Greetings, my name is Alton Hare and I'm completely new to this forum. I was directed here by a youtuber going by "rgsluimers" when I asked about starting a forum to discuss a new physical theory. I would like to use this space to state the fundamental problems with some of the pillars of modern mathematical physics (commonly referred to, erroneously, as physics) and to propose a new theory that solves those problems. The theory is called "Thread Theory" and was proposed by Bill Gaede in his book "Why God Doesn't Exist", on youtube under "Einstein's Idiots", and on his website http://www.youstupidrelativist.com. I will be using many of his objections and arguments. However, my long-term goal is to help bring Thread Theory out of infancy with new discussion and insights. So, let's get to it.
Issac Newton is considered the father of modern physics, so I will start with him and his primary work. He is revered for his three "laws" of motion. However, he never actually defined the terms he is formulating theories about! In his words:
“ I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all.”
(p. 81)(http://ia310114.us.archive.org/2/items/ ... wtrich.pdf).
The engineer or technologist is free to simply make equations that let him build this or that or measure this or that without defining the terms. Science, on the other hand, absolutely demands a rigorous definition of strategic terms. Science demands rigor and consistency. How can anyone correctly evaluate a theory with vague, undefined, and/or inconsistent terms?
He did attempt a definition of motion:
“ Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place to another; and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another.”
(http://ia310114.us.archive.org/2/items/ ... wtrich.pdf)
Which is to say that motion is translation and translation is motion. We still have learned nothing. His law of gravitation runs into even greater problems. Newton confessed that he had no idea how gravity works. How could he? He did not even understand space, time, or motion.
Newton developed quantitative descriptions but said nothing about the underlying physics, we learned nothing new about how the universe functions from Newton. He was a mathematician, not a physicist. Yet he is hailed as one of the greatest physicists in history. It is from this inauspicious start that we have arrived where we are today.
In my next post I will fast forward to Einstein and special relativity. I will show how, under special relativity, time travel and length contraction are both completely ludicrous.
What is Physics?
-
altonhare
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
- Location: Baltimore
- Contact:
Modern "Physics"
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
-
substance
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:07 am
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: Modern "Physics"
Dude, why don`t you just skip to the core of the theory? We all agree here that physics is in the wrong hands since at least a century!
My personal blog about science, technology, society and politics. - Putredo Mundi
-
Plasmatic
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm
Re: Modern "Physics"
Im listening. I found much to agree with on the site . The extinction stuff ill have to give more time to in order to draw a conclusion. I wonder if this guy is aware of David Harriman?
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
-
altonhare
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
- Location: Baltimore
- Contact:
Re: Modern "Physics"
You guys are right, let's get right to the theory. All the info's on Bill Gaede's site and in his book anyway.
So, the theory is that every atom in the universe is connected to every other atom via twined, double stranded, taut electromagnetic rope. The electric thread of the rope terminates at the center of an atom and the magnetic thread wraps around the center like a ball of yarn. When the magnetic ball expands it must do so at the expense of a few links of rope. This compresses the rope near the atom, thus decreasing its "wavelength" (fewer links per length). This torsion wave propagates along the rope to the next atom and so on and so forth. This is why light always travels rectilinearly but also has a finite velocity. It also explains why light always retraces its path, torsion waves propagate in both directions. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM.
This also explains universal gravitation and why it appears to act "instantaneously". Fundamentally, every body in the U is connected to every other body, so there is nothing to transmit! The connection is already there. The reason gravity acts more strongly at close distances is because of angles. If you imagine two large spheres close to each other, the ropes connecting them criss-cross each other with a very small region in the center where most are intersecting. There is a very large aggregate angle between all the atoms. At long distances the ropes lift and the angle aggregate becomes smaller and smaller. The ropes are effectively superimposing on each other. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QmsngMRpE.
Magnetism can be visualized intuitively and simply under this theory. When the atoms spin their magnetic threads also spin. When many close atoms spin in the same direction their magnetic threads spin in the same direction (either CW or CCW). In a single block of a magnetic material the threads are spinning predominantly CW or CCW. When the "north" end of the material is brought near the "north" end of another the ropes collide with each other. In the alternate scenario, the ropes twist around each other and pull. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8.
Electricity occurs when an atom spins its magnetic thread faster, inducing adjacent atoms to spin faster and in the same direction, and so on. It's much like "a drill bit spinning in place".
That's the theory in a nutshell.
So, the theory is that every atom in the universe is connected to every other atom via twined, double stranded, taut electromagnetic rope. The electric thread of the rope terminates at the center of an atom and the magnetic thread wraps around the center like a ball of yarn. When the magnetic ball expands it must do so at the expense of a few links of rope. This compresses the rope near the atom, thus decreasing its "wavelength" (fewer links per length). This torsion wave propagates along the rope to the next atom and so on and so forth. This is why light always travels rectilinearly but also has a finite velocity. It also explains why light always retraces its path, torsion waves propagate in both directions. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM.
