The Details of Thread Theory

[folaht]

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.

It's the same question as Lahoro here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 61144.html
or jhokie
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 32532.html
who both attempt imagining FTL data transfer.

Are you saying that if the ring were a single entity, FTL data transfer would be theoretically possible?
Both Alice and Bob could place markers on the ring next to symbols. Alice spins the ring clockwise 8 cm and Bob would instantly see the ring spin clockwise 8cm and read an "h", she then waits 2 seconds, spins it clockwise again 1 cm producing an "i" etcetera.

[altonhare]

It's the same question as Lahoro here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 61144.html
or jhokie
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 32532.html
who both attempt imagining FTL data transfer.

Are you saying that if the ring were a single entity, FTL data transfer would be theoretically possible?

To avoid any ambiguity at all replace "single" with "continuous". In that case, this is exactly what I'm saying. FTL communication is conceivable.

[folaht]

To avoid any ambiguity at all replace "single" with "continuous". In that case, this is exactly what I'm saying. FTL communication is conceivable.

Wow, nice!

Why do you visualize a child with a hammer?

It's an old saying and it frequently flies around this board: “Give a child a hammer and the world becomes a nail.”.
Almost every scientist wants to explain the universe, or anything unexplained with the theories they are most familiar with, especially when those theories are their own.
Take the "Ice Volcanoes" on Saturn's Moon Enceladus for example.
Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics and the University of Potsdam would never have come up with the same explanation given on this board.


By the way, are you a scientist?
I googled your name,
BS, chemistry, chemical engineering, biotechnology, 2002 — 2007
And you're going to study some more... wow impressive.
How did you find Gaede's youtube video's?

[altonhare]

Sluimers:

Thank you for your compliments. Although my education does not, by necessity, have bearing on my status as a scientist I suppose it doesn't hurt. Yes I'm continuing study in chemical physics at Johns Hopkins, if anyone's interested in what I do:

http://www.jhu.edu/~chem/bowen/

It's an old saying and it frequently flies around this board: “Give a child a hammer and the world becomes a nail.”.

-sluimers

Ahh, now I understand . That makes perfect sense and it is certainly applicable.

Since the problem of entanglement is the fundamental question of physics once one has a valid hypothesis of the fundamental constituent I may as well "take a wack at it".

We see that straight, taut, coaxial ropes do not obstruct each other. However atoms, themselves composed of the threads of the rope, do interact with each other. The fact that the spinning electron threads are obstructive is actually a superfluous observation since the electron thread is still just part of the atom itself. Fundamentally there are ropes (which do not obstruct) and atoms/matter (which obstructs). This suggests a fundamental difference between the two.

One obvious difference is the architecture. The rope itself is STRAIGHT. It is always perfectly taut and thus perfectly straight. Threads comprising matter, however, are always curved. One can conclude that only two curved threads or ropes will actually produce the phenomenon known as "touch" or "repulsion". This begs the question why??? why why why.

Well, if we define "touch" as 0 distance between two surface then touch is impossible without violating the law of identity. So, then, how else can we conceive of matter to obstruct itself? The other most important phenomenon to note is that a curved rope/thread still does not obstruct a straight one. "Non obstruction" appears to be the default unless there are TWO curved threads/ropes involved. This seems arbitrary. I have not been able to get anywhere down this line of thinking.

The alternate hypothesis that I have entertained is the "web" hypothesis in which atoms slide along the existing ropes as Bill describes, the ropes never have to move and so do not get entangled. This is highly attractive to me since all we have to do is resolve one observation, magnetism, with our theory. How do the spinning electron threads avoid perturbing all the surrounding ropes? The answer is that the spinning electron thread IS the surrounding ropes. As the atom is excited its electron shell expands. All the threads in its vicinity are attached to the electron shell and expand with it! When the electron serpentine frees itself it is a tangled loop of rope, much of which it has gained from the surrounding ropes. This tangled loop of rope spins in place and interacts with any other magnetic material that is spinning similarly.

This way the phenomenon known as "touch" is the default, which is consistent with experience.

[junglelord]

Continual Threads.
Continual Tension.
Tensegrity.
Synergetics.

[altonhare]

Continual Threads.
Continual Tension.
Tensegrity.
Synergetics.

Are you agreeing with thread theory or not?

[junglelord]

If you cannot tell.
I will not tell.


Question is are you agreeing with Tensegrity and Synergetics?

I suggest you research continual tension and discontinuous compression.

Since you are talking about continual tension...which is a very explicit science...ahmmm, Tensegrity.
It might help you out with that theory.


I wager Fuller was right.
The universe is Tensegrity and Synergetics.
Your speaking about tensegrity principles.
You may not realize it, but I do.

[folaht]

We see that straight, taut, coaxial ropes do not obstruct each other. However atoms, themselves composed of the threads of the rope, do interact with each other. The fact that the spinning electron threads are obstructive is actually a superfluous observation since the electron thread is still just part of the atom itself. Fundamentally there are ropes (which do not obstruct) and atoms/matter (which obstructs). This suggests a fundamental difference between the two.

One obvious difference is the architecture. The rope itself is STRAIGHT. It is always perfectly taut and thus perfectly straight. Threads comprising matter, however, are always curved. One can conclude that only two curved threads or ropes will actually produce the phenomenon known as "touch" or "repulsion". This begs the question why??? why why why.

Well, if we define "touch" as 0 distance between two surface then touch is impossible without violating the law of identity. So, then, how else can we conceive of matter to obstruct itself? The other most important phenomenon to note is that a curved rope/thread still does not obstruct a straight one. "Non obstruction" appears to be the default unless there are TWO curved threads/ropes involved. This seems arbitrary. I have not been able to get anywhere down this line of thinking.

The alternate hypothesis that I have entertained is the "web" hypothesis in which atoms slide along the existing ropes as Bill describes, the ropes never have to move and so do not get entangled. This is highly attractive to me since all we have to do is resolve one observation, magnetism, with our theory. How do the spinning electron threads avoid perturbing all the surrounding ropes? The answer is that the spinning electron thread IS the surrounding ropes. As the atom is excited its electron shell expands. All the threads in its vicinity are attached to the electron shell and expand with it! When the electron serpentine frees itself it is a tangled loop of rope, much of which it has gained from the surrounding ropes. This tangled loop of rope spins in place and interacts with any other magnetic material that is spinning similarly.

This way the phenomenon known as "touch" is the default, which is consistent with experience.

Curved threads obstruct straight ones?
This is confusing to me.

Perhaps I'm wrong about this but here's how I define things:

Rope - Double helix of two threads.
Thread - The fundamental stuff objects in our universe are made of.
obstructive - can block
obstructable - can be blocked

(I study computer science, hoping to be a game programmer, so I use those last two terms in gaming)

This makes everything we know obstructable, matter obstructive and radiation unobstructive.

So I guess you are trying to say curved threads obstruct straight ones?
What about H+ atoms then?
They don't obstruct each other? They have straight threads only.

I doubt curvature has anything to with it, when protons have straight threads, electrons curved ropes and light curved threads,
but I think H+ atoms on H+ atoms should be tested, if noone has already.

Perhaps wavelength has a lot more to do with it.
Is it possible to say that the electron shell ropes have a wavelength equal to the gamma-rays released in nuclear fission?
What I wonder about is what will happen when you put gamma-ray on gamma-ray with a wavelength (or pitch isn't it?) that is equal to it's pitch diameter, or what I'm trying to say, what will happen when you put gamma-ray on gamma-ray with a wavelength that will enable both threads of a rope to go through both threads of another rope.

And I hope someone can explain clearly or make a movie for me of how and when a photon is emitted, both classical and TT, I've even forgotten how that works classically, a particle arrives at an atom and the electron magically chooses another orbit, then releases a photon going back to the same orbit?

[altonhare]

I will politely request that JL and Lizzie not clutter this board with off-topic or irrelevant remarks.

The theory is a waste of time and intellect.
It does not give true insight, just more circular reasoning.

Electrons and Photons exchange Primary Angular Momentum, not energy.
This is how a photon becomes an electron, then takes off again as a photon.

-JL

An insult and critique without a valid reason. You attack so many straw men JL. TT doesn't say *anything* about "exchanging energy". I took my time and energy to read 2 APM articles and 2 Blaze Labs articles, and those are written scientific media. BG's videos are full of illustrations, much easier to get through. Again I request that you post no more here unless you watch the videos and can raise valid and insightful questions and concerns such as sluimers has done.

lizzie's post is just blatantly off topic. Just because it has the word "rope" doesn't mean it has anything to do with this theory, which it doesn't.

There are no straight lines in Nature.
Therefore there are no straight ropes or threads.

-JL

We do not "prove" the existence of this or that. It either exists or it doesn't. We formulate our definitions and pose our hypotheses. The conclusions then follow naturally from the premises. A line is straight by definition, if it is not straight it is called a curve. If you do not define your line as straight why do you need the word "line"? Just use the word "curve" for everything. Under my definition this sentence reads:

"There are no straight straight things that exist"

If you do not define a line as straight, but rather as curved, it reads:

"There are no straight curves that exist"

So again we see that, because JL cannot formulate definitions, he continually makes blatantly absurd, contradictory, and/or illogical statements.

This should further emphasize the importance of making clear, unambiguous, and consistent definitions to everyone.

I grant that I use the adjective "straight" in a way that is different than the common usage, so I will clarify here. The rope is straight in the sense that the two antiparallel strands wind around a common axis that intersects the two atoms the rope is connecting. For an entwined rope to display this characteristic it MUST be taut i.e. there is tension. If you want to understand tension in the context of TT go watch BG's videos (at least 11 and 12 about gravity).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QmsngMRpE

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

Furthermore a line is an abstract object of geometry (possesses only length and width), so of course it does not exist. I certainly never claimed it did. In fact, I've stated the very opposite explicitly in other threads. Rational people are in unanimous agreement that 2-D objects do not exist.

Straight in a general context describes an object as possessing the same extent in at least one direction at each location along a path orthogonal to that direction. We don't "prove" that there are "no straight objects". Straight objects either exist or they do not, we do not "prove" it by doing some calculations or taking some measurements. Nature doesn't care about these activities.

There are NO straight lines in nature.

-JL

JL not only starts off with an absurd statement he repeats it, more forcefully. If he were careful with his definitions he could avoid logical blunders like this.

A line is an abstract object of geometry (only has length and width) without location so of course it does not exist by virtue of using the correct definition of "exist". Straight is an adjective applied to an object to indicate that its extent in a direction is uniform. Translated this sentence says:

"There are no nonexistent objects that exist".

Wow that's deep!

The quantum world has NO straight lines.

-JL

What's the "quantum world"? Is it different then the world I live in i.e. existence? If it's different than existence it must not exist.

Molecules have NO straight lines.

-JL

Indeed. Besides the fact that a line is an abstract object and cannot comprise a concrete object by definition, the outer shell of the atom of TT is a yarn-ball like structure somewhat like a loose knot. Whatever your definition(s) I don't know anyone would describe such a structure as "straight". So JL made a correct statement but it both attacks a straw man and is redundant (he contributes absolutely nothing to this thread's topic).

I would respond to the rest of the post but it doesn't apply to this thread's topic. Sufficed to say he, as always, uses a ton of undefined/ambiguous terms, contradicts himself, makes absurd statements, etc.

In conclusion, JL obviously STILL has not done any research on the theory, dismisses it out of hand, but cannot raise any valid points. He does this despite the fact that I have read and critiqued at least two articles on his theory in addition to asking him numerous simple, pointed questions. But he cannot be bothered to watch a few 10 minute movies. Although his lack of familiarity with TT makes it difficult for him to raise valid points, it is mostly because he can't avoid straw men and absurd statements.

Please only post here about thread theory as it is presented by Bill Gaede and myself.

[folaht]

I see Alton Hare is being a bit annoyed by JL and Lizzie and I can see why.
Most of it is too off-topic in my mind.. but I don't think it's their intention to bring it off-topic and I think they think what they're saying is relevant. It should not be so surprising to find "clutter" in a new insights and mad ideas section of a good alternative theory to the big bang anyway.
In almost any other forum TT would probably be regarded as clutter itself.

I'm okay with clutter until it becomes flaming and deliberately off-topic and I haven't seen that here.

The theory is a waste of time and intellect.
It does not give true insight, just more circular reasoning.

Why does it give no true insight? What would your criteria be to make a theory give true insight?
How is it circular reasoning?

Electrons and Photons exchange Primary Angular Momentum, not energy.
This is how a photon becomes an electron, then takes off again as a photon.

I see, thanks.

[Solar]

Are the electromagnetic serpentine "ropes" of TT the same as electric currents?

By electric currents I reference predominantly longitudinal helical filaments that facilitate the exchange (aka "flow") of "charge".
By "charge" I reference what appears to be an excess or lack of an as yet undefined and unidentifiable fundamental constituent that appears to tend toward some state of equilibrium between to or more objects not at equilibrium with respect to the density of that undefined constituent.

[junglelord]

There are No straight lines in nature.
Thats the first place this fails.
Alton cannot and will not give a simple definition.
He runs circles with his words.
There is no Razor here, just a huge beard.

[Solar]

Oh come now. "Straight" is just a graphical representation for a geometrical relationship between objects. If the "ropes" are electromagnetic currents then they would undulate all over the place bearing all sorts of relative angled relationships to the objects that they would connect. There are tons of such graphical representations all over the place in textbooks etc. Are you suggesting that all along you've preferred the curved ones that depict electric connections because "there are no straight lines in nature"?

Surely you jest.

[redeye]

Junglelord:
Altonhare is taking topics and attempting to deconstruct to reveal the basic fundaments to an extent that discussion is easy because everybody can be clear what everybody else is talking about. I appreciate this cause it is very easy to get confused, especially down here in the mad ideas section.

Accusing him of disinformation is hardly fair. Neither is obstructing his threads with a bunch of soundbites, you're starting to sound like a politician...well, a British politician at least.

Sorry for being a dick, but it's getting pretty boring.

Cheers!

[junglelord]

The universe is modeled on spin, vectors of rotation, not threads or straight ropes.
Charge is distributed, not a point particle.
With this in mind, there is no need for ropes.
Mass is a 2-D Circular String. Nothing ever happens to Mass.
Getting all tied up in String theory is not needed.
Getting your head into distributed charge is.
The EU is about charge. Charge geometry is know.
Charge is also distributed.
Viewing current in a linear way has all of the world thinking in straight lines of 2-D.
I try to help. It may be boring, but its reasonable and accountable with accumulated measurements.