Dirac's Sea of Negative Energy

[StevenO]

Thanks JL & StevenO

But "Time"?

Can I use or interpret that "dimension" as being the common everyday expression?

E.g. if I typed this post and it took say 30seconds and you similtaneously posted reply which took 30 seconds.... (attempting to provide allegory for phase conjugate, opposite but equal ,time posting) ....is that what those quotes are meaning?


I've read a lot of posts now on this site but I baulk when this "mysterious imaginary time dimension" ...comes into it.

eg JL's favourite "APM site" refers to reverse and forward time! I imagine Dave Thomsons aether description as somewhat similiar to Walter Russells description of the two spiral constantly collapsing and expanding standing vortex wave pairs....in opposite directions and suspect that "forward" and "reverse" time refers to opposite direction over a period of time?????

If is too hard to explain and/or I am way too dumb/ignorant ... Please just say so (too hard),and don't bother . I won't be offended at all.

Sorry to disrupt the thread

Dear Corpuscules,

Don't despair. The interpretation of "time" is entirely human, so it means you are well alive and probably kicking.

The point is that human consciousness positions ourselves as an "observer" of this universe. By taking this position one ends up with an infinite regression of observations of reality that we perceive as "time". Compare it with glimpsing into two opposite mirrors or with the painter that tries to paint a picture of the whole universe as accurately as possible. He has done that, but then realizes he forgot to put himself into the picture. So, he positions himself three meters back and makes a new painting with the universe and himself on his previous position painting that universe. But then he realizes that again he did'nt put himself in that picture and steps another few metres back......ad infinitum.

So, the technical definition of time is a local repetitive motion, e.g. "The unit of time is the duration of exactly 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at a temperature of 0 K", compared to another motion (forget about any other definition, like imaginary time, that's mathematical fantasy). For the universe however, something that moves one way also makes something else move the other way. So, for the universe time in one direction is simultaneously time into the opposite direction. One could say that for the universe "motion" is the only reality, while Time and Space are two human aspects of looking at that, like a play on a stage. Or to put it shortly, for the universe it is always "now", while for us observing humans "now" is something fleeing away into memory at lightspeed.

It is said that spiritual experiences help one overcome this restriction of the human consciousness.

[junglelord]

I relate time (frequency) to quantum spin, not atomic decay.
Therein lies the crux.
Aether has a quantum spin of 2
Light has a quantum spin of 1
Matter has a quantum spin of 1/2
The relationship of the quantum moment to the quantum spin domain is the different time fields, overlapping.
So we have a rmf with a quantum spin of 2, light with a quantum spin of 1 and matter with a quantum spin of 1/2 all existing in the same reference frame, within their own background spin frame. That is what quantum frequency is all about. The inverse of time is frequency. It is best to understand the universe, especially a EU with distributed quantum resonance (freq) vs linear time.

The imaginary time that Bearden speaks of, is a quantum domain, it is a rotating magnetic field with a quantum spin of 2. It is the tug between two magnets. It is the aether.

Does that not make sense? It does to me. I hope that makes clear what Bearden was attempting to say, and putting it in APM sensibility.

1/2 spin matter cannot see the reverse time domain of a rmf with a quantum spin of 2
Try this on for size.
http://treeincarnation.com/articles/Spin-of-Space.htm

Concerning the human heart and As Above, So Below
http://treeincarnation.com/thecyclicuniverse.htm

[StevenO]

Hmmmm....I think if one still need spheres and rotations, one has'nt reached the very essence of the universe yet. A rotation is a movement in two dimensions, a sphere an object of three dimensions.

I would say the universe is one separated from one united in a regressive one given one realizes that language can only express dualities, and also I'm no match for ancient wisdom.

The ancient Greek only acknowledged seven numbers. They saw the numbers 1,2 and 3 as different expressions of one and 9 as the highest number (it probably has to do with that statement from Tesla). Their greatest mysticism was around the tetraktys, the symbol of one unfolding into the world:

[junglelord]

Charge geometry is spherical, and it rotates (angular momentum), what is one to do Steven?


Different quantum spins are a reality as well...so again, what is one to do?

I think I neatly tied them together. The idea of distributed resonance, aka quantum frequency, is not so far fetched.
It is charge geometry and its quantum spin number, that dictates its function.
Structure and Function cannot be Seperated.

Your brother.
Cheers

[StevenO]

Charge geometry is spherical, and it rotates (angular momentum), what is one to do Steven?

Well, that tells a lot. I think charge geometry is one dimensional, so the word 'geometry' can be left out. Also, 'angular momentum' is a non-existing physical quantity, which has been caused by an incorrect reading of Newton in the past. Circular mechanics are quite different from what is teached now. That is how Tesla knew that his scalar waves were travelling at √2 x lightspeed through the earth (compared to Hertzian waves travelling around it).

