Space News: What can matter be?

[Webbman]

no, only similar in name.

the premise of the electromagnetic strand is the formation of the electron by way of a loop, where a loop can regulate its energy and a string cannot and the formation of alignment, where you would consider heat to be the most unaligned, and electricity/magnetism to be the most aligned.

It is an electrical theory, has nothing to do with relativity, spacetime, quantum, and other magic.

it defines fields with matter, since electromagnetic strands are matter of minimal size, defines the aether as a basic building block from which all other matter arises, gives the answer for the wave and particle properties of light as well as lights interactions with other matter and as far as I'm concerned more adequately describes what is going on around us.

its simple enough to work.

[fosborn_]

defines fields with matter

But what defines the matter?

[Webbman]

the building block. The electromagnetic strand itself.

the shapes is what determines the matter.

-a loop of any size is an electron ring, a circuit.
-a ball of strands wound forms a proton. The electron come first, which is why the proton is the size it is.
-the two imbed to form a neutron.
-any electron loop which has been torsioned is a form of light.

-free strands exist everywhere as if you were a fish in water, though they are more dense in some places and less so in others.

strands get cause up in higher matter geometries and that's how we end up with alignments, or electricity.

all strands seek equilibrium and this overall flow of energy determines other things like the direction of gravity. The earth has an attractive gravity because the net flow of energy is to the earth at all times. The sun would be repulsive since it has too much energy and the flow goes the other way.

[fosborn_]

Webbman » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:02 pm

the building block. The electromagnetic strand itself.

the shapes is what determines the matter.

-a loop of any size is an electron ring, a circuit.

What causes the EM ring to form? What Un equal potentials cause a circuit to be sustained?

[Webbman]

originally rings formed at random but it is my belief that electrons are formed in the sun not at random but through some form of high energy rotation.

the difference between a looped and unlooped strand is where the energy translates to. In unlooped strands the energy cannot be conserved and thus the energy is translated wildly. The loop or ring can conserve energy by regulating the translation and thus the loop can conserve its energy somewhat but is still subject to external contact.

this ability to conserve and regulate is where frequency originates. This makes the loop not only more stable than the strand energy wise, but also allows for energy loading, regulation, and geometry (spinning loop aka sphere).

so loops can take in a lot of energy but don't give up much unless the loop is broken. This is the origin of the potential difference. Electron loops always have an advantage regulation wise and thus compared to free strands have a higher potential difference.

this is also why a proton behaves the way it does, because the proton is the "ball of yarn" but not a loop, but it is many many many times longer and thus more dense than the electron loop, and as such with all strands always trying to reach equilibrium, is a great sink or ground for energy but since it cannot hold on to it like the electron , just like any free strand its always at a loss.

so the ball of yarn has a sheathe of free strand spikes where all strands adjacent to the "mass" direct their movement toward the mass (because the requirement for equilibrium). At the edge of this spike like sheathe electron rings fit perfectly for whatever reason (I imagine protons come after electrons so that makes sense since the hole in the ring would determine the size of the proton.) For whatever reason that size is an electron ring with 2 strands which almost perfectly fits the proton and its free strand sheath or the first orbital.

from the ring then all energy is directed toward the mass but the energy doesn't transfer without an external collision because the ring conserves and regulated its energy into a waveform or a frequency as sort of an internal equilibrium. As such protons are always looking for energy and electrons have an abundance of it.

light come when you torsion an electron ring of whatever size. Its degree of torsion determines its wavelength and energy same way you twist up a rubber band. its trajectory comes from its spring like shape and it transfers some energy (remember its a loop and can conserve like the electron) on contact. So unless it hits something it doesn't lose its energy and because its torsioned it no longer behaves like an electron. Take away the torsion and its an electron again, which is why they are so friendly to each other.

obviously I have no proof, if you were wondering, but that's the way I see it.

[fosborn_]

obviously I have no proof, if you were wondering, but that's the way I see it.

Perhaps if you gave a sequence of events that formed these concepts for you, it might give some context to your thinking.
For instance for the standard model I think it started with radium corrupting film, then someone held a magnet close by an inclosed source in a lead enclosure with a barreled exit port and there were attraction particles and deflection particles and Un affected particles showing up on the film. How would your torsion strands explain this?

[Webbman]

I have a hard time believing that 19 or however many particles they have dreamed up somehow manage to form 3 particles and then hundreds of elements and millions of compounds.

even the most basic logic would dictate that there should be less than 3 primordial particles and ideally only one structure that would make everything else.

their model of particles is simply too complex.

some folk have a way with their words because they have a problem wit duality and in the case of the "standard model" I think spin is just that.

[fosborn_]

I have a hard time believing that 19 or however many particles they have dreamed up somehow manage to form 3 particles and then hundreds of elements and millions of compounds.

even the most basic logic would dictate that there should be less than 3 primordial particles and ideally only one structure that would make everything else.

their model of particles is simply too complex.

some folk have a way with their words because they have a problem wit duality and in the case of the "standard model" I think spin is just that.

Please enlighten me to this most basic logic ? why just 2 ?

by Webbman »..obviously I have no proof, if you were wondering, but that's the way I see it.

I'm liking QFT at the moment, but based on your admitting no experimental proof, I don't understand your implied confidence in your mind experiment and discounting accepted models.

[Webbman]

its there for you to ponder. Take from it what you will.

[fosborn_]

its there for you to ponder. Take from it what you will.

My take on it, is as a tool to play with QFT in a discussion.But here is a lecture that breaks it down as simple as it gets.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
He speaks of the fundemental structure of the universe is " the field" and the electric as primary, from there includes up and down quarks in the three basic ones.
Then leads into the other fields. It is great until he goes off the rails on the current cosmology. So I think yours is so simple, because of the issues your ponderings simply don't include as the Standard Model deals with, as any developed theory would.

[Webbman]

but I can define a field, and they cant.

[Cargo]

magnetic fields exist without plasma. Only electromagnetic strands can account for that without action at a distance.

On the first, I suppose so, but that's kind of irrelevant I think because that's like saying O2 can exist without H2O. I think the real counter point would be, can plasma exist without magnetic fields?

And the second seems disconnected from the first. Since you commingled words. Maybe we should ask instead.

Can magnetic fields exist without electric fields?

[fosborn_]

but I can define a field, and they cant.

this is a nice lecture on the field as in classical physics as well as the quantum field. By the author of a book I'm reading.
https://youtu.be/wgA_0Kxb1fg

[fosborn_]

magnetic fields exist without plasma. Only electromagnetic strands can account for that without action at a distance.

On the first, I suppose so, but that's kind of irrelevant I think because that's like saying O2 can exist without H2O. I think the real counter point would be, can plasma exist without magnetic fields?

And the second seems disconnected from the first. Since you commingled words. Maybe we should ask instead.

Can magnetic fields exist without electric fields?

Only crickets. ..

[Webbman]

so everything is a field....

that you still cant define.

hmm.