Aether Physics Model (APM)

[junglelord]

I'm curious as to what The APM has to say about Wilhelm Reich and orgone?

I am not sure. I am taking it as a exam writing exercise. I did peek at the back of the book today.


Kaluza Klein is the basis for much of the inspiration.....I am stoaked....I loved Kaluza Klein for over 10 years.


5-D baby, 5-D.


When I look at APM now, as of today, I am kinda upset I never figured it out. Dave Thomson and Jim Bourassa are very insightful people. My own intuition on Kaluza Klein, sacred geometry, and that there is a sensible way out of the classical mess has been realized in APM. Certainly it begins with a fractal holographic archetype structural form (spiral vortex) that creates branching networks with tensegrity. We see the spiral galaxy and the branching galactic web, the fractal hologaphic expression of this in the macro world. In supercondutors we see the vortex spiral and branching networks exhibited as the two archetype structural forms.


I realized that the classical mess is not logical or sensible. That is why it takes so many years to recite the information. One gains little knowledge in the current standard model. In fact the ability to make sense of the classical mess is akin to brain washing....you need the indoctrination to believe it because it is nonsequatar.


APM is simple and elegant. It is full of quantum constants I can remember and make total sense.

I think I can come up with some equations on my own now from work I have been doing for 30 years when placed in the context of APM quantum constants. I hope that is not just wishfull thinking.


The quote I read today at the back of the book expects this to occur. I am off to create some equations today.

[webolife]

Junglelord's comment:
"That would be the inward pressure system webolife always speaks of, that I say is what I am talking about, but he is never quite sure we are on the same page....LOL"

Thank you for the short and simple phrasing of this point of agreement.
The reason I'm never quite sure if I understand you is that I don't really get phrases like...
JL, and DT: "e-, p+ 1/2 spin is 360 and photon 1 spin is 720 of a 2 spin total reality of 1440 in the quantum world."
Just your saying you do get this puts you in a way different level of genius than me. There are some simply explainable things I think I "know". This isn't one of them yet.

From the beginning I always thought we were on a similar page, just am not sure I actually understand what you are talking about.
It keeps me coming back to your posts, as extensive as most of them are, and wading through them as best as I can. What I have now read of APM leaves me with much I do understand, with some things I'm sure I disagree with. I'm not a fan of quantum mechanics, for one thing.
I 'm not sure if I agree with your comment...
JL: "QM states this is the way things are webolife. There is more to reality then what we see."
... because for me QM obscures the objective universe, probabilizing and masking everything in uncertainty.

I will be the first to say, "That which is visible is comprised of, and even brought to us by, that which is invisible."
But I'm quick also to say that what is visible is a reliable witness to that which is invisible.
A good "witness" does not reveal the whole truth, of course, but brings a trustworthy perspective.

Thank you again for keeping up the dialogue with me. Having never met you, I count you as my friend.

[junglelord]

"QM" was too inclusive and did not accurately explain what I meant. The idea of quantum spin is accurate I believe. QM is not valid, as a statstical model, as Collective Electrodynamics points out.

As far as my intelligence, I just got quantum spin three days ago...I think Dave Thomson had to hit me over the head with a hammer to teach it to me, but i finally got it.


The friends I have made here have warmed my heart and my mind and my spirit.
The EU is a wonderful meeting of the minds.

[junglelord]

I think the less you have been brainwashed into the Standard Model, or any post high school education, the better APM will make sense to you.

Its simple algebra with a simple unifying principle of known measurements, units and constants, into a properly organized relationship of quantum measurements, quantum units, quantum constants.

What could make more sense then quantum constants?

Five dimensions, two ways to view the five, spatial-temporal and by characteristic. Also we have the inclusion of sacred geometry with phi as mass, the spherical constant pi, and the vortex is implicit and explicit and tensegrity is directly in it. Angular momentum is the discontinuous member of the tensegrity principle that creates matter from continuous distributed double layer charge (electrostatic, electromagnetic). 2 spin rotating magnetic field aether unit to bind the entire 5-D setup with the Gforce pulsating it. (mind you I have intutitively felt Klauza Klein 5-D and sacred geometry were implicite in the UFT, APM gives me this with the vortex which I feel is the archetype structure and quantum constants.)

