The Details of Thread Theory

[folaht]

You want my opinion?
FANTASTIC!!!! THIS IS WHAT PLASMA COSMOLOGY NEEDS!
A theory that not only explains why the Big Bang theory, General Relativity and Special Relativity are wrong,
but also Aether physics and Quantum Mechanics. It's a theory that looks eerily familair to me, which is plasma cosmology.
It's a theory that explains what no other theory has explained rationially as of yet, which is pull.
It's amazing they have not even heard of this site, even though they keep drawing twisted filament pairs and reject gravity.


Here are their youtube videos:

#1 - What's the point?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSJjs4l_FHU

#2 - A line is not a distance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrD8a1_PcG4

#3 - Debunking Al's length contraction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFeZf0KOzuM

#4 - Debunking Al's space-time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q9IePuHut4

#5 - Do leprechauns exist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9kA6dbaer4

#6 - Did you ever take Math?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFu5BlJClY

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

# 7 - What is Light?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

# 8 - The H-Atom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

# 9 - The secret Law of Attraction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

# 10 - The Emperor's Clothes: the sequel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4iFCu4ih10

Chapter 11 and 12 will be released will be about how the sun pulls on the earth.

Here's their website:
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/

[Divinity]

Thank you Sluimers...great links and site:

You Stupid Relativist . Com has the purpose of exposing Mathematical Physics for what it
is: an irrational religion. The most natural place to start the discussion is by telling you a
little bit about who these latter-day astrologers, alchemists, and Platonists are, what they
believe in, and what they do. If you already had run-ins with relativists and know what I'm
talking about, this site is designed to provide you with an arsenal of arguments that you can
use to debunk their ideas in forums and FAQs. Let's see how much the bozos of the
establishment really know and settle once and for all whether they have any authority to
interpret the physical world for you.

A mathematical physicist is an individual who:

• tells you that a dot is a location
• believes that a line is the shortest distance between two points
• defines length as a distance
• thinks that weight is a force
• can't tell the difference between a coordinate and a dimension
• is still trying to figure out what a number is
• claims that he can predict an object with an equation
• kills the hours tilting squares and triangles
• constructs his solids piece by piece

It's really great!
Love Divinity

p.s. did I see the Law of Attraction slip in there?! What do YOU think of THAT?

[altonhare]

p.s. did I see the Law of Attraction slip in there?! What do YOU think of THAT?

I love it. After buying his book and watching his video I am completely sold on Thread Theory. I started a topic called Modern "Physics" where I summarize the theory in as few words as possible. I have some questions about the theory and some exciting ideas but I'm waiting to hear everyone else's reaction. You know my reaction, I'm sold.

[Plasmatic]

The threads would be "filaments" or plasma as far as I can tell so far. Still digging.

[Solar]

The parts regarding "mathematical physicist" seem to point to the difference between "pure mathematics" (mathematical aesthetics/"art") and "applied mathematics" (sometimes called "ugly" by pure mathematicians). Your thoughts on that please.

[Plasmatic]

Are you asking me Solar?

[Solar]

Are you asking me Solar?

No. I thought Altonhare was the gentleman in the videos (?) and was asking him. But since I do value your insights feel free to comment if you like.

It seems to me, via the work of Stephen J. Crouthers that this difference in mathematical approaches is what may account for the phantasmagorical theories, and entities, of modern cosmology and astronomy. "Pure mathematics" may work fine in in the headspace of mathematical physicist but it's no substitute for the "applied mathematics" used by the engineers who build and send the probes up. This seemed to be what the first two or three videos were speaking to.

[junglelord]

"Pure mathematics" may work fine in in the headspace of mathematical physicist but it's no substitute for the "applied mathematics" used by the engineers who build and send the probes up

Exactly. Yet even this can be a landmine. Consider the work of structural engineering and beams, levers and fulcrums.
Funny how the human body looks to be made of these elements. Yet it is not. It is a Tensegrity system made of icosahedrons. Beams, levers and fulcrums would never apply and infact the math does not work. Dispite this, people everywhere are taught kinesiology with beams levers and fulcrums. Graduates of compression, having no idea of Tensegrity. Blindly going forth with diplomas never knowing all that knowledge is dodo. Working as personal trainers and physiotherapist to chiropractors and orthopedic surgeons. None having a proper model nor the experienced hands, and tend to treat with electronics, surgery, or spinal adjustments. All the while having no idea of Tensegrity or the role of fascia beside an inert packing material.