This also explains universal gravitation and why it appears to act "instantaneously". Fundamentally, every body in the U is connected to every other body, so there is nothing to transmit! The connection is already there. The reason gravity acts more strongly at close distances is because of angles. If you imagine two large spheres close to each other, the ropes connecting them criss-cross each other with a very small region in the center where most are intersecting. There is a very large aggregate angle between all the atoms. At long distances the ropes lift and the angle aggregate becomes smaller and smaller. The ropes are effectively superimposing on each other. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QmsngMRpE.
Magnetism can be visualized intuitively and simply under this theory. When the atoms spin their magnetic threads also spin. When many close atoms spin in the same direction their magnetic threads spin in the same direction (either CW or CCW). In a single block of a magnetic material the threads are spinning predominantly CW or CCW. When the "north" end of the material is brought near the "north" end of another the ropes collide with each other. In the alternate scenario, the ropes twist around each other and pull. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8.
Electricity occurs when an atom spins its magnetic thread faster, inducing adjacent atoms to spin faster and in the same direction, and so on. It's much like "a drill bit spinning in place".
That's the theory in a nutshell.
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
-
junglelord
- Posts: 3693
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Modern "Physics"
Greetings Alton Hare
Your link makes good observations that are at the heart of the matter. It boils down to the sloppy use of "definitions" in physics, the so called hard science with strict definitions.
I like the elastic tension way to describe how the strings impart relationship instead of a field anology on his video. It could also be stated that potential energy (tension) is net electrostatic charge on the voltage hill and kinetic energy (motion) is current, as explained below.
Dispite a education and 10 years experience in electronics through the 80's, I find the inexact use of definitions to still be a minefield dispite having learned the Aether Physics Model which was the first theory to explain mass to me in simple english without chasing its tail. The study of "electricity" is fraut with contradictory definitions.
Case in point the word Electricity itself.
Your link makes good observations that are at the heart of the matter. It boils down to the sloppy use of "definitions" in physics, the so called hard science with strict definitions.
I like the elastic tension way to describe how the strings impart relationship instead of a field anology on his video. It could also be stated that potential energy (tension) is net electrostatic charge on the voltage hill and kinetic energy (motion) is current, as explained below.
Actually this site is a good thing at this time for me. I am watching the EM Lecture series.Voltage Energy
Voltage is intimately connected with electrical energy. So is magnetism. We can even say that electrical energy is the fundamental object of our study, while voltage and magnetism are the two faces it displays to the outside world. Another analogy: in mechanical physics, both the Kinetic energy (KE) and the Potential energy (PE) are part of matter: relative motion of an object has Kinetic Energy, and stretched or compressed objects (e.g. springs or rubber bands) have Potential Energy. In a similar way, electrical kinetic energy appears whenever positive charges flow through negative charges. We call this "electric current," and it causes magnetism. On the other hand, electrical potential energy appears whenever positive charges are yanked away to a distance from their corresponding negative charges. We call this "net electrostatic charge," and it causes voltage. Electrical KE is associated with current, and electrical PE is associated with voltage. If electrical energy is the same as Electromagnetism, then maybe we should be more sensible and name it "VoltageCurrent-ism."
Potential Energy vs. "Potential"
Voltage is also called "electrical potential."
So... is voltage a type of potential energy? Close, but not totally accurate. Confusion between voltage and potential energy is a common mistake. Think of it like this. If you roll a big boulder to the top of a hill, you have stored some potential energy. But after the boulder has rolled back down, THE HILL IS STILL THERE. The hill is like voltage: the height of the hill has "Gravitational Potential." But the hill is not *made* of Potential Energy, since we need both the hill *and* the boulder before we can create potential energy. The situation with voltage is similar. Before we can store any ELECTRICAL potential energy, we need some charges, but we also need some voltage-field through which to push our charges. The charges are like the boulder, while the voltage is like the hill (volts are like height in feet. Well, sort of...) But we wouldn't say that the Potential Energy is the boulder, or we wouldn't say the hill is the PE. In the same way, we should not say that electric charges are Potential Energy, neither should we say that voltage is Potential Energy. However, there is a close connection between them. Voltage is "electric potential" in approximately the same way that the height of a hill is connected with "gravitational potential." You can push an electron up a voltage-hill, and if you let it go it will race back down again.
Currents don't have Voltage
Voltage is not a characteristic of electric current. It's a common mistake to believe that a current "has a voltage" (and this mistake is probably associated with the 'current electricity' misconception, where people believe that 'current' is a kind of substance that flows). Voltage and current are two independent things. It is easy to create a current which lacks a voltage: just short out an electromagnet coil. It is also easy to create a voltage without a current: flashlight batteries maintain their voltage even when they are sitting on the shelf in the store. Water analogy: Think of water pressure without a flow. That's like voltage alone. Now think of water that's coasting along; a water flow without a pressure. That's like electric current alone.
http://amasci.com/miscon/voltage.html
Dispite a education and 10 years experience in electronics through the 80's, I find the inexact use of definitions to still be a minefield dispite having learned the Aether Physics Model which was the first theory to explain mass to me in simple english without chasing its tail. The study of "electricity" is fraut with contradictory definitions.
