Stars and photons

[webolife]

Alton,
For someone who represents a position as close to mine as anyone I've yet encountered, you sure are adversarial.
I've described shapes, I've named objects, I can easily draw pictures of them...I can explain them to a barmaid..........
Yes, I've watched your videos.

I'm in the field of that star. When the electrons in its photosphere bounce around that field changes to such a degree I can actually feel it from here! You tie me to the star with imaginary ropes and chains, I with an extrinsically originating pressure. I feel the pressure, I see it as light, in whatever form resonates with my receiver. I try jumping off my chair, the [pressure of the] unified field pushes me right back down to the ground. Light , gravity, electrical potential, nuclear force. I agree with you about the uselessness of the word energy... force or pressure, and motion, work much better for me. I only use the word energy if I think there is common usage implied by the context. I think the only thing I agree with QFT is the word "field".

[biknewb]

Hi Webo and Alton
I have a question. In your models, is one light "emitting" atom interacting with all other atoms in the universe or with one particular light "recieving" atom?
Does one atom put all energy into pulling one rope/vector or is the energy distributed evenly across all rope/vectors?
(Sorry for using the word energy, couldn't think of a better one.)

[altonhare]

For someone who represents a position as close to mine as anyone I've yet encountered, you sure are adversarial.

I only persist so with people I respect. I'm sorry, but you have a habit of "riding the fence" a lot and I can never seem to get you to firmly take a stance. I know you have a good mind so I want to see you take a firm stance one way or another and make a serious, pointed argument in that vein.

You tie me to the star with imaginary ropes and chains, I with an extrinsically originating pressure.

I understand, but "pressure" is the same kind of word as "jump" and "force", they are meaningless without something jumping or colliding etc.

What is exerting pressure? What objects are responsible for the pressure? Your cones, beams, rays, etc. are all analogies. I'm asking you why the pencil fell to the floor and you're telling me it must have been pushed downward from above or pulled downward from below, somewhat as if it slid down an unseen incline from the table to the ground. These are descriptions and/or analogies. If I ask you why you fell over will you say that a force was transferred to your head? Or will you say something hit your head? Does it not matter what the something was? If it was my fist, a bowling ball, or a raccoon?

I try jumping off my chair, the [pressure of the] unified field pushes me right back down to the ground.

Okay, so something is pushing you downward. What is this unified field? WHY would it exert a pressure "downward"? What is its structure that justifies this function?

I think the only thing I agree with QFT is the word "field".

You've defined a field as a "region of interaction". So, then, what is interacting in this region? Who are the players in this scene of the movie? Certainly we cannot have a play (a theory, interaction) with only a stage and props. We need actors!

Hi Webo and Alton
I have a question. In your models, is one light "emitting" atom interacting with all other atoms in the universe or with one particular light "recieving" atom?
Does one atom put all energy into pulling one rope/vector or is the energy distributed evenly across all rope/vectors?
(Sorry for using the word energy, couldn't think of a better one.)

Since every atom is connect to every other atom then, when the electron shell expands/contracts, it torques all the chains it is connected to. Each link of chain makes a larger angle with an axis running through the centers of the two atoms (higher frequency). As each link moves to this new angle it pushes/pulls on the links it is connected to, putting them into a new position. The adjacent links push/pull the links adjacent to them... and on to every atom in the U.

[bdw000]

Is everyone here familiar with Ralph Sansbury?

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/Wallsan.txt

Wal Thornhill:
>Sansbury's was a thousand dollar experiment using 10 nanosecond long
>pulses of laser light, one pulse every 400 nsec. At some distance from
>the laser was a photodiode detector. But in the light path, directly
>in front of the detector was a high speed electronic shutter (known as
>a Pockel cell) which could be switched to allow the laser light
>through to the detector, or stop it.
>
>Now, light is considered to travel as a wavefront or photon at the
>speed of light. Viewed this way, it covers a distance of about 1 foot
>per nanosecond. So the laser could be regarded as sending out 10ft
>long bursts of light every 400ft, at the speed of light. The
>experiment simply kept the Pockel cell shutter closed during the 400ft
>of no light and opened to allow the 10ft burst through to the detector.
>
>What happened?
>
>The detector saw nothing!!!
>
>It is as if a gun were fired at a target and for the time of flight of
>the bullet a shield were placed over the target. At the last moment,
>the shield is pulled away - and the bullet has disappeared; the target
>is untouched!
>
>What does it mean?
>
>Only that Maxwell's theory of the propagation of electromagnetic waves
>is wrong! Only that Einstein's Special theory of relativity (which was
>to reconcile Maxwell's theory with simple kinematics) is wrong! Only
>that, as a result, the interpretation of most of modern physics is
>wrong!

