Recovered: New Theory of Light

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:30 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

I am having a hard time trying to visualize this double vortex nature of reality. But in this description:

... so the architect conceives or gets a concept of a building and, working backwards from that, draws up plans/blueprints to bring it across-over-down into grosser, physical existence.

I suddenly saw one vortex "Idea>blueprint" and another vortex "blueprint>building". This phenomenon has a symmetry that can be played forward and backwards in time.
I may be wrong completely so I'd better get back to visualizing vortices in three fields.

regards

I think I can see that, what you're getting at.

I don't know how many times I've heard artists say ... well, for example, a sculptor who says how he "sees" the image in the raw block of stone or clay, whatever, and then more or less just chips away at what doesn't belong, working backward to "release" the image he had already forseen. Writers, many who say they work backwards from the ending to arrive at the start of a story; they "see" how it's all going to end and then write, plot it, backwards. The movie director who "sees" an entire movie play out in his head as on a mental movie screen, often again knowing how the story ends before arriving at a middle and beginning. Then there are others who just plow methodically ahead with no idea of where the sculpture, story, movie is going; relying on instinct and intuition to guide. Does the artist do the art, or does the art do the artist? I think they arise together. I do recognize, however, that this level of ... mastery ... doesn't arrive overnight. Few child prodigies arrive for whatever reason. So there is a level of apprenticeship, I reckon, where things go along very methodically, very mechanically, very cause-and-effect oriented; learning and mastering technique. Not any different than any trade, art, or profession. And mastery isn't guaranteed. Many never rise beyond the acceptable technnician level and really never master anything. (Umm, that would be me, btw. ) Junglelord scribed a really decent post about this earlier.

How's that saying go ... youth is wasted on the young? Probably "education" too, at least as how we know it. 20/20 hindsight ... don't think I'd be using it now if I'd known how to "look" into the ending of my life at the beginning of my life. But, hey! Look! Not dead ... yet. Shoot ... now, how did that ending go?

Okay, I'm rambling. Sorry. So, yeah, they appear maleable, these vortexes of whatever.

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

I am having a hard time trying to visualize this double vortex nature of reality. But in this description:

... so the architect conceives or gets a concept of a building and, working backwards from that, draws up plans/blueprints to bring it across-over-down into grosser, physical existence.

I suddenly saw one vortex "Idea>blueprint" and another vortex "blueprint>building". This phenomenon has a symmetry that can be played forward and backwards in time.
I may be wrong completely so I'd better get back to visualizing vortices in three fields.

regards

Thats what they say. They also claim that the field response has two reactions. The massless dual component (as described by tom bearden) would indicate as did Wilbert Smith that only half of what we see in the EM theory is the total wave. The massless aether, or scalar componet is largely hidden unless harmonicly coupled to properly.
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "webolife"

