Ground Offensive

[These first few posts set the stage for what the level of understanding was at the actual time.]
Rduke 7/8/2008 [833]
I myself am the self appointed raving street prophet of the Electric Universe Paradigm…
Not to make this sound like a cult or anything… but it is very important that you grasp this at the fundamental levels. So you do not tell people the wrong information. As in my experiance — even when you soak people with the information, only some of it sticks…and if you goof up and say the wrong term or even something incongruous with the EUP (Electric Universe Paradigm).. that is the part that will stick in their minds and you will be forced to blast it out of there with bolts of conversation, wasting precious time reexplaining stuff that could be spent on exploring new stuff.

Pink swan 9/9/2008 [833]
This is not meant as a criticism. I just want to point out that I’d like to see someone fix the heading under the place at the top that says Thunderbolts Forum, then right under that it says “For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology themes.” It would be nice if that could be centered, and I know there is a way because I’ve put these types of php boards together before.

Also, why is the “Origin of Myths” forum locked, and why hasn’t David Talbott posted more about the Anunnaki as promised? I understand there could be many reasons for the delay, but right now this is what I’m the most interested in.

Edcrater 9/9/2008 [982]
S1. In some rare pictures, a helical line or lines can be seen attached to the sun. This is assumed to be the Birkeland current supplying it. But in most pictures, eg SOHO, it cannot be seen. Why?

Edcrater 9/9/2008 [982]
S2. Given that a Birkeland current connects the sun to other stars, what happens when the orbit of one of the planets takes it close to or intersects the Birkeland current? Does this happen often? Has it ever happened? Could this be responsible for any of the catastrophes of the ancients? Is it predictable? Would the banking system be affected?

Kicklabuka 9/10/2008
S2. I think the stars are connected by sharing magnetic field lines. For the sun, this zone extends beyond pluto. Birkland currents would cause these stars to revolve with respect to each other. I think the catastrophies, valles marineris on mars, and the grand canyon on earth were the result of an intruder passing to close to them. My guess is the same intruder, which is now long gone.

Edcrater 9/9/2008 [982]
S3. Is there a mathematical/physical proof/lab test that the energy emitted from the sun can be accounted for solely by arc discharge?
Kicklabuka 9/10/2008
S3. I think radioactive isotope decay is causing the luminosity and the heat energy. Electrical Z-pinches may aide the trigger of certain fusion reactions. The rotation, flow of electrons at the poles, and acceleration of the particles leaving the sun are due to electricity and magnetism.

Edcrater 9/9/2008 [982]
S4. Is there a mathematical/physical proof/lab test that the energy emitted from the sun can be accounted for solely by the establishment’s core/high temperature/fusion model?

Edcrater 9/9/2008 [982]
S5. Oliver Manuel says the sun is formed on the core of a supernova, a neutron star. This idea fits with the core model, though in an extreme way. Helioseismology claims that there is no core, which fits nicely with the PEU model of a plasma ball. Surely there must be some ‘forensic’ test to resolve such an enormous dichotomy?

Kicklabuka 9/10/2008 [982]
S5. Oliver Manuel’s work in identifying the composition of the sun will change the entire field.

Edcrater 9/9/2008 [982]
S6. Is there a lower limit on mass for a star in the PEU? Thus, could something as small as Uranus or Neptune ‘light up’ if it were provided with a Birkeland current, say from a passing current vendor?

Kicklabuka 9/10/2008 [982]
S6. Before I read Professor Manuel’s work, I thought planets were just small stars, under such a critical mass. Now that we know the solar system was created by a supernova explosion ~5Gy ago, there must be two types of stars. Those that have undergone a supernova event, and those that have not. I’d really like to discuss this a lot. I don’t know if there’s enough information to determine critical conditions, because it is difficult to agree on the basics.

Mgmirkin 9/14/2008 [982]
I’m not sold on the “neutron star”-core idea.

Kicklabuka 9/10/2008 [833]
I would also like to get involved, and I would like the questions posed in my only two other posts to be addressed, at least your thoughts and remarks. I’m quite used to being called wacko, and a true drinker of the kool-aid, so in this time of discovery, it is very isolating.

Mgmirkin 9/14/2008

My understanding is that in the Electric Universe view there is not a minimum mass to stars, as the EU does not generally accept an internal fusion model. IE, EU stars ar eteh focus of discharges and are engated in glow and/or arc discharges. However, in the ES model, there are no minimum temperature or mass requirements because the star is inherently electrical to start with. In the ES model (if a brown/red dwarf is operating near the upper boundary of the dark currnt mode), a slight increase in the level of total current impincing on that star will move it into the normal glow mode.

As it stands, the Sun is currently the focus of this solar system’s current. Though it does also seem to offload some current to the other bodoes (at a minimum, earth) via birkeland currents (field-aligned currents).

I’m not sold on the neutron star core idea. That’s just my personal opinion.

Anonymous 9/14/2008
Without expansion, our observations actually become harder to explain without inventing new physics.
We have to be careful in which context this is used. Expansion is consistent with General Relativity and doesn’t require new physics to describe it. Accelerating expansion, on the other hand, does!

KickLaBuka » Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 am [999]
All,

I apologize for demanding feedback on the toughest questions in nature. At the time, I did not understand the dance. The observations actually become harder to explain without inventing new physics. That new physics, my friends, is what I intend to show. Wait for it.

-Justin Sandburg
KickLaBuka
Guest

Trooper Jenack 2/11/2009
On september 14, 2008, “I observed a black BMW headed in my direction northbound, at a high rate of speed”

Ms. Kyriakopoulos
“Did you make a visual estimate of this uh black BMW?”

Trooper Jenack
“yes ma’am”, “95 miles per hour,” “Upon taking the reading, he came by me at a very high rate of speed. I pulled over on the right shoulder of the road, made sure it was clear to turn, turned on him, activated my lights and activated a traffic stop.”

Ms. Kyriakopoulos
And what did you do once the vehicle complied? What, if anything, did the driver say to you?

Trooper Jenack
I asked him why he was travelling at sucha high rate of speed. And he informed me that he was headed to a University because he had a theory that would save the world.’ “he really didn’t have an excuse for why he was going so fast besides that, and at that point, I issued him the ticked.

Mr. Sandburg
Did you consider me an external threat?

Trooper Jenack
No sir.

Mr. Sandburg
At the time of the traffic stop did I make a statement to you that “the sun is heating up, the bees are dying, the bats are dying, I like fruits and vegetables, and I don’t like mosquitoes?”

Trooper Jenack
I don’t recall that.

Kicklabuka 9/15/2008
On a hunch, please draw the tolman graph with emperical data for ONLY the lamda where Z=1 through Z=>7That is, lamda on the x axis and erg/(cm^2 x second) ONly for when Z=1 through >7I suggest you will see a very nice curve with emperical data.

Anonymous 9/15/2008
Who are you talking to?
Anonymous 9/15/2008
I think to himself

9/15/2008 – 9/22/2008
This is the patient’s first psychiatric inpatient treatment. On admission, he was acutely psychotic, overly productive, quite irrelevant, and grandiose. GAF on admission 30. [by definition, behavior is considerably influenced by delusions or hallucinations or serious impairment in communications or judgment or inability to function in all areas] He was just jumping from one topic to another. Temperature 97.4, pulse 58, respiration 16, blood pressure 145/104, O2 sat 98% on room air. Patient is alert and oriented x3. He is cooperative with the examination. Pulses are 2+ and equally bilateral. Glucose 92, sodium 136, potassium 4.5, chloride 101, bicarb 27.9, BUN and creatine were 17 and 1.07. ALT 12, AST 18. CBC white blood count 7.84. Hemglobin and hematocrit were 15.6 and 45.3. Platelet count 269.
He had a CT scan of the head, a sleep deprived EEG.

Mr. Sandburg
“after the traffic stop, Officer Jenack let me go and I continued on my way to uhm, save the world. The following day….”

Ms. Kyriakopoulos
Objection. Relevance.

The court.
Sir, we’re dealing only with the traffic stop

Mr. Sandburg
Your Honor, I appeal to show that I am not guilty by means of diminished responsibility, that I lacked the culpable mental state which negates the elements of men’s wrath.

Ms. Kyriakopoulos
Objection. This is a strict liability. Rea has no part in this.

Email: transcription services. I did have a comment. The term I used was mens rea. It’s latin for guilty mind.

Email: Unfortunately I cannot make that change

The court
I have to sustain her objection. This is a vehicle and traffic offense, this is not a crime in the state of new york.

Ms. Kyriakopoulos
Vehicle and traffic law is a strict liability, either you do or you don’t. For a mens rea crime its when you have an intent or when you have to form a recklessness or something of that nature, and there’s nothing of that nature in this crime or in this traffic ticket.

Mr. Sandburg
Well, I believe that my mental state at the time is appropriate. And I believe it should be admissible.

The court
Under new york state law sir it is not admissible in a vehicle offense.

10/6/2008 Outpatient psychologist
There is little doubt that Mr. Sandburg’s judgment was severely impared by virtue of his mental disorder which impacts behavior, thinking, and affect. Mr. Sandburg’s behavior resulting in a speeding violation was the direct result of his mental disorder. At this time, Mr. Sandburg’s symptoms are minimal and do not affect his ability to drive.

11/13/2008 Outpatient Psychiatrist#1
Mr. Sandburg was ticketed on his way to University to “save the world, because the bees are dying, the bats are dying, and the sun is heating up.” It is obvious from this description of his thought process and behavior that he was still manic at the time and with grandiose thinking that is typical of this maladie. Speeding is also typical of behavior of this condition. Presently, after hospitalization and follow up treatment he is again in touch with reality and obeys the law and is back to a productive life in society.

Sandburg Brief 8/3/2009
The driver’s responsibility assessment is beyond a harsher penalty for a repeated offense. It is a violation of the 8th amendment to the constitution by charging someone twice for a previous crime, “cruel and unusual punishment.” The NYS law already increases fines for a second or third speed violation. The extra fine from the DMV, tag-teeming and piggy backing, is Unconstitutional.

County Court of Appeals 11/20/2009
The court imposed a sentence of $350, plus $85 in court fees and surcharges. While the court also advised defendant that the DMV would impose an additional $900 civil assessment, that assessment was not part of the fine, nor was it imposed by the court.

10/15/2008: to the district attorney
To my recent awareness, this behavior has been triggered by a mental illness. Attached is a copy of the hospital records.

Town Court 3/14/2009
Moving to the issue of the defendant’s mental state. Speeding is a strict liability crime and culpability does not factor into it. While the defendant alluded to some mental state, he appeared twice previously in this court and was both times lucid, well spoken, and appeared to understand the proceedings. The court, while not mental health trained, at no time detected any abnormalities or strange behaviors on the defendant’s part.

Sandburg Brief 8/3/2009
It is a violation of substantive due process by generalizing a particular line of cases, and by signifying a particular attitude towards judicial review. The justice court abused its discretion, substantive due process by deciding the admissibility based solely on an incorrect application of law. This is a liberty based due process challenge where the Justice court sought a certain outcome instead of merely contesting procedures and their effects. Presentation of the mental impairment is a constitutionally based liberty which renders laws seeking to limit said liberty unenforceable. Denying the admissibility of a supreme court ruled affirmative defense, a mental defect, the court violated a fundamental due process, worthy of strict scrutiny.

The defense admitted to taking several steps towards mental health improvement already by the time of the first encounter with the town justice. The fact that Justice Lamson has made his own mental assessment while at the same time disallowing a psychiatric assessment made within 24 hours of the violation shows both his ignorance and that of His Court’s.

County court of appeals 11/20/2009
Appellant’s second argument is that the trial court erred in not allowing him to present evidence of a mental disease or defect to the speeding charge. It is clear from the record on appeal that the defendant did not serve and file any pre-trial notice of his desire to present such a defense. While the appellant has included various of his own psychiatric treatment records, nothing shows how those diagnoses would have been relevant to a defense of the speeding charge if the court had permitted such testimony. The trial record is devoid of any competent proof that the defendant suffers from such a condition. Appellant has not shown that the trial court either denied him a fair trial by refusing to admit competent evidence of his claimed mental disease or defect, or that the trial court reached a verdict which was against the weight of the evidence.