If Sansbury did his experiment correctly this is pretty darn important. Until we get a LOT of replication on this, I guess we have to admit the possibility of some sort of error on Ralph's part.

[altonhare]

Hey bdw,

Thank you for that, it was fascinating and I was not aware of the experiment. It's a clever and brilliant experiment to investigate light.

I remain dubious, not because I distrust him or Wal, but basic scientific skepticism. The experiment requires very delicate and precise timing, measurements, and apparatus.

I will think carefully on if there is a valid chain theory explanation for the observed behavior.

[junglelord]

Is everyone here familiar with Ralph Sansbury?

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/Wallsan.txt

Wal Thornhill:
>Sansbury's was a thousand dollar experiment using 10 nanosecond long
>pulses of laser light, one pulse every 400 nsec. At some distance from
>the laser was a photodiode detector. But in the light path, directly
>in front of the detector was a high speed electronic shutter (known as
>a Pockel cell) which could be switched to allow the laser light
>through to the detector, or stop it.
>
>Now, light is considered to travel as a wavefront or photon at the
>speed of light. Viewed this way, it covers a distance of about 1 foot
>per nanosecond. So the laser could be regarded as sending out 10ft
>long bursts of light every 400ft, at the speed of light. The
>experiment simply kept the Pockel cell shutter closed during the 400ft
>of no light and opened to allow the 10ft burst through to the detector.
>
>What happened?
>
>The detector saw nothing!!!
>
>It is as if a gun were fired at a target and for the time of flight of
>the bullet a shield were placed over the target. At the last moment,
>the shield is pulled away - and the bullet has disappeared; the target
>is untouched!
>
>What does it mean?
>
>Only that Maxwell's theory of the propagation of electromagnetic waves
>is wrong! Only that Einstein's Special theory of relativity (which was
>to reconcile Maxwell's theory with simple kinematics) is wrong! Only
>that, as a result, the interpretation of most of modern physics is
>wrong!

If Sansbury did his experiment correctly this is pretty darn important. Until we get a LOT of replication on this, I guess we have to admit the possibility of some sort of error on Ralph's part.

100% familiar...oh its real, its damn real. Any attempt to give Structure to Electrons will be a better model.
The way he attacks it with subtrons is very elegant. Its equal to APM, just a different level of Structure, one level below APM really. APM says the electron is non divisible two charge structure, Sansbury says there is one more division, subtrons. This is due to the fact he does not make ES a fundamental up front so he puts it inside. Simple way to divide the two!

[biknewb]

Sansbury really has a valuable point. If we leave open the exact mechanism of the coupling we can think about light in a different way. A way very much resembling the rope/vector models.
Some of the wave/particle duality is solved (if I understand it correctly), the wave being a frequency in the active atom. The particle effects in receiving atoms are local kinetic effects in response to the force accepted from the emitting atom.

To discuss these alternative models we really need to establish a dictionary. The commonly used terms are heavily biased.

[altonhare]

Sansbury really has a valuable point. If we leave open the exact mechanism of the coupling we can think about light in a different way. A way very much resembling the rope/vector models.
Some of the wave/particle duality is solved (if I understand it correctly), the wave being a frequency in the active atom. The particle effects in receiving atoms are local kinetic effects in response to the force accepted from the emitting atom.

To discuss these alternative models we really need to establish a dictionary. The commonly used terms are heavily biased.

Although Bill Gaede formulated the theory originally as a rope, it should really be a chain composed of links. I have discussed this with Bill privately and he has raised no objections. The chain retains all the functionality of the original rope while not involving the contradictory assumption of a "continuous yet flexible" entity. The chain also explains some other observational details that I don't need to go into here.

Wavelength: The distance between the center of two links of chain.

So when the atoms are not excited the links are lying nearly parallel, shown here as parallel because its ANSI:

------------- <----- Hypothetical "perfectly untorqued" chain, never actually realized between two atoms

This is exaggerated, they never become completely separated like this. When the atom's electron shell expands/contracts it lifts the links it is attached to "up" or "down". These links push on the next ones and so on, decreasing the wavelength:

XXXXXXXXX <------ torqued chain

Frequency: The number of links of chain per unit distance

This is just the inverse of wavelength.

An alternating expansion/contraction results in a torsion along the chain we may refer to as a physical wavepacket:

EmitterX-------------------------------------------------------Absorber

EmitterXX-----------------------------------------------------Absorber

Emitter-XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-------------------------Absorber

Emitter----------XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX----------------Absorber

Emitter-------------------XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-------Absorber

Emitter-------------------------XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-Absorber

EmitterX-------------------------XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXAbsorber

EmitterXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-------------------------XAbsorber

Etc.


i.e. regions of chain where the links are nearly parallel surrounding a region where they make a large angle with a hypothetical axis through the centers of the two atoms. The large angle region is what Einstein refers to as a "photon", the quantum mechanics refer to as a "wave-packet", and chain theory refers to as a torsion.

[junglelord]

Sansbury really has a valuable point. If we leave open the exact mechanism of the coupling we can think about light in a different way. A way very much resembling the rope/vector models.
Some of the wave/particle duality is solved (if I understand it correctly), the wave being a frequency in the active atom. The particle effects in receiving atoms are local kinetic effects in response to the force accepted from the emitting atom.

To discuss these alternative models we really need to establish a dictionary. The commonly used terms are heavily biased.

Languague Police alert! [MOD note: we can do without the baiting.]
Define dimension = APM or Blazelabs
Define subtron = Sansbury
Define aether = many available, all similar.
Define ..... chain = poor analogy for aether, subtron, dimensions, tends to resist any conclusion past the word rope/chain.

No math, no pure definition. Visual imagery is what it is. Some relationships being exhibited with the mental imagery.
However vacuum structure and electron structure has been examined properly several times, APM, Sansbury, and we find no ropes, no chains. Suggesting a structure without any real definition is really only a functional attempt to explain everything with the "whimsical" rope thrown in as the so called "structure" capable of all functions.

I don't buy it for a second. Clearly a handicap.

[webolife]

I like the debate, but I love it when we find something to agree on!
In email communication with Ralph S. a couple years ago, I found that he had trouble with my "vectors",
he sees light as essentially a wave phenomenon, just orthogonal to the line of sight, the spectral component, whereas I see the spectrum as a pressure gradient. Essentially much of his theory fits nicely with my UFT.
Yes, Biknewby, a light action radiates from all [participating] points in the universe, as Altonhare also indicated. The funny thing... only observers know it, so does it affect other points in the universe as well? We see the effects of reflection, ionization, absorption, from starlight at different points in the universe, but again, it only becomes a detected effect when we observe it! Yet A=A, and we are confident that nebula did not just appear out of nothing when we opened our eyes, or flipped the lens cover off our telescope. Both the direct light of the star, and its reflected light effects are encountering us continually. I think both Alton and I might use Newton's cradle as an analogy for light action, but Alton, if I understand correctly, would say that the impulse of the ball on one end of the row travels through the row of balls [his chain ball-and-socket links] at the c-rate, whereas I say the impulse and the momentum are conserved instantly, regardless of the balls... however my "vectors" are not composed of links, rather are components themselves of a universal system [of pressure] that binds all of the universe together. A la Pascal, pressure exerted at one point in the universe acts radially across the universe. As the ultimate fractal, the universe itself is a single "link".
Alton, is "torsion" just an figment of your imagination, or does it show up as something that actually reveals torsion?
Can you measure the c-rate, or are you just assuming that it happens because of the strength of the paradigm? I like your "angle" reference, as I see the spectral pressure gradient as an angular relationship between the colors and the central line-of-sight.

[junglelord]

Everything comes from a Vortex. Dual opposites are the universal rule.
Angle and Frequency are everything past the Vortex.

[bboyer]

Is everyone here familiar with Ralph Sansbury?

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/Wallsan.txt

<snip>

If Sansbury did his experiment correctly this is pretty darn important. Until we get a LOT of replication on this, I guess we have to admit the possibility of some sort of error on Ralph's part.