Having the EM fullfill both the strong charge and the weak force is a insight that has been realized by one or two others.
The inclusion of the Electrostatic Charge as one of two fundamental charges, distinct from Electromagnetic Charge, is another valid point I learned at ten on the farm and at the library, before all that classical mess when I was a great man.

[StevenO]

See, this sounds simple:

Its simple algebra with a simple unifying principle of known measurements, units and constants, into a properly organized relationship of quantum measurements, quantum units, quantum constants.

but this does'nt:

Five dimensions, two ways to view the five, spatial-temporal and by characteristic. Also we have the inclusion of sacred geometry with phi as mass, the spherical constant pi, and the vortex is implicit and explicit and tensegrity is directly in it. Angular momentum is the discontinuous member of the tensegrity principle that creates matter from continuous distributed double layer charge (electrostatic, electromagnetic). 2 spin rotating magnetic field aether unit to bind the entire 5-D setup with the Gforce pulsating it. (mind you I have intutitively felt Klauza Klein 5-D and sacred geometry were implicite in the UFT, APM gives me this with the vortex which I feel is the archetype structure and quantum constants.)

we can always invent more dimensions, pose more postulates, etc. until we somewhere find a result we want. I do not think two types of charge and 5-D is necessary to understand the QM structure of matter.

For people interested in a laymans explanation of the QM structure of matter as layered structures of EM waves please follow this story "The Particle - The wrong turn that led physics to a dead end" from Xavier Borg through to the end. It is very insightful: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-intro.asp



Xavier finally introduces a 'variable phase' model of the nucleus, explaining there is a continuum from vacuum (ether) to fully structured matter. Most interesting page for EU is here: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-vpm.asp, where he explains that this continuous phase change should produce hydrogen and helium around any massive body, eventually leading to the creation of an atmosphere



I think that would be a nice topic for another thread...

[junglelord]

I am going to disagree with Steven on that one.

I loved Kaluz Klein since around 1998 or 2000 at the latest.
5-D space does not invent dimensions. Rather 4-D space does not qualify them all.
To have forces and fields magically appear in 4-D space is fantasy StevenO.
Forces and fields are a functional product of 5-D space structure, they are a magically appearing product in 4-D!
Even you Steven cannot tell me why they exist in 4-D, Collective Electrodynamics cannot do this, nor can anyone with 4-D because it is incomplete.


How therefore can you not entertain a 5-D model that produces them logically as a functional product of a dimensional quantum structure that is only explained in 5-D?
Unless you believe in magic?> 4-D with magically appearing forces and fields is too much magic for me.



If one reviews the work of APM we see two examples of 5-D explained.

3 Length and 2 Frequency *spatial-temporal*
This little revision of the standard 4-D space-time, creates space-resonance at the quantum scale with distributed frequency. You of all people Steven should see the importance of having a quantum resonance as a quantum constant. You work and I did work in resonance, it is therefore a fundamental property of the universe and APM explains this, 4-D does not.

If one reviews the spatial-temporal view of 5-D, 3 Length and 2 Frequency, we still have no reason for forces and fields and particles, merely a good explanation of resonance as fundamental.

But when we look at the characteristics of 5-D as Dave puts it we see the quantum structural and quantum constants as the basis for all functions. I am also surprised that someone with your excellerated understanding of the quantum world does not see the need for quantum constants.....that truly surprises me StevenO.
1 Quantum Length (Compton Wavelength)
2 Quantum Frequency (quantum velocity / Quantum Length)
3 Quantum Mass (Mass of electron, which is a function of phi)
4 Quantum Charge (distributed charge, therefore it is a squared product with two kinds of charge, ES, EM)
5 Quantum Spherical Constant (4pi X 4pi)

These five dimensional structural quantum constructs produce logically the forces, the fields, the particles with no hocus pocus, no wishfull thinking, no dogma....4-D is incomplete and is foolishness. 5-D is sensible, logical, explainable, reasonable and produces the fields, forces and particles as a natural function of the quantum constants and the structure they have inherit in them.

PS
Two elemental charges is balanced, one is not. If I am correct, then two distributed charges is a double layer construct, and like I said all double layers make a spiral vortex. Aether models are for the most part a structural construct of the spiral vortex. This is the archetype structure in the universe, spiral galaxy, and the branching network is the second archetype form, which we see in the galactic web, both of these archetype forms are seen in superconductor thread by StefanR. APM makes us see why this is. due to the quantum structure and quantum constants.

