Stars and photons

[biknewb]

Please take non-EU theory-specific discussions to their relevant topics in the other forums provided (Future of Science, The Human Question, NIAMI).

To me it makes little difference where in the forum a thread is located. But the relevance to EU is rather obvious IMHO as there are several loose ends concerning light. Not the least of which is the intrinsic redshift mechanism.
I do appreciate your concern for a focused forum.

[biknewb]

Although Bill Gaede formulated the theory originally as a rope, it should really be a chain composed of links. I have discussed this with Bill privately and he has raised no objections. The chain retains all the functionality of the original rope while not involving the contradictory assumption of a "continuous yet flexible" entity. The chain also explains some other observational details that I don't need to go into here.

Thanks for the visual clarification. My thinking is very much physically oriented, avoiding mathematics as much as possible. So I have to ask this maybe dumb question: what are the chains and links made of?

[altonhare]

Although Bill Gaede formulated the theory originally as a rope, it should really be a chain composed of links. I have discussed this with Bill privately and he has raised no objections. The chain retains all the functionality of the original rope while not involving the contradictory assumption of a "continuous yet flexible" entity. The chain also explains some other observational details that I don't need to go into here.

Thanks for the visual clarification. My thinking is very much physically oriented, avoiding mathematics as much as possible. So I have to ask this maybe dumb question: what are the chains and links made of?

Analyze your question carefully first:

"What is X made of?" means "What parts/pieces is X comprised of?"

The answer is that a link is a single piece, it is not made of smaller parts/pieces. It is a continuous object. As such it is rigid, undeformable, and unbreakable. It is the fundamental constituent of the universe in chain theory.

Does that make sense?

[biknewb]

The answer is that a link is a single piece, it is not made of smaller parts/pieces. It is a continuous object. As such it is rigid, undeformable, and unbreakable. It is the fundamental constituent of the universe in chain theory.

Does that make sense?

Well, sort of. It tells not what the chain links are physically. If these are filling the universe like a kind of fabric, it sounds a lot like the Aether Physics Unit.
(I hope that isn't too offensive )

[altonhare]

The answer is that a link is a single piece, it is not made of smaller parts/pieces. It is a continuous object. As such it is rigid, undeformable, and unbreakable. It is the fundamental constituent of the universe in chain theory.

Does that make sense?

Well, sort of. It tells not what the chain links are physically. If these are filling the universe like a kind of fabric, it sounds a lot like the Aether Physics Unit.
(I hope that isn't too offensive )

It's not offensive, it helps me see what misconception(s) you have.

First off, there must be a smallest/most fundamental object, right? Everything cannot be composed of smaller things in turn composed of smaller things... and so on. So, would it make any sense to ask what the smallest object is "made of"? It's a single, continuous object. Every GUT/TOE must hypothesize some fundamental object that physically justifies the supposed function(s) of the object. This is inescapable. Which is more likely to be responsible for light and gravity, this:




or perhaps this:

X

?
The structure of the link is such that there is a ball on one end and a socket on the other, these links all fit together.

I don't think the links "fill the universe like a kind of fabric" in the sense you're thinking. Did you watch the H atom and light videos? Loops in the chain form atoms. The straight chain in between atoms is the physical medium along which torsions (light) propagates between atoms. The link is unique in that it has a very specific structure that physically justifies light and gravity. It is defined by its specific shape, a discrete border that another object cannot cross. An interconnected chain-rope is the ONLY structure I know of that can physically justify the observation that light always travels rectilinear. The path is already there between the two atoms! The torsion has no choice but to propagate straight to its destination! The one-way mechanisms of the photon and the wave are powerless to justify this behavior physically. A one-way wave or photon does not care where it was emitted after it is emitted. A two-way diametric chain ensures that light will always travel a rectilinear path.

APM has no physical justification for these phenomena. The aether physics unit is a "do it all" entity imbued with whatever properties are convenient for correlating observations, with no regard to physical causation. Why would something with a "+" symbol on it attract/align with the opposite end of another object with a "-" symbol on it? Why would it move in such a way, with no other object physically intervening? Does Nature care about +'s and -'s we write on a piece of paper? I'm glad you have a physically oriented mind. You should be able to readily see the problem.