Here is a technical thread from Feb 2000 usenet's sci.optics group on Sansbury's pockel cell experiment that some may find interesting. Includes original postings by Sansbury. Numerous other threads could also likely be found by newsgroup search since he appears quite active back then (http://groups.google.com/?pli=1).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.opti ... 1b85bd2409 . Note: this one search resulted from my misspelling of pockel as "pocket" so if you search the groups using "pockel" (e.g. "ralphy sansbury pockel cell") you'll get many hits.

[altonhare]

I like the debate, but I love it when we find something to agree on!

I would love to say it's so between us, but you ascribe to the "gforce" of APM, a vague explain-it-all word that doesn't actually teach us anything about physics. You choose this over the simple physical hypothesis of chain theory, which explains light, gravity, and magnetism physically.

APM is an elaborate mathematical correlation just like any other QFT.

I admire your ability to think off the mainstream, though, and the fact that you will debate qualitatively instead of just referring to the math.

however my "vectors" are not composed of links, rather are components themselves of a universal system [of pressure] that binds all of the universe together.

If your vectors are "components themselves" then you mean they are objects i.e. they have structure. Why continually insist on the abstraction/concept vector instead of an actual object "link"? Are you so forcefully against a physical causal mechanism? Do you find the idea of a theory of physics involving objects with shape so distasteful?

Alton, is "torsion" just an figment of your imagination, or does it show up as something that actually reveals torsion?

The observation that light "propagates as a transverse wave" is consistent with the torsion mechanism. If we look down a rope/chain extended away from us that is torquing we will see the familiar oscillation of the transverse waves of Maxwell's equations. The torsion is the mechanism most consistent with this observation. See the light video, it illustrates how the torsion mechanism is the physical version of the 2-D transverse wave:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

Can you measure the c-rate, or are you just assuming that it happens because of the strength of the paradigm?

It is theoretically calculable if the length of the link is known and the force of the electron shell's expansion/contraction are known. I plan to do this via computer simulation to demonstrate the constancy of c.

In chain theory the torsion propagates, fundamentally, by simple Newtonian mechanics. This is because the links are continuous objects so they engage in only perfectly elastic collisions. It is only atoms, which experience the inertial drag of every atom in the universe pulling on them, that are observed to behave relativistically.

Define dimension = APM or Blazelabs

I have already shown why APM's definitions are wholly untenable:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 170#p12402

They are circular and evasive and ultimately say nothing. APM is reduced to yet another mathematical correlation that gets the numbers right but provides us with no real insight into physics or the workings of the universe.

Define ..... chain = poor analogy for aether, subtron, dimensions, tends to resist any conclusion past the word rope/chain.

I have defined a great many of the basics words in physics such as motion, time, and mass. They are also in the above link and scattered around these forums. The mistake that has been made in physics is with regards to the word "object" and defining it in a non-circular manner. Once this is accomplished other definitions follow logically. APM evades defining "object" because an object is something and APM is a theory of "nothing". It is strictly a convenient mathematical compactification of collected data, a mathematical correlation.

Visual imagery is what it is. Some relationships being exhibited with the mental imagery.
However vacuum structure and electron structure has been examined properly several times, APM, Sansbury, and we find no ropes, no chains.

And yet chain-rope theory is visualized in full-color glory in Bill's videos and APM cannot propose a single structure. The words of APM "vortex" "charge" etc. are concepts. There is not a single object in APM. This is most clearly illustrated in APM's attempt to define dimension, a quality specific to objects, as "non-material".

JL argues about structures yet he has none, and rope-chain theory illustrates them all for you on video. APM is full of math, rope-chain theory does not require any math because it explains qualitatively instead of just correlating mathematically.

[bboyer]

Please take non-EU theory-specific discussions to their relevant topics in the other forums provided (Future of Science, The Human Question, NIAMI).

[junglelord]

How can you talk EU within the context of only the present four force model>
those restrictions are ludicrus.

To disallow charge models that support EU via their own interpertation, like APM, is therefore nonsequitar.
Your telling me to dumb down. Wal supports Sansbury, and his subtron theory is not mainstream, neither is EU.
Yet APM is not kosher? How can that be since Dave Talbott fully supports APM? Since both are compatable and both redfine photons, then how can only one be available for review?