The Details of Thread Theory

[Influx]

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.

Ok bye ya'all! Let the disintegration of the humans conceptual faculty continue without me. Gummy bears and toothpicks !

[webolife]

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

In fact, this is why I keep paying attention to the rope/chain theory , because it explains the same things as my uft, and in a similar way, with the exception of a couple things... in my view:
light is a one-way action
instantaneity is a form of constancy
c=f*w is unnecessary, and/or explanable without reference to wave-photons propagating through space
I don't need to skirt around the issue of how ropes or chains pass unscathed through each other, since my vectors need not meet your hyper-rigorous criteria of continuous "objects" as your chains do.

[altonhare]

I don't need to skirt around the issue of how ropes or chains pass unscathed through each other, since my vectors need not meet your hyper-rigorous criteria of continuous "objects" as your chains do.

Skirt around? That's a bit dishonest, I've stated clearly that chains do not pass through each other, and have explained how this works.

Vectors are mathematical constructs. Where are the objects? Who are the actors in the play we call light? Do atoms simply influence each other "through nothing"? Isn't a rope/chain a direct upgrade, in terms of parsimony and rationality, over AAD?

instantaneity is a form of constancy

If light is "instantaneous" but it takes us some finite interval to detect its effect, why would we detect a constant velocity regardless of how far away the light source is?

Objects A and B are at distance D. Object A excites to A* and B "instantly" excites to B* "in response". We detect B* in time t. The *measured* velocity of light is D/t

Objects A and B are at distance 10*D but still takes t to detect (same atom B). To be consistent with an "instantaneous" mechanism we would measure the velocity of light as 10*D/t. But this is not what happens in practice, in practice we get D/t every time.

I have yet to imagine (and you have yet to show me) any conceivable way to surmount this empirical contradiction. This neverminding the philosophical issues of instantaneity/causation.

[Influx]

I could just as easily replace ropes with a 3d em shell. The vibration of the em shell can cause either constructive interference, attraction, or destructive interference, repulsion.

[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

I'm sorry, by "Stanford Linear Accelerator" I meant "Brookhaven".

[webolife]

Alton, I'm not trying to be dishonest. I think it was I actually that gave an "out" for you on ropes passing through each other using the slinky analogy. But since then you have not explained how chains connecting every object in the universe need not interact with each other in the "middle". Is the interaction totally elastic? Are there myriads of these interactions "slowing down" the interaction between more distant objects as opposed to nearer objects? Are they like multitudes of Newton's cradles all oriented in their own chaotic fashion throughout space? And by the way, I still think that Bill G is saying his ropes are in fact passing through each other... you can find the reference faster than I. Can you actually describe the shape of your ball-socket chain links, and how these objects fill everything "undetected?" How do your chains explain opacity? How do atoms "draw in" these links in "across distance" interactions? Just saying it is so is not an explanation, and I've read every one of your posts.

[altonhare]

Alton, I'm not trying to be dishonest. I think it was I actually that gave an "out" for you on ropes passing through each other using the slinky analogy.

The slinky analogy was helpful in illustrating to people how the mechanism works. Bill originally proposed the mechanism, he did not need an "out", although your analogy was helpful for many people to understand better.

But since then you have not explained how chains connecting every object in the universe need not interact with each other in the "middle".

They "need not" exactly because of what you just said... atoms don't move by the length of chain itself translating, they move "like a wave". Even if these long stretches of chain did occasionally bump into each other, I do not see how this is explicitly contradictory to any observation I know of. In fact it seems fully consistent with the description of "quantum fluctuations" constantly occurring.

Is the interaction totally elastic?

Are you asking if motion is conserved? Of course it is, or the universe would eventually grind to a halt.

Are there myriads of these interactions "slowing down" the interaction between more distant objects as opposed to nearer objects? Are they like multitudes of Newton's cradles all oriented in their own chaotic fashion throughout space?

I'm not even sure what this means.

And by the way, I still think that Bill G is saying his ropes are in fact passing through each other... you can find the reference faster than I.

He does, but not in the vids, in the book. But there is an extensive discussion to go along with it.

Can you actually describe the shape of your ball-socket chain links, and how these objects fill everything "undetected?"

I've described the shape before. Obviously I don't know it's exact shape quantitatively but I can know its essential qualitative features. It is probably cylindrical. At one end of the cylinder there is a very skinny stem and on the end of this stem is a ball. The other end of the cylinder is hollowed out such that a ball fits inside, but cannot escape. By this I mean the opening of the hollow is slightly more narrow than the diameter of the ball. The ball of each link fits inside the hollow of the next link, the totality of which we call a chain.

They don't "fill everything". They are also, obviously, not "undetected". We detect them every moment we're alive .