Since you deal in quantum and with large quantum devices of classical mechanics size, this should interest you too no end....or are you happy to just have them magically appear in your 4-D space? We have the technology to create these things which does something to our ego, but although we construct them, our 4-D space theory does not support it, rather we just accept it magically appearing and we are glad we can manipulate it. This is not good enough for me. Please remember StevenO, that Collective Electrodynamics is not a finished product, and it is not mutally exclusive to APM, they are mutally inclusive.


Nice to see you shot the word aether out there. I think thats a first for you. You tend to never agree in a Aether.

[StevenO]

5-D space does not invent dimensions. Rather 4-D space does not qualify them all.
To have forces and fields magically appear in 4-D space is fantasy StevenO.
Forces and fields are a functional product of 5-D space structure, they are a magically appearing product in 4-D!
Even you Steven cannot tell me why they exist in 4-D, Collective Electrodynamics cannot do this, nor can anyone with 4-D because it is incomplete.

I have never come around any proof that shows forces can only exist in a 5D structure, though I would be interested to have one...There might be a good reason that we live in 4D space as it allows the highest entropy as proven by Ludwig Schlafli:

Euclid proved around 200 B.C. that there are exactly five regular solids in three dimensions. Ludwig Schlafli proved in 1901 that there are exactly six regular solids in four dimensions, and also proved that the only regular solids in dimensions greater than or equal to five are the generalized tetrahedron, cube, and octahedron.
<...>
Very interesting is the fact that, in ALL dimensions greater than four, there are exactly three analogues to the Platonic Solids. Also these 3 analogues: the Tetrahedron, cube and octahedron, exist in all dimensions. This is, curiously, exactly half the forms we find in 4 dimensions. Also, note that the 3D platonics (or their duals) are found in the cells making up the 4D polytopes. In a way, we can say that the 4 dimensional state, has the highest structural entropy of all, and that is where we live in!.

[StevenO]

Nice to see you shot the word aether out there. I think thats a first for you. You tend to never agree in a Aether

Tried to catch me, ha!
I only mentioned that the EM, SR and QM don't change with or without aether (even though Maxwell solidly believed in it). There are other mainstream physics theories that completely rely on the "vacuum fluctuations" of space (QED) Even Einstein solidly believed in an aether, though he had a temporary lapse in his SR period.
For me it is clear that EM waves propagate in an aether, but those properties are already fully accounted for in Maxwell. The intriguing part is where the aether has sufficient non-lineair properties as to allow standing EM waves to form matter (matter= ether pinch?). Gabriel Lafreniere is arguing that it can follow from the Huygens principle on a spherical wave, but I'm not able to understand that yet.

[junglelord]

I never stated forces can only exist in 5-D, rather I quantified how in APM the 5-D construct of quantum structure and quantum constants produce, force, field and particle as fundamental functions of the quantum structures and quantum constants.

Feynman, Mead, Bohm all state that the last 100 yrs are the dark ages of physics! What is missing? The aether.


Another thing missing is a unifed quantum constant model. APM delivers quantum structure, a waving toroidial electron, determines that the strong force, and the "gluon", is a product of the EM charge combined with angular momentum. The weak force a product of the two charges combined. This APM is also the first to quantify the conductance of the aether. These fundamental quantum constants are a important step in organizing the data of the standard model into something with implicit order and collective behaviour.

Surely you see the need therefore to throw away the standard model? To reorganzie the data around quantum constants, is that not logical?

A 5-D construct that produces functions and particles, so they have a valid reason for existance, based on quantum structure and quantum constants, that to me is pure simplicity, and pure genius.

[junglelord]

Implicit order, collective behaviour and fractal nature of APM
posted with kind permission from pln2bz and Dave Thomson

I think I now understand the motivation for Chapter 4 better. By demonstrating recurrence within the APM that naturally follows from the notion of spin, you effectively suggest a reason for why nature tends to exhibit fractal-like behavior. The prevalence of fractals innature dictates that no unified theory can actually be taken seriously without explaining this tendency. If your unified theory attempts to explain the fractals at any level other than spin and the quantum,then you're trying to take a shortcut and your mathematics won't becompletely accurate. Although people can disagree on the exact cause,the fractal patterns must have some reason that originates ultimately at the quantum domain (and probably in spin) because they happen forboth animate and inanimate objects. They are not necessarily there result of biological activity, as we are apt to psychologically assume.

