The Details of Thread Theory

[junglelord]

Just throw me ONE formula that defines the geometry.
Or is that asking too much?
So we all can "see" the validation for the geometry.

[altonhare]

Just throw me ONE formula that defines the geometry.
Or is that asking too much?
So we all can "see" the validation for the geometry.

Geometry/formulas/mathematics are human inventions. Mother Nature doesn't care what formulas or idealized figures we use. Physics is the study of objects, particularly concrete objects (shape and location, i.e. three dimensional). So first we need a hypothesis, one more more physical objects. Then we must conceptualize how these objects interact. Then we explain how these interactions produce the observed phenomena. If the hypothesized objects are incapable of explaining observations then a new hypothesis is required.

When you demand equations/formulas you are making the same mistake as the establishment, who don't care about ludicrous and absurd "explanations" involving moving concepts, carrying concepts, duality, self-contradiction, etc. as long as the equations can get the numbers right. The problem with an equation without a valid physical hypothesis is that nobody actually understands anything. For instance, field workers can go count the number of live/dead deer at various times and generate a correlation between the time of the year and the deer population. Then they can tell people to hunt during X time of the year, when the population is largest. So they can correlate/describe mathematically and generate information that is useful to society without actually knowing WHY the deer population fluctuates the way it does. Now as long as whatever is going on that they haven't explained physically doesn't change the model will appear correct. If something changes the field workers may simply modify the model to fit the new trend. A mathematical description without a physical explanation is powerless to teach anyone anything new. Physical objects come first, math/equations can only have meaning when tied to physical objects.

So JL, show me the physical object(s) at the root of your theory? It would be better for you to show them in one of your APM threads. So far I've seen a barbell with some cylindrical things snaking around it. How does this structure relate to observations?

The requirement for a theory of PHYSICS is that the proponent can point to the object(s) of the theory or to a model/models of it/them, not that they write up whatever equation has correlated the latest experimental data.

[Grey Cloud]

Altonhare wrote:

So JL, show me the physical object(s) at the root of your theory?

This form someone who gave a youtube video of a computer-generated thread as proof positive that his hypothesis was valid...

[junglelord]

Notice how he fails to deliver, so he hids behind the same question.
Priceless.
I wrote an entire thread with very explicit math about the geometry of structure in the quantum world.
Its called Q&A for APM Secrets of the Aether

You must have missed it. Dispite the fact you continually post there.

Meanwhile, dispite the fact I have printed out significant math proofs, real proofs, nature proofs, galactic proofs, you fail to produce one single math term to derive your structure.....priceless.

Man thats funny. Alton lives in a world where structure and function do not join and infact remain forever seperated.
A grammer cop, hater of math...derives theory from words alone....words which have no basis in reality.
Its the opposite of black hole math, its thread theory words.
Good luck with that.

[altonhare]

Altonhare wrote:

So JL, show me the physical object(s) at the root of your theory?

This form someone who gave a youtube video of a computer-generated thread as proof positive that his hypothesis was valid...

The point is that the hypothesis is based on a 3 dimensional object. Any three dimensional object is a valid hypothesis. Whether it is capable of explaining any observations is another matter.

[altonhare]

Notice how he fails to deliver, so he hids behind the same question.
Priceless.
I wrote an entire thread with very explicit math about the geometry of structure in the quantum world.
Its called Q&A for APM Secrets of the Aether

You must have missed it. Dispite the fact you continually post there.

Meanwhile, dispite the fact I have printed out significant math proofs, real proofs, nature proofs, galactic proofs, you fail to produce one single math term to derive your structure.....priceless.

Man thats funny. Alton lives in a world where structure and function do not join and infact remain forever seperated.
Good luck with that.

All your math is worthless if you cannot produce a physical interpretation. It's also worthless if you cannot define any of the terms you use in a clear, non-circular way. It's all just an elaborate correlation.

[Grey Cloud]

Altonhare wrote:

The point is that the hypothesis is based on a 3 dimensional object. Any three dimensional object is a valid hypothesis.

So stand back people while I posit the hypothesis that Santa exists.

Santa and elf.

