Time and Motion

[Drethon]

Based on the article linked in (or maybe I read it elsewhere ) a neutrino is said to be a particle of matter that is derived of all electrical charge which gives it 0 mass, basically the base unit of matter. When given charge, the neutrino becomes a particle with mass, ex electron(-), proton(+), neutron (+/-, I think...) or potentially a subatomic particle.

An interesting theory anyway.

So it is an object with 0 mass. An object, by definition, has mass.

"Derived of electrical charge": So what does this charge look like? Is it a concept or an object?

"Given charge": Who/what gives this mass-less non-entity charge and thus imbues it with mass and converts the non-entity into an entity?

In order to engage in scientific discussion we have to define the words we will use. If we do not define them then they are just meaningless, detached symbols. Such squawking could never lead to any actual understanding.

So define charge, particle, and matter. Then we may know what this theory means.

I can't say for the rest but how would you define charge? Seems your theory would need electrical charge in some matter as well. While you are at it, how do you define matter?

[altonhare]

I can't say for the rest but how would you define charge? Seems your theory would need electrical charge in some matter as well. While you are at it, how do you define matter?

-drethon

It's so much more difficult to describe photocurrent in words vs. watching Bill's videos. However I'll try to do it succinctly.

A taut dual-strand antiparallel rope connects all atoms. One strand of the rope converges on the nucleus and the other strand wraps around somewhat like a yarn ball. When the yarn ball (electron shell) expands it torques the rope it is attached to, increasing the number of links per unit length (increases its "frequency"). This torsion propagates along the rope. This explains why "light" propagates rectilinear, the path is already established between the two atoms! Anyway, when the torsion arrives at the next atom its electron shell expands. In a conductor the electron shell has loose threads (you probably think of them as loose electrons). When the shell expands these loose threads expand out further and spin around the atom as the atom spins. These loose threads collide with the threads in the adjacent atom and induce them to spinning, which in turn induce the next atom's threads to spinning... and so on. With a steady stream of light the flow of current is somewhat like a drill bit spinning in place, a bunch of loose threads spinning in place along the length of the wire all the way to the detector. Incidentally the "quantization" of light upon absorption and emission is a direct result of the fact that an entwined, anti parallel rope can only be taken in or let out in integral links.

Again, you should watch the videos. Other forms of charge I discuss in decent detail in "problems with thread theory". Enjoy.

[Drethon]

So charge is based on spin if I understand what you are saying. Is polarity based on the direction of spin or is the only 0->infine charge based on the speed(?) of the spin?

If I were to use the mater is a standing wave theory, I believe I would define charge as the standing wave moving out from the center of the object vs moving into the center of the object (If I could ever find the site I'd link it for you and you could see simulations of this...)

[altonhare]

So charge is based on spin if I understand what you are saying. Is polarity based on the direction of spin or is the only 0->infine charge based on the speed(?) of the spin?

If I were to use the mater is a standing wave theory, I believe I would define charge as the standing wave moving out from the center of the object vs moving into the center of the object (If I could ever find the site I'd link it for you and you could see simulations of this...)

It's based on the spinning of three dimensional threads/ropes and/or the enmeshing of a loose thread in an electron shell. This can be visualized.

What's a standing wave?

mi centavo:

Neutrinos-
Humans’ nearly quantified, objectified, rationalized detection of what has historically,
collectively, generically been called the Aether ?

s

-seasmith

This is a description of what has been observed in experiments. It does not tell us what a neutrino/aether IS. What shapes does it have? How does this shape give rise to observed properties of light? Again, only a taut dual-strand anti parallel rope can reproduce all the observed phenomena of light physically.

[seasmith]

altonhare wrote:

This is a description of what has been observed in experiments. It does not tell us what a neutrino/aether IS. What shapes does it have? How does this shape give rise to observed properties of light? Again, only a taut dual-strand anti parallel rope can reproduce all the observed phenomena of light physically.

Alton,

You are the one invoking "neutrinos".
Any ' quantatized or rationalized' Unit is inherently an objective representation (observation)
of a subjective (if even collectively subjective) reality.

See "Sea of Neutrinos" in the academic literature.

uno neutrino sea smith
~

[altonhare]

Alton,

You are the one invoking "neutrinos".

-seasmith

Uhh, seasmith, you may want to reread the recent posts. It was Drethor who introduced the term "neutrino" and posted a link to a website discussing them, not I.

Any ' quantatized or rationalized' Unit is inherently an objective representation (observation)
of a subjective (if even collectively subjective) reality

-seasmith

What do you mean by "unit"? What does it mean for this "unit" to be quantized or rationalized?



And can nobody just answer me straight out,"We need an ether/aether because..." and also tell me why an interconnection of ropes does not also solve the problem?

