Wal Thornhill as "heretic pioneer"

[Grey Cloud]

EM has a reverse time function. Very valid and proved.
I have a thread on it in mad ideas.
http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=10&t=334

Bad place for it as it appears it may not be a valid truth. It is.


Just that most people are unaware of its existance...so much so it sounds like fiction.

From that link:

Here you will find that time-reversal still isn't well understood at all, ...

No-sh*t Sherlock!

You should also realize that a time-reversed (TR) wave is seen by the observer in his own "forward time."

No-sh*t Sherlock rides again.

'Time-reversed' I might be able to live with but going 'back in time' - nope, not if I live to the day I was born.

[Solar]

Surely an 'incoherent system' is an oxymoron? And if it is 'incoherent' how do scientists make sense of it?
Can science prove 'random', rather than just use the word to paper over its own ignorance?
...
Please do not say that the maths proves it.

LO!!!

I quite enjoyed that. In fact, that's exactly what is done on a regular basis and it's referred to as "Stochastic Process".

[Lloyd]

- We had a lot of good discussion of this stuff last year in threads that don't seem to have been recovered.
- I had mentioned some of what Steve Rado had said on his CD about Aether. I got the CD via his website. He used the sound frequency formula for calculating the distance between atoms in a gas, liquid, or solid and applied the same formula to determine the distance between what he called Aethrons in the all-pervading aether, based on the speed of light instead of sound. I did the calculation and I think the result was 16 aethrons per proton diameter and a proton diameter is 10^-15 m. The diameter of each aethron would still be unknown, but it should be small compared to their distance apart. There may be a finer medium than aethrons as well, but I haven't heard anyone discuss that, besides me.
- Wal says the aethrons are neutrinos. He says, I think based on Sansbury's ideas, that an electron consists of 2 negative charges and 1 positive charge, while a proton consists of 2 positive and 1 negative. I don't remember if the lone charge orbits the pair, or vice-versa, but the orbiting charges can have very elliptical orbits, which causes them to become strong dipoles, causing attractions and repulsions of other dipoles. Sansbury doesn't seem to accept the aether theory, so Wal got that part of his theory from the neutrino sea idea that was widely discussed in the 80s and 90s, I believe. Wal says, when neutrinos absorb gamma rays of certain frequencies, they reform matter-antimatter pairs, either an electron and positron or a proton and antiproton. I suspect that the positron and antiproton can form normal neutrons, just as an electron and proton can. Apparently there would need to be 2 kinds of neutrinos, one formed from a proton and antiproton and another formed from an electron and positron.
- So I'm wondering if both aspects of his theory are compatible, i.e. the Sansbury aspect and the neutrino sea aspect. Sansbury calls the 3 charges that make up electrons and protons subtrons, but they're positive and negative, of the same magnitude as an electron or proton charge value, because the lone opposite charged subtron cancels one of the pair of charges, leaving one subtron charge value [ + + - = +; - - + = -]. An electron would be --+, while a positron would be ++-, so, when they combine to form a neutrino, the charges would be --+++-. The proton and antiproton combination would be ++---+. When an electron and proton combine to form a neutron, it's the same combination of charges. The only difference is the mass. The hydrogen atom is also like a neutron, but the proton and electron are farther apart. Apparently, both aspects of the theory work out. I discussed this with Wal 2 or 3 years ago.
- By the way Sansbury theorizes, if I remember right, that subtrons orbit at something like 20 million times the speed of light. Oops. I just now noticed that someone in the Sansbury thread, which I hadn't read till now, says Sansbury says subtrons move at 2.5 million light-years per second, which I think is almost 80 trillion times the speed of light. Did I calculate right?

[Solar]

So let me ask a stupid question, how far back do we need to go for "classical" physics?

This question is far from "stupid" my friend.

I define "classical physics" as 'physics resulting from and/or leading to the full fruition of "the scientific process" i.e the systematic use of controlled experiments to "prove" and/or "disprove" a hypothesis'.

Your question is most salient and an issue that has been repeatedly put forth by Thornhill and Talbott in terms of getting back to basic science stemming from lab work. That point, in relation to results from the labs of Plasma Science - and I'll gladly generalize here - is; and should be, one of the most prominant factors cited with regard to 'How' the Electric Universe hypothesis developed. The supporting history of work from individuals like Anthony Peratt, Ralph Jergens, Hannes Alfven, Charles Bruce, Bostick, Birkeland etc speak to a 'divide' that has occured between the 'theoretical' aspect of science and the vetting of the scientific process.

