The Details of Thread Theory

[seasmith]

GC,


The eyes, masks, goggles ...??

See the A. Peratt's "Characteristics ... Z-Pinch ... Antiquty, etc" paper i was reminding you and Kevin of just lately.
Assumed they were obvious too all.

[Now where's that damn link...]

[seasmith]

~
Where were we discussing that "moon calender" whatsit ?

[Grey Cloud]

GC,


The eyes, masks, goggles ...??

See the A. Peratt's "Characteristics ... Z-Pinch ... Antiquty, etc" paper i was reminding you and Kevin of just lately.
Assumed they were obvious too all.

[Now where's that damn link...]

That's the one. I've got got a memory like a wadyamacallit.
I think it's this one:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... quityZ.pdf

[bboyer]

GC,


The eyes, masks, goggles ...??

See the A. Peratt's "Characteristics ... Z-Pinch ... Antiquty, etc" paper i was reminding you and Kevin of just lately.
Assumed they were obvious too all.

[Now where's that damn link...]

That's the one. I've got got a memory like a wadyamacallit.
I think it's this one:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... quityZ.pdf

(click image for larger view)

[altonhare]

You think its your own private thingy dingy, but my own comparative methodology has shown that indeed I do understand both models and both lingos.

Perhaps you do. Help me believe you, explain a phenomenon of Nature with the rope hypothesis in your own words.

Once your up to speed on Scalar ropes, maybe you can join in on the above thread, which you missed, because your theory was brought up several times, but strangely you remained silent...
and you need to go back and redo dimensions...because Alton you missed something else, and your maybe not aware of it, but hopefully not advoiding the issue of your height...again your silence was hopefully not intentional, you know having to admit your wrong...

Your implication that I am somehow running away with my tail between my legs seems malicious to me and is not appreciated. Sometimes people work Wed-Frid, have time for maybe one post, then spend the weekend with their fiancee.

Has the author granted you the privledge of speaking for him?

Yes. Explicitly. Ask him.

By the way, a 4 bear running is meanless to everyone.

This is a sentence of identical form to one you used to describe a "dual charge unit".

[quote="Junglelord]A 2pi string of angular momentum[/quote]

From cymatics effects to the visuals with ferro-fluids, cyclic dynamic "integration/disintegration/reintegration" (as one way to term it) is a natural and expected occurrence in wholistic systems.

I don't see how cymatics and ferro fluids resolve the question of why a thing (object) would sometimes pass through another thing and sometimes not.

So what is the difference between the electromagnetic serpentine "ropes" of TT and the "2pi string" of APM?

The rope is 3D. It is also interconnects all atoms continuously. I don't see how a 2D object can accomplish this. As far as the rope hypothesis is concerned, 2D objects do not exist because they lack location. This is part of what I'm talking about when I mention "different philosophical foundations".

If a theory is correct, how can it be out of phase? Unless like Ed Whitten showed that five string theories were five ways of seeing the same thing.

It's illogical to say that a theory/explanation is right or wrong. Your belief in a theory can be right or wrong.

Think of a murder case. One theory is that the butler did it and another is that the maid did it. The two theories are rational because the dead owner has a knife stuck to his chest and was hated by both the butler and the maid who were the only two people present, etc, etc. But only one of them could have put the knife in his chest. A supernatural theory would claim that an angel sent by the Lord did it. An irrational theory may claim that the puncture was made by a 1D knife.

The jurors now deliberate and reach their conclusions (what they believe individually pursuant to their predispositions). Conclusions are wrong or right. Hypotheses and theories are rational or irrational.

The status quo is that most of the world believes in supernatural explanations. The scary part is that the scholars who have studied at the U and are supposed to defend rationality against traditional religion have gone in the wrong direction. They propose irrational explanations.

Something again that Bill must being indicating as he has a DNA braid, so there must be three units....not one. When infact he is right and there is. I merely take it the one step further and say its EM, ES, Aether. That is the triple helix.

Bill's rope is explicitly a two strand rope. He says "DNA like" to help you understand its structure, not to indicate there are "3 units".

The modeling likely suffers from lack of an EU/PC orientation, as well as lacking vibratory physics (e.g. cymatics, harmonic resonance et al)

Bill's stance is that we haven't rationally explained the most basic phenomena yet, and so can't possibly hope to explain more complicated phenomena.

Just a thought: some of the images posted above by Arc-us appear spookily similar to some ancient images I have seen. I will try to track them down. I'm surprised Seasmith hasn't spotted it.

Not too surprising, since I presume the iron and lodestone the ancients looked at was more or less the same as what we look at.

[junglelord]

Junglelord wrote:
By the way, a 4 bear running is meanless to everyone.
Alton wrote
This is a sentence of identical form to one you used to describe a "dual charge unit".

You know alton your a joke.