Case in point the word Electricity itself.
What Is "Electricity"?
(c)1996 William J. Beaty
Electrical Engineer
SEE ALSO:
Scientist's definition of Electricity
Electricity is not Energy
What is electricity, REALLY?!
What is electricity? This question is impossible to answer because the word "Electricity" has several contradictory meanings. These different meanings are incompatible, and the contradictions confuse everyone. If you don't understand electricity, you're not alone. Even teachers, engineers, and scientists have a hard time grasping the concept.
Obviously "electricity" cannot be several different things at the same time. Unfortunately we have defined the word Electricity in a crazy way. Because the word "electricity" lacks a distinct meaning, we can never pin down the nature of electricity. In the end we are forced to declare that there's no such stuff as "electricity" at all! Here's a quick example to illustrate the problem.
Do generators make electricity? To answer this question, consider the household light bulb. In a lamp cord the charges (electrons) sit in one place and wiggle back and forth. That's AC or alternating current. At the same time, the waves of electromagnetic field move rapidly forward. The wave energy does not wiggle, instead it races along the wires as it flows from the distant generators and into the light bulb. OK, now ask yourself this: is an electric current a flow of "electricity?" If so, then we MUST say that the "electricity" sits inside the wires and vibrates back and forth. It does not flow forward. Next, ask yourself if electricity is a form of energy. If it's energy, then "the electricity" DOESN'T wiggle back and forth within the wires, instead it's made of EM fields and it races forward at high speed. But it cannot do both! Which one is "the electricity", the wiggling electrons, or the high-speed EM field energy? The reference books give conflicting answers, so there *is* no answer.
If someone asks whether generators make electricity, it exposes a great flaw in the way we talk about "electricity". If we can repair this flaw, perhaps our explanations will finally make sense.
Below are the most common meanings of the word Electricity. Which one do you think is right? Think about it carefully. If one of these meanings is correct, all the others must be wrong! After all, no "science term" must ever have several conflicting definitions. Unfortunately dictionaries and encyclopedias have all of these contradictions. (Click the links to find out more about each one.)
1. The scientist's definition: "Electricity" means only one thing: it's the electrons and protons, the electric charge.
Examples: CURRENT OF ELECTRICITY. QUANTITY OF ELECTRICITY. COULOMBS OF ELECTRICITY.
2. The everyday definition: "Electricity" means only one thing: the electromagnetic field energy sent out by batteries and generators.
Examples: PRICE OF ELECTRICITY. KILOWATT-HOURS OF ELECTRICITY.
3. The grade-school definition: "Electricity" means only one thing: it refers to the flowing motion of electric charge.
Examples: "CURRENT" ELECTRICITY. AMPERES OF ELECTRICITY.
4. "Electricity" means only one thing: it refers to the amount of imbalance between quantities of electrons and protons.
Example: "STATIC" ELECTRICITY. DISCHARGE OF ELECTRICITY.
5. "Electricity" is nothing other than the classes of phenomena involving electric charges.
Examples: BIOELECTRICITY, PIEZOELECTRICITY, TRIBOELECTRICITY, THERMOELECTRICITY, ATMOSPHERIC ELECTRICITY ...ETC.
6. Other less common definitions:
"Electricity" refers to the flowing motion of electrical energy (electric power, Watts of electricity)
"Electricity" really means the electric potential or e-field (Volts of electricity)
"Electricity" only means the glowing nitrogen/oxygen plasma (sparks of electricity)
"Electricity" is nothing but a field of science (Basic Electricity, Advanced Electricity)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRICITY, n.
The power that causes all natural phenomena not known to be caused by something else.
(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we wish to agree on a single correct definition of "electricity," which definition should we choose? Well, maybe we don't need to choose just one. Suppose we ignore all these contradictions and instead pretend that ALL of the above definitions are true. Below is the "clear" and "simple" description of electricity that results:
Electricity is a mysterious incomprehensible entity which is invisible AND visible BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. Also, it's both matter and energy. It's a type of low-frequency radio wave which is made of protons. It is a mysterious force which looks like blue-white fire, and yet cannot be seen. It moves forward at the speed of light... yet it vibrates in the AC cord without flowing forwards at all. It's totally weightless, yet it has a small weight. When electricity flows through a light bulb's filament, it gets changed entirely into light. Yet no electricity is ever used up by the light bulb, and every bit of it flows out of the filament and back down the other wire. College textbooks are full of electricity, yet they have no electric charge! Electricity is a class of phenomena which can be stored in batteries! If you want to measure a quantity of electricity, what units should you use? Why Volts of electricity, of course. And also Coulombs of electricity, Amperes, Watts, and Joules, all at the same time. Yet "electricity" is a class of phenomena; it's a type of event. Since we can't have an AMOUNT of an event, we can't really measure the quantity of electricity at all... right?