Simple example of the entire world being lead by the blind. Meanwhile the patient suffers the indiginty that he must fit into the paradigm of the professionals line of sight. The blind leading the blind.

At the same time modern math needs an entire overhaul and I found it.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=1097
Concept of the Harmony Mathematics
The golden ratio along with the numbers of pi and e have to occupy the prominent place in mathematics.
Thus, the neglect of the golden section and the harmony idea is one more strategic mistake not only mathematics but also theoretical physics. This mistake originated a number of other strategic mistakes in the mathematics development.


Look at it this way, every world view needs a paradigm.

[altonhare]

The parts regarding "mathematical physicist" seem to point to the difference between "pure mathematics" (mathematical aesthetics/"art") and "applied mathematics" (sometimes called "ugly" by pure mathematicians). Your thoughts on that please.

I am not the man in the video, his name is Bill Gaede. I'm just someone who recognizes his logic and reasoning as a beacon of light in the current scientific dark age. My opinion on pure vs. applied mathematics is that there is no fundamental difference, only a difference in perception. Whether a person develops a concept or theory while motivated by application or purely by some inner muse does not change the nature of what has been constructed. As has been seen, many things developed within mathematics with no practical purpose in mind have found great practical use. At the same time something developed in mathematics with a particular purpose may appear to be useful but later be found to be too narrow or too inaccurate and be relegated to purely a mathematical curiosity.

The fact is that mathematics cannot explain the universe because it deals exclusively with concepts while the universe is composed only of objects. The latter exist while the former does not. The terms are defined below:

Exist : Physical Presence
Physical: Has shape, has a contour, can be distinguished from surroundings.
Presence: Location, the static distance of an object from every other object.
Object: That which has shape, i.e. is physical. A distinguishing feature is that it has no opposite. Tree is not the opposite of "no tree".
Concrete Object: That which has shape and location i.e. physical presence, i.e. exists. When you point at something and utter the word that refers to it, it is a concrete object.
Abstract object: That which has shape but not location. For example a tribar.
Concept: A relationship between two or more objects.
Motion: Two or more locations of an object.
Static concept: A relationship between two or more objects, each at a single location.
Dynamic concept: A relationshiop between two or more objects, at least one of which is at two or more locations.
Time: Cause/effect, before/after. The cue ball hit the one-ball, THEN the one-ball hit the eight-ball.

A concept necessitates an observer to make the comparison/relationship. When you describe your mouse to someone who has never seen or heard of one, you are referring to it as a concept. In order for your friend to conceptualize the mouse you have to show them other objects or refer to other objects. You may chop an orange in half, lay it on your desk, and place it in your palm to express the size of a mouse. Then you may find some hard plastic and knock on it to express the hardness and feel of the mouse. But, unless you can pull out the mouse, point to it, and say "mouse" you are referring to it as a concept, i.e. as a comparison to other objects. Your friend can never know what a mouse IS no matter how long you describe/conceptualize it for them, they can only know what it is NOT or what it is LIKE. They can only know what it IS by seeing the real thing. Therefore, concepts do not exist in the sense of physical presence because, without sentience, there are no longer any concepts. In the universe objects just move from one location to the next. For a concept to have any bearing on physics the objects under comparison must be concrete objects (shape and location). Any concept introduced in a theory of physics must be defined in terms of concrete objects. Concepts can be distinguished from objects because they have opposites. Thick is the opposite of thin, love is the opposite of hate, up is the opposite of down, and mass is the opposite of mass-less.

Under SR time is defined as the difference in the number of light signals emitted by one object as it traverses the distance D and the number emitted by another object as it traverses the distance if the objects emit an equal number of photons when traversing the distance simultaneously (i.e. their light has the same frequency when both objects are at rest). It also says nothing about physics, only about quantification. This is the only valid interpretation of SR and expressly prohibits anything like "time travel". Time is strictly a concept and a concept cannot be traveled through, bent, warped, dilated, or dominated.

This is the set of definitions used because they can be used consistently, i.e. rationally, i.e. scientifically. Science as a discipline demands consistency above all else. This is because it is possible to "explain" anything if you can use the same word for whatever you want. Additionally it's impossible to evaluate a theory if no one can agree on what exactly is being discussed. As far as I know this set of definitions (proposed by Bill Gaede, not by me, but perhaps some have been proposed by others before him at various times) is the only set that can be used consistently in all instances. All of mathematics falls in the category of concept. Mathematics is based completely on quantification of the universe and anything that is quantified is conceptual. This is because, for something to be quantified, it must be compared to something else. The statement "The man is six feet tall" makes no sense unless you know how tall something else is, demanding a comparison, which immediately invokes a concept. Mathematics cannot tell you what the man IS, it can only DESCRIBE the man. This is where math and physics are fundamentally different. Math only describes objects by comparing them to other objects quantitatively. Physics deals with what IS, independent of observers to do the comparing.

This is readily apparent when one analyzes the discipline of mathematics. In order to do anything, mathematics first converts all of the objects in its theory into concepts. Objects are often converted into their center of mass, or simply into energy. Motion is often converted into energy. Almost everything tends to be energy at one point or another and the term energy has become utterly meaningless. Not a single mathematical physicist alive today can tell you what energy IS. Not a single one can tell you what light IS. Not a single one can tell you what mass, field, time, or dimension IS. Yet they move masses, often using fields, while dilating time and building N-dimensional "objects". The reason they cannot tell you what any of these terms mean, what they ARE, is because math has no power to tell us what is, only the power to describe via quantitative comparison. Math is not the language of physics, it is completely divorced from physics. Thus, "pure math" is no different from "applied math". In one sense, all math is "pure math" because it is all entirely an abstract conceptual endeavor without bearing on existence (physical presence). Additionally, all math is "applied math" because everything ever produced by mathematics is only a description. A description is only of use to someone who does NOT care about what is, but only cares about external motivating factors (i.e. building a better bomb, computer chip, etc.). Physics is more pure in the sense that it seeks to explain, which is more fundamental than seeking merely to describe.

[Plasmatic]

I contacted Bill today and he isnt familair with EU,PC . I sent him the TPOD which incidentaly was about threaded ropes ..etc. His epistemology and metaphysics greatly resembles objectivism. He was aware of this but he is not "hopeful" as Rand for reason to effect mankind because he suspects we will all be extinct very soon. I havent evaluated this area enough to comment on why he thinks this and if its plausible. I mentioned plasma filaments etc. He said he is doing some new videos soon.

[altonhare]

I have laid down the basics of the theory in the topic Modern "Physics". It has also been discussed in the topic "Thread Theory, What Do You Guys Think of It?". This topic is for people who are up to speed on TT and would like to discuss the finer details.

One of my questions regards the nucleus of the atom under TT. Bill Gaede describes the nucleus as a "dandelion" or a "porcupine". The electric threads all terminate at the center of the atom while the magnetic thread wraps around like a yarn ball, except it appears more like a shell because of the void separating the electron shell and the proton dandelion. I am interested in the nature of the nucleus. Do the electric threads enter/exit in any kind of regular pattern that may be observable? If atom man were standing at the nucleus would he see V-shapes at the center where the threads enter and exit by a nearly identical path or are the threads of the nucleus straight, entering on one side and exiting the other? Do ALL the threads intersect precisely or are they merely touching, forming a loose aggregate? If they look like V shapes do tips of the V's all intersect precisely or do they form a spherical shell of V-tips? These are important questions because answering them may lead to elucidation of the width and height of the thread. A loose aggregate explains nuclear instability and radioactivity while a precise, defined intersection may explain the relative impermeability of the nucleus. V tips versus straight electric threads may be observable if the proton were sufficiently disturbed to shake the threads loose but not so disturbed that the V-tips were straightened too quickly. Lastly, there may be no regular structure at all, the threads may enter the nucleus and tangle with each other like Maniac Magee's ball of string. This could explain why radioactive decay appears unpredictable at the atomic level.

