The Details of Thread Theory

[altonhare]

Cameras can not record single particles traveling close to the speed of light.

Unfortunate for the particle physicist, that s/he cannot show us the particle upon which his/her theory rests. Convenient for the particle physicist, that s/he has a convincing excuse that garners sympathy and concession.

As a scientist I see the objective evidence before me at face value. I do not see particles. Nothing the particle physicist says changes the image, it just serves as excuses and justifications. I think s/he cannot show me a single fundamental particle because there is no such particle.

Now, Why does the "threads" bend and curve? How can a EM rope be bent by magnetic fields?

You will first need to learn what magnetic field is:

[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8]Magnetism[/url2]

If every atom in the universe is connected via threads, then shouldn't we have detected them?

Analogously, if every atom in the U is throwing photon rocks at us, shouldn't we have detected them? This vid may also help:

[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM]Light[/url2]

Final question, how can EM be twined into a rope?

I don't understand the question.

[tangointhenight]

I have watched his videos.

I still do not understand, He explains attraction and repulsion by saying threads SPIN around the magnet. Am I right or wrong? The threads spin?????
Around the magnet, if they spin the same way, they knock each other away, if they spin separate directions they whack toghter locking.

Now we know that if you shove a magnet into a coil and spin the magnet you produce a electrical current. When the magnet stops spinning, no more current.
Maybe I am missing some fundamental point.

Anyway, my last question was bit vague, what I was asking is that, EM (Electromagnetic radiation) propagates in all directions. If you could see it leave a antenna, it would look like a sphere. What I was asking was that, how can EM fields be twined into a rope? Unless you trying to tell me that EM fields have always been ropes.

[Plasmatic]

Unless you trying to tell me that EM fields have always been ropes.

Bingo. This is exactly what Alton is telling you. [unless ive had some sort of memory lapse! ]

[tangointhenight]

Yeah, and his proof of "ropes" is a recording of the tracks of particles in a collider over a period of time. Influx tried to explain that to him, but Alton would not listen.

He didn't understand that The picture shows the tracks -- i.e. paths -- of particles, not threads. It's showing that particles moved in those trajectories.

He thinks, it looks like X, therefore it is X! Even if the threads are rational on paper, proof is needed.

[altonhare]

I have watched his videos.

I still do not understand, He explains attraction and repulsion by saying threads SPIN around the magnet. Am I right or wrong? The threads spin?????
Around the magnet, if they spin the same way, they knock each other away, if they spin separate directions they whack toghter locking.

Sounds like you understand just fine.

Now we know that if you shove a magnet into a coil and spin the magnet you produce a electrical current. When the magnet stops spinning, no more current.
Maybe I am missing some fundamental point.

One point that helps is that current is essentially a non-stationary magnetic field. When an atom on one side of the wire is stimulated into spinning its magnetic thread, the magnetic thread pushes on the magnetic thread of the adjacent atom and so on and so forth. This is what happens when you "switch on the current".

Current is like a drill bit spinning in place.

It also helps to pay close attention to Bill's illustration of an inductor (coil) in vid#9. Look at that carefully and then imagine putting a magnet in there and spinning it. Depending on which way you rotate the magnet, the magnet's spinning threads will either boost the coil's "top" threads or "bottom" threads. A small portion of the coil's threads are now spinning faster, which induces adjacent atoms' to spinning faster, and so on. As long as you keep rotating the magnet you will keep "boosting" the magnetic threads of the coil, driving a current through the wire.

Anyway, my last question was bit vague, what I was asking is that, EM (Electromagnetic radiation) propagates in all directions. If you could see it leave a antenna, it would look like a sphere. What I was asking was that, how can EM fields be twined into a rope? Unless you trying to tell me that EM fields have always been ropes.

The hypothesis is that each atom is connected via a 2 strand antiparallel rope. When the electron shell of the atom pumps (expands and contracts) it torques ALL the ropes adjacent to it.

Torsion along ropes extending out symmetrically in all directions doesn't look like spherical propagation to you?

Also, I should correct myself, I said:

The hypothesis is that the rope is the fundamental, primordial entity. There are no smaller parts.

I should say:

The hypothesis is that the thread is the fundamental, primordial entity. There are no smaller parts. The rope is composed of 2 entwined threads.

[altonhare]

Yeah, and his proof of "ropes" is a recording of the tracks of particles in a collider over a period of time. Influx tried to explain that to him, but Alton would not listen.

So far nobody (certainly not myself) actually knows what Influx's objection is to this image. As near as I can tell:

1) They can't record or "see" single collisions.

Untrue, each individual collision sets off the detector's apparatus. They record each and every one. These collisions are occurring each millsecond, which is a comfortable millenium or so as far as the detector's electronics are concerned.

2) They averaged many individual collisions' data together.