Different quantum spins are a reality as well...so again, what is one to do?

I think I neatly tied them together. The idea of distributed resonance, aka quantum frequency, is not so far fetched.
It is charge geometry and its quantum spin number, that dictates its function.
Structure and Function cannot be Seperated.

Your brother.
Cheers

Sure different quantum spins are a reality, but they can all be derived from the basic photon.

I think the basic photon field emitted by all matter is Tesla's aether, but I'm not sure since he stated it could be manipulated much more at earth level than this 0.1% number. Have'nt figured that out yet. Many experiments to be performed still.

[junglelord]

Have to agree to disagree Stephen.
I feel very confident that charge is distributed, not linear.
Charge has geometry of a sphere or a toroid.
Current is linear in SI units, maybe thats where you got Charge is one dimensional and linear?

According to the work of Maxwell, Faraday, and Tesla, charge is distributed, not linear.

Not sure how angular momentum has anything to do with Newton.
I have read the work of your favorite theorist. I like it and maybe thats what your talking about when you say Newton derived angular momentum?

To me angular momentum is a property of atomic charges. Newton knew nothing of atomic charges.

[StevenO]

Have to agree to disagree Stephen.
I feel very confident that charge is distributed, not linear.
Charge has geometry of a sphere or a toroid.
Current is linear in SI units, maybe thats where you got Charge is one dimensional and linear?

It is OK to disagree or interpret it that way. Comparative methodologies. But my basic mechanism is that the unified field consists of two force carriers:

1) The force of gravity from the expansion of matter (the 4/5th dimension?)
2) The force of photon field emitted by matter

What we define as "charge" is relative to 2). Since charges are created from simple bombardment of photons it is OK to assume charge is distributed, but I would say it is a simple lineair force wrt. to matter (outward from matter, opposed to gravity pushing inward to matter).

The photon itself is the smallest know particle with:

a) a diameter described by the gravitational constant in Newton's formula
b) an observed constant speed of c (could be disputed, since we see bleushifts in our
local group, meaning we observe light >c). c could be the speed of observation only.
c) a spin giving the photon frequency
d) a mass given by Planck's constant
e) an energy from the spin and mass given by mc^2

Only spinning particles can be detected, so an open question would be how many non-spinning photons are around.

f) electrons have another spin level wrt. to photons (head to tail spin)
g) protons/neutrons have two spin levels on top of that (head to tail spins in orthogonal dimensions)
h) the spin level differences between protons/neutrons and photons is three, that is why
we see three space/time dimensions of matter from observation
i) the spin level difference between electrons and photons is only one. That could also explain your view of "distributed charge"

Open question is how many dimensions matter consists of. Xavier Borg suggests that inanimate matter is four dimensional, while life matter is five dimensional. We could never detect that with photons only, we would have to find a way to scalarly shrink a probe into matter to observe that or maybe it can be decoded from the emitted photon field, I have'n put much thought into that yet.

According to the work of Maxwell, Faraday, and Tesla, charge is distributed, not linear.

Not sure how angular momentum has anything to do with Newton.
I have read the work of your favorite theorist. I like it and maybe thats what your talking about when you say Newton derived angular momentum?

To me angular momentum is a property of atomic charges. Newton knew nothing of atomic charges.

I'm not sure I fully understand it yet, but at least I know angular momentum used in physics formula's is a ghost.

[junglelord]

I understand your ghost.
http://milesmathis.com/lostmass.html


At least we can agree on that, LOL.
Its always a pleasure to read your thoughts, I value them greatly, and they always help my comparative methodology.

[Corpuscles]

Thanks very much again to both you gentleman!
(Steven I'm so glad I have not gone completely mad trying to understand)

This was especially brilliant.

Try this on for size.
http://treeincarnation.com/articles/Spin-of-Space.htm

Ought be a permission authorised addendum to Dave Thomsons site (so us dummies can better grasp the spin/time concepts )

There must be a more fundamental base cosmic force/substance than the photon, and the rest of the particle zoo

Fundamental counter rotating phase conjugate magnetic fields,makes the rest (charge, spin,particlewave duality) make more sense!

Teslas argument with Hertz, I think was Hertz waves were aside effect of the real distributed longitudinal.

[StevenO]

I understand your ghost.
http://milesmathis.com/lostmass.html


At least we can agree on that, LOL.
Its always a pleasure to read your thoughts, I value them greatly, and they always help my comparative methodology.

The delight is all on my side. And to finish with a statement from one of your favorite authors: "Echoing Fuller's words, it seems obvious: "Unity is plural and at minimum two"."

[junglelord]

The delight is all on my side. And to finish with a statement from one of your favorite authors: "Echoing Fuller's words, it seems obvious: "Unity is plural and at minimum two"."

WOW, what a revelation about the work being done in this thread and that quote.


The mirror of the duality to create unity is clearly missing in the equations of EM, as they were thrown out by Heaviside.
Bearden re-introduced the mirror EM with longitudinal current and explaining the work of Tesla and Scalar Technology.
The work by LaViolette and his book on Antigravity fully dissects the effects of different physical systems that directly impact the Aether and therefore effect the mirror....causing virtual particles to become real entities for the period of time that the physical system is running, thereby in effect, making the mirror come to life...."Unity is plural and at minimum two".

Thanks Steven
Cheers
JL

[david barclay]

Dirac's Sea of Negitive Energy. In my opinion a must read, along with Collective Electrodynamics. Then take the journey foward to APM, The Electric Sky, The Electric Universe. This is very serious stuff. I have distributed it amoungs several threads last night, it deserves its own thread because of the powerful message contained within it and how it relates to the EU. Oddly enough I got it from a discussion on UFO technology....

We see that two incredibly bad choices
were made, both at about the same time,
both for the same bad reason: to save the
paradigm, to evade the increasing evidence
for the anathematized aether, to
keep some “experts” from being wrong
and looking foolish. The first bad choice
resulted in the truncation of Dirac’s
equation, and ultimately in the enormity
that is the Standard Model. The second
bad choice resulted in the enormity
that is the Big Bang.
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf

No matter how one studies and reviews the available material that was rejected, one comes to a EU in a powerful way. Tesla is written out of text. When they speak of Tesla on TV, they discredit wireless transmission of electricity with transverse wave analysis....that is funny considering it was longitudinal.


Aether is a four letter word...


You got to wonder, who is directing this charade? Why does UFO talk generate so much evidence in favour of the EU?
Why does National Security take on a dangerous form after Roswell? Why did the creation of the CIA fall two months after Rosewell? National Security Act of 1947 is an interesting piece of the puzzle. What are the chances the National Security Act being signed on July 26, 1947 by U.S. President Harry S. Truman into law, creating the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Security Council, only 18 odd days after the Roswell crash ? Are these two events related, more to the point was the National Security Act created to suppress the UFO truth and put this infomation in the hands of black op agencies?

What was Eisnehower speaking about when he discussed the dangers of the Industrial Military Complex and control of government and power in the free world? Would that have anything to do with National Security and who holds control of this possible technology and physics paradigm? Could this explain the dogma of "science" in this day and age?

Sorry I had to ask.


Since this thread is about "negitive energy" I thought I would ask here....because talk of UFO, Government Security, Aether, Tesla, or the EU can cause a lot of negitive energy....

Do you really want to know the answers to those prickly questions?

[GaryN]

Though he admits that "The main purpose is to entertain" I thought this
site a good addition to the discussion:
What if Dirac Was Right?

* What if the predictions of the Dirac equation are right but the standard interpretation since 1934 has been only half right?
* What if the single "unified force" is very much single and still at work today, not just in the earliest moments of the universe?
* What if Richard Feynman was right and gravity is only a pseudo-force?
* What if dark matter is an illusion caused by misunderstanding gravity?
* What if mass can be negative as well as positive?
* What if dark energy can be explained by the repulsive effects of negative mass?
* What if Donald Hotson, Malcolm MacGregor and Paolo Palazzi were heading in the right direction?
* What if Lee Smolin was right to hint that neutrinos and photons might be symmetric aspects of the same thing?

http://www.dirac-was-right.com/

[seasmith]

* What if the predictions of the Dirac equation are right but the standard interpretation since 1934 has been only half right?
* What if the single "unified force" is very much single and still at work today, not just in the earliest moments of the universe?
* What if Richard Feynman was right and gravity is only a pseudo-force?
* What if dark matter is an illusion caused by misunderstanding gravity?
* What if mass can be negative as well as positive?
* What if dark energy can be explained by the repulsive effects of negative mass?
* What if Donald Hotson, Malcolm MacGregor and Paolo Palazzi were heading in the right direction?
* What if Lee Smolin was right to hint that neutrinos and photons might be symmetric aspects of the same thing?

http://www.dirac-was-right.com/

GaryN, i don't know. Give a hint. * What if mass can be negative as well as positive??

cheerss

[GaryN]

An explanation of magnetism, gravity and it's apparent instantaneous action?
This pdf has part 3 of Hotsons papers, as well as some other thought provoking
articles.
http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/HotsonIE86.pdf