Not funny at all, just stiff.


You have some rude ways which really turned me off from you at the beginning, this is exactly why.

Your inablitiy to admit your ever wrong is a joke.

As far as Bill giving you expressed permission to be his voice on this forum, I do not believe it.
Dave Thomson has publicly on this very forum expressed his consent for me to teach APM at a very good level of understanding....

Unless I see the same from Bill, by his own hand, I fail to believe you.

Does Alton understand Scalar Ropes?
No, and infact he is afraid that the Scalar Video is the rope hypthosis and will not admit it.

Is a dual charge unit real?
does a bear shit in the woods?

Maybe you can understand that alton.

[altonhare]

A 2pi string of angular momentum...becomes encapsulated by

A <quantity> <concrete noun> of <mass*velocity X r> becomes encapsulated by...

A 4 bear running becomes encapsulated by....

A <quantity> <concrete noun> <velocity> becomes encapsulated by...

I don't see how the second sentence is structurally different from the first.

I think, with the "rotating magnetic field", of which JL is speaking, this *might* be where the "space" wherein "rotation" via quaternions enter the dynamic. It will probably turn out to be fruitless to explain it any other way as that would seem to be the missing component.

You two are like Maxwell's equations and Gibbs when it comes to this.

Thanks Solar, that makes a bit more sense, but this is unscientific language imo. As far as the underlying philosophy of the rope hypothesis is concerned, events are not explained by mathematical models. Nature doesn't behave a certain way because our equations changed a certain way. Before the equations can have meaning we first need objects. Without referents to objects an equation is just a quantitative correlation, and correlation != causation. How does this twirly object presented result in magnetic attraction? We don't need equations to resolve a qualitative issue.

You claim to not know of magnetic fields?

Name a single instance of me stating this.

Which is the Scalar field in the first place. Which you totally skipped.

The video is long, I'll watch it as soon as I can.

Speaking of rotating magnetic fields (i.e. RMF's - need a scorecard just to keep up with all the acronyms )

Those were soooo cool. I think it would be really interesting to try "semi chaotic" setups i.e. asymmetric arrangements of magnets, electromagnets with particular on/off patterns (or increasing/decreasing in various ways), and possibly introducing a heater to put temperature control into the mix later on. The interesting part would be to see what kinds of cyclical patterns emerge (if any!) and how long they take to cycle around. Indeed, I would guess that over sufficiently long times some kind of cycle would always emerge as long as your inputs cycle in some way (which, over sufficiently long times, they inevitably do...). It would essentially reduce to an experiment in process controls, analyzing step, unit, ramp, etc. inputs and the fluid's responses.

it is impossible to measure what does not exist.

Are you sure? How many times did you fail to measure something nonexistent before you decided this was a foregone conclusion? Or does this follow directly from your definition of "measure" and "exist"?

Your name Bill or Alton?

My name's Balton Haede, don't wear it out.

Yes because atoms give and take photons all the time...so I equate e- with photons.

i give and take money with my fiancee all the time, shall we equate our hands with dollars?

The question is what are they doing and how when they exchange? It is not just an exchange of energy, that means nothing.

In the rope hypothesis, the electron shell expands and torques the 2-strand ropes to which it is attached. This torsion causes an increase in the number of links per unit length (frequency) which propagates to the next atom, where the process is repeated and continues.

They exchange spin, which is more properly called angular momentum.

In the philosophical and logical foundation of the rope hypothesis, "exchanging spin" is meaningless. To talk about this one must, at a minimum, point to an object that is spinning. I understand that the moving and exchanging of concepts is linguistically and practically easier and more efficient, but in Gaede's formulation it is the objects themselves that are at the center of inquiry, they are the stars in this play, the main actors on stage. The concepts are just the convenient shorthand words the people watching the play use to discuss it. The shorthand words don't have meaning without explicit referents to the actors, props, etc.

So really an e- is just "frozen" light....or a photon is an e- expanding at c.

This makes sense. Since the rope is light and all atoms are comprised of it, atoms can be thought of as "frozen light". I'm not sure the electron shell has to expand at c, this is a quantitative issue not a qualitative one.

The basic issue of c and such is the fundamentally compressibility of the thread. Since it is flexible (and by extension compressible) its flexibility does place an upper limit on how fast any signal can be transmitted, for some of the same reasons involved with the speed of sound in various materials.

That's the one. I've got got a memory like a wadyamacallit.
I think it's this one:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... quityZ.pdf

Indeed, people have probably been staring at these patterns at least for millennia. The fundamental structure consistent with these patterns is the thread (or chain). Gaede's theory presents a fundamental structure consistent with all observations I know of. He eschews generating quantitative models and correlations as a distraction from discovering what the fundamental constituency *is*, rather than the former which primarily examines how it *behaves*.