The judgment in the town court, therefore affirmed. So ordered.

[back to the day of hospitalization]

Kicklabuka 9/15/2008
On a hunch, please draw the tolman graph with emperical data for ONLY the lamda where Z=1 through Z=>7That is, lamda on the x axis and erg/(cm^2 x second) ONly for when Z=1 through >7I suggest you will see a very nice curve with emperical data.

Anonymous 9/15/2008
Who are you talking to?
Anonymous 9/15/2008
I think to himself

9/15-9/22 Hospitalization report

While in the hospital, he continued to be acutely psychotic initially, but this seemed to have been under good control. He continued to improve. He started to interact with the other patients, attending group activities and participating in some. At no time was he a severe behavior problem other than initially he was acutely psychotic. He was started on Depakote ER
Date Name Type Cost
9/14/2008 New York State Trooper N/A
9/15-9/22 Psychiatrist, MD. 440.23
2008 Insurance Deductable
9/22/2008 Required Prescription Depakote ER (qty. 60) 30
9/22/2008 Required Prescription Trazodone (30) 4
10/2/2008 Clinical Psychologist, PhD.
10/6/2008 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. 20
10/8/2008 Presiding Judge N/A
10/14/2008 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. 20
10/21/2008 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. 20
10/21/2008 Required Prescription Divalproex (generic qty. 30) 15
10/21/2008 Required Prescription Trazodone (30) 4
10/27/2008 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. 20
10/28/2008 Psychiatrist, MD. 20
10/28/2008 Required Prescription Depakote ER (qty. 15) 30
11/4/2008 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. – x4
11/6/2008 Required Prescription Depakote ER (qty. 180) 60
11/6/2008 Required Blood Laboratory 27.23
11/8/2008 NYS Driver’s safety course 40
11/10/2008 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. –
11/12/2008 Psychiatrist, MD. 20
11/18/2008 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. –
11/19/2008 Presiding Judge N/A
11/24/2008 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. –
12/1/2008 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. –
12/11/2008 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. –
12/11/2008 Psychiatrist, MD. 20
12/11/2008 Required Prescription Divalproex (generic qty. 30) 15
12/17/2008 Required Blood Laboratory 214.19
12/20/2008 Bio-Feedback, Nutritionist 600
12/22/2008 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. –
2009 Justin Sandburg Insurance Deductable 600
1/5/2009 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. 80
1/5/2009 Required Prescription Trazodone (30) 4
1/7/2009 Psychiatrist, MD. 70
1/7/2009 Required Prescription Ambien (30), Depakote (90) 45
1/12/2009 Clinical Psychologist, PhD.
1/20/2009 Clinical Psychologist, PhD. 200 x 6
1/20/2009 Essential Fatty Acids 62.07
1/26/2009 Psychiatrist, MD.
1/26/2009 Required Prescription Seroquel (120) 30
1/27/2009 Clinical Psychologist, PhD.
2/3/2009 Clinical Psychologist, PhD.
2/10/2009 psychiatrist
2/10/2009 Psychiatrist, MD.
2/11/2009 Required Blood Laboratory
2/11/2009 Required Prescription
2/11/2009 Town Court
2/17/2009Clinical Psychologist, PhD.
2/21/2009 Bio-Feedback, Nutritionist

Anonymous 9/16/2008
But does anyone know what he is talking about?
What this might have to do with expansion of the universe, red shift, general relativity or the price of eggs in China is a mystery to me.
I think I know what to do about the intimate knowledge of partial differential equations, calculus, linear algebra, and Fourier series. But I have no idea how he intends that such knowledge be applied.

Anonymous 9/16/2008
I think this is a fair assessment. KickLaBuka came into the “Expanding Universe” thread, asking questions about the evidence that the universe is expanding. He seemed to be claiming that he had developed his own solution for increasing redshift that did not require an expanding universe, a solution that didn’t require unknown forces. We pointed out that redshift is not the only evidence for an expanding universe and went on to explain some other kinds of data that support expansion – the time-dilation of SN1a supernovae and the angular diameter-redshift relationship. I asked if his solution could account for the other data that supports the expansion view.

Anonymous 9/17/2008
I have no idea what the connection with [nuclides] or tolman excercises/graphs might be (or what a tolman exercise or graph is). I’m not quite sure what the problem is, but I am pretty sure that the mathematical disciplines that he mentioned, with which I am quite familiar, are not the heart of the problem.

Anonymous 9/17/2008
He is referring to the Tolman Surface Brightness Test but the connection with [nuclides] has lost me.

Anonymous 9/19/2008
Thanks for the clarification. That test strikes me as something that looked like a promising idea when proposed, and a logical approach. But it appears that it did not work out as definitively or cleanly as Tolman might have anticipated. I’m not sure what conclusions can really be reached from the observations. The brief description in the Wiki article makes it sound like people who have tried to apply the test in practice are reaching a bit.

Anonymous 9/20/2008
The way I see it is this. We have observed an apparent increase in angular size at high redshift, and if the theory is correct we should also see the surface brightness of those galaxies dim by a certain factor. Surface brightness is a test for the mass of the galaxy, relative to its size, used to help establish the absolute size of the object.
We see a dimming in the surface brightness, but not as much as expected. So we have to ask whether a galaxy of a given mass was the same size then as it would be now. Were galaxies actually larger in the past, or not?

9/22/2009 Hospitalization Report
. GAF on discharge 50-55. [by definition, moderate symptoms or any moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning]

Kicklabuka 9/23/2008
Chemistry ignores everything inside the valence shell, even though the space between the electrons and the nucleus cause emission which is unique even for atoms of the same valance. I couldn’t help but make the connection to the very large emission that you speak of in the observational study of the Universe.
The Hypothesis I’m developing will account for emission, and graph it as a function of enclosed mass and enclosed charge, as well as the time to get to the observer. Simply, the interaction between mass and charge density, on every scale. It’s scary to think about, but maxwell’s mathematics make it pretty simple if we can develop the equation using observational data on both the small and large extremes. That’s where the tolman surface brightness test comes into play. Since distance was assumed in accepted cosmology, we have to retreat to direct observational data. From Z=1 to Z>7, the size of the galaxies get larger because there is less charge density (electromagnetic fields) holding them in place. This is simply as far as we can see, and we can utilize this data along with known data of atomic forces to help draw the constants in the equation.
Call me crazy if you want; it’s been done plenty. I call it electromass and I’m open to any questions.

Kicklabuka 9/24/2008 [982]

I believe a combination of Oliver Manuel’s composition and Ralph Jeurgen’s electric sun is required. Rather than gravitational pressure, double layers of protons escaping and electrons “finding them” create external pressure on every layer of the sun. H+ is allowed to leave in each case (with the required escape velocity or force), and a heavy neutron rich elements are collapsed to the core.

At every scale, the electron shells pressing and holding the major mass is evident in emission. This has implications from particle physics, basic chemistry, and cosmolgy. If too many electrons are allowed to participate, the field dips at the poles where the momentum is lower, and in each scale, an electroostatic discharge can result. Etc.

KickLaBuka » Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:21 pm [999]
OK.

There’s a couple turning points in nature. One is when keplers laws are overcome by charge in motion. The other is when charge becomes too great for the surface are on which it is riding–where we see an electrostatic discharge–SN event if you like.

The solar system is riding the first fine line, and our calculations for mass of each of these planets may be off based on the oldest assumption, electricity has no place in the cosmos.
KickLaBuka
Guest

Kicklabuka 9/27/2008
The sun draws its negative current from the south pole, where its magnetic field lines straighten out. There’s more activity there because of the H+ + e- collisions. The positive charge leaving the sun is stronger at the equator, but lines around 30 degrees down and 30 degrees up from the poles has more activity due to its toroidal belts (less resistance to bombardment).

This is just my opinion based on some reading. Take what you like, challenge what you don’t like, and we’ll all come out on top.

Mgmirkin 10/1/2008

The primary currents in Alfven’s diagram seem to be flowing into the sun axially along the poles and out along the equatorial plane (more-or-less). So, it would seem like the current would impinge first upon the sun from “above / below”, and then be distributed radially to impinge on the planets as solar wind emissions.

I don’t think do, as “current” (strength / direction in electrical diagrams) doesn’t care about whether protons are flowing on way, electrons are flowing the opposite direction or both are flowing in opposite directions in the same circuit diagram. [this shows that mass is ignored at this point in their EU research]

Kicklabuka 10/1/2008

Electrons are required for each reaction. The sun is rotating from left to right from our view in a 27.3 day cycle. As the charged shells rotate, current is drawn in from the south pole. Current likes the sun from the north pole, but the greater flux is from the south. The electrons flow in like roots of an onion, and surround each shell as requirements for the reactions. Double layers between onion shells. H+ is always a bi-product and always escapes out radially. It’s just like you said. It’s just like that great link [alfven’s diagram] described. But the heat and luminosity come from these chemical reactions, forced by excess charge density on the shells.

Redeye 10/2/2008 [982]
If all the planets are connected to the sun by magnetic flux ropes (Birkeland currents), and I think they will be, then there may be a link between the two. Jupiter has an enormous magnetosphere and is clearly the next largest focal point for energy in our Solar System…shouldn’t we expect discharges between these bodies?

Kicklabuka 10/3/2008 [982]
I think some of the planets will have magnetic field ropes. Others (venus, mars) don’t have magnetic fields and truely are revolved by keplers laws, and our masses for them are accurate. But planets like jupiter and uranus are mostly held by these magnetic field ropes, so our calculations for their masses are far off. Earth is a perfect balance between keplers laws and those of rotating charges.

Kicklabuka 10/3/2008 [1062]
If someone would please direct me to some reading material: What are the different causes for red-shift? I heard once that there were seven known.

Guesses:
distance
charge density
velocity
various heliopauses bending it
temperature

Osmosis 10/3/2008 [1062]
KickLaBuka, You may want to get Alton Arp’s book, “Seeing Red”.

Mgmirkin 10/8/2008 [1062]
Assume you meant Halton Arp. ;o]
As mentioned elsewhere, I think, the Wolf Effect may be another method of spectral shift.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Wolf_effect
Plasma Redshift is a theoretical redshift mechanism as well…
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.ph … a_redshift
I seem to recall there was some list of other options I’d run across at some point in the past, but I don’t recall where. Many of them were quite speculative, however…

James weninger 11/14/2008
Don’t forget magnetism! The article on magnetars (Scientific American vol 14 number 4 special edition “The Secret Lives of Stars” 2004) shows how strong magnetic fields can cause light waves to change speed and wavelength.

Gaza. 11/7/08

Junglelord 12/17/2008
I imagine the sun could very well be made of Iron.
[this shows the mindset at the time]

Junglelord 12/24/2008 (black holes don’t exist, say physicists)
Lets begin the lesson.

ric = 0

This is the first thing is important. That means that there is no matter in the black hole.

The main problem is no one reads original work, they just believe what they are told. I suggest you read Maxwell, Schwarschild, Tesla, Birkeland, do not take second hand information from anyone, do your home work and show yourself approved by reading the original.
I always read the original, not someones corrupt rewrite. For instance Heaviside is corrupt and this is sold as Maxwells work over and over.

Influx 12/24/2008

Mathematical constructs do not prove anything, measurable and observable phenomena that agrees with the math, well that might. [important concept]

Tangointhenight 4/15/2009
Thousands of years ago humans had no idea the atom existed. A few hundred years ago we didn’t even know the virus existed.
And with our primitive technology, how can you say black holes don’t exist
Science breaks apart when humans become close minded. [this is right]
Real scientists have open minds even to the most illogical explanation. [this is wrong]

NickC 4/15/2009
While scientists must have open minds, they must also reject that which is illogical for that which has a simpler or more logical explanation.

Tangointhenight 4/23/2009
we don’t know anything, we never been their. Even if the experiments match, doesn’t mean that is how it is up their. Because you have no means of going their and testing it.