[Plasmatic]

Meanwhile, dispite the fact I have printed out significant math proofs, real proofs, nature proofs, galactic proofs, you fail to produce one single math term to derive your structure.....

Math is derived from structures no the other way around. This is pecisley whats wrong with science .

[altonhare]

Meanwhile, dispite the fact I have printed out significant math proofs, real proofs, nature proofs, galactic proofs, you fail to produce one single math term to derive your structure.....

Math is derived from structures no the other way around. This is pecisley whats wrong with science .

Exactly. GC has agreed with me on this, every symbol of mathematics refers to a physical object or a relationship thereof. We need to know the objects first before we can possibly do any meaningful math.

I guarantee you everything that was ever built, the designers had to decide upon the objects before doing meaningful math. The Egyptians didn't do a bunch of math and THEN decide to use blocks! They decided to use a convenient shape, blocks, and then implemented mathematics based on that shape!

[Plasmatic]

I KNOW all things, but can't fully remember how to access them.

Say can you re-remember what the next La lottery numbers are for me?

[kevin]

I KNOW all things, but can't fully remember how to access them.

Say can you re-remember what the next La lottery numbers are for me?

Perhaps You could also suggest that I take on james Randi, or any number of such similer replies?
The ONE that totally typifies this thinking though is ,
"Burn the witch", and monty python portrayed that to perfection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTdDN_MRe64
Kevin

[Solar]

The explicit question brings about a much more fundamental implied question. What is the physical cause of the observation known as "charge"? The first thing we need to accept is that, as you said, there may be a yet unidentified fundamental constituent responsible. The second thing we should accept is that, simply because multiple experiments appears to corroborate Coulomb's equation, doesn't mean they all have the same underlying physical cause.

With that said, I do not see a fundamental problem with explaining "charge" similarly to magnetism. Electricity and magnetism are the same thing observed in different situations. Take the simple case of ionic bonding. Na has one loose spinning aggregate of electron thread and a tightly held inner shell of electron thread. Chlorine has 7 slightly loose spinning threads that are mostly pulled in close to the inner shell. Sodium's loose thread becomes enmeshed in chlorine's shell. The region between the two atoms is termed a "bond" but it is really just a loose loop of thread that is enmeshed in Cl.

I like the use of the word "emmehsed" here. A yarn ball of magnetic forces interacting with the serpentine electric "threads" or current filaments would seem to form - not necessarily a "point" of intersection, depending on proximaty - but a region wherein these two aspects, of possibly one force under "different sutuations", would interact during the process of forming a "bond". That would probably form a very interesting region indeed. Perhaps, a region wherin the magnitude of the primarily magnetic outer "shell" of the "yarn ball" gradually decreases in permeability towards and increase in the electric susceptibility of the threads and vise-versa.

An "anion" is an atom/molecule with a loose loop of thread from another atom enmeshed in its shell. It will repel other anions because of the large loop of solid thread the two anions possess in their vicinity. The emphasis on "loop" is important. Imagine pulling a loop of yarn from a yarn ball. When the loop is very near the yarn ball its width will be small (on the order of the size of the ball). As you pull it out far (ionization) the loop widens far beyond the size of the yarn ball. The wide loop that is enmeshed in the newly created anion obstructs other spinning serpentine loops a great deal.

These sound like little Suns.

The use of the word "obstructs" is problematic for me here. Once this bond of electromagnetic tension is established the intensity of the region over, or through, which the bond occurs, has been delineated. In this case it is perhaps the 'thread density' (current density), a multiplicity of threads functioning overall as one, that does not allow, or require, further interaction for bonding. Within this overall thread smaller ones of different sizes and densitites my "branch" one to another. The object, via the bond now exist, having almost maximized the potential to be what it is. But this is a continous process. So threads would seem not to form and remain static but to constantly undergo compression (attraction) and expansion (repulsion) to conserve that phase. A physicist friend of mine once expressed this to me saying that "Everything seems to have a sort of meaningful giggling". So objects may "sit" (exist in a state as a shape); but the don't 'sit still'.