[altonhare]

Some of Gaede's comments on the Harvard Tower experiment, and some more detailed comments on thread theory with regards to large scale cosmology:

You should also factor that ropes coming from distant atoms will not have the same freq as those from nearby. Indeed, for all we know, they may not have any freq at all. Recall that one interpretation of the Harvard Tower Exp is that the ropes seem to have longer links the farther they are from the source. It is conceivable that in LY distances the rope unwinds at some point and either continues unwound to an atom or rewinds as it extends into it.

Hyp 1:

Atom twined unwound unwound atom

Hyp 2:

Atom twined unwound twined atom

Let's go with H1. Assuming these threads do not twine again, they would not contribute to light locally yet they would still converge to form a single thread and, thus, contribute to the structure of the atom. In this scenario, detectable light has a limited range and we are consistent with the results of Harvard.

In other words, under H1, the unwound threads extending outwards from our atom are actually incoming threads from distant objects. These threads contribute to structure, but neither affect light nor gravity locally. Light and gravity are phenomena that require an EM rope configuration.

Under this Hyp, the galaxies would still tend to attract each other despite the breathtaking distances because the ropes are still torquing to the point where they unwind.

(Look at Fig 7.15, Tired Light. Assume now that the EM rope unwinds and remains that way all the way to Galaxy B. The unwound Hyp would provide a different interpretation.)

Specifically in reference to the Stanford Linear Accelerator image presented on the H atom video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

[Influx]

Thread theory is a stillbirth. Treating em radiation as if it was 2d . While pointing out the problems with the current scientific dogma, the proponents of thread theory themselves became one. Em radiation expands out, say, from an antenna, in a sphere, am I to believe that that em sphere somehow rides the "ropes". Thread theory sounds like the ultimate failure of mechanistic reduction. All in all, nice one, but how about some experimental evidence. After all what is a theory without proof? Meaningless babel! Instead of trying to prove it conceptually, how about some experiments? Because you know what they say, if you get it right on paper it will work in reality. From reading all the "paper" posts on this theory I can say there has been plenty of paper! Or will this be another pet theory that muddies the waters for a while and then fades away into the collective refuse heap of human knowledge.

[altonhare]

Thread theory is a stillbirth. Treating em radiation as if it was 2d . While pointing out the problems with the current scientific dogma, the proponents of thread theory themselves became one.

You have no idea, on earth, what you're talking about.

[Influx]

And you do? I have a pet theory too. The theory of simplicity. No experimental proof = useless gibberish! I could sit here all eternity and make stuff up, but at the end wheres the proof?

[Influx]

Take heart you are not alone!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ps ... e_sciences

http://www.cosmology.info/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology

http://www.sciencecentral.com/category/322

http://deoxy.org/hs_phys.htm

http://www.halexandria.org/dward118.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theories

http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory

http://www.quackwatch.org/

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... ociety.htm

http://www.shiftgood1.com/index.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... nline-news

"He goes on to list five common characteristics of pseudo-scientists.

1. The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2. He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").
3. He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.
4. Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.
5. He coins neologisms".

Wikipedia, "So say we all"


Welcome to the club

[sadunkal]

Influx, your approach is inappropriate and unscientific. I suggest you take more time to examine Gaede's arguments. If you won't do that, then at least show the courtesy to let this thread be so that those who're sincerely interested can discuss the theory.

[junglelord]

Thread theory is a stillbirth. Treating em radiation as if it was 2d . While pointing out the problems with the current scientific dogma, the proponents of thread theory themselves became one. Em radiation expands out, say, from an antenna, in a sphere, am I to believe that that em sphere somehow rides the "ropes". Thread theory sounds like the ultimate failure of mechanistic reduction. All in all, nice one, but how about some experimental evidence. After all what is a theory without proof? Meaningless babel! Instead of trying to prove it conceptually, how about some experiments? Because you know what they say, if you get it right on paper it will work in reality. From reading all the "paper" posts on this theory I can say there has been plenty of paper! Or will this be another pet theory that muddies the waters for a while and then fades away into the collective refuse heap of human knowledge.

As a matter of fact Alton he knows exactly what he is talking about....EM, ie charge, is never anything but 3-D....Distributed.


You say a 2D string of mass is not possible.
Well its very clear that all charge is distributed and 2D charge is impossible.


I often thought you did not understand charge in the slightest....I see now that I was right.

[altonhare]

No experimental proof = useless gibberish! I could sit here all eternity and make stuff up, but at the end wheres the proof?

A short list of the experiments the rope hypothesis explains:

Rectilinear propagation of light
Observed constancy of the speed of light
Observed relationship c=f*w
Quantization (BBR, discrete absorption and emission spectra)
EPR
Slit experiment
Cavendish torsion balance experiment (gravity)
Magnetism and its observed coupling to electric current
Photoelectric effect
Diffraction/refraction