[Drethon]

And can nobody just answer me straight out,"We need an ether/aether because..." and also tell me why an interconnection of ropes does not also solve the problem?

My usual position of Devil's advocate... If light is transferred through the ropes, why is it that light changes speed based on what materials it travels through?

[webolife]

And can nobody just answer me straight out,"We need an ether/aether because..." and also tell me why an interconnection of ropes does not also solve the problem?

My usual position of Devil's advocate... If light is transferred through the ropes, why is it that light changes speed based on what materials it travels through?[/quote]

Drethon, the change of light speed you refer to here is only an inferred change... what is measured is a refractive angle.
By correlation of that angle with assumed wavelength, speed is inferred... the assumed wavelength is also based on the assumed c-rate for light, and therefore it cannot be proven that "light speed" even exists, let alone changes.

[altonhare]

And can nobody just answer me straight out,"We need an ether/aether because..." and also tell me why an interconnection of ropes does not also solve the problem?

My usual position of Devil's advocate... If light is transferred through the ropes, why is it that light changes speed based on what materials it travels through?

Drethon, the change of light speed you refer to here is only an inferred change... what is measured is a refractive angle.
By correlation of that angle with assumed wavelength, speed is inferred... the assumed wavelength is also based on the assumed c-rate for light, and therefore it cannot be proven that "light speed" even exists, let alone changes.

Thank you Web, although I don't think we're 100% on the same page yet, you understand many fundamental problems with common interpretations of observations of light phenomena.

In rope/chain theory c is absolutely constant. The only thing that changes in different media is the frequency (number of links of chain per unit distance) and wavelength (linear distance along the chain per link). When there is a torsion the rope/chain is "bunched up" and there is a shorter linear distance along the chain for each link (since the link is making a bigger angle with an axis through each atom the chain connects).

[kevin]

We had a wonderfull day here today in the UK, some clouds though, but this gave fabulous rays of sunlight from behind the clouds.
As I am rather good at triangulation, NO WAY in a million light years are those rays coming from the sun, the angles are from the ionosphere possibly?
In other words at ninty degrees to the wave front emitting from the planet.
IF they are utilising that linear line as a speed of light, then they are blinded by the light.
Dependant upon the two bodies that are responsible for the "LIGHT", which at this moment is a full moon and the Earth, the linear line will be between those two, but the light will be created by the two wave fronts meeting.
Light is not "FROM" one object to another, it is a consequence of the opposites meeting locally, and our eyes see the light, they do not see the darkness, and there is a lot of darkness?
Kevin

[webolife]

Altonhare,
My fields and their vectors are both easily visualized. "Vector" is an operational word for the "objects I refer to as "light beams." [Are your ropes more "objects" than are my light beams?] In my UFT the light "action" occurs in a domain which takes the shape of whatever the relationship is between the centroid/source/sink and the peripheral reception point. Theoretically this is "spherical" but when it comes to actual detection/measurement is is fundamentally a straight line between, eg. your eye and the star. Your ropes work this way, I think. For me the operational light rays/vectors are visualized as a [virtually cylindrical] cone of action, the base of which is the viewing surface, eg. your retina and/or the space traversed or occupied by a given receptor as it moves in relation to the centroid/source. The video showed this well in the animations of the ropes. The apex of the cone is the centroid/source and the direction of the light action [for you it is necessarily two-way, if I think correctly?] is toward the centroid/source. This conical or cylindrical region is a light "beam" by virtue of the fact that it must have >0 diameter in order to be phenomenal, therefore the designation of "ray" is less appropriate. There is a little confusion added when you speak of objects as though they must be "material." Perhaps you don't mean this, as your ropes don't appear to me to be material, but that comes across in your objection. I disagree with your "expanding" electron shell... by the way your use of "shell" here is not dissimilar to my use of the word "field." In my view, the light action occurs when the shell condenses or collapses, albeit this generally follows an "energy boost", eg. the momentary increase in electron "potential", hence my use of the word "flux". I accept [or can work with] your definitions of the key words. For me "energy" is a description of the state of the potential and kinetic aspects of any object or set of objects, and is not an object itself. For me "force" is an operation derived from the observed interaction of objects, but I can visualize "force", what I will refer to as the "unified field", as producing those interactions, eg. voltage/potential [a force] causing a build-up and/or transfer of charge across a space. My UFT needs no aether, but does not necessarily invalidate a "non-material" aether, as described in the APM. To me the operation of light is most easily and accurately visualized in an optical ray diagram. I'm not techsavvy with graphics but I could draw this for you on a napkin with a pencil... is that visual enough?
Keep the questions coming... it is helpful for me to understand and address some of the symantic issues.

[GaryN]

From Wikipedia:

For visible light the energy carried by a single photon is around 4×10–19 joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye, thus contributing to vision.