It is the integrity of the 'scientific process' itself that has betrayed. In this regard it is analgolous to doctors who all but ignore the Hypocratic Oath resulting in a cadre of highly intelligent people blind-sided into 'pseudo-intellectualism'. The psychosis being clearly evident, in my opinion, when watching ANY History/ Discovery Channel program dealing with astrophysics and cosmology. The number of scientist in lock-step with the "dominant gravitation only paradygm" turns any 'new' such televised expose' into a mere reitteration of former versions. They become merely a showcase for advancements in graphical presentation.

The book "The Electric Universe" clearly, and broadly, traces the development of this 'divide' in that overall it cites individuals, and the work thereof, who have rendered astrophysical and cosmological interpretations that are commensurate with 'tangible evidence'. Which I would define as 'evidence suggesting reproducability via lab work'. Not merely theoretical constructs.

Taking a page from the aforementioned book a povital example in history that furthered a 'deviation' from such "classical physics" is on pg. 39 "A Fateful Turn in Modern Cosmology". Here Sidney Chapman's "matehmatical models of the earth-Sun relationship" were favored over Birkeland's terella experiments even after Chapman:

...declared that Birkeland was simply wrong. When Hannes Alfven replicated Birkeland's Terellas experiment for him, he chose not to examine it.

Why would a so called "scientist" disregard a perfectly good lab based replication of the "scientific process" in favor of a 'theoretical mathermatical model'? Alfven is but one 'classical scientist' who ran headlong into this betrayal. He recognized the problem and would on occasion address it:

"Scientists tend to resist interdisciplinary inquiries into their own territory. In many instances, such parochialism is founded on the fear that intrusion from other disciplines would compete unfairly for limited financial resources and thus diminish their own opportunity for research."

"I have always believed that astrophysics should be the extrapolation of laboratory physics, that we must begin from the present universe and work our way backward to progressively more remote and uncertain epochs."- Hannes Alfven from Wikiqoutes

Alfven looked back through history:

But let us return to the theory of relativity and its direct impact on scientist. The four-dimensional presentation of the special theory of relativity was rather innocent. This theory is used every day in laboratories for calculating teh behaviour of high-energy particles, etc. As experimental physicists have a strong feeling that their laboratories are three-dimensional, firmly located in a three-dimensional world, the four-dimensional formulation is taken for what it is: a nice little decoration comparable to a cartoon or a calendar pinup on the wall.

3. General Relativity and the universe
3.1 Revival of Pythagorean Philosophy

On the other hand, in the general theory of relativity the four-dimensional formulation is more important. The theory is also more dangerous, because it came into the hands of mathematicians and cosmologist, who had very little contact with empirical reality. Furthermore, they applied it to regions which are very distant, and counting dimensions far away is not very easy. Many of these scientist had never visited a laboratory or looked through a telescope, and even if tehy had, it was below their dignity to get their hand dirty. They accepted Plato's advice to "concentrate on the theoretical side of their subject and not spend endless trouble over physical measurements". They looked down on observers and experimental physicists whose only job was to confirm their high-brow conclusions. Those who were not able to confirm them were thought to be imcompetent. Observing astronomers came under heavy preassure from prestigious theoreticians.

...Once again it was believed possible to explore the universe by pure mathematics."Cosmology: Myth or Science?" - Hannes Alfven

I would say that it's easy to see that Electric Universe theory recognizes and works with this curcial difference but I had to learn to understand that difference. When considering some of todays astronomical news feeds empirical evidence, as gathered through the scientific process, is not as 'self evident' as it may have once been. In fact it's no longer required as any "scenario" will suffice just fine. With Plasma Science "classical physics" is alive and well having massive implications for astrology and cosmology. But, like Chapman rejecting Birkeland's empirical evidence the dominant paradigm has simply burried it's head in the sands of denial and ignorance.

[junglelord]

APM quantum units are a perfect way of organizing with a unifying principle the already standard measurements.
A proper definition of unit, measurement, dimension, constant and reorganization of these items allows structure and function to be achieved at all levels.