Two anions have wide, expansive loops that obstruct each other (anions repel each other). Cations repel for similar reasons, they have wide expansive threads surrounding them. The observed "attraction" between anions and cations is simply a loose thread becoming enmeshed in an atom with no loose threads. Isolated (gas phase)Na atoms will repel each other just like any magnet would (the loose spinning threads push against each other). You may object and say that they can pull each other too, and it's true that they can. However you must remember that they are gas phase. If they happen to pull each other what happens? They collide and bounce off. If the loose threads push against each other, again, the atoms essentially bounce off each other. If two beams of sodium are intersected versus i.e. two beams of argon we will observe similar macroscopic "billiard ball" physics except that the sodium atoms have greater repulsion for each other by virtue of their looser threads.

These "loose threads" sound like the graphical representaions of the lines of an electic "field", but detached.

In the case of repulsion the "wide, expansive loops" could very well "obstruct" each other (cation to cation) having already defined an interactive region surounding the volume of each cation/anion that could facilliate bonding. When the dynamic of attraction occurs between an anion and cation the "loops" are "broken". Progressing from arcs at this moment they become "threads" (cation to anion) and the property of attraction, towards the formation a bond, begins, with a progressive increase in tension with proximity and results in more threads. The filaments unite with a myriad of smaller branchlets forming and reforming within the main thread accompanied by increasing thread density with closer proximity. Not a static process at all.

It could be the case that "loose threads" result from an "energy capacity" (potential for work; in this case the work of forming bonds) in excess of that required to sustain the objects shape; one of the qualifiers for it's identity as an object. This may be where the "fields" associated with regions surrounding objects having "charge" originate?

What about things like "static charge"? When a material is "charged" this simply means more of its electron threads are spinning in the same direction and faster, which increases their angular momentum causing them to loosen. This can be induced by a material that naturally has loose threads coming in close contact.

I can agree with this; in relation the TT. Perhaps even the perception of an increase in "mass" via an increase in thread density may come into play here? This could be related to the energetic capacity, as defined previously, exceeding the requirements that delineate the object, an anion for example. Simultaneously, the ability to acheive relative equilibrium via bonding, is 'enhanced'. Thus, the "anion gap", an imbalance as relates the the state of equilibrium (no excess "charge" or "neutral"). Could the quality "charge" be the manner in which the universe reveals such a "gap" or imbalance as relates "matter" (an aggreation of fundamental constituents via bonding resulting in the formation of objects)?

Does all that make sense Solar? Remember I'm conjecturing so I'm looking to others to question and/or offer insights. As I think you've noticed I'm trying to develop direct physical/causal explanations for observations.

Finally, I think one fundamental paradigm shift is in order from BG's proposal. I think the reduction of the fundamental constituent from "rope" to "chink" is required. A continuous object that is also flexible is a self-contradiction. If we accept that we have no honest way to refute an all-pervasive ether that is both continuous and fluid. The "chink" is simply a cylindrical object with a socket on one side and a ball on the other. They fit together snugly. Such a structure has a minimum radius of curvature (like a bicycle chain) and explains why elements above a certain size are impossible (their "1s orbitals" cannot get any smaller, they are approaching the minimum radius). Further reason to accept the "chink" hypothesis is provided in my most recent post in "the issue of exist resolved" where I discuss the large-scale structure of the universe. The chinked rope loses none of the functionality of the original rope (it twines around itself, propagates torsions, etc.) but avoids a self-contradicting duality. All in favor say "I" and all not in favor, state your case.
altonhare

Hopefully, I do understand. I could tell that you were looking a bit more deeply into TT. Since TT appeared to share some facets with what I consider (subjectivity) to be working aspects of Electric Universe theory. I thought to learn from; as well as; share some probable conjectures on how these things may occur. Things related to 'How does the current ("thread") interact with a celestial body', 'How do the filaments traverse distance' (arching)?, 'What is dynamically occuring in the region of electric intersection?', 'How is electromagnetism binding celestial bodies in an orbit?' etc. Things of this nature. Nothing wrong with conjecturing.