Webolife 4/23/2009
Careful, Tango, all we really have as raw data in science is observation. We observe, we perceive patterns and connections, we conceive of interelationships, we build our explanations, then we predict future observations.

Total science 4/23/2009
Black holes and gravitation are absurd myths and gravity is electromagnetic.

StevenO 4/24/2009
Sure…try to replace a myth with a fable. There is no single shred of evidence that gravity has anything to do with electrical, magnetical or EM phenomena…if you have some please point us to it.
Tangointhelight 4/24/2009
We cannot dismiss black holes…. Because we don’t know what’s out their in the universe…. No one knows. The only way to know is to explore the entire universe.

Good luck with that.

N8allan 4/24/2009
Sorry Tango, your logic is flawed and your attitude defeatist. Your last sentence suggests that if we could physically travel the universe we would know all, but even if we could imperviously travel to, say, the center of the sun, we would still be relying on our senses and perhaps tools, to observe the happenings; and we would still be using our judgement to devise or select satisfactory theories. Just because astronomy is a data poor science, does not mean that we can’t form reasonably accurate abstract models, though we must proceed in an extraordinarily cautious manner…… A scientific theory may be disproven at any time, but can never, by definition, be proven. [spot on]

Junglelord 5/30/2009 (black holes don’t exist, say physicists)
I always enjoyed the MECO.
Magnetic Eternally Collapsing Object.
This theory of the MECO is a bright plasmoid.

The MECO theory disputes the Black Hole foolishness and happily supports the EU.

KickLaBuka » Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:21 am [1900]
To all,

Since September, 2008, I have organized the basis of the Electromass concept. It is only 40 pages but with lots of pictures, diagrams, and justifications, acknowledgements for others’ works, and a great section on feedback from the astronomical community. Since this is not published, please send me email addresses and I’ll shoot you a copy. It is 3 megabytes.

My email address is justinbcat@yahoo.com

Best regards,
Justin
KickLaBuka
Guest

Electromass Concept Document
Thursday, June 4, 2009 7:48 PM
From:
“Billy Watkins” View contact details
To:
justinbcat@yahoo.com
#yiv1374438407 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv1374438407 { font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;} RE: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1900

I’d be interested in reviewing your document.

Thanks!

Bill Watkins

6/7/2009 Total Science (a stream of atomic hydrogen coming from the sun)
Looks like Fred Hoyle was right again.

6/7/2009 StephenO (a stream of atomic hydrogen coming from the sun)
I agree that Fred Hoyle is right. There are processes which redistribute matter throughout random locations in the universe, which then become fuel again for new generations of stars. The gravitional energy of their position is finally turned into the heat of a star.

6/7/2009 Lloyd (a stream of atomic hydrogen coming from the sun)
• Extremely Unlikely. What’s extremely likely is that ELECTRICAL forces pull matter into electrical filaments, which forces are the source of the heating of matter.
* Haven’t you folks ever read Juergens’ Electric Sun Model?

6/8/2009 StephenO(a stream of atomic hydrogen coming from the sun)
Briefly, but could’nt find out what would keep the electrons and ions at the star separate.

6/8/2009 mharratsc(a stream of atomic hydrogen coming from the sun)
Why would they need to be separate at the star?

6/8/2009 StephenO(a stream of atomic hydrogen coming from the sun)
To create this current flow that powers the star. I just have no idea how that could possibly work.

6/8/2009 spacetravellor (black holes don’t exist, say physisists)
As below – so above? Is it really that simple?

– With the traditional “scientific thinking”, using all kinds of non sense hyphotesis and phantasie equations on the Cosmos, one maybe will be far better of assuming that “black holes” is just “a cosmic eye in a macrocosmic hurrycane”, very similar to what we can observe on the Earth weather phenomenons.

There is no matter /movement in the middle of the hole/eye, but there is a strong force on the hollow vortex side, either sucking in or pushing out, all depending of which location one is observing the structure.

I really think it´s that easy!

Mgmirkin 6/9/2009 [1937]
The sun’s “core” (one might say anything below the visible outer layers) is as yet somewhat mysterious. It could be isodense ball of gas (some papers by independent researchers not directly affiliated with the Thunderbolts group have speculated that the various oscillations conform to that notion more so than the usual nuclear furance view), it could be a solid, spherical rocky core (as is the contention of, I believe, of Michael Mozina). We simply don’t know at present.

Junglelord 6/10/2009 [1937]
If Aether exists, it is probably a spiral geometry and most likely a rotating magnetic field with a quantum spin of 2. Charge is defined by Pi and we know that matter has a interger 1/2 spin.

One cannot seperate structure from function. [a contradiction assuming both structure and function for something that doesn’t exist]

FS3 6/10/2009 (a stream of atomic hydrogen coming from the sun)
Again, it is stated that “the flow of ions should be assumed to be current-free and quasi-neutral.
To me that argumentation of “quasi-neutrality” almost looks like if you would try to tell someone the idea that even if he counts 1000 cars moving on a highway in one direction and 1000s into the other – he should see “no cars” at all. Again we recognize that quantitfication-approach rules over the quality of the “model” always, as long as you can produce some figures, predicting a model – that will be contradicted after some new finding appears.

This attitude might be the sole reason why we do experience so many “surprises” in Astrophysics. Calculate something into a “model” and be sure that you can recalculate a new one after some time when the findings have proved too far off from the old model. And even worse: Produce a new add-on for the old calculation, based on the bogus assumption from the first math, and be sure that it is altered in the way that it somehow fits the new data.

7/6/2009 kicklabuka(a stream of atomic hydrogen coming from the sun
Assumptions can be a terrible thing. Let’s rather assume a given–that the ionization energy of a Hydrogen (neutral) atom is -13.6eV. So the protons fly out, accelerate away from each other, and slam into the negatively charged upper corona. Even then, the Hydrogen will not be neutral until the energy is below 13.6eV.

ElectroMass
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:48 AM
From:
This sender is DomainKeys verified
“David Smith” Add sender to Contacts
To:
justinbcat@yahoo.com
I would like a copy of the Electromass paper. 3 MB is okay for me.
David O. Smith
Rogers, AR

electromass
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:29 PM
From:
“Nicholas Chanaca” Add sender to Contacts
To:
justinbcat@yahoo.com
Justin,
I am requesting a copy of your paper, as you posted on the Thunderbolts forum.
Thanks,
Nick

Electromass
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:16 PM
From:
“Gary Nicholls” Add sender to Contacts
To:
justinbcat@yahoo.com
Hi Justin, I’d be interested to see your paper (re:thunderbolts forum). I have read some of O.Manuels work, and I think some of his ideas are valid, but for the wrong reasons, so would be interested to see your ideas.
Thanks,
Gary (GaryN on TB)

Electromass
Monday, June 15, 2009 11:40 AM
From:
“Tina Ryan” View contact details
To:
justinbcat@yahoo.com
Would love to read your papers on Electromass Concept. Please send me a copy. Most generous of you to share the insights of your work,
Tina
geneticassisted@bigpond.com

Electromass paper
Monday, June 15, 2009 3:06 PM
From:
This sender is DomainKeys verified
“David Arcand” Add sender to Contacts
To:
justinbcat@yahoo.com

Please forward the paper.
Thank you for your information.
David Arcand
davearcand@gmail.com
Mobile: 248-410-6369

Kicklabuka 6/15/2009 [1961]
This forty page paper combines the work of both Halton Arp and Oliver Manuel. For those who know who these two people are, you understand the magnitude of this correlation. The concept agrees with every observation known, by making one key shift of mindset from classical physics as of 1870. It gives justification for the removal of such forces as the strong force, the weak force, supermassiveness, dark energy, big bang, etc. It agrees with Birkeland and Alfvien. It corrects Scott and Thornhill.

Electromass may be disproven, but for now it remains the key correlation.

6/15/2009 Junglelord [1961]

I am interested. Can you send one to my email? Tarzansalive@hotmail.com

6/15/2009 Lloyd [1961]

I consider it remotely possible that Oliver Manuel’s ideas about the cores of some or many stars being neutron stars are correct, which means they are much more likely wrong, because he assumes that pulsars are neutron stars that spin at a high velocity. Whereas its much more likely that the pulses from pulsars are electrical pulses due to discharging. Etc. His model assumes that neutron stars are formed from supernova implosions, but supernovae are most likely electrical explosions of overstressed plasma, rather than gravitational implosions into burnt-out nuclear cores. So scott and thornhill are much more likely correct and thornhill has already explained quasar and galaxy formation, based on arp’s findings, sucha s

6/16/2009 kicklabuka [1961]

When dealing with philosophical questions, it is expected that people get closer and closer to the right track. But electromass has not been said yet, and it avoids philosophy, to give way for physical principles. You are entitled to your opinions whether you read my 40 pages or not. My goal is not to argue with other people who also have a strong dislike of the standard model of astronomy.

6/16/2009 Tina [1961]

I’m enjoying reading electromass – haven’t gotten to the part relating to correction of scott and thornhill :0

Have you had an opportunity to discuss this with wal thornhill?

6/16/2009 kicklabuka [1961]

I’m hoping they will catch wind of this through this thread

6/18/2009 tina [1961]

This thread might come to thornhill’s attention…..but don’t be too humble around here

But I suggest you PM Mgmirkin and ask him to approach wal thornhill on your behalf to seek permission to submit your papers for opinion/discussion. Michael is approachable but if he, for whatever reason, must decline then I have a plan b and plan C 😉

6/18/2009 Kicklabuka [1961]

Tina, I sent a message to Mgmirkin two days ago with no reply. I still have not gotten any positive feedback from any experts so I must remain humble. Understand that I skewed from the accepted model quite abruptly and to the horror of my family and the confusion of my friends. It would be a great story, but for now I have accepted insanity, embraced electromass, and will never go back to the accepted model.

Your seriousness is a bit relieving. If this does move, I would ask that the most current revision be used.

6/11/2009 Mgmirkin [1945]

A team of researchers led by Joseph Girart, of the institut ode ciencies de l’espai (in spain) studied the slow evolution of a dust cloud into a massive star, and realized that the cloud’s magnetic field controls the star’s development more than any other factor.

The authors describe how the magnetic field at G31.41 has formed the dust cloud into an hourglass shape – a telltale sign of magnetically controlled star formation.

They say this magnetic energy dominates over the energies at play – e.g. centrifugal force and turbulence – and suggest that the role of the magnetic field in the early stages of star formation could be very similar to both small and massive stars.

“the energetic relations do not differ too much” between massive and small stars, the authors write. Both cores are colapsing because gravity has overcome pressure forces, but the collapsing dynamics are controlled by the magnetic energy rather than turbulence.

Girart and his colleagues point out that this only holds true for forming stars; older massive stars are more influenced by radiation and ionization pressure, turbulence, and outflows than by magnetic fields.

Gosh! Magnetic fields dominate during star formation…in an hourglass shape! Who could have predicted that one coming? Why do I sense a sudden co-opting of plasma cosmology? Soon they’ll be saying “we knew it all along!”

Don’t say we never said nothin about the Pinch effect!

NickC 6/12/2009 [1945]
If a star’s magnetic fields is generated internally, but stars are formed by magnetic fields…where does the original magnetic field come from?
Is this a which came first, the chicken or the magnetic field, riddle? or is it a preexisting magnetic field which forms the star, which then in turn generates its’ own magnetic field?

The comments are interesting too, I think they are on to you…

Solrey 6/12/2009 [1945]

Gosh! Magnetic fields dominate during star formation… In an hourglass shape! Who could have predicted that one coming? Why do I sense a sudden co-opting of plasma cosmology? Soon they’ll be saying “we knew it all along!”

The very first comment on the UT article:

It has been clear for quite sometime that star formation is influenced by magnetic fields. I can go into the details if someone wishes, for now I don’t have the time. Just as an information for some of our fellows here. I guess they will appear soon….

I don’t know whether to laugh at, or cry for these people…so I’ll do both.