This explains why plasma is named plasma. When Langmuir named it, he was noticing how lifelike the electrical behavior was. What he was actually noticing was the fact that both biology and electromagnetismobey quantum laws, which are inherently recursive. As humans who place infinite confidence in our brains' snap decisions of lifelike or not, we possibly tend to associate the macroscopic observation ofrecursion with life. But in truth, Langmuir was merely observing that both animate and inanimate objects use the same tricks to create macroscopic structure and constrain macroscopic behavior. Hence, Chapter 4. Nice.

All of the patterns that we observe with respect to plasmas (likeLichtenbergs) must in turn have an explanation within the APM. Iwonder: is it possible that by studying fractals that we can devise tests for the APM? Do you already have a favored theory (DaveThomson) on why a Lichtenberg forms rather than some other fractal pattern? Or would this have more to do with molecular bonding to be explainable by basic principles within the APM? Is it possible to describe plasma behavior using just the APM, or is it necessary to also have a deep understanding in chemistry too?

chris

Hi Chris, Yes, the APM has the burden of having to explain everything since it appears to be a theory of everything. It will take a lot more analysis from people with a greater understanding of fractals than I have at the moment. As I see it, the APM has the essential elements of structure and forces, which can produce all the structures of animate and "inanimate" things. I'll be able to develop this further.
Dave Thomson

[Lloyd]

Upriver asked a few days ago what APM says about Reich's orgone, so I checked on the net and got the following. You can go there to read the unfinished sentences.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%2 ... tnG=Search
Page 209
Sensitive people could discern the orgone of Wilhelm Reich, but the orgone could not be quantified through instrumentation. Nikola Tesla was truly a genius ...
Page 233
Wilhelm Reich demonstrated that a cosmic energy, which he coined "orgone," had an affinity for aqueous ...
Page 244
Reich, Wilhelm, Selected Writings: An Introduction to Orgonomy, Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, i973 32. Motoyama, H; Theones of the Chakra: Bridge to ...
Page 250
Orgonomy The study of orgone (orgonomy) is one of those "sciences" where qualified researchers have invested their hard earned degrees trying to quantify ...
Page 252
Sorry, this page's content is restricted.
Page 275
... Unfortunately for Reich and his followers the focus was on the sexual energy aspects of his theories at ...
Page 298
See collision effects reductionism, 4, 6, 257 Reich, Wilhelm, 209, 233, 251, 252, 253, 274, 275 Roberts, Joe, 66 Roentgen, Wilhelm Konrad, 129 Roy, ...
Page 298
... 27 onta gap number, 142, 143 orgone, 209, 233, 250, 251, 252, 253 orthogonality, description of, 55 pair production, 25, 190, 207 Parson, AL, 214 Pauli, ...

[polarityparadox]

Hi Dean,
Are you reading APM?

Yes I am doing that. I got excited again.
I really have to claim brain injury on that one.....pretty bad math.
I know 2 spin is not 360...


No, you still missed it. 2 spin is 1440 degrees. 1 spin is 720 degrees, and 1/2 spin is 360 degrees. In the quantum realm, there is a hidden dimension of frequency, which we cannot see. When an electron spins in our 4-D world 360 degrees, it has only spun 1/2 of a full quantum spin. This is not something I came up with, it is a part of mainstream physics.

I am going to bite the bit and slow down. I promise.
I can only say you have lit a fire in me.

That is good.

hey there forum,

these possible geometrical explanations for spin are elegant and help you powerfully visualize WHY a 'particle's' "spin" has to rotate more than 360 degrees to get back to the same place...

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?o ... &Itemid=36

4.8 THE ENIGMAS OF “SPIN” AND TORSION EXPLAINED

Figure 4.10 – 180-degree spin angles of “electrons”
caused by impulses moving over octahedral energy forms.



The next piece of evidence that we need to consider is spin. Physicists have known for many years now that energy particles “spin” as they travel.

For example, “electrons” appear to be continually making sharp 180-degree turns or “half spins” as they move through the atom.

“Quarks” are often seen to make “one thirds” and “two thirds” spins when they travel, which allowed Gell-Mann to organize their movements into the tetrahedron and other geometries.