OK, so since this is still the "New... and Mad..." forum...
I still can't resist the thought, JL, that you and I are describing the same thing using different words. What you, JL, I think are trying to relay [I say "trying", not because you're not doing a good job, I just don't have the right grasp of it...yet] is what I would call a tri-part field [though you call it three fields]. That "my" UF model allows me to include gravity, light, EM, and nuclear in the same tempic field is at issue here. And @rcus, you are really an encouragement to me. What I've pondered most over the past 3 decades [until recent discovery of the EU], the gravity-light connection, follows something like this:
1. Both G and L fields are centropic, ie vectors are directed toward the system/geometric center, call it the polity center, such as the nucleus of an atom, any macroscopic body, a planet, star, galactic center, galactic cluster center, or, if it were trouvable, the center of the universe.
2. The tempic field drives both/all fields... this seems to be different from what JL says, but I'm not really sure... ?
3. Gravity isn't "emitted" from objects, neither is light. Both are forces, or less abstractly, pressures against/toward the polity center... for example: You are standing outside face to the sun, eyes closed... light pressure pushes/tugs at the back of your retina producing a diffuse effect you interpret as "light" through the semi-opaque eyelids. Open your eyes and look around... everything about you is being "tugged" by this same pressure, but now your eye, as camera obscura, collects these [reflected] vectors in an orderly fashion via the optics of your eye... an image is formed. At the same time, the objects you are seeing have collected/sorted/absorbed/reflected these vectors, via the optical properties of the crystalline atomic structure of the dyes, etc. <No>
4. The concept of light not "moving" per se across space naturally falls from the centropic nature of its "pressure" field.
When something collapses/condenses at the polity center, say, the surface of the sun, the "falling" of electrons toward a lower energy level, the reduction of potential energy in any system as I see it... the whole system geometry collapses to that degree, literally "forcing" the peripheral points of the system to respond... instantaneously [a la Pascal?]... "sensing" light.
5. The similarity of my field pressure concept to the fluid pressure plasma concepts in EU is very attractive to me, and is causing me to continually re-evaluate my own view.
6. Elements of electrical/plasma behavior have not been a big part of my study, for no particular reason... but I've "understood" electrical fields, in terms of PE/KE interactions, as fitting into the same frame, via the setup of voltage in a system, for example... the geometry of the system determines the voltage in all parts of the system at once. Objects/electrons/ions/plasma moving within that field are subject to the "rule" of the system's voltage. If our eyes were voltmeters instead of photometers, we'd see voltage as light.
7. Many more elements of my view surround the "true" understanding of Youngian "interference" effects, which can be used to clearly and conclusively prove that light doesn't wave[!], despite the lightwave paradigm being based on Youngian assumptions. I had this difficulty with Ralph Sansbury's work because, though he believes as do I that light acts instaneously across distance, yet he thinks there is still some waving of light going on at the electron dipole level. As I've stated in other threads, I see the spectral dispersion of light as a function of the light field pressure gradient. Measurements of color can be derived from the system geometry, as even Young did, without any reference to light waving.
8. The mathematical concept of "c" can be understood at least in some frameworks, as being equal to unity... c = 1. Light is a vector, not a partcle or a wave, nor a wave-particle.
9. Mass does not produce gravity, gravity produces mass. So there are no gravitons, nor are there gravitational waves. Superlarge mass concentrations "detected" at galactic centers, or galactic cluster centers, are exigent products of the field geometry... that "hole" at the center of the system is the centroid of the system. Of course you will see large "mass" concentrated there!
10. The big bang, and black holes, dark matter, etc...are garbage.
11. Plasma, all pervasive in the universe, must be subject to the unified field at every level, and scaleless geometry [as well as scaless constants?] will describe field effects.

So there @rcus, you now know what a madman I am.
You =
_________________
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse with opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

Nice work there webolife. I have to read it a few times.

If I have trouble explaining its because I am still a student grasping at technique trying to understand concepts.

2. The tempic field drives both/all fields... this seems to be different from what JL says, but I'm not really sure... ?

No, thats what I said. We agree.
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:49 am Post subject: Agreed on the Garbage... Reply with quote
OP "davesmith_au"

I must admit, I have a hard time following anything at all on this thread , but there's one statement which stood out to me that I can understand, and agree with wholeheartedly, and which is somewhat comforting amongst all the terminology I have a hard time deciphering.

10. The big bang, and black holes, dark matter, etc...are garbage.

THAT - I understand and agree with!!

Cheers, Dave Smith.
_________________
PlasmaResources.com
"If you are not prepared to think outside the square, you will always be confined within it..." Dave Smith.

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

<snip>

1. Both G and L fields are centropic, ie vectors are directed toward the system/geometric center, call it the polity center, such as the nucleus of an atom, any macroscopic body, a planet, star, galactic center, galactic cluster center, or, if it were trouvable, the center of the universe.

Just curious, why polity, which implies a politicalization or political organizing and control of a political society? C'mon, give. There must be some nuance to choosing that label.

Vector is saying magntitude with direction (vs scalar), so we'd have a field of relative size or quantity tending towards the center of something. For a center to have meaning then what would be tending towards the perimeter aspect, i.e. away from center. With both aspects (towards and away from center) we'd have the definition, or at least the implication, of a standing wave.

2. The tempic field drives both/all fields... this seems to be different from what JL says, but I'm not really sure... ?

I've had issues with this tempic field every since JL introduced it. Sounds superfluous to me and more of fantasy than anything real outside the imagination. However, I admit to not reading much about it - gives me a headache, too many other foreign (to my limited vocabulary) terms required just to get to the starting gate of this single term in context. Sheesh, what's wrong with "temporal" or "time"? Took me several decades just to wrap my paltry mind power around those!

3. Gravity isn't "emitted" from objects, neither is light. Both are forces, or less abstractly, pressures against/toward the polity center...

What is the media of pressure, then? For example, if I push against a wall with my hand, I "feel" the wall pushing back, or at least resisting (that equal and opposite reaction thing). I can feel it through the media of my body down to the ground - actually from the point of contact with the wall, "across" and "down" all points of the body to the point of contact with the ground. As if my body were a conductive media of sorts between the transverse planes of the wall and ground media. So unless we're talking about ... dare I say it? ... about a center without circumference ( ) ... what would comprise the media for this force of light?

for example: You are standing outside face to the sun, eyes closed... light pressure pushes/tugs at the back of your retina producing a diffuse effect you interpret as "light" through the semi-opaque eyelids. Open your eyes and look around... everything about you is being "tugged" by this same pressure, but now your eye, as camera obscura, collects these [reflected] vectors in an orderly fashion via the optics of your eye... an image is formed. At the same time, the objects you are seeing have collected/sorted/absorbed/reflected these vectors, via the optical properties of the crystalline atomic structure of the dyes, etc. <No>

See just above this. Sure sounds like all these things are immersed in a common media. Is that not how you see it? If so, any thoughts about the pressure media? If not, then how would this pressure work?

