What is Physics?

[junglelord]

Dimensional analysis of the threads must include the five resonant standing waves for a sphere.

[substance]

Dimensional analysis of the threads must include the five resonant standing waves for a sphere.

What`s that? I like understanding high-tech-uber-cool-scientific sounding "gibberish". No, seriously, what the hell is that?

[altonhare]

Interesting. Can you point me to a model of these threads? I kinda like Bill Gaede`s site and critique on mainstream science, but I`m not too sure about those threads. Can they be somehow incorporated in the EU model? On bigger scale electricity could still rule the heavens, right?

Find your mom's sewing kit, open it up, the thread in there is a model of the Thread.

It is important to remember that the thread is part of the hypothesis stage of the scientific method. This is the stage where the proponent presents all objects (or models of objects) involved in his theory. Additionally the proponent states explicitly all assumptions. Indeed, the hypothesis stage is often called the assumptions step. If a proponent cannot present a model of one of his objects or define his assumptions in a non-contradictory fashion, then the theory is a "non-starter" i.e. it fails outright.

The next stage of the scientific method is theory. In this stage the proponent presents a movie illustrating how the objects in the hypothesis interact under the assumptions given. This stage is often simply called the "conceptualization" step. If the interaction of the objects violate any of the assumptions stated then the theory fails at this step. Additionally, if any of the objects presented in the hypothesis transform into another object in the movie, or if new objects are introduced in the movie, the theory fails this step.

The final step of the scientific method is conclusion. This is when the proponent explains observed phenomena in terms of the objects in the hypothesis and the concepts in the theory. If the explanation violates any of the assumptions, uses any objects not presented at the hypothesis, or uses a new concept not introduced in the theory to explain a phenomenon, it fails here. After the explanation is the conclusion itself i.e. discussion. The audience discusses the theory or deliberates internally. Since the theory has passed all tests of scientific consistency and rigor there are only two objections at this point. The assumptions themselves or new observed phenomena the theory is unable to explain. If one questions the assumptions themselves at this point it is usually on grounds that another theory makes fewer and/or simpler assumptions but explains all the same phenomena i.e. Occam's Razor.

Therefore, when I say Junglelord's theory is a "non-starter" it is because he proposes an abstract object, a two dimensional circle. He cannot present a model of such an object for the audience. The audience must take his word for it. Science makes no provisions for faith. The audience must see the objects involved or at least a model of them. Jungelord simply cannot present a model of ANY two dimensional object. The thread cannot be "seen" because seeing is a phenomenon of people, of sentience. We see via light and we cannot see the mechanism by which we see. Light is not someTHING, it is what something DOES. We cannot see light, therefore we cannot see the objects that cause light. Fortunately, we can model the thread and rope. We can twine to strings together and generate torsions etc.

The threads are a mental construct of the physical aether. They are a good way to conceptualize the physical properties of the aether, known as the field. They are not real.

Show me your physical aether. I can show the world a 3-D thread, they do not have to take my word on it i.e. faith. Can you show us all a model of your aether? Then maybe I will understand why you have basically hijacked thread theory as just another subsect of APM.

Solar:

Thanks for that post, I will read that article as soon as I have time, I am so backed up right now with a lotta things. I haven't even gotten a chance to look into tensegrity, which I've been meaning to do. BG's theory does not, in fact, have anything like an "aether".

BG does not believe in the aether.

- Junglelord

Only religionists and mathematical physicists "believe" in things. There is nothing in science about faith. If there is an aether you will either point to it or point to a model of it. Then you will make a movie of it interacting with whatever else is in your theory. Stating "I believe in aether" is nonsensical. I don't say "I believe in a table". I point to a table. I do not "believe in the jacket I'm wearing". I point at it! Something exists or doesn't exist by definition, not by what you "believe". Mother Nature does not care what you "believe".

Exist: Physical presence.
Physical: That which has shape.
Presence: Location
Concrete object: That which has shape and location i.e. exists.

Therefore, something exists by definition if it has shape and location. There is no "believing" in existence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9kA6dbaer4

I'll have to watch those vids again. I don't recall seeing anything describing the "threads" as primarily longitudinal, scalar et. Which seems to have to be a requirement as opposed to the threads just existing.

- Solar

You will have to tell me what you mean by longitudinal if I'm to comment. I don't want to get into a discussion and find out later my idea of longitudinal implies something different than yours.

Very interesting theory altonhare. Three dimensional absolutism is the framework one has to operate within - it's a fact of reality. It's only inside the framework of matematic deduction one could operate outside reality, and if one visualises mathematics one can actually see the flaws. Have a look at visualisation of four dimensional mathematics (chapter 8). As far as I can understand this illustrates these threads and could even help us explain the torus non equilibrium (still working on this last bit though). However: don't be fooled by the flawed dimensional maths in this movie, but put it into context of reality and draw the lines at three dimensions and it should hopefully make some kind of sense.

- Birkeland

Thank you Birkeland for your compliments. Thank you also for the link, I'll have to put that on my reading list too... I have so much to read since I additionally am required to read quite a bit of technical writing for work.

Dimensional analysis of the threads must include the five resonant standing waves for a sphere.

-Junglelord

I second Substance, what does this mean? What's waving? By dimensional analysis are you talking about (m/s)*(1/s)=m? How can a sphere, an abstract mathematical object, possess something that is waving in resonance?

[Birkeland]

If one questions the assumptions themselves at this point it is usually on grounds that another theory makes fewer and/or simpler assumptions but explains all the same phenomena i.e. Occam's Razor.

Methodology - let me introduce you to "Rands Razor":

• The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity—the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity.

I find Occam's to be a bit unreliable as the baby could be thrown out just for the sake of siplicity.

[Plasmatic]

'1/2 spin' "science in other words.

What is spinning 1/2 way in relation to what frame of reference?

[junglelord]

Dimensional analysis of the threads must include the five resonant standing waves for a sphere.

What`s that? I like understanding high-tech-uber-cool-scientific sounding "gibberish". No, seriously, what the hell is that?

A charged sphere has five standing wave harmonics. The platonic solids are those five harmonic standing waves.

Electric Phenomena are a class of properties of Distributed Charge. Distributed charge is spherical. It has a role of a stator with an internal rotor of primary angular momentum which consists of a 2-D circular string of mass which scan an area. This fractal design will scale up infinitely the stator and rotor. The stator is a standing wave and the rotor is a traveling wave. The distributed charge sphere (4 pi) has only five standing wave harmonic frequencies. They are the platonic solids. At the level of the aether we have a forward and backward time wave composed of a two spin (1440) rotating magnetic field with an enclosed primary angular momentum and the 2-D circular string of mass that scan an area. A standing wave sits in the middle of this two spin rotating magnetic field of the aether with it internal angular momentum. This is where matter resides. It is a tensegrity product and again this principle will scale infinitely. There are only two string mass, electrons and protons. This scanning circular string forms the Toroid geometry of the EM charge which is 4 pi^2. This will create a nucleus and gluons are not needed.

The double luxodrome of APM will evolve into the Standing Wave Platonic Solids as they are the only five resonate standing waves of a sphere. The magic numbers of atomic theory and the fine constant of the electron point directly to the standing wave relationship of the spheres to the platonic solids. The relationships of Pi, PHI, e to the creation of all matter in the universe cannot be under estimated.

Each domain is a standing wave supported by a traveling wave from within. Each standing wave emits traveling waves outwards to the next level. This is another infinite fractal. This is all supported by the push-pull of the Gforce.

Cymatics shows us how these harmonic nodes become matter. The Hutchinson Effect is a example of how the four phases of matter can shift. The platonic solids can and do represent matters different phases better then any modern model.
http://blazelabs.com/f-p-solids.asp

The standing wave of the hexagon on Saturn is a prime example of the fractal and the soliton. Two important relationships is of course longitudinal waves, scalars, coherent non linear structures like solitions and how these relate back to the above information. One would expect and predict these stuctures as re-occuring at every level. Indeed it is infact true.

One huge secret is that the human body grows as organized spheres of tetrahedrons. The simplest geometry of life and consciouness is the sphere as is presented by the coccus bacteria. The virus is a ichosahedron for a very good reason, neither quite alive or dead, it lies in the domain of its geometry. The double layer is essential to all relationships and is exhibited with the initial relationship of traveling wave outward to the next standing wave and so forth. The vortex and the triple helix is always created between the double layers.