The "chink"(s) concept is an interesting one. Just as you've stated with regard to gas phase "billiard ball" physics the following characteristics would also seem to lend itself to continuous/flexable dynamics. An electromagnetic serpentine rope might be composed of several fudamental units in single file arrangment due to dominance of longitudinal force. To pull one seciontin is to pull the entire thread. The flexable aspect would be directly due to a decrease in density proportional to the intensity of the pull. Also "stacking" with regard to meeting Ohmic resistance. If we assume that one quantity of the most fundamental stable units of electric force (that which promotes movement without visable means) is an "ion" then, as an object it cannot share the same "space" as another. Unless, a phase-transition occurs, once some critical value is reached, resulting in a combined object different from the those that composed it (missing matter?). It would seem that an aggregation of these fundamental units would have to allow for 'lining up', and/or 'stacking' etc. Thus a "bend", a "kink" possibly resulting in a new direction of "flow" or a decrease of density in some region might easily be had. Threads could then readily present the paradox of being a continous object (as an aggregational "flow") yet, remain extremely flexible. Although, that appears to be corpuscular theory.

The duality aspect: I wonder if it is the case that electromagneitc entities "spiraling around a magnetic field line" (longitudinal direction) towards and object, to finally "encounter"; and then to become "emmeshed" in an object - is what makes the difference between the perception which identifies the object, "atom", or "electron" for example - as a seperate and distinct object. This, in relation to what ever the quality is that appears to allow "space" to be "magnetically" polarized in a direction? I ask this in relation to an article that was posted in the "SuperConductivity" thread wherein the statement was made:

Flux lines or vortices can be regarded as atoms or molecules of the conventional matter. - Original Article

*If* there is truth to "space" being able to undergo "polarization" (establishing a "field") it would seem that a 'piling up', due to the Ohmic resistance of more dense matter, would result in the perception of a "point charge" at the location of intersection. In this case a vectorial "field of charge" would converge a "point charge" only to be identified as seeming to be a "seperate" object formed from the orientation of the "spacial" properties of the "electric constant" of so called "free space". The percipetion would then be one of duality i.e. a distinct electromagnetic entity contrasted with an aggregation of "static charge". Has this actually property actually been measured; or is it simply "defined"?

I don't know if statistical orbitals are real. They resemble a variety of gems on a flexible thread. It would be like removing the threaded beads from the abbacus to allow greater degrees of freedom. That too will provide a "cylindrical" object that remains continous and flexible. Thread density, more beaded abbacus threads aligned, will begin to restrict or decrease the degrees of freedom of the object's flexibility.

Overall, there is one naturally occuring entity that the electromagnetic "yarn ball" of thread theory puts me in the mind of. It is, via definition, 'a coherent entity of plasma, electic, and magnetic forces'. A "plasmoid". They quite frequently "knot themselves up" into coherent structures like 'beads on a thread' (image idealized). Have you considered that these formations may be at the heart of atoms, electrons etc, just at different scales? Here is one of my favorite plasmoids complete with continous "threads", "knots", "kinks" "flexible threads", "loose threads", "arched threads" et al. Sag A*.



Can they also occur on the smaller scale?

Just a few conjectures.

[altonhare]

I've read over your response Solar, your intellectual contribution is invaluable. I'm glad there are a few people in this community interested in the physical, causal mechanisms of mathematically correlated observations.

I like the use of the word "emmehsed" here. A yarn ball of magnetic forces interacting with the serpentine electric "threads" or current filaments would seem to form - not necessarily a "point" of intersection, depending on proximaty - but a region wherein these two aspects, of possibly one force under "different sutuations", would interact during the process of forming a "bond".

-Solar

No, not a yarn ball of forces, a yarn ball of chains. Nothing is made of force. Force is conceptual. I can arrange a situation where two balls collide and I measure there locations periodically. From this data I calculate things like force and momentum. The balls are the objects under study and everything else is a conceptual measurement (the locations give us distances, two sets of which give us velocities, three sets can give us acceleration, etc.) These chains are not "current filaments", there are three dimensional objects composed of ball/socket joints or some other structure that enables the chain to maintain its integrity while still being flexible. I am not trying to patronize you, but this must be 100% clear.

The ionic bond is indeed at least one loose chain but possibly an aggregate of loose chain from one atom enmeshed in the shell of chains surrounding another atom. This loose chain physically connects the two atoms and obstructs other chains, resulting in the observations associated with salts. Dissolution of NaCl in water is a result of water molecules forming loose enmeshed attachments to Na and Cl, pulling the two much further apart. The loose chain between Na and Cl is the chemical bond. When spectroscopists and crystallographers take pictures of these molecules the dark contrast region between the two dark balls in the picture is an aggregate of chain.

That would probably form a very interesting region indeed. Perhaps, a region wherin the magnitude of the primarily magnetic outer "shell" of the "yarn ball" gradually decreases in permeability towards and increase in the electric susceptibility of the threads and vise-versa.

-Solar

Indeed it's a very interesting region. The most detailed aspects of how the chains arrange in the shell and how they loosen away from the shell are not well known. This is not a failing of the theory but rather the result of about 20 dollars in the thread theory budget. If TT even had 1/10 the budget being devoted to the huge particle accelerators and 1/10 the total scientific expertise pursuing it, papers would be flying off the printers detailing the structure of matter on its most basic level .

From the standpoint of electric current, the region with the great loop of chain certainly improves the conductive properties of water. Electric current IS the twirling in place of electron chains. Water's chains are tightly held, all in close to the core yarn ball. Even when set spinning they do not induce many other chains to spin. NaCl has a big loose chain. When you turn on the "voltage" you are inducing chains to spin at the electrode, which induce the NaCl chain to spin, which induces other NaCl chains to spin... and so forth through the circuit. Electric circuits in general are physically well explained in TT including capacitors, resistors, inductors, etc. If interested I can relate this info.

The use of the word "obstructs" is problematic for me here. Once this bond of electromagnetic tension is established the intensity of the region over, or through, which the bond occurs, has been delineated. In this case it is perhaps the 'thread density' (current density), a multiplicity of threads functioning overall as one, that does not allow, or require, further interaction for bonding.

-Solar

I'm not sure what you mean by the "intensity of the region". But yes, the density of chains in the space between Na and Cl is greater after Na's chain becomes enmeshed. With regards to further bonding, Na has a very tight core of chains (its yarn ball). This tight core is not receptive to other chains becoming enmeshed because there is very little space between the chains. It does not help that there is a large loose chain surrounding it that obstructs other chains from even getting close to Na's core. Na's only loose chain is already involved with Cl. Other atoms may try to enmesh their chains but will not penetrate deeply enough to form any permanent connections. Indeed, it is a no-win situation. The smaller tighter held chains may get past Na's large loose chain better but do not have the angular momentum to penetrate Na's core. The larger, loose chains that come proximal to Na will mostly be obstructed by Na's loose chain. Cl was never good at enmeshing its own chains because they are held so close. A short, closely held chain does not have a lot of angular momentum compared to a large loose chain as in Na. The lower angular momentum makes penetration of other cores difficult. Cl has difficult accepting new chains because of the large, loose aggregate of chain around it that obstructs them. Again smaller tighter chains may make it close to Cl but they do not have the angular momentum to drive deep enough into Cl's shell.

Was that a decent combination of sex and physics?

So threads would seem not to form and remain static but to constantly undergo compression (attraction) and expansion (repulsion) to conserve that phase. A physicist friend of mine once expressed this to me saying that "Everything seems to have a sort of meaningful giggling". So objects may "sit" (exist in a state as a shape); but the don't 'sit still'.

-Solar

Since the thread is actually composed of links it is indeed not static. If it is a ball/socket the ball must always be "rattling" around inside the socket. In Nature there is no such thing as an inelastic collision. Continuous objects do not deform at all, there are only elastic collisions between them. So even the slightest jostle of a chain causes endless rattling. As they rattle sometimes the enmeshing of chains/shells can loosen and sometimes it can tighten. Additionally if there is more than just one loose chain (or packed aggregate of chain) they may be located closer to the shell. An equilibrium may develop whereby Cl is pulled in by the closer chains but these shorter, closer chains do not enmesh as tightly (because of lower angular momentum) so they release Cl. Thus Cl is pulled in and let out repeatedly.

Be careful, the objects themselves do not expand/contract. In a given region of space there may be more or fewer continuous objects (fundamental constituents). So in this sense you may say that a region of space becomes more/less dense with links of chain.

These "loose threads" sound like the graphical representaions of the lines of an electic "field", but detached.

-Solar

No, the "electric lines of field" are the graphical representation! The chains are actual objects! A field is a mathematical construct, a concept at best, although the way it is used in most of modern physics renders it a magical do-it-all Angel.

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com

When the dynamic of attraction occurs between an anion and cation the "loops" are "broken". Progressing from arcs at this moment they become "threads" (cation to anion) and the property of attraction, towards the formation a bond, begins, with a progressive increase in tension with proximity and results in more threads.

-Solar

The chains are not broken. Do you mean that, once the arch/loop is enmeshed, it essentially looks like there are two individual aggregates of chain connecting the two atoms rather than one atom possessing a continuous loop of chain?

Also, once enmeshed, are you saying that the atoms tend to move closer to each other and more chains become enmeshed? This could be. Na's "lone electron" may not be a single chain or even a single set of proximal chains (an aggregate). There could be some loops of chain at large distance with the number of loose loops increasing as one gets closer to Na's core. This is interesting and explains the dynamics of ionic bond formation and vibrational structure of diatomics (in light of what I said about an equilibrium developing between firmly enmeshed loose chains and less enmeshed but more numerous shorter tighter chains).

It could be the case that "loose threads" result from an "energy capacity" (potential for work; in this case the work of forming bonds) in excess of that required to sustain the objects shape; one of the qualifiers for it's identity as an object. This may be where the "fields" associated with regions surrounding objects having "charge" originate?

-Solar

The loose chains around an atom are often associated with the concept "energy" because they interact strongly with other matter in the form of enmeshing, magnetic attraction/repulsion, and electric current. So yes, this is indeed the physical explanation for the "fields" surrounding objects and their associated "charges".

Perhaps even the perception of an increase in "mass" via an increase in thread density may come into play here? This could be related to the energetic capacity, as defined previously, exceeding the requirements that delineate the object, an anion for example.

-Solar

I'm not sure what you mean by the "energetic capacity" or "exceeding the requirements that delineate the object". Energy is a poorly defined concept, can you explain what you are saying physically?

I believe one observation you're trying to get at here is that salts, for instance NaCl, when dissolved in water tend to increase the temperature. What people actually mean by "heat" and "energy" is simply that motion was transferred. We perceive the molecules of water to move faster when NaCl is dissolved. That motion had to come from somewhere. Remember the "rattling" I was talking about? When chains are held densely they rattle within a very small region. The overall motion is "dampened". You can also think about this in terms of the mean free path of one link of chain. If a link of chain only travels .0001 angstroms before it collides then, overall, we will not see a lot of net movement. On the other hand the constituents of a system with the same overall momentum may be separated by 1000 times the distance. In this case we would see links of chain flying here and there. The motion would appear less "dampened". When NaCl is pulled apart by water the region between them becomes less dense and the mean free path of the links involved increases dramatically. This makes collisions between the rattling chains and the water molecules far more likely. These chains collide with water molecules, transferring momentum, increasing the perceived kinetic energy of the water molecules. A lot of what I'm saying sounds similar to what you're saying, let me know if we're on the same page. Also, with Na and Cl further separate, their now-freed shorter chains can also whack water molecules around, increasing their kinetic energy.

Since TT appeared to share some facets with what I consider (subjectivity) to be working aspects of Electric Universe theory.

-Solar

TT is the only physical hypothesis/explanation I know of that unites magnetism, light, and gravity. As such, any theory of physics is an application of TT unless it poses its own physical hypothesis. If EU rejects thread/chain theory and continues to embrace a paradoxical, self contradictory aether/ether it loses its physical connection and will unfortunately be a "theory of nothing". I do not say this out of hubris. All theories of physics require one or more physical objects. Any theory that is not based on physical objects is based on nonphysical objects, which do not exist i.e. a theory of nonexistence. The proponents of EU theory have done a very good job, I think, of departing from the mainstream. All their theory needs is a valid physical hypothesis. I urge them to toss aside the irreconcilable ether/aether and embrace a rational, physical, non self contradicting fundamental constituent.

Things related to 'How does the current ("thread") interact with a celestial body', 'How do the filaments traverse distance' (arching)?, 'What is dynamically occuring in the region of electric intersection?', 'How is electromagnetism binding celestial bodies in an orbit?' etc. Things of this nature. Nothing wrong with conjecturing.

-Solar

These are all good questions. As far as arcing is concerned, it is known that a very high "potential" is needed to induce arcing through vacuum. I can only interpret this as the further loosening of a chain or aggregate of chain until it is so loose that it extends across the entire vacuum. When atoms are present less loose chains are needed because one atom with a loosened chain loosens the next atom's... and so on. The "mean free path" parameter is an expression of how long the loop of chain needs to be to interact with the next atom.

Electromagnetism as it is commonly conceptualized does not hold celestial bodies in orbit. The entwined chains connecting every atom of the two bodies keeps them in orbit.

The "chink"(s) concept is an interesting one. Just as you've stated with regard to gas phase "billiard ball" physics the following characteristics would also seem to lend itself to continuous/flexable dynamics. An electromagnetic serpentine rope might be composed of several fudamental units in single file arrangment due to dominance of longitudinal force. To pull one seciontin is to pull the entire thread. The flexable aspect would be directly due to a decrease in density proportional to the intensity of the pull.

-Solar

Right, the rope is actually a chain whose constituents are interconnected something like ball/socket joints. This lends the overall chain flexibility but not infinite flexibility. This finite flexibility is the reason we do not observe elements above a certain size, the chain simply cannot wrap itself around the nucleus that closely!

Also the "longitudinal force" you're referring to is, I think, pull. The entwined chain between atoms is kept "straight" (single file) because every atom pulls on every other atom in the universe. I don't know how pulling on the chain can affect its density... The links of chain are continuous objects, they do not deform.

Also "stacking" with regard to meeting Ohmic resistance. If we assume that one quantity of the most fundamental stable units of electric force (that which promotes movement without visable means) is an "ion" then, as an object it cannot share the same "space" as another. Unless, a phase-transition occurs, once some critical value is reached, resulting in a combined object different from the those that composed it (missing matter?). It would seem that an aggregation of these fundamental units would have to allow for 'lining up', and/or 'stacking' etc. Thus a "bend", a "kink" possibly resulting in a new direction of "flow" or a decrease of density in some region might easily be had. Threads could then readily present the paradox of being a continous object (as an aggregational "flow") yet, remain extremely flexible. Although, that appears to be corpuscular theory.

-Solar

There is no problem with flexibility. Interconnected ball/socket joints allow for flexibility whereas the joints themselves are perfectly continuous. This is not a problem. Besides this statement I'm not sure how else to comment.

The duality aspect: I wonder if it is the case that electromagneitc entities "spiraling around a magnetic field line" (longitudinal direction) towards and object, to finally "encounter"; and then to become "emmeshed" in an object - is what makes the difference between the perception which identifies the object, "atom", or "electron" for example - as a seperate and distinct object.

-Solar

By "electromagnetic entity" you mean an atom with a loosely spinning chain? The perception of a distinct entity has everything to do with how we define the entity. In my "issue of exist resolved" thread I define a class II existent in terms of the relative spatial location of all its constituents. So a collection of chain may be identified as an atom as long as all its links have some set of relative spatial locations. How we decide on this set of criteria is at our own discretion. To be scientific we should make our criteria clear for the purpose of communicating the results of an experiment.

*If* there is truth to "space" being able to undergo "polarization" (establishing a "field") it would seem that a 'piling up', due to the Ohmic resistance of more dense matter, would result in the perception of a "point charge" at the location of intersection. In this case a vectorial "field of charge" would converge a "point charge" only to be identified as seeming to be a "seperate" object formed from the orientation of the "spacial" properties of the "electric constant" of so called "free space". The percipetion would then be one of duality i.e. a distinct electromagnetic entity contrasted with an aggregation of "static charge". Has this actually property actually been measured; or is it simply "defined"?

-Solar

Space does not do anything. Only objects may perform actions (concrete nouns are proceeded by verbs, always). Space is the antithesis of object, it has no border.

What has been measured are the interactions of twirling chains with other twirling chains. Thus far there has not been a physical interpretation and physicists have been waving their hands at nothing and calling it something.

I don't know if statistical orbitals are real.

-Solar

To answer this question ask yourself,"Do statistical orbitals have shape and location, or are they composed of shapes with location?" That is the criteria for "real".

It is, via definition, 'a coherent entity of plasma, electic, and magnetic forces'. A "plasmoid". They quite frequently "knot themselves up" into coherent structures like 'beads on a thread' (image idealized). Have you considered that these formations may be at the heart of atoms, electrons etc, just at different scales? Here is one of my favorite plasmoids complete with continous "threads", "knots", "kinks" "flexible threads", "loose threads", "arched threads" et al. Sag A*.

-Solar

Thanks for that image. It sounds like these bundles/knots are indeed clusters of chain knotted up. Under TT all of matter is essentially a knot of chain. As far as the structure of atoms on the smallest scales, it is conceivable that the chains arrange themselves in some ordered way within the electron shell or within the proton dandelion.

One last note. If the links are indeed "ball and socket" type joints, it is possible for the chain to break under special circumstances. If the ball is not a perfect sphere then, when it is rotated fully in its socket, it may present its smaller radius to the neck of the socket and pop out. The extreme rotation of a joint corresponds to what many physicists think of as "high energy". When the electron shell expands/contracts extremely hard it pulls the adjacent link of chain up further and further, rotating the ball further and further in its socket. A hard enough torsion may cause the ball to come completely out of socket. Also in particle accelerators the sheer magnitude of the collisions could cause the rattling of the ball in the socket to jostle the ball into the right position, causing it to come out of socket. It is very possible that it is individual links of chain the physicists are observing. They are seeing trees and naming each one, failing to realize that they got the trees from a forest.

All of that brainpower, and they are all missing the forest for the trees.

[altonhare]

I've had a recent breakthrough with regards to the chain theory and the question of *why* every atom in the universe pulls on every other atom. Bill Gaede simply states that it is so, that the ropes always remain taut. However if we had two balls connected by a rope there is no reason for the rope to not go slack. Chain theory fixes this.

Again we imagine the chain is composed of some kind of ball-in-socket, and the ball is constantly rattling around in the socket. If we had a linear such chain before us it would simply sit there wiggling back and forth. It would not stop because the links are continuous objects, there is no such thing as an "inelastic collision" on the scale of the fundamental constituent. Any collision of a ball with the surface of the socket would perpetuate a ceaseless amount of "rattling" down the entire chain. Now, what happens if we take a linear rattling chain and curl it around in a circle then let go, similar to how the chain wraps around in the electron shell? Well, the ball is now rattling in the socket differently, unevenly. The chain will essentially "rattle straight". It will re-equilibrate the momenta that each ball is exerting on its socket. This is the physical explanation for pull, ultimately for gravity. If every atom is connected by this chain, every electron shell is trying to "rattle straight" i.e. expand. An electron shell is not able to rattle straight because every other electron shell is pulling on it, trying to expand. This is why every atom in the universe pulls on every other atom.

[altonhare]

Another comment/idea with regards to the "rattle". I suspect that what scientists have been referring to as "internal energy" is directly related to how much "rattling" is going on in the joints comprising an atom. This is intuitive and provides a direct physical interpretation of internal energy, something nobody has ever been able to even come close to doing. Under this interpretation "internal energy" is just related to how fast the links are moving, fundamentally their momenta. Each link simply has a physical mass of one. If an H atom has 1000 links we take each link's velocity and add it up, getting maybe 10000. If the total momentum in the H atom were decreased to 9000 then some links comprising another atom (or in the entwined chain between atoms) would now have an overall +1000 units. Simple conservation of motion, elegantly simple to explain, although I have no conception of how to actually measure the velocity of each individual link . In reality we have to measure bulk parameters, which is what we have been doing with internal energy, enthalpy, etc. but at least now we have a physical interpretation.