No one in the mainstream has provided a truly adequate explanation for why this is happening.

Johnson’s model shows that the 180-degree “spin” of the electron clouds is being caused by the movement of the octahedron, as seen above in Figure 4.10.

It is important that we realize that the 180 degree movement actually comes from two 90-degree turns for each octahedron.

The octahedron must “flip over backwards,” i.e. 180 degrees, to remain in the same position in the matrix of geometry that surrounds it.

The tetrahedron must make either 120-degree (1/3 spin) or 240-degree (2/3 spin) rotations in order to have the same position.

This will be explained more simply in section 4.9 just below here. (Other aether theorists such as Wolff, Crane, Ginzburg and Krasnoholovets have their own fluid-flow-based explanations for the phenomenon of half-spin.)

The enigma of the spiraling movement of torsion waves is also explained by this same process. No matter where you are in the Universe, even in “vacuum space,” the aether will always be pulsating in these geometric forms, forming a matrix.

Therefore, any impulse of momentum that travels through that aether will have to trace a path across the faces of these geometric “fluid crystals” in the aether.

Thus, the spiraling movement of the torsion wave is caused by the simple geometry that it must pass through as it travels.



4.9 THE FINE-STRUCTURE CONSTANT

Though we have worked hard to make this section simple, the fine structure constant is a more difficult problem to visualize; so if this section becomes too difficult to read, you can just skip ahead to the summary in section 4.10 without losing any of the major “thread” of this book.

We have included this section for those who wish to see just how far the “matrix” model goes. The fine structure constant is another aspect of quantum physics that few mainstream people have ever even heard of, probably since it is a totally unexplained embarrassment to the scientific mainstream that clings to particle-based models.

Picture now that an electron cloud is like a flexible rubber ball, and each time a “photon” of energy is absorbed or released, (known as coupling,) the cloud stretches and flexes as if it had bounced.

The electron cloud will always be “bumped” in a fixed, exact proportional relationship to the size of the photon.

This means that if you have larger photons you will get larger “bumps” on the electron cloud, and smaller photons create smaller “bumps” on the electron cloud. This relationship remains constant, regardless of size.

The fine-structure constant is another “dimensionless” number like Planck’s constant, meaning that we will get the same proportion regardless of how we measure it.

This constant has been continuously studied by spectroscope analysis, and the highly revered physicist Richard P. Feynman explained the mystery in his book The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.

(We should again remember here that the word “coupling” simply means the joining together or separation of a photon and an electron:)

There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455.

My physicist friends won’t recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with an uncertainty of about two in the last decimal place.

It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.

Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms?

Nobody knows, it is one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.

You might say that the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don’t know how He pushed His pencil."

We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don’t know what kind of a dance to do on a computer to make this number come out – without putting it in secretly. [emphasis added]



In Johnson’s model, the problem of the fine-structure constant has a very simple, academic solution.

As we said, the photon travels along as two tetrahedrons that are paired together, and the electrostatic force inside the atom is maintained by the octahedron.

By simply comparing the volumes between the tetrahedron and octahedron when they collide, we get the fine structure constant.

All we do is divide the tetrahedron’s volume when it is surrounded (circumscribed) by a sphere into the octahedron’s volume when it is surrounded by a sphere, and we will get the fine-structure constant as the difference between them.

In order to show how this is done, some additional explanation is required.

The phase-wave diagrams that we saw earlier in this chapter (figs. 4.3 and 4.4) showed us the angular relationships between the octahedron and tetrahedron.

Since a tetrahedron is entirely triangular no matter how it is rotated, the three tips on any of its faces will divide a circle up into three equal pieces of 120 degrees each.

Therefore, you only need to rotate the tetrahedron by 120 degrees in order to bring it back into balance with the matrix of geometry that surrounds it, so that it is in the same position as it was before.

This is easy to see if you visualize a car with triangular wheels, and you wanted to move it forward just enough that the wheels would look the same again. Each of the triangular wheels would have to turn 120 degrees to do this.

Now in the case of the octahedron, it must always be turned “upside down” or 180 degrees in order to regain its balance.

If you want to see this with the car analogy, then the wheels would need to be in the classic “diamond” shape that you see on a deck of cards.

In order to get the diamond to look exactly the same as when you started, you have to flip it upside down, by 180 degrees.