How do your chains explain opacity?

The same way the ropes do, do you understand how TT does?

How do atoms "draw in" these links in "across distance" interactions?

Are you talking about gravitation? I want to answer but please clarify a bit.

[webolife]

They don't "fill everything". They are also, obviously, not "undetected". We detect them every moment we're alive .


webolife wrote:
How do your chains explain opacity?


The same way the ropes do, do you understand how TT does?


webolife wrote:
How do atoms "draw in" these links in "across distance" interactions?


Are you talking about gravitation? I want to answer but please clarify a bit.

Help me with the opacity question.
OK, explain gravitation again in terms of how atoms draw in chain links. Don't just say that's what they do.
Considering the sheer density of the universe, at least the one we're familiar with, how do your chain links not fill up pretty much everything? Aren't you going out on a bit of a limb here, saying you don't know the precise shape of chain links, yet your theory is based on them? Define "quantum fluctuations".

[Influx]

What are these ropes made out of? Em ropes? Means what? They are made of a magnetic and an electric fields? What is the magnetic field? The electric? The magnetic field, repulsion and attraction, is explained by the physical interaction of the ropes? As video number nine says? So the ropes make the magnetic field, and the magnetic field makes the ropes? What are the ropes then? Light? What is light then? Can these ropes be cut? Bent and tangled? What is the electric field them? What is it made out of? Ropes? What are ropes made out of then? They are em? Ropes make em? Em makes ropes? Please explain.

[altonhare]

Considering the sheer density of the universe, at least the one we're familiar with, how do your chain links not fill up pretty much everything?

Because asking "how do the chain links not fill up everything" is an illogical question. Every-thing = every-link. There are no other things for the links to "fill up".

Aren't you going out on a bit of a limb here, saying you don't know the precise shape of chain links, yet your theory is based on them?

Science is not about quantifying. Science is qualitative. A measurement doesn't mean anything until you know, qualitatively, what you're measuring. Otherwise it's just a bunch of numbers. Measurement and quantification come later, explaining qualitatively comes first. How will you interpret your data, except in terms of an initial qualitative hypothesis?

Define "quantum fluctuations".

Quantum physicists talk about the (essentially random) change in something they call "energy". They have no idea what they're talking about, all they know is that their mathematical models match experiment, and the models and experiments seem to detect a lot of "jitter" in their instruments. By this I mean, the needles on their oscilloscopes wiggle up and down without cause (even when they think they've accounted for experimental resolution).

A possible rational, causal explanation for this is that the chains between here and there are constantly bumping back and forth into each other, resulting in lots of "twitter" on their dials and screens. They incongruously think its due to the uncertainty principle, as if an object can actually be here AND there AND over there at the same time. This is no better than religion. The object IS somewhere, regardless of the inadequacy of your model and measurement to determine exactly where it is.

Help me with the opacity question.

Well, "opacity" isn't really a fundamental phenomenon of nature, it's more a phenomenon of humans because we can only see visible light. Every material is "opaque" or "transparent" to one degree or another to various wavelengths of light. This is simple on a fundamental level (shell expands, torques rope, next shell compresses, then expands, torques, and so on) but complicated when talking about why atoms retransmit light at different frequencies than they absorbed. I think this is essentially what you're talking about when you mention "opacity". The frequency an atom retransmits has a lot to do with its mobility, if it is less mobile than the atom which sent the signal it will retransmit at a lower frequency and vice versa. Additionally the relative size of the two shells affects the frequencies one will retransmit relative to the other. Therefore the atoms of some materials will completely retransmit some frequencies but complete absorb others (while retransmitting light of a different frequency).

If this is not clear, or the mechanisms are not clear to you, or you just don't understand, let me know and I'll try again.

[Influx]

So no answer? You think I was being flippant? My questions are legit. You spent a lot of time describing what the ropes do and how, but not what they ARE. The claim is made that the ropes, or threads, are light, or are electromagnetic. The ropes are a twine, basically, of electric and magnetic fields. You claim, in video number nine, “the secrets of attraction” that the ropes are the magnetic field. So the ropes make the magnetic field, then the magnetic field makes the ropes? If the ropes are made out of the electric and magnetic fields, then what are the magnetic and electric fields? The same problem everyone else has! When you get down to it, seems like you have constructed just another hypothetical entity endowed with all kinds of abilities, but with no way of explaining what its made of. I can say that a cloud of electrons generates a magnetic field. Or a plasma flow in space, generates a magnetic field. But not what that magnetic field is. Using your theory, I can say that the plasma flow aligns the spin of charged particles and causes a spinning rope/s to be generated around the plasma flow. This is the magnetic field. If the ropes then make the magnetic field, what then are the ropes made of . If, as you claim, the ropes are electromagnetic, aren’t they in turn made of tiny ropes themselves? For, if the ropes generate the magnetic fields, how can the ropes be made out of the same magnetic field that they have to generate? To me it seems what you have created is something out of nothing. The magnetic and electric fields make the rope, the ropes in turn make the magnetic and electric fields. A contradiction.