[biknewb]

I don't think the links "fill the universe like a kind of fabric" in the sense you're thinking. Did you watch the H atom and light videos? Loops in the chain form atoms. The straight chain in between atoms is the physical medium along which torsions (light) propagates between atoms. The link is unique in that it has a very specific structure that physically justifies light and gravity. It is defined by its specific shape, a discrete border that another object cannot cross.

When I imagine every atom in the universe connected to every other with a chain, the universe is chock-full of chain links.
What happens to my atom's chains when I spin myself round in this office chair? Do they cross each other?

[klypp]

When I imagine every atom in the universe connected to every other with a chain, the universe is chock-full of chain links.

And every chain has loops that forms atoms that must be connected to every other atom with chains that has loops that forms atoms that...

Oh my god, altonhare just proved that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate!!!

He should take his theory to some Big Bang forum and quietly wait for a nobel prize...

[altonhare]

I don't think the links "fill the universe like a kind of fabric" in the sense you're thinking. Did you watch the H atom and light videos? Loops in the chain form atoms. The straight chain in between atoms is the physical medium along which torsions (light) propagates between atoms. The link is unique in that it has a very specific structure that physically justifies light and gravity. It is defined by its specific shape, a discrete border that another object cannot cross.

When I imagine every atom in the universe connected to every other with a chain, the universe is chock-full of chain links.
What happens to my atom's chains when I spin myself round in this office chair? Do they cross each other?

As Klypp so kindly explained for me, each atom is essentially an aggregate of loops of chain. The atom does not move by translating each link in one direction in unison. There is no net translation of the chain itself, the atom moves more like a bead on an abacus. The atom takes in chain in its direction of travel and lets out chain in the other direction. So when you twirl in your chair all the atoms are sliding along a (more or less) static web. Webolife draws on the slinky analogy. If you hold one end of a slinky and your friend holds the other and you push on the slinky you will see a compact group of slinky-circles "moving" from you to your friend. The slinky-circle you pushed on didn't actually move to the end, rather it collided with the circle in front of it, which collided with the next one and so on and so forth. What we think of as "particles" are really aggregates of loops of chain that move like this, we refer to this type of motion as a "longitudinal wave".

To understand this in more detail imagine holding a looped chain, one end in either hand. There are at least two ways we can imagine the loop "moving". We can either move our hands side to side, translating the entire chain (loop included of course) from side to side. Or we could tilt our hands to the side and watch the loop move side to side while the endpoints of the chain remain more or less stationary. This is what we mean when we say a particle "moves like a wave". We cannot simulate the actual chain's behavior perfectly with a macroscopic chain because the links in the Chain are continuous, they engage in only perfectly elastic collision. When the first link of chain moves forward it collides with the next link, which collides with the next link and so on until the first link in the loop is hit. This link is at an angle. The collision changes its angle causing it to pull on the next link, changing its angle, and so on and so forth.

This is somewhat difficult to visualize/conceptualize, but I think it makes sense.

[biknewb]

Okay I can follow your description. I am going to visualise the universe for a while your way.
In the meantime I'm still trying to devise an experiment to test the validity of different light-models.

[altonhare]

Okay I can follow your description. I am going to visualise the universe for a while your way.
In the meantime I'm still trying to devise an experiment to test the validity of different light-models.

I would love to brainstorm such experiments with you if you want to PM me your ideas we can 'storm together.

[klypp]

Webolife draws on the slinky analogy. If you hold one end of a slinky and your friend holds the other and you push on the slinky you will see a compact group of slinky-circles "moving" from you to your friend. The slinky-circle you pushed on didn't actually move to the end, rather it collided with the circle in front of it, which collided with the next one and so on and so forth. What we think of as "particles" are really aggregates of loops of chain that move like this, we refer to this type of motion as a "longitudinal wave".

I can see you've switched from a wire to a chain in your clothesrope. And you've also replaced the torsional wave with a longitudinal wave. Good idea! Since torsional waves really doesn't travel far in a chain...
Ooops! Came to think of it, longitudinal waves doesn't either...

