The Details of Thread Theory

[junglelord]

Your push-me pull-you, sounds like the Gforce of APM
Good work.

[junglelord]

The functional aspects of the geometry of the hexagon is revealed in this indepth book. Watch how it then relates to the Icosahedron. This link does not cut and paste, sorry.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ULXZwE ... #PPA470,M1

This paper on the hexagon of graphine will explain some fundamentals of structure and function. Notice how it relates to the spiral.

On the basis of these new experimental findings on needle morphologies, I propose a new growth model for the tubular needles. That is, individual tubes themselves can have spiral growth steps at the tube ends (Fig. 4b). It is worth mentioning that the spiral growth steps, which are determined by individual hexagon sheets, will have a handedness. The growth mechanism seems to follow a screw dislocation model analogous to that developed for conventional crystals, but the helical structure is entirely different from the screw dislocation in the sense that the present crystals have a cylindrical lattice.

http://www.nature.com/physics/looking-b ... index.html

Therefore the threads do cross and infact join to every third string from the vortical center. That is the fundamental triple helix. The aether is invisible and therefore we see a double helix, but the space for the aether helix is right there, each one 120 out of phase. Look at the birkeland current or the DNA, notice it is missing one thread or rope.


I had a huge paradrigm today. This forum and the members and their links work wonders for me.
I try to explain these ideas to others as I learn and integrate them as they evolve and relate.
I found myself today thinking the primary angular momentum is the rotor and the atomic geometry is the stator.


Consider my recent work on nanotechnology. Consider your pencil lead. Imagine telling your teacher in 1970, that this material is a superconductor and stronger then steel.....They would look at you funny and send you to the special class.


Yet this is in fact true.


This shows why the graphite of your pencil as cubes is soft and writes on paper. Yet take that same material, go nano and line them up one at a time and they make hexagons. Then all of a sudden this graphine is now a superconductor and stronger then steel. Structure truly is never seperate from function. The Hexagon stator is much more integrated geometricly with the angular momentum rotor which I believe forms a six sided star. This changes the properties of the same material by changing the geometry because we now have different relationship between the rotor and stator that is totally different then the cube. Remember my finding last week of the hexagon nucleus geometry? Think about carbon hexagons! Is the body a supercomputer, superconductor? Realize the cells make tetrahedrons as they grow. Realize the diamond is tetrahedrons, while coal is the cube. Remember we are a liquid crystal? So of course we grow as tetrahedrons, not cubes. We have hexagon atomic geometry and tetrahedron cellular division with Icosahedron cellular geodesic structure. We are diamonds, not coal, we are truly liquid crystal superconductors.


When we work with nanoscales or molecular scales, We are building chassies, the motor is supplied by the universe.


But truly we are building stators for the ever present rotor.

Since the Gforce of APM is a push and a pull, it stands to reason the orbital motion of the hydrogen electron does make a six sided star or daisy flower type configuration. When they show the electron making perfect circles....thats never right.


The more you can conceptualize the electron distributed charge configuration, the easier the knowledge to build a proper stator because it must relate to the rotor.

[altonhare]

Junglelord:

This topic is for the discussion of thread theory, not APM. Please do not further clutter this board with off-topic posts. I will talk to you about APM, but this particular board is for people to specifically discuss Bill Gaede's thread theory as outlined in his book and on his website. Start a board for APM if you wish to discuss it in particular. I want people to click on "details of thread theory" and read about thread theory or click on "quantum gravity without the standard model" and read about APM. Or they can click on "unification of APM with thread theory" if they like.

When I ask about the "geometry" of the nucleus I am referring to architecture, not Euclidean geometry. I misspoke when I said geometry. Architecture refers to concrete shapes and objects, geometry refers to conceptual shapes and objects, idealized figures if you will. A 1-D line is impossible whereas a 2-D plane is only a conceptual object. A 2-D plane does not exist on its own, but only as a geometric figure indicating the surface of a 3-D concrete object. A "solid" produced by translating or rotating or whatever a 2-D plane is not a solid object, it is a movie of a conceptual 2-D object moving from one location to the next. Mathematicians claim a sphere is hollow and has an "infinitely thin" exterior. Again this is a conceptual object, anything "infinitely thin" is nonexistent.

Now, what would be the nature of the joint? A ball/socket like your shoulder or a hinge? A ball/socket allows rotation in all three directions instead of only two, but it restricts the degree of rotation in all directions more than the hinge is restricted in two directions.

[junglelord]

Any good TOE is just different views of the same thing. There is more then one TOE, just check your feet.

The reason there is more then one good TOE is due to the fractal nature of the whole thing.
The geometry I mention is architecture.
Study Tensegrity, a structural engineering principle to see that there is no difference.
Structure and function cannot be seperated, that is architecture and 3-d geometry.
All the geometry I speak of is atomic, or molecular, therefore its 3-d.

Its all relative. There is no clutter. Its the same picture.
Thread theory, String theory, Tensor theory, Tensegrity theory, EU, APM, Scalar theory, Tempic Theory, etc, a rose by any other name. All TOES that are the same item from different view points.

Sorry you don't see the picture.

I work with comparative methodology. Since I have much more to compare, it leaves most people lost.
If you need me to stick in the clemeture of the author, no problem.

But its only one view of many, all equal. Each leaves the standard view on the floor or in the garbage.


Since your up to speed on his thoughts, tell me what is mass?
What is electricity?
What is an e field?
What is a B field?
In his thoughts or yours.

That way I can see where your looking from.

[webolife]

Thread theory seems very similar to my punctual field of vector pressures...
Ropes are capable of "passing through" surfaces... like gravitation of a book on a shelf. While the shelf prevents the effect [acceleration due to] of gravity from being observed, yet gravity is oblivious to the shelf''s presence. Opaque objects are like this... allowing some of the vectors of light to intersect unhindered, yet preventing their full effect from being observed. Radio intersects the walls of a building unhindered, yet "visible" light effects are not observed. Heat similarly reveals the blockage of light effects behind an opaque surface, yet is itself a consequence of the pressure field which signals the light. 2-D characterizes basic vector geometry. Tug one end of a rope, and the opposite end of the rope instantaneously responds. The tug need not travel at any speed, let alone the c-rate. A rope is of course made of material, so this makes immediate common sense, but a vector connecting two points across a distance of space is a little harder to visualize... Like voltage, an energy flux at the "ground" point, or the "dropping" of an electron to a lower energy state, changes the field potential throughout the entire field instantly, this field change need not take any amount of time, other than the split second time required for the centroidal "flux" to occur. The direction of this pressure "tug" is more difficult to ascertain, in some cases, because all that is observed is a change at the peripheral point of detection. With gravity, of course, the centrally directed [centropic] nature of the field is plain. With light effects, the presumptions comprising our view of light's nature determine our conclusions about what "happens". If light is "emitted" as a wave or particle at a constant and limiting speed, then all of the mental contortions of Einsteinian relativity must be considered, along with its obvious contradictions and baseless hypotheses of dark matter and energy, black holes, and the like, as well as all of the consequences of Young's disprovable interference/diffraction paradigm. If as I claim light is the detection of a field compression, through the vectoral connection between the peripheral point and the light source/sink, then having that vector directed centropically [toward the source/sink] is a sensible conclusion.

[altonhare]

Any good TOE is just different views of the same thing. There is more then one TOE, just check your feet.

The reason there is more then one good TOE is due to the fractal nature of the whole thing.
The geometry I mention is architecture.
Study Tensegrity, a structural engineering principle to see that there is no difference.
Structure and function cannot be seperated, that is architecture and 3-d geometry.
All the geometry I speak of is atomic, or molecular, therefore its 3-d.

Its all relative. There is no clutter. Its the same picture.
Thread theory, String theory, Tensor theory, Tensegrity theory, EU, APM, Scalar theory, Tempic Theory, etc, a rose by any other name. All TOES that are the same item from different view points.

Sorry you don't see the picture.

I work with comparative methodology. Since I have much more to compare, it leaves most people lost.
If you need me to stick in the clemeture of the author, no problem.

But its only one view of many, all equal. Each leaves the standard view on the floor or in the garbage.


Since your up to speed on his thoughts, tell me what is mass?
What is electricity?
What is an e field?
What is a B field?
In his thoughts or yours.

That way I can see where your looking from.

You are right about a good TOE. However, you've already stated that APM does not include gravity. Thread theory does. Therefore TT is the true TOE and we will speak in the language of TT when discussing on this board. Your theory is wholly unfamiliar to me and I would familiarize myself if it seemed a productive activity.

I believe Bill Gaede correctly explained mass in his book. This is how we conceptualize mass:

In everyday life, if you swing a ball around you feel a centrifugal force pulling on your arm. However, imagine a universe with only two hydrogen atoms and they are rotating around each other. If the length of the rope between them does not change there will be no pull. If one atom does not tow the other toward itself then the system is simply in equilibrium. There is no reason for the resistance known as inertia unless these two atoms are, in fact, pulled by every other atom in the universe. If every atom in the universe is interconnected by EM ropes and possesses a detectable property known as mass, the source of this parameter should be the aggregate pull of matter outside the H2 system. There is a quantity of matter sitting there, two H atoms, but if they remain stationary they feel no pull, no inertia, and have no detectable mass. As soon as they move they necessarily feel the tug of every thread connecting every atom bearing down on them.

When you lift a bowling ball you feel resistance because it is attached to every atom in earth by a rope. You are dragging the ball against this composite tug we call gravity. If the ball were not attached to anything it would simply float freely in space. Without strings attached the ball can affect nothing else in the Universe. It is best explained in the book but also well discussed in this video, please do not raise objections till you have watched the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

Electricity is best described as a drill bit turning in place. When magnetic threads sweep around an atom they collide with adjacent loose threads, inducing them to spin in the same direction, which in turn induce the loose threads on the adjacent atom... and so forth. Electricity is stimulated by light, a torquing of the EM rope. The unified theory of light via the dual strand entwined rope is shown here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

E&M "fields" are a mathematical description of a physical phenomenon. When the electron shell of an atom expands and contracts it naturally torques the EM ropes to which it is attached. This produces a torsion along the rope that, when it arrives at the next atom, causes it to expand and contract. If there are relatively loose threads in the electron shell then, when it expands, the loose threads can become close enough to adjacent loose threads to collide with them. This induces them to sweep/spin in the same direction. This process propagates down the wire or whatever. The sweeping threads are rotating perpendicular to the direction of propagation. If the wire is brought next to another wire the sweeping threads can collide. Depending on the orientation of the wires they will either smack into each other, repelling, or hook around each other, pulling. Magnetism is very well illustrated here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0 ... re=related

[junglelord]

However, you've already stated that APM does not include gravity.

Totally wrong, I never said that. APM is three forces....one is gravity!

Your "definition of mass" does not work for me. Infact each one of your descriptions is not a definition.


Mass = a dimension consisting of a perfect circle two dimensional string.
Mass never changes. The Mass of the atomic distributed charges is not equal to energy. Energy is a sum of five dimensions

Electricity = atomic charge

e field = light threads

B field = aether threads.

[altonhare]

Perhaps you were referring to another theory, I apologize I don't remember exactly where it was said, it doesn't matter much.

Three forces? There is push and pull, how can there be any more than two forces? Either two objects collide and knock each other away or one objects pulls on the other via a rope that connects the two. If there is a third force you will have to make a picture or movie of it because I cannot conceive of a third force. A very simple diagram will do. Just show me objects influencing each other through a mechanism besides push or pull.

The definition of mass is perfect. An atom is connected to every other atom in the universe via ropes. If this atom moves it necessarily feels a tug by every other atom in the universe. This tug is a resistance to the atom's movement, which is detected as mass (weight). Did you even watch the video?

Mass is a circular two dimensional string? A two dimensional object is an abstract, conceptual object. A two dimensional object cannot be said to exist because it does not have location. Something that is less than three dimensional is called "nothing". Unless you can, in fact, point to a two dimensional object. If you cannot then your definition of mass is entirely nonphysical and has nothing to do with physics.

Even at the tiniest of scales every concrete object, those objects that exist, must be fully three dimensional. It makes no sense to talk about a two dimensional concrete object. A two dimensional concrete object is a logical impossibility. If you turn it on its side it vanishes! There is nothing there! What you saw originally was not an object but a geometric figure. A geometric figure symbolizing a two dimensional object is simply a three-dimensional object seen from a head-on perspective. A two dimensional object does not exist on its own, independently. It is part of a three dimensional object. Your theory of mass is a non-starter, it does not pass the first stage of the scientific method. If mass is defined in terms of anything but a three dimensional object or combination thereof it has nothing to do with physics.

You say that electricity "is atomic charge". In order for someone else to understand this definition you must, at a minimum, show us charge. You must either point to the concrete object "charge", show us a model of "charge", or show a movie of one or more concrete objects interacting and name the interaction "charge".

When I say "What is electricity?" and you say "it is charge" you have not given a definition. You have given a synonym. If you knew very little English and were to ask me "What is plant" and I responded "It is flora" you would be annoyed unless you already knew the meaning of "flora". I don't know the word electricity or charge, so the easiest way to resolve this is if you make a picture or movie. At the very least you must describe a picture or movie of three dimensional object(s) interacting and name it "electricity" or "charge".

What is a light thread?

What is an aether thread?

Remember, answer these questions in terms of concrete objects, those objects that exist, else they have nothing to do with existence. If you wish to claim a two dimensional object exists just send me a model of one.

[junglelord]

What is a thread?
Since you do not understand light threads and aether threads, then what is your thread made of?

So you believe in threads and ropes but not string?????

How do the ropes make changes in weight via gravity, yet mass stays the same?????


Since you equate mass with connected threads, well its very quickly becoming a mind experiment.
Is your thread Mass?
If not then what is mass?
Again you giving a description, not a definition. I am not asking what makes the effects, ie ropes in your theory, I am asking what it is. If I cut the ropes do you lose mass? Can you lose mass? Does mass change with velocity or gravity?

Again that way I can see where your looking from at the fractal.


My mind experiment that the mass is a circular string is just as effective as your ropes.
2-D is perfectly accepted if Mass is a fundamental dimension, your thinking of it as a sum and limiting its definition by doing that, the trap of all modern attempts to understand MASS properly.

It also provides a strict definition in four sentences, please do the same with the ropes.
you still only give explanations, not definitions. I can do both in four sentences.

This is a plausible definition and explantion for mass strings.

It is a fundamental dimension, a building block of matter. A perfect 2-D circular string is mass, it has no length. It is always the same mass per atomic charge which never changes or varies. Nothing ever happens to mass. It does not change, via gravity or velocity, nor does not turn into energy.


There is only one force, a push-pull, that is showing itself in three ways, ES Charge, EM Charge, Gravity.
Just like white light through a prism, the push-pull splits three ways.


Charge is explained by Coulombs constant! It is 4pi. All Charge is distributed and here we can agree. You cannot conceive of a 2-D Mass string, yet I cannot conceive of a 1-D charge. Yet physics does it all the time.


The relationship to primary angular momentum and charge is inseperable from the conductance of the aether and the circular string that scans it. Structure and function cannot be seperated at any level.

[altonhare]

The question "What is the thread made of" is an incorrect question. The thread is the fundamental constituent. It is conceptually made of a single continuous piece. There is no smaller constituent pursuant to the definition of "fundamental constituent". The definition of fundamental constituent is simply that which has no smaller part. The thread is the thread is the thread by definition and cannot be cut, by definition. You are free to hypothesize your own fundamental constituent that is not "made of something". If we were disallowed from hypothesizing such a fundamental constituent there would be no consistent and valid theory of physics.

How does the rope make changes in weight when location changes? You did not watch the video! It is explained right there, in the video. I have pointed you to the answer. Please do not waste time and board space asking questions I have already answered. If you watch the video and still have questions I will try to explain it differently, but please tell me what in the video didn't make sense first.

The definition of mass is resistance to motion. Motion is defined as "two or more locations of an object". An object with mass resists motion. An object without mass does not resist motion. Mass is not an object i.e. does not have physical presence. You cannot draw mass and point to it. Mass is inherently conceptual because it requires two or more objects. We cannot conceive of mass in a universe with a single atom. Again, a concept is a relationship between two or more objects. A concept can only be described. I cannot point to love or justice. I can show you a movie of two people having sex or a judge in a courtroom. These are descriptions of love and justice. As long as my concept involves only concrete objects then it has a bearing on physics. Mass, energy, and time are all concepts. They are illustrated by description in terms of concrete objects, which are in turn defined as "that which has shape and location". We can use the physical concepts we have described to EXPLAIN observations, such as gravitation. Let me break it down:

The U. is composed of a dual stranded rope that interconnects (and comprises) all atoms. The rope is taut. The rope is a 3-D concrete object and is the fundamental constituent, therefore it is made of a single continuous piece.

Humans observe that one body attracts another. When a ball is thrown away from a body it necessarily returns to that body. We explain this phenomenon as taut ropes connecting the ball to the body. We invent a concept, mass, which we describe as a resistance to motion. The resistance to motion is fundamentally related to the number of ropes connecting the body and the ball because EACH rope MUST pull if there is an increase inseparation. This resistance is related to the angle of the ropes. When two bodies are close to each other the ropes fan out and make large angles. But when the bodies are far apart the ropes straighten and nearly superimpose. The aggregate angle is much lower. The ropes are nearly superimposing on each other at large distances and several ropes near to each other pull as one, nearly equally. This exact phenomenon is drawn up for you very well in the video.

Your two dimensional string is completely invalid. A two dimensional object is an abstract object. It does not have location. There is no two dimensional object in the entire universe. Again, if you were to try to show me a two dimensional object I would ask you to rotate it. When you do it would either A) disappear or B) have width, in which case it is in fact three dimensional. An object that disappears spontaneously is not only illogical but would have not have the ability to interact with other objects. Again this is by definition. I have defined touch as resulting from the law that two surfaces may not cross. A two dimensional abstract object does not possess a surface (i.e. it does not have an exterior). Therefore it may cross anything in the universe and can have zero effect on anything. Are you proposing something which cannot physically affect anything else? Why would I care about such an inconsequential thing even if it does exist? If you would like to propose your own law of touch for the purposes of your theory you are of course entitled to do so, but under the definitions laid out your theory is entirely nonphysical.

Geometry claims to be the study of shapes, i.e. that which has a contour. Yet geometry builds its 3 dimensional solids out of two dimensional planes out of one dimensional lines out of 0 dimensional points. Certainly that which is 0 dimensional can be nothing! The "objects" of geometry are made of nothing. You can draw me a 2 dimensional figure but never will you manage to show me a 0 dimensional object. The figure itself is physical, however geometry has defined all of its "objects" as ultimately composed of 0 dimensional infinitely small points (i.e. nothing). The constructs of geometry are entirely fictitious, made of things which have no shape and no location. Geometry has no bearing on physics at all. If you are building a theory out of geometric figures you are building a theory of geometry, not of physics. Physics is the study of shapes. This includes two dimensional shapes, but these are the least important to physics because they are abstract objects. They cannot interact with anything physical. Three dimensional shapes (concrete objects) are the primary study of physics. They are not made of one dimensional lines or two dimensional planes, indeed nothing physical can be composed of such abstract things. Concrete objects do not have to be built from lower dimensional entities. They exist pursuant to the definition. They have shape and location.

Geometry was born out of a need to understand the physical world better, but this does not make it a physical theory. Engineers and inventors build hypothetical models all the time simply to solve the problem at hand. Most of them do not pretend their model is the universe. Geometry is useful in daily life because it is a simplification, just like mathematics. Geometry deals with idealized figures. Mathematics converts objects into concepts to quantify them. Things that are idealized and/or quantified are much easier to deal with and manipulate. Mother nature however does not care. Mother nature is entirely ignorant of human consciousness. Because of this, a physical theory must ultimately be observer-free. Testimonial and measurement hold no sway in the evaluation of a physical theory. At best, an experiment (testimonial) with some measurement can guide one's thinking or help others understand how you came to your theory. Ultimately the only test of a physical theory is logical consistency. The definitions must be such that everyone can agree upon and understand. They must be used the same way every time. Finally, the minimum prerequisite for a physical theory is that every object in the theory must be shown. If the actual object itself cannot be presented then a model will do. This is the minimum. If you cannot SHOW me what you're talking about, it exists only in your head and I can only believe your theory based on FAITH. I am not a man of faith, faeries, or energy. Therefore, when you propose that mass is a two-dimensional circular thread I have a number of problems with this. You must be clear if you are talking about two PHYSICAL dimensions (length and width) or two mathematical dimensions (meaning any point on the circular thread may be specified by two numbers). If you claim it has two physical dimensions this is a logical impossibility, that which does not have height looks like nothing. You may argue that concrete objects don't have to be three dimensional and do not have to possess a surface. That's fine, simply show me your two dimensional object or a model of one and your theory is a success, you win, I concede. If you propose it only has two mathematical dimensions then I walk out of the room because your theory has nothing to do with physics, the "objects" of your theory do not have physical dimensions. It's that simple.

So, if you are going to insist on discussing APM in this thread, you will have to follow the definitions I have laid out. If you wish to make new ones you are free to do so. The first things you absolutely must define are: object and concept. This is the most important distinction in our language because, as I have laid out, concepts cannot physically do anything. Only objects. An object is a relationship between two or more objects. An object is that which has shape, a contour, can be distinguished from its surroundings, can be distinguished from that which it is not. If you are okay with these definitions then proceed to define: dimension. This I define as "extent in a direction mutually orthogonal to the direction of every other dimension". If you agree with the definition of object, dimension, and concept, then please proceed to define the most fundamental words of your theory in terms of ONLY concrete objects. In particular I would like to see a picture or movie of charge and a model of a 2-D string.

[junglelord]

Well I thankyou for the overview.

[folaht]

Argh! firefox crashed before I could submit or save and now I have write it all over again,

Starting all over again, I think thread theory is a very good explanation of light.
However, I question Gaede's ideas on gravity and magnetism.

If anyone has more questions about it. I'd like to see them too.
There are so many experiments out there and I'm not a physicist, just a hobbyist.

What I think thread theory explains so well:

- The Michelson-Morley experiment without the use of aether or space-time. His argument goes that space should always be regarded as a dimensionless medium.
(in his book he has a running joke in every picture asking "What's this black stuff?" surrounding fields, aether, space-time)
Neither does it need length contraction or time travel.
- Why high frequency radiation is so much more dangerous than high amplitude light.
- Action at a distance
- The Bell Test
- Young's double slit experiment
- gravitational lensing

What I wonder about:
- the diameter of a thread
- how is the signal sent? how does a rope change it's frequency? His version suggests that the speed of light is infinite.
- Jönsson double slit experiment
- Hafele-Keating Experiment
- I don't understand what Harvard tower experiment is all about. Can anyone explain me that and what it has to do with thread theory?
- What about atoms attracting each other? like gold atoms? I can clearly see links between them on pictures and why would hydrogen atoms form H2 and not gold?
- I don't understand his version of quantum jump and can it explain why an electron needs a special wavelength to [s]jump[/s] inflate?
- The number of ropes per atom due to being directly connected to each other would be 10^80!!! How can that all fit in one electron shell?
- He only shows hydrogen atoms, what about atoms with multiple electron shells?

What I have problems with:
- If a neutron is a convergence of ropes, how can it have weight? and why does it always have the same weight?
- He does not explain why the [s]force[/s] tension of gravity is so much weaker than magnetism.
In fact, it seems like in his versions of magnetism and gravity, gravity would come out as a much stronger and important [s]force[/s] tension.
He also does not explain Mercury's elliptical orbit. Also, if Peratt's galaxy formation simulation can be regarded as evidence that one does not
need Newton's gravity, Einstein's relativity or Ricci/Gaede's tensor, but is purely a result of electromagnetism (perhaps gravity is diamagnetism? just a wild guess)
one does not need a special explanation of gravity.
- As mentioned by altonhare and others, in his version of magnetism E-M ropes suddenly become obstructive.
- Chapter 8 and beyond. No need to discuss that.
(if you want to know, he explains there why UFO's and god do not exist and why we sleep, age and fall in love using his theory. A child and a hammer comes to mind.)

A side question:
He claims that since gravity is a tension, it is instantaneous. He shows a rubber band and says
Wouldn't that mean that sending messages faster than light is theoratically possible?
Another side question:
I'm still confused about the guys tugging a rope over long distances, like from one galaxy to another.
I've come up with the following thought experiment. Take Alice and Bob. Alice is in space at the edge of the milky way galaxy closest to Andromeda.
Bob is at the edge of the Andromeda Galaxy closest the milky way. Between them is a humongous ring.
My question is, what will happen when Alice tries to spin the ring clockwise, while Bob tries to spins the ring anticlockwise simultaneously?

[folaht]

I would also like to see another Jönsson double slit experiment because thread theory gives a whole different interpretation to it.
It would seem that having data on through which slot the electron has gone through somehow destroys the electron shell and makes it appear at a different spot.
Perhaps this does not happen instantaneous.
One should try to redo the experiment, this time whenever the detector has detected through which slot an electron has gone through, move the detector far far away,
erase the data and make a picture of the end result before the detector can influence it.

[altonhare]

This is a refreshing thread, thank you sluimers. This is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to have when I came here but nobody here is interested in thread theory (except you apparently).

Thread theory is, indeed, a theory in its infancy (as BG points out) and like any new theory there are issues to resolve.

What I wonder about:
- the diameter of a thread
- how is the signal sent? how does a rope change it's frequency? His version suggests that the speed of light is infinite.
- Jönsson double slit experiment
- Hafele-Keating Experiment
- I don't understand what Harvard tower experiment is all about. Can anyone explain me that and what it has to do with thread theory?

The diameter of the thread is theoretically estimable if the number of atoms in the U were known. This number could be used in combination with the Rutherford radius (0.8x10^-15) to calculate the diameter.

If you read the book carefully you should be able to answer the second question. The electron shell expands, pulling in some rope. If the length of the rope before the expansion was L and it had N links its "frequency" was N/L. If the amount of rope pulled in is m then the new frequency is: (N-m)/L. His mechanism does seem to suggest that the signal should propagate instantly since the rope is a continuous entity. If one part of a continuous entity moves the rest of the entity must also move simultaneously, by definition. However BG claims that a continuous entity does not have to be perfectly "rigid". If it can deform then it has a characteristic flexibility which would limit the speed of light. The alternative explanation, and the one that I prefer (I've explained it at length in the thread "Details of Thread Theory") is that the rope is made of smaller "chinks". It may be somewhat like a bicycle chain or simply a series of pieces with male/female ends that fit together. This way there isn't some arbitrary "flexibility" granted to what should be a perfectly rigid entity. A chain-like structure has an inherent radius of curvature even though its constituents are perfectly rigid. To form a spherical shell this structure would be forced to wrap around in integral numbers of "chinks".

The diffraction patterns observed for a single electron are an important phenomenon for thread theory. The first question we have to ask is what, exactly, is the beam of electrons? When a filament is heated does it excite the atoms to spinning their ropes faster and faster (perhaps CW), increasing their angular momentum so they spin further and further? If there is an "extractor" biased at some voltage then its atoms will be spinning their ropes (also CW) so that they pull on the extended ropes in the filament. This could pull the loose ropes even looser and looser down the various lensing and deflecting elements until it arrives at the slit. Now, the question is, does this long, loose rope with all its inertia actually move through the slit(s)? The likely explanation is that it does not. More likely it collides with threads comprising the material and sets them spinning also. Where there are slits the "electron rope" will only induce atoms of air to spinning faster and possibly knock them around some, but not much else because the air atoms possess their own relatively high velocity/inertia. The atoms in the slit material are relatively stationary and thus all their loose threads are stimulated to spinning largely in a similar direction (the material becomes "magnetized" or, alternately, has a "charge buildup".) All these countless atoms spinning loose threads (very fast because of the incoming electron thread's large inertia) in one direction extend out toward the detector to stimulate the atoms in the detector. As they extend out the loop naturally widens and overlaps with adjacent loops. There is a "competition for space" as the loops expand out and push against each other. Because of the empty slits there is a region between the slit board and the detector without electron threads. The expanding loops move into this area and spread out. When they spread out like this the center of the loop is much closer to the detector than the edges of the loop. The center stimulates the atoms of the detector but not the edges. You have a bunch of these expanded loops in a row with regions of stimulation and lack of stimulation. Adding more slits allows for more individual groups of loops and the pattern changes.

I'm sorry this was a very difficult phenomenon to explain in words, I hope it makes sense. If not I'll think about it carefully and try again. In the interest of post-length and time I will address the other topics separately.

[altonhare]

Before I go on I'd like to make clear that my explanation of the results of the Jonsson experiment are purely conjecture. There are other explanations in terms of TT and I think the purpose of this thread is to pose hypotheses for others to evaluate, letting many minds work on the same problem. So, onward.

-Hafele-Keating Experiment

-sluimers

The difficulty with "time dilation" experiments is that time must always be referenced to a single standard, and that this standard is only assumed perfectly constant. In the end what this comes down to is defining units and always using the same units. The results of this experiment are reported in seconds, which is officially defined by the physics community as:

the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom (http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/c ... econd.html).

So a second is 9192631770 "quanta of radiation" of a particular wavelength of a particular material at specific conditions.

The first problem is that modern physicists do not actually understand what light IS. Quantum proposes a discrete corpuscle but uses equations that model it as a non-discrete wave packet. They are merely describing mathematically what they do not actually understand physically. So, when you have a mathematical form that gets the quantities right in all observations thus far you have a big problem when a new observation/phenomenon comes along. You can't deal with it, you have no context in which to understand it, and you probably don't even know it's there!. You just modify your equations until the numbers come out right and move on. This has been the status quo in mainstream physics since Newton "framed no hypothesis". So the interpretations of the experiment are immediately cast into doubt by the lack of physical understanding.

If they do not know what light actually is, how can they count it? How can they be sure that the internal processes of the material itself does not depend on its relative velocity rather than some kind of vague and undefined "flow of time"? If the internal processes of cesium are not perfectly regular in all instances than it is simply a bad clock. This cannot be ruled out since physicists understand neither the light they observe nor the behavior of the fundamental constituents of matter. In fact, this is far away the most likely explanation since "time travel" and "time dilation" lead to paradox, duality, and self-contradiction.

Finally, I alluded to the reference standard. If the two cesium clocks are being compared against each other they are both in the experimental group of the experiment, what are they themselves being compared to??? What's in the control group? If we keep one clock here (clock A) and send one into orbit (clock B) we must start counting "radiation" from each one at the same time, and stop counting at the same time. What clock are they using to insure that clock A emits radiation for precisely the same duration as clock B? If the cesium clocks themselves are the reference standard (the control) then the experiment is moot because the only way to insure both A and B emit for the same interval is to stop counting at precisely the same number of "light quanta"! This is by definition! So, again, I ask: What is their external reference standard??? What exactly are they actually doing?

I don't understand what Harvard tower experiment is all about. Can anyone explain me that and what it has to do with thread theory?

-sluimers

This experiment is summarized well here: http://www.wbabin.net/sfarti/sfarti11.pdf

The fundamental flaw in the interpretation of this experiment is that they attempted to measure an ill/vaguely defined term, energy, using the poorly understood planck constant AND a poorly understood effect, the Mossbauer effect. Relativity actually predicts a shift in frequency with proximity to objects with mass, whereas the researchers measured an energy difference (via the MB effect). While they may have the equations to get the numbers right, they have no physical interpretation. What we have here is an observation, what we don't have is "why?". Explaining this experiment in terms of TT is beyond me right now, I think there are even more fundamental things at the thread/atomic level to work out for TT (such as the nature of the electron serpentine, is the thread composed of individual chinks with some relationship to the planck constant/length, and the nature of fusion). This comes before highly complex phenomena involving massive quantities of matter we don't understand on the most basic level(s) yet.

What about atoms attracting each other? like gold atoms? I can clearly see links between them on pictures and why would hydrogen atoms form H2 and not gold?

-sluimers

This is another question I think was answered implicitly but not explicitly in the book. The answer is simply that electron yarn-balls become enmeshed in each other. The electron threads that are interwoven are probably the "connections" you see in pictures.

I don't understand his version of quantum jump and can it explain why an electron needs a special wavelength to [s]jump[/s] inflate?

-sluimers

The "quantum jump" phenomenon does not necessarily have anything to do with the electron, but mostly to do with the nature of the rope. The rope twines around itself in a regular way giving a specific number of links per unit length. However it is connected to the atom, the rope can only be taken in and let out in an integral number of links. So the electron shell may only expand/contract in accordance with the length of rope in the links taken in/out.

The hypothesis that the thread itself is composed of individual chinks adds a potential new layer to the "quantum jump" phenomenon.

The number of ropes per atom due to being directly connected to each other would be 10^80!!! How can that all fit in one electron shell?

-sluimers

There's no lower limit on the diameter of the thread, so I don't really see the problem. If we assume that the Rutherford radius is a result of the convergence of every thread into the smallest possible spherical region then the volume of the thread in the nucleus is roughly (4/3)*pi*(.8x10^-15)^3/10^80~2.145x10^-125 and its diameter is (2.145x10^-125)/(pi*1.6x10^-15) ~ 4.27x10^-111 meters

I don't really know exactly how the threads arrange themselves in the nucleus, but this provides a lower limit on the thread's diameter. In any event, it's incredibly thin .

He only shows hydrogen atoms, what about atoms with multiple electron shells?

-sluimers

Again, this is addressed implicitly in the book. The fact is, TT is a brand new theory and there are zero experiments actually attempting to investigate the nature of the elements in terms of TT. There is no reason to think, however, that TT should have any problem with the other elements.

- If a neutron is a convergence of ropes, how can it have weight? and why does it always have the same weight?