Heh heh.
Does my description above sound stupid and impossible? You're right. It is. The word "electricity" has contradictory meanings, and I'm trying to show what happens when we accept more than one meaning. Electricity is not both slow and fast at the same time. It is not both visible and invisible.
Instead, approximately ten separate things have the name "electricity." There is no single stuff called "electricity." ELECTRICITY DOES NOT EXIST. Franklin, Edison, Thompson, and millions of science teachers should've had a long talk with Mrs. McCave before they decided to give a variety of independent science concepts just one single name.
Mrs. McCave was invented by Dr. Seuss. She had twenty three sons. She named them all "Dave."
Whenever we ask "WHAT IS ELECTRICITY," that's just like asking Mrs. McCave "WHO IS DAVE?" How can she describe her son? There can be no answer since the question itself is wrong. It's wrong to ask "who is Dave?" because we are assuming that there is only one Dave, when actually there are many different people. They all just happen to be named Dave. Who is Dave? Mrs. McCave cannot answer us until she first corrects our misunderstanding.
For the same reason, we will never find a simple answer to the question "what is electricity?" because the question itself is wrong. First we must realize that "electricity" does not exist. There is no single thing named "electricity." We must learn that, while several different things exist in wires, people wrongly all of them by a single name.
So never ask "WHAT IS ELECTRICITY". Instead, discard the word "electricity" and instead use the correct names for all the separate phenomena. Here are a few of them:
What is electric charge?
What is electrical energy?
What are electrons?
What is electric current?
What is an imbalance of charge?
What is an electric field?
What is voltage?
What is electric power?
What is a spark?
What is electromagnetism?
What is electrical science?
What is electrodynamics?
What is electrostatics?
What are electrical phenomena?
The above questions all have sensible answers. But if you ask WHAT IS ELECTRICITY?, then all of the answers you'll find will just confuse you, and you'll never stop asking that question.
ISN'T THIS JUST NITPICKING?!
SCIENTISTS' DEFINTION OF ELECTRICITY
ELECTRICITY IS NOT ENERGY
HOW SHOULD WE TEACH ELECTRICITY?
WHAT IS ELECTRICITY, REALLY?
MORE ABOUT "ELECTRICITY" 30 misconceptions that screwed *me* up.
ELECTRICITY DOES NOT EXIST
ELECTRICITY IS NOT ENERGY
ELECTRICITY Q & A
MORE ELECTRICAL ARTICLES HERE
GOOGLE SEARCH: Define 'Electricity'
GOOGLE SEARCH: "What is electricity?"
(Note the many contradictory definitions found on other sites.
They all give answers, but they don't agree among themselves!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is part of Bill B's SCIENCE HOBBYIST website.
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
-
Plasmatic
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm
Re: Modern "Physics"
"A wave is not what a thing is but what a thing does"
One of several things ive heard so far from him that mirrors my own criticisms of modern theories like APM.He is also an advocate of returning to Classical physics. So far so good.
One of several things ive heard so far from him that mirrors my own criticisms of modern theories like APM.He is also an advocate of returning to Classical physics. So far so good.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
-
altonhare
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
- Location: Baltimore
- Contact:
Re: Modern "Physics"
Absolutely right. When I move my hand up and down I disturb the air so that you feel it hit your face, then not, then again. Physically my hand is hitting the air particles and knocking them toward you intermittently. Conceptually my hand is waving at you. My hand does not transmit a wave because a wave is a concept!Plasmatic wrote:"A wave is not what a thing is but what a thing does"
One of several things ive heard so far from him that mirrors my own criticisms of modern theories like APM.He is also an advocate of returning to Classical physics. So far so good.
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
-
Plasmatic
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm
Re: Modern "Physics"
Alton,
One thing id correct ,and its not something that effects his points much, is that the conceptual points he is making is indeed the provence of the science of metaphysics and epistemology which Aristotle called first philosophy. Now the point here is that physics and ALL the other sciences rest upon the foundation of philosophy because it states the nature of existence as such. What is time ,what is space ,what is a relationship are ALL philisophical questions upon which the other sciences rest.
This is why no man can abstain from Philosophy because all subjects rest upon the answers you accept implicitly or explictly in these categoties of epistemology and metaphysics.
Incidentaly the word "metaphysics" is misused almost entirely by folks. Its comes from the fact that Aristotle wrote a series of books and these boooks were organized by a gentleman from Rhodes who placed the book "first philosophy" after meta the book on physics it was only a reference to the organization of the books . Aristotle considered this book we call metaphysics the "first philosophy"
So Bill is correcting the philisophical misuses of scientist that causes their conceptual misintegrations in physics because all the other science rest upon this foundation.
One thing id correct ,and its not something that effects his points much, is that the conceptual points he is making is indeed the provence of the science of metaphysics and epistemology which Aristotle called first philosophy. Now the point here is that physics and ALL the other sciences rest upon the foundation of philosophy because it states the nature of existence as such. What is time ,what is space ,what is a relationship are ALL philisophical questions upon which the other sciences rest.