I thought the other day that consciousness must have a initial geometry, it is indeed the sphere and the coccus bacteria. The fact the ichosahedron is not required in this geometry of life is why the virus is neither alive or dead. I can construct all life with only the tetrahedron, octahedron, hexahedron. The 4-D has six regular solids, the highest number possible, 3-D has only the five platonic solids, any dimension above or below 4-D or 3-D has only the three, tetrahedron, octahedron, hexahedron as possible standing waves. The real power of nestled standing waves cannot be under estimated.

The Hutchison Effect occurs as the result of radio wave interferences in a 3 dimensional zone space volume radiated by two or more high voltage sources, usually a Van de Graff generator, and two or more Tesla coils. The results are levitation of heavy objects, fusion of dissimilar materials such as metal and wood (as shown in the upper right corner of the photo), the anomalous melting (without heating) of metals without burning adjacent material, spontaneous fracturing of metals (which separate by sliding in a sideways fashion), and both temporary and permanent changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metals as shown above. The fusion of dissimilar materials, which is exceedingly remarkable, indicates clearly that the Hutchison Effect has a powerful influence on intermolecular forces. Dissimilar substances such as steel and copper or wood can simply "come together," yet the individual substances do not dissociate. A block of wood can simply "sink into" a metal bar, yet neither the metal bar nor the block of wood come apart or carbonise. On the lower left corner of the photo, you may see the imprint left over by coins which were sitting on top of the steel bar during the effect.

The anomalous melting of metal without any evidence of heating, burning or scorching of the adjacent materials (usually wood) can be easily explained if one considers the external high voltage intermediate frequency source to be resonant with the molecular structure of the metal. In such a case, resonance will efficiently use up the external energy to change the metal structure, to the next higher energy level structure which is the liquid state. Thus the metal structure will take over liquid properties, and any foreign solid material, such as wood or different metal, will 'sink' into it. Once the oscillation is switched off, the foreign material will be permanently trapped within the solid structure. The radio wave interferences involved in producing these effects are produced from at least two radio sources, with the correct frequency difference, both operating at low power. However, the zone in which the interferences take place is stressed by hundreds of kilovolts oscillating at the intermediate resonant frequency.
http://blazelabs.com/f-p-hutch.asp


There are only three forces, which can be seen several different ways, always driven by one force....that is to say that they are the one force split three ways.

One could say, Tempic, Electric, Magnetic. One could say Electric, Magnetic, Gravity. One could say Electrostatic, Electromagnetic, Gravity. The vortex is the archetype form and its first construct is the triple helix that is 120 degrees out of phase. The first phase is invisible, the tempic or aether field. There are only three classes of life. There is a physical property to numbers and they are real. You cannot seperate structure and function at any level. Matter is therefore composed of distrbuted charged spheres and toroids that have harmonic standing waves of platonic solids that can define the phases of matter. It is an infinite fractal of traveling waves within standing waves. It is an infinite tensegrity and synergist system that is always dual opposite symmetry as demonstrated by platonic solids and their duals and in matter and their anti-matter counterparts.

Charge is continuous and is tension. Angular momentum is discontinuous and is compression. That is tensegrity. The spheres are explained by Fullers Synergetics. The knowledge of the ancients about sacred geometry combined with a proper re-organization of dimensional analysis and a proper re-defining of electric phenomena terms will create a Unified Field Theory that is a simple yet profound Theory of Everything. The identification standing waves, traveling waves and how to phase shift the one to the other in physical matter is the secret of all advanced technology. Computers will utilize a language based on PHI not binary code. The nanotechnology world will explode a world of undreament power and will truly only be understood by those who understand the relationships between structure and function at every level. This will be where the stator and rotor principle applied with the knowledge of platonic solids will rule the nanotechnology world. Standing waves and nestles traveling waves controled by simple geometry at any scale, with the ability to phase shift the standing wave to the next energy level of the entire material.