This next quote from Johnson explains the fine-structure constant based on this information:

[When you] see the static electric field as the octahedron and the dynamic magnetic field as the tetrahedron, then the geometric relationship [between them] is 180 to 120.

If you see them as spheres defined by radian volumes, then simply divide them into each other and you have the fine structure constant.

A “radian volume” simply means that you calculate the volume of an object from its radius, which is half of the width of the object.

(For those who wish to test the math out themselves, Johnson says you simply take the sine of 180 degrees and divide it by the sine of 120 degrees, then run that number through Coulomb’s equation to account for the slight loss of energy that happens when a pulsation is moving through the aether.)

When this simple process of dividing the two “radian volumes” into each other is performed, the fine-structure constant will be the result.

Interestingly, while Johnson has shown that the fine-structure constant can be seen as the relationship between the octahedron and tetrahedron as energy moves from one to the other, Jerry Iuliano discovered that it can also be seen in the “leftover” energy that is produced when we collapse a sphere into a cube, or expand a cube into a sphere!

These expanding or collapsing changes between the two objects are known as “tiling,” and Iuliano’s calculations were not very difficult to perform; it was simply that no one had thought to try it before.

In Iuliano’s calculations, the volume of the two objects does not change; both the cube and the sphere have a volume that he set at 8pi times pi squared.

When we tile them into each other, the only difference between the cube and sphere is in the amount of surface area. The extra surface area between the two is precisely equal to the fine-structure constant.

Immediately the reader should ask, “How can the fine structure constant be a relationship between the octahedron and tetrahedron and also be a relationship between the cube and the sphere at the same time?”

This is another aspect of the magic of “symmetry” in action, where we see that different geometric forms can have similar properties, since they all nest inside of each other with perfect harmonic relationships.

Both Johnson and Iuliano’s perspectives show us that we are dealing with a geometrically structured aetheric energy at work in the atom.

It is also important to remember that what Iuliano’s finding shows us is the classic geometry of the “squared circle.”

This has long been a central element in the esoteric traditions of “sacred geometry,” as it was believed to show the balance between the physical world, represented by the square or cube, and the spiritual world, represented by the circle or sphere.

[junglelord]

Primary angular momentum, which is compression, unites charge and mass, via the "Ligamen circulatus", a 2 spin rotating magnetic field aether unit.

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

here is my Q&A or synopsis Chapter 2 Ontological Foundation SOTA third edition, relevant material. Onta means atom, onn means subatomic particle.

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.

[junglelord]

My question to Dave Thomson on some information provided by StevenO and my own attempts to really understand these issues for so long.

StevenO on Tesla waves vs hz waves.

StevenO on tesla waves vs hz waves

As Lord Kelvin already found out, both Hertzian and Tesla waves are valid solutions of the Maxwell equations. Tesla's transmitters can be more adequately described by electrical dipoles with varying potential and Hertzian transmitters as magnetic dipoles with varying current.

StevenO

My question to Dave.

So I have a question?

Dave:

Is that correct? I would imagine it is, but I need a mental picture, still lacking some synesthesia on this item.

I am a simple guy, who is just starting to get all this stuff after 10 years as electronic technician.
I have a simple question, something I never really had a mental picture of dispite oscilliscope experiments with these basic components in the college lab and with troubleshooting in the industry. How does voltage and current have 90 degree phase shift in a Capacitor or Inductor? What is the simple definition of voltage and current in APM, not as an equation, but as a mental picture for myself. How does the "pressure" concept of voltage and "water" as current work for this mental picture if at all?

Dean Ward

My reply from Dave in the contex of APM.

Hi Dean,
As Lord Kelvin already found out, both Hertzian and Tesla waves are valid solutions of the Maxwell equations. Tesla's transmitters can be more adequately described by electrical dipoles with varying potential and Hertzian transmitters as magnetic dipoles with varying current.

I cannot agree that Tesla's magnifier could be described as electric dipoles with varying potential. To begin with, all of the ions in the signal propagated through the Earth have the same negative charge. There are no negative-positive pole alignments in these ions. The Tesla magnifier works specifically through acoustics. Instead of inertial collisions among molecules, Tesla waves transmitted through electrostatic collisions among negative ions. Thus, Tesla waves are propagated through modulation of charge density. The potential can remain constant, or change, it doesn't matter.