This is why no man can abstain from Philosophy because all subjects rest upon the answers you accept implicitly or explictly in these categoties of epistemology and metaphysics.
Incidentaly the word "metaphysics" is misused almost entirely by folks. Its comes from the fact that Aristotle wrote a series of books and these boooks were organized by a gentleman from Rhodes who placed the book "first philosophy" after meta the book on physics it was only a reference to the organization of the books . Aristotle considered this book we call metaphysics the "first philosophy"
So Bill is correcting the philisophical misuses of scientist that causes their conceptual misintegrations in physics because all the other science rest upon this foundation.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
-
junglelord
- Posts: 3693
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Modern "Physics"
As usual plasmatic promotes his personal bias against APM with a rebuttal that is totally invalid.
APM is Classical Physics.
APM is also Quantum Structure.
APM is a Unified Field Theory that perfectly marries Classical Physics (which is uncoherent and uncharged) with Quantum Structure which is coherent and charged and entangled. To have a personal bias against APM is plasmatics choice.
Beyond his personal philosophy he can give no scientific evidence that the APM is not valid.
He can offer no proof to refute the basic algegra of APM.
APM is about proper dimensional analysis.
plasmatic argues this with his personal philosophy.
Mean while APM fully predicts the first electron shell configuration for all atomic elements.
Something plasmatic could never do with his philosophy.
Philosophy is weak, a pretend paper tiger, algebra is the tiger, strong and powerful.
Philosophy never corrects algebra.
APM is a perfect rethinking of the last two hundred years with the forsight of today.
Something that Feynman and Mead both agree with. Theory has not kept lock step with technology.
Consider the current model. The Particle physics zoo.
Then we have the Wave theory proponents.
It is not a particle, it is not a wave. It is neither.
It is distributed charge with specific geometry. Coulombs Constant proves this.
This expanding and contracting waving Distributed Charge is therefore seen as a particle or a wave, depending on your relative viewpoint. It is always fully connected as a Quantum System and is always distributed charge with specific geometry that is shown by the universal constants.
Physics is four areas of study.
1. Newtonian Classical Mechanics: uncharged, uncoherent
2. Thermodynamics: uncharged, coherent
3. EM Theory: charged, uncoherent
4. Quantum Systems: charged, coherent, entangled
One must have all four areas fully unified. APM does this.
Any theory that can marry Classical Mechanics to Quantum Structure is a valid view of the universe.
Any personal philosophy that disputes this is lunacy.
Its all geometry. The field is geometry. The charge is geometry. The only way to understand it is to understand that structure and function are never seperate. Plasma physics is all about the same things as nanotechnology. Its all geometry.
I don't buy a single idea of Einstein any more, other then space is warped. Mass and energy are not equal. Electrons and photons exchange primary angular momentum, not energy. Energy is a product of five dimensions, it is not a fundamental property of the universe.
A vacuum is not empty nor is it uncharged and therefore it has geometry. The geometry of the vortex is the geometry of the curl magnetic field and the divergence of the electric field. This is created by the spin of a distributed charged that creates a electric field as well as a magnetic field. Aether, Electricity and Magnatism are all at 90 degrees to each other. They phase shift between them by 120 degrees forming a triple helix. The observer sees the double helix and the vortex very clear. Just superimpose the third helix and it all comes back to the fractal of three. Three forces, three atomic distributed charges, hexagonal nucleus configurations of protons and neutrons, all created by sacred geometry.
Matter and anitmatter are a dual opposite spin, both matter and antimatter are encapsulated angular momentum in a two spin rotating magnetic field of aether. This tensegrity principle creates all matter. It gives us light with a quantum spin of 1. It also creates 1/2 spin electrons and protons, which fold over a neutrino angular momentum to make neutrons. Neither a particle nor a wave, it is distributed charge as either 4pi ES sphere or 4pi^2 EM toroid. Proper identification of Electrostatic charge as the primary charge allows EM to hold the nucleus together. This relationship between these two charges accounts for the weak force. This leaves us with gravity.
A three force model of total symmetry.
APM is Classical Physics.
APM is also Quantum Structure.
APM is a Unified Field Theory that perfectly marries Classical Physics (which is uncoherent and uncharged) with Quantum Structure which is coherent and charged and entangled. To have a personal bias against APM is plasmatics choice.
Beyond his personal philosophy he can give no scientific evidence that the APM is not valid.
He can offer no proof to refute the basic algegra of APM.
APM is about proper dimensional analysis.
plasmatic argues this with his personal philosophy.
Mean while APM fully predicts the first electron shell configuration for all atomic elements.
Something plasmatic could never do with his philosophy.
Philosophy is weak, a pretend paper tiger, algebra is the tiger, strong and powerful.
Philosophy never corrects algebra.
APM is a perfect rethinking of the last two hundred years with the forsight of today.