We report high angular resolution submillimeter obsrvations towarde the massive hot molecular core (HMC) in the high-mass star forming region G31.41+0.31. etc. the HMC is simultaneously contracting and rotating, and the magnetic field lines threading the HMC are deformed along its major axis, acquiring an hourglass shape.

6/18/2009 Anaconda wrote:
No young, budding professional astronomer wants to short-circuittheir career by bucking the status quo.
grey cloud 6/24/2009 [1945]

Surely their career would collapse due to the gravity of the situation?

Email, 6/20/2009
From: vukcevic
Subject: Arp and Manuel’s paper
To: justinbcat@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 8:39 AM

Dear Justin
I would appreciate if you would kindly email copy of the Arp and Manuel’s paper, or at least details where it can be obtained.
Thank you
m. vukcevic

2001
6/22/09 electrigrav
./viewtopic.php?p=22758 – p22758./viewtopic.php?p=22758 – p22758by perpetual motion » Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:51 pm
I need a very detailed overall picture of the sun and the next four or five planets ( or all of
them for that matter) with magnetic lines and magnetotails all in one picture. Has anyone seen such a beast in your travels on the net. It would be heighly appreciated. I might have a barnstormer here, if it has high enough graphics to look upon.
perpetual motion
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:04 pm
E-mail perpetual motion

Tina 6/24/2009 [1945]

The star, vaga, revealis its magnetic field. At last astronomers are producing finding s that have bearing on reality.

Webolife 6/24/2009 [1945]

What caught my eye in the softpedia article was the importance of reliane on a model for further discovery. As important as observations and evidnece are to us all, I observe that the progress of discovery is hindered by the adherence to any particular paradigm, and that with a paradigm shift comes new or unexpected for decades discoveries. I like the EU for this….

Anaconda 6/24/2009 [1945]

I note the following quote from the softpedia article: But until now, no one had any idea how a magnetic field of such a massive star would look like, as mathematical models never yielded conclusive results. Focus on mathematical models never yielded conclusive results.

Mharratsc 6/24/2009 [1945]

You know anaconda, what you stated above reminds me of my conversation with vulkovic in the below thread.

he’s working on the following articles

His group is attempting to prove that heat is convected from the solar dynamo to the photosphere by magnetic means. They also attempt to show that the magnetism is exhibited by the sun is created by percolation of magnetic thingy’s up to the photosphere, which in turns drives sunspots (was hard for me to keep reading into that).

Tina 6/24/2009 [1945]

Because the dissemination of science today is largely spread through popular science literature opinions are being shaped in rather naïve minds who trust the science being reported. So who among the general believers will be able to judge what is incontravertible or not unless science tells them so?

When it comes to electric universe we are greatly outnumbered by the weight of poublic opinion…I don’t know what it would take to turn the tide…well actually I do know.. Popular science would have to start talking EU nevermind incongravertible evidnece at this stage.

Solrey 6/24/2009 [1945]

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06/24/mysterious-blobs-are-windows-into-galacy-formation/#more-33332

That looks very much like a Dense Plasma Focus:

I have a copy of the Girart paper. I’d be happy to send a copy to anyone who asks.

IMO, based on the data in the Girart paper, no way could graviational collapse create that sort of well defined, hourglass, morphology at this early stage of development, whether it be a galactic, or stellar system.

6/25/2009 anaconda [1945]
A little addition to the science is in order for this post. Dr. Anthony Peratt has noted that Z-pinches produce synchrotron radiation which even “modern” astronomy has a hard time denying is the result of electric current
By the way, Dr. Anthony Peratt is the “real McCoy”.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful … 7.000.html

Rduke 6/25/2009 [1945]
Well the future looks bright indeed!

Yes sir.. and that is a great paper as well… I am not sure how anyone can read that and not come away with a much richer, more fulfilling, and far more interesting view of the universe we reside in.

It is all right there, in your face, and all you have to do is take a halfway decent look at it and it becomes obvious…

6/25/2009 kicklabuka [1945]
You can’t have an Electric Universe without Mass. It’s clearly pointed out on page 19 of my book. Electromass is the solution.

Rduke 6/25/2009 [1945]
What are you talking about Willis?

Wouldn’t it be the other way round?

Kicklabuka 6/25/2009 [1945]

You heard me. 40 pages

Dustydevil 6/26/2009 [1945]

Richard fitzpatrick, university of texas at auston: There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/3 … ode77.html

Marnee 7/14/2009 [1945]

That was one hell of a discussion. Yikes.

Anyway, I waded through it but mostly focused on Anaconda’s responses. Did Nereid or others present a gravity only model that they thought was as good as Peratt’s? I doubt it. Just wondering if anything was presented. I took General Relativity in grad school but I don’t recall ever being presented with one like Peratt’s in the sense that it was able to model such large scale structures so well. Everything I saw was on a black hole or star level and wasn’t very good if you ask me (I was a but a simple geophysics grad student). The closest model to anything that made sense to me was high energy plasma jets ejected from black holes, which is where I first learned of Alfven.
Corpsules 6/28/2009 [2015]
Firstly, congratulations to admin,mods and all participants for this wonderful, informative, well structured,dignified forum site. IT IS A CREDIT to all!

1. Does the EU /ES model maintain or base the location of orbit and structure of the solar system on traditional gravity? or does it supersede this weak force with other stronger electro magnetic forces?
2. Does EU/ES tend to implicate that the large extended planets magnetoshphere domains organise the orbits and rotational aspects?
Corpuscles

Moses 6/28/2009 [2015]
Inside the Earth’s double layer around the magnetosphere, the Earth is shielded
from ‘electro magnetic forces’. However the double layer moves in response to
electro magnetic forces, and this may bring to bear a force on the Earth. Also
other forces can penetrate a Faraday cage. But gravity is deemed to be the major
effect inside the double layer. However, if eg Venus comes closer to the Earth
and the Venus double layer comes into contact with the Earth double layer then
Birkeland currents will flow between the planets and this will result in changed
orbits which will tend to stabilise the system.

Corpsules 6/28/2009 [2015]
3. Ok the Universal Birkland currents create magnetic fields , Z pinch define star location, but can someone try to simply describe the electric “motortype” rotational aspect of our sun for me?

4. If there is connector pipes from Sun to Earth…is that the neagtive ions being attracted to Earths ionoshphere or some other reason? What implictions forthe ordering of solar system and rotations etc?

moses 6/28/2009 [2015]
The other questions are full scale and Wal says it best.

Kicklabuka 6/28/2009 [2015]
Your questions are answered at http://www.electromass.com Until recently, the Electric Universe Model was the most applicable, and most correct. This group has faught against the mainstream, and now they can vask in it.
KickLaBuka
Guest

HarryCostas 6/29/2009
Some form on ultra dense compact matter may be the dynamo in forming the stable jets that reform galaxies such as the “cartwheel” and dual and quad jets that we can observe. These stable jets are responsible for the evolution and form of not only their galaxy but distant galaxies.

This paper is quite interesting.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1095
A Reconnecting Flux Rope Dynamo

Authors: Andrew W. Baggaley, Carlo F. Barenghi, Anvar Shukurov, Kandaswamy Subramanian
(Submitted on 5 Jun 2009)

Corpsules 6/30/2009 [2015]
Justin

I have read your book quickly and it deserves another read. Good effort!… to take someone from the very basics of physics and expose them to EU/ES concept. I applaud your effort

I am not qualified to make critical comment other than ,to as friendly as possible, to suggest you take your own advice and be always open to new ideas.It seems you take a massive (avoiding the begging pun of “Quantum” ) jump from conventional “basics” to a personalised version , of theory.

I note you have a thread on EU board.I am eager for the poster JungleLord (amongst the other very knowledageable posters here) to read and review and add comment .He in particular appears to have, a solid grasp of APM with an almost is “H Aspden like” passion for the aether….very related IMHO to your ponderings of the double helix vortex.

Kicklabuka 7/1/2009 [2015]
Thanks for the feedback!!!

With regard to Junglelord and the aether, and Scott and the sky, I respect both of their work insofar as I have only read bits of their thoughts. I reference Scott’s sky three or four times in my book. This ties into your comments about my massive jump past the planetary scales. There are a few reasons for this: 1. I want lots of room for discovery; 2. I was in a very big hurry.

At the same time I say I want room for others’ discovery, I also want it to be clear that the electromass concept is not a theory, until it is failed to be disproved. For example, I disproved the Electric Universe Concept on page 19 where I show that mass is required. It doesn’t make PEU concept any less important, and I would like to read the work of these guys to know what they have been studying–frankly, actively. I want to learn about MGmirkin’s work on Double Layers and how the electric universe Model has studied them.

kicklabuka 7/9/2009 [2015]
At this point in my studies, I have not found reason to use the word aether, just as I have not found a reason to use the word matter. I have created a thread on the Mad Ideas forum with respect to my interpretation of mass vs. matter. – kicklabuka

Corpuscles » Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:46 pm [2015]
KickLa

Immediately I saw the EU concept, it concept rang true and consistent with my prior thinking so it interests me greatly. However I have not yet devoted sufficient time yet to completely grasp the detailed justification (possibly very valid) to replace aspects of conventional theory.

My questions were merely a simple introduction for some “big picture” issues that I expect would ought have been thoroughly established with logic and supporting demonstratable proof/equations etc … if they differ?

So in a naive attempt to answer my own queries… just on hunch

It would appear to me that Newtons Gravitaion equation and Coulombs Law might easily be inter changeable/ related at Coulombs constant and Gravity constant to: charge and mass of planets may equate …to the same Force?

IF EU claims electrical force is the most responsible? As I say it seems that EU theory does? maintain conventional gravity explaination,and rather (as I think is correct)that Gravity is an effect interwoven and a reciprocal part of the Electric paradigm?

The spin of Sun planets seems to be MUCH more of an electro magnetic field phenomena, as you describe in book, especially since IMHO conventional dynamo theories for Electric, magnetic planetary fields falls short of an adequate explaination. IMHO aether is ALSO critical but we might discuss that somewhere else later.

The electrical pipe connectors Sun to Earth etc and other electrical influences? I see NOW …..I simply must plough on and read MUCH more of the published theory to get a grasp of any such influences (or alternatives) proposed by founding EU visionaries?

I was just trying to cheat with some answers from the brilliant well read “experts” here!

Again I thank you for your attempts to enlighten and assist. No interwebby “chest beating” or “donger measuring ” (ie arguement) was intended in any of my responses.

Having said that,I could have been more upseting critical (since you seek as many as you can to read it) to comment that you start out with such basics like teacher to a child learning A =Apple, B= Ball etc, then jump all over the place ….DNA Galaxies Plasma etc,…. and arrive at an unfleshed out conclusion of Electromass is the whole answer!? Keep going it is a great effort and a credit to you.

Yes others do seem to dot and jump around between issues.I suspect they all have their own hobby horse “current issues” and ultimately we are all looking for the ….Unified Theory of Everything!
Cheers

Harry costas 7/15/2009 [1945]

When we look at magnetic loops on the surface of the Sun.

What actually creates the loops?

This driving vector field is also present in jets.

What creates the drive, the vortex, helix field?

Kicklabuka 7/15/2009 [1945]
As observed on page 34 of electromass, the protons flying out of the sun start flying tangential to the sun’s rotation. The upper corona is filled with electrons which follow and chase. The movement of the electrons in the upper corona creates a magnetic field that alters the plasma escaping the surface and the loops are resultant.

D_archer 6/30/2009 [2025]

Latest alternative cosmology newsletter (randomlink) contains a link to a paper called “observation number correlation in WMAP data by Ti-Pei Li et al. Link to paper.
Here’s the full quote from the newsletter about this new WMAP study

“This month, we’ve chosen to highlight a paper that is causing a stir in cosmology. Serious doubt is cast upon the validity of the entire body of WMAP analysis. Thanks to Eric Lerner for the following analysis: ETC.”

I was also looking for a coherent explaination of the MRB from an electric universe point of view, but I have only read a few blurbs about the phenomenon but couldn’t finda good enough/reasonable explaination. Any good reads?

Mharratsc 6/30/2009 [2025]

I’m sure one of the guys will come back with a link to some articles, but I do remember that Thornhill thinks that this cosmic microwave background radiation is nothing more than the emissions of our local plasma sheath surrounding our sun putting out some energy…I think.

Sometimes I read these articles waaay too late at night >.< Moses 6/30/2009 [2025] The following study gives evidence of the CMB coming from the Sun’s heliosheath: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.1091v1 Rduke 6/30/2009 [2025] I always imagined it would be difficult to take a microwave picture inside of a microwave oven D_archer 6/30/2009 [2025] Thank you for the paper, read through it and remember indeed that the heliopause had something to do with. Although this paper only tries to explain a distortion in the CMB, it is still possible that the entirty of the MBR is coming from the heliopause double layer. Nick_C 7/1/2009 [2025] Just for reference purposes, here is a relevant quote about the CMB from the Holoscience site: Nobel Prize for Big Bang is a Fizzer

Thornhill wrote: If arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the cosmic microwave background signify?

The simplest answer, from the highly succcessful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from the electric current filaments in interseellar plasma local to the sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelenght receivers. ETC.

Mharratsc 7/1/2009 [2025]
\
Thanks for backing me up with the links gents 

Tip of the hat to moses for posting the link to that paper! It’s great to see the science behind the EU/PC theories put to test and come up winning like that! So many of the detractors cite our “lack of math” lack of reference to “published, peer-reviewed papers” and etc, so it is really good to see stuff like this turn up.

Say, is there a site where EU/PC maintains a compendium of experiements and papers like the one above? I know that Dr. Perratt has several links to published papers, and I think plasma cosmology had some referenc3es…but is there a place where someone has been tucking away all of the stuff from the scientific realm that has direct bearing to validation of the EU/PC perspective?

If there isn’t…do you think we could create a forum here for it? 

Solar 7/1/2009 [2025]
An effor was put forth to this end in the thread “recovered: electric universe papers, etc.” which was salvaged from a forum crash. You can also review Eric Lerner’s video “focus fusion: the fastest route to cheap, clean energy” for an overview of plasma dynamics applicable to space and practical use.

The website “cosmology quest” has a vewy good selection of peer reviewed articles regarding EU/PC by forum member Mnemeth

The “publications” section of US/Rusia Collaboration in Plasma Astrophysics”

Things of this nature are directly related and you’ll find getting a handle on search terms most useful. The science of EU/PC is readily available

Lloyd 3/16/2009 (posted 7/2/2009)

Some of the ideas have already found limited acceptance. Some haven’t found any. Some are mutually incompatible while others if taken together could lead to new and exciting paradigms or at least to interesting science fiction stories. Some are apparently unrelated to the rest entirely. My apologies to any scientist, living or dead, whose ideas have been misinterpreted.

Scerri 7/2/2009

Thank you for including my name in this illustrious company. I am a little surprised to be labeled as crank science given that I have written the widely acknowledged and definitive book on the periodic system of the elements and with a respectalbe press, oxford university press. What did I ever do to earn the label of crank? 

Email, 7/6/2009
Confirm Won Prize!
Monday, July 6, 2009 8:03 AM
From:
“Irish Online News” Add sender to Contacts
To:
.@nb.aibn.com
You have won 891,934

Email:s.jamesoffice@btinternet.com

Send Name,Age,Occupation,Country.

D_archer 7/4/2009 [2025]

Two papers about detecting non-gausssianity in the WMAP data.

Etc.

“the observed non-gaussianity is therefor probably to be imputed to the CMB temperature field itself, thereby questioning the basic inflationary scenario upon which the concordance cosmological model relies.” “further analysis should be performed before giving it ful credit. “ (emphasis added)

paper 2

“in general, “non-aussian detection theory” makes no asssumption as to the specific forms of the noise amplitude distribution (Kassam)

michael.suede 7/4/2009 [2025]

Tha’s soooo money.

Getting caught in the act

Lerner is the man.

Electromass Book Download
Tuesday, July 7, 2009 10:29 AM
From:
“justin sandburg” Add sender to Contacts
To:
codcableguy@yahoo.com

7/7/2009 [2044]
Thornhil wrote: Maxwell’s laws apply at the Galactic Center, not Newton’s.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7qqsr17q

Mharratsc 7/7/2009 [2044]
It’s odd- in retrospect, the concept seems so simple… add energy, and matter becomes more massive, rather than ‘mass increasing from velocity’. Why has it taken this long to arrive at such a logical deduction?

It makes so much more sense, really.

There are probably new laws that need to be discovered regarding the relationships, spin of sub-atomic particles and whatnot- but essentially… there it is! in a nutshell.

Occam’s Razor, once again.

Marnee 7/10/2009 [2044]
“How do you distinguish between mass and matter?”

Well the same way we always have, since Newton and even earlier. Inertial mass is defined as a property of a given quantity of matter at the time is it observed (measured). From wikipedia: “is a measure of an object’s resistance to changing its state of motion when a force is applied.” This would be true assuming an electric universe or a gravity universe. The question is: what is mass really a function of? This is where ideas like electromass come in. I totally dig this idea….

In EU mass is considered variable for it is dependent on the pervasive (and always fluxing) electromagnetic field.

Junglelord 7/10/2009 [2062]
Justin, your work has a lot of the details of The Aether Physics Model aka APM by Dave Thomson.
However his goes further in its development. MASS is indeed a fundamental dimension. Mass and EM charge are two sides of the same coin.

There is no Strong or Weak force. Yes, thats all correct. The reason for the existance of 137 according to Feynman is the answer to the universe, the fine structure constant is indeed knowable and explainable. APM made it so several years ago.

The vortex is the archetype form. Tensegrity creates matter….yes its all true.

137 is the fundamental for EM.

Junglelord 7/11/2009 [2062]
It is derived the same way in both approaches, using the same quantum constants (plancks length, compton wavelength, elemental charge constant, pi, etc) with the same geometry for the electron, toroidal.
The reason why Alpha is derived that way is because sacred geometry is the original source of all forms. [“sacred geometry”, meaning, don’t question it. It is this assumption that separates structure from function]
Sacred Geometry implicity creates Plancks Length, Compton Wavelength, Toroidal Electrons, Elemental Charge and Electron Mass constants are all derived from the underlying geometry of Aether combined with angular momentum. Phi, Pi, e, rule the universe.

Total Science 7/7/2009

The problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience has great implications also for the institution of criticism. Copernicus’s theory was banned by the catholic church in 1616 because it was said to be pseudoscientific. It was taken off the index in 1820 because by that time the church had deemed that facts have proved it and therefor became scientific. The central committee of the soviet communist party in 1949 declared mendelian genetics pseudoscientific and had its advocates like academician vavilov killed in concentration camps. 00Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973

“inertia is exclusively of electromagnetic origin” henri poincare, physicist, 1908
“matter is composed of electricity, and of nothing else” Oliver J. lodge, physicist, 1904

Lloyd 7/9/2009

Here’s what Fulton said: 54. Henri Scerri – New periodic Table II. – the discovery of subelectronic structure may lead to a new organizing principle fo rthe periodic table of the elements.

Gray Cloud 7/10/2009

I’ll stick with earth, water, air and fire.

Drethon 7/10/2009

Or earth, air, water, and plasma?

Junglelord 7/10/2009

I’ll stick with earth water air plasma aether I will add two counter opposite rotating PHI spirals. Now mix it all together with angular momentum…shake it forward and backward in time, both left and right spin…mmm Tensegrity creates matter.. How cool is that?

Gray cloud 7/13/2009
These Circulations are Nature’s Instruments, whereby the Elements are prepared. Let the Philosopher therefore consider the progress of Nature in the Physical Tract, more fully described for this very end.
[The Hermetic Arcanum, ca.1623 (“The Secret Work of the Hermetic Philosophy, The work of an anonymous author, penes nos unda tagi”)

Kevin 7/13/2009
Yes I can agree with anonymous.
but really like the origonal by Babbit,
http://www.heartcoherence.com/anu-of-th … teAtom.htm

Mague 7/13/2009

I smell a conspiracy in ancient greek  The conspiracy began when the fire people decided to rule the world. Even plato was spreading misinformations. On purpose or maybe already blinded by the wealthy weaponssmiths and “burn to expand – regression is death” mindset. 😉 Nothing new since the titans. 

I am not talking about “the humans.” I am talking about the fire tribe. About ¼ of the balanced world, yet currently ruling 85% or more of it.

Kicklabuka 7/13/2009 [2070]
There has been some disagreement about radioactive decay changing in Silicon 32 with sunspot cycles. Silicon 32 is a lightweight dielectric, whose nucleus configuration may change due to a forced flow. This forced decay is similar to a boater being thrown from a turning boat.

However, Polonium 244 is a much heavier, much stronger element. It is a suggestion that this decay is impervious to generalized temperature swings and sunspot activity; that its 1s bounding electrons are only broken (and such a nucleus is only created) during such an event as a supernova event. The sunspot activities do not alter its decay rates, therefore signifying the event to have happened 5 billion years ago.

Uranium 238 also has a very stable decay, but it looks to only date 4.5 billion years ago.

I know this opens up a can of worms (partially uniform decay rates), and I’m not looking to say definitely uniformitarianism or any other -ism; but this is my impression given my crude knowledge of decay, and my very limited reading of such.

In any event, I don’t think the topic even ventures to disprove electromass; but rather to understand electromass in terms of partially uniform radioactive decay.

Junglelord 7/13/2009
My crude understanding of the Weak Force *aka* radioactive decay, is a proper relationship between EM charge Geometry and ES charge geometry. The atomic balancing act of aether and angular momentum are a relationship b/t charge and mass. [there is nothing proper about this statement]

I agree with the identification of charge and mass as elemental dimensions. The re-stablization of a nucleus via a alpha (helium nucleus) “particle” is clearly a situation of charge geometry re-organization, more then it is a force…

Kicklabuka 7/13/2009
Junglelord,

I am very grateful to have an expert like you on my side; one willing to think beyond the accepted. I’m not sure about Thomson’s proposed drawing of the atom, but I definitely thought up electromass on my own. If his is in any way similar by discarding extraneous forces one-by-one, then he is a credit to the cause of truth. My perception of your mathematical prowess is not unnoticed either.

But there will be a time when I challenge the aether as a necessary vocabulary word, and I hope to remain friends after that point. If (for now) you can divert your attention to my proposed structure of galaxies and the addition of proposed field vectors, we may get through this folding problem by manipulating differentials of the emission spectrum. I have some proposed equations to start with, but lack the mathematical agility.

Yours,
Justin

Junglelord 7/13/2009
Yes I read your work and I agree with many concepts. We can indeed be friends and indeed allies, dispite our personal divergences.

Kicklabuka 7/13/2009 [2069]
Don’t celebrate yet.

The problem with aether plasma mechanics and with quantum electrodynamics is that it demands the probability of such interactions; a web-like set of choices. It guesses at the folding pattern. There exists a force which causes the folding to occur in a certain direction. Electromass predicts it by a change in configuration due to a forced flow. The flow is a first order differential equation. That Force is a second order differential equation. Its Field is a third order differential equation. That equals the magnetic binding field due to spinning charged-masses. This constitutes electromassive forces and this is where the electromass constant should be derived—from the postulations in the cosmology section of my book. The ability to predict protein synthesis is in the stars at Z=1.

If somebody has said that first, please inform me. But what I am suggesting about quantum electrodynamics and the aether is the following: These outside the box (but looking in) methods will be used as checks when comparing electromassive determinations to known wave functions to their structure. If you have to use a mathematical trick you learned in QM—or elsewhere, use it sparingly; and never to introduce a new force; and be reluctant with probabilities.

Lloyd » Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:32 pm (black holes don’t exist, say physicists)
* I got an email from Stephen Crothers today with a link to a 2.5 hour talk he gave recently versus black holes and I think gravity waves. I haven’t listened to much of it yet, but he seems to explain the math that’s involved.
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php? … lay&id=180
http://rec1.dimdim.com/view/dimdim/d5a1 … 3048642bd7
Lloyd

Junglelord 7/15/2009 (black holes don’t exist, say physicists)
Yes, an excellent way to start the day, an email from Stephen.

