Aether Physics Model (APM)

[pln2bz]

David Thomson confirms that these inward and outward waves do represent the mechanics of the aether. His APM does not quantify aether mechanics -- just aether structure -- but it appears that there is at least partial agreement between these three theories.

You will notice however that the guys on this website are quite conservative with their claims relative to the APM.

[pln2bz]

[edit - personal reference removed - DS] But, I will say it once again: we can make an educated guess about what dark matter is based upon the Electric Universe. And I've claimed many times online that dark matter is indeed nothing more than weakly ionized plasma. But, until we can validate that this is in fact true, swearing allegiance to this concept is in fact no less dogmatic than conventional wisdom's assertions pertaining to dark matter. We'd be wise to also consider that there are explanations for dark matter that only reveal themselves once we take a closer look at the particle domain. If you can explain why this could not possibly be true, then yes, I'd accept your more constrained view of the issue of dark matter. But, until that day, we're repeating the mistakes of the mainstream to prematurely assert confidence without a thorough vetting of the ideas based upon little more than semantics.

David Thomson was recently asked to define his dark matter with a different term. Here's his response ...

That's a tough request to fulfill. I suppose I could call it "invisible matter" but then I would be engaging in the same deception as people renaming the Aether as "fields, solitons, phonons, frame dragging," etc.

Perhaps if someone else could carefully examine the experimental evidence of neutron decay and precisely explain what is happening, they might find a different way to describe it than dark matter being converted to visible matter, and back. I can't accept the mass-energy paradigm, as the math is wrong. So for modern physicists to say that energy comes and goes and is hidden here and there, without ever showing physical evidence of what energy is that it could do these things means nothing to me.

I agree that the mainstream has gone out of its way to bastardize the language of physics. I deal with this with regard to "mass-energy equivalence," "wave-particle duality," "force particles," "probability function particles," the confusion of mass and matter, and numerous others fuzzy language techniques. I agree with you how annoying it is to read the weekly science news headlines; "Black holes finally discovered" and next week, "Black holes finally discovered" and the following week, "Black holes finally discovered." I have a pretty good idea what they will discover next week, too. The same thing goes for dark matter, Big Bang proof, ...ad nauseum.

I think in this case, dark matter adequately describes what the neutrino is. The mainstream should get credit where credit is due, just as the EU folks should get credit where credit is due. And of course, if both sides would take the time to understand the APM, they would realize that the electric view and the inertia view are both connected to each other from orthogonal perspectives. In many cases, you are both saying the same things but from different perspectives.

On this important issue of the orthogonality of electricity and gravity, he clarifies ...

As the Unified Force Theory (from APM) shows, electromagnetic charge is orthogonal to mass. In fact, there is a constant mass to strong charge ratio that is a permanent fixture of the Universe. The mass to strong charge ratio is:

m.e/e.emax^2 = 6.508 x 10^6 kg/coul^2

In the case of the electron, the electron mass to electron strong charge is equal to 6.508 x 10^6 kg/coul^2. The same is true for the proton and neutron. Thus, whatever force applies to mass (gravity) will be exactly proportional to the force that applies to electromagnetic charge (strong force). The strong force manifests at different scales of existence as permanent magnetism, strong nuclear force, and Van der Waals force.

Modern science confuses electrostatic charge with electromagnetic charge and assumes they are the same, despite the fact that they obviously behave in very different ways. Electromagnetic charge is responsible for most electrical/magnetic phenomena (including magnetism, current, potential, resistance, inductance, capacitance, and magnetic flux to name a few). Electrostatic charge is static, it doesn't do anything (otherwise, it would not be static). However, electrostatic charge is a component in the unit of magnetic moment. Magnetic moment is the only unit I'm aware of that directly relies on electrostatic charge.

The elementary charge is the quantum value for electrostatic charge, yet it is assumed to be the type of charge used in all the electrical units, which (other than magnetic moment) it has nothing to do with.

Although it is not possible to directly relate the Coulomb electrostatic law with the gravitational law, the APM clearly shows that the true electromagnetic law is exactly proportional to the gravitational law. Thus, we could convert anything explained by gravity into an electrical explanation, as long as we recognize the differences between the two different types of charges.

This notion that David Thomson is a scam artist of some sort just trying to attract attention is a harmful concept IMO because it induces people to develop a comfortability with their lack of knowledge of the particle domain. Thomson is clearly trying to explain something that he's discovered here. The burden is upon us to try to understand all of this. I can certainly relate to how confusing it all is, but I also know from my experiences talking to people online about the Electric Universe that we have to adhere to some sort of philosophical approach that is consistent for both the EU and the APM. But, as I've said many times before, it matters little whether or not Thomson is exactly right, no differently than for the EU. What matters is that the people on this forum need to en masse try to understand these issues so that we can develop a useful, pragmatic understanding of the particle domain. In my view, Thomson is merely a stepping stone to that greater goal, and questions of whether or not he's right will reveal themselves in due time. We should feel no burden to force it.

The public expects technology to follow from science. So long as that does not occur, the Electric Universe may continue to appear to them as "theoretical vaporware". If you think that you can innovate on the basis of plasma physics alone, then you're severely constraining the ways in which we can attract the public's attention, and the public will continue to point to the "successes" of innovations like quantum computing. It is our burden to explain how such things are possible with our own models. Think carefully about how developed Wal's sea of neutrinos idea is. I have no doubt that Wal has spent much time thinking about it, but has he created a unified theory? No, I don't believe that he has. Discouraging others from trying to do the same thing will only reduce the overall pool of ideas to consider -- ideas that future people will surely build upon to create stronger models. In other words, theory creation is an iterative, somewhat creative process, that requires a nurturing environment. The process of vetting these ideas will eventually come, but before that, there must be a time of learning and immersion within the sea of all ideas.

I believe strongly that the future of the Electric Universe is to move it into the particle domain. It is the final frontier; what more is left? But we have to be *extremely* cautious. The only way we're going to accomplish this with any rigor is to expand our breadth beyond the point which we even feel comfortable with. Our list of possible particle domain theories should in fact exceed the list of probable theories. We need to become masters of paradigms, and once and for all do away with this widespread tendency to avoid learning new paradigms. This is one of the critical oversights that the mainstream made. They became frustrated in the early 1900's with the slow pace that the aether controversy was progressing at. This impatient desire to establish a consensus is the very source of the problem that the EU theorists are confronting to this day. We must learn from those mistakes, and integrate them into our philosophical framework. Rather than focus on establishing a consensus on the particle domain, let's first formulate consensus on what the arguments are for the various particle domain theories. There's really no reason to rush to judge here.

[pln2bz]

Geometry of the system determines the order/magnitudes/measurements/quality of observation, etc., and how this relates to aetherometry and the electric universe is an ongoing challenge and enrichment to my understanding.

I know for a fact that David Thomson does not mind me excerpting him, so I will continue to do so without checking each individual time. Previously, I confused dimensions as in dimensional analysis (where units come from) with the other usage of the term dimensions -- as in dimensions of space and time. I apologize to Plasmatic for that; it was a dumb mistake. This is the sort of price I pay for starting from scratch with the particle domain.

But, with that correction made, there is something that I want to show you guys. Thomson lays out a piece of physical evidence that corroborates his assertion that space-time (he calls it space-resonance, actually) is 5-dimensional.

From one personal communication with Thomson ...

I agree, it is not easy to visualize a five dimensional coordinate system where two of the dimensions are frequency. However, it can be done.

Have you seen those huge bubble blowing kits where long soap bubbles are formed while moving the arms through the air? If you have, imagine you are making a bubble by holding the wand down by your knees and then arcing your arm straight out at your side and over your head. You would trace a bubble that is 180 degrees in arc. Now imagine making the same bubble but also rotate your whole body 360 degrees. Do it so that by the time your hand moves from the down position to the up position a full circle of rotation and a half circle of arc are created. The bubble will have traced out a loxodrome path over an imaginary sphere.

Note that the loxodrome pattern can be observed here: http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/quantumleap.html

If someone were looking straight down from above your head, they would see the bubble tracing out a tubular cardioid.

Now imagine the person who is directly over your head is taking a time-lapse photograph of you making the bubble such that they capture the entire movement. That time-lapse photograph is what scientists are looking at when they view the electron. That is why an electron appears as a "cloud" when it is observed. The scientists cannot see the two axes of rotation, such as you spinning around while also raising your arm.

The perspective of the Aether has far more depth than does our four-dimensional world. The geometry of the Aether is there, but we can't witness it in action since we are essentially made up of a sequence of still photographs. It is like trying to see depth in a room when viewing the room through a video camera and monitor. We can induce that the room has depth from what we observe, but we cannot directly experience that depth through the camera and monitor.

This is a fun image ... http://www.eyes-and-vision.com/optical- ... -ames.html

And then, from another communication ...

The five dimensional concepts of the Aether are difficult to understand only because we are not use to thinking in five dimensions. It is best to leave the metaphysical inquiry into five-dimensional existence open for later investigation. It is enough to geometrically show a circle of mass scanning an area produces a tube. When the tube is scanned from pole to pole of a rotating sphere, it produces a loxodrome. The loxodrome when viewed from the polar axis looks like a cardioid.

The tubular cardioid has the same geometrical properties of a toroid. Thus, we can model the electron angular momentum as a toroid.

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.

From another link (http://www.archivum.info/sci.physics/20 ... 04228.html) ...

> "Tubular cardioid" is merely the name of the shape of the photon. The
> shape of the double cardioid is equal to the Compton function of
> 1-cos(theta), but as you see in the graphics, it is derived from the
> angular momentum moving in five dimensional space-resonance. In five
> dimensnional space-resonance, the photon looks like a loxodrome. It is
> only in space-time that the photon looks like a cardioid.

I'm suspending all disbelief for the sake of learning the APM. But that doesn't preclude others from offering their own thoughts on it ... It appears to be a "test" for the legitimacy of what he's arguing, although I don't know if we have anybody here who can validate it ...

[junglelord]

I realize that the Klauza/Klein five dimensional model is not the same as APM (dimensions are different dimensions) but I have been pushing a five dimensional model since I came across Tom Bearden. In fact even the show on String Theory has a great look at Klauza/Klein.


I will say that the Zome video, 2, 3, 5 Infinity is the best video anywhere to understand and apprciate higher dimensions, lower dimensions and the concept as a whole.
If you want to learn how to visualize more then four dimensions (Or less) you need to watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37DwuvIneIE

[junglelord]

This may hold some validation to the science of discussion when attempting to view dimensions as valid beyond and below 4.

Number 857 #1, February 28, 2008 by Phil Schewe
Fractals Through Time

A new theoretical study looks at what fractal things look like not just when you magnify them in space (they are scale invariant: they look the same even at finer and finer size scales) but also when you magnify them in time---that is, when you look at them over finer and finer time intervals. Fractals are those geometrical shapes so tortuously indented as to take on extra dimensionality. For example, a nominally one-dimensional curve can, with enough switchbacks, begin to be characterized by a dimension somewhere between 1 and 2. In other words the curve starts to take on the properties of a surface. Similarly a two dimensional surface can be so dimpled as to acquire some “volume.” This fractal geometry is especially interesting to consider for minerals and for certain living things (such as tumors) where highly non-Euclidean interfaces are important.

In a new paper, Carlos Escudero of the Institute for Mathematics and Fundamental Physics in Madrid performs calculations of the dynamic scaling (how a surface changes in space and over time at several different scales) of growing structures, such as the kind of semiconductor films used in the microchip industry where, even under the most carefully controlled of conditions, rough (non-Euclidean) geometries can exist. He found that the moment-by-moment behavior of the surfaces are strongly effected by the fractal geometry. Escudero (34- 915616800, cel@imaff.cfmac.csic.es) will soon be testing his theories with colleagues in several practical areas of research, including the growth of tumor-like tissues in plants and the growth of semiconductor films. ( Physical Review Letters upcoming article)
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/857-1.html

Since we seem to live in a fractural holographic universe that is EU its valid in my opinion when trying to investigate APM and Aether in general to see how these areas of understanding about dimensions and reality are still growing over time...LOL

[junglelord]

I made a thread on EM Time Reversal and its important to note that what you see is only half of what there is.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=10&t=334

Another important and valid concept pointed out by the same group of people I always chime about and also APM too. That only half of what is real is evident to your eyes.

PS read my signature..Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

Its only logical, Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

[junglelord]

As APM proposed there is maybe two dimenions of time. This may not be the same model ( still just trying to relate salient points in general) but its the general idea. This is an exercise in logical approaches to a constant problem...that being the standard model is inadequate on many levels and we need to stretch ourselves to get out of the box. To therefore entertain certain unorodox theories its good to see that at least someone else has consider presenting it in a valid peer review method of scrutiny to mainstream thought. So at least if they can talk about Dark Matter as if its fact, we should be able to throw things around without it being fact but certainly not a invalid discussion based the current dogma of cosmology.

Number 829 #1, June 19, 2007 by Phil Schewe and Ben Stein
Time and Time Again

The physics world accepts the idea of spacetime, a combined metrical entity which puts time on the same footing as the visible three spatial dimensions. Further spatial dimensions are added in some theories to help assimilate all physical forces into a unified model of reality. But what about adding an extra dimension of time too? Itzak Bars and Yueh-Cheng Kuo of the University of Southern California do exactly that, and add an extra spatial dimension too.

Bars explains this proposal with a comparison. Just as a projection of a 3D object onto a 2D wall can have many different shapes, and each such shape is incapable of fully conveying all the properties of the 3D object, so the single-time description of dynamics in the standard formulation of physics is insufficient to capture many properties of dynamical systems which have remained mysterious or unnoticed.

The addition of an extra time and an extra space dimension, together with a requirement that all motion in the enlarged space be symmetric under an interchange of position and momentum at any instant, reproduces all possible dynamics in ordinary spacetime, and brings to light many relationships and hidden symmetries that are actually present in our own universe.

The hidden relationships among dynamical systems are akin to relationships that exist between the multiple shadows of a 3D object projected on a 2D wall. In this case the object is in a spacetime of 4 space and 2 time dimensions while the shadows are in 3 space and 1 time dimensions. The motion in 4+2 dimensions is actually much more symmetric and simpler than the complex motions of the shadows in 3+1 dimensions.

Besides the general unification of dynamics described above, what does this addition to one extra time and one extra space dimension (in addition to all those extra space dimensions called for in string theory) accomplish that could not be achieved without it? Bars (bars@usc.edu) says that his theory explains CP conservation in the strong interactions described by QCD without the need for a new particle, the axion, which has not been found in experiments.

It also explains the fact that the elliptical orbit of planets remains fixed (not counting well-known tiny precessions). This “Runge-Lenz” symmetry effect has remained somewhat mysterious in the study of celestial mechanics, but now could be understood as being due to the symmetry of rotations into the fourth space dimension.

A similar symmetry observed in the spectrum of hydrogen would also be accounted for in 2-time physics, and again explained as a symmetry of rotations into the extra space and time dimensions. There are many such examples of hidden symmetries in the macroscopic classical world as well as in the microscopic quantum world, Bars argues, which can be addressed for the first time with the new 2T formulation of physics.

There have been previous attempts to formulate theories with a second time axis, but Bars says that most of these efforts have been compromised by problems with unitarity (the need for the sum of all probabilities of occurrences to be no greater than 1) and causality (maintaining the thermodynamic arrow of time).

The USC theorists have reformulated their model to fit into the ongoing supersymmetry version of the standard model and expect their ideas to be tested in computer simulations and in experiments yet to come. (Physical Review Letters, upcoming article)

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/829-1.html

Certainly one can also work in many different dimensional models and dimensions real or on paper, (I am a big fan of Ed Whitten and String Theory, even if its not right, the math is quite amazing and the guy is a genious.) work on many differrent levels for many different reasons, but the validity that one of them must be right is apparent. So we must not close off ourselves from a model that is not kosher because the current model is unpalateable as served.

Cooling in One Dimension.

Number 818 #1, April 5, 2007 by Phil Schewe and Ben Stein
Laser Cooling of Coin-sized Objects

Laser cooling of coin-sized objects down to one-kelvin temperatures is now possible. In a set of experiments performed last year, a variation on the laser-cooling technique used in chilling vapors of gases down to sub-kelvin temperatures had been used in macroscopic (but still tiny) samples in the nano- and micro-gram range.

Now, a collaboration of scientists from the LIGO Laboratory at MIT and Caltech and from the Max Planck Institutes in Potsdam and Hannover has used laser beams to cool a coin-sized mirror with a mass of 1 gram down to a temperature of 0.8 K. The goal of chilling such a comparatively large object (with more than 10^20 atoms) is to investigate the quantum properties of large ensembles of matter.

An important caveat here is the fact that in all these experiments the "cooling" takes place in one dimension only. A temperature of 1 K applies to the motion of atoms along the direction of the laser beams, while the mirror is free to move (although not much) in other directions. Consequently, if you touched the sample it would not feel cryogenically cold. Beyond the record low temperature achieved for an object as large as 1 gram, another interesting feature of the experiment pertains to the strength of the force exerted by the laser beams.

In the chosen dimension, the beams fix the mirror so steadfastly that it's as if it were being held in place by a spring that's stiffer than a diamond with the same dimensions as the laser beam (long and thin). According to MIT researcher Nergis Mavalvala (nergis@ligo.mit.edu) the sample is held by a rigidity (if the laser beam were solid) characterized by a Young's modulus (the parameter specifying stiffness) of 1.2 tera-pascals, some 20% stiffer than diamond. (Corbitt et al., Physical Review Letters, upcoming article; lab wiki at http://baikal.mit.edu/sqwiki/moin.cgi/Pictures

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/818-1.html

Relating to the fuzzy aspect of electrons, its a good comparison to AMP of the reasons for such fuzzyness to compare it to the supposed first movie of an Electron that got a lot of responses in the lost forum.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 095358.htm

Concerning the Fractal post above one should also consider that this approach of dimensions and how to arrange them in relation to what Nature is telling us is staring us in the face, we just need to ask it the right questions.

"Nature does not speak English but she is telling us what is Sacred and has been speaking to us on many levels and they have datasets they are still working on but what they have is miracles occuring....Skunkworks scientist Boyd Bushman"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEMbZEacaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92_KmTkbfqM

[junglelord]

I may have misrepresented APM. Its a learning curve I am sharing. Its two dimensions of frequency not time per say but time is frequency in this sense. Again I am remined of two sides of the same coin relationship.

The Ligamen Circulatus discussion.

If someone were looking straight down from above your head, they would see the bubble tracing out a tubular cardioid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardioid
(an interesting animation, but it does not apply to the cardioid structure of onta)

The electron has a tubular cardioid shape, it is not a linear cardioid shape. The spherical surface that the LC (ligamen circulatus‏) appears to be moving over is not a solid, nor is it an actual surface.The sphere arises from distributed frequency (resonance), and further, the distributed frequency is "time," not length. The effect of distributed frequency is to distort the length dimensions by making them curved.

I agree, it is not easy to visualize a five dimensional coordinate system where two of the dimensions are frequency. However, it can be done. Have you seen those huge bubble blowing kits where long soapbubbles are formed while moving the arms through the air? If you have, imagine you are making a bubble by holding the wand down by your knees and then arcing your arm straight out at your side andover your head. You would trace a bubble that is 180 degrees inarc. Now imagine making the same bubble but also rotate your whole body 360 degrees. Do it so that by the time your hand moves from the down position to the up position a full circle of rotation and a half circle of arc are created. The bubble will have traced out a loxodrome path over an imaginary sphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loxodrome

If someone were looking straight down from above your head, they would see the bubble tracing out a tubular cardioid.

Now imagine the person who is directly over your head is taking a time-lapse photograph of you making the bubble such that they capture the entire movement. That time-lapse photograph is what scientists are looking at when they view the electron. That is why an electron appears as a "cloud" when it is observed. The scientists cannot see the two axes of rotation, such as you spinning around while also raising your arm.

The perspective of the Aether has far more depth than does our four-dimensional world. The geometry of the Aether is there, but we can't witness it in action since we are essentially made up ofa sequence of still photographs. It is like trying to see depth in a room when viewing the room through a video camera and monitor. We can induce that the room has depth from what we observe, but we cannot directly experience that depth through the camera and monitor. The cardioid in the Aether unit is inherent to a single-body system, and only appears when looking down the polar axis. To put it another way, the cardioid appearance of an electron is caused by the perception of linear time.

Our physical Universe has a far different appearance when viewed from within the five-dimensional coordinate system. If you could align your body such that your head was pointing in forward time and your feet were pointing in backward time, then the past would be underneath you, the future above you, and a gradient would appear as you scanned the space between.
David Thomson

I shared that for two simple powerful relationship. Vortex Spirals vs point particles again validated and Time Reversal EM theory is valid and important. The dual opposite nature is implicite and the matter/antimatter pair intrinsic.


Also of note is the similarity to APM to the Wilbert Smith seminal work The New Science where the fields are dimensions, something APM does as well which to me is a undeniable good approach. In fact the relationship of APM to Konstantine Meyl, Nikola Tesla, Paramahamsa Tewari, Tom Bearden, Howard Johnson, Wilbert Smith, The Correa's and others is fascinating. The ability to predict specific values of intrinsic physics is a powerful statement that are made by People like Meyl and David Thomson and their models. Something the standard model cannot do. This is all based on Aether and matter/antimatter vortex pairs and the rest comes out of that. Dimensions can be viewed in many manner of ways and certainly more then one model will work on paper. Indeed its not a problem to be able to see the same thing in different ways. I see that as a strenght not a weakness. To be able to predict intrinsic values of physics, thats powerful!

http://www.16pi2.com/files/Electron_bin ... uation.pdf

[StevenO]

Hi Dean,

The behaviour of electric charges can only be understood in four dimensions. The behaviour of gravity probably only in five dimensions. I'm really intrigued by this on-line explanation:

http://www.euclideanrelativity.com/idea/index.htm

although I can't judge the validity at the moment...

Steven

[junglelord]

One more quick note is the relationship to Angular Momentum in the APM model to the work of Wilbert Smith is uncanny in its similarities.

1. Introduction
Scientists have attempted to quantify the electron binding energies of atoms. Lindgreni reports on
probabilistic methods for deriving the electron binding energies using the Koopmans Theorem, ΔSCF,
many-body perturbation (MBPT), Coupled-Cluster Approach (CCA), Greene’s function, and the density
functional theory (DFT) approach. Whitneyii iii uses a new two-step variant of special relativity theory
to uncover an underlying similarity between all elements and Hydrogen, and algebraically characterizes
all variations from that norm. The present work bases on a new discrete physical model for quantum
structure, and results directly in an accurate binding energy equation predicting all ground state
electrons.

The Aether Physics Model is a discrete model of quantum structure. Up to now, the Aether Physics
Model only quantified quantum structure, as opposed to quantum mechanics. Despite the properly
quantified Unified Force Theory contained within the Aether Physics Model, the model has not yet
received significant attention from physicists and mathematicians. This lack of interest is partly due to
the necessity of learning revised definitions for the dimensions, understanding that electrical units
should always be expressed in dimensions of distributed charge (charge squared), and understanding the
two distinctly different manifestations of charges. Further, the Aether Physics Model is a paradigm of
Aether/angular momentum, as opposed to the mass/energy paradigm presently in use.
The significance of the Aether/angular momentum paradigm is that it shows the relationship between
environment (Aether) and matter (angular momentum). The environment and matter quantify
geometrically, as well as with dimensions and values. The geometrical quantification of Aether and
matter allows for a discrete understanding of quantum structure in five dimensions (three dimensions of
length, two dimensions of frequency), and a more precise understanding of charges and their mechanics.
The discrete and precise quantum structures allow for the development of the electron binding energy
equations. We will lead the reader through each step of the process, but assume some familiarity with
our white paperiv and bookv, which provide the foundation for the Aether Physics Model.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Electron_bin ... uation.pdf

Wilbert Smiths New Science (fields are dimensions model comparisons) to APM
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:NOd ... cd=3&gl=ca

Angular Momentum and Wilberts Smith's New Science comparison to APM
http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/Theory.htm

APM ability to predict intrinsic values of physics and subatomic particles compared to Meyls ability to also predict intrinsic values of subatomic particles.

Summarizing: since we, by using this calculation method, for the first time succeeded in deriving the mass of an elementary particle from that of another particle, the particle mass isn't a constant of nature anymore!
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... a&start=15

I think we are on to something.

[Forum Moderator]

This thread is for the exclusive discussion of David W. Thomson's Æether Physics Model (APM). For reference, the previous posts to this one, running from 7 Apr-12 Apr, were culled from this thread Matter is made of only waves?.

Forum Moderator
(fmx)

[junglelord]

I fail to see how the way he came to enlightenment makes his theory less valid from the get go. I have a lot of trouble with that...which is throwing out the baby with the bath water so to speak. I know that Wilbert Smith's New Science is not from a valid source if that is the case....cause he got it from ET. Be that as it may I still will entertain his work because of his position in the Canadian government and as a scientist. I really dont care if the Virgin Mary gave the secret to the universe as long as its correct. I have no trouble with anglar momentum being a dimension, none at all. I had mentioned this when the two threads were combined.

Sounds to me like two sides of the same coin....yes or no?
Has anyone found a none spinning electron? Can an electron exist if it does not spin? Sounds to me like you cannot have one without the other. Two sides of the same elemental coin.

Now I'm sure, from some bizarre perspective, you can turn anything into anything, and we have!
Today they are called Black holes, and Dark matter, and strings, and if these are any indicator as to how far nonsensical ideas like turning "Spin into an object" will take us out of our way from a better grasp of reality, I'll gladly seek wisdom from those that have learned that lesson.

Well "praise the lord and ,pass the amunition"!!!! There is somebody who gets it!!!!!!!!

TZU may I humbly point you to the person who has taught me that lesson so well. I double dog dare you to read
INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY by Ayn Rand

I get it but I still say its two sides of the same coin. We all know the difference between a noun and a verb. At the same time everything that is made of atoms spins at the atomic level and at the galactic level. Therefore spin, verb or noun, is intrinsic to the properties of matter.
yes or no?

CONCEPT IDENTEFICATION AND REALITY INTEGRATION:

The fact that a coin has 2 sides DOES NOT obviate the fact that one side is NOT the other side. You know why???? Because A = A , my friend ,Side A CANNOT be simultaneously Side B . Aristotle called it THE LAW OF NON CONTRADICTION. Ayn Rand Calls it THE LAW OF IDENTITY. Things are what they are and they are NOT what they are not.....

Your trying to twist what I said...and I never said that or claimed that. I ask you can a coin have only one side? No. Therefore one side is not the other, thats ovbious, but having two sides does it make it two things or one thing? Now thats apples and oranges to atoms and spin but like I said spin is intrinsic to matter at the atomic level. I still ask if a electron can exist if it does not spin? Can a star have planets that do not orbit? I think no. If spin is intrinsic to sub atomic particles then its not a big step to imagine that they are made from spiral vortex's, at least not in my mind or the mind of Meyl and Tewari, Tesla and Lord Kelvin and Maxwell.

A really good starting point here is to quote Ida Rolf on Structural Integration and Fuller on Tensegrity. You Cannot Seperate Structure From Function. A very powerful statement that certainly applys here.

Structure is the noun, Function is the verb. That is a universal fact and I would state that you cannot seperate electrons from spin. Just like double layers always create spiral vortex forms....these things are self evident. Would it be such a leap of logic for the Structure to be therefore equal to the Function? Ie the Vortex is the Electron. Or the Electron is a Vortex. To me a Vortex is a scalar wave and certainly is not a point which is fundamentally what this thread is about, if matter is a wave. I say yes and I say its a scalar vortex wave.

By the way people I am enjoying this so please understand that I am happy and not taking this seriously or heavy. I know we are all good insightful people here and because its the web even we can misunderstand web talk vs face to face coffee shop talk. I think we are all aware this is coffee shop talk and that we are good friends here.
Cheers.

PS Neil Peart loves Ayn Rand which influenced his song lyrics. I read Ayn Rand stuff in highschool in the 70's because of Rush and Neil Peart (*I'm a drummer from Canada*)

I'm going for a donut and a coffee and sit down by the St. Lawrance River and watch double layers make whirlpool vortex's and your all invited! Cheers.

I do have trouble with the term "dark matter" but I can forgo that for now as I have read about dark matter for years and still find new stuff daily. I am never so smart as to believe I must be right. There fore I will take it on with an open mind and heart.

[junglelord]

In my thread "The New Theory of Light" which was inspired from the link
http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=10&t=217
It was asked what are the two particles as the author of the theory, Victor M. Urbina, never stated in his model what those particles were, just that light was two particles of opposite charges. The work of Konstantin Meyl showed them to be the electron positron pair. The work of Urbina showed me in relationship what Meyl was thinking. I actually emailed this information to Victor M. Urbina as we had a short correspondance several years ago when I found his web page in my constant studies on light. I thought it pertainent that Meyl and APM has the same model.

So I find little pearls at many different places that all string together to make a better whole. In trying to understand why light has no mass I came across this when looking at AMP.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Paper:A_Ne ... _Institute
Since the photon has the total mass equal to one electron, but the mass divides equally as matter and antimatter, the masses nullify each other gravitationally, therefore giving the appearance of a massless photon.

This would support the premis of Meyl about the electron actually being a combined pair matter/antimatter dual vortex opposites idea as well as Photons, but explained in a language I could better understand about why its massless in its geometric relationship as a Photon vs the geometric relatonship in the electron. Fundamentally if we are dealing with point particles I suspect that there are no monopoles and therefore all subatomic particles and or waves are in reality a dual and one must learn to understand that even time has a reverse time line component as well. Duals exist at all levels I guess.

Tesla made a statement about 3,6,9 and the power of those numbers. The Rodin Coil number pattern compared to what Tesla said and related to the Yin/Yang was interesting to me.


The Dual Vortex Opposites work of Meyl added to this Dual Opposite sign and this agreement with APM is very interesting to me as Bruce Lee added two arrows around the Yin/Yang to explain his philosophy of Jeet Kune Do which just about satisfies me on many levels at this point in my life.

[junglelord]

Wow! I love all of the great conversation!

There are several things about this thread that I find quite intriguing.

1. An object is spin.

Well, if an object is spin then it must be bi polar; positive negative? Yes? Is this any different than a statement saying that all things are wave forms? All wave forms are made of positive negatives crests and troughs? http://www.beatlesagain.com/images/sinwav.gif

If a building block such as an electron can be characterized as a wave form only, then all that's left would be the linking to a proton. If a proton can be characterized as such, then we have Hydrogen.... and all other things?

Here is an interesting website on the topic.... http://theresonanceproject.org/research.html

So I guess my original point has been addressed in some way? Is there ever neutral. Is there ever, really, a point? One could say that a human being is a singular, but is this the case? Is not the being sustained in the greater singulars and waves? A human is not an island, and is constantly interacting and needs other wave forms... light, water, solid material on which to stand, air to breathe....

So where is the neutral? Is it the aether which is continuously referred to? The thing in which all things are? If this is what we are searching for (insert theology) all the great spiritual traditions contend that this thing cannot be conceptually expressed. Is it also the great scientific traditions contention? Can the aether be quantified? If all things are wave forms.... It must be waving through something, no?

Ahh well that's my lunch break. Love the website, and TPODs

Oh one other wrinkle for those more scientifically trained minds....

What is the EU's answer to the classic two slit experiment? It seems to me that science has floundered for answers ever since it was performed. Does this experiment have anything to do with our conversation in this thread?

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java ... igure1.jpg

[junglelord]

Just a thought for you folks before this thread grows more heated.

Words are just words. People will, in fact, use the word "reality" in different way. At its root, in philosophical contexts, the word refers to what is permanent in contrast to what is impermanent. Is anything in the world of our three-dimensional perception permanent? Not that I know of . Philosophically, the word "reality" will always draw one toward the language of something more fundamental than perception, but perhaps implied, or event quantifiable within some intermediate zone between the solid unchanging ground-- reality--and the ever-changing surface of perception.

For almost a year now I've wished to high heaven that I had more time to explore David Thomson's work. It must not be dismissed, even if some perfection of the language would reduce misunderstanding at the introductory level. In common parlance, we use the phrase "angular momentum" in relation to a quantifiable observation of movements and calculated "mass". But we are in fact describing objects whose deeper essence is entirely unknown to us, and the underlying meaning of mass remains mysterious.

At the quantum level, where does angular momentum come from? It is dangerous to assume in advance that "matter" is not coming into and fading out of existence. If David Thomson is correct in claiming that such a process is not just verifiable but quantifiable, it is in our interest to be as thorough as possible in coming to understand what he has quantified. He is a completely reasonable, feet on the ground fellow. He is not working with mathematical abstractions from the top down, but with known quantum measurements. It does appear that there is a geometry at work, supporting the natural world prior to its three-dimensional expression. This geometry can be expressed first in one dimension, then in two, and there is nothing inappropriate in these terms. Nor is it inappropriate to speak of angular momentum being imparted to three dimensional objects through this process. Personally, I would urge all who are contributing to this discussion to start at the beginning, not at the level of subjective and contradictory uses of words. The proper beginning is David Thomson's book. Well qualified people are now investigating his work with a no-nonsense attitude, to determine whether it really does achieve what it appears to achieve--a quantifiable description of quantum forces by means of geometric relationships that, if true, would have far reaching implications for the Electric universe.

An example: the elementary orthogonal relationship of "electromagnetic charge" and "mass," as noted by David Thomson in a recent private communication:

As the Unified Force Theory (from APM) shows, electromagnetic
charge is orthogonal to mass. In fact, there is a constant mass
to strong charge ratio that is a permanent fixture of the
Universe. The mass to strong charge ratio is:

m.e/e.emax^2 = 6.508 x 10^6 kg/coul^2

In the case of the electron, the electron mass to electron strong
charge is equal to 6.508 x 10^6 kg/coul^2. The same is true for
the proton and neutron. Thus, whatever force applies to mass
(gravity) will be exactly proportional to the force that applies
to electromagnetic charge (strong force). The strong force
manifests at different scales of existence as permanent
magnetism, strong nuclear force, and Van der Waals force."

So, whereas I love philosophy, an inescapable occupation, it's not accurate to dismiss anything in David's work as metaphysics or mysticism. And again, being a mystic of sorts myself, there's no finger pointing in any direction here, just a desire that we look at the underpinnings of the work itself before we worry as to whether it might carry "mystical" implications.

David Talbott