Something that Feynman and Mead both agree with. Theory has not kept lock step with technology.
Consider the current model. The Particle physics zoo.
Then we have the Wave theory proponents.
It is not a particle, it is not a wave. It is neither.
It is distributed charge with specific geometry. Coulombs Constant proves this.
This expanding and contracting waving Distributed Charge is therefore seen as a particle or a wave, depending on your relative viewpoint. It is always fully connected as a Quantum System and is always distributed charge with specific geometry that is shown by the universal constants.
Physics is four areas of study.
1. Newtonian Classical Mechanics: uncharged, uncoherent
2. Thermodynamics: uncharged, coherent
3. EM Theory: charged, uncoherent
4. Quantum Systems: charged, coherent, entangled
One must have all four areas fully unified. APM does this.
Any theory that can marry Classical Mechanics to Quantum Structure is a valid view of the universe.
Any personal philosophy that disputes this is lunacy.
Its all geometry. The field is geometry. The charge is geometry. The only way to understand it is to understand that structure and function are never seperate. Plasma physics is all about the same things as nanotechnology. Its all geometry.
I don't buy a single idea of Einstein any more, other then space is warped. Mass and energy are not equal. Electrons and photons exchange primary angular momentum, not energy. Energy is a product of five dimensions, it is not a fundamental property of the universe.
A vacuum is not empty nor is it uncharged and therefore it has geometry. The geometry of the vortex is the geometry of the curl magnetic field and the divergence of the electric field. This is created by the spin of a distributed charged that creates a electric field as well as a magnetic field. Aether, Electricity and Magnatism are all at 90 degrees to each other. They phase shift between them by 120 degrees forming a triple helix. The observer sees the double helix and the vortex very clear. Just superimpose the third helix and it all comes back to the fractal of three. Three forces, three atomic distributed charges, hexagonal nucleus configurations of protons and neutrons, all created by sacred geometry.
Matter and anitmatter are a dual opposite spin, both matter and antimatter are encapsulated angular momentum in a two spin rotating magnetic field of aether. This tensegrity principle creates all matter. It gives us light with a quantum spin of 1. It also creates 1/2 spin electrons and protons, which fold over a neutrino angular momentum to make neutrons. Neither a particle nor a wave, it is distributed charge as either 4pi ES sphere or 4pi^2 EM toroid. Proper identification of Electrostatic charge as the primary charge allows EM to hold the nucleus together. This relationship between these two charges accounts for the weak force. This leaves us with gravity.
A three force model of total symmetry.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
-
altonhare
- Posts: 1212
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
- Location: Baltimore
- Contact:
Re: Modern "Physics"
Jungle, you sound much more like a mathematician than a scientist. I have no personal vendetta against APM, I don't know what it is. However, if your theory is based on charge, fields, aether, and geometry then you will need to define these terms for me unambiguously in terms of concrete objects (objects that exist). I do not know how something can "have geometry" since geometry is a concept. I can have a soda, a car can have a wheel, or a tree can have a leave. A judge cannot have justice and a person cannot have beauty. What is a charge? Physically, not an equation. What is a field physically? What is aether? I don't want to see a single equation yet, you must tell me what these things ARE before you can begin to DESCRIBE them with an equation.junglelord wrote:As usual plasmatic promotes his personal bias against APM with a rebuttal that is totally invalid.
APM is Classical Physics.
APM is also Quantum Structure.
APM is a Unified Field Theory that perfectly marries Classical Physics (which is uncoherent and uncharged) with Quantum Structure which is coherent and charged and entangled. To have a personal bias against APM is plasmatics choice.
Beyond his personal philosophy he can give no scientific evidence that the APM is not valid.
He can offer no proof to refute the basic algegra of APM.
APM is about proper dimensional analysis.
plasmatic argues this with his personal philosophy.
Mean while APM fully predicts the first electron shell configuration for all atomic elements.
Something plasmatic could never do with his philosophy.
Philosophy is weak, a pretend paper tiger, algebra is the tiger, strong and powerful.
Philosophy never corrects algebra.
APM is a perfect rethinking of the last two hundred years with the forsight of today.
Something that Feynman and Mead both agree with. Theory has not kept lock step with technology.
Consider the current model. The Particle physics zoo.
Then we have the Wave theory proponents.
It is not a particle, it is not a wave. It is neither.
It is distributed charge with specific geometry. Coulombs Constant proves this.
This expanding and contracting waving Distributed Charge is therefore seen as a particle or a wave, depending on your relative viewpoint. It is always fully connected as a Quantum System and is always distributed charge with specific geometry that is shown by the universal constants.
Physics is four areas of study.
1. Newtonian Classical Mechanics: uncharged, uncoherent
2. Thermodynamics: uncharged, coherent
3. EM Theory: charged, uncoherent
4. Quantum Systems: charged, coherent, entangled
One must have all four areas fully unified. APM does this.
Any theory that can marry Classical Mechanics to Quantum Structure is a valid view of the universe.