7/14/2009 email
Agent Name: Mr.Toby Oliver
Tell: +44-704-570-6914
Email: mrtobyoliver1@msn.com

This is to inform you that you were
selected for a cash price of
£1.000.000 (pound sterling), held
on june 2009 in London (United
Kingdom). Through Email online selection
balloting.Contact the CLAIMS AGENT
MR.TOBY OLIVER

Claims Requirements:

Name
Address
Nationality
Age
Occupation
Sex
Tel/Fax
Present Country
Dear:Ref Number:UK/9420BL2/05

Courier Name: Ups International Courier
Contact Person: Mr. Garry Mark
Direct Tel: +44-704-578-5826
Email: upscourierdeliveryservice@live.co.uk

Name
Address where you want your parcel deliver
to
Nationality
Age
Occupation
Sex
Phone/Fax
Present Country

I will require a concise update on
proceedings with the delivery department as
soon as you are in contact with them.If you
need any assistance whatsoever, please do
not hesitate to let me know.
Regards.
+44-704-570-6914
Mr.Toby Oliver

Email to: mrtobyoliver1@msn.com 7/14/2009
Hello,
I’m sorry to be difficult, but this is a bit hard to believe. Please inform me as to how and why I am being awarded this, before I can offer any sort of personal information.
Regards,
Justin

Kicklabuka 7/15/2009 (what is time) 10:08am

The partial time derivative of the received spectrum is equal to the spatial integral of the sum of the fields with respect to the change in a unit of this time quantity (and radius). Here, time is a variable with respect to itself; thus the units cancel.

And the three different fields are first, second, and third order differential equations, respectively and all as functions of the same time units and radius.
-KickLaBuka

soulsurvivor 7/15/2009 (what is time)
Time is fluid and doesn’t obey any of the parameters we have attached to it. It originates within the observer as a conscious thought and can be followed anywhere. Ask a remote viewer for a definition of time.

Kicklabuka 7/15/2009 (soul survivor)
I’m sorry. Did you just say there was a problem with my above equation? Time is introduced and dealt with in the same token.

Gray cloud 7/15/2009
What makes you think that the Universe is interested in equations (yours or anyone else’s)? Equations are just a tool you and some other humans use for understanding the Universe. Some humans don’t need them and the Universe certainly doesn’t.
Kicklabuka 7/15/2009

Very true that equations are just tools. But this equation is a tool to understand how fields act in time. The implication of that is far stretching, from predicting DNA synthesis to identifying and curing illnesses. If we can draw the equations for the electromagnetic spectrum, and be more accurate and more efficient than quantum mechanics has taken us, then we have done it. Problems solved.

If nobody cares, and you’re happy with the doctor looking in your ear and saying you might have swollen lymph nodes and to drink lots of water, then great. Enjoy that doctor, and enjoy the universe just the way it is.

not me.
-KickLaBuka

junglelord 7/15/2009

You know, you can enter a state of knowing that needs no equations. However equations can reveal things to those who do not have the time to see the vision. But they are dead and static and few can apprciate them. Thats the problem with the world…they have no time and most lack a vision for their purpose. Instead they “chase” time, never ever getting ahead. Chasing jobs, bills, etc, running to the supermarket for food and to walley world for items…..then the boobtube lulls them into a mental slumber, tired from chasing time all day. Chasing a vacation where they think that two weeks of nature in a protected region we left alone in a patch of human sprawl, will fullfill a year of chasing and will surfice as our integrity to the planet! What a mess we have made of the earth and our lives!

Existance with and in the rhythm of the earth is simple, complete, fullfilling and creates a intimate knowledge of her and that rhythm and our place in it….existings in harmony with the enviorment, if you take one, you put back two. You have your hands in the earth, planting, weeding, but no chemicals. Your hobby farm alive with activity. You got all day to feel the vibe. Thats how I grew up and thats my take on it. Made me big, strong, smart, in tune, aware….thanks Mom and Dad!

Kicklabuka 7/17/2009

Your passage is thrilling, except for this part. I’m not sure if you mean to diminish chemicals. Chemical reactions rule science in a very positive way. True, certain chemicals are damaging. Quantum Mechanics has caused physical chemistry to do exactly what you describe, chase time. But we can’t just denounce chemistry. We just need to understand it better so we can do what you say, put back.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:56 AM
From:
“justin sandburg” Add sender to Contacts
To:
“Jason Sandburg”
Message contains attachments
1 File (3641KB)
• The_basics_7-15-09.pdf

Jason,
Please update with this file.

Page 38, “ the basics 7-15-2009.pdf ”

Nevyn 10/7/2009
So we have to admit that there are no absolutes. Only differences. And it is the differences that mean things, not the similarities (although they are not completely worthless). (Funny how, as a society, we are made to conform and so minimize differences where as everything else relies on seeing differences and making use of them. But I digress.)

Therefore time is not fundamental. It is not a dimension. Talking about frequency is even worse as a frequency is an interval of time that must pass before something happens. It depends on time for its definition so it can’t be time or create time.

. It leaves me with an understanding of time as a measure of change
This removes all arguments of time being quantized

David barclay 10/16/2009 (what is time)
Time/line differentials are hardly mainstream physicas.

Anaconda 7/17/2009 [1349]
I don’t buy that ultra condensed matter exists. High pressure and temperature sure, but special states of matter reliant on “new physics” — is garbage — I don’t speculate on the bloody smell of rotten garbage that doesn’t exist.

Kicklabuka 7/17/2009 [1349]
I understand your intent, but “new physics” is really the goal–not to explain new states of matter as these people are leaning towards; but new physics to “corellate” mass and charge is required.

Anaconda 7/17/2009 [1349]
The first goal is to explain the Universe and its structures in terms of the known properties of matter and physics, which, of course, includes electromagnetism.

Kicklabuka 7/17/2009 [1349]
Agreed. The corellation is at Z=1 and beyond. Anything closer gets too many variables involved. Z=1 and beyond will give us a determination of distance and axial flow at the same time as emission spectra. This is my hypothesis, to explain the universe.

Anaconda 7/17/2009 [1349]
And when that has been completely and utterly exhausted, then, and only then, attempt to explain various possibilities, but even so, the various possibilities, need to be explained based on phenomena that has already been observed & measured, whether in the laboratory or the field (in space).

Kicklabuka 7/17/2009 [1349]
Agreed. My approach does not impinge on observed & measured. It avoids assumptions so that possibilities are moot.

Anaconda 7/17/2009 [1349]
Science is about explanation & description, but first you have to have an exhibit.

Kicklabuka 7/17/2009 [1349]
I challenge anyone to set up a matrix from the observations at Z=1 and beyond. Not from the calculations of distance, but leaving distance as a variable in the matrix.

Anaconda 7/17/2009 [1349]
we come to Plasma Cosmology by many different roads, and once here, we tend to act like a bunch of cats

kicklabuka 7/17/2009 [1349]
At times, I feel that this organization is mad at me for bringing electromass in such a fury. Like Newton, I’m an obsessive-compulsive, manic-depressive. By definition, I have a hard time bringing any thought into light without stepping on some toes.

Anaconda 7/17/2009 [1349]
Almost any astronomer craves to get published, this wears people down,

Kicklabuka 7/17/2009 [1349]
I certainly feel worn down by the surplus of chatter and the lack of credit given back to me. I have offered to include dozens of names of people who I don’t know because I want to share. I have read most of the threads since, and am considering lots of tuning of my book, and adding names of people who were affective in their fields. But I think over the past month that some have just gone away with the new knowledge and completely forgotten who brought it here; who conclusively brought the EU out of mythology, taught them the atom, explained mass, and opened the door for growth.

Junglelord 7/17/2009 [1349]
Dave Thomson, who worked out APM (aether physics model) was very disappointed at how much the machine works against the sensible truth, nor does it press Nobels Prizes into his hand, and I agree, that he has been over looked and APM while recognized by a limited amount of scientist, has not taken hold.

My best advice, do not take it personal, do not care if others do not listen. To those that are called, they will come. Even still the message will not always conveyed, that YOU taught it too them. Its a personal journey, like coming to the EU. I too get excited, no one else, really cares. I have learned to keep it to myself in public.

Moses 7/17/2009
Junglelord wrote: I learned to keep it to myself in public
Cruel really !

AndyM 7/19/2009 [2101]

I think we might finally have a theory which explains everything which is the nilpotent dirac equation developed by Dr Peter Rowlands of Liverpool University UK and outlined in his book “From Zero to Infinity”.

Rowlands is a quantumn physiscst and computer scientist and the nilpotent dirac equation is a universal rewrite system derived from the concept zero (i.e. a programme which creates itself from nothing and sums to nothing) which is shown to produce 3D space +1 time at iteration 64 and predicts all know particle properties. Not only this but it also shows how DNA is a subset of this rewrite programme and encodes biological life in a similar way.
it appears his theories are a subset showing how this rewrite code sturctures the vaccum of space fractorally at all scales
Too good to be true? It appears not – The theory not only is highly predictive and in agreement with all known results. There are a lot of pear reviewed science papers on this and the best place to start is the British Computer Society Cybernetic Machine Code specialists Group pages here http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.15594

Finally the best thing about this theory is it makes perfect sense.

Lloyd 7/19/2009 [2101]
* On this thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2025#p23746 I posted Crothers’ recent recommended links on WMAP, CMB etc which has one link http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ … -19-01.PDF which suggests that Planck’s constant is not constant and therefore quantum mechanics is undermined. I mention that, because I noticed that your link involves quantum mechanics.

Lloyd 7/18/2009 [2025]

I got this email today.
Dear all,
COBE and WMAP are in serious trouble. Attached are recent papers by Prof. Pierre-Marie Robitaille of Ohio State University; one hot off the preses. They, and others, can be downloaded (as appended).

Yours faithfuly,
Stephen J. Crothers.

PS. Bcc’d widely.

D_archer 7/19/2009 [2025]

Thank you Loloyd for the papers. Will peruse them all when I find the time, so far only checked the first one.

For EU theorists, it is also less needed to find an explaination for this radiation when the data itself is so “multi-interpretational.”

Bdw000 7/19/2009 [2025]

Alexander Dalgarno, a Harvard astrophysicist, has a mainstream possibility that the CMBR could have a local source. He tones it down with “at least some of it may be local” but the science is UNDENIABLE. There is a paper somewhere, I think you had to pay for it a few years ago, but this lecture about comets and X-rays from 2003 is very interesting.

Link

He doesn’t get to the issue until the end, but the whole lecture is worth listening to just to see where his science is coming from. It is obvious that his idea could easily explain all of the CMBR locally.

Lloyd 7/19/2009 [2025]

If JL is listening, this one seems to undermine plank’s constant.

I have stated that kirchoff’s law is not universal (8, 12, 26, 27) and is restricted to the study of cavities which are either made from, or contain, perfect absorbers. ETC. Nonetheless, electromagnetics is treated almost as an unreltaed discipline. This occurs despite the reality that Kirchoff himself specifically included other processes, such as flourescence, provided enclosures were maintained.

What does JL think of that? I think APM regards Planck’s constant as a true constant.

Junglelord 7/20/2009 [2025]

Let’s put up on the screen what its all about again then, shall we?

Plancks constant, just like coulombs constand, the newton gravitaional constant, speed of light constant, speed of light squared constant, permeability constant, and permittivity constant. The standard model of particle physics essentially claims that plancks constant is a constant of convenience that happens to show up in many places.

Etc.

Harry_costas 7/20/2009 [2025]

What do you think of this critic

Has it any foundations?

Lloyd 7/20/2009 [2025]

I think he’s arrogant, and unscientific, since he calls doubters of the conventional view crackpots.

Harry_costas 7/20/2009 [2025]

Arrogant is a good word
That is being polite

Junglelord 7/20/2009 [2025]
Lloyd said: this one seems to undermine plank’s constant.

