What is Physics?

[junglelord]

Thanks my dear friend.


I had a huge paradrigm today. This forum and the members and their links work wonders for me.
I try to explain these ideas to others as I learn and integrate them as they evolve and relate.
I found myself today thinking the primary angular momentum is the rotor and the atomic geometry is the stator.


Consider my recent work on nanotechnology. Consider your pencil lead. Imagine telling your teacher in 1970, that this material is a superconductor and stronger then steel.....They would look at you funny and send you to the special class.


Yet this is in fact true.


This shows why the graphite of your pencil as cubes is soft and writes on paper. Yet take that same material, go nano and line them up one at a time and they make hexagons. Then all of a sudden this graphine is now a superconductor and stronger then steel. Structure truly is never seperate from function. The Hexagon stator is much more integrated geometricly with the angular momentum rotor which I believe forms a six sided star. This changes the properties of the same material by changing the geometry because we now have different relationship between the rotor and stator that is totally different then the cube. Remember my finding last week of the hexagon nucleus geometry? Think about carbon hexagons! Is the body a supercomputer, superconductor? Realize the cells make tetrahedrons as they grow. Realize the diamond is tetrahedrons, while coal is the cube. Remember we are a liquid crystal? So of course we grow as tetrahedrons, not cubes. We have hexagon atomtic geometry and tetrahedron cellular division with Icosahedron cellular geodesic structure. We are diamonds, not coal, we are truly liquid crystal superconductors.


When we work with nanoscales or molecular scales, We are building chassies, the motor is supplied by the universe.


But truly we are building stators for the ever present rotor.

Since the Gforce of APM is a push and a pull, it stands to reason the orbital motion of the hydrogen electron does make a six sided star or daisy flower type configuration. When they show the electron making perfect circles....thats never right.


The more you can conceptualize the electron distributed charge configuration, the easier the knowledge to build a proper stator because it must relate to the rotor.

[altonhare]

Pretty interesting site, Alton, that guy has some interesting thoughts about all fundamental things, but this thread theory seems, too, to be based on concepts and non-visualizeable things. How can he visualize these threads, if he only believes in visualization as a true science language?

What do you mean? You visualize the thread by visualizing the thread. It looks like a thread. What is the problem? The theory is based on 3 dimensional objects. They all can be visualized. You are not understanding the theory yet.

[substance]

Pretty interesting site, Alton, that guy has some interesting thoughts about all fundamental things, but this thread theory seems, too, to be based on concepts and non-visualizeable things. How can he visualize these threads, if he only believes in visualization as a true science language?

What do you mean? You visualize the thread by visualizing the thread. It looks like a thread. What is the problem? The theory is based on 3 dimensional objects. They all can be visualized. You are not understanding the theory yet.

I mean that this is a conceptual visualization. He cannot make a photo of the threads, he can only make a graphical representation of what they might look like.. I fail to see how this method is more convincing than using any mathematics at all!

[junglelord]

It turns out according to Alton they are not made of anything either.

[substance]

what, the threads?

[junglelord]

Yes, the threads have no material reality in the theory that Alton was learning. I believe they are conceptual only.

[altonhare]

He also points out one of my main complaints about relativity: how in the world can anyone claim evidence for time dilation, or treat time travel as a serious scientific subject, when they can't even define the word TIME?

- bdw000

I'm glad you appreciated the site, and it sounds like you're on board. You hear people going on and on about time and how they can manipulate it when not a single one of them can point at a movie and conceptualize time.

I mean that this is a conceptual visualization. He cannot make a photo of the threads, he can only make a graphical representation of what they might look like.. I fail to see how this method is more convincing than using any mathematics at all!

The thread is the hypothesis in a scientific theory. This is stage one of the scientific method. The proponent of the theory presents ALL the objects involved in his theory. If the proponent cannot produce the objects themselves a model suffices. If the proponent cannot present a model then his theory fails at the hypothesis stage i.e. it is a "non-starter". Junglelord's two dimensional string fails this very early and basic test of a scientific theory. He cannot show us any two dimensional object. The scientific method makes no provisions for faith. Junglelord likes to proselytize about sacred geometry. He has a great deal of faith in that which he has never seen.

