The Details of Thread Theory

[altonhare]

For reference the theory's originator's videos are here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede

His website is here:

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com

The specific videos most relevant to the theory are here, especially the magnetism video:

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

The H Atom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Magnetism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

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

The EU is primarily concerned with astrophysics whereas I have focused much more on presenting chain theory on the atomic level. I have explained light's rectilinear travel, the "quantum jump" phenomenon, the wave-nature of matter, bonding, and magnetism. Here I will extend the chain structure to the universe, positing possible explanations for observations of large-scale phenomena relevant to astrophysics and EU. These are mere conjecture and intended to demonstrate chain theory's immense compatibility with EU.

First on the agenda are the observed magnetic fields surrounding earth and other celestial bodies. The "party line" so to speak is the dynamo theory. The simplest summation of this theory is that the earth's outer core is composed of molten iron being catapulted "eastward" by the rotation of the earth. The magnetic right hand rule states, then, should be directed out of what we call the North Pole. There are many problems with this theory. Besides the fact that the mainstream has simply correlated observations and cannot tell you what a field is or the physical cause of magnetism, the dynamo theory only describes why the magnetic field is long lived but not how the field was generated in the first place, the molten metal MUST run through an existing magnetic field in order to keep the process going.

Further data casts doubt on the dynamo mechanism. Ganymede, and possibly Io, have detectable magnetic activity despite the observation that both are synchronous spheres (they don't spin like the earth). They present the same face to Jupiter at all times (more or less). Observation also indicates that, internally, there is a solid iron core wrapped in a rocky mantle. Without swooshing molten iron the dynamo theory cannot explain their magnetic activity. Mercury has an iron core (not molten) but has small but measurable magnetic activity while Venus (which is more structured like earth) does not have an internally-generated magnetic field.

In chain theory we do not care if a body contains a molten iron core or a core of compressed hydrogen (the dynamo theory applied to Jupiter). All that is required is for the atoms in the body's core be significantly aligned. This means that their loose chains are swinging in the same direction. To understand this mechanism you should at least watch the magnetism video first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

This explains why many celestial bodies have detectable magnetic activity although they may not have a core of molten iron or compresses hydrogen or whether it spins synchronously or not. Callisto is a good example. Observation indicates that its internal structure is amorphous rock and that it doesn't have detectable magnetic activity, consistent with the chain theory explanation. The magnetic activity of celestial bodies is no different than the magnetic activity of an ordinary magnet, just on a larger scale. This does not rule out that the swooshing dynamo mechanism may significantly enhance Earth's magnetic activity, the point is that molten iron is not required for magnetic activity. All that we need is a material that is ordered enough with loose chains to induce each other into spinning in a single direction.

Next up are black holes. I don't think I need to argue why black holes are ludicrous and should be stricken from science to this audience. However we do need to explain some anomalous observations such as why celestial bodies near the edges of the galaxy seem to be moving "too fast" i.e. the galaxy seems to function like a carousel with the stars at the edge moving about as fast as the stars further in. The mainstream Ptolemaic explanation is dark matter, which can influence luminous matter gravitationally but cannot be detected via light. Under chain theory this is absolutely impossible. Gravitation works because the earth and sun are physically connected, indeed everything is physically connected. Light is the torquing of the coaxial chain between two bodies. If two bodies are not connected they cannot influence each other gravitationally OR by transferring "light" (torsions), they influence each other only by collision. The "dark matter" issue is cleaned up quite neatly under chain theory. The problem with the relativistic explanations is that they are seeing stars as discrete, separate objects. They are thinking of the galaxy as a bunch of balls at the end of a string being swung around your head, with all the balls separated from each other but connected to the center. This is far too simplistic. EVERY atom is connected to EVERY atom in the galaxy (not just the ones in the center!) making it much more analogous to spinning an umbrella over your head. The outer edges rotate at roughly the same speed as the inner parts because they are all interconnected, just like the constituents of the outer/inner edges of an umbrella.

Another interesting observation is the jet of gas springing from the core of our galaxy in a direction perpendicular to the rotation of the spiral arms. Allegedly this is due to a "black hole", an impossible and contradictory object. There is also the revolution of the alleged binary system consisting of the enormous star HDE-226868 and an "invisible companion" Cygnus X-1. Identically there is the alleged binary system consisting of GRO J1655-40. Both HDE and GRO appear to be rotating very fast around nothing! A clue is found in magnetic flux lines observed in the spectra of stars that cause sunspots and solar flares. Under chain theory this is probably caused by the twirling of loose chains around a body like the sun. This same mechanism seems to be responsible for the jet of gas springing from the core of the galaxy, the gas is aligned with a strong magnetic "field" springing from the core of our galactic disk. Such an incredible magnetic force could conceivably toss around a proportionately tiny body like HDE. So the explanation for HDE and GRO should not be a mystical invisible object but simply a magnetic interaction (resulting from the associated flow of electric current associated with plasma).

Olbers' paradox is always a popular topic of discussion. Since space is boundless the visible universe should become impoverished of light, according to wave and particle theories of light. Photons emitted by an object fly off into emptiness, never to return. This is a problem that still hasn't really been resolved because, if light is a particle or a wave, it should simply fly off on a trajectory and only encounter an atom by good fortune, but most light particles/waves will end up moving away from all the atoms in the universe. Obviously Olbers' paradox is a no-brainer under chain theory. Every atom is connected to every other atom and what we observe as light propagates along the chain interconnecting any two. So the final destination of a light signal is always another atom. Case closed.

Finally, what about so-called "Big Bang" and "Big Crunch" phenomena? These theories are a joke in the mind of any rational human being and are a direct result of way too much math and way too little logic. Instead of a singularity we just have a big ball of chain. The balls of each link are rattling in their sockets, trying to make the whole chain straighten. The rattling causes the ball to expand as all the curves and kinks in the chain push to straighten. Aggregates of these loops are what we observe as atoms and the straight lengths of chain between them is how they transmit light to each other and how they influence each other gravitationally. Each electron shell in the universe is trying to rattle straight against the effort of every other electron shell in the universe. This results in an aggregate pull between every atom and makes the whole ball of chain tend to collapse in on itself. On the other hand when the atoms come too close the loops start to unwind (plasma state) and push against each other. The cosmic chain-ball is stuck oscillating between these two extremes as the chain tries to rattle straight then collapses back inward.

A good analogy is as follows. Imagine a straight chain on the ground before you. The links are each rattling and the overall chain is simply wiggling in place. Now grab either end of the chain and bend it, then let go. The chain will slowly but steadily wiggle back to being straight as before. Every atom in the universe is essentially doing this. The simplest way to conceptualize the atom is to take a chain in either hand then cross your hands over, making a loop. The ends of the chain continue on to other loops until they ultimately connect to each other (the chain is closed, no dangling ends). All these loops are rattling and so are pulling on each other. If you try to push two loops too close together you will find there is a point where it becomes much more difficult. You'll find that the loops start to twist apart, pushing much harder, making it very difficult to twist the loops apart completely. When the loops twist apart completely this is the plasma state of matter and is typically only seen under highly specific or highly extreme conditions. Whenever these conditions are removed the chain reverts to its former equilibrium with the loops pulling on each other but retaining their overall integrity.

[bdw000]

Sluimers:
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

Anyone interested in the Hafele-Keating experiment should read Al Kelly's book CHALLENGING MODERN PHYSICS:

http://www.amazon.com/Challenging-Moder ... 681&sr=8-1

If you think they proved time dilation think again.

[bdw000]

altonhare:
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'm guessing that bold part is just a little bit too brief. Shouldn't it read "any mathematical symbol SHOULD refer to a physical object . . . "

I thought the consensus here was that modern physics has way too many mathematical symbols that can NOT be demonstrated to refer to anything physical . . . .

Extra dimensions are a perfect example.

[Valhalla]

There are definitely aspects of the theory that 'resonate' with me and with musical theory.
But somehow, I believe SOUND plays a valuable role in helping turn a String Theory into a matrix or a KNOT Theory.
Can we assume, just for a moment, there is something out there, yet undetected?
The existence of the hypothetical Planck Era, suggests we should make this assumption.

Valhalla

[altonhare]

altonhare:
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'm guessing that bold part is just a little bit too brief. Shouldn't it read "any mathematical symbol SHOULD refer to a physical object . . . "

I thought the consensus here was that modern physics has way too many mathematical symbols that can NOT be demonstrated to refer to anything physical . . . .

Extra dimensions are a perfect example.

Exactly. They have symbols detached from meaning. APM makes all the same mistakes.

[altonhare]

Can we assume, just for a moment, there is something out there, yet undetected?

Valhalla

Good gosh man of course we can! What kind of scientists would we be if we did not consider this?

What thing do you propose exists that we have not detected? If it is sound, can you define this word so we can all know exactly what you are proposing to include in chain theory?

[Sovereign]

Hi Alton, I might have missed this somewhere but I have a question.

Is there a maximum length of the chain?

If there is:
Do all chains have the same max length or do chains have different max lengths?
If they all have the same max length, then would this imply a spherical shape for the universe(all the objects, assuming it could be at its max extent)?

I had more questions in my head but I seem to have forgotten them

[altonhare]

Hi Alton, I might have missed this somewhere but I have a question.

Is there a maximum length of the chain?

If there is:
Do all chains have the same max length or do chains have different max lengths?
If they all have the same max length, then would this imply a spherical shape for the universe(all the objects, assuming it could be at its max extent)?

I had more questions in my head but I seem to have forgotten them

I welcome all your questions.

The question of the precise architecture of a link of chain is difficult because we cannot just grab a link and measure it. We must infer its dimensions from measurements like atomic radii, the Rutherford radius, etc.

If we believe that the hydrogen atom's shell is so close to spherical that we cannot tell the difference, then a link must be very short compared to the circumference of the electron shell determined experimentally. I think I did a *very* rough "quick swag" calculating of the diameter of a link and got on the order of 10^-100 meters.

All links in the chain do not *have* to be the same length, but observation tends to imply they are. For instance, the speed of light would not be ubiquitously constant if some links in the chain were different sizes. Additionally the gravitational constant would vary depending on the length of the links where we measured G.

[Sovereign]

I welcome all your questions.

The question of the precise architecture of a link of chain is difficult because we cannot just grab a link and measure it. We must infer its dimensions from measurements like atomic radii, the Rutherford radius, etc.

If we believe that the hydrogen atom's shell is so close to spherical that we cannot tell the difference, then a link must be very short compared to the circumference of the electron shell determined experimentally. I think I did a *very* rough "quick swag" calculating of the diameter of a link and got on the order of 10^-100 meters.

All links in the chain do not *have* to be the same length, but observation tends to imply they are. For instance, the speed of light would not be ubiquitously constant if some links in the chain were different sizes. Additionally the gravitational constant would vary depending on the length of the links where we measured G.

Yes that would imply all the links have the same length, but I was referring to the chains between atoms not the links themselves.

There must be a maximum number of links a chain can be stretched too I assume. I wonder if all chains have the same limit in links or if some have a lesser/greater limit than others?

Example:
O----------O Chain A has max length of 10 links
O-----O Chain B has max length of 5 links

[altonhare]

Soveriegn,

The atoms do NOT move by "stretching" the chain as you have described. The atom moves by the rise/fall of links in a loop. Grab a chain or flexible wire and loop it, hold it in either hand. Now tilt the ends a little and you can make the loop move to either side without translating the chain/wire itself.

In terms of the simple schematic you drew, motion looks more like this:

0----------0----------0---------0-----etc.

Atoms A, B, C, and D respectively.

Atom D moves to the left:

0----------0---------0--------0------etc.

0----------0---------0-------0-------etc.

0----------0---------0------0--------etc.

0----------0---------0-----0---------etc.

0----------0---------0----0----------etc.

0----------0---------0---0-----------etc.

0----------0---------0--0------------etc.

0----------0---------0-0-------------etc.

0----------0---------00--------------etc. Collision

0----------0--------0-0--------------etc.

0----------0-------0--0--------------etc.

0----------0------0---0--------------etc.

0----------0-----0----0--------------etc.

0----------0----0-----0--------------etc.

0----------0---0------0--------------etc.

0----------0--0-------0--------------etc.

0----------0-0--------0--------------etc.

0----------00---------0--------------etc. Collision

0---------0-0---------0--------------etc.

and so on

[webolife]

So, are you saying that the loop is something the atom does, or something the atom is, or is an atom just like a loop?

Can you depict the aggregation of matter with the "loop" concept? or just elastic collisions?

[altonhare]

So, are you saying that the loop is something the atom does, or something the atom is, or is an atom just like a loop?

Can you depict the aggregation of matter with the "loop" concept? or just elastic collisions?

What we identify as atoms are literally loops in a chain. It's not an analogy.

Using a single loop is indeed an analogy to illustrate motion for simplicity's sake. Literally the atom is made of gazillions of loops. The H atom is made of a number of loops equal to the number of atoms in the universe, I hypothesize. The other atoms I'm not so sure.

I have explained gravity, which explains aggregation, to you already. Are you referring to the observation known as "bonding"?

[webolife]

Yes, I was thinking of bonding, eg. covalent bonding, but could it also exemplify the atomic nucleus...?
I am still left with the conclusion that the chains are indeed interacting, and yet, Bill G seems to be saying that his "ropes" pass through each other unscathed. What am I missing? What originally identified the theory to me as being similar to my own was this attribute of ropes not interacting with each other, making them functionally like my "rays".

[altonhare]

Yes, I was thinking of bonding, eg. covalent bonding, but could it also exemplify the atomic nucleus...?
I am still left with the conclusion that the chains are indeed interacting, and yet, Bill G seems to be saying that his "ropes" pass through each other unscathed. What am I missing? What originally identified the theory to me as being similar to my own was this attribute of ropes not interacting with each other, making them functionally like my "rays".

Probably the part of the light video where he talks about "light on light" and "why don't gazillions of threads become tangled". In the magnetism video he implies that the spinning threads pass through all the interconnecting ropes. Part of his hypothesis is that when a curved threads/ropes moving at high velocity (as in magnetism) through a straight/taut rope the curved thread will pass through it. In chain theory the chains never pass through each other. Magnetism is more complicated under chain theory and, I'm sorry for repeatedly mentioning this, but I have some simulations planned to show how the chain produces light, gravity, and magnetism.

[bboyer]

After revisiting the video clips on light, action-at-a-distance, and the hydrogen atom then checking out this page, I have to say that it's probably the best explanation - for me - of the double-slit experiment I've run across to date.

http://youstupidrelativist.com/06QM/04Light/07Slit.html

Something I realized, and maybe it's only relevant to how I personally have perceived the discussions thus far, is that somehow the EM aspect of Gaede's rope hypothesis is either downplayed or just plain lost amongst all the talk of mechanics, definitions, and re-definitions of terms and so forth. The focus in many of these discussions seems to be on the differences versus the similarities, petty squabbles over mathematical irrelevancies and nonsense, and personality issues. Anyway, for anyone getting lost in the noise it might be worthwhile to visit or revisit Gaede's material with a mind free from any particular slant (except perhaps with the clear understanding that he is presenting a theory of EM phenomena) and just give it a fair hearing. The spiral-wound ropes he hypothesizes are EM ropes. He clearly states it. You can even see the "sacred geometry" forms in several of his visualizations. From what I've seen and read about so far I see no gross incompatibilities with EU theory and material at least insofar as to the degree that I personally have understood it. Birkeland currents, plasma filamentation, Lichtenberg patterning etc. I think he (Gaede) should definitely come up to speed with regards to plasma physics, Plasma Cosmology, and EU theory if he hasn't.

As an aside, his presentation would probably benefit by losing a bit of his "edge" with regard to the mainstream. I can definitely appreciate a sense of humor, particularly if it brings a sense of life and vitality, but his continued tone of sarcasm quickly loses its quality of emphasis and just becomes trite and tiresome. Certainly, I can understand the frustration involved, but personally I think his presentation would be greatly enhanced and more powerful with a much more sparing use of his cynical mocking of mainstream ideas.