[junglelord]

Thankyou...and the answer is....that aether is a RMF.
The magnetic field is the aether, the magnetic moment is the electron, they are not the same.
The space between these two interacting electron moments, this perplexing field, is the aether itself.

Man you got to like what Influx and I just did...wham bam, thankyou man.

[altonhare]

So no answer? You think I was being flippant?

No, I do not think you were being flippant. My response to web was going to be my last post of the day before I head home and I noticed your question just after I posted it, which I didn't have time to answer. This question has been asked before, incidentally, and I never hesitated to answer. You and JL seem to have really happy trigger fingers trying to make me look like I'm avoiding this or that, and it's not very flattering for either of you.

What are these ropes made out of?

Since you seem to be familiar with objectivism and identity, my answer should make a lot of sense. The answer is that the rope is not made of other parts, the rope is a single continuous object, it is the fundamental constituent. When you ask "What is X made of" you are asking "What parts comprise X?". If you answer that many Y's comprise X, one could immediately ask what parts comprise Y? However if one accepts identity as axiomatic we know that this has to stop sometime. How would any entity have an identity if its parts are made of parts are made of parts... and onward ad nauseum? At least an aspect of an entity's identity involves the identities of its constituents, whose identities in turn is, at least partly, defined by the identities of ITS constituents. At some point we must have a fundamental unit in order to have identity, which we know all entities have.

The rope is an object. Its single distinguishing feature is that it has shape. It is continuous, the fundamental constituent, there are no other parts with which we can build the rope.

Em ropes? Means what? They are made of a magnetic and an electric fields?

Gaede uses the term "electromagnetic rope" to indicate that he refers to one thread as the electric thread and one as the magnetic thread, and that these are entwined anti-parallel in a structure he refers to as a rope. This is purely bookkeeping. One thread goes to the nucleus (electric thread) and the other wraps around (magnetic thread). The terms are used purely to distinguish the thread that comprises the atom's shell and the thread that comprises its proton dandelion.

No, they are not "made of fields". JL chiming in to cheer you on again indicates he does not, in fact, "understand the lingo" as he claims.

What is the magnetic field? The electric?

The magnetic field is the twirling, in place, of magnetic threads. Just as demonstrated in the video. I don't think Gaede ever talks about an "electric field".

Can these ropes be cut?

No, since they are continuous it would be a contradiction (violation of identity) to say that they are both continuous and "cuttable".

[junglelord]

Gaede uses the term "electromagnetic rope" to indicate that he refers to one thread as the electric thread and one as the magnetic thread, and that these are entwined anti-parallel in a structure he refers to as a rope. This is purely bookkeeping. One thread goes to the nucleus (electric thread) and the other wraps around (magnetic thread). The terms are used purely to distinguish the thread that comprises the atom's shell and the thread that comprises its proton dandelion.

No, they are not "made of fields". JL chiming in to cheer you on again indicates he does not, in fact, "understand the lingo" as he claims.

What is the field vs the object?
Is not all threads in this grand design?
If the field is not thread, then what is it?
Clearly the atom is threads.
Is not the field?
I see no atoms b/t two magnets.
Therefore there is a field.
IF the atom is threads and connected to each other then the field is threads


Your clever twist, stating "made of field", when clearly a field is "made of"....so like always....RMF is the field.
RMF makes the field. RMF is the field.
RMF is not the atom.
Nor vica versa....
I never said they were the field, these objects of atoms.

While we are cleaning up this mess...
EM is not bookkeeping. And while we are at bookkeeping, where is ES?
But these objects, these EM threads make the field and the objects called atoms.
So all is charge.
So all charge is distributed, 3-D


A aether RMF is 2 spin. A e- and a p+ is 1/2 spin. Not the same spin domain.
The aether, which we call the field is a 2 spin RMF. The EM and ES of e- and p+ is 1/2 spin.
Two different spin domains, in quantum resonance.
So simple. Yet you won't get it.
....

[sadunkal]

junglelord,

altonhare stated earlier that "we will speak in the language of TT when discussing on this board."

Are you sure that you know enough about that language? Do you absolutely agree with all the definitions Gaede uses? Do you agree with this:
The word field is unscientific

...?

It seems to me like all you care about is your aether, and not really "The Details of Thread Theory".
But my understanding is limited, so I may be wrong.