Not at all, and after a quick view of the PDF, I see no proof that Plancks constant does not specifically denote the angular momentum of an electron. APM states that gravity is a linear dimention, the same as mass is only linear. Matter and anti-matter should repel. Charge is a distributed diementions. Dimensional analysis must remain properly defined. One does not mid and match linear and distributed dimensions. They are two sides of the same thing, but they cannot be exchanged. The mass and charge of the electron never changes, it is a constant. Since h defines the angular momentum of an electron, it is always a constant, as every electron is equal in its angular momentum. Relativistic mass is not a real thing. Nothing ever happens to mass. I think that represents the proper APM view of things. Every electron has the same mass, charge, angular momentum, and therefor h is a constant, since it denotes the angular momentum of the e-

Junglelord 7/21/2009 [2025]

A photon is an electrons angular momentum expanding at the speed of light…compton’s wavelength remains quantized

Kicklabuka 7/21/2009

The fact that plank wasn’t around in 1890 when the paper was cut to, should turn heads without honorable mention. I only say that because I met the author. Real selfish. Upon finishing the ET link…

Literary Review Recent Fantasy

Electric Matter is crap. Forty pages of scheming literary, undeciding garbage—and zero math; thick with alien innuendo. This guy is clearly a schizoaffective lunatic waving these uncertain posits: Neither Angular Momentum nor Energy can be quantized. A photon is a fundamental energy unit.

“Just five minutes, worm your honor”

Lloyd 7/21/2009 [2025]
* Which author are you talking about? Robitaille?

Flyingcloud 7/22/2009 [2025]
Lloyd that’s pink floyd lyrics, from “the trial” off “the wall”

Email: Justin Sandburg to prusso, mbarrosa, lars: Electromass Hypothesis 7/20/09

This letter is in reference to citizen theories.
I have just written a set of hypotheses for the electromass concept. Http://electromass.com
Please make due consideration.
-Justin

Gmail to: Doug Isbell, 7/20/2009

Mr. Isbell,

Please be informed that I have organized the electromass hypotheses from my insightful book, electromass – the same principles at every scale. Please consider electromass for your 2009 year of astronomy headline.

Kind Regards,
Justin Sandburg

Mgmirkin: dated 9/5/2008, posted 7/21/2009 “Electricity magnetism and monopoles, oh my!”
That was a close call by Faraday, but not on target. And the reason for that is that Faraday
“missed the junction” between magnetism and matter by “bridging” it with Electricity.
In other words, it was and it still today very difficult to find the direct relation between
magnetism and matter. On the other hand Electricity or Charge are much more “user friendly”
for scientists, to perform tests, since the effects of electricity on matter are much more easy
to detect then magnetism.

In order to respect magnetism, Faraday called it Electromagnetism, since he could not
separate between the two (which no one could do so far). And because of this “bridge” over
this “junction” between magnetism and matter, Gravity remained a mystery until today.

Even more courage required here, “to be the one before Faraday”.
Here is how this can lead to the notion of magnetic poles. Bend the wires into circles with constant separation:
Replace each circle with a coil of 10, 100 or more turns, carrying the same current (figure below): the attraction or repulsion increase by an appropriate factor. In fact, each coil acts very much like a magnet with magnetic poles at each end (an “electromagnet”). Ampere guessed that each atom of iron contained a circulating current, turning it into a small magnet, and that in an iron magnet all these atomic magnets were lined up in the same direction, allowing their magnetic forces to add up.

In space, on the Sun and in the Earth’s core, electric currents are the only source of magnetism. We loosely refer to the region of their influence as their magnetic field, a term which will be further discussed later.

Seems like an apt description to me!

Posted 7/17/2009, dated 9/6/2008: rangerover777 wrote:Why in celestial structures the small bodies orbit the larger ones because of gravity, and in the atom, the electrons orbit the nuclei for a different reason then gravity?

Mgmirkin dated 9/6/2008, posted 7/21/2009

The electric force is much stronger than the gravitational force. In the nucleus of the atom, you’ve got basically just interacting charged particles. In that environment, electrical forces would seem to dominate. IE, you’ve got a certain amount of charge separation going on in an atom. You’ve got the protons in the nucleus and the electrons in shells outside it. The charges are separated, and set up an electrical potential [electric field] between them. In an electric field, gravitation takes a back seat to electrical forces between charged particles.

[this shows Mgmirkin missed the point entirely] To put it another way, as currents flow in the cosmos and pinch into filaments, a process called Marklund convection may also be at work sorting elements by ionization potential. What that would mean is that as charged materials are scavenged from adjacent regions and brought into proximity, they may “neutralize” and be sorted by their ionization state. Those neutrals may then conglomerate into the bodies we see today as galaxies, stars, planets, etc.

So, it may well be that electrical interactions do play a key role on the cosmic stage, but as materials become more neutral and the electric effects are screened, then the weaker gravitational effect takes over. [wrong!]

In the case of permanent magnets, the “current” is at the atomic level, where you have electrons revolving around the atomic nucleus (the nucleus is considered to be more or less stationary, I think). [also wrong]

In Sansbury’s and by extension Wal’s work, there are theoretical “subtrons” (particles smaller than electrons / protons / neutrons) that are the charge carriers themselves, and it is their tightly-bound configuration(s) within the electron, proton or neutron that gives it its particular characteristics, charge and behaviors. That’s still more-or-less theoretical, but is I think the basis for some of Wal’s notions about mass, charge, gravity, etc.
Hope all the above made sense. Also, if I’ve made any mistakes above, I hope someone will point them out with reference to something explaining how / why it’s incorrect. Still / always learning!

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

StephanR dated 9/8/2008, posted 7/21/2009

I think personally, rangerover777 is hinting at some of the material he also provided about Leedskalnin. But I could be wrong. I have read his little booklet “magnetic current” ( I believe that was the title), and I think it is very nice for looking at some experiments one can do at home for little money and get some feeling for magnets and their workings.

There is in my opinion no need to invent particles or force particles as one would be making the same mistake of which the “mainstream church of particles” is accused of.

Rangerover777 dated 9/9/2008, posted 7/21/2009

My point is that somewhere along the mechanical revolution, scientist chose the easy way
over curiosity. Even if it may sound somewhat philosophical or psychological, it does not
mean it’s not the truth… And definitely re-visit this subject require more then just being
knowledgeable in this field.

Sorry if I deviated from Mr. Thonhill article, at least it’s for a good reason.

Junglelord dated 9/9/2008, posted 7/21/2009

Outrages that a electron could produce a magnetic field due to its spin?
Wow, to me that makes total sense.

Junglelord dated 9/10/2008, posted 7/21/2009

Everything spins and never stops. One would never expect a atomic unit to not spin, nor can it ever stop. So magnatism is a relationship of spin between nucleus and electron and individual atoms. It is a level of coherence. Nothing magical.

Webolife dated 9/11/2008, posted 7/21/2009

Thus a magnetic field necessarily exists around any body with “mass” or “charge”, regardless of the presence of a rotating core, etc… all objects in the universe, at every scale, have some motion relative to some other object. ANd the degree of relationship between them will have some determination of the quantity of that magnetic field.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Mgmirkin dated 9/12/2008, posted 7/21/2009
In fact, it is quite possible to formulate electromagnetism so as to allow for magnetic monopoles. However, as far as we know, there are [b]no magnetic monopoles in the Universe[/b]. At least, if there are any then they are all hiding from us! We know that if we try to make a magnetic monopole by snapping a bar magnet in two then we just end up with two smaller bar magnets. If we snap one of these smaller magnets in two then we end up with two even smaller bar magnets. We can continue this process down to the atomic level without ever producing a magnetic monopole. In fact, permanent magnetism is generated by electric currents circulating on the atomic scale, so this type of magnetism is not fundamentally different to the magnetism generated by macroscopic currents.

Hmm, seems to be the same assertion that the Hyperphysics site makes… Fancy that!

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

Rangerover777 dated 9/12/2008, posted 7/21/2009

So, unless you can demonstrate
that magnetic monopoles EXIST, then assuming they exist (contrary to current theory) does NOT
make things simpler, unfortunately.
It only clouds the issue. My opinion.”

Mgmirkin dated 9/14/2008, posted 7/21/2009

Hopefully this clears up the issue of magnetic monopoles? According to Maxwell’s Wonderful Equations, they simply don’t exist!

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

Junglelord dated 9/17/2008, posted 7/21/2009

It is quite clear to me there is no monopole at any level. The Secret World of Magnets shows that each pole has a dipole of vortex’s. The APM model has dipole atomic units. I have never seen a monopole. It does not exist, like black holes, it just kinda sucks thinking about it….LOL.

Strictly speaking magnetic monopoles. Sorry for the confusion. The universe is awash with electric monopoles. Ions unite.

Marnee dated 9/17/2008, posted 7/21/2009

“Except perhaps under Sansbury / Thornhill, where are are theoretically oppositely charged “subtrons” that combine to give the overall charge of the particle. But, that’s a different discussion, I suppose?”

StephanR dated 9/17/2008, posted 7/21/2009
MGmirkin wrote:
The following is an explanation of magnetic fields from the perspective of connected monopolar, equi-charged bodies – in other words, equally charged electric field sources.

I assume that the author meant “electrically monopolar” as opposed to “magnetically monopolar,” since he also talks of charged bodies.

Quite. Apologies for the confusion might it have arisen. Your assumption is well founded, as that is what I seem to have picked up from the page itself. I just had to confine my quotes from that page to a minimum, as it was my intention to make interested persons visit the page. But then again, it was stated in the quote you quoted, Michael.

Solar dated 9/19/2008, posted 7/21/2009

There is remarkable symmetry between electric and magnetic fields and, yet, Maxwell’s equations, which capture the essence of electromagnetism, are not symmetric with respect to electric and magnetic charge. If a monopole can be demonstrated to exist then these equations would be symmetrical. Hence, there is strong motivation to search for monopoles. These searches have indeed been carried out over the last five decades but no monopole sighting has been unambiguously established. The searches can be divided into two broad categories: cosmic monopoles, produced during GUT phase transitions, and accelerator based monopoles produced by high energy collisions between electrons or nucleons. – Search for Magnetic Monopoles at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)

That explains the ‘Why’ of the existence of monopole theory. It sounds like one assumption (the ‘particulate’ nature of “matter”) cantilevered upon another assumption (the ‘monopole-like’ quantized charge of the electron necessitating a quantized magnetic ‘particle’ pole) to make Maxwells equations “symetrical”. They’ve been searching for 50 years with no results in an attempt to produce a Grand Unified Theory or “Theory of Everything” which seeks to also incorporate Einstein’s division by zero (Ric=0) which is flawed.

Junglelord dated 9/19/2008, posted 7/21/2009

But! It took me years before I realised, that teachers in school did tell me but just a fragment of truth about this experiments. Why?

Robinson dated 9/20/2008, posted 7/21/2009

It is easier for a king to have a lie believed, than a beggar to spread the truth.Especially when the beggar doesn’t even have a laptop.

Junglelord dated 9/20/2008, posted 7/21/2009
Protons do not resist the motion because they are spinning their mass parallel to disc motion held in place by the magnetic field of the magnet. Centrifugalforce pushes Nucleus outwards within the Electrons bonded structure. Protons magnetic field now off centered creates an Electric stress along the outside of the Electron shells. This creates a gradient of positive charge increasing to the outer ring of the disc where centrifugal force is greatest. This charge gradient pulls electrons outwards. [this shows a lack of understanding based on what I postulated regarding inertia]

StephanR dated 10/2/2008, posted 7/21/2009
At present, we cannot predict both the momentum and position of an electron. This is a limitation described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which, simplified and tailored for quantum particles, simply states that the more accurately we know a particle’s position, the less accurately we can know its momentum and vice versa.

AndyM 7/23/2009 [2101]
Crothers is part of the AIAS (ECE Theory) group which is proposing a new theory of Einstein’s general relativity which includes rotation, tortion and coralis effects

What comes out of all of these is that the universe breaks down to a fractal/holographic type structure self similar at all scales – What does that remind us off – Plasma Physics and the Electric Universe – scales up from Lab to Galaxy formations!