4. The concept of light not "moving" per se across space naturally falls from the centropic nature of its "pressure" field.
When something collapses/condenses at the polity center, say, the surface of the sun, the "falling" of electrons toward a lower energy level, the reduction of potential energy in any system as I see it... the whole system geometry collapses to that degree, literally "forcing" the peripheral points of the system to respond... instantaneously [a la Pascal?]... "sensing" light.

I'm not getting how this could only be a one-way relationship i.e. pressure collapsing inward without eventually pressure rebounding "outward" ... oscillation in other words. Like breath. Or a beating heart. What's the other side of the "equation" or am I missing an obvious point?

<snip>

6. Elements of electrical/plasma behavior have not been a big part of my study, for no particular reason... but I've "understood" electrical fields, in terms of PE/KE interactions, as fitting into the same frame, via the setup of voltage in a system, for example... the geometry of the system determines the voltage in all parts of the system at once. Objects/electrons/ions/plasma moving within that field are subject to the "rule" of the system's voltage. If our eyes were voltmeters instead of photometers, we'd see voltage as light.

I'm not particularly acquainted with PE/KE but have some familiarity with Voltage/Current relationship. I'll have to think about this some, considering light in terms of an analogy with the "pressure" of voltage (a potential itself). As I understand it, the electric field as potential only exists as PE in the state of separated charge, e.g. a charged capacitor. When a current path exists, when the dielectric breaks down as potential limits of the medium are reached, then a current of charge flows (KE) and voltage (PE) declines or dissipates throughout the flow. Whatever should resist the flow (resistance) then has a voltage drop across it (current impeded, so potential rises). I'm not sure if this relates to your picture of light as a field pressure gradient or not. Still muddy for me.

7. <snip>

Have to come back to this depending on above stuff.

8. The mathematical concept of "c" can be understood at least in some frameworks, as being equal to unity... c = 1. Light is a vector, not a partcle or a wave, nor a wave-particle.

Vector = force or influence with a magnitude or direction - 'least I think that's about it in a nutshell. Aren't waves and particles pretty much the summation of vectors? Summation in the sense of manifested end-result so that you could have vectors adding, cancelling, and subtracting with an end-result summation of "something" manifesting. That sounds a bit obtuse even to me, but I think I know what I meant.

<snip>

So there @rcus, you now know what a madman I am.
You =

Cool. Appreciate it. My questions aren't meant argumentatively, just some things I'm grappling with. And, shoot, I think we're all in the right section here.

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

I've had issues with this tempic field every since JL introduced it. Sounds superfluous to me and more of fantasy than anything real outside the imagination. However, I admit to not reading much about it - gives me a headache, too many other foreign (to my limited vocabulary) terms required just to get to the starting gate of this single term in context.

Acutally it was my posting of Konstantine Meyl's work on tesla longitudinal wave energy experiments and his book on the Scalar Field that a member emailed me that was the initial supposition of a primary scalar field. It is the answer that solves all modern problems, actually clears up the mystic physic which is main stream currently and addresses us with solutions. A primary Scalar Field is essential from EU theory to so called Free Energy and is the missing primary set. Einstein killed the Aether.

We need to bring it back.


Take two asprin and call me in the morning.

_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

I've had issues with this tempic field every since JL introduced it. Sounds superfluous to me and more of fantasy than anything real outside the imagination. However, I admit to not reading much about it - gives me a headache, too many other foreign (to my limited vocabulary) terms required just to get to the starting gate of this single term in context.

Acutally it was my posting of Konstantine Meyl's work on tesla longitudinal wave energy experiments and his book on the Scalar Field that a member emailed me that was the initial supposition of a primary scalar field. It is the answer that solves all modern problems, actually clears up the mystic physic which is main stream currently and addresses us with solutions. A primary Scalar Field is essential from EU theory to so called Free Energy and is the missing primary set. Einstein killed the Aether.

We need to bring it back.


Take two asprin and call me in the morning.