[Plasmatic]

A question im having is what happens whith the "threads" as far as entanglement is concerned. Would these threads allow other threads to pass through them? I think Bill mentions them colliding in his "rod and axle" example.

[junglelord]

Look at nuclear decay. The geometry is self evident in post I have made.
The nucleus forms in hexagons of neutrons and protons in complex nuclei.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 182#p11182
But lets take a step back. Start with the hydrogen atom.
The Hydrogen atom is special and will reveil all.


The model of the hydrogen atom has never been balanced. This is important. Do not look in text books for the solution, as they do not have one. At some point the electron either flys away or plummets into the proton nucleus....or goes right through the nucleus and continues. Each is impossible. Hydrogen atoms are very stable.

A very interesting take on angular momentum and gravity and how it relates to Coloumbs force.
http://www.geocities.com/rolfguthmann/index.html
I got started on this because of the hydrogen atom and its geometry that leads to hydrogen bonding.
Of course life is dependent on hydrogen bonding. The relationship of these bonds and the fundamental geometry will help us create a stucture and functional model that is based on angular momentum and three force models in most cases.

This seems to be accomplished at least three ways as far as I can tell. To me, this is just three different ways of viewing the same thing. Infact the point of reference seems to make fundamental relationships between the universal constants.

We have seen that, given the principles of relativity and due to the gravitational conditions of the atom, a small variation in the velocity of the electron unbalances the forces such that, when the point of reference is the proton, the Coulomb force is greater than the centripetal force. This difference is the gravitational force. When the point of reference is the electron, the Coulomb force is equal to the centripetal force, ensuring the equilibrium of the system.

http://www.geocities.com/rolfguthmann/QTG/qtg060.html

Hydrogen bonds and the relationship to the special condition of a hydrogen atom is critical to understanding all forces.
The strings are in constant vortical motion. The spinning charged electron creates a electric field between it and the nucleus with electric field stings that are in a vortex configuration due to the orbital motion. The electron of a hydrogen atom is traveling at 3 x 10^6 miles an hour, it would reach the moon in three minutes if traveling straight. It creates a magnetic dipole moment and a magentic field. The hydrogen electron creates 1 microamp due to its spin. Each field is at 90 degrees. That is a important key to the geometry of the vortex. The logarithmic ratio of PHI will unlock the vortex. The phase shift of 120 degrees is universal as a constant. The double helix is two thirds of a triple helix. Aether is visible as the missing third helix. All is three. Three is fractal. 120 phase shifted, triple helix ropes, strings, threads, what have you.


The geometric form is the star. It also looks like a poppy. Of course there is a very elemental reason the hydrogen atom and its electron form a star shape or a poppy shape, depending on your relative perspective. This is revealed in the relationship of Coulombs constant and the Compton Wavelength and the path of the distributed charge unit as it expands and contracts towards and away from the nucleus in its orbital motion. Take a look at Vortex Math and Harmony Math.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=1097
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=1073

[seasmith]

~
Altonhare,

Allow me to retro-fer you to to a previous T'bolts string, addressing this subject:

...that is, in the hydrogen atom aka neutron -- where the proton torus is squeezed WITHIN the electron Lissajous-volume -- do the frequency, wavelength and radii relationships [Octaves] between the electron and the proton -- DO these 'notes' preserve binary integer relationship values?!

or, if we were to assume that the proton outer superluminal ring spin frequency was an 'Octave' higher than the nuclear (sub-ground-state) electron frequency -- would that frequency be exactly a factor of two higher [or of four?] -- or would it be 2.5 times two higher, or 2.5 times four higher, considering that the spin velocity is NOT Vc, but is 2.5 Vc?

or would it fall in some intermediary [binary integer?] transitionary value?

ditto the INNER superluminal ring EM-wave frequency and wavelength of the proton's 'twist' (smaller-ring) topology?

the twist velocity is 13 times Vc -- thus we ask is the twist frequency EXACTLY a factor of two (or four) greater than the proton spin frequency ... or 12.9/2.5 times two or four... or some other intermediate value?

in the 13 years since I published the electron, proton and proof papers -- I have never taken the few minutes required to sit down and calculate the answers.
...
Sunday, January 27th, posted to NuclearStructure:

Junglelord wrote: Nice stuff. Sacred geometry is nestled in the atomic vortex.

