Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby Callesen58 » Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:56 am

I have been thinking for a while, that electricity should matter when it comes to atoms, afterall it is divided into negative and positive areas, and since electricity and plasma-physics is supposed to be scale-proof, should'nt it also be able to explain the atom in electric terms?

Anything would be better than the purely mathematical contructs of today, anyway.
Callesen58
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:47 am

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby Total Science » Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:29 pm

All theories of the atoms are electric.

I have no idea why this thread is in this subforum.

It is not a new insight and only a madman would think electric atoms are a mad idea.

"If it be true that every atom occupies the same volume of space, then gravitation might seem to be an effect depending on the crowdedness of electrons; but when an atom, breaks up into unequal parts, the smaller portion must in that case undergo considerable expansion, and that would be inconsistent with the constancy of gravitation, if it depended on crowdedness: hence I think it more probable that it depends on some interaction between positive and negative electricity, and that it is generated when these two come together, that is whenever an atom of matter is formed." -- Oliver J. Lodge, physicist, 1904

"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1924

"According to our present view every atom consists of a small heavy nucleus approximately 1O^-12 cm in diameter sur-rounded by a largely empty region 1O^-8 cm in diameter in which electrons move somewhat like planets about the sun." -- Hendy D. Smyth, physicist, 1945
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby mharratsc » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:00 am

Here's some reading that might start knitting it together for ya:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs&keywords=electric%20gravity#dest

That kind of ties together mass, gravity, subatomic composition, and charge in a neat little package if you ask me. Ockham's Razor is the way to go! :)

Mike H.
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:02 pm

* Looks like I haven't read that article yet myself in completion, but I know his theory somewhat from previous writings. And it makes much more sense to me than most others, including APM. Junglelord is always praising APM, but it calls for time reversals, which make no sense at all to me. The graphic of the theory depicts a particle tracing a helical path, like a slinky, that makes sort of a multiple figure-8 path, in which the particle is going in forward during half the cycle and in reverse time in the other half. So at one transition point it seems to me that the particle would be splitting in two and going forward in forward time and backwards in reverse time at the same time and at the other transition point the two would be merging and in half the cycle nothing would exist in forward time and in the other half nothing would exist in reverse time. If reverse time were real, it seems to me that it would mean that cause and effect would not exist and therefore no conclusions could be made, including about APM, since conclusions require forward time.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby Farsight » Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:25 am

Callesen58 wrote:I have been thinking for a while, that electricity should matter when it comes to atoms, after all it is divided into negative and positive areas, and since electricity and plasma-physics is supposed to be scale-proof, should'nt it also be able to explain the atom in electric terms? Anything would be better than the purely mathematical contructs of today, anyway.
There is a very successful theory based on "electricity", namely quantum electrodynamics. However this only deals with photons and electrons, and doesn't offer any intuitive understanding. An extension of this is quantum chromodynamics, which is then extended into the Standard Model. Again there's no intuitive understanding, and it's all very mathematical. But electricity does matter, and it's in there at a more fundamental level than merely the flow of electrons.

For myself I've been interested in relativity, particularly since Einstein's first relativity paper was On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. People don't generally think of relativity as being particularly electric, but it is. Even general relativity and gravity. It's much simpler than people think. And once it clicks, you start looking at things like pair production, and then you realise that things like electrons and protons are simple too. And atoms.
I started a thread on this the other day because I thought you guys would be interested. See viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2563
Farsight
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:39 pm

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby junglelord » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:51 am

Aether Physics Model. The electron, proton, are a dual charge entity.
There is no strong force, the EM charge, is the glue that holds the nucleus together.
One must quantify ES charge to get anywhere out of the particle zoo and the four force model.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby Farsight » Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:51 am

I'd say the strong force is what holds a proton together. See the bag model:

Image

Now take a look at the trefoil below:

Image

Think of this as being made of strong elastic. Grab hold of it firmly, and pull at one of the loops. As you exert more and more force it gets more and more difficult to stretch. Now take a look at the crossing points. Trace round the trefoil from the bottom left and go clockwise. Call out the direction for each point where there's a crossing-under. If you count the crossings-over and the crossings-under, you're counting them twice. The directions are Up, Up, and Down. Yay!