The thread, on the other hand, is three dimensional. I can show you a model of it. It has length, width, and height. It has a surface (i.e. an exterior). For any object to influence any other object there must be touch. The only way to define touch is by saying that "two surfaces may not cross". If you can define touch in terms of that which has no surface feel free. Because I can show you a model of the thread it is a valid hypothesis.

It turns out according to Alton they are not made of anything either.

-Junglelord

This is a lie.

The question "What is the thread made of?" is an incorrect question because of the definition of the thread. It is defined as the fundamental constituent. It is continuous i.e. it is not comprised of parts. It is not made of smaller objects because an object made of objects is not continuous. I state that the thread IS continuous. This is a matter of defining one's terms and using them consistently i.e. scientifically. If anyone questions this they do not understand "fundamental constituent". Any theory of the universe without a fundamental constituent inevitably encounters the problem of an endless loop of "what is X made of?" questions. This cannot be avoided. There is an object in the universe that cannot be further subdivided into smaller objects. Hence the thread cannot be broken.

Yes, the threads have no material reality in the theory that Alton was learning. I believe they are conceptual only.

-Junglelord

There is no room in science for "belief". If you are to reject the thread hypothesis you must do so on scientific grounds. You must state that they are conceptual and then explain how they are conceptual. You must reject the thread hypothesis on scientific grounds. When you reject a hypothesis based on your BELIEF that is called religion. Religious persons proposing the Creationism theory have no scientific grounds to state that something comes from nothing, they simply BELIEVE it. And they expect you to believe it too you heathen!

[substance]

Interesting. Can you point me to a model of these threads? I kinda like Bill Gaede`s site and critique on mainstream science, but I`m not too sure about those threads. Can they be somehow incorporated in the EU model? On bigger scale electricity could still rule the heavens, right?

[junglelord]

The threads are a mental construct of the physical aether. They are a good way to conceptualize the physical properties of the aether, known as the field. They are not real.

[Solar]

The threads are a mental construct of the physical aether. They are a good way to conceptualize the physical properties of the aether, known as the field. They are not real.

Since when are electromagnetic filaments (BG's "electromagnetic threads") "not real"? What is the difference between the orthogonal filamentation of an 'electromagnetic torsion' connecting every atom of the universe and "tensegrity"?

The filaments ("electromagnetic currents") of electro-plasma dynamics have been noted between the Earth and Sun, Io and Jupiter, as well as between multiple galaxies and galaxy clusters, and on out to larger scales wherein the universe appears to display a pattern similar to, if not exactly like 'synaptic nerves'. The constant referral to an orders of magnitude fractal has been cited on this and other forums. Is it a "fractal" or isn't it?

You can have neither "torsion" nor "tensigrity" without something (longitudinally) connecting the various 'members'. Interesting paper: "Electromagnetic Waves in the Vacuum with Torsion and Spin" with just the title alone.

[junglelord]

Your forgetting the question I answered was concerning the thread-rope mental concept from altons link and my reply to that question with the actual physical properties of the aether. Your confused about my reply to a specifc question.
You just infact proved me right.

[Solar]

I'm trying to look at principles here ie. electromagnetic filamentation of electromagnetic forces. I don't know if BG's theory has an aether. I'm not interested in what Alton thinks at this particular. How is an 'electromagnetic torsion' via filamentation connecting every atom in/of the universe different than "tensegrity"?

[junglelord]

Its not solar, it is exactly what you said. You hit the head on the nail my good man.
BG does not believe in the aether.

[Solar]

I'll have to watch those vids again. I don't recall seeing anything describing the "threads" as primarily longitudinal, scalar et. Which seems to have to be a requirement as opposed to the threads just existing. If I remember correctly they formed via proximity. But that doesn't tell me from what. If there is no causation, an aether of distributed "charge" being 'constricted' exhibiting primarily longitudinal forces, then only the orthogonal relationship is recognized?

'1/2 spin' "science in other words.

[Birkeland]

Very interesting theory altonhare. Three dimensional absolutism is the framework one has to operate within - it's a fact of reality. It's only inside the framework of matematic deduction one could operate outside reality, and if one visualises mathematics one can actually see the flaws. Have a look at visualisation of four dimensional mathematics (chapter 8). As far as I can understand this illustrates these threads and could even help us explain the torus non equilibrium (still working on this last bit though). However: don't be fooled by the flawed dimensional maths in this movie, but put it into context of reality and draw the lines at three dimensions and it should hopefully make some kind of sense.