Time and Motion

[altonhare]

Let's cease all this squawking and focus on the only important question:

Are there any behaviors of light the rope (or chain) structure does not explain?

Before anyone answers, make sure you've at least watched the video (which ultimately isn't enough so I will be ready to make things more clear):

Light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7 ... re=related

H atom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E- ... re=related

[webolife]

Altonhare,
The server I connect through occasionally does not allow me to view youtube videos, but I was finally able to observe the entire "light" video you referenced. Your ropes and my vectors have identical characterizations! The interconnectivity of all atoms in the universe at every scale via these light field vectors is the ultimate unified field. I'm not sure from the video whether you are espousing instantaneous action across distance {Grandma?} as I do... let's keep dialoguing on this for further clarification. I have been studying the light pressure view now since early 1980's, and have gained significant additional insights since coming to these EU forums. Off hand, I would say that my original reconciliation of my vectors with JL's energy vortices manifested itself to me as a picture that is from what I can tell exactly like your ropes. And to answer your question directly, I have found no significant challenge to my unified field view on this forum. Some have argued wave and particle theories as fact, and disputed my conclusions with that kind of "logic", but no one has presented any evidence-based argument that disproves it. If there is one, I'd like to hear it so to be further enlightened in my journey. For the last 27+ years I have looked at this from every possible angle that I could, and come securely to the same conclusion. Light is neither a wave, nor a particle, nor a wave-particle duality. It is what we see when the field fluxes (even the field of a distant star!) causing our local receptor to flux with it. No c-rate is required, no measureable time delay. That supernova you witnessed in the Andromeda galaxy happened as you were watching. Earthshaking.

[klypp]

What a piece of crap, altonhare!

I used a dictionary to show that you got "The Principle of Ray Reversibility" completely wrong, What was your answer?

An appeal to authority. Always a fallacious argument. You never took debate did you?

Must be the lamest excuse for not doing your homework I've ever heard!

Let's have a somewhat closer look at some "authorities" and "fallacies". You use Michelson and Lebedev as authorities in your effort to disprove wave theory. What did these scientists really said?

First, about Michelson:

The only physical interpretation of "light as wave" (the aether) was thoroughly debunked by Michelson. In fact, Michelson probably did the quintessential work demonstrating that light is most definitely neither a particle nor a "wave".

The Michelson-Morley experiment was performed in 1887. What they looked for was an ether drift. Michelson first thought he had found it, but then realized his results was within the range of possible experimental errors and thus not conclusive. But did he "debunk" wave theory or ether theory? Here is what he had to say about it 40 years later in his book "Studies in Optics".
First wave theory (as opposed to corpuscle theory):

Both theories give correct explanation of the ordinary phenomena of propagation, reflection and refraction; but whereas the undulatory theory satisfies all requirements without the necessity for accessory hypotheses, this is not the case with the corpuscular theory.

And then the ether:

While it is true that the models hitherto devised for such explanation have not been entirely succesful, they will be more acceptable to the average mind than none at all; and when it is considered what extraordinary properties this medium must possess – that while it offers no appreciable resistance to the motions of the planets in their orbits, it can transmit transverse vibrations, and with the inconceivable great velocity of 186,000 miles per second – such a medium must be constituted in a manner unfamiliar to our everyday experience.

http://books.google.com/books?id=m2tUZ4 ... lt#PPA1,M1

Michelson didn't debunk wave theory nor ether theory. He defended both to his dying day!
Do your homework, altonhare!!!

About Lebedev:

On further, Lebedev showed that light exerts pressure on a surface, something the wave equations never predicted.

I used sound to demonstrate that waves can exert pressure and got this response:

Weren't we debating light not sound? I said this was something "the wave equations never predicted" which is 100% correct. Maxwell's equations (obviously what I'm talking about) never predicted this observation. The wave equations for sound and other observations work fine.