The residual strong force is what holds neutrons and protons together in the nucleus. Interestingly, since a proton can be annihilated with an antiproton to yield gamma photons, one can assert that the strong force is what holds those photons together. You can say the same for the electron. The strong force is in there, but you just don't notice it because the electron is a single loop rather than three. This sort of thing:

Image

Actually it's a double loop morphed into one, look at the black line. It's all quite simple when you see the underlying geometry. At least, it seems that way to me. And quite amazingly, this sort of stuff goes back to Kelvin. But he was trying to fit elements into a table of knots, not fundamental particles. Talking of which, another thing that I think is quite amazing is that there's only TWO stable particles with mass, plus their antiparticles. That's the electron and the proton, the antiparticles being the positron and the antiproton. There just aren't any other stable massive particles. Check out the meson lifetimes here on hyperphysics:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HB ... adron.html

The neutron comes close, but outside of a nucleus it undergoes Beta decay in about ten minutes, so it just isn't stable. All of these so-called fundamental particles aren't fundamental after all. They can't be if they last 10ˉ²³ seconds. They're "ephemera". Studying them is a bit like studying the explosions of fireworks. Anyhow, see http://www.knotplot.com/zoo/. The electron and proton are the first two at the top left. The antiparticles have opposite chirality, and resemble each other like your left hand resembles your right.
Farsight
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:39 pm

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:34 pm

* AllynH says neutrons are always unstable, even within atoms. He says the neutron ejects the electron, making it a proton, and a nearby proton in the atom then absorbs the ejected electron to become a neutron and the process continues indefinitely. He says radioactivity is a result of having too many neutrons in an atom and that's why deuterium is stable, but tritium is radioactive. When the two neutrons in tritium happen to eject their electrons at the same time, it's like musical chairs with only one proton available to absorb one electron, so the second neutron gets ejected from the atom.
* What do you think of that? I just happened to think that would seem to mean that the second neutron would get ejected as a proton and electron. Right? Or would getting ejected from the atom keep it stable for another 15 minutes?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:47 pm

Farsight: Think of this [pretzel-shaped electron motion] as being made of strong elastic. Grab hold of it firmly, and pull at one of the loops.

* How could a particle's orbital motion be treated like the orbit is a solid object? That's like saying to grab the Earth's orbit and pull on it. Or like saying grab a rapidly rotating propeller and juggle it.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby junglelord » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:01 pm

Very interesting Farsight, but that geometry does not prove the strong nuclear force...neither does it confirm three quarks as up and down....how do you account for colour?>
LOL.

But the geometry aspects are well learned by you, and I for one applaud your mind.
However, there are other geometries that need to be included, Pi, Phi, e. The Sacred Three.

I have some very good work about quantifying Electrostatic charge into the Force Model.
This bumps EM charge up and the supposed Gluon of the Strong Nuclear Force, which no one can find, not even in your diagram, becomes EM charge. Take a look at the full indepth reason to see things this way.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=506&start=0

The quantifying of ES charge automatically creates a algebra and geometry of the Weak Nuclear Force, due to the geometric difference between ES charge of a Sphere and EM charge of a Toroid. The toroid surrounds the sphere. All charge is distributed. The inclusion of ES charge and the quantification of ES Charge, creates a three force model. There is only charge and gravity.

That leaves us with gravity. Being polar, like all forces, it should repel and I believe that matter and antimatter should repel.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby junglelord » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:10 pm

APM has made equality with a three force model with two fundamental charges. This model accurately accounts for the strong nuclear force charge as an expression of EM charge and the Weak force as the relationship between both ES and EM. There is perfect conservation and equality in APM. Especially because with two elemental charges we can resolve the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force! That is impossible to ignore.
15. What replaces the gluons in APM?
Answer Page 39
According to the standard model gluons carry the strong force in quarks, and pions carry the strong force in nuclei. In APM, the strong force carries by strong charge. Strong charge is related to elementary charge, but it has a different geometry, spin and magnitude. Strong charge notates as e emax for the electron, e pmax for the proton, and e nmax for the neutron. But as in the case of elementary charge, Strong charge is always distributed. So for example, electron strong charge would notate as e emax^2