The organization of spin is just the shift from traveling wave to standing wave. Its not really difficult to understand. Infact once you see the spheres and their standing wave configurations and apply PHI and e, you get all the forms of nature. You at once see how the electron shell orbits of the distributed charged sphere/toroids have a direct relationship between the electron fine constant and the 5 standing wave harmonics of its own design, creating the atomic magic numbers orbital design due to the 5 platonic solid standing wave relationships as explained by Blazelabs. The nestled universe is coming to a close. The fractal properties and the rules of those harmonics being the governing force that drives all forms. It is quite beautiful and yet so simple. Music is best represented with a harmonic of A 432. This is PHI. Nature is a combination of PHI, phi, e and of course our beloved pi which nestles the vortex within. It truly is the music of the spheres.

[Solar]

Okay gang

I was tyring to have a conversation with JL because I also like to contrast different theories. There are some principle commonalities a few of them share but they simply use different nomenclature. I was using the nomenclature from three other theories to try to understand if there exist a link to a relationship concerning the aether in order to put what I've been reading of Bill G's "Thread Theory" into the context from which I was reasoning. It would prove counterproductive at this point to go into further detail regarding those other theories, under the unfair assumption that everyone is aware of them and the particulars therein. So I decided to e-mail JL privately to continue the discussion so as not to distract from the primary intent of the thread.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

I have a question.

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.

Correct.

Eienstein's Idiot's # 12 Action-at-a-distance @ 6:23 sec.

"Unlike one way particles and waves the electromagnetic ropes generate gravity not by traveling like particles; or stretching like a rubber band, but by aggregation. when two objects are far apart most of the ropes superimpose and act as one. Conversely when the objects are close together the ropes fan out. What changes is the angle at which the ropes pull as the two objects approach each other. The change in angle is necessarily instantaneous and explains why weight is location specific.

Aggregation explains why the dynamic of gravity is to accelerate the object. The closer two objects are to each other the greater the number of ropes that pull individually. The more ropes that act independently; the stronger the tension at that location and the faster the object will move to it's next location. We will refer to the increase in speed as acceleration. Interconncetivity of atoms also explains why gravity penetrase all objects. You cannot build a gravity shield because every atom in your body is bound by electromagnetic ropes..."

Bill G, via "Thread Theory", just provied an electromagnetic theory of gravity. Any thoughts on that?

[substance]

Aggregation explains why the dynamic of gravity is to accelerate the object. The closer two objects are to each other the greater the number of ropes that pull individually. The more ropes that act independently; the stronger the tension at that location and the faster the object will move to it's next location. We will refer to the increase in speed as acceleration. Interconncetivity of atoms also explains why gravity penetrase all objects. You cannot build a gravity shield because every atom in your body is bound by electromagnetic ropes...[/color][/i]"

Bill G, via "Thread Theory", just provied an electromagnetic theory of gravity. Any thoughts on that?[/quote]
Bill`s theory of gravity sounds pretty logical and easy to understand, in fact a lot easier than Wal Thornhill`s electromagnetic theory for gravity. I wonder what mr Thornhill`s thoughts on this thread theory are. Probably someone can point him to this, send him a link etc.

[junglelord]

I spoke to Wal about different approaches. He is very much in favour of the Ralph Sansbury model.
Don't know if I spelled the name right?
Its actually quite simple and elegant.
If neutrinos carry dipole charge, it would be transmitted faster then light via this mechanism.
Thats it in a nutshell.

I think the problem is proving that the neutrino carries a dipole charge. It is supposed to be without charge.
The dipole configuration allows it to appear neutral according to Wal. If we could prove that then it would be the correct answer. I think we can accompish the gravito-electric connection without assigning dipole charge to neutrinos.
I could be wrong. But so could Wal. But the mechanism would work perfect if indeed the neutrino had a variable dipole charge internal configuration. This would need labratory proof. That was the end of the conversation.

[altonhare]

Bill G, via "Thread Theory", just provied an electromagnetic theory of gravity. Any thoughts on that?

- Solar

It's fantastic. His theory proposes a single common structure at the heart of light, gravitation, and magnetism. If you calculate the aggregate angle of threads between two spheres one finds that it looks like an inverse square law at short distance, goes through an exponential region (this is why Pioneer X is decelerating i.e. NASA predicts it should be further away than it is), and finally enters a constant region. Read about the Pioneer X anomaly and the quantitative failure of modern gravitation:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 41018.html

Newton/Einstein never got the qualitative/physical aspect right, but these days they're not even getting the numbers right! Pioneer X should be closer to the sun than they predict!