Note that the Tesla oscillator is not the same thing as the Tesla wave propagation going through the Earth. These are two completely different, yet coupled, systems. The Tesla oscillator uses the electrical impact of the up and down moving electrons to electrostatically "ring" the Earth like a large bell. The up and down movement of the electrons is driven by Hertzian type action. The transmission of varying charge density through the Earth is a secondary effect of the Tesla transmitter and is completely mechanical in nature even though it is utilizing the electrostatic forces between ions as a medium.

Hertzian waves propagate as an alternation between inductance-capacitance (Aether view) and current-potential (physical view).

> I am a simple guy, who is just starting to get all this stuff after 10 years as electronic technician.
I have a simple question, something I never really had a mental picture of dispite oscilliscope experiments with these basic components in the college lab and with troubleshooting in the industry. How does voltage and current have 90 degree phase shift in a Capacitor or Inductor? What is the simple definition of voltage and current in APM, not as an equation, but as a mental picture for myself. How does the "pressure" concept of voltage and "water" as current work for this mental picture if at all?

The current and potential changes are illustrated in a Tesla coil. The electrons bounce up and down the coil during operation. When the electrons are furthest from the ground connection and congregated on the top load, they are in potential mode. When the electrons are closest to ground they are in current mode. Electrons have two types of charges, the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic charge. When the electrons are stacked vertically, they produce potential. When the electrons are stacked horizontally, they produce current. The reason why thick conductors are needed for high current applications is because the electrons need room to be stacked side by side. The reason why thin conductors work well for high potentials is because the electrons are being stacked head to toe in the direction of the conductor's length.

Potential and current are conditions of the two types of charges. The dominant aspect of charge is determined by the geometry of the system in which the electrons move. Electrostatic charge is spherical and thus fits most comfortably on a spherical conductor. Electromagnetic charge is toroidal, and thus fits most comfortably on a toroid. High potential generators tend to use spherical toploads. Tesla coils that want to produce long streamers from the top use toroidal top loads, which tends to stack electrons horizontally and add current to the electrical streamers. The current component of the streamer manifests as a thick white spark. The potential component of the streamer manifests as a thin purple spark.

The combination flat spiral-tall solenoid coils Tesla built (and which I replicated) allow for the greatest amount of current and potential to remain in the system at a given time. This means the geometry of a combination coil can be perfected to maximize the amount of power stored in a particular length of wire. The ideal geometry would produce a coil that is flared at the bottom and tapering to a point at the top, like a trumpet standing on its horn. This geometry would allow the electrons to spread out near the ground terminal and stack at the top terminal. This trumpet geometry would also produce the least amount of impedance in the system.

Dave

Well that explains a ton of things for me. Structural relationships of the sphere vs the toroid vs the spiral coil. That was pure genius.

[junglelord]

AUTHORS David Thomson and Jim Bourassa have founded the Quantum AetherDynamics Institute, an organization dedicated to researching the Aether.

For the first time in human history, a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory is presented, supported by the same empirical data used everyday by physicists. Through a very simple observation noted 100 years ago by Charles Coulomb, the electromagnetic units are corrected of an error that has led physics astray for so long. Now, electrodynamics is expressed in simple dimensional equations, the neurosciences are now united to quantum and classical physics, and the precise geometry of subatomic particles is modeled.
http://www.16pi2.com/book.htm

What struck me most was the enormous sweep of the book which discusses matters ranging from Pythagorean scales and the Golden Ratio to classical Aether and quantum mechanics.

The chapter on Dimensions is really fascinating. I was impressed by the analysis of the structure of space and time, by the identification of length and frequency, and the view of mass as linear.

It is clear that the author has studied many aspects of modern physics - including its history and philosophy. The highly original ideas formulated in this work are clearly the fruits of many years of serious study and reflection. We live in an age in which values, worldviews, and politics are changing at unmanageably fast rates. Each day brings not only fresh and unexpected news, but also revolutionary ideas and perspectives whose impacts no one can foresee. I see this book in this context. Not everyone will agree or accept everything stated in this book. But the book certainly deserves careful attention before passing judgment on it.

V.V. Raman, PhD Rochester Institute of Technology, Physics Professor
http://www.16pi2.com/book.htm

Having the read the book through just once, but having read the first five chapters several times, I can state without hesitation that the time it takes to learn the material is well worth the investment.