[/quote]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=10&t=235

There was plenty more that preceded and followed, but at the moment apparently, the author is swept away in a vortex of temporal intrigonometries ???
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/
http://www.ojaipost.com/2008/10/world_j ... tary.shtml
s

[altonhare]

A question im having is what happens whith the "threads" as far as entanglement is concerned. Would these threads allow other threads to pass through them? I think Bill mentions them colliding in his "rod and axle" example.

I'm really glad you asked such a good question, it is precisely this type of issue that I came to this forum to discuss. I will tell you what Bill says and what I say.

Entanglement is a difficult issue under TT as well as every other theory that I have encountered. Quantum cannot explain why a photon ball does not collide with another photon ball, but rather passes through. The wave theory of light requires a medium just as sound waves do, which implies a cosmic aether, which has its own problems. Not the least of which is the fact that disturbances in this aether should logically interact with each other just like waves on an ocean.

In his book Bill Gaede gets to the crux of the problem which, as expected, is a matter of a clear definition. In particular, we must define the word "touch". What does it mean for two objects to touch one another? If they merely come extremely close, they cannot influence each other. But if there is no space separating two objects then they no longer have separate surfaces and then they become a single object. Bill Gaede concludes that "touch" does not happen at the thread level, it is an observed phenomenon of the macro world. Touch is a phenomenon arising a the "surface" level. An object must own a surface in order to touch another object. The matter of owning a surface or not isn't clear, it is purely a matter of velocity. At high velocities the electron shells of two atoms will pass through each other until only the nuclei collide. At low velocities the shells collide. Electric threads in magnetism collide because of speed. Under TT we must also clarify which type of touch we are referring to, "push touch" or "pull touch". Two atoms may not be in contact yet they can affect each other by pumping torsion waves. This electromagnetic touch is an alternating pressing and tugging through the torsion mechanism. This explains why quantum mechanics detects light as a particle "upon impact" but not as it propagates. Thus the interface between the two "objects" is not a surface but a signal. Atoms do not actually intervene in the process, they are simply endpoints. The "push touch" of our everyday experience is mediated by matter itself whereas gravitational and electromagnetic touch is mediated by the rope.

Interatomic touch: Two electron shells colliding
Gravitational/Electromagnetic Touch: The alternating expansion and contraction of an electron shell that torques the EM rope inducing other atoms to expand/contract at the same frequency and retransmit the signal.

Bill Gaede ultimately says that the thread, although 3 dimensional, is nothing like the thread of our everyday experience. Indeed, it can't be, it is the fundamental constituent. It is conceptually made of a single piece. There are certain cases where the universe appears to be composed of surfaces and when it appears not. He proposes the "2-D rule" and the "3-D rule". They are below:

The 3-D Rule: Two surfaces cannot cross each other. At the subatomic level there are three ways to generate a surface:

1) An electron shell comprised of magnetic threads.
2) A spherical region within 0.8E-15 m of the proton or neutron center comprised of electric threads.
3) A bundle of curved threads swinging around a series of atoms (as seen with Axle and Rod in the magnetism video)

The 2-D Rule: A rope can cut through a thread, surface, or another rope. It has properties we typically associate with planes. The thread is so much thinner than the radius of the smallest chunk of matter (H atom) that, for all practical purposes, it behaves as if it were 2-D.

The 2-D Rule may seem supernatural. Bill proposes it is so only in terms of ordinary matter and everyday things. The thread is the fundamental constituent. It's is fundamentally different than the matter we observe. We observe matter by detecting the light emitted by it or by simply colliding with the matter. We cannot observe threads or ropes in the former sense because they ARE light. The torsion that propagates along the rope simply serves to excite the atoms in our eye to pumping faster. Therefore, the thread is a DEFINED entity, it exists by definition, not because we observe it. We can only observe threads in the latter sense in magnetism because threads are colliding with other threads. There is no matter that can collide with a thread because the thread is so thin compared to the smallest chunk of matter (atom) that the thread does not present a surface.

I disagree with Bill in this discussion. However, he proposes an alternate explanation but ultimately doesn't make it a part of his theory. I prefer it because it does not require us to make specific cases for when the universe appears to allow objects to pass through each other or not. The theory is that the cosmic rope is static. For example, when you shine your flashlight at a wall and then move it you may be tempted to think that the ropes connecting the bulb to the wall have moved with the flashlight and crossed countless threads as you sweep the wall. In fact, this does not have to be the case. The flashlight is stimulating threads that are already there. All the atoms comprising the bulb slide along existing ropes ropes like beads on an abacus. Matter is essentially a bundle of signals sliding along a permanent, static web. The atom moves and leaves some of the rope it was composed of behind and takes up some new rope in the direction of travel, it slides along somewhat like a bead on an abacus. At its new location it continues to pump and stimulate torsion waves, but in a new section of threads. In this universe it is perfectly reasonable for the thread to always possess a surface. The rules are reformulated more simply:

3-D Rule: Two surfaces cannot cross. Objects can only touch. Touch is defined as 0 distance between the surface of TWO objects (i.e. the surfaces remain distinct, though there is no space between them). Touch comprises two frames of the Universal Movie by definition. In frame one two objects are touching, in frame two they are separate. If they are not separate in frame two then there were not two objects in frame one, but rather a single object.

If you see a dumbbell-shaped object and it does not separate into two spheres, you conclude by definition that it is a dumbbell-shaped object. If instead the dumbbell separates into two spheres, you conclude by definition that the object was simply two spheres touching. Touch is inherently dynamic whereas most people think of it as static, i.e. they try to visualize touch in a photograph when it is really a movie. This is why the concept of touch has been so difficult. Under the static web dynamic touch universe there is no 2-D rule. Electric threads responsible for magnetism do collide with atoms, but they do not disturb the atoms appreciably. The thread slides around the outside of the atom(s) and continues. The thread is so small and moving slowly enough that it does not knock the atom(s) appreciably out of position.

In this formulation, a combination of Bill's static web universe and dynamic touch, I believe the issue of entanglement is solved.

There is one last issue with the fundamental nature of the thread that Bill Gaede does not solve to my satisfaction, however. That is the issue of the thread's rigidity. The thread is conceptually made of a single continuous piece, so how can it bend? A fundamental constituent certainly cannot break by definition. Bending also seems impossible by definition since this would require the opening up of spaces within the thread and the compression of spaces elsewhere. Bill claims that continuity does not have to imply rigidity. He correctly points out that we have no examples of a continuous structure in our experience. As a result he concludes that we cannot ascertain if continuity is an indicator of rigidity or fluidity at the rope level and that we must simply make an assumption that continuity does not imply rigidity based on what we observe. I disagree. Conceptually that which is made of a single piece simply cannot bend. There is an alternative, and that is a jointed structure. Essentially the thread is composed of individual pieces called chinks each with a male end and a female end. The thread behaves like a chain at this level but looks like a thread at the rope level. The joints are closed, the thread cannot be broken. The architecture proposed, individual chinks of thread, explains why the thread does not have to remain straight. Additionally it is interesting to note that, with this architecture, the rope has a characteristic "bend radius" below which it cannot "bend" further. Radius is not really the correct term. What I am referring to is, if you were to take a bicycle chain and wrap it around in a circular shape (really polygonal) and pull on one end to decrease the size of the N-gon, eventually you would end up with three chinks forming a triangle. Pull further and there will no longer be a shape inscribed. The size of this triangle is what I'm referring to. The continuous yet flexible thread Bill Gaede proposes, when subjected to this treatment, has a smallest shape of arbitrary size. This size could only be described as depending on the "flexibility" of the thread, which has little meaning in the context of a continuous discrete object. Why should the fundamental constituent have a characteristic flexibility of 1, 10, 100, or whatever? The jointed thread possesses a fundamental smallest producable shape that is characteristic of the length of a single chink.

Under these constructs, I believe the problem of thread entanglement and flexibility are solved.