We can visualize the three gravitational regimes of Thread Theory easily. At close distances the ropes are fanned out with almost all of them crossing in a small region of space between two balls. If one draws the threads from a sphere through a common point (a tiny object like Explorer) at different point-sphere distances you'll see the thread angle decreases linearly (inverse square regime). At larger separation a flat region develops between the two objects where there is nearly no rope angle. If one again draws the threads at different point-sphere distances the relationship is clear, the angle is decreasing exponentially. At massive distances on the order of light years the flat region dominates, the angle is nearly constant.

So the thread hypothesis captures Newton's equation (which is quantitatively only trivially different than Einstein's) and extends to larger distances. For instance, under the thread model there is no need for "dark matter". Newton's equation is simply wrong at distances on the order of a galactic radius. Dark matter is a dismal hypothesis by a group of "scientists" desperate to save Einstein's equation from annihilation.

[altonhare]

Has anyone else crunched the numbers on thread theory gravitation? It's a matter of a triple sum over the angles discrete objects composing a ball at some distance from each other (I assumed this was equal to the diameter of a hydrogen nucleus) make with a common point in the plane of the ball's center in one octet of a ball. You only need an octet fortunately because of the symmetry of a ball. I don't have the computing power to do anything realistic but I've computed the aggregate angle assuming a ball with a radius of 10 hydrogen nuclei at a distance D from a single hydrogen atom. The angle appears to obey the inverse square law at short distance, go through a brief exponential regime, and settle into a constant regime. This is consistent with the general trend exhibited by the arc-tangent of an angle with increasing distance. The exact behavior is not captured by the relationship of a single angle with distance. This is because the atoms at the top of the ball change angle drastically at small distance whereas, as one goes down to the center of the ball, the angles change slowly. The aggregate angle results in the behavior I described.

This method is highly impractical for things like the sun/earth because it would require something on the order of 10^54 sums! And that's assuming the earth is a hydrogen atom (i.e. it's gravitational contribution can be neglected).

[StefanR]

I spoke to Wal about different approaches. He is very much in favour of the Ralph Sansbury model.
Don't know if I spelled the name right?
Its actually quite simple and elegant.
If neutrinos carry dipole charge, it would be transmitted faster then light via this mechanism.
Thats it in a nutshell.

I think the problem is proving that the neutrino carries a dipole charge. It is supposed to be without charge.
The dipole configuration allows it to appear neutral according to Wal. If we could prove that then it would be the correct answer. I think we can accompish the gravito-electric connection without assigning dipole charge to neutrinos.
I could be wrong. But so could Wal. But the mechanism would work perfect if indeed the neutrino had a variable dipole charge internal configuration. This would need labratory proof. That was the end of the conversation.

I can remember something like that from a while ago

27. Faraday versus Maxwell
Numerous phenomena of the electromagnetic field are described sufficiently accurate by
the Maxwell equations, so that these as a rule are regarded as a universal field description.
But if one looks more exact it turns out to be purely an approximation, which in addition
leads to far reaching physical and technological consequences. We must ask ourselves:
♦ What is the Maxwell approximation?
♦ How could a new and extended approach look like?
♦ Faraday instead of Maxwell, which is the more general law of
induction?
♦ Can the Maxwell equations be derived as a special case?
♦ Can also scalar waves be derived from the new approach?
♦ Can the gravitation as well be derived and a lot else more?
On the one hand it concerns the big search for a unified physical theory and on the other
hand the chances of new technologies, which are connected with an extended field theory.
As a necessary consequence of the derivation, which roots strictly in textbook physics and
manages without postulate, scalar waves occur, which could be used manifold. In
information technology they are suited as a carrier wave, which can be modulated
moredimensionally, and in power engineering the spectrum stretches from the wireless
transmission up to the collection of energy out of the field.
27.1 Energy out of the field
Neutrinos for instance are such field configurations, which move through space as a scalar
wave. They were introduced by Pauli as massless but energy carrying particles to be able
to fulfil the balance sheet of energy for the beta decay. Nothing would be more obvious
than to technically use the neutrino radiation as an energy source.
But for a technical exploitation a useful model description of the particles and their
interaction is imperative. For the sake of simplicity we imagine the neutrino to be an
oscillating particle, which permanently oscillates back and forth between the state of an
electron and that of a positron. With that the polarity changes from positive to negative
and back again and the charge averaged over time is zero. Because of the change from a
state of matter to the state of an anti-particle also next to no mass can be measured
anymore.
A technical oscillator operated in resonance, which oscillates with the same frequency but
opposite charge, will interact with the particle and build up an oscillating electromagnetic
interaction, with which we already are familiar as the weak interaction in the proximity of
a neutrino.
The propagation of particle radiation as a longitudinal shock wave however can't be
described with the normally used field theory and the Maxwell equations, so that the field
theory at this point must be reworked. Connected with this is the question of what is
oscillating here, a question, which often is answered with an aether of whatever nature. I
speak of field vortices and call the aether a property of the field. With that the set of
difficulties is shifted into the domain of vortex physics.