16.What is the weak interaction in APM?
Answer. Page 39
The weak interaction is the proportion of the elementary charge to the strong charge. The weak interaction is equal to 8pi times the fine structure of the onn. The relationship of the elementary charge, strong charge, and weak interaction for each onn appears as follows where * (alpha), p, n are the fine structures of the electron, proton and neutron respectively.
Electron onn = e^2/e emax^2 = 8pi *
Proton onn = e^2/e pmax^2 = 8pi p
Neutron onn = e^2/e nmax^2 = 8pi n



I have a quote on my view of things since I now have a proper handle on measurement, unit, constant, dimension.
The Standard Model removes Dimensions from data.
APM data collects in dimensional and geometric form, processes in dimensional and geometric form, which materializes equations in dimensional and geometric form. By keeping dimensional and geometric form with data and equations, old concepts die, for example, the Aether unit and its geometry, will influence the understanding of physics.


In other words dimensions build up into units of which we take measurements of these constants. I have different definitions then the classical mess provides. Lets take for example the equality and conservation of the most famous equation of all....Einsteins theory that E = mc^2

That is totally false and not equal at all

28. Does E = mc squared qualify in APM?
Answer page 24
No

29. Why does E = mc squared, not qualify in APM?
Answer page 24
Because the variables have dimensions but no value. Therefore it is not a true equation, rather an expression or formula.

If E and m had inherent value, as does the constant c then E = 1 unit and m = 1 unit
E = joule
m = kg

E = mc^2
Joule = kg X 8.988 X10^16 (m^2/sec^2)

through transposition this would resolve as
1 = 8.988 x 10^16

Therefore E does not equal mc squared because there is no true equality! If you apply a constant to both E and m things are no where near equal!

Energy is a unit, mass is a dimension
E is composed of the dimensions of mass, length, frequency.
E = M X L^2 X F^2

When it comes down to the truth to the truth of it, mass is a dimension while energy is a unit made up of three dimensions.

In SR, mass converts to energy as an object approaches the speed of light. If this were true, then instead of having an infinite mass as the theory proposes, a spaceship should be massless at the speed of light. However, if the spaceship were massless at the speed of light, then it would have no energy because the mass is zero.. No double the die hard relativists will come forth with arguments that there is relativistic mass, which is different from rest mass.

Mass is ultimately only a dimension. Mass is not equal to matter or energy. Mass does not rest and does not move as an independent entity. There is no such "thing" as mass that can be converted to energy, of which energy is merely a unit.



So what is a dimension of mass then, if it is not equal to a unit of energy?

What is mass?
Page 93
Mass is merely a dimension. Of itself, it has no material existence, although it is one of the defining qualities of the material objects. In a weightless environment mass does not change to zero. When mass is a near large planet, it does not become greater. When an object with mass is accelerated to near the speed of light, it does not increase mass. There is mass in resistance, there is mass in potential, there is mass in energy, there is mass in angular momentum. It is all the same mass, but manifested differently. It might help to realize that there is time in units too. There is time in resistance, there is time in potential, there is time in energy, and there is time in angular momentum. You can perceive time as change, but you cannot isolate time from a unit. You can perceive mass as inertia and length as distance, but you cannot separate the dimensions of mass and length from units. In the same way, you cannot remove the bricks from a brick building without also removing the building.

Once we stop thinking of mass as equal to matter, and realize that mass is neither physical nor is it something convertible, then it becomes easier to see what mass really is and how mass behaves. You cannot truly weigh mass, but you can weigh something that has mass. You cannot make mass turn into energy. The whole issue about converting energy from mass clearly reveals itself when we realize the indestructible and unchangeable nature of dimensions. You cannot convert mass, length, time, or charge. They are absolutes. Mass is always mass. Mass is only a dimension.

