Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?

[junglelord]

I strongly believe that EM causes the nucleus and that a positive proton, or a positive Electrostatic voltage, both are gravity wells. The very vacuum will converge at the positive and diverge at the negitive....as it always does.
The gravity well of electrostatics, aka B2 Steatlh, is all positive charge leading edge. If Howard Johnson taught me anything, its that a Magnetic field is two dual opposite spins, with the North pole always being stronger. Convergence is always stronger.

[Farsight]

Lloyd: re this idea of compression wave in the aether, light is a transverse wave. It involves stress-energy-momentum, and stress has the same dimensionality as pressure. Multiply by volume to obtain the dimensionality of energy, and note that light conveys energy, just as a ruck conveys rug, see http://physicsworld.com/blog/2009/10/ru ... a_rug.html. It means light is best viewed as an expansion wave rather than a compression wave. Where the photon is, is where more space is. It means space and energy are the same thing. Another thing that's important is this: space isn't made out of particles, particles are made out of it. This makes all the difference. Particles wiht mass and charge are 3-dimensional vortons, like whirlpools of stress, but there's no source or sink.

[Farsight]

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.

Thanks junglelord. Yes, there a lot of ways of explaining it, I call it "the same elephant", and until you learn to recognise it you don't always realise that the same underlying concepts are there.

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.

I know what you mean. A vector field is "what it does", not "what it is". It doesn't get to the bottom of it. And nor does j. Once you see the geometry you realise that there's something extra, and it is orthogonal.

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 magnetism 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 don't concur with all of this, I think it's simpler than you're thinking. It's really really simple once you see it.

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.

I know some things that might surprise you, junglelord. Do we have an antigravity thread?

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.

I don't agree with all of this, but I see points of accord. And underneath it I recognise the same elephant.

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.

Yes, only I say twisted rather than folded, and the neutron wobbles itself apart like an unbalanced tyre.

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.

Again, some differences, but common ground: mass is just momentum when it's you moving instead of the other thing, and we make a mass by making that momentum go round in cirlces. Only we don't call it a photon any more, we call it an electron.

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...

It's even simpler than this. Trust me.

[junglelord]

junglelord wrote:
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 magnetism 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 don't concur with all of this, I think it's simpler than you're thinking.

Farsight wrote:
It's really really simple once you see it

I have yet to see a proper definition of Aether, save from Dave Thomson.
Aether is a RMF with a quantum spin of 2
A circular string of angular momentum scans an aether unit.
This results in a constant ES charge for both electron and Proton, and also with a definite EM charge that is solely related to its mass. So the EM of a electron is proportional to its mass and also the same for the proton. ElectroStatic charge is the same for both, as this is the elemental charge of the Aether.
The Weak Force is the proportional geometric quantum spin difference b/t the two charges, EM and ES.
So the Strong and Weak force are eliminated via the quantification of Electrostatic charge.

Do you have a simple definition of Aether Farsight?
I say it is the field b/t the two magnets.

[Lloyd]

Farsight: ... light is a transverse wave. ... light conveys energy.... It means light is best viewed as an expansion wave rather than a compression wave. Where the photon is, is where more space is. It means space and energy are the same thing. Another thing that's important is this: space isn't made out of particles, particles are made out of it.

* Steven Rado & Guy Murphie have shown that transverse waves are illusions; they're actually longitudinal. The idea that light is a transverse wave, supposedly like a vibrating string, seems absurd to me. There are no "solid" strings connecting all locations in the universe. If light is an expansion wave, as you say, that's not a transverse wave on a string or filament. The animations I showed on the previous page make the most sense. That's expanding waves of compression and decompression.
* Why wouldn't light energy be the same kind of thing as sound energy? The aether particles moving back and forth like air or water molecules would produce the energy, it seems to me.

[seasmith]

~
Farsight wrote:

I know some things that might surprise you, junglelord. Do we have an antigravity thread?