Irrelevant. This is standard experimental physics procedure. It is no different than dropping a ball and measuring its fall time repeatedly, and taking the average.

3) We can't be certain only binary collisions are taking place.

Untrue, the densities and velocities involved make higher order collisions statistically insignificant.

So let's lay this to rest. I think we ALL agree that this image represents the expected, "normal" results of a relativistic collision between 2 gold ions.

He didn't understand that The picture shows the tracks -- i.e. paths -- of particles, not threads. It's showing that particles moved in those trajectories.

Please show me these particles. I'm dying to see them.

He thinks, it looks like X, therefore it is X! Even if the threads are rational on paper, proof is needed.

TT: These long thin objects look like threads emanating from the atoms.
PP: They look like traces made by particles.
TT: Where are the particles?
PP: Can't show them to you!
TT: So the objective evidence before us, taken at face value, is a long, thin, extended object. But you insist on positing that which you can't see or show me?
PP: Of course, they're traces made by particles. We just can't see particles.
TT: Well, surely you'll understand if I take this at face value on the basis of parsimony/Occam's Razor, and do not posit particles which we don't see. I respect that positing particles makes more sense to you, good luck finding your particles.
PP: But your threads have no *proof*! This picture shows trajectories of particles, duh. Until you can show me proof your theory is worthless!
TT: ...

[Influx]

So let's lay this to rest. I think we ALL agreethat this image represents the expected, "normal" results of a relativistic collision between 2 gold ions.

Nah, Agreeing is one thing, actually it being the truth is different. The collisions last femtoseconds and not micro or milliseconds. Time averaging is actually very relevant, since it is not the data of a single measure event, but many! Its like saying that there are one thousand cars in a long exposure pic of car headlights, where it could have just as easily been one car. We have know way of knowing how many cars were there!

[altonhare]

So let's lay this to rest. I think we ALL agreethat this image represents the expected, "normal" results of a relativistic collision between 2 gold ions.

Nah, Agreeing is one thing, actually it being the truth is different. The collisions last femtoseconds and not micro or milliseconds. Time averaging is actually very relevant, since it is not the data of a single measure event, but many! Its like saying that there are one thousand cars in a long exposure pic of car headlights, where it could have just as easily been one car. We have know way of knowing how many cars were there!

Actually the collisions/plasma is even less long-lived than femtoseconds. It's on the order of picofemtoseconds. The separation between collisions is on the order of a millisecond.

Averaging many events has been done throughout human history. Galileo surely rolled a great many balls down inclines and averaged together results from similar runs. This is how experimentalists get rid of experimental noise.

Your analogy, ironically, is pertinent to a single collision event. In a single event we see only many streams of car headlights in all directions. In each stream it could be just one car moving so fast we cannot distinguish it or it could be a bunch of cars chained together.

In this image we are seeing what the streams of traffic looks like "on average". By this I mean car/chain 1 may be at x1=1, car/chain 2 at x2=4, and car/chain 3 at x3=9 in one picture. In the next we may have x1=1.3, x2=3.8, and x3=8.9. For our final result we report x1=1.15, x2=3.9, and x3=8.95.

The important point here is that our final result still involves 3 cars/chains. We saw where each one was in each individual collision.

[bdw000]

Yeah, and his proof of "ropes" is a recording of the tracks of particles in a collider over a period of time. Influx tried to explain that to him, but Alton would not listen.

He didn't understand that The picture shows the tracks -- i.e. paths -- of particles, not threads. It's showing that particles moved in those trajectories.

He thinks, it looks like X, therefore it is X! Even if the threads are rational on paper, proof is needed.

Hey alton, it appears to me that some of the recent posts in this thread show that the poster doesn't quite understand the "thread" idea.

I remember when I had some similar misunderstandings.

I think the reply that the above quote is looking for might be that yes, the standard "particle track" idea explains the image, but that thread theory ALSO explains it. Perhaps your main point would be not that "it can NOT be the tracks of particles producing the image" (which is what people are assuming is your point ??), just that there is no evidence (such as the image itself) that PROVES that the image shows tracks of particles as opposed to vibrating threads.

Gotta hand it to you, applying thread theory to particle accelerator "images" is very interesting.

If I hadn't found out that modern physics pretends that the literal rape of language somehow equals "scientific evidence," I would be laughing at your idea here. But I am not laughing, just

Kindergarten-level philosophy of science is critical here. If you push a button on a box, and the red light comes on, what does it mean? How do you know? Does it mean that the price of tea in China is $1 a pound, or does it mean that light is made up of particles? How much of your conclusion to the question of "how do you know" is nothing more than assumption?????