I've recognized the aether in my personal journey since the early nineties. I just haven't been able to find out what the hell it is or how to best describe it. (I still feel that there is an aspect to it that truly is indescribable and ultimately beyond the scope or grasp of humanity's mind.) Be that as it may, it's not a scalar field I'm having the problem with so much as the inclusion of time as a "field" or field component (outside and beyond its usefulness in the realm of math, that is) <tch><tch><tch>

I moved my bottle of aspirin from its cabinet space in the other room to within arm's reach of my 'puter. Actually, I think this was around the time you showed up. Or was it Millennium?

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

I hear you. I was a Einstein guy for years. Its hard to just switch mental pics sometimes. Time may just be change of the Scalar field. Concepts of time vs change are two sides of the same coin. I had many moments where the Aether came to me, but since it was always disregarded since Einstein I tended to figure I must be wrong.



I am still trying to understand its place in our current shift of models.

_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: Transformation-subjectivity-relativity-objectivity Reply with quote
OP "StefanR"

6. 17 Transformation
The observation domain is, as the name already expresses, perceptible (observable) with
the help of our sense organs and measurable with corresponding apparatus. The special
theory of relativity for the most part provides us the mathematics needed for that. And in
that is assumed a constant speed of light. Because a length contraction is being observed
and can be measured, a time dilatation must arise as a consequence. Such is the consistent
statement of this theory. Because we already could make us clear that it concerns a
subjective theory, of course caution is advisable if generalizations are being made, like the
one of the inductive conclusion of the length contraction on the time dilatation. We'll
come to speak about that in this chapter (fig. 6.20).
The model domain however is not observable to us and only accessible in a mathematical
manner. Here the time is a constant. On the other hand do the radii of the particles and all
other distances and linear measures stand in direct proportionality to the speed of light. If
that changes, then does that lead to a change in length. The length contraction occurs
physically, which means actually. We propose the name "theory of objectivity" for the
valid theory which is derivable with this prerequisite and independent of the point of view
of the observer.
The importance of this model domain and of the possible model calculations is founded in
the circumstance that many physical relations within our observation domain aren't
recognized by us and can't be mathematically derived. Besides is only all to often worked
with unallowed generalizations and with pure hypotheses. Such a thing does not even exist
in the model domain.
The model domain can be tapped over a transformation. For that we select an approach
x(r) in the to us accessible observation domain. This then is transformed into the model
domain by a calculation instruction M{x(r)}. Here we can calculate the sought-for relation
In the usual manner and transform back again the result according to the same calculation
instruction M-1{x(r)} but in the reversed direction. After being returned in our familiar
observation domain, the result can be compared and checked with measurement results
(fig. 6.17).
In this way we will derive, calculate and compare the quantum properties of the
elementary particles with the known measurement values. Here we remind you of the fact
that all attempts to calculate the quantum properties conventionally, without
transformation, until now have failed. Not even a systematization may succeed, if it
concerns for instance explanations for the order of magnitude of the mass of a particle.
A transformation at first is nothing more than an in usefulness founded mathematical
measure. But if a constant of nature, and as such the quantum properties of elementary
particles until now have to be seen, for the first time can be derived and calculated with a
transformation then this measure with that also gains its physical authorization.
We now stand for the question: how does the instruction of transformation M{x(r)} read,
with which we should transform the approach and all equations from the observation
domain into the model domain?

6.15 Definition of the speed of light
If a light signal propagates in space, then as a consequence of the velocity of propagation
c, it at a certain point in time t is in a distance r of the light source:
r = c * t (6.19)
S h o u l d the speed of light become smaller for instance by dC then the light signal
obviously has covered a distance less by dR or the time interval has changed by dT
r + dR = (c + dc).(t + dt) (6.20)
This equation describes purely mathematically the most general case which can be
assumed. By writing out the multiplication and subtraction of equation 6.18 the change in
distance considered for itself is:
dr = c . dt + t . dc + dc . dt (6.21)
The answer of mathematics is that the change in distance can have its cause in a change in
time, in a change of speed or in both. We now want to turn to the physical interpretation
and have a closer look at the two possibilities, in which either c or t is to be taken constant
(see fig. 6.16).
In the first case the speed of light c is constant and as a consequence the change dC = zero.
The mathematical formulation (according to eq. 6.21) therefore reads:
case 1:

c = dr/dt (relativity) (6.22)

If in this conception world a change in distance is observed, for instance the Lorentz
contraction, then in order to save this relation inevitably a change in time, for instance a
time dilatation, has to make the compensation. Einstein in an applicable manner speaks of
relativity, because according to his opinion in the case of both variables, the length
contraction and the time dilatation, it only concerns observed changes.
For the time dilatation experiments are given. But for the measurement of time always
only atomic clocks are available and their speed of running of course could also be
influenced by the Lorentz contraction. In any case it can't be claimed the time dilatation is
proven experimentally as long as we do not know the mechanisms of decay of atoms.
Otherwise the statements of the theory of relativity are familiar to us, for which reason
further remarks seem unnecessary.
In the second case the time t is constant and consequently the change At = zero. At a closer
look this case is much more obvious, since why should time change. After all time has
been stipulated by definition.
After all, we are the ones who tell, what simultaneity is!
The mathematical formulation for this case reads (eq. 6.21 with dT= 0):
case 2:

c = dr/t (objectivity) (6.23)

This equation does open up for us an until now completely unknown and fundamentally
other way of looking at the physical reality.

6.16 Relativity and objectivity
New to the second case (equation 6.23) is particularly the proportionality contained in it:
C ~ R (6.25 = 6.2)
But to us it is not new, because we have derived the same proportionality from the model
concept (equation 6.2, fig. 6.2), in which the elementary particles are understood as
spherical vortices.
Equantion 6.25 unconcealed brings to knowledge that any change of the speed of light c
[m/s] in the same way leads to a change of the radius r [m], the distance between two
points in space or even the length of an object, e.g. a rule. Such a rule after all consists of
nothing but spherical atoms and elementary particles and for their radius r again the
proportionality 6.25 holds. Therefore it is to be set:
r ~ 1 (6.26)
and taken both together we already had derived as equation 6.18 (fig. 6.11) from the field
dependency. Here the vortex model as well finds a confirmation of its correctness, as in
the derivation from the equations of transformation of the electromagnetic field. Because
all three, the derivation according to the model, the physical and the mathematical
derivation, lead to the same result, this second case should be called "objective".
With that the first case, which describes the subjective perception of an observer, is not
supposed to be devaluated. It contains the definition of reality, according to which only is
real what also is perceptible. The theory of relativity of Poincare and Einstein is based on
this definition.
With the second case, the case with a variable speed of light, we however get serious
problems, since we observe with our eyes, and that works with the speed of light. If that
changes, we can't see it, as already said. If we could see it, then "reality" would have a
completely different face and we surely would have great difficulties, to find our way
around. In this "objective world" neither electromagnetic interactions nor gravitation
would exist, so no force effects at all. Because all distances and linear measures depend on
the speed of light, everything would look like in a distortion mirror.
The concept of an "objective world" at first has not a practical, but rather a theoretical and
mathematical sense. The distinction between an observation domain and a model domain
is founded in pure usefulness.
The observation domain should correspond to case 1 and the model domain to case 2. The
mathematical derivation tells us, how we can mediate between both domains (equation
6.21): This mediation amounts to a transformation, which provides us the instruction, how
a transition from the observation into a not perceptible model concept, from the relativity
into an objectivity has to.

8.1 Structure of the field theory
In contrast to Maxwell's theory the new field theory, which we derived from duality, is
also able to describe fields, in which no particles and no quanta exist. It probably is
justified and useful in the sense of a clearer communication, to give the new field a name
of its own.
The author recommends the introduction of the term "hydrotic field". In it should be
expressed, which importance water has for both the like named potential vortex and this
field<ii>.
As we already have worked out, the hydrotic field is favoured particularly by polar
materials and by a high dielectricity. Water is a corresponding and in the biosphere of our
planet dominating material.
Whereas we had to correct the concept of a vortex free electric field, we had until now,
considerable, we can take over the description of the magnetic field unchanged. This then
should also be valid for its name. The new field which consists of both correspondingly is
called hydromagnetic field.
In fig. 8.1 we recognize the structure. At the top stands the "hydromagnetic field", which
is described mathematically by the equations of dual electrodynamics in fig. 3.3. It does
not know quanta and as logical consequence neither charge nor mass! If we insert these
equations, Ampere's law and the dual formulated Faraday law of induction, into each
other, then there results as a mathematical description of our space-time-continuum the
fundamental field equation (5.7, fig. 5.1). As a new physical phenomenon the potential
vortex appears, which gives the hydromagnetic field a new and important property: this
field can be quantized!
Starting-point is the wave, which for corresponding interference effects can spontaneously
roll up to a vortex, which as highly concentrated spherical vortex finds a new right to exist
and finds to a new physical reality.
The in the described manner formed particles show specific properties of their own. We
now are able to attribute them for instance a charge or a mass. And these properties also
can be investigated and described individually and isolated from each other. Thus are
formed the two special cases, strange by nature, on the one hand the well-known, with the
help of the Maxwell equations describable "electromagnetic field" and on the other hand
the new "hydrogravitational field".
If we overlap the results of the two special cases, e.g. by adding the force effects of
electric charges and accelerated masses, then we summarized obtain a field, which we
accordingly should call "electrogravitational". This case is not at all unknown. Already
Niels Bohr in this way has calculated the radii of the electron orbits in the hull of his
model of the atom, to mention only one example. We can summarize:
The hydromagnetic field is the all encompassing and with that most important field. Apart
from that the electromagnetic field of the currents and the eddy currents and the hydrogravitational
field of the potentials and the potential vortices merely describe the two
possible and important special cases. For reasons of pure usefulness for every special
case a characteristic factor of description is introduced, the charge and the mass!

