webolife wrote:<...> Working backwards through this train of thought, a number of things need to be clarified, eg, what is the meaning of:
1. Waves
a. Transverse
b. Longitudinal
c. Standing
d. Electromagnetic [the differences between relativistic, typical EU, and various aetherial meanings]
e. Spirals, Vortices, and fractals... are these synonyms or descriptions of waves, causes or effects of waves?
2. Matter vs mass, is matter just waves/energy? By the way what exactly is energy?
3. Electrogravity, gravity vs electrostatics, is gravity just electrostatic fields at a macro level?
4. Energy vs Force -- is there a really a fundamental, not just formulaic, difference, and how does this affect all the formulations of physics?
5. Magnetism -- is it the fundamental process, or is it a [subsidiary?] orthogonal component to the fundamental electric field?
6. Energy, waves, forces, and geometry... does anyone really understand how these all relate to the physical universe?
7. Dimensions -- fundamental elements? properties of matter? measurements? aspects of space? theoretical constructs?
Primary angular momentum is not a fundamental building block of
Aether. Primary angular momentum is a fundamental building block
of matter. Only when primary angular momentum is absorbed by an
Aether unit, and thus charge and mass are united, there is a
subatomic particle.
Dave Thomson
Primary Angular Momentum
17. How can we best describe subatomic particles and Atoms?
Answer Page 40
Atoms are more like multilayered, discrete, shimmering clouds. Each layer contains proportionally enormous amounts of energy and shimmers at a different and precise electromagnetic frequency. Only when atoms interact with one another in large numbers do they behave as expected in their classical state, what scientists call the visible world. In APM these multilayered clouds are the angular momentum of individual onta. Since these onta are the smallest stable form of material existence, it is proper to the view the onta as primary angular momentum. When we take the literal dimension of primary angular momentum we find that there is a mass dimension, they are two length dimensions, and there is a frequency dimension. Expressed in terms of quantum measurements angular momentum is
h = m(e) x Lq^2 x Fq
h = planck constant which is the APM quantum constant for angular momentum
m(e) = mass of the electron
Lq = quantum constant of Compton wavelength
Fq = quantum constant of c/Lq = 1.2358898 x 10^20Hz
18. What is a good way to visualize primary angular momentum?
Answer Page 40-41
One way to visualize this is to see a line of mass moving perpendicular at a velocity. Take a straight object, like a pencil and hold it in front of you. The pencil represents a mass times length. In one quick motion move the pencil at a velocity perpendicular to its length across a table. The blurred image you see graphically represents the nature of primary angular momentum. Of course, an electron is not literally a straight line moving sideways. We must take into account the curvature of the Aether double loxodrome structure. Since the onn mass has to fit in the small circumference of the loxodrome tube, the line of mass would appear as a circle. Ligamen circulatus (LC) names this line of mass. The perpendicular path of the line of mass as it moves sideways also traces out a circular path. The resulting geometry is toroidal. The toroid, however, traces on as a sphere and from pole to pole, when viewed in space-resonance coordinates. When viewed in space-time coordinates as with human perception, the shape is actually that of a cardioid. The Aether imparts, and thus accounts for, the spin in the loxodrome structure of the onn. APM full equations for the toroid like geometry of primary angular momentum and its relationship to spin will be examined later.
19. What are the general characteristics of primary angular momentum?
Answer Page 41
Primary angular momentum is a circumferential line (ligament circulatus) moving sideways, the onto have only two dimension of length. The curvature of Aether acts as a mold and imparts geometry to the onta. The ligament circulators moves in time, which means that the onn exist as a function of time between one moment and the next moment. Time is consequently, a component of onta. We could not perceive time and space with our bodies if our senses were not composed of primary angular momentum. Primary angular momentum is the first cause of physical perception, intimately related to the distributed frequency or resonance of the Aether. Because the ligament circulators moves perpendicular to its circumference, in order to scan an area (strong charge), the onta are not solid. They more closely resemble a cloud, as does the scanned area of a pencil moving back and forth in our vision. It is the scanning of primary angular momentum, which gives onta the appearances of a wave and a particle. Primary angular momentum explains why onta can appear as particles when we look at their strong charge, and can appear as waves when we look at the moving LC. Yet these are only appearances. The particulate and wave nature of primary angular momentum are illusions, having meaning only from our macro perspective. The reality of the onn structure is primary angular momentum and nothing else. Interestingly, photons can also appear as primary angular momentum, except that they are also exploding outward at the speed of light.
Empirically, the angular momentum of a quantum electron is equal
to the angular momentum of a quantum photon. The photon radiates
from an atom in the pattern of a cardioid, as shown in the
Compton experiments. The APM shows the electron and positron are
directly linked to photons in all respects except that photons
are equal to electrons times the speed of light. You can't say
something like that from the Standard Model, but it is fully
quantified in the APM.
Dave Thomson
Kaluza - Klein Five Dimensional Model - page 292- 293
In the standard model of particle physics, particles or points moving through space, tracing out a “World Line”. To take into account the different interactions observed, one has to provide particles with additional degrees of freedom beyond position and velocity, including mass, electric charge, color charge and spin. In string theory, all particle types are replaced by a single fundamental building block called a string.