Note the neat squirming here! First he says that light cannot be a wave because it exerts pressure. When confronted with the observation that other kinds of waves do exert pressure, he finds that this is ok for sound but not for light. Of course this kills his first argument.
Luckily, he had happened to use the phrase "wave equations" in his first posting. So now he tries to save the day by throwing in another authority, Maxwell - whose equations he "obviously" was talking about. But this can't help either. If Maxwell never predicted light pressure, then Maxwell was wrong. It doesn't exclude light from the wave family!
But then again, Maxwell is a rather heavy authority on light, so maybe this would throw in enough weight to conceal at least a small bit of altonhare's fallacy here. I'm afraid not...
Here is what Lebedev had to say:

Explicating the basic standings of the electromagnetic theory of light Maxwell (1873) has paid attention also to those forces which arise to us as ponderomotive forces in every magnetically- or electrically-polarized medium: necessity of existence of these forces inevitably follows from his theory in any bundle of rays also, and Maxwell tells us:
In a medium in which waves are propagated there is a pressure in the direction normal to the wave, and numerically equal to the energy contained in unit of volume.

Maxwell's equations is precisely what Lebedev wanted to test, and here is his final conclusion:

The observed forces of light pressure, within limits of observational errors, are quantitatively equal to the Maxwell-Bartoli forces of pressure of a radiant energy.
Thus the existence of the Maxwell-Bartoli forces of pressure has been established for the light beams experimentally.

http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src/lebedev01/eng.pdf
So what did he just say?
He said that light has a pressure equal to the pressure predicted by Maxwell.

Using authorities to conceal your own fallacies is not a good idea, altonhare. You'd do better if you tried to learn from them.
Note what Michelson said about wave theory: It "satisfies all requirements without the necessity for accessory hypotheses".

This is more than can be said about your theory.
You still haven't provided any observational or experimental support for it.

[altonhare]

I used sound to demonstrate that waves can exert pressure and got this response:

-Klypp

Okay, if light is like sound then there must be something waving. What is waving?

You still haven't provided any observational or experimental support for it.

-Klypp

A dual strand rope has ALL the properties assigned to light! It transmits a signal rectilinear. It has a number of links per unit length (frequency). Tell me again, what observation is NOT consistent with the rope hypothesis? So far you have not named a single one!

[altonhare]

Altonhare,
The server I connect through occasionally does not allow me to view youtube videos, but I was finally able to observe the entire "light" video you referenced.

I appreciate your attention and effort .

Your ropes and my vectors have identical characterizations! The interconnectivity of all atoms in the universe at every scale via these light field vectors is the ultimate unified field.

A vector is not a something but a relationship among somethings. It is a concept and not an object itself. Vectors don't interconnect everything anymore than anger punches people or peace brings people together. Anger doesn't punch people, angry persons punch stupid persons. There must be an physical object at the root of every theory of physics.

However I absolutely agree that the universe must be physically interconnected. There is no other way to produce a convergent universe. For a discussion of convergence/divergence see this thread:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... ent#p12481

My 2nd post on the first page.

I'm not sure from the video whether you are espousing instantaneous action across distance {Grandma?} as I do... let's keep dialoguing on this for further clarification.

-webolife

What Bill proposes implies instantaneous transmission because his rope is a single continuous object (when a continuous object moves, it moves as a single entity, whether its other end is 1 inch away or 1000 light-years). However, Bill proposes that the rope, although continuous, has an inherent flexibility anyway. I find this fallacious/arbitrary. I propose that the rope is made of smaller ball/socket joints that allow it to wind around itself and give it, as a whole, flexibility (although each join (chink) in the chain is perfectly continuous, unbreakable, and undeformable). You can read additional detail on this in the threads dedicated to TT.

I have been studying the light pressure view now since early 1980's, and have gained significant additional insights since coming to these EU forums. Off hand, I would say that my original reconciliation of my vectors with JL's energy vortices manifested itself to me as a picture that is from what I can tell exactly like your ropes.

-webolife

What is energy? Also, you'll need to define your vector in terms of physical objects for me to know what you're talking about.

And to answer your question directly, I have found no significant challenge to my unified field view on this forum. Some have argued wave and particle theories as fact, and disputed my conclusions with that kind of "logic", but no one has presented any evidence-based argument that disproves it.

-webolife

That's odd, nobody seems remotely interested in the theory as I present it. Junglelord claims his theory is correct but cannot define a single word in it. I am not a hypocrite, you can find a clear and unambiguous definition for every strategic word I've used. Junglelord will not define exist, object, universe, energy, time, motion, field, dimension, etc. etc. even though his entire theory is built upon these words!

Rigorous definitions are the bedrock of a theory. The only people who are scared of them are the ones propping their theories up on sensational language, arrogance, and outright dishonesty. Occasionally someone makes an honest mistake, in which case they quickly realize it and no fuss is warranted. They go back and work on their theory until the problem is fixed. If you can define your vector rigorously for me I will choose to accept or reject your theory.

Light is neither a wave, nor a particle, nor a wave-particle duality.

-webolife

Nothing is a duality. Nothing IS a wave. A wave is not what something IS. A wave is what something DOES.

The last valid hypothesis of light that I know of was Newton's corpuscle, which has been shown inconsistent with so many experiments it's unreal. I think it may be the most thoroughly debunked hypothesis in all of physics.

It is what we see when the field fluxes (even the field of a distant star!) causing our local receptor to flux with it. No c-rate is required, no measureable time delay. That supernova you witnessed in the Andromeda galaxy happened as you were watching. Earthshaking.

-webolife

You will need to define your field and your flux for me to evaluate these claim(s). It would also do well for you to define time.

You still haven't provided any observational or experimental support for it.

-Klypp

Klypp: Let's get to the point. Can you name a single observation or experiment that the rope hypothesis is NOT consistent with?

And can you tell me what is waving in your light wave? Every other wave I know of is ultimately based on the relationship of the motion of objects. What are these objects associated with light?

[webolife]

Altonhare,
Thank you for your questions, and keep them coming, by the way.
Your persistent insistence upon an "object" to create a force is interesting... have you tried reversing your thinking to answer the question: Can forces produce an object? Your logic seems rather like trying to prove that gravity is an attractive force by asserting that somehow fundamental "objects" emit "gravitons" which interact with neighboring "objects" to somehow produce an attraction. Quite circular. I'm not saying you think this, but perhaps you do... It doesn't sound like TT. Simply put, a vector is an element of force detected in the interaction between two or more "objects". It matters not whether you picture the atomic domain or astronomic... the field is the basically spheric zone around an object in which the o"bject" has "polity", ie its charge and/or mass are greater than that of other "objects" in the sphere. All fields at every scale can be described in terms of pressure centropically directed. The centroid of the field, your alleged "objects", need not actually be densely occupied, as multiple objects in some fields may combine effects to produce a virtual centroid, as in the case of the centroid of a basketball. The virtual centroid, which may also be in existence at the center of a galaxy or star cluster, for example, behaves as though it were the center of a great deal of mass, yet no "object" need be found there. EU makes it clear that electrical current may operate in the absence of huge coagulations of "mass" such as "black holes." Vectors are simply the fundamental units of that pressure field. As regarding light, a light source becomes "phenomenal" when an element of it, electrons say, collapse under centropy [aka entropy] to a lower potential. This instantaneously changes the potential of the entire field, which we "see" as light. In other words, light is the change of pressure in the field detected at a peripheral point, as the force/vector is directed toward the light source/sink. It is not due to any sort of "impact" either by waves or particles... your ropes seem to act in a similar fashion, if I am getting the idea. Did you actually ask me to define time? My view of energy is very simple (way too simple for most folks around here)... Every energy exchange can be viewed in terms of conservation of PE and KE, with a net entropic (centropic) effect.
In general energy is conserved in the universe at any scale, by the dynamic equilibrium of centropic pressure and angular momentum. Unlike most folks at this site, I have no probablem using gravitation as a model for other forces/effects in the universe. EU handily fills a niche in what I view as the unified field of the universe. No "big bangs", "black holes", or "dark matter and energy" are needed to explain the fundamental connectivity of the universe at every scale, from the so-called Casimir effect to the crystalline lattice of supergalactic structures. And light is that aspect of the unified field which our "eyes" are "tuned" to detect.
IMHO

[altonhare]

Your persistent insistence upon an "object" to create a force is interesting... have you tried reversing your thinking to answer the question: Can forces produce an object?

-webolife

Objects do not "create" forces. The object hits the object. Force is something I measure by virtue of how I define it. To define force I must first define mass and acceleration (and by extension time). At best I can measure the force exerted on one object by another. I sure as hell can't measure the object one force exerts on another force. Hard to read that sentence because it's nonsensical. Forces do not "create" anything. In physics (as well as standard written english), only concrete nouns may be proceeded by verbs.

There are two definitions of mass, absolute mass (number of some reference object, a static quantity of matter) and inertial mass (resistance to motion).

Absolute Mass (Physics): The number of continuous objects composing a discontinuous object.
Inertial mass (Mathematics/Measurement): Vi is the measured velocity of the object where each increment/decrement of i indicates a single unit increase or decrease of velocity. Vmax is the assumed maximum velocity of the object. The inertial mass is then:

1/(1-(Vi2/Vmax2))

This is a mathematical expression of the observation that, the faster an object moves, the more difficult it is to deflect from its path. When we quantify the interactions of objects it behooves us to use inertial mass because it accounts for this fact.

Motion: Two or more locations of an object
Velocity: The distance-traveled by an object A as a reference object B traverses the distance D. The reference object is assumed to be in perfectly uniform motion. So if A traverses the distance 2*D as B traverses D, its velocity is 2.
Time: The inverse of velocity. The distance-traveled by an object A as a reference object B traverses the distance D. So if A travels 2*D as B travels D then it took A (1/2) a unit of time.
Acceleration: The difference between the velocity of object A as a reference object traverses D, then traverses D again. So if the object A in the previous example then goes 3*D as B traverses D again, its acceleration is 1.

Your logic seems rather like trying to prove that gravity is an attractive force by asserting that somehow fundamental "objects" emit "gravitons" which interact with neighboring "objects" to somehow produce an attraction. Quite circular. I'm not saying you think this, but perhaps you do... It doesn't sound like TT.

-webolife

There is absolutely positively no particle that mediates the observation known as gravity. The force of pull is only possible with extended objects such as ropes and chains. Read my latest post in "the issue of exist resolved" or "problems with thread theory" or "details of thread theory".

Our entire world is interconnected by a dual-strand entwined antiparallel chain. One strand of the chain converges at the nucleus and the other wraps around it. Every atom pulls on every other atom via this chain, and the chain is taut. Light must propagate rectilinear along this chain by definition. You may want want to watch Bill Gaede's H atom to help make this clear:

H-atom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E- ... re=related

It would be best if you could watch his magnetism/gravity videos too, but I know your connection is not great. I will link them anyway.

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

Gravitation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QmsngMRpE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

If you can only watch one gravity video, watch the second.

Simply put, a vector is an element of force detected in the interaction between two or more "objects". It matters not whether you picture the atomic domain or astronomic... the field is the basically spheric zone around an object in which the o"bject" has "polity", ie its charge and/or mass are greater than that of other "objects" in the sphere.

-webolife

A vector (mathematical concept) is an element (comprises?, makes up?) a force (mathematical concept?). Do you mean we measure forces and derive vectors from those measurements? Ball A hits ball B and we measure their locations throughout this interaction. We can then quantify the forces involved and what directions they have via this set of locations. We record locations at even intervals of some reference object traversing the distance D. Maybe we have a thousand rocks at a specific height and, as one hits the ground, we record locations and another falls.

The field is a spherical "zone" (region?) around an object. What's it a region of? A region of ether? A region of space? If this region has mass, it must be an object, and so it must have shape. If it has shape it is visualizable. If it has charge, you will need to define charge. Is charge an object? Or is it an interaction among objects (like force).

All fields at every scale can be described in terms of pressure centropically directed. The centroid of the field, your alleged "objects", need not actually be densely occupied, as multiple objects in some fields may combine effects to produce a virtual centroid, as in the case of the centroid of a basketball. The virtual centroid, which may also be in existence at the center of a galaxy or star cluster, for example, behaves as though it were the center of a great deal of mass, yet no "object" need be found there.

-webolife

I'm sorry, I am not sure I can get much past the previous quote without a firmer definition of "field". Is it an object or just a region of space? If it's just a region of space how can it do anything? Only objects can DO things. Force does not hit the ball! The ball hits the ball! We MEASURE force (by measuring locations of the balls!). Force is a defined concept. If you claim that space can do things then it must be an object with shape and you can show me a picture of it.

Vectors are simply the fundamental units of that pressure field.

-webolife

So a vector, a mathematical concept, comprises a pressure "field", which is just an empty region of space? You must realize, in physics, it is the objects themselves that matter. All of mathematics must reference a physical object. Mathematics is DERIVED from objects, not the other way around. When you reverse this, you end up with paradox, duality, and reification.

Did you actually ask me to define time? My view of energy is very simple (way too simple for most folks around here)... Every energy exchange can be viewed in terms of conservation of PE and KE, with a net entropic (centropic) effect.

-webolife

Yes, yes I did ask you to. Time is a fundamental concept of physics. Before we can talk any physics we have to know what we're talking about! I've defined it in addition to several other fundamental physics terms. I can only expect likewise from you. Certainly a theory with rigorous definitions beats any theory that can't define its terms.

You will certainly need to define "energy". If "energy" is an object it has shape and you can show us a picture/model. In this case it can be "exchanged". However if it is just a concept (a dynamic relationship among objects) then it is not energy that is exchanged. There must be some physical objects at the root of every concept.

In general energy is conserved in the universe at any scale, by the dynamic equilibrium of centropic pressure and angular momentum.

-webolife

What actually *is* energy? In terms of objects. If there are no objects involved in defining this word, then the word is meaningless. It refers to a blank board/screen! Why is energy conserved? What is the actual physical/causal mechanism involved in "energy"?

Physics is, first and foremost, the study of objects. If we're not studying objects and the interaction of objects, what are we studying? Objects are inescapable.

And light is that aspect of the unified field which our "eyes" are "tuned" to detect.

-webolife

The observation we associate with light involves the expansion of an electron shell. When it expands all the antiparallel dual-entwined chains attached to the atom are torqued. This torsion propagates down the chain similar to Grandma's clothesline to the atom(s) in your eye, which expand and carry the signal along to your brain. The reason it is so fast is because the links of the chain are *continuous* objects. A continuous object, by definition, moves all of itself simultaneously. So if there were a continuous rod from here to Andromeda and you pushed it a tiny bit, the other end would move simultaneously! There is no getting around this. If there is no space within an object for matter to move into, there can simply be no compression. A continuous object is perfectly rigid and moves as a single piece, by definition. Therefore each link in the chain moves as one. Each link pulls on the next link (I think the links are ball/socket joints). The gap between the ball and the surface of the socket is the distance the link must travel to propagate the signal. Think of a million individual continuous rods from here to Andromeda with some small gap (distance d) between each one. When you push the first one (a light year long or something?) its end will move simultaneously. It will traverse the distance d before impacting the next rod, which will traverse the distance d... etc. So the distance-traveled is 1 million d, not 1 million light-years! This is why light is perceived to be so "fast".

[Drethon]

I used sound to demonstrate that waves can exert pressure and got this response:

-Klypp

Okay, if light is like sound then there must be something waving. What is waving?

You still haven't provided any observational or experimental support for it.

-Klypp

A dual strand rope has ALL the properties assigned to light! It transmits a signal rectilinear. It has a number of links per unit length (frequency). Tell me again, what observation is NOT consistent with the rope hypothesis? So far you have not named a single one!

What is waving? Neutrinos: [url]http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df[\url] (same link as I posted in another reply but hey I think it still applies).

[altonhare]

I used sound to demonstrate that waves can exert pressure and got this response:

-Klypp

Okay, if light is like sound then there must be something waving. What is waving?

You still haven't provided any observational or experimental support for it.

-Klypp

A dual strand rope has ALL the properties assigned to light! It transmits a signal rectilinear. It has a number of links per unit length (frequency). Tell me again, what observation is NOT consistent with the rope hypothesis? So far you have not named a single one!

What is waving? Neutrinos: [url]http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df[\url] (same link as I posted in another reply but hey I think it still applies).

What is aether?

A neutrino: [url]http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df[\url]

As far as the rest, ask any scientist that commonly uses those terms, or don't you believe in any science?

I am not a man of belief or faith. I certainly do not take any particle theory seriously.

Here's what the link has to say about "aether":

But what is the æther? In the vacuum of space, each cubic centimetre is teeming with neutrinos. And since neutrinos are resonant orbiting systems of charge, like all matter, they will respond to the electric force by distorting to form a weak electric dipole aligned with the electric field. The speed of light in a vacuum is therefore a measure of the delay in response of the neutrino to the electric force.

So there isn't really an "aether", there are neutrinos everywhere. I assume these neutrinos are particles. Why would discrete, separate particles orbit each other? If you tie two balls together with string they will orbit, but two separated balls will, at best, bounce off each other and go careening in other directions. What physically keeps the neutrinos together? Charge? What does charge look like and how does it keep billiard-ball like particles together?

Isn't it much simpler to posit that all the atoms in the universe are connected to each other? Light simply propagates along this physical intermediary.

The aether is a useless physical hypothesis. We should give it a quick and painless death.

[seasmith]

by altonhare on Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:16 pm

...I assume these neutrinos are particles ...

So what exactly are neutrinos ??

~

[altonhare]

by altonhare on Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:16 pm

...I assume these neutrinos are particles ...

So what exactly are neutrinos ??

~

That's what I wanna know!

[kevin]

Seasmith asked "What are neutrinos"
I just thought that they sounded like sweets, I nearly fell off my chair when I found that they are referred to as Differnt flavor neutrinos.
But the handness caught my attention.
Kevin

[Drethon]

Based on the article linked in (or maybe I read it elsewhere ) a neutrino is said to be a particle of matter that is derived of all electrical charge which gives it 0 mass, basically the base unit of matter. When given charge, the neutrino becomes a particle with mass, ex electron(-), proton(+), neutron (+/-, I think...) or potentially a subatomic particle.

An interesting theory anyway.

[altonhare]

Based on the article linked in (or maybe I read it elsewhere ) a neutrino is said to be a particle of matter that is derived of all electrical charge which gives it 0 mass, basically the base unit of matter. When given charge, the neutrino becomes a particle with mass, ex electron(-), proton(+), neutron (+/-, I think...) or potentially a subatomic particle.

An interesting theory anyway.

So it is an object with 0 mass. An object, by definition, has mass.

"Derived of electrical charge": So what does this charge look like? Is it a concept or an object?

"Given charge": Who/what gives this mass-less non-entity charge and thus imbues it with mass and converts the non-entity into an entity?

In order to engage in scientific discussion we have to define the words we will use. If we do not define them then they are just meaningless, detached symbols. Such squawking could never lead to any actual understanding.

So define charge, particle, and matter. Then we may know what this theory means.

[seasmith]

altonhare on Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:16 pm

...I assume these neutrinos are particles ...



So what exactly are neutrinos ??

~



That's what I wanna know!

mi centavo:

Neutrinos-
Humans’ nearly quantified, objectified, rationalized detection of what has historically,
collectively, generically been called the Aether ?

s