8.2 Unification of the interactions
The discovery and introduction of the hydromagnetic field makes the desired unification
possible, because the electromagnetic resp. Maxwell field, which describes the electromagnetic
interaction, and the hydrogravitational field of the gravitation can be derived
from this field as a consequence of the formation of quanta.
The kind of the interaction is caused by the course of the field lines of the field quanta
which form as spherical vortices: the open field lines make the electromagnetic interaction
possible. And the field, lines with a closed course lead to gravitation. Both are a direct
result of the field dependent speed of light. A more perfect unification seems hardly
possible.
As the next step the unification with the strong and the weak interaction is required, but it
could be shown that those don't exist at all. It just concerns misinterpretations with much
fantasy, which should help explain the difference between a wrong theory and the physical
reality.
Numerous auxiliary terms for the description of the quantum properties exist, like for
instance mass, charge or Planck's quantum of action. The prerequisite for their usability
naturally is the existence of the quanta. But until these have found to a physical reality, the
auxiliary terms are unnecessary. The hydromagnetic field does not know quanta, quantum
properties or auxiliary descriptions. It will be shown that, according to expectation, also
the temperature is a typical quantum property, which comes within the group of the
auxiliary terms. In this way also the temperature is fitted into the unified theory without
compulsion.
Without the by us for reasons of usefulness introduced auxiliary terms the fundamental
field equation is left with its description of a spatial-temporal principle. If a world
equation should exist, then this field equation 5.7 has the best prerequisites.
For the fundamental field equation the division in four parts is repeated like already for the
hydromagnetic field (fig. 8.1). It likewise consists of four individual parts, the wave (b),
the two vortex phenomena (c and d) and the time independent term (e) (fig. 8.2). Whereas
the duality still is combined in the wave, it comes to light clearly for the vortices to again
be combined in the fourth case. Here arise however potentials and currents, which again
can react and oscillate with each other, for instance as L-C-resonant circuit in an electronic
circuit, with which the principle is repeated.
This principle is shown clearer for the phenomenon of the temperature as in all other
cases. If we start at the top in the picture in fig. 8.2 we have an electromagnetic wave,
which is absorbed and thus becomes a vortex. If the vortex falls apart, then eddy losses are
formed. We observe that the temperature rises and propagates in the well-known manner.
We have arrived in the bottom box, but this again can be taken as the top box for the now
following process, because the equation of heat conduction is a vortex equation of type c
or d! We discover a self-similarity:
The spatial-temporal principle formulated mathematically by the fundamental
field equation can be carried over into itself time and again.

naamloosr.jpg (10.04 KiB) Viewed 10734 times

naamloost.jpg (9.63 KiB) Viewed 10732 times

All from Meyl's Scalar Waves book. http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=10_ ... sublevel=0
_________________
"And surely struggle against him we must in every possible way who would annihilate knowledge and reason and mind, and yet ventures to speak confidently about anything."
Plato, Phaedo

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: re: New Theory of Light Reply with quote
OP "StefanR"

New Theory of Light

So photons are describable by wave and particle and are percieved by us when going with the speed of light. Photons can go faster but by exceeding the speed of light they could be described as neutrinos...

from J'lord's Aetherometry quote in http://web4.ehost-services.com/rainbow1 ... c&start=90

Yet, as we have already shown [1], high-energy photons (ionizing photons), as well as gravitons (and antigravitons), can be directly generated from the cosmological Aether lattice [2], and in this quality do not belong to the realm of Matter, but to the realm of the Aether. Yet, they are not primary massfree energy elements, as are ambipolar charges or latent energy units (eg Eae), but secondary massfree energy elements that exist in a realm between Matter and Aether

The Correas are among those who do not see light, (as photons), in terms of a necessary constant value, or as self-sustaining vortices. [Although like some others, they create and use many more words and terms to fill up high-dollar books, rather than simply state it on the free web.]

I know to little of the aetherometric work to be able to comment on that, but gravitons to me do not seem to be nessesary. In that way why concern oneself with gravity like Thornhill does. Gravity can be resolved. But then again I don't know exacly what description they give of gravitons.

But here is a .pdf on how maxwell is preserved and as such the wave and the photon.

The Maxwell field as a derived special case
As the derivations show, nobody can claim there wouldn’t exist potential vortices and no
propagation as a scalar wave, since only the Maxwell equations are to blame that these
already have been factored out in the approach. One has to know that the field equations,
and may they be as famous as they are, are nothing but a special case, which can be
derived.
The field-theoretical approach however, which among others bases on the Faraday-law, is
universal and can’t be derived on its part. It describes a physical basic principle, the
alternating of two dual experience or observation factors, their overlapping and mixing by
continually mixing up cause and effect. It is a philosophic approach, free of materialistic
or quantum physical concepts of any particles.
Maxwell on the other hand describes without exception the fields of charged particles, the
electric field of resting and the magnetic field as a result of moving charges. The charge
carriers are postulated for this purpose, so that their origin and their inner structure remain
unsettled and can’t be derived. The subdivision e.g. in quarks stays in the domain of a
hypothesis, which can’t be proven. The sorting and systematizing of the properties of
particles in the standard-model is nothing more than unsatisfying comfort for the missing
calculability.
With the field-theoretical approach however the elementary particles with all quantum
properties can be calculated as field vortices [1, chap. 7]. With that the field is the cause
for the particles and their measurable quantisation. The electric vortex field, at first source
free, is itself forming its field sources in form of potential vortex structures. The formation
of charge carriers in this way can be explained and proven mathematically, physically,
graphically and experimentally understandable according to the model.
Where in the past the Maxwell theory has been the approach, there in the future should be
proceeded from the equations of transformation of the field-theoretical approach. If now
potential vortex phenomena occur, then these also should be interpreted as such in the
sense of the approach and the derivation, then the introduction and postulation of new and
decoupled model descriptions isn’t allowed anymore, like the near-field effects of an
antenna, the noise, dielectric capacitor losses, the mode of the light and a lot else more.
The at present in theoretical physics normal scam of at first putting a phenomenon to zero,
to afterwards postulate it anew with the help of a more or less suitable model, leads to a
breaking up of physics into apparently not connected individual disciplines and an
inefficient specialist hood. There must be an end to this now! The new approach shows the
way towards a unified theory, in which the different areas of physics again fuse to one
area. In this lies the big chance of this approach, even if many of the specialists at first
should still revolt against it.
This new and unified view of physics shall be summarized with the term „theory of
objectivity“. As we shall derive, it will be possible to deduce the theory of relativity as a
partial aspect of it [1, chapter 6 and 28].
Let us first cast our eyes over the wave propagation.

The new field approach in synopsis
Proof could be furnished that an approximation is buried in Maxwell’s field equations and
that they merely represent the special case of a new, dually formulated and more universal
approach. The mathematical derivations of the Maxwell field and the wave equation
disclose, of what the Maxwell approximation consists. The anti-vortex dual to the
expanding eddy current with its skin effect is neglected. This contracting anti-vortex is
called potential vortex. It is capable of forming structures and propagates as a scalar wave
in longitudinal manner in badly conducting media like air or vacuum.
At relativistic velocities the potential vortices are subject to the Lorentz contraction. Since
for scalar waves the propagation occurs longitudinally in the direction of an oscillating
field pointer, the potential vortices experience a constant oscillation of size as a result of
the oscillating propagation. If one imagines the field vortex as a planar but rolled up
transverse wave, then from the oscillation of size and with that of wavelength at constant
swirl velocity with c follows a continual change in frequency, which is measured as a
noise signal.
The noise proves to be the in the Maxwell equations neglected potential vortex term,
which founds scalar waves. If at biological or technical systems, e.g. at antennas a noise
signal is being measured, then that proves the existence of potential vortices, but it then
also means that the scope of the Maxwell theory has been exceeded and erroneous
concepts can be the result.
As an answer to the question about possible new technologies is pointed to two special
properties.
1st potential vortices for reason of their particle nature carry momentum and energy. Since
we are surrounded by noise vortices, an energy technical use of scalar waves would be
feasible, where the noise power is withdrawn of the surroundings. There is evidence that
biological systems in nature cover their need for energy in this way. But at least an energy
transmission with scalar waves already would be a significant progress with regard to the
alternating current technology of today.
2nd the wavelength multiplied with the frequency results in the velocity of propagation v of
a wave (λ⋅f = v), and that for scalar waves by no means is constant. With that wavelength
and frequency aren’t coupled anymore; they can be modulated separately, for which
reason for scalar waves a whole dimension can be modulated additionally compared to the
Hertzian wave. In that the reason can be seen, why the human brain with just 10 Hz clock
frequency is considerably more efficient than modern computers with more than 1 GHz
clock frequency. Nature always works with the best technology, even if we haven’t yet
understood it.
If we would try to learn of nature and an energy technical or an information technical use
of scalar waves would occur, then probably nobody wanted to have our today still highly
praised technology anymore. In the course of the greenhouse gases and the electro smog
we have no other choice than to scientifically occupy us with scalar waves and their
technical use.

http://www.k-meyl.de/go/60_Primaerliter ... axwell.pdf
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=47_ ... sublevel=0
_________________
"And surely struggle against him we must in every possible way who would annihilate knowledge and reason and mind, and yet ventures to speak confidently about anything."
Plato, Phaedo

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 4:39 am Post subject: Light Reply with quote
OP "SeaSmith"

But then again I don't know exacly what description they give of gravitons.

Right.
I wouldn't subscribe to gravitons, and don't know why anyone would, other than for obsfucation of readily apparent reality and perhaps sales of printed materials.

~

[bboyer]

That's all the posts I have for this thread for recovery.

- 30 -

[junglelord]

However hard you stare, you would still miss it. Researchers have found a way to generate the shortest-ever flash of light – 80 attoseconds (billionths of a billionth of a second) long.


Such flashes have already been used to capture an image of a laser pulse too short to be "photographed" before.

The light pulses are produced by firing longer, but still very short laser pulses into a cloud of neon gas. The laser gives a kick of energy to the neon atoms, which then release this energy in the form of brief pulses of extreme ultraviolet light.
The trigger pulses fired at the neon cloud are themselves only 2.5 femtoseconds, billionths of a millionth of a second, long, says team member Eleftherios Goulielmakis at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany.

Light punchThe trigger pulses contained only one or two oscillations of a light wave so that they packed a compact energy punch when they reached the neon cloud.

To do this, the researchers had to corral the trigger-pulse photons into a tightly packed bunch using a device called a chirped mirror.

These multilayered mirrors make the photons at the front of a pulse travel further than the slower photons at the rear do. That gives the back markers time to catch up, in this case producing a tight pack of photons that hit the neon atoms at roughly the same time.

Photon finishTo find out how short the light flashes from the neon atoms were, Goulielmakis and colleagues directed them onto a second neon gas cloud.

As each flash is intense enough to completely ionise a neon atom and release an electron, the researchers could use those electrons like a flashgun, to illuminate some of the original 2.5 femtosecond trigger pulses of laser light.
"Only sampling them with a "sampler" way shorter than that can render them visible," explains Goulielmakis.
Recording the energy of the electrons that passed through the pulse generates a crisp side-profile of the short laser beam, not unlike a sporting photo-finish image (see right). The image of the laser clearly shows the single oscillation of the trigger pulse.

Computer analysis of the image reveals that the flashes of light used to make the electrons lasted just 80 attoseconds – the shortest ever made.

Electron 'camera'?Jonathan Marangos at Imperial College London, UK, says the super-short flashes could let researchers image the movement of electrons around large atoms.

"Any better understanding of the microscopic world is going to have an impact across all of science," he says.
The previous record for the shortest light pulse was 130 attoseconds, set in 2007. "To go from 130 to 80 attoseconds is a major step," says Marangos.

In the future, Goulielmakis hopes to produce light pulses of 24 attoseconds, the atomic unit of time, defined as how long it takes an electron to travel from one side of a hydrogen atom to the other.

But Marangos thinks even shorter pulses are possible. "There's nothing magical about the atomic unit of time," he says, saying zeptosecond pulses of trillionths of a billionth of a second might be possible. These would be capable of imaging the movement of nuclear particles like protons, says Marangos.


http://technology.newscientist.com/arti ... ad_dn14172

[seasmith]

Summer Solstice June 20, 2008

J’lord quoting from a Max Planck Institute (‘Copenhagen’ interpreters of quantum physics) group:

“To do this, the researchers had to corral the trigger-pulse photons into a tightly packed bunch using a device called a chirped mirror.”

http://technology.newscientist.com/arti ... ad_dn14172

An elegant and instructive experiment to be sure, but just to clarify the translated terminology with a simpler EU friendly perspective, we might harken back to our here often and aptly quoted Carver Mead:

“He regarded the concept of the "point particle" as an otiose legacy from the classical era. Early photodetectors or Geiger counters may have provided both visual and auditory testimony that photons were point particles, but the particulate click coarsely concealed a measurable wave.”

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson ... erMead.htm



~