One more reference to Bucky:

325.12 Scenario Universe is to any and all human observers very much like a rope- making experience__a rope that grows ever greater in total complexity but not in total diameter, and is comprised of ever more exquisitely diametered and ever stronger separate and differently lengthed fibers, a rope of which each of the myriad of progressive information events are in themselves terminal.
325.13 Each fiber enters into the scenario of rope-making by being twisted with others into a small thread of successively introduced and only partially overlapping fibers. This composited thread in turn is twisted with other threads into more complex strands. The strands are twisted with strands__always consistently clockwise or counterclockwise (never both)__until the totally twisted complex is brought together with a similarly twisted but turned-around and now oppositely directioned rope of equal complexity, whereat, when side by side, their respective tendencies to untwist interwhip them together to block one another’s untwisting and produce an overall stabilized rope.
325.14 Employing the concept of individual fibers in this rope-making analogy and substituting for the word fibers the word photons, we can comprehend Einstein’s curved- space assumption of the manner in which the omniremotely, entropically dispersed, individual energy increments, radiationally disassociated from former star sources at maximum remoteness from other entities, now progressively enter the gravitational neighborhood of radiationally disassociated energy increments__emanated from many sources__and become thereafter progressively reassociated with one another in forming new celestial aggregates, thereafter__as substantive matter__converging to a terminal complexity and density, thereafter once more to become radiantly dispersed.

I admit I still can't get my mind around the photon. We can see stars, with the un-aided eye, to about 10 thousand light years away, but if photons interact with matter, then there must be next to no matter between me and the star. The star must also be putting out enough photons to fill the inside surface of a sphere of 20,000 light years diameter.
Maybe I should go back to hunting UFOs, and hope whoever is in them can explain to me how it all works!

[altonhare]

My fields and their vectors are both easily visualized. "Vector" is an operational word for the "objects I refer to as "light beams." [Are your ropes more "objects" than are my light beams?]

-webolife

If your "light beams" are three dimensional then they qualify as physical objects. Can you draw one for me in paint or something? What is their architecture and how does this architecture reproduce the observations we associate with light? The rope/chain hypothesis seems to make it very clear and unambiguous.

In my UFT the light "action" occurs in a domain which takes the shape of whatever the relationship is between the centroid/source/sink and the peripheral reception point. Theoretically this is "spherical" but when it comes to actual detection/measurement is is fundamentally a straight line between, eg. your eye and the star.

-webolife

A domain? Is that a region of space? If an action is occurring there, it must involve objects. What objects are performing what actions in this region of space? Why is it "theoretically spherical"? It is either a spherical region or it is not a spherical region. Which does your theory propose? Is it cylindrical? A region between every atom in the universe in which some object(s) perform(s) some action that causes other atoms (such as in my eye) to react?

our ropes work this way, I think.

-webolife

The rope/chain functions by a mechanical torsion, just like grandma's clothesline. The shell of an atom expands, which compresses the rope/chain next to it. This causes a torsion to propagate down the length of the chain. It is a physical/mechanical process.

For me the operational light rays/vectors are visualized as a [virtually cylindrical] cone of action, the base of which is the viewing surface, eg. your retina and/or the space traversed or occupied by a given receptor as it moves in relation to the centroid/source.

-webolife

A cone of action? A cone is an object, how can it be composed of action, a verb? Is Michael Jordan a human of basketball? No, he's a human that plays basketball. A cone performs an action. A cone moves, collides, etc. I am having difficulty understanding you because you are not communicating clearly. Cone (concrete noun) of (verb, essentially means "is") action (verb). That is an illogical sentence and I cannot make sense of it.

A ball of bouncing? See my point?

For me the operational light rays/vectors are visualized as a [virtually cylindrical] cone of action, the base of which is the viewing surface, eg. your retina and/or the space traversed or occupied by a given receptor as it moves in relation to the centroid/source.

-webolife

What does it mean to be "virtually" cylindrical? Does your theory propose that they are cylindrical or not?

So light is a continuous object that expands as it is emitted from its source so that it traces a conical itinerary? Is that your proposal?

There is a little confusion added when you speak of objects as though they must be "material." Perhaps you don't mean this, as your ropes don't appear to me to be material, but that comes across in your objection. I disagree with your "expanding" electron shell... by the way your use of "shell" here is not dissimilar to my use of the word "field."

-webolife

Material: synonymous with physical, meaning shape, meaning has a border, meaning finite.

The ropes are most definitely material. You can see the border right there. Any object must be material. Anything that is non-material is not an object and is called "nothing". See "the issue of exist resolved".

In my view, the light action occurs when the shell condenses or collapses, albeit this generally follows an "energy boost", eg. the momentary increase in electron "potential", hence my use of the word "flux". I accept [or can work with] your definitions of the key words. For me "energy" is a description of the state of the potential and kinetic aspects of any object or set of objects, and is not an object itself.