The quantum constant for mass in APM is the mass of the electron for most equations, but can equal the mass of the proton, neutron, aether.


I now see how we differ in our view of even the word 3D, because I work in 5D, I would rather use volumetric then 3D.
Chapter 5, Dimensions, SOTA, third edition
From the dimensions of length, frequency, mass, charge, and spherical geometry come Aether, primary angular momentum, and all other units of dimensions. According to the Aether Physics Model, the dimensions of discrete natural units (quanta) are length, frequency, mass, charge and spherical geometry. Dimension is the fundamental attribute of measurement, but is not itself measurable. Absolute dimension is a quality of reality, seemingly arising from the ultimate Source of all existence. When quantity is associated with dimension, then the two together form a measurement.

Through the lack of coherent understanding of dimensions and units, it has become standard practice to view measurements as units. For example, the kilogram defines a unit of mass. It would be far more coherent if the kilogram defined a measurement of mass, with the definition of “unit” reserved for compound dimensions. The concepts of measurement and units are quite different from one another. Using the same word to define two different concepts easily leads to confusion.

Page 93
The quantum level, has five dimensions, length, frequency, mass, charge, spherical geometry. Dimensions increase in complexity as the orders of reality become more complex. The key to understanding the quantum level of existence lies in more precise and simple definitions of the terms “dimension”, "constant", “measurement” and “unit”. There are four fundamental dimensions in the MKS system of measurement: mass, charge, length and frequency. This very example of mismatching terms shows the classical mess of modern theory.

It is from the fundamental dimensions that units are constructed. The unit of area is equel to length dimension squared. The unit of volume is equal to length dimension cube. A unit of volume therefore has three dimensions of length.

Lq^3 = volm

However, there are also three dimensions in a unit of momentum. Mass times length times frequency.

m(e) X Lq X Fq = momt

So it is more accurate to call “3-D” objects Volumetric than three dimensional. Technically, an object with three dimensions of length, is three dimensional, but three dimensions need not mean three dimensions of length.


If you consider a three force universe with 5D then you will get a wonderful equality and conservation.
PS
All quotes are from Secrets of the Aether by Dave Thompson
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby Farsight » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:44 am

Lloyd wrote:AllynH says neutrons are always unstable, even within atoms. He says the neutron ejects the electron, making it a proton, and a nearby proton in the atom then absorbs the ejected electron to become a neutron and the process continues indefinitely. He says radioactivity is a result of having too many neutrons in an atom and that's why deuterium is stable, but tritium is radioactive. When the two neutrons in tritium happen to eject their electrons at the same time, it's like musical chairs with only one proton available to absorb one electron, so the second neutron gets ejected from the atom. What do you think of that? I just happened to think that would seem to mean that the second neutron would get ejected as a proton and electron. Right? Or would getting ejected from the atom keep it stable for another 15 minutes?
It doesn't sound entirely right. Think of neutrons as boys with their hands free, and protons as girls with their hands on their hips. One neutron will link two protons, like you can link arms with two girls. If there was a lot of chopping and changing going on, it sounds to me as if the nucleus would fall apart.

Re too many neutrons, take a look at helium 3 which is one neutron and two protons, and is stable. However tritium is one proton and two neutrons, and it isn't stable. It's like two boys and one girl. Definitely not a stable arrangement! There are too many neutrons, so in this respect I agree with AllynH, but I'd say neutrinos have something to do with radioactivity too. Half-lives display a seasonal variation which seems related to the solar neutrino flux.

Lloyd wrote:
Farsight: Think of this [pretzel-shaped electron motion] as being made of strong elastic. Grab hold of it firmly, and pull at one of the loops.
How could a particle's orbital motion be treated like the orbit is a solid object? That's like saying to grab the Earth's orbit and pull on it. Or like saying grab a rapidly rotating propeller and juggle it.
It isn't like that, Lloyd. There is no point-particle going round and round. Think about long-wave radio. The wavelength might be 1500 metres. Now wrap it up into a pretzel shape 200 metres across. There is no orbiting particle, the pretzel is not describing a particle's orbital motion, it's telling you the disposition of a soliton. The proper name is a vorton. It's a bit like a whirlpool, but in three dimensions.
Farsight
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:39 pm

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby Farsight » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:40 am

junglelord wrote:Very interesting Farsight, but that geometry does not prove the strong nuclear force...neither does it confirm three quarks as up and down....how do you account for colour?
I don't. I'm something of a Feynman fan and happy with QED, but not so happy with QCD. The only stable particles which incorporate quarks are the proton and the antiproton. Annihilate them and you don't see any quarks. You might get mesons, but they don't last, because they decay too. The end product is electrons and photons and neutrinos.

junglelord wrote:But the geometry aspects are well learned by you, and I for one applaud your mind. However, there are other geometries that need to be included, Pi, Phi, e. The Sacred Three.
Thanks re the mind thing. I'd say things like π are in there anyway.

junglelord wrote:I have some very good work about quantifying Electrostatic charge into the Force Model. This bumps EM charge up and the supposed Gluon of the Strong Nuclear Force, which no one can find, not even in your diagram, becomes EM charge. Take a look at the full indepth reason to see things this way.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=506&start=0
I'll check it out. I sympathise with your sentiment...

junglelord wrote:The quantifying of ES charge automatically creates a algebra and geometry of the Weak Nuclear Force, due to the geometric difference between ES charge of a Sphere and EM charge of a Toroid. The toroid surrounds the sphere. All charge is distributed. The inclusion of ES charge and the quantification of ES Charge, creates a three force model. There is only charge and gravity.
...and I'm definitely into geometry. But I don't see gravity as anything special. Or should I say, I see it as something electric. To do with vacuum impedance.

junglelord wrote:That tleaves us with gravity. Being polar, like all forces, it should repel and I believe that matter and antimatter should repel.
IMHO gravity is really really simple, junglelord. And matter and antimatter. You just have to think out of the box. Get this: the proton is antimatter.
Farsight
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:39 pm

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby junglelord » Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:51 pm

You and I have a lot in common farsight. I agree with your theory of geometry.
I bet that you, like me, can think in more then one way.

I am OK, with having more then one way to explain the results.

They all have geometry as the basis, along with quantum constants and redefining dimensions.
To me the work of Wilbert Smith of Canada on the Tempic Field came to mind today, as I walking the dog and cat by the river. I realized that the idea of space, could never have a vectoral result, with only two degress of freedom like a 90 degree angle of the Heaviside dumbdown.

L

That could never represent space.
You need the four degress of freedom from Maxwell Quaternions because of the reality that the 90 degree rule of the Tempic Field, proposed by Wilbert Smith, becomes realized as the grid of Kevins dowsing. I can see the quaternions in my head. Now another step, the Aether.

A rotating magnetic field, is what the aether is. It is the force between the magnets. It has a quantum spin of 2.

The inclusion of the RMF of the Aether along with the four degrees of freedom of the two polar opposites of proton, electron, antiproton, positron and their resulting quaternion analysis into a 90 rule of thumb Matrix of charge and magnatism and aether to create the so called vacuum in 5d. Thats why Kevin can dowse the grid. Thats why the mind can learn the vacuum geometry. Just close your eyes and look. I see in 5d with three forces that are expressions of one force. I see gravity to be better understood (at least for me) with the addition of the work of Blazelabs, where gravity is a push, and also from the investigations into black ops and electrogravitics.

I am confident the B2 Stealth Bomber is a purely Antigravitic Device. It is not a jet is is Electrogravitics. TT Brown patents rule the day when you look at the flame jet generators patent. Ion production and Charge production, with a flame jet. The flame jet is deceptive, because most people can not lookinside their minds eye like TT Brown. I however can clearly see the resulting hills and valleys created by Voltage. The positive charge is a gravity well. The negitive charge is a gravity hill...the resulting topography is like a computer program in my minds eye. Electrostatic Voltage is a Hill or a Valley, depending on its polarity. Remember words like "current" are talking about the motion, just like in a river. Current is not the river, although the river has a current. Also Wattage,it is just power. The river is powerful, does not mean the river is made of power. The river is charge, distributed charge, nothing less, nothing more.

But the very geometry of all livings things, being based on Pi, Phi, e, reveal that the sacred dance b/t aethers 2 quantum spin encapsulating the 1/2 quantum spin of angular momentum, has a very simple spirograph result. To me spirograph is what the quantum world is doing, in 2d. The resulting expression of purely nonsolid distributed charge of the quantum dimensions and constants spring into the larger solid world of molecules, which is just increases of levels of dimensional complexity, thats all. Charge is never solid, matter appears solid, but is just frozen light. Photons and electrons exchange spin, or angular momentum. To say they exchange energy is incomplete and too high on the level of complexity. They exchange spin, nothing less, nothing more, energy is not the conversion, spin is. Photons are electrons expanding at the speed of light. The 90 degree rule of thumb is clearly explained mechanically, as a Gyroscope. All the rules of Electricity and Magnatism are the results of the mechanical rule of the Gyroscope. Thats why the rule of thumb, is what it is.

The neutron is just a proton and a electron folded in the aether with the additon of the angular momentum of a neutrino. The neutron is not stable and will unfold in about 14minutes, going back to the basic complexity of reality, which is just the electron and the proton.

The idea of mass can be explained very simply. It is a dimension. A 2d circular string of angular momentum, that is scanning the aether. Nothing less, nothing more. There are two dimensions of mass, the electron and the proton.

The majority of all reactions are in the dimension of the electron mass.

The dimensions can be counted as five
Length
Frequency
Charge
Mass
Spherical Geometry

Or as ten
1. Length
2. Area
3. Volume
4. Linear Frequency
5. Distributed Frequency
6. Distributed EM Charge
7. Distributed ES Charge
8. Linear Mass
9. Spherical Geometry
10. Sacred Geometry

Length, Area, which makes linear frequency, and Volume, which creates quantum resonance and distributed frequency. Distributed Charge which is only Distributed, EM charge to keep the nucleus together and ES charge hills and valleys making gravity wells with positive charge and gravity hills with negitive charge. Linear Mass, which is only Linear, a 2d circular sting of angular momentum scanning the rotating magnetic field of the aether. Spherical Geometry and Sacred Geometry are the resulting Matrix.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:34 am

JL: Photons are electrons expanding at the speed of light.

* What makes more sense to me is that light is a compression wave in the aether, like sound is a compression wave in molecules of air, water, solid etc. The wave expands like a sphere or balloon, but the components of the wave, molecules, do not expand. They simply get closer together and then farther apart. A light wave is a similar compression wave in aether particles. See the diagrams below.
Image
This represents molecules increasing and decreasing in density in sound waves.
Image
* The caption for this animation says: This illustrates how sound waves travel through water or air. All the little black circles are molecules of water or air. They move back and forth as the sound waves pass by but they have no net motion. The red arrow represents how a motion sensor that measures this back and forth motion will indicate the direction that the sound is traveling. The line of blue circles represents an array of hydrophones, like what we use now, and they pulse as the pressure rises and falls. When they pulse in sync like this, we know that the sound is hitting them broadside. The single vector sensor not only replaces the entire hydrophone array but gives us even better information.
Image
This represents sound waves striking a diaphragm, like the ear drum. The orange blocks represent compressed molecules. Between the compressions the molecules are farther apart.
Image
JL: Electrostatic Voltage is a Hill or a Valley, depending on its polarity.

* By hill and valley do you mean source and sink? Steven Rado talks in aethrokinematics about aether particles acting like an ideal gas, with whirlpools of aether particles forming subatomic particles. If particles can be either a source, where aether spews out, or a sink, where aether is sucked in, then charged particles would be either attracted or repelled from each other. Two sources would push apart. Two sinks would seem to attract. A source and a sink would attract and become stable.
* I guess that idea doesn't pan out in reality, does it. The repulsion of two sources would work and the attraction of a source and a sink would work pretty well. But two sinks wouldn't seem to repel. So thinking of protons and electrons and sources and sinks doesn't quite seem to work.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests