Are you still trying to "measure" light by Particle and Wave ?junglelord on Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:14 pm
His "claim" that photon geometry is a DNA braide is not supported by any measurement of light I know.
Really....altonhare on Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:35 pm
(arc-us)
Wow thanks for those pictures! You'd think I woulda done that already.
):Dynamic Self Organisation of Ferrofluid
In this experiment Ferrofluid shows a continuos cycle of diffusion and concentration. Some thinner is added to a drop of ferrofluid which is on a dish over a permanent magnet. When spreading out, the thinner takes a low concentration of ferrofluid with it, too low to be bound to the magnet.
The flow is limited by the wetting border of the spot. Increased evaporation increases the flow towards the border. At the end of its way, the concentration of the fluid is increased by evaporation, in a circle around the centre.
At the according level of concentration the fluid on the circle joins to Rosensweig peaks, dots of further increased concentration. These peaks are sufficiently attracted to move back against the continuos outward flow, leaving a track of ferrofluid behind.
Near the centre the peaks are repelled by the centre material which has the same magnetic orientation. In the flowing environment, with much thinner, the Rosensweig peaks "tunnel" to the centre, while the rest of the trace is repelled and partly washed away.
With decreasing thinner and higher concentration, peaks are formed in the centre. The material is regrouped with new material returning to the centre. At the end the peaks at the centre stay separate and more peaks are joining.
Alton does not understand a RMF, dispite the fact Tesla built the 20th century on it. He cannot recognize Coulombs constant or how these two things, RMF and Coulombs constant make the EU. Dispite the fact EM spiral ropes of scalar quality are directly explained in the videos....he is at a loss to connect reality with armchair philosophy. His apprehension to the word aether is like pavlos dog. His understanding of Tesla, Maxwell, Faraday, induction, scalar quaternions is sorely lacking.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.
Has the author granted you the privledge of speaking for him? You make this claim? Dave Thomson has said I do understand APM and has thanked me for getting it right....what about you Alton. Did Bill give you a pat on the back, or do you pat yourself?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've watched the clip twice again now and I don't see what you guys are talking about, The push/pull aspect seemed quite distinct without any reference to threads/ropes cutting or passing through others. But even so, if this does occur, I don't get what the issue is. From cymatics effects to the visuals with ferro-fluids, cyclic dynamic "integration/disintegration/reintegration" (as one way to term it) is a natural and expected occurrence in wholistic systems. Of course, if you haven't viewed the clips I'm referring to then this may not make sense.altonhare wrote:Probably the part of the light video where he talks about "light on light" and "why don't gazillions of threads become tangled". In the magnetism video he implies that the spinning threads pass through all the interconnecting ropes. Part of his hypothesis is that when a curved threads/ropes moving at high velocity (as in magnetism) through a straight/taut rope the curved thread will pass through it. In chain theory the chains never pass through each other. Magnetism is more complicated under chain theory and, I'm sorry for repeatedly mentioning this, but I have some simulations planned to show how the chain produces light, gravity, and magnetism.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".
That's a bit rich and it's painting with a broad brush. I don't think there is a single person on this forum who "believes" in the EU. If one even forgoes the work of Birkeland, Alfven, Peratt, Jergens, Thornhil, Talbott et al there is still a heavy weight of evidence strongly in favor of it's qualitative hypothesis. Such as; the links provided citing the work of others in the thread "Looking For More Published Papers". As you obviously already know; those are just a drop in the proverbial bucket.junglelord wrote:The sad fact is, people believe in the EU, but do not understand charge.
So what is the difference between the electromagnetic serpentine "ropes" of TT and the "2pi string" of APM? Is it that the "ropes" of TT are orthogonal, in the sense of being perpendicular, to the rotating magnetic field of APM - the "vacuum spin" of Harold Aspden, the scalar waves of K. Meyl? To me TT appears to be nothing more than a hypothesis consisting of "quantum" Birkeland currents in what one might refer to as the 1/2 spin "dimension".Yet he claims to be an authority on a video he watched and a book he read.
Junglelord wrote:
A 2pi string of angular momentum...becomes encapsulated by the 16pi^2 RMF of Aether...this forms a dual charge unit
That seems irrelevant with regard to both theories. The two theories are 90 degrees out of phase with each other and again, until as such time as quaternions are brought into the arena there will probably be no reconciliation. Then again, maybe that won't even help.Has the author granted you the privledge of speaking for him? You make this claim? Dave Thomson has said I do understand APM and has thanked me for getting it right .... what about you Alton. Did Bill give you a pat on the back, or do you pat yourself?
The sense where I see the overlap between TT and Meyl are in the seeming possibility to transpose threads in TT for field-lines in Meyl. The different interactions between open and closed thread/field line configurations seem highly similar. Although of course Meyl's is an field-theoretical path founded somewhat in classical physics, as he reworkes Maxwell in just a slight way and hanging on to Lorenz-contraction and field dilation, and additionally to subjectivity and relativity, provides a objectivity approach with an additional mathematical companioning derivation and transformation table to get back to the relativity (which is just a special case or subset with c=constant). In a way I seem to see that objective approach return in TT.Solar wrote:So what is the difference between the electromagnetic serpentine "ropes" of TT and the "2pi string" of APM? Is it that the "ropes" of TT are orthogonal, in the sense of being perpendicular, to the rotating magnetic field of APM - the "vacuum spin" of Harold Aspden, the scalar waves of K. Meyl? To me TT appears to be nothing more than a hypothesis consisting of "quantum" Birkeland currents in what one might refer to as the 1/2 spin "dimension".
Ahh ... very good then. Will keep this under advisement. Very constructive summary.StefanR wrote: The sense where I see the overlap between TT and Meyl are in the seeming possibility to transpose threads in TT for field-lines in Meyl. The different interactions between open and closed thread/field line configurations seem highly similar. Although of course Meyl's is an field-theoretical path founded somewhat in classical physics, as he reworkes Maxwell in just a slight way and hanging on to Lorenz-contraction and field dilation, and additionally to subjectivity and relativity, provides a objectivity approach with an additional mathematical companioning derivation and transformation table to get back to the relativity (which is just a special case or subset with c=constant). In a way I seem to see that objective approach return in TT.
No. It's Solar; and that's the only person that I've ever spoken for. I will be leaving off troubling you with the APM. I simply can't tolerate this disposition any longer. Thank you for what you have shared with me regarding it via the appropriate threads.junglelord wrote: Bill and I????
Your name Bill or Alton?
Solar, how could you possibly think I was talking to you, your name is Solar....Solar wrote:Ahh ... very good then. Will keep this under advisement. Very constructive summary.StefanR wrote: The sense where I see the overlap between TT and Meyl are in the seeming possibility to transpose threads in TT for field-lines in Meyl. The different interactions between open and closed thread/field line configurations seem highly similar. Although of course Meyl's is an field-theoretical path founded somewhat in classical physics, as he reworkes Maxwell in just a slight way and hanging on to Lorenz-contraction and field dilation, and additionally to subjectivity and relativity, provides a objectivity approach with an additional mathematical companioning derivation and transformation table to get back to the relativity (which is just a special case or subset with c=constant). In a way I seem to see that objective approach return in TT.
No. It's Solar; and that's the only person that I've ever spoken for. I will be leaving off troubling you with the APM. I simply can't tolerate this disposition any longer. Thank you for what you have shared with me regarding it via the appropriate threads.junglelord wrote: Bill and I????
Your name Bill or Alton?
junglelord on Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:14 pm
His "claim" that photon geometry is a DNA braide is not supported by any measurement of light I know.
Are you still trying to "measure" light by Particle and Wave ?
Are you now equating " light" with "atoms" ??junglelord on Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:10 am
it is impossible to measure what does not exist.
Particle and waves are not what an atom is composed of ...
Aye. My apologies JL. I didn't sense a differentiation in your post and got spun around as to who you were speaking to because Alton isn't here. I think he may be out of town and since your post followed mine I assumed you were speaking to me. That one's my fault.junglelord wrote: Solar, how could you possibly think I was talking to you, your name is Solar....
Alton Hare claims to speak for Bill, at least he gives that impression, I just wanted to know if Bill had ever given his consent for Alton to speak for someone other then himself.
Yes because atoms give and take photons all the time...so I equate e- with photons.Are you now equating " light" with "atoms" ??
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests