webolife wrote:Yes, I was thinking of bonding, eg. covalent bonding, but could it also exemplify the atomic nucleus...?
I am still left with the conclusion that the chains are indeed interacting, and yet, Bill G seems to be saying that his "ropes" pass through each other unscathed. What am I missing? What originally identified the theory to me as being similar to my own was this attribute of ropes not interacting with each other, making them functionally like my "rays".
Since this thread has been brought to life a bit I'd like to clarify this aspect.
Gaede posits that, since the thread is the fundamental constituent, we may be unable to explain its nature in terms of what we encounter in our every day experience. By this he means that we may have to content ourselves with observing what happens and describing it. He goes into some detail about the "paradox of touch" in his book, which is very interesting, and the resulting conclusion is that our everyday conception of "touch" is probably wrong. He uses this argument (which you will have to read the book to get the full story from) to justify why ropes between atoms appear to pass through each other but atoms and electron serpentines do not. Before anyone gets overly critical that he's hand-waving or introducing "conveniences" you really do need to understand "the paradox of touch" first, I don't think a meaningful critique can be made on this point without establishing this base of knowledge.
On the other hand, I posit that it is unnecessary to make this assumption. First of all the motion of atoms is "wave-like" rather than billiard-ball like, as I've described before at length, and we can demonstrate to ourselves with a physical model. The remaining problem is that of magnetism. In Bill's videos it appears the loops of thread twirling must pass right through all the surrounding ropes. I believe this problem can be solved by invoking a model where there is not just a single thread twirling around, but rather many. Instead of each one twirling around 360 degrees, instead each one moves some small distance, hits the local ropes connected to the atom, which then hits the next loop of thread. This causes the next loop to move, collide with the local ropes, and so on and so forth. Again we may refer to this as a "wave-like" motion. These two explanations justify how atoms can move about and influence each other magnetically without invoking "special case" rules about when the fundamental constituent is obstructive and when it isn't. These explanations also jive with modern observations that everything seems to take on some kind of "wave-like" nature. This is what I've posited with regards to the rope and the chain, which are identical save for the philosophical question of whether a continuous entity can deform or not. The mechanism for gravitation is, I believe, a bit more clear under the chain hypothesis also.
arc-us wrote:After revisiting the video clips on light, action-at-a-distance, and the hydrogen atom then checking out this page, I have to say that it's probably the best explanation - for me - of the double-slit experiment I've run across to date.
I agree! It's excellent.
With regards to your other comments, I appreciate them all as they were honest, helpful, and honest. Bill turns a lotta people off, but I don't think he cares. I don't think he cares to get "up to speed" so much either because he thinks We're All Gonna Die.
Wow thanks for those pictures! You'd think I woulda done that already.
Junglelord wrote:The movement of angular momentum governed by Plancks Length, Compton Wavelength, RMF, Coulombs Constant, all properly quantify Electrostatic charge as property of distributed sphere and EM as a toroid.
The motion of a concept such as angular momentum is incompatible with the rope hypothesis. As arc-us has pointed out there has been a lot of "noise" and I do not wish to get back into that. I am merely noting that the reason APM is currently incompatible with TT is because they use different and mutually exclusive philosophical foundations. Additionally APM is primarily a quantitative theory, i.e. it is very much based on quantities that you mentioned, while TT is primarily a qualitative theory, i.e. it is very much based on visualization. The different philosophical foundations combined with two distinctly different approaches (quantitative vs. qualitative) make these two theories difficult to reconcile.
Essentially, we are simply not speaking the same language. Not only that, neither of us is willing to both learn and speak the other's language. I'll debate these kinds of issues with you in a philosophy thread or something similar.
Junglelord wrote:A 2pi string of angular momentum...becomes encapsulated by the 16pi^2 RMF of Aether...this forms a dual charge unit
Again, there is no such monster as 'a' <quantity> <object> <concept involving motion> in the logical/philosophical foundations of TT. There is no provision for statements of this form such as "a 4 bear running" in TT. The statement is unfortunately meaningless to Bill and I.
I appreciate your pictures as they are attempts to help us visualize. It's not clear to me how these circles, balls, toroids, and loopy "RMF of aether" physically and qualitatively justify any phenomenon I know of.
Junglelord wrote:If its EM as he claims and spirally-wound, how is that RMF does not apply?
The RMF image I see does not make things clear to me. Does something happen at one end that propagates along this "RMF unit" to the other end? Are there atoms on either end?
I have no reason to think that APM is not quantitatively compatible. Any equations you deduce that are consistent with experiment are quantitatively compatible with Gaede's theory.
Junglelord wrote:
He says the architecture and physical structure is not particles or transverse waves for photons, but rather the rope.
I would counter that the Scalar EM is a DNA rope. A photon is a double cardioid.
By "photon" I assume you mean the phenomenon of light. And the DNA-like rope proposed by Gaede makes so much more sense to me than a double cardioid. How does a cardoid capture c=f*w??? The rope fits c=f*w and "quantization". It is consistent with the abstract conceptual Maxwellian view of light as perpendicular 2D plane waves oscillating sinusoidally.
arc-us wrote:Since photons are virtual, mathematical constructs I doubt he would be interested in describing their geometry. I think I do recall him speaking of light as a torsional, EM thread, similar to spirally-wound DNA. But that may be my incomplete understanding.
I do not think you are misunderstanding.
arc-us wrote:However, I don't know that I would particularly (pun intended) have a problem with terming the tension/torque wave as a sort of impulse that might be interpreted as something like a "photon packet of energy." But I doubt that would be especially needful in the model.
"Photon" has been the generally accepted dummy word for "whatever that is that goes from there to there and behaves consistently with these equations". Everyone thought they knew what light was near the turn of the 19th century, but sense the observation of quantization nobody has really had a clue so everyone just follows Einstein and says "photon". Of course Einstein himself, at the end of his life, made it clear nobody (including him) really knows what a photon is
.
[/quote]