[biknewb]

Okay I can follow your description. I am going to visualise the universe for a while your way.
In the meantime I'm still trying to devise an experiment to test the validity of different light-models.

I would love to brainstorm such experiments with you if you want to PM me your ideas we can 'storm together.

The basic experiment is simple: fire a photoflash close to a resonating surface like a metal plate. The burst of light produces a sound. This proves light can exert mechanical force. The question arises: is the flash apparatus experiencing a recoil force?
I would like to set up an experiment where the timing of the recoil is determined. In the standard photon model, it is a gun shot situation. In Sansbury's model, the recoil force is gradually exerted. It is even imaginable the recoil is not felt until the flash hits something.

We need a powerful laser and a distant target for this, I think, and it is probably better to do it in space. I'm still thinking of a simpler set-up suitable to do at home.

Update: Just google "recoil laser" and find a "cool" world of atom-photon interaction experiments!
I'll be off now, studying thousands of hits.

[altonhare]

Webolife draws on the slinky analogy. If you hold one end of a slinky and your friend holds the other and you push on the slinky you will see a compact group of slinky-circles "moving" from you to your friend. The slinky-circle you pushed on didn't actually move to the end, rather it collided with the circle in front of it, which collided with the next one and so on and so forth. What we think of as "particles" are really aggregates of loops of chain that move like this, we refer to this type of motion as a "longitudinal wave".

I can see you've switched from a wire to a chain in your clothesrope. And you've also replaced the torsional wave with a longitudinal wave. Good idea! Since torsional waves really doesn't travel far in a chain...
Ooops! Came to think of it, longitudinal waves doesn't either...

Klypp it's apparent you have no clue with regards to rope/chain theory. Since other people seem to understand with the same explanations I've given you I can only assume you are either very dense or intentionally misunderstanding so you can justify making comments like this.

[biknewb]

Alton,
Thinking of chain theory I already figured out that in a finite universe the strings may not exert any pulling force. The universe would contract into a knot of unimaginable proportions if they did.

Question: Is a chain connecting every atom, or also every subatomic particle? If a chain connects only complete atoms, what happens with fissioning and fusing atoms?

[altonhare]

Alton,
Thinking of chain theory I already figured out that in a finite universe the strings may not exert any pulling force. The universe would contract into a knot of unimaginable proportions if they did.

Not a "knot of unimaginable proportions", just a knot. There's no problem with all the matter in the universe contracting into a knot. This "knot" state does not have to be permanent. At close distances atoms/loops repel each other. Just try to put two loops in a chain then tilt the ends of the chain so that the loops come close together. You will find that it becomes extremely difficult to merge the loops together. This is the "push" that balances the pull.

There's no reason to toss out the possibility that all the knots in the universe are coming together, then pushing apart, etc. ad nauseum.

Question: Is a chain connecting every atom, or also every subatomic particle? If a chain connects only complete atoms, what happens with fissioning and fusing atoms?

Very good question, since nobody has been able to answer it. Like I said elsewhere, I have plans to simulate fusion under chain theory. Current theories of "physics" can model these phenomena mathematically, they can correlate the deer population, but they cannot tell us why they observe what they do. They cannot tell us why the deer die. With some deeper, focused investigation I plan to address this problem.

It is important to keep in mind that accelerator experiments, fission, fusion, etc. have all been interpreted in terms of discrete particles. If the data they are getting, if what they are observing, is not actually a discrete particle it has to be completely re analyzed.

One good example is the "photographic plate" you see from atom-smasher experiments, showing multitudes of lines emanating from a common source. The standard model poses that each of these is a trace of a particle. In chain theory what they are detecting are the chains themselves extending from a common source. Therefore "particle" accelerators are not really breaking up atoms into smaller and smaller particles but rather are disturbing the web of chain in their vicinity to a greater and greater extent (what they refer to as higher and higher energy). The more they disturb the local web of chain the more "traces of particles" (chains) they observe.

There is of course the possibility that the atom is more complex than chain theory proposes, but unfortunately all the observationally-specific knowledge is interpreted in terms of particles and simply correlated mathematically. Nobody is analyzing the mountains of data in terms of chains and the theory remains in its infancy at present.