Electric Universe - Paradigm Shift

[altonhare]

With regards to SF He climbing the walls of a beaker I should also mention that it doesn't "boil" because of the atoms and molecules above it. I didn't mention this before because it is sort of trivial, of course any material will "boil" if the pressure is low enough.

I also did a bit more reading and found out that not only will SF He creep up the walls of a container, it will coat the roof of a container as well. This is fascinating. On the one hand it appears to interact with the walls enough to "stick" but on the other hand it appears to have 0 "viscosity" i.e. doesn't interact except by hard-sphere collision. The reason for this phenomenon may lie in this fact:

A superfluid acts as if it were a mixture of a normal component, with all the properties associated with normal fluid, and a superfluid component.

Based on this observation I would posit that some of the He atoms behave as nearly perfect hard spheres while some have electron shells that are loose enough to interact/stick to glass etc. This actually makes more sense because a collection of nearly perfect hard spheres inevitably converts to an observed gaseous state. I would posit that SF He doesn't literally have 0 viscosity, also, but rather has viscosity that only appears to be zero (i.e. looks very small).

I work with SF He in our lab in order to make very cold clusters of various atoms and molecules to analyze their electronic structure. We essentially "encase" our cluster in SF he. There have been some aspects of our spectra that indicate the viscosity may not be literally perfectly zero. We take the spectrum of a cluster without SF He and then with SF He and there are certain transitions which are not precisely in the same place. Although our resolution is not good to make a conclusive statement, we have seen persistent tiny shifts that are consistent with SF He having only "extremely low" viscosity. If it were literally 0 it should not affect certain structural aspects of the spectra, but it seems it may do so in our lab.

In any event, discrete particles have no power to explain any of these observations, which is the point of this thread. The EU must take recourse in a physical hypothesis in which all atoms are physically connected or risk falling into the same traps as many modern theories of physics have.

[junglelord]

Wal Knows His Stuff.

[Solar]

That video on "identity crisis" Is a perfect example of the idiots running the physics departments today. This "condensate" is made of "waves" of nothing, and then "they" [plural waves] ,become "longer" but now called "packets". "They all think theyre everywhere"[plural] ,and "theyre all doing the same thing "."approximately at rest". These "wave packets" are at "rest" yet waves?

This is the perfect example of why man needs to explicitly discover the axiom of Identity. Hes "confused" because he is talking gibberish. A ball of undefined contradiction. Indeed one cannot "visualize" square-circles.

Why is it "very diffucult to imagine or to visualize"? Because the clowns havent observed this nonsensical string of meaningless sounds spilling from his mouth [like a viscous material]. These are floating abstractions with NO CONCRETE OBJECTIVE REFERENTS. One doesnt have to "imagine" what one is observing.

Now; now, don't be shy Plasmatic. LOL!!! That is ranking pretty high on my favorite replies list.

Right, the so-called "Bose Einstein condensate". This behavior is only "strange" if one assumes the atoms are discrete, separate particles. If they are all interconnected then it is perfectly natural behavior. Quantum mechanics assumes everything is a particle but then uses "wave equations" to describe it. They are choosing to live with and accept duality and contradiction instead of posing a new physical hypothesis. The fact that we observe this behavior is just another drop in the bucket of observations indicating that quantum is physically incorrect.

Any comments on the Davisson-Germer Experiment? This was the experiment that supposedly demonstrated de Broglie’s "wave nature of matter". Are there any other interpretations of the results available?

It's interesting that in "Revisiting Louis de Broglie's famous 1924 paper in the Philosophical Magazine" de Broglie's speculations are referred to as a"natural" assumption.

Why would discrete particles ever coalesce into what we observe as a liquid?

That's actually a very good question. Thank you for the information of SF He also, a very interesting substance. Any comments on C.K. Thornhill's "Stellar Abberation"?

"Continuous": without interruption
"Discontinuous": characterized by interruption

I'm also a bit curious here. Is it not the case that connecting every atom in the universe via electromagnetic serpentine ropes qualifies as a continuum (continuous) that also appears to allow the formation of other objects, such as molecules etc, (discontinuous) thereby presenting a "duality" as well?

Apologies if this has been discussed.

Wow. You guys have been busy in here. Lots of catching up to do.

[altonhare]

"Continuous": without interruption
"Discontinuous": characterized by interruption

I'm also a bit curious here. Is it not the case that connecting every atom in the universe via electromagnetic serpentine ropes qualifies as a continuum (continuous) that also appears to allow the formation of other objects, such as molecules etc, (discontinuous) thereby presenting a "duality" as well?

This is the reason for going over from Bill Gaede's continuous rope to my chain. The individual links of chain are continuous and perfectly rigid. However have male/female ends that fit inside each other and so can rotate to confer overall flexibility to the whole chain. So the chain overall is discontinuous yet maintains its integrity (the male end can't leave the female socket) while the link is continuous yet confers overall flexibility by rotating in the socket. The chain justifies all these seemingly exclusive properties without invoking a duality. It's really quite elegant and I am proud of it. The universe is composed of discrete "particles" but they are inextricably joined . A marriage of the discrete corpuscle and the "continuous aether" into a non paradoxical structure that justifies both push and pull (gravitation).

Any comments on the Davisson-Germer Experiment? This was the experiment that supposedly demonstrated de Broglie’s "wave nature of matter". Are there any other interpretations of the results available?

The fact is, matter does "move like a wave". Take the ends of your straight bicycle chain in either hand and cross one arm over the other making a loop of chain. This represents the very simplest conceptual model of a "particle". Now, the loop does not move by a translating of the entire chain in a single direction, each link moving in unison. It moves link by link. Holding either end of the looped chain in each hand, tilt your hands first to the right and then to the left. The loop will "move". In the real chain there does not even have to be any tilting. One link collides with the link in front of it, which hits the link in front of it and so on until this momentum is transferred to a link in the loop. The link moves to the side while hitting the link in front of it, which moves to the side while hitting the link in front of it, etc. It's quite amazing how similar this motion looks to the archetypal "wave-packet" motion often illustrated in the particle-in-a-box problem of quantum. This motion can also be understood by analogy to a slinky (thank you webolife). If you and your friend each hold the end of a slinky, and one of you gives it a little push, the first ring in the slinky will hit the next which hits the next etc. etc. It looks like there is a "wave moving" but actually its just each individual link moving foward, colliding, and moving back into place. It's just a little ripple along the slinky (or the chain). De Broglie was absolutely correct in hypothesizing that particles have a "wave nature", he and his contemporaries just couldn't quite figure out how to justify this physically. I think I've done that.

That's actually a very good question. Thank you for the information of SF He also, a very interesting substance. Any comments on C.K. Thornhill's "Stellar Abberation"?

I'm not much of an astronomer, I'm sorry to admit. I did look over the paper though and I see all the same mistakes with regards to the aether. If it is particulate why would it aggregate? Billiard balls inevitably diverge and the density of discrete particles in the universe should be miniscule. If it is continuous how can it be compressible? I think the "fluid aether" is a desperate attempt to force our macroscopic perspective of fluids onto Nature. If the aether is like water then light would behave like sound, period. If the aether is like water except its constituents are perfectly continuous and the collisions are perfectly elastic then its constituents will bounce off each other and diverge forever, just like in pool if we broke the set of balls but did so on a gym floor instead of a pool table. The balls would all diverge to the corners of the gymnasium. Finally if the aether is not made of constituents it is not compressible at all.

I would have to apply myself diligently to the problem of stellar aberration to tickle out its physical causation, but I can say without question that the aether path is a dead-end. They may end up with a mathematical description that fits all the data and bandy about the term "aether", but they will never actually understand these physical phenomena if they cling to the aether hypothesis. The aether is a Ptolemaic explanation just like the earth-centric universe.

Many are either unaware that de Broglie proposed the electron was a "kinked string" around the nucleus in order to explain quantum jump and to keep the electron from "spiraling in" to the nucleus. This kinked string is not unlike the encapsulating ball of chain I have proposed, indeed I consider de Broglie's kinked string physical hypothesis the direct predecessor to thread/chain theory. It is highly unfortunate that Max Born came on the scene and converted this kinked string back to a particle with "indeterminate position/momentum". It was a direct step backward in terms of physical causation, but it was the easiest way to "get the math to work out". Indeterminacy also happens to have appealed very highly to the religious folk out there, who were dying for any "scientific" evidence of free will they could find. Well they don't have to worry anymore, today science claims to "prove God" and says we are going to "detect God".

What have they done to physics?

[altonhare]

I just had a bit of a "duh" moment. Stellar aberration seems perfectly natural under chain theory.

The earth is a bunch of atoms all moving like a longitudinal wave i.e. by the slinky analogy i.e. laternating compression/expansion. On the other hand light is a propagating torsion (a lateral motion that also propagates along the chain). We need to keep in mind, however, the limitations of the slinky analogy. The slinky is good at conceptualizing isolated motion but not good at conceptualizing interaction because the structure of the chain is nothing like a slinky. In reality "particles" are more like an aggregate of loops of chain that are sliding along the cosmic coaxial chain by individual links somewhat like a bead on an abacus. This picture of motion is more honest in that it reveals how "messy" the motion of a "single particle" actually is. Of course if the particle physicists assume the electron or the proton or etc. are discrete particles they will not be able to explain this 'wave like" motion.

In any event, stellar aberration is pretty easy to explain qualitatively this way. As the atoms move they are disturbing the cosmic interstellar coaxial chains adjacent to them. Any torsion propagating along these chains in their vicinity will be disturbed by this motion. So as the earth spins it disturbs the chains connecting it to the star that is torquing those chains (i.e. "sending light" to it). It disturbs these chains in a fairly regular way that leads to the observed disturbance of incoming torsions (light) in earth's vicinity.

Does this make sense?

[flyingcloud]

so if everything is a male female link, what continues the chain rope? how does the next female connect to the already paired male female of the next bond

[altonhare]

so if everything is a male female link, what continues the chain rope? how does the next female connect to the already paired male female of the next bond

They are all connected. They never were disconnected. When I talk about them "fitting together" I am not referring to some process by which the chain self-assembles, I'm just trying to conceptualize interlocked pieces for the reader.

There is one string of chain that is connected to itself. Over some portions of the chain there are loops (what we perceive as atoms) and over others there is a dual-strand, anti parallel entwined length of chain. When the loop expands or contracts this entwined rope-chain torques. Each link collides with the next link and so on and so forth until it arrives at the next loop, expands it, and repeat. This is the phenomenon referred to as "light".