The results achieved in APM uses basic algegra and does not need calculus to give a UFT. It makes Classical Mechanics still valid and agrees with the claim by Feynaman and Mead that classical is dead....in its present state of disorganization and formal training...it is dead.

APM makes simple yet profound corrections to the above definitions and standard measurements and allows Classical Mechanics to live with a proper organization of its fundamental components.
Dave Thomson married Classical Mechanics to Quantum Structure in APM.

[StevenO]

Continuation of what I think are a few misconceptions from Wall (please correct me if I'm wrong):

“Our ignorance about origins is profound. As I said earlier, we don't
even know enough to ask the right questions yet. When we understand
electric charge and the electric force we might just begin to ask
such questions about an Electric Universe.

Wal”

Good point. Anybody knows how an electron looks like?

“I do not believe that photons or 'virtual' photons are real entities. .”

Photons represent an energy transaction between two electrons in quantum states through an EM wave. The transaction itself is real, the envisioned particle is just a model. But then, so are the electron and the proton and all other particles....

“seems you, like everyone else, are bamboozled by the loose language in physics. Einstein's well-known relationship between mass and energy says nothing whatsoever about matter and energy.
If we apply one of the principles of physics, matter cannot be created or destroyed. So the notion of "anti" matter is misleading and a poor use of language (once again). “

Then how would Wall explain electron/positron pair production??

“The question of the existence of an ether needs to be reexamined. A wave of any kind needs a medium to wave.”

An EM wave would propagate in some medium, but if matter is made of standing EM waves, then these waves need to be reflected on something, how would we explain that?

“All we need now is for particle physicists to recognize quantum behavior as nothing mysterious - only near-instantaneous resonant electrical interactions between atoms.”

That is exactly what physicists like Carve Mead now describe (in Collective Electrodynamics). Quantum behaviour follows from phase-locked waves, which then explain Maxwell's laws (and vice versa). Phase aligned systems shows "coherent" behaviour (energy scales with the square of elements, symmetrical in time) in contrast with incoherent systems (random phase alignment) as known from classical mechanics and QM. The transition between these two states is described by resonance.

The "zoo" of particles seen in high-energy particle smashing experiments are simply short-lived unstable resonant systems of the charged subunits of matter. Now, all of this seems simple and easy to visualize. Why, you might ask, hasn't it been considered long ago?

As easy to visualize as a black hole? (Sorry, bad joke). There is never a shortage of idea's...but of experiments that show without doubt that it is really better than the standard model.

[Grey Cloud]

If we apply one of the principles of physics, matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Can anyone tell me on what this particular principle is based? I've seen it before but I don't understand the reasoning behind it, i.e. where it comes from.
I mean generally, not just in terms of Wal Thornhill.

[Lloyd]

- Steven D asked: Anybody knows how an electron looks like? [and] how would Wal explain electron/positron pair production??
- Wal told me his idea [taken from Sansbury] is that an electron consists of 3 "subtrons", 2 of which are "negative" and one "positive". I don't recall for sure, but I think the negative subtrons orbit the positive one. A proton is the opposite; 2 positive subtrons orbit a negative central subtron. The orbits can become very elliptical and elongated, giving a dipole effect.
- Wal said when electrons and positrons encounter, they don't annihilate, they collapse into neutrinos, losing most of their mass. The neutrino can absorb certain gamma rays and expand back into an electron and positron. Other neutrinos can expand into a proton and antiproton. I suspect that positrons and antiprotons can form neutrons, just as can electrons and protons.
- If we refer to positive subtrons as + and negative ones as -, then electrons and antiprotons are both --+, while protons and positrons are both ++-. The antiproton has a large mass, like the proton, while the positron has a small mass, like the electron.
- Both neutrinos and neutrons [and hydrogen atoms] consist of ++---+ subtrons. The neutrino is in the collapsed, low energy or low mass, state, while the neutron is the expanded form of the same mass as the proton [plus electron].
- In summary:
--+ electron
++- positron
++- proton
--+ antiproton
--+++- neutrino, neutron, Hydrogen
elongated orbit ==> dipole = positive and negative ends

[Lloyd]

Here's what Wal said about what electrons look like at http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html. My notes are in brackets.
- The first problem with an electric gravitational force is that like charges repel and unlike charges attract, whereas gravity always attracts. A simple way out of that problem is to propose that electrons, protons and neutrons are composed of smaller orbiting charged units (which we may dub “subtrons”)* whose total charge sums to –e [--+ (Lloyd)], +e [++-] and zero [--+++-], respectively. The magnetic moment of the neutron and spin of the electron suggests that this is so.
- * The word “subtron” was coined by Ralph N. Sansbury in his monograph “Electron Structure” in The Journal of Classical Physics in January 1982. It led to a new classical explanation of magnetism and gravity.
- [Dictionary says: magnetic moment is the torque exerted on a magnet or dipole when it is placed in a magnetic field; spin is a quantum angular momentum associated with subatomic particles, which also creates a magnetic moment.]
- The stumbling block to such a model has always been the assumption of Einstein’s speed limit on the electric force between charged subtrons. For instance, it has been calculated that subtrons orbiting inside the classical radius of the electron would have a speed of 2.5 million light-years per second. That is the distance from here to the other side of the great Andromeda galaxy in one second! The speed of the electric force must exceed that by a considerable margin for the electron to be a stable particle.
- The electron, proton and neutron have not only a classical size but also a shape, which changes in response to the electric force. The electrical energy absorbed by these particles in deformation rather than acceleration [instead of accelerating, they deform to an elongated elliptical shape, which becomes a dipole] gives rise to the phenomenon of inertial mass. It is the fundamental origin of the relationship E = mc^2.
- If gravity is an electrical force, we can see why the gravitational mass of a body is identical to its inertial mass. We have a real classical model with which to explain inertia, gravity, magnetism and quantum theory. Magnetism is a subject on its own to be dealt with later. But if we take an atom for example, it is a complex system of electrical resonances between orbiting charged subtrons within orbiting charged particles [My understanding is that only electrons are orbiting charged particles].
- [Dictionary says: Resonance is the increase in amplitude of oscillation of an electric or mechanical system exposed to a periodic force whose frequency is equal or very close to the natural undamped frequency of the system; or a subatomic particle lasting too short a time to be observed directly; the existence of such particles is usually inferred from a peak in the energy distribution of its decay products.]
- A stable electron orbit is one in which the gain and loss of energy between a deformable electron and all of the subtrons in the other electrons and the nucleus sums to zero over that orbit. Electrons in an atom “whisper” to the nucleus in order to prevent the “classical catastrophe” of the electron spiralling into the nucleus. Changes in resonant state occur in quantum jumps and give rise to an un-cancelled oscillating electric force that may be accepted by another atom. An atomic nucleus operates in the same way, so that quantum tunnelling effects and nuclear interactions can be understood in resonant terms rather than simplistic coulomb barriers.
- The nuclear force is then another manifestation of the electric force between resonant subsystems within the nucleus. “Cold” fusion is possible in such a resonant system and radioactive decay has an electrical cause and can therefore be modified. It seems that electrons in composite (more than one proton) atomic nuclei are essential for resonant stability. When they leave a nucleus in the company of a proton we call the pair a neutron. Oddly enough, that resonant system is unstable, with the result that it has a lifetime outside the nucleus measured only in minutes.
- “…it may be that the next exciting thing to come along will be the discovery of a neutron or atomic or electron electric dipole moment. These electric dipole moments … seem to me to offer one of the most exciting possibilities for progress in particle physics.” - Steven Weinberg

[Lloyd]

- This is a continuation from the previous excerpt from Wal's article.
- To return to gravity, each subatomic particle is itself a small sphere of orbiting charges [subtrons], which will be distorted in an external electric field to form an electric dipole. Since each particle is free to rotate, the dipoles will align themselves with the field so that they always attract each other.
- Chemists who deal with dipolar molecules have already noted the similarity of their interactions to that of gravity [over a hundred years ago I think]. The distortion of the subatomic particles is exceedingly small and so the dipole is exceedingly weak. That accounts for the difference between the naked electric force and the gravitational force of some 40 powers of ten.
- An immediate objection to this model is that the force between dipoles falls off with the cube of the distance, while gravity diminishes with the square of the distance. But Newton’s law operates counter-intuitively as if the entire mass of the Earth were concentrated at the center of the Earth. The electrical model must take into account the real situation and integrate the effect of all of the dipoles throughout the Earth. The result is the usual inverse square relationship.
- Newton developed a mathematical expression that related an apparent force, gravity, between ponderous objects, to their masses and the distance between them. The expression involved a constant, G, given the grand title of the Universal Gravitation Constant, with no evidence whatsoever of its universality or its constancy. The electrical model of gravity has G a variable that depends also upon the charge distribution in the body. That would explain why G is the most ill defined “constant” in physics.

[Lloyd]

- Here's more of what Wal said about dipoles and gravity at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=r4k29syp.
- An excellent illustrated lesson on the London force, or Van der Waals’ dispersion force is given at:
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html.
- The London force originates in fluctuating electric dipoles caused by slight distortion of otherwise electrically neutral atoms and molecules. The tiny electric dipoles arise because the orbiting electrons, at any given instant, cannot shield the positive charge of the nucleus equally in all directions. The result, amongst a group of similar atoms or molecules is that the electric dipoles tend to resonate and line up so that they attract each other.
- Obviously, gravity is distinct from the London force. It is much, much weaker. That should be a clue. What if we are looking at gravity being due to a similar electrostatic distortion effect in the far smaller constituents of each atom [i.e. subtrons]? Of course, this is heresy because the electron is supposed to be a fundamental particle, with no smaller constituent particles. However, there are experiments that challenge this belief. What ismore, this model of an electron offers a simple mechanism to explain quantum theory and the relationship between magnetism and the electric force.
- It explains the puzzling observation that electrons don’t simply radiate their orbital energy away and crash into the nucleus. It is because electrons in an atom store and release internal energy during each orbit in the form of varying electric dipole distortion [elliptical orbit elongation]. So a stable orbit is achieved simply when the energy exchange between the electron and the nucleus sums to zero over each orbit. It is the resonant electron orbits that determine the quantum nature of atomic interactions. The same resonances apply within the compound atomic nucleus. If we apply the London force model, both protons and neutrons form resonant structures of electrostatic dipoles that are powerfully attractive because of their closeness, unlike a simple Coulomb electrostatic model that would have the positively charged nucleus fly apart. It explains the need for neutrons to give stability to a compound nucleus. And in the process, it allows the normally unstable neutron to adopt a stable resonant configuration. Such a model suggests that a neutronstar is a theoretical figment of overzealous mathematicians.
- If gravity is an electrostatic induced dipole-dipole force between the fundamental particles of normal matter, then it cannot be shielded because all matter, whether charged or not, will participate. And herein lies the difficulty for antigravity devices. How to modify the strength of those fundamental particle dipoles, or better, to invert them? I have discussed some attempts that seem to have succeeded in offsetting the dipoles slightly from the Earth’s radius.

[StevenO]

Hi Lloyd,

Thanks a lot for posting this. It helps to understand Wal's idea's. Also in this article I found a few things that are basic misconceptions about how solve this enigmatic wave nature of matter.

Here's what Wal said about what electrons look like at http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html. My notes are in brackets.
- The first problem with an electric gravitational force is that like charges repel and unlike charges attract, whereas gravity always attracts. A simple way out of that problem is to propose that electrons, protons and neutrons are composed of smaller orbiting charged units (which we may dub “subtrons”)* whose total charge sums to –e [--+ (Lloyd)], +e [++-] and zero [--+++-], respectively. The magnetic moment of the neutron and spin of the electron suggests that this is so.
- * The word “subtron” was coined by Ralph N. Sansbury in his monograph “Electron Structure” in The Journal of Classical Physics in January 1982. It led to a new classical explanation of magnetism and gravity.
- [Dictionary says: magnetic moment is the torque exerted on a magnet or dipole when it is placed in a magnetic field; spin is a quantum angular momentum associated with subatomic particles, which also creates a magnetic moment.]

I have never found a copy of this article, so I could be making too many assumptions here, but for me these 'subtrons' are just another particle with all the problems that come with that. If there is one thing we know about electrons is that they're waving, so it is fine to assume that the basic electron must consist of a waving (spinning, rotating, wiggling,...) charge. (Or is charge itself a waving thing? ).

- The stumbling block to such a model has always been the assumption of Einstein’s speed limit on the electric force between charged subtrons. For instance, it has been calculated that subtrons orbiting inside the classical radius of the electron would have a speed of 2.5 million light-years per second. That is the distance from here to the other side of the great Andromeda galaxy in one second! The speed of the electric force must exceed that by a considerable margin for the electron to be a stable particle.

Forces are instantaneous and force fields are maps of instantaneous forces (which are interfering wave fronts). We cannot really speak about the speed of a field as field and particles cannot be seperated.

- The electron, proton and neutron have not only a classical size but also a shape, which changes in response to the electric force. The electrical energy absorbed by these particles in deformation rather than acceleration [instead of accelerating, they deform to an elongated elliptical shape, which becomes a dipole] gives rise to the phenomenon of inertial mass. It is the fundamental origin of the relationship E = mc^2.

Any dipole would emit EM radiation. The only explanation can be 'phase locked' (coherent, collective, eigen ,quantum) waves as is described by their their spin properties.

- If gravity is an electrical force, we can see why the gravitational mass of a body is identical to its inertial mass. We have a real classical model with which to explain inertia, gravity, magnetism and quantum theory.

Wow...did I miss something? Since gravity is a feeble force it must come from electrical forces very far apart then. Buckminster Fuller once described gravity as 'the nostalgia of things to become spheres', which in my free interpretation is the nostalgia between the center of gravity of atoms and the edges of our universe.

Magnetism is a subject on its own to be dealt with later. But if we take an atom for example, it is a complex system of electrical resonances between orbiting charged subtrons within orbiting charged particles [My understanding is that only electrons are orbiting charged particles].
- [Dictionary says: Resonance is the increase in amplitude of oscillation of an electric or mechanical system exposed to a periodic force whose frequency is equal or very close to the natural undamped frequency of the system; or a subatomic particle lasting too short a time to be observed directly; the existence of such particles is usually inferred from a peak in the energy distribution of its decay products.]
- A stable electron orbit is one in which the gain and loss of energy between a deformable electron and all of the subtrons in the other electrons and the nucleus sums to zero over that orbit. Electrons in an atom “whisper” to the nucleus in order to prevent the “classical catastrophe” of the electron spiralling into the nucleus. Changes in resonant state occur in quantum jumps and give rise to an un-cancelled oscillating electric force that may be accepted by another atom. An atomic nucleus operates in the same way, so that quantum tunnelling effects and nuclear interactions can be understood in resonant terms rather than simplistic coulomb barriers.
- The nuclear force is then another manifestation of the electric force between resonant subsystems within the nucleus. “Cold” fusion is possible in such a resonant system and radioactive decay has an electrical cause and can therefore be modified. It seems that electrons in composite (more than one proton) atomic nuclei are essential for resonant stability. When they leave a nucleus in the company of a proton we call the pair a neutron. Oddly enough, that resonant system is unstable, with the result that it has a lifetime outside the nucleus measured only in minutes.
- “…it may be that the next exciting thing to come along will be the discovery of a neutron or atomic or electron electric dipole moment. These electric dipole moments … seem to me to offer one of the most exciting possibilities for progress in particle physics.” - Steven Weinberg

It can't be resonances, since resonance describes a transition. It is a coherent system, but then we are back at those quantum waves again...

I don't want to look like picking on Wal, but I think instead of Ralph Sanbury he should really have a look at the concepts described in Collective Electrodynamics from Mead and then think again about the relations between waves, particles and fields and the properties of incoherent and coherent (collective) systems.

I'm planning to write a post on electron models since these provide food for good conceptual discussions along with some very interesting pictures...

[junglelord]

The waving electron?
Yeah APM says that exactly. Flexible toroidal entity.
Quote from APM paper on the Electron Binding Energy

<cut>

FM: Post moved to APM thread. (fmx)

[Discipline]

Grey Cloud,

Actually random processes and incoherent is used mathematically and often in laser operations and discrete time signal analysis. You cannot do such engineering without a basic understanding of such concepts.

The theories work and are a major part of what produces all these neat gadgets we have. Such things as hard drives, laser pointers, and cell phones.

[Forum Moderator]

MOD NOTE: The discussion having to do with broader issues of Science has been split off to it's own thread here Science: It's Roots, Role, & Value (fmx)