So the question for alton's opponents here is, "how are you going to PROVE that those are tracks from particles, and not vibrating threads/ropes?" I am not saying I "know" one side or the other is correct. Perhaps there are some simple arguments that any physics freshman knows about, and alton just needs to be shown them (and I would be interested to see them also). Too often modern physics just pretends that whatever "they" say is right just because they say it, when there really is no direct connection between the data and the claims of what that data means. In other words, there is often no justification for the claims of what the data means, except that it agrees with "accepted theory," which really is no justification at all.

[rcglinsk]

Hey Alton,

If you are, it seems odd that you'd use the picture of the smashed gold atoms as evidence for thread theory. They've got these ideas called particle physics which are a set of equations with a few important parameters. They build fantastic machines that measure the energy released by the impact of the beams various ways. The data is then fed into the mathematical model and the picture is produced. The lines in the picture refer to particular concepts in the particle physics mathematics. It's not in any way an accurate "picture" of what happens when gold atoms collide and so not relevant evidence to the position you're trying to defend - their picture looking kind of like threads is a total coincidence isn't it?

[tangointhenight]

Alton, you obviously think that the scientist is relying on cameras to capture the particles. The picture is just a computer generated image for the laymen.

the detector has many detectors that detect these particles, that's why we know they exist. Do not just look at pretty pictures, you have to dig into the raw data and check for yourself.

If I had a picture I would show you, but I dont sorry. The point is they know these particles exist not because of that picture, but because they can detect these particles.

Anyway, the thread theory says that magnets have threads that spin around it, all the time. Right? So why is it when I shove a magnet into a coil I have to spin the magnet to make current? If the threads are already spinning then I would be making free energy.

[altonhare]

Hey Alton,

If you are, it seems odd that you'd use the picture of the smashed gold atoms as evidence for thread theory.

Actually, it was tangointhenight who first introduced this image when he linked to the wikipedia article. He linked to it to show me how particles have been "proven". However the relevant "proof" does not show any particles, in fact it shows what look more like threads.

They've got these ideas called particle physics which are a set of equations with a few important parameters.

Particle physics is equations and parameters? Sounds like glorified curve-fitting, not physics.

They build fantastic machines that measure the energy released by the impact of the beams various ways.

Measure energy? What does this energy thing look like that they're measuring? If they can't even visualize it how will they know when they've measured it?


The data is then fed into the mathematical model and the picture is produced. The lines in the picture refer to particular concepts in the particle physics mathematics.

It's not in any way an accurate "picture" of what happens when gold atoms collide and so not relevant evidence to the position you're trying to defend - their picture looking kind of like threads is a total coincidence isn't it?

My main point was (and still is) that tango presented this as evidence/proof for particles, however we see not a single particle.

If it isn't accurate then it's not evidence for anything. The implication from wikipedia is that it's accurate, however it could be wrong or misunderstood.

Alton, you obviously think that the scientist is relying on cameras to capture the particles.

Depends on exactly what you mean by "camera". No I don't think they have a bunch of little photosensors vis a vis standard photography.

The picture is just a computer generated image for the laymen.

Like I said to rcg, if it isn't accurate then it's not "evidence" for particles, ropes, or anything else for that matter.

The point is they know these particles exist not because of that picture, but because they can detect these particles.

They know what particles exist? I still haven't seen any, where are they?. How can we talk about X if we haven't even pointed at X?

How do they KNOW they detected a discrete particle? What if a particular part of a rope touched their apparatus as it vibrated? They say it's a particle, Nature doesn't care what they say.

Anyway, the thread theory says that magnets have threads that spin around it, all the time. Right? So why is it when I shove a magnet into a coil I have to spin the magnet to make current? If the threads are already spinning then I would be making free energy.

There is no "free energy". The only perpetual motion machine is the entire U.

The coil does not have any spinning threads until you pass a current through it. When you put a magnet into a coil of copper nothing happens because the copper's threads are not spinning. When you turn on the current then, inside the coils, there is essentially a "magnetic field", i.e. the threads are now spinning. Now the inserted magnet and the inside of the coil interact just like any two magnets would interact, attraction and repulsion. There is no "free energy" here because the situation is fundamentally no different than placing one magnet near another. When you spin the inserted magnet, however, you add to the pushes and pulls. This drives the threads in the coil to spin faster i.e. "energy".

[tangointhenight]

Well then if you think the detectors are inaccurate then how can you say these are threads? If scientist don't know what these things are ,then I can speculate by saying these traces where left by strings.

But where is the proof, some evidence that supports your theory. Some experimental evidence that will conclude the existence of these threads.

This theory could turn the scientific world upside down!, if you can provide concrete proof.


Good luck,

[webolife]

Alton said:
The hypothesis is that the rope is the fundamental, primordial entity. There are no smaller parts.
You renegging on the alternate "chain" hypothesis?

[webolife]

Alton said:
There is no "free energy". The only perpetual motion machine is the entire U.
Say, what's your take on the second law of thermodynamics?