7.12 beta-decay
In the case of the calculated quasistable particles, the myon and the neutron, the verification by
means of the well-known decay processes is still due. Also free neutrons, those which are
not bound in an atomic nucleus, decay. But with an average life of 918 seconds they are
by far the longest living among the quasistable elementary particles.
Should the neutron decay be triggered by neutrinos, then obviously a distant flying past
does not suffice. For that the electron is bound in the proton too tight. There probably has
to occur a direct "crash", in which a neutrino is used, since the decay equation reads:
(7.15)
As could be expected a proton p+, an electron e- and the mentioned electron-antineutrino
are formed. What here is written down as the emission of an antiparticle, is equivalent
in the absorption of the particle<i>, in this case of the neutrino. The reaction equation 7.15
can be reformulated accordingly<i>:
(7.15*)
Also for the decay of the myon an electron-neutrino is used. In both cases it provides the
energy necessary for the decay. But we can really understand the beta-decay only, after we
have got to know these particles better.
Without charge and without mass neutrinos show hardly any interactions with matter and
as a consequence they possess the enormous ability of penetration - as is well-known.
They are said to participate in the ,,weak interaction", which should trigger a conversion of
the concerned particles, which is their decay. Pauli already has postulated the neutrino
1930 theoretically, because the transition from a half-integer spin to an integer spin for the
n0 -decay otherwise wouldn't have been explicable.
If we imagine an elementary vortex is being born, but the local field strength and energy
isn't sufficient for obtaining a quantized state. The result is an incomplete potential vortex,
which has an open vortex centre and as a consequence shows no localization at all. In the
form of a vortex ring it oscillates around itself, while it continually turns its inside to the
outside and then again to the inside.
One moment the vortex ring is green, then it is red again, one moment matter, then antimatter,
one moment positively charged and the next moment negatively charged. In
contrast to the photon the number of the involved elementary vortices Ze for the neutrino is
odd (for the VeZe= 1). Perpendicular to the direction of propagation the neutrino has a spin (s/h= 1/2)
for reason of a rotation, which overlaps the pulsating oscillation.
This vortex ring is, as said, not a member of stationary matter, because it doesn't form a
"black hole" in its centre, where the speed of light becomes zero. But it has an absolute
stability like every elementary vortex, even if it only occurs incomplete and hence not in
any quantized form,. This concept of the electron-neutrino as an open oscillating
elementary vortex in the form of a ring-like vortex covers the experimentally determined
realizations unexpectedly well
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=30_ ... sublevel=0

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 2657#p2657

[altonhare]

How does that have anything to do with my post?

[Eres]

Hi Alton, I have begun just to read the interesting site of Bill Gaede.
Two questions: how does thread theory avoid that these threads tangle them to endless between all the atoms of the universe?
Second; how does this theory set regard to the cosmological redshift?

[altonhare]

Hi Alton, I have begun just to read the interesting site of Bill Gaede.
Two questions: how does thread theory avoid that these threads tangle them to endless between all the atoms of the universe?
Second; how does this theory set regard to the cosmological redshift?

Welcome, and I'm glad you're taking interest!

Detailed discussion of TT is taking place in "problems with thread theory" on this same section of the board. Entanglement is a complex issue but I have addressed it to some degree there. If you are interested in TT I recommend you buy BG's book, watch his videos, and read the problems with TT thread (in addition to "the details of thread theory").

Additionally, if you are interested in the kind of rational, physical thought process engaged in by Bill and myself particularly, you may want to read "the issue of exist resolved" thread.