Here you go Farsight:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... vity#p9623

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... ity#p26188

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... ntigravity

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... vity#p4446

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... vity#p4259



And i concur; it Is simpler than it seems.

s

[Farsight]

Seasmith: they all look a bit old. I'll start a new thread. Probably the best thing I can give is a magazine article I wrote. I was looking this morning at a website that had something similar on it featuring Hal Puthoff and David Barclay. There are some very similar features, but some different language. I tend to be more "electric" in how I describe things.

Steven Rado & Guy Murphie have shown that transverse waves are illusions; they're actually longitudinal.

Can you give me a link to that?

The idea that light is a transverse wave, supposedly like a vibrating string, seems absurd to me. There are no "solid" strings connecting all locations in the universe. If light is an expansion wave, as you say, that's not a transverse wave on a string or filament. The animations I showed on the previous page make the most sense. That's expanding waves of compression and decompression.

It isn't like a vibrating string, even though people use vibrating strings in their descriptions, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_wave. It's more like a seismic wave, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave and note the bit where it says:

"Body waves travel through the interior of the Earth. They follow raypaths bent by the varying density and modulus (stiffness) of the Earth's interior. The density and modulus, in turn, vary according to temperature, composition, and phase. This effect is similar to the refraction of light waves".

Note that a gravitational lens refracts light waves. That's because there's a gradient in the "composition" of space around a star or galaxy. The waves you're talking about are P waves, the waves I'm talking about are more like S waves. But note that I draw an analogy between the electromagnetic wave and an oceanic swell wave and:

"surface waves can be understood as systems of interacting Primary and Secondary waves".

..so I wouldn't rule out some combination.

Why wouldn't light energy be the same kind of thing as sound energy? The aether particles moving back and forth like air or water molecules would produce the energy, it seems to me.

It comes back to the same important point: space isn't made out of particles. A wave in space is what a particle is. Straight up Lloyd, I'm not kidding you about this. If the wave is going in a straight line it's a photon, if it's going round and round it's an electron, et cetera. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_the ... f_the_atom and read about de Broglie in 1924. This is what lies at the heart of quantum physics and matter waves.

[Lloyd]

Farsight:

Lloyd wrote: Steven Rado & Guy Murphie have shown that transverse waves are illusions; they're actually longitudinal.

Can you give me a link to that?

* It's on Rado's CD, page 289, and the CD says it's in Guy Murphie's book, Music of the Spheres, page 368. Rado says:

The best way to understand the true mechanics of this kind of deformation [of a coil spring] is to consider the relative positions of the coils in different situations. Figure 14-7 (a) illustrates the stretched, relaxed and condensed [compressed] state of the spring. (b) shows the relative orientation of the coils when the spring is forced into a circle. It is evident that by bending the spring, we have bent the whole one dimensional medium and its axis into two dimensions. The coils of the spring in the circle are forced into both compression and expansion at the same time; the internal parts of the coils are compressed, the external parts of the same coils are spaced [farther] apart. Clearly, the restoring force acting toward the initial equilibrium is the tendency to re-establish the initial density of the whole medium; that is, restore the spring into its straight shape. Evidently this force must act longitudinally along its distorted axis, Xd against both the internal condensation and external expansion of the coils in the circle.

* There's more, but I can't find the CD with the illustrations, though there's a Google book that shows some of them.

[Lloyd]

* I have a few images and statements to post that may help explain atomic and molecular structure. In HOW TO BUILD A NUCLEUS without a Strong Force at http://milesmathis.com/stack.html Mathis provides this diagram and says:

[A, B, C & D are points on a proton disk. P = proton; N = neutron.]

... We are now ready to look at the simplest nucleus with more than one nucleon: helium. ... Why doesn't helium just have two protons? ... Why is the atomic number 4 stable? ... Spinning protons must have large charge holes north and south.... When helium is created by pressure ..., these holes naturally align. ... The two protons together are not stable, even when originally aligned hole to hole, since there is nothing to prevent them from drifting and turning. But if neutrons are present ..., they can provide this stability. ... As you see [above], the neutrons act like little pillars or posts, keeping the proton disks from turning and repulsing one another. ... Spinning disks can be kept apart, in permanent stability, by two [such] posts.

* I just happened to notice that, since the protons are said to be spinning disks, the neutrons must be spinning balls, if they're in physical contact with spinning disks. I'm not as pleased with this model as I was initially.

[Lloyd]

* Here's something very interesting that I've been studying for a few days now. In Structure of the Atom at http://physics-edu.org/structure_of_an_atom1.htm Joseph George of India says:

- Electron configuration in a hydrogen atom is determined by only two factors. 1) Attraction from the nucleus, 2) buoyant force [from] space matter [i.e. AETHER - he says all space is filled with aether and that the aether has mass or its equivalent and is densest near the most massive part of the atom, the nucleus. Electrons float on the denser aether. This answers the question: What prevents electrons from falling into the nucleus? P.s., the aether is shown in layers of decreasing density, looking like an onion.]. * The radius of an atom is greater than that of the radius of its outermost electron shell [because of additional layers of aether, or space matter]. * The electric field of an electron in an atom will be always directed to the nucleus. * In a free hydrogen atom, the magnetic lines of both the electron and proton are parallel.

- If an atom has more than one electron, its electron configuration is determined by three factors. Thus, the electron configuration in a helium atom is determined by three factors. 1) Attraction from the nucleus, 2) repulsion between electrons, 3) buoyant force by space matter. In hydrogen atom and helium atom, the buoyant force is the only force that keeps their electrons from falling into the nucleus.

- Electron configuration in an oxygen atom is determined by three factors. 1) Attraction from the nucleus, 2) repulsion between electrons, 3) buoyant force by space matter. * If an electron shell has more than two electrons, then the electrons in that shell will be arranged spherically.

* The next 2 diagrams show diatomic nitrogen, first with one shared electron pair bond and second with 3 shared pair bonds, which involves bonds at a deeper layer of the two atoms, so the 2 nuclei are closer together. The overlap between atoms causes the aether, or space matter, in the overlapped regions to be ejected, resulting in a small loss of mass and production of a small amount of energy, due to the expansion of the ejected aether in its new lower density surroundings outside the atom.


* Since no individual seems to be able to put together the whole picture of the microcosm or of the macrocosm, it seems that we're stuck with piecing parts from various theories together ourselves, thus creating monsters, until we hit on the right combination. I do feel like we're making some progress. See Joseph's whole site at http://images.physics-edu.org.

[Lloyd]

* Here's Joseph's explanation of fusion and fission.

[Lloyd]

* His video, called "Light is not electromagnetic wave! Light is oscillating magnetic lines!" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ebcG8E-opY is also pretty interesting. The images start at 1'27". He says vibrating electrons, because of their strong magnetic fields, cause chains of "ether magnetic particles" to form like sine waves, which shoot away at light speed. I don't know if he means the ether particles move in one direction at light speed or if he means they move back and forth short distances at light speed. If light is like sound, the movement would be back and forth.

[Lloyd]

* Hey, why is no one joining the discussion on these important developments? Come on! If you haven't yet, read the previous 4 posts here.
* In the mean time, here are more important additions from Mr. George.
Space matter [= AETHER] [I'm using double asterisks ** to indicate interesting statements that don't seem to be explained yet. I'm using underlines to emphasize more important statements.]
1. Space matter is ... everywhere in the universe.
2. ** All matter in the universe (in the ordinary world) is made of space matter.
3. Since the gravitational force is exerted on space matter, a denser region of space matter surrounds all massive bodies.
4. ** Increasing of mass of a fast moving body, change in shape of a body resulting from its motion, the effect, known as the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction etc are also the evidence for space matter....
5. Also, electric field lines and magnetic field lines are created by the alignment of space matter units.
6. All form[s] of energies (except gravitational potential energy) are released because of the explosion, expansion or releasing of space matter. [See prior post with image] For example, the releasing of energy in a nuclear reaction is due to the rapid-huge increasing of volume of ordinary matter to space matter. The missing mass (mass defect) in a nuclear or chemical reaction is converted into space matter. Since the ordinary matter is an extremely compressed state of space matter, when it [is] released, they will explode [= expand] violently and release energy.
7. Space matter wind [=] (ether wind) - We see above that, a body holds a space matter envelope ... (recall starlight bending ... effect). Because of these reasons, the detection of ‘space matter wind’ when a body moves through ... space is difficult to verify.
8a. Properties of space matter units: "The attraction and repulsion in the electric and magnetic field[s] are caused by the contraction and expansion of space matter units respectively". [This is similar to Mathis, except it's the aether = space matter that expands or contracts under different conditions. Think of the aether units as self-inflating and self-deflating transparent pingpong balls and atomic particles as colored soccer balls that fill an empty swimming pool. When the pingpong balls inflate, the soccer balls move apart as from repulsion. When the former deflate, the soccer balls move close together like attraction.]
b. ** A free space matter unit has no ... magnetic property; but when a space matter unit is attracted by a charged particle, it will become a magnetic particle with the same magnetic field strength of the charged particle. This property of space matter unit is the reason behind the creation of electric field lines and magnetic field lines.
c. ** Space matter unit is compressible from its natural volume ...[in] its free state.
c1. For example, ... We see above that ordinary matter is a highly compressed state of space matter.
c2... When the space matter units are aligned in an electric or magnetic field line, they will be get compressed.
d. ** [A] Space matter unit is de-compressible from its natural volume.
d1. Repulsion between like poles (electric or magnetic) is caused by the de-compressible property of space matter units. I.e. when like poles come face to face, the opposing space matter units will ... get expanded. This expansion of space matter units is the reason for the repulsion.
d2. Attraction between opposite poles is caused by the contraction of space matter units between the poles.
d3. Repulsion between same poles is caused by the expansion of space matter units between the poles.
d4. Also, the other attractive forces like gravity, strong forces etc are caused by the contraction of ‘tiny’ space matter units between two bodies and nuclear particles respectively.

** Pair production
The pair production process is one of the most interesting demonstrations ... of space matter in atoms. When a gamma ray photon with the energy of 1.2 MeV passes ... near a heavy nucleus (that is, the innermost transitory shells) it can result [in] the production of one electron and one positron. The quantity of space matter ... closer to a heavy nucleus is equal to or more than the mass of one electron and one positron, because of its high density at these region[s].
** When such an energetic gamma ray photon is passed through the high-density space matter region, the individual space matter units will be bonded together to produce the electron-positron pair. When a pair production occurs, the equal amount of space matter (with the mass of one electron and one positron) will [enter] from outside of the atom and the natural densities of the space matter in the atomic   shells will be always maintained.
* Isn't 8d4 impressive too? This means gravity can be explained as contraction of the aether, instead of expansion of every particle in the universe. To me that's much more plausible than universal expansion. However, it seems we're still left with having to explain the mechanics of expanding and contracting aether units.

[junglelord]

Nice stuff Lloyd, you correct about the Frankenstein monster, we have to piece together the most coherent information, dispite the fact, they come from opposite ends of thought and models. Miles work is not the end all to beat all. No one person has that distinction.

[jjohnson]

As conventionally diagrammed, light consists of a superposition of the magnetic and electric fields, which vibrate orthogonally (normal or at right angles) to each other, as well as both fields' "vibrations" or oscillations in strength are perpendicular to the axis of propagation. Light is a transverse mode of vibration. Sound waves, or waves in condensed matter fluids generally, are composed of longitudinal vibrations of the particles of which the fluid is composed. They vibrate back in forth in the direction that the wave is going. -At least more or less. if you could follow a molecule of water or a molecule in air (neglecting its Brownian motion from collisions in the dense sea of atoms and molecules) they actually tend to follow circular or elliptical paths, returning to their rest position after the wave has passed.

Light wavers are not like sound waves from the standpoint of the mode of vibration. All waves are the same in that they transport energy from one location to another. They have partial to complete reflection at impedance changes; they have different falloff rates with distance traversed depending on the size and shape of their sources, and they can be refracted through lensing media whose propagation speed differs from that of the initial medium. All waves follow the same forms of mathematical description, in general, with obvious differences between waves in the E/M domain and those in condensed matter. Waves in plasma are different and I do not know enough to help anyone understand them or what they do or even how they propagate.