-sluimers

I, too, questioned this at first. First of all, "weight" is different from "mass". Nothing in the universe maintains constant "weight", weight changes instantly with location. However, the neutron does appear to have a measurable and consistent inertial mass (resistance to motion) to be distinguished from absolute mass, which is simply the number of fundamental constituents in an object. In the case of TT I'd define absolute mass of an object as the volume of thread comprising the object. In any event, what physicists actually measure is inertial mass. One reason the neutron appears to have a consistent inertial mass is that the distribution of threads in the universe is more or less uniform. Another reason is that there is more going on the just a convergence of ropes. One could imagine the ropes coming together, converging, and then some winding around each other. Thus a neutron would be a tangling of a convergence of ropes. A tangled convergence is similar to a proton except the proton is only thread whereas the convergence is rope. A hydrogen atom's mass is a contribution from both threads of the rope. This explains why the neutron's mass is similar to the hydrogen atom's. Such a tangled convergence would be pulled in all directions just as a H atom would.

He does not explain why the [s]force[/s] tension of gravity is so much weaker than magnetism.
In fact, it seems like in his versions of magnetism and gravity, gravity would come out as a much stronger and important [s]force[/s] tension.
He also does not explain Mercury's elliptical orbit. Also, if Peratt's galaxy formation simulation can be regarded as evidence that one does not
need Newton's gravity, Einstein's relativity or Ricci/Gaede's tensor, but is purely a result of electromagnetism (perhaps gravity is diamagnetism? just a wild guess)
one does not need a special explanation of gravity.

-sluimers

Magnetism is not perfectly understood under TT (and not at all otherwise). However, a good reason for the strength of magnetism relative to gravity is that it involves collision between threads with a high angular momentum. A good reason for the "weakness" of gravity is that it is a pulling competition between every atom in the universe. If we imagine a universe with only the sun and earth there is no competition, there is tension between only two bodies. The more bodies we introduce the more competition and the overall tension between any two bodies is dampened. Note I am NOT saying that the earth is gravitationally pulled away from the sun by rest of the stars in our galaxy and that causes us to observe smaller weights in our vicinity. An analogy is the case of two top predators that meet each other. There is great tension between them, they run together, one kills the other, done. Alternatively if there is a large group of top predators the total tension increases logarithmically so the tension per predator goes down. No individual predator wants to get in a fight because that will bring the other preds over to take advantage of his vulnerable state. Note that the total ropes in the universe increases faster as we add each atom (10 atom universe has 45 ropes, 11 atom U has 55, 12 atom U has 66 etc.). Quantitatively we can say that the "total tension" in the universe is independent of the number of atoms so the tension per rope decreases as the number of atoms increases. It may not be immediately apparent why this is so, but it is intuitive. Imagine two bodies connected by ropes under tension. Now introduce a single atom at a third location and attach it via taut ropes to every atom constituting the two bodies. This single atom now pulls on all those other atoms, canceling out some of their pull on each other by a balanced amount. If this were not true this would be equivalent to saying the new atom had no influence on the rest of the universe. Gravity is observed to be weak because its effect between any two bodies is inversely proportional to the total number of atoms in the U.

In an even simpler example imagine two atoms connected by a taut rope. They pull hard on each other but they also make an angle of 0 degrees with each other, call their common axis the x axis. Now introduce a third atom equidistant but not directly between the first two (it makes an angle of 45 degrees with the x axis and so is directly on the y axis). Attach it with taut ropes. It will now pull on the original two atoms equally. The component of the third atom's pull in the x direction will cancel out some of the original atoms' pull in the x direction. The total tension remains constant and the tension/rope weakens.

As mentioned by altonhare and others, in his version of magnetism E-M ropes suddenly become obstructive.

-sluimers

The biggest question in physics. Why does light not interact with itself but everything else seems to? This question is incredibly deep and no satisfactory answer exists yet to my knowledge. This is the last barrier any theory of physics will have to overcome.

- Chapter 8 and beyond. No need to discuss that.
(if you want to know, he explains there why UFO's and god do not exist and why we sleep, age and fall in love using his theory. A child and a hammer comes to mind.)

-sluimers

Why do you visualize a child with a hammer?

He claims that since gravity is a tension, it is instantaneous. He shows a rubber band and says
Wouldn't that mean that sending messages faster than light is theoratically possible?

-sluimers

As pointed out in the book, FTL motion is physically conceivable so there is no reason to suppose that c will never be exceeded by anything ever. The question of if humans or other macroscopic aggregates will ever move at these speeds, however, is another altogether.

Bob is at the edge of the Andromeda Galaxy closest the milky way. Between them is a humongous ring.
My question is, what will happen when Alice tries to spin the ring clockwise, while Bob tries to spins the ring anticlockwise simultaneously?

-sluimers

I'm not sure what the mystery here is. If the ring is continuous then Bob and Alice's efforts will either cancel out or one will spin harder than the other. If the object is continuous then, yes, it will move as a single entity even though it is countless light years from one edge to the other. If it is not a single entity then its motion is constrained by the individual interaction of each of its constituents and the whole thing will deform and possibly break. If it merely deforms then it will take an inconceivably long time for the constituents to interact and transfer Bob or Alice's motion around the ring.