Any personal philosophy that disputes this is lunacy.
Its all geometry. The field is geometry. The charge is geometry. The only way to understand it is to understand that structure and function are never seperate. Plasma physics is all about the same things as nanotechnology. Its all geometry.
I don't buy a single idea of Einstein any more, other then space is warped. Mass and energy are not equal. Electrons and photons exchange primary angular momentum, not energy. Energy is a product of five dimensions, it is not a fundamental property of the universe.
A vacuum is not empty nor is it uncharged and therefore it has geometry. The geometry of the vortex is the geometry of the curl magnetic field and the divergence of the electric field. This is created by the spin of a distributed charged that creates a electric field as well as a magnetic field. Aether, Electricity and Magnatism are all at 90 degrees to each other. They phase shift between them by 120 degrees forming a triple helix. The observer sees the double helix and the vortex very clear. Just superimpose the third helix and it all comes back to the fractal of three. Three forces, three atomic distributed charges, hexagonal nucleus configurations of protons and neutrons, all created by sacred geometry.
Matter and anitmatter are a dual opposite spin, both matter and antimatter are encapsulated angular momentum in a two spin rotating magnetic field of aether. This tensegrity principle creates all matter. It gives us light with a quantum spin of 1. It also creates 1/2 spin electrons and protons, which fold over a neutrino angular momentum to make neutrons. Neither a particle nor a wave, it is distributed charge as either 4pi ES sphere or 4pi^2 EM toroid. Proper identification of Electrostatic charge as the primary charge allows EM to hold the nucleus together. This relationship between these two charges accounts for the weak force. This leaves us with gravity.
A three force model of total symmetry.
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
-
Plasmatic
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm
Re: Modern "Physics"
Alton I wouldnt waste your time. He doesnt realize that if ANY theory incorporates anything that exist,like time or spin it is partaking in the implicit use of the science of metaphysics/ontology which is a branch of philosophy.
Besides we'd just be arguing over APM and theres a thread for this. Apm is built entirely upon non-physical entities or forces as its foundation. Its entire edifice as JL had pointed out ,is built on "geometry" exactly like the "platonic solids" Bill mentions in one of his videos. The "proof" of this theory is mathematical "constants". JL doesnt define physics the way Bill does in these videos. As Wal has said "the physical concepts "behind the math have to be correct.[paraphrased]
We've been around this tree a few times JL so lets agree to disagree yet again and not further this side bar.
Besides we'd just be arguing over APM and theres a thread for this. Apm is built entirely upon non-physical entities or forces as its foundation. Its entire edifice as JL had pointed out ,is built on "geometry" exactly like the "platonic solids" Bill mentions in one of his videos. The "proof" of this theory is mathematical "constants". JL doesnt define physics the way Bill does in these videos. As Wal has said "the physical concepts "behind the math have to be correct.[paraphrased]
We've been around this tree a few times JL so lets agree to disagree yet again and not further this side bar.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
-
bdw000
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:06 pm
Re: Modern "Physics"
Thank you Alton Hare for that terrific site.
I like the way he replaces "peer review" with "peer inquisition."
He also points out one of my main complaints about relativity: how in the world can anyone claim evidence for time dilation, or treat time travel as a serious scientific subject, when they can't even define the word TIME?
I like the way he replaces "peer review" with "peer inquisition."
He also points out one of my main complaints about relativity: how in the world can anyone claim evidence for time dilation, or treat time travel as a serious scientific subject, when they can't even define the word TIME?
-
junglelord
- Posts: 3693
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
- Location: Canada
Re: Modern "Physics"
It is more appropriate to speak of frequency, the recipricol of time.
Alton I did tell you what it is.
There is no equation in my reply.
You will have to read it over until you begin to see the relationships.
Its all relationship and much of it new, just like the work in the video.
Sure Dave Thompson has the algebra to do the math, but thats simple for any public school student.
APM builds with quantum constants that create quantum measurements that determine the quantum geometry.
Like the Coulomb Constant, or Newtons Gravity Constant, or the speed of light in a vacuum constant, Compton Wavelength, etc.
First there are five non material dimensions.
Length, Frequency, Mass, Charge, Spherical Geometry
There are two dimensions of time, which are frequency domains.
This corrects the slang word "time".
Dimensions are linear or distributed or combinations of the two.
Time for instance is both linear and distributed, thats why its frequency and creates quantum resonance.
Both charges are only distributed. That explains the particle wave duality.
Tensegrity is a engineering principle that is constant tension element with discontinuous compression elements.
Electric tension is a proper term for it is tension and is continuous as the guy on your video explains.
He explains it as elastic threads....which is perfect.
Spin of the matter (primary angular momentum) is the discontinous compression member.
Thats why matter is discontinous and yet electricity is continous.
Mass is a two dimension string, in a perfect circle with no length scanning an area over time.
Mass and energy have no equality. Mass is always the same and never changes.