The goal here is to try to visualize a basic string-like theory as developed by Kaluza - Klein. Kaluza first developed this method in 1919. In his original work it was shown that if we start with a theory of general relativity and five-space time dimension's and then curl up one of the dimension's into a circle we end up with a four dimensional theory of general relativity plus electromagnetism. If we assume that the electron has a degree of freedom corresponding to a point on a circle and that this point is free to very on the circle as we move around in space time, we find that the theory must contain the photon and that the electron obeys the equations of motion of electromagnetism. In 1926 Oskar Klein extended this idea. Instead of assuming total Independence of the extra dimension, he assumed it to be compact. This means the fifth dimension would have the topology of a circle with the radius of the order of the Planck length. The Kaluza Klein mechanism simply gives a geometric explanation for the circle. It comes from an actual fifth dimension that has been curled up.
The object represents a superimposition of three objects if viewed in 3-D slices. A helix in the w-x-z coordinates, a sine wave in the x-y-z coordinates, and a circle in the w-x-y coordinates. Being viewed in these three-dimensional slices the object can be defined as both open and close-ended. We will define the four dimensional object as representing light. Maxwell’s wave theory will be shown to be defined by the sine wave into x-y-z coordinates, while the quantum nature of light will be defined by the helix’s end points rotating on the circle in the w-x-y coordinates.
The only thing you didn't touch on, broken record here, is my claim for the instantaneity of light action across distance, centropically directed.
Care to tackle that?
The problem to understand basic charge is that it can best be described as space itself moving in three-dimensional time. Imagine something that simultaneously rotates in three dimensions in place. Since one-dimensional time is a common human and scientific misconception it might take a little while to grasp the concept...but it is really not different from three dimensional space.
klypp wrote:StevenO:The problem to understand basic charge is that it can best be described as space itself moving in three-dimensional time. Imagine something that simultaneously rotates in three dimensions in place. Since one-dimensional time is a common human and scientific misconception it might take a little while to grasp the concept...but it is really not different from three dimensional space.
Is this supposed to make any sense???
Or is it just another derivate from Einsteins Special Relativity Absurdity?
Seems to me Thornhill had a very, very good advice:
Forget Einstein!
klypp wrote:It all started when he postulated that the speed of light is constant and the same for any observer regardless of their motion relative to each other. This is absurd. Nothing, not even the mysterious light can perform the kind of acrobatics needed for this.
It seems like Einstein himself didn't hold on to this "theory" for long. But others did, and they most often make sure to mention Einstein when they need to tell the world about their absurd "findings". It has become the way of lending credibility to thoughts noone really understands.
StevenO wrote:klypp wrote:It all started when he postulated that the speed of light is constant and the same for any observer regardless of their motion relative to each other. This is absurd. Nothing, not even the mysterious light can perform the kind of acrobatics needed for this.
Why is a constant propagation speed for EM waves so absurd? Just look what happens when waves propagate in water or how sound propagates through air.
arc-us wrote:StevenO wrote:klypp wrote:It all started when he postulated that the speed of light is constant and the same for any observer regardless of their motion relative to each other. This is absurd. Nothing, not even the mysterious light can perform the kind of acrobatics needed for this.
Why is a constant propagation speed for EM waves so absurd? Just look what happens when waves propagate in water or how sound propagates through air.
Improper and invalid use in the function of a constant. Constants should only be fundamental units, should they not? Using a measured speed of light in vacuum (whatever that means) as a constant constitutes the use of duplicated units (m/sec; a meter and a second are fundamental units; m/sec is not a fundamental unit but a measurement value and is not "constant" but variable). See this post, viewtopic.php?f=8&t=508#p5205. Waves propagating in water or sound through air are not used as mathematical constants are they?
StevenO wrote:You have totally confused me now... Are'nt all physics constants measured first and then declared a constant for convenience in simplifying our formula's?
Since the space and time dimensions are human conceptions and lightspeed is a universelly observed constant in a medium I would prefer the lightspeed constant in physics anytime over a purely mathematical conception (length/time). As proof you can see that length and time units in physics are both derived from lightspeed properties.
Louis Essen wrote:One was the assumption that the velocity of light is constant. This is contrary to the foundations of science and the fact that it is repeated in all the textbooks I have seen, shows how little these foundations are understood by theoretical physicists. Science is based on the results of experiment and these results must be expressed in a single coherent set of units. The unit of length was the metre and the unit of time was the second. Velocity was a measured quantity as so many metres per second. Even though it was found to be constant under certain conditions, it was quite wrong to make it a constant by definition under all conditions. Only the unit of measurement can be made constant by definition and Einstein’s assumption constituted a duplication of units. It was this duplication that led to puzzling and contradictory results and not the profundity of the theory as relativitists like us to believe.
StevenO wrote:As proof you can see that length and time units in physics are both derived from lightspeed properties.
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest