Question to falsify Gaede's rope hypothesis.

[webolife]

Why is everyone against Alton?
Say Alton, I have explained in several posts how the pressure gradient accompanying my unified field vectors is responsible for the spectrum of light, relating it to the theta-angle of "diffraction" etc... how do rope-chains account for color? I frankly can't stand listening to Bill G, and his graphics are wanting, so I am depending on you for some help in understanding this aspect of TT.

[junglelord]

I frankly cannot stand listening to bill either.
The dimension of colour is related to frequency.
The view of APM is that the photon is always connected to its source.
It is never a particle. It is the compton wavelength, distributed charge geometry.
An electron expanding at the speed of light.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

When he didn't get his way he threw a little hissy fit and baby Grey Cloud cheered him on.

I'll leave Earls to fight his own corner, but as for me ' cheering him on', I just liked the way he came at it in counting the 'idiots' and 'morons', etc.
I have watched several of Gaede's vids and I can tell you there is nothing there. I know you wont believe me, nor would I expect you to. There is no depth to Gaede, he is linear and 2 dimensional. When something has worth it has depth and I can detect depth, or lack thereof, either with text or other visual media. Just another instance of mind being superior to brain.

Here's a question for you: If all the atoms in the Universe are connected, then:
a) does that not mean that the universe is one huge molecule? Or,
b) would that not set off the mother of all chemical reactions?

P.S. I seem to recall that Earls and me crossed swords a few weeks ago on another thread.
P.P.S. Can't wait to tell my daughters that someone called me a baby (but not in an ad hominem way ).

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Webolife,
You asked:

Why is everyone against Alton?

He's so Age of Pisces.
(Seriously) I'm neither for or against him. I view him as an intelligent guy who has been over-educated in the sense that he has been trained to think only in a certain way and only about certain things. He should contemplate upon the first sentence of your signature. If I may be permitted an Americanism: he needs to cut himself some slack.

[altonhare]

Why is everyone against Alton?
Say Alton, I have explained in several posts how the pressure gradient accompanying my unified field vectors is responsible for the spectrum of light, relating it to the theta-angle of "diffraction" etc... how do rope-chains account for color? I frankly can't stand listening to Bill G, and his graphics are wanting, so I am depending on you for some help in understanding this aspect of TT.

I don't really see the difficulty here. When the rope is torqued it changes frequency. Certain frequencies excite the molecules of your eye in different ways.

Is there something deeper that you're asking, that I'm not detecting?

I'll leave Earls to fight his own corner, but as for me ' cheering him on', I just liked the way he came at it in counting the 'idiots' and 'morons', etc.

I apologize for calling you a "baby". I typed it before I saw your comment on earls counting the number of times Bill wiggles his eyebrows, which made it obvious you just thought the whole counting thing was funny. It was hilarious .

Unfortunately I am somewhat disturbed by most of what earls said, and that took away from the humor. Earls seems to think that:

1) A scientific theory must be able to count the # of whatever entity is in the theory
2) A scientific theory must be able to show you the thing in the theory
3) A scientific theory should be in textbooks (he at least mentioned this as a general critique of TT)

These criteria summarily debunk any and all scientific theories ever. I hope people recognize that earls objections are meaningless.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
Absolutely no offence taken at the baby remark. Your willingness to apologise is, however, noted and appreciated. Respect.

[earls]

1) A scientific theory must be able to count the # of whatever entity is in the theory

No, I never stated that. However, the concept I'm suggesting would go a long way to validate certain claims. This apparently is something you wish to avoid.

Light, gravity, and magnetism, can be measured. Do you have measurements of your ropes?

If my experiment is not to your liking, what experiments have you done or propose to do?

2) A scientific theory must be able to show you the thing in the theory

In essence, yes... You may not be able to visually see it with your eye, but you should be able to measure the dimensions of "thing(s)" your theory proposes.

3) A scientific theory should be in textbooks (he at least mentioned this as a general critique of TT)

No, I never stated that. I simply asked when, the theory might appear in textbooks. That would assume it has garnered acceptance, understanding and support. I mean... If your goal in espousing this theory is remain obscure and irrelevant, more power to you!

Show me where I support... I support the theory itself.

If you support the theory, you support Bill, if you support Bill, you support his disposition.

[altonhare]

Here's a question for you: If all the atoms in the Universe are connected, then:
a) does that not mean that the universe is one huge molecule? Or,
b) would that not set off the mother of all chemical reactions?

Forgot to answer these.

a) In chemistry a molecule is defined by the blending of two electron "orbitals" i.e. shells. Not all atoms' shells are blended so no, the universe would not be classified as a single molecule.
b) Chemical reactions occur, again, due to the overlap of electron shells. Some overlaps form stable configuration for a variety of reasons. These reasons are blushed upon in what I said under "structure of the atom" when I initially responded to earls, although not all the details are there.

Earl,

Light appears to propagate as two anti-parallel "things" referred to originally by Faraday and later Maxwell as electrical and magnetic "fields". The rope is the physical embodiment of the classical concept of orthogonal 2D "plane waves". Faraday and Maxwell did not know what structure could simulate this mathematical abstraction. Two threads running anti-parallel around each other does.

Large bodies appear to stay close to each other. In general bodies seem to want to converge, i.e. come together rather than fly apart. We refer to this observation as "gravity" and measure the effect, finding that its magnitude follows inverse square behavior. But what entity binds the earth to the sun? What physically prevents one body from escaping another? Newton had no idea. Einstein says a wall of warped space. Quantum says negative momentum-carrying graviton stones. Christians say angels push the planets around just so. Bill says a rope physically binds one entity to another.

Two magnets appear to influence each other without apparent contact. Unlike in gravity, they can influence each other through both attraction and repulsion. When we study magnets the "lines of force" look like loops extending from one side of the magnet to the other. Faraday had no idea what entity actually bound/repelled magnets, and referred to "whatever it is" with the term "field". Bill says we are staring at exactly what it looks like we're staring at, loops of thread extending from one side to the other.

Thread theory proposes a new explanation for past experiments, one that we can visualize.

There are a number of experiments/research I'd like to do, if I weren't a full time grad student getting married. One idea to estimate the diameter of a thread/rope:

Since gravity departs from Newton's inverse square law at large distances (see Pioneer anomalies) under TT, this is the region where ropes start to significantly superimpose. The thinner the rope, the greater the distance where the transition to non-inverse square gravity occurs and vice versa.

If you support the theory, you support Bill, if you support Bill, you support his disposition.

I disagree strongly that to accept a person's theory or idea is to accept everything about that person. Very strongly. For instance, Ayn Rand said existence, consciousness, and identity are axiomatic. I agree. But I disagree with some of her, umm, more personal/private matters. I do not think that, by accepting some of her ideas, I also devalue loyalty to my spouse.

[webolife]

Alton, your torque-changes-frequency doesn't explain the phenomenon of the spectrum. It might explain changes of color in certain situations where objects are moving with respect to each other or the observer, radar for example. What about the spectrum, whether discrete or continuous? Perhaps you have not done enough observing of spectra to understand what you have to explain... there is a specific pattern of color that manifests itself everywhere objects are connected to each other [and one is a "receptor"]... you explain this connectivity in terms of ropes/chains... how do they operate to form this spectral arrangement that is all-pervasive in the uiniverse, capable of distinguishing specific elements in stars millions of trillions of kms away, or to image light sources on the table in front of you. I know what my vectors [rays] are doing that I see as the spectrum of color. What are your ropes doing to present as this array?
I read TT ropes as "rays" and can "get" much of what you try to say, but I don't get this aspect of TT yet.

[earls]

Alton, I'll take such under advisement. That much sounds plausible to me. It would be helpful if there was a TT resource, a wiki or the like. I don't consider Gaede's page any such and as justified, probably a detriment.

[webolife]

By the way Alton, Christians don't say "angels push the planets around just so", any more than atheists say that "the universe caused itself to come into existence from nothing". I've actually never heard of any such thing, the closest even remotely like that are Kepler's and Newton's own questionings about gravity. Kepler envisioned a solar force like arms reaching out from the sun to hold the planets in their orbits. Newton, in his "I fein no hypotheses" statement referred to the all pervasive holding force of the universe as "spirit". Aside from these I know of no Christians who believe angels propel the planets.
You were undoubtedly teasing, I don't wonder, and perhaps are unaware of famous rocket scientist Werner von Braun's beliefs about what holds the universe together? No appeal to authority here, just wondering what your intent was in this comment. Maybe to get me to give you this retort?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Webolife,
Would you put me out my misery and point me to where I can find v. Braun's view on what holds the Universe together, please?
And, just for the record, the planets are drawn by four-horse chariots.

[webolife]

You'd think one of them would have been named Ben Hur by now.
I admit that the following quote does not directly answer your question, but you get the idea.

"Dr. Wernher von Braun, the father of our space program with NASA, wrote the following letter to the California State board of Education on September 14, 1972.

Dear Mr. Grose: In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the "Case for DESIGN" as a viable scientific theory or the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without evoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world round us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.

While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion-that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objectivity of science itself.

Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system or the human eye?

Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without a Divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?

Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot con- ceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God.

I have discussed the aspect of a Designer at some length because it might be that the primary resistance to acknowl- edging the "Case for Design" as a viable scientific alternative to the current "Case for Chance" lies in the inconceiv- ability, in some scientists' minds, of a Designer. The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.

We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the uni- verse, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance.

With kindest regards.

sincerely,

Wernher von Braun"

I predict the objection that I am somehow appealing to authority by quote von Braun... not my intention.

[altonhare]

Alton, your torque-changes-frequency doesn't explain the phenomenon of the spectrum. It might explain changes of color in certain situations where objects are moving with respect to each other or the observer, radar for example. What about the spectrum, whether discrete or continuous? Perhaps you have not done enough observing of spectra to understand what you have to explain...

Maybe I haven't, but it seems unlikely since most physical chemists essentially take/study spectra for a living. In this lab we take vibronic spectra primarily. I've had several whole courses that focused on spectroscopy.

As long as we're calling ourselves out here, I'm appealing to credentials!

capable of distinguishing specific elements in stars millions of trillions of kms away,

The electronic structure of each element is different in TT due to the qualities I described in the previous post on the structure of the atom. Larger, smaller, differently shaped etc. shells will of course torque differently.

Alton, I'll take such under advisement. That much sounds plausible to me. It would be helpful if there was a TT resource, a wiki or the like. I don't consider Gaede's page any such and as justified, probably a detriment.

Glad to hear the first part. Gaede thinks We're All Gonna Die so he just shoots from the hip and says whatever he wants. Besides the Armageddon mentality, he proclaims that his behavior is unscientific and explains why:

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/Ridicule/01Rid.html

I agree with him, that the current "scientific" atmosphere is decidedly unscientific because of its dogmatic resistance to new ideas and views. This is exactly the sentiment of thunderbolts. Gaede's observations and conclusions about mainstream "science" are spot-on and I think his reaction is understandable.

Hynek confirms my argument with a similar experience. Apparently, when he went to collect data, a
number of astronomers were worried about speaking their minds about UFOs for fear of being ridiculed,
or worse, of losing their jobs. Irrespective of whether Hynek was a loony or whether he dealt with the
highly suspect subject of UFOs, he should not be ridiculed in public, especially not by official institutions.
It is the mathematical physicists who have created or continued with the tradition of belittling their
opponents and who have institutionalized the practice. Now everyone has to live with it.

...

A typical example of what I am referring to is Meyer’s discovery of Archaeopteryx . Politicians, religious
leaders, and the press had a field day laughing at the thought of birds with teeth. The establishment had a
ball with the topic because no one had ever seen a bird with teeth or could imagine such a creature.
Perhaps, the same scientific community would have just as well laughed at a missionary or a safari hunter
who came back with stories about trunks of elephants or horns of rhinos if they had no prior experience
with such animals.

He doesn't lie but other than that he doesn't avoid having fun with what he's doing for any reason. His book is a valuable resource for the theory, though.

There are essentially a few parameters that describe the properties of the thread (according to me):

diameter
longitudinal resistance to a change in size
lateral resistance to change in size
permeability

Additionally, one or more may be dependent upon one or more of the others. The lateral resistance and permeability are essentially the parameters I invoked to qualitatively explain "probability density" in the H atom. A distinguishing feature of TT is that it expressly prohibits "action at a distance". As far as Bill (and I) are concerned this is naught more than a statement that one has no idea.

Bill's stance is that the rope is not "semi-permeable" as I think. He instead thinks that there are situations in which it is obstructive and situations when not, and that we have to concede this behavior. Sometimes we do have to concede behavior, letting go of rationalism to let Nature tell us what's happening. However I don't like the idea of having one set of rules for these circumstances and another set of rules for other circumstances. My solution is that the rope is semi-permeable. It acts the same way in all instances. In the atom the threads are densely packed. I also like this solution because it introduces the possibility of a cosmic drag on all objects wherein' their motion is always resisted as they push through webs of ropes. Indeed Ghosh has already mathematically explored such an idea to good effect:

"The Origin of Inertia and Extended Mach's Principle"

By introducing a tiny velocity-dependent term (a cosmic drag) into Newton's equations Ghosh has accounted for the "anomalous" velocity profile of galaxies, the angular momentum distribution of the solar system, and a great many other astronomical oddities and anomalies. This single term completely disposes of dark matter in all instances.

By the way Alton, Christians don't say "angels push the planets around just so", any more than atheists say that "the universe caused itself to come into existence from nothing". I've actually never heard of any such thing,

In my personal life I've heard sentiments to this effect, from the most evangelical out there. Still the point was not to make a statement of fact but just to help illustrate to earls the necessity of *some* invisible mediator. Unless one takes the stance of taking ALL observations *exactly* at face value. I can understand such a stance, but in this case one could not say anything happens because..., they would just say X happens. Additionally this kind of attitude is practically nonexistent as far as I know. I can't imagine it will emerge either, as its hard to get scientific funding while acting as a reporter.

perhaps are unaware of famous rocket scientist Werner von Braun's beliefs about what holds the universe together?

2 strand antiparallel ropes?

Maybe to get me to give you this retort?

prank'd

And, just for the record, the planets are drawn by four-horse chariots.

How many chariots are there?

One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world round us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design.

"Order" is just a result of identity. If everything is what it is and can only act in accordance with what it is, then there is no "random". Everything behaves in a specific way in accord with its identity. There is no need for an extrinsic agent to impose order. Order is the default.

Take it to the materialism thread!

Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron?

And this is why nobody can unambiguously distinguish science from religion. This is exactly the distinction, physics demands visualization. The first step, the hypothesis, involves visualizing an object. Modern "physicists" refusal or inability to do so leaves them powerless against religion. In fact, it makes them worse than religion. At least I can visualize angels and 4-horse chariots. I cannot visualize 'a' probability density or 'a' 0D "particle" or 'a' space-time. "Physics" today is naught but lots of exciting engineering and wild supernatural or plain irrational claims. Entertainment sells well, real science doesn't.

As long as modern "physics" refuses to invoke the visualization criteria it will lose every battle to theists. Indeed, they themselves are theists and don't even know it. They're fighting themselves or a phantom, depending.

Until the Creationists et. al. can show me a hypothesis (a 3D model, presumably of the Designer) and a movie explaining how the Designer did whatever they claim It did, their "theory" is so much hot air. Just like quantum's ridiculous probability cloud and relativity's fantastical space-time.

I recommend any further commentary go to the materialism thread

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Webolife,
Thanks for the v. Braun letter, much appreciated and very interesting.