It aquires electrostatic charge as it spins in the geometric form of a sphere, therefore ES charge is the same for all three subatomic distributed charges and is spherical.
Its spinning scanning mass determines its electromagnetic charge and will be the geometry of the toroid and therefore will be different for all three due to the different mass. This toroid will surround the sphere in all three.
Therefore a electron, proton, neutron is distributed charge geometry of two dipole charges.
All charge which we quantify as EM in the standard model is actually ES.
The gluon does not exist. The geometry of the EM toroid keeps the hexagon nucleus together, not gluons.
Geometry is the secret of matter, if you don't believe that, then this is my mantra.
Structure and function cannot be seperated at any level.
Infact you yourself have questions about the geometry.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =10&t=1106
The geometric relationship between the two charges creates the so called weak force.
There are only three forces, not four.
Two charges and gravity.
The vortex is the archetype form, the triple helix is its first product.
The platonic solids all evolve from the scalar vortex.
Zoom tools will explain PHI and its relationship to atomic and nanostructures.
2,3,5, infinity.
That is the razor.
Alton I did tell you what it is.
There is no equation in my reply.
You will have to read it over until you begin to see the relationships.
Its all relationship and much of it new, just like the work in the video.
Sure Dave Thompson has the algebra to do the math, but thats simple for any public school student.
APM builds with quantum constants that create quantum measurements that determine the quantum geometry.
Like the Coulomb Constant, or Newtons Gravity Constant, or the speed of light in a vacuum constant, Compton Wavelength, etc.
First there are five non material dimensions.
Length, Frequency, Mass, Charge, Spherical Geometry
There are two dimensions of time, which are frequency domains.
This corrects the slang word "time".
Dimensions are linear or distributed or combinations of the two.
Time for instance is both linear and distributed, thats why its frequency and creates quantum resonance.
Both charges are only distributed. That explains the particle wave duality.
Tensegrity is a engineering principle that is constant tension element with discontinuous compression elements.
Electric tension is a proper term for it is tension and is continuous as the guy on your video explains.
He explains it as elastic threads....which is perfect.
Spin of the matter (primary angular momentum) is the discontinous compression member.
Thats why matter is discontinous and yet electricity is continous.
Mass is a two dimension string, in a perfect circle with no length scanning an area over time.
Mass and energy have no equality. Mass is always the same and never changes.
It aquires electrostatic charge as it spins in the geometric form of a sphere, therefore ES charge is the same for all three subatomic distributed charges and is spherical.
Its spinning scanning mass determines its electromagnetic charge and will be the geometry of the toroid and therefore will be different for all three due to the different mass. This toroid will surround the sphere in all three.
Therefore a electron, proton, neutron is distributed charge geometry of two dipole charges.
All charge which we quantify as EM in the standard model is actually ES.
The gluon does not exist. The geometry of the EM toroid keeps the hexagon nucleus together, not gluons.
Geometry is the secret of matter, if you don't believe that, then this is my mantra.
Structure and function cannot be seperated at any level.
Infact you yourself have questions about the geometry.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =10&t=1106
The geometric relationship between the two charges creates the so called weak force.
There are only three forces, not four.
Two charges and gravity.
The vortex is the archetype form, the triple helix is its first product.
The platonic solids all evolve from the scalar vortex.
Zoom tools will explain PHI and its relationship to atomic and nanostructures.
2,3,5, infinity.
That is the razor.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
-
substance
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:07 am
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
Re: Modern "Physics"
Pretty interesting site, Alton, that guy has some interesting thoughts about all fundamental things, but this thread theory seems, too, to be based on concepts and non-visualizeable things. How can he visualize these threads, if he only believes in visualization as a true science language?
My personal blog about science, technology, society and politics. - Putredo Mundi
-
Divinity
- Guest
Re: Modern "Physics"
Seriously, Junglelord, I hope Dave Thompson realises the utter depth of your understanding. I guess the Mods/Management of the forum must do. Thank you for being here, for being our teacher too, and for having the patience to explain the APM theory plus your own added insights, which, I and many others feel, are invaluable. It seems to me that you are very quickly forming, in your own mind, a holistic unified theory which will eventually be able to explain ALL phenomena in the Universe, from conceptual thought to end-product, so to speak.
I know you don't expect appreciation because you do this for the love of it, but I am sure I'm not alone among the membership here in my wish to express appreciation for your hard work and expertise.
There are many clever members here; highly intellectual and abstract thinkers who share openly and have the courage to express ideas which are so diverse from the mainstream. I thank you all and know you are shaping the future of Science, as if history is being made right here on this forum.
Love Divinity
I know you don't expect appreciation because you do this for the love of it, but I am sure I'm not alone among the membership here in my wish to express appreciation for your hard work and expertise.
There are many clever members here; highly intellectual and abstract thinkers who share openly and have the courage to express ideas which are so diverse from the mainstream. I thank you all and know you are shaping the future of Science, as if history is being made right here on this forum.
Love Divinity
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests