudoscience. I take it with a grain of salt. It would appear others agree with me... But don't worry, I understand... We are the thoughtless clumsy idiots. It's everybody else that's crazy!

Having a good thought and making good points (whether bolstering to the incident issue or brazenly critical) is more difficult than just acting out.

Yeah, I absolutely agree. Tell that to your buddy Bill. It's funny how you don't have any problem supporting his pages upon pages of personal attacks and insults in the name of promoting his theory.

If you'd like to return to science, maybe you'd like show us a thread. Once we can detect one, then we can detect all of them converging on an atom, enumerate them, and know how many atoms there are in the Universe. I'm pretty sure that sort of knowledge would garner a Noble prize... But, I look forward to the excuses and/or blatant ignorance.

[altonhare]

It's funny how you don't have any problem supporting his pages upon pages of personal attacks and insults in the name of promoting his theory.

Show me where I support his "pages upon pages of personal attacks". I support the theory itself.

If you'd like to return to science, maybe you'd like show us a thread.

Whatever mediates light, gravity, and magnetism is invisible. Whether you call it photons, "fields", aether, angels, or whatever you want to call it. We can only hypothesize its structure and try to explain what we see with this structure.

Unless you can show me a photon, a aether, etc.?

Once we can detect one, then we can detect all of them converging on an atom, enumerate them, and know how many atoms there are in the Universe. I'm pretty sure that sort of knowledge would garner a Noble prize... But, I look forward to the excuses and/or blatant ignorance.

Your primary criticism of the theory is that I cannot count the number of atoms in the universe!?

Dear Einstein,

Your "photon" theory is absolute bunk! Unless you can tell us how many photons there are in the universe you're full of it.

Dear Newton,

How much mass and force is there in the universe? If you can't tell us then get out!

Dear Faraday,

How many "fields" are there in the universe? Tell us or burn!

I would be able to pick up one grain of sand, count the ropes, strings, threads, connections, coming off of it and accurately tell you how many additional grains of sand were present.

Except the connections themselves are responsible for your ability to see. Similar to the reason you can't see a photon or see aether.

Originally, I was hoping to learn more to reconcile the rest of the Universe with the very few things Gaede said that made sense and give "Thread Theory" one more chance. Unfortunately, the rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper.

You were hoping to learn more. Yet you didn't address *any* of what I said. Instead you took the discussion in a completely different, unscientific direction. You asked reasonable questions, got some answers, then freaked out about how we can't "see" a thread and how Bill acts like a jackass.