-webolife

What is potential?
Use of the word flux implies something flowing through a certain area. What is the something? Is it the continuous cone or the continuous cylindrical object?
Energy is a description of the (successive?) location(s) of an object or objects then? It is synonymous with motion then. I can work with that.

For me "force" is an operation derived from the observed interaction of objects, but I can visualize "force", what I will refer to as the "unified field", as producing those interactions, eg. voltage/potential [a force] causing a build-up and/or transfer of charge across a space.

-webolife

But... what is force? From what particular interactions do you derive the concept "force" and how exactly do these interactions represent the concept "force"? Visualizing a concept involves visualizing the objects involved. How exactly do you picture the objects moving/interacting in order to conceptualize your definition of force?

"Transfer of charge", we can only transfer concrete nouns. I can transfer my basketball from me to you. I cannot transfer a basketball game from me to you. In order to hypothesize about "charge transfer" you must first define what object you are talking about and referring to as "charge".

My UFT needs no aether, but does not necessarily invalidate a "non-material" aether, as described in the APM.

-webolife

What is your definition of material? Something non-material is called "nothing". Your theory cannot invalidate nothing?

To me the operation of light is most easily and accurately visualized in an optical ray diagram. I'm not techsavvy with graphics but I could draw this for you on a napkin with a pencil... is that visual enough?
Keep the questions coming... it is helpful for me to understand and address some of the symantic issues.

-webolife

I am familiar with ray traces, I am formally trained in physics. Is it your proposal that light is a continuous object like the line on a piece of paper? Like a star wars light saber? Every atom emits a continuous cylindrical object toward every other atom? This is the only physical interpretation that can be given to a ray trace. Either that, or the trace represents the itinerary of a flow of particles, which I *know* you're not proposing.

In conclusion, I am still not certain of what you're positing. So far I have a continuous cone and a continuous cylinder emanating from every atom in the universe and I cannot see how this reproduces any observed behaviors. You've devoted quite a bit of time and effort to this so, to avoid further wasting your time, I think we should follow this step by step via the scientific method.

Step 1: Define all strategic/ambiguous terms you will use
Step 2: Point to the object(s) involved in your theory

I think just focusing on these two basic steps will help make your theory clearer to me.

I'm really enjoying this back and forth and I appreciate all the discussion!

[webolife]

Altonhare,
...will possibly "make the theory clearer" to you....
I have occasionally [somewhat successfully] described my theory in pictures on two sides of a sheet of paper, including proof that light isn't waves, but the narrative going along with the drawing of the pictures is the key. I wish I was better at doing computer graphics, but even that would take me more time than I have available in my current low budget of "spare" time.
First let me un-define some things for you:
I do not hold that light is "emitted" in any way shape or form.
Therefore I do not believe light "spreads" across space, either as waves or particles.
The operation of light is strictly rectilinear, between the source and the observer.
Since "theoretically" observers can be located in any direction from the source, the radial aspect of light action with respect to all/any observers sums to a 3D region which could reasonably be called spherical. This region is as large as the universe, or as small as the distance between any two electrons, perhaps the "field" of least action, as in the Casimir effect. The fundamental characteristic of "action" at any scale in my UFT is compression [I'm thinking you/TT would say "torsion". I doubt if we would find this difference between our ideas to be compatible or merely symantic]. That compression is describable by vectors pointing toward the source from any point in the field, so also along the line-of-sight.
In addition to the central line-of-sight , a pressure gradient exists around that central line which is observable in space or time as a spectrum. I do not yet "get" the TT explanation of this. The spectrum is ellicited by devices that manipulate the light lines/rays/vectors/beams by focussing them through a pinhole or slit so as to display the gradient in proper array/order. This pressure gradient is generally washed/whited/blanked out by the disarray of the "beams" surrounding the central line, what most people refer to as glare. Slit devices, diffraction gratings, and polarizing filters reduce this glare, thus elliciting the spectral characteristics of the light field [pressure gradient]. It is this gradient that generally characterizes the virtual circular base of the light cone. The cone then is that region which is responsible for the production of the included spectrum of light accompanying the central line, extending to the light source. Hmmm, "region... is responsible"... you'll have trouble with that... I mean that rather than having only a single "rope" or line/ray/vector of force/pressure joining the observer to the source, the additional gradient of pressure surrounding the central line of sight, the spectrum's components, are also joined to the source as rays/vectors/beams, forming thus a conically shaped region of light action. I don't know how to push through the symantics any better than this... yet... but your questions are helping.

[altonhare]

Okay, nothing is projected in your theory. What is physically connecting every atom then, that allows those atoms to be detected by the observation known as light?