Email: greylion 7/21/2009
I understand you completely if this quote fits your situation:
“If you’re one step ahead of the crowd, you’re a genius. If you’re two steps ahead, you’re a crackpot”.
You seem to be a step ahead of the EU crowd 🙂

Orlando 7/21/2009 [2025]

What if the current flow path is as a crumb attracted by 1000 seaguls screaming “mine, mine, mine”? What a mess for that much “mass, motion” to occupy that space emcompassing that little crumb, so as to grasp onto it long enough to actually take a bite!

Orlando 7/21/2009 [2025]

Funny, when I see myself swatting a fly or chasing a document down the parking lot, to have it whisked away by the motion of a hand. Easier to step on it, before the gust flips it away.

Mgmirkin 7/22/2009 [2025]
Methinks 1000 seagulls screaming “Mine, Mine, Mine!” like in Finding Nemo still wouldn’t quite cause ye olde crumb to move an inch without some specific force acting on it…

Osmosis 7/22/2009 [2025]
Plasma to dusty plasma to dust to sand to rocks to—ouch!

Mharratsc 7/22/2009 [2025]
Update: In order for me to demonstrate that these medieval anti-scientific attacks are indeed spreading like mosquitos, let me mention that Stephen Crothers has informed me about his/their protest against the funding of the Australian International Gravitational Observatory. His main objection is that he thinks that the Big Bang and the black holes are incompatible with General Relativity according to his understanding of physics summarized in this paper. Using dozens of equations, Stephen Crothers shows that all relativists have fatally erred in their analysis of the “Efcleethean” and “Reimannian” geometries.

That kid is an unadulterated mainstreamist fan boi

Lloyd 7/23/2009 [2025]
Well, Mike, you’re almost as hard to follow as Kick.

Mharratsc 7/23/2009 [2025]
If you look through that pseudo-skeptical, passive-agressive blog, my comments regarding the author of it will become a bit more clear. I was talking about the author of the blog, not Steve Crothers!

Mgmirkin 7/23/2009
However, the misunderstanding comes in when people try to reify the lines themselves (believing the lines to be their own physical entities) while not understanding that they are non-physical and don’t mean what they think they mean.

There is no physical line at the point in actual 3D space depicted in 2D on a piece of paper. The ‘line” is part of a 2D cross-section of a continuous feature, such as a sphere or a toroid (doughnut shape).

But even the line is misleading if you don’t know what you’re talking about. The discrete nature of the lines and their spacing is a convention used in engineering. It does not mean there is a discrete entity at that point disconnected from another entity equivalent to the distance in real space represented by that “line” and the next closest “line.” They’re not ropes. They’re don’t even depict shells, per se. Their spacing denotes field strength.

The reason they draw discrete lines is because it’s a convention to show field strength via distance apart. Not because something rope-like in the real world is actually physically at those points that distance apart.

I find it quite amusing, personally.

Junglelord 7/23/2009

Thats not the field structure of the magnetic field. That is millions of iron filings which become individual magnets and align in a field.

The field structure are dual vortex’s which spin, Howard Johnson proved that very clearly. That picture is a total fakeout along with the standard reply…..

No offense, but I had to say.

Seasmith 7/23/2009
Jungle, Jungle,

You are just incorrigible, aren’t you ?

Junglelord 7/24/2009

The field is composed of billions of dual vortex units….there are no straight lines in nature.

Seasmith 7/24/2009
Where did you see a straight line ??
No argument there

D_archer 7/24/2009 [2025]
Hi all,

I would like to steer this thread back on topic. Please post mainly replies that deal with the MBR.

This paper (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0403/0403353v3.pdf) is written by conventional physicists that dare ask the question: is the CMB cosmic? Bravo to them.

Regards,
Daniel

Kicklabuka 7/24/2009 [2025]
I thought this was a two way street, with cars playing nice. To co-exist, co-elaborate. Drive past each other without swerving. Do you really think it just stops?

FS3 7/24/2009 (black holes don’t exist, say physicists)
The galaxy, called NGC 1097, is located 50 million light-years away.
“The fate of this black hole and others like it is an active area of research,” said George Helou, deputy director of NASA’s Spitzer Science Center at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. “Some theories hold that the black hole might quiet down and eventually enter a more dormant state like our Milky Way black hole.”…
Apart from all those Black ‘oles, “calming down” or develpoing into a “more dormant state”(?huh?) they still seem to play playing peek-a-boo as that Black ‘ole still seems to be “invisible” – although everyone seems to “see” it…

Isn’t imagination of self-fullfilling prophecies a great thing?

Friendly fire memoir#1? – not included at this time

Biknewb 7/25/2009 (black holes don’t exist, say physicists)
Black ‘oles quieting down and going dormant, does that mean gravity is a variable after all?
What happened to the good old power suckers that nothing, even light could escape?

FS3 dated 3/17/2008, posted 7/25/2009
What they really did was creating a distortion in a fiber, superposing a second IR-beam, and measuring – aka calculating – the “distorsion” between the two moving fronts

Circular reasoning, producing circular results.

Eres dated 3/17/2008, posted 7/25/2009
Or; they produce useless garbage
By the way; the new graphics dress of the forum is very pleasant

StephanR 3/17/2008, posted 7/25/2009
Of course finding event horizons and blackholes in a fiber optic cable is weird, but there are are interesting things in this research.
They first transmitted an ultrashort, intense laser pulse down the optical fiber. The optical fiber is susceptible to nonlinear effects, such that when an intense pulse of light hits the fiber, it changes the physical properties of the fiber. In this case, the first pulse created a distortion that amounted to a change in the fiber’s index of refraction, which moves along with the pulse. The pulse itself was slowed by the distortion. Leonhardt and colleagues then sent a “faster” stream of infrared laser light in pursuit of the first pulse. When the faster-moving second pulse encountered the distortion, it got trapped at its edge and couldn’t break past it. This edge became the fiber’s “event horizon.”

Solar 3/17/2008, posted 7/25/2009
. It seems nature doesn’t mind at all
, however, things occasionally go wrong
The other virtual particle is forced to live longer than the uncertainty principle allows, in effect becoming a real particle.
Were I an accountant I would call this a cosmological ‘loop hole’.
It is instead filled with “virtual particles” which annihilate each other, unless of course, they manage to escape the initially inescapable “event horizon”

Mgmirkin 3/18/2008, posted 7/25/2009
Come to think of it… Wouldn’t such a bizarre aberration as virtual particles becoming “real” particles, with one swallowed by the black hole and the other flying off
what if two particles were to appear and one goes in and the other ‘wanders off’?”
But then one would have to realize that second particle that goes “wandering off” seems like it really should NOT go “a-wandering.” Remember, it’s teetering on the brink of the event horizon of a black hole!
it’s still going to feel the effects of the gravity well where it materialized like a few microns from the point-of-no-return…

It just seems like it shouldn’t just go skipping off on its merry way… Am I the only one who has wondered about this?

Solar 3/18/2008, posted 7/25/2009
but also contradicting the supposed notion that ‘nothing can escape’.

Mgmirkin 3/18/2008, posted 7/25/2009
The one inside screams ‘Oooh, it hurts … it hurts’ and falls into the black hole. The other skips off on its merry way, ignoring the gravity well behind it … (Please ignore the violation of prior theories stating nothing escapes a black hole and being that close to the event horizon means certain doom from tidal forces) …”

Okay, enough silliness!

*John Cleese runs into the room waving his arms* And NO-OO SINGING!

StephanR 3/18/2008, posted 7/25/2009
MMkay,

if you think that is silly, Susskind was explaining the event-horizon by analogy of of fish swimming up stream. So he had a very cute drawing of fish swimming upstream and in the water was a sign saying point of no return.
No kidding, children.

Mgmirkin 3/19/2008, posted 7/25/2009
But did it show the fish circling the drain?

Re: Black Holes
./viewtopic.php?p=985 – p985./viewtopic.php?p=985 – p985by MGmirkin » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:55 pm
Might as well resurrect ye olde comparisons:

(Artist’s impression of “merging black holes.”)
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Physics/photo – 5066811709592149762http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Physics/photo – 5066811709592149762
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 … erger.html

(Idealized diagram of a Birkeland current. Long-range attraction, short range repulsion, helical / filamentary structure.)
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Physics/photo – 5066809020942622450http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Physics/photo – 5066809020942622450
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Filamentation

(Twin “black holes”? Or two “pinches” along twined Birkeland currents?)
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Astronomy/photo – 5067041202579676962http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Astronomy/photo – 5067041202579676962
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060412.html
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ … kholes.htm

One might also be inclined to point out that the structures talked about with reference to black holes and their axial jets (which seems a bit ironic, since they’re supposed to be the great “eaters of all”) seem to be becoming quite similar to descriptions / schematics of “plasma focus fusion.”

(Diagram of accretion disk, plasma filaments, etc.)
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Physics/photo – 5116540535126753474http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Physics/photo – 5116540535126753474
http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/users/ … enzind.pdf

(Purportedly “twisted magnetic fields” relating to the “accretion disk”; keeping in mind that field lines are NOT reified physical entities, and can not bend, stretch, twist, tie in knots, snap, or “reconnect” any more than lines of latitude or longitude can.)
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Physics/photo – 5116540535126753490http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Physics/photo – 5116540535126753490
http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/users/ … enzind.pdf

(That brings us to the notion of an electromagnetic “pinch.”)
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Physics/photo – 5118290553911247090http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Physics/photo – 5118290553911247090
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pinch

(And focus fusion.)
http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Physics/photo – 5115787056129114274http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Physics/photo – 5115787056129114274
http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/si … n_reactor/

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

P.S. Sorry for the length. Just trying to quickly summarize some of the info from ye olde loste “Black Hole vs. the Birth of a Plasma Galaxy” thread. Unfortunately, Google’s cache was lacking on that one, insofar as I could tell. Thankfully, I vaguely recall the thread…

Kicklabuka 7/25/2009
It was on 11JUNE2009 [surprisingly or not, the thread “magnetic fields dominate all star formation” reappeared seconds after I wrote this.]

Anonymous 7/26/2009
Network: AMC (Mad Men, Breaking Bad etc.)

Writer: Bill Gallagher (Conviction – won UK’s Edgar for best miniseries teleplay)

When: November, 2009

Synopsis: a man named Number Six inexplicably wakes up one morning in a mysterious prison-like desert resort, retaining shadowy memories of a place called New York. The inhabitants have no knowledge of a world outside of this village, nor do they seem concerned that they go by numbers instead of names. Number Two is the prime minister/security chief of the desert town.

Six and Two are portrayed as being opposing players in a dangerous & twisted game of chess. At one point Number Six proclaims,”I am not a number, I am a free man.” Number Two responds,”You only think you’re free…”

Anonymous 8/7/2009
I’d heard they were remaking The Prisoner. The original show only makes sense in the context and conditions of the bygone Bi-polar world of the Cold War. As in the classic line, “Whose side are you on?”

Anaconda 7/24/2009 [2025]
KickLaBuka, you demonstrated a better grasp of the specifics than I have. I tend to deal in first principles and logic and logical construction (I freely admit my mathematical skills are non-existent and I often get tagged for that, but I do have a decent grasp of the first principles that support the various mathematical details).

Mgmirkin 7/30/2009 [2101]
While I agree there’s not much by the way of good track record on Grand Unified Theories and this forum isn’t a clearing house for each and every such new theory, despite the fact that many of them keep seeming to be brought up repeatedly (Aetherometry, APM, Electromass, etc. etc. I’ve lost track by now)

StevenO 7/31/2009 [2101]
Is’nt it funny that we expect that a ToE should come from some fancy math these days?
Where is the time that physics was about finding and explaining mechanisms on how the world around us works?

For a painfully refreshing look on how centuries of mathematical mistakes has gotten us into the current mess, I recommend this website: The Greatest Standing Errors in Physics and Mathematics. The theory and website is especially recommended for EU proponents.

The author also shows that we already have two ToE hiding in plain sight. It is called either “Newtons equation of gravity” or “the Coulomb equation”. It can be found here: The Unified Field Theory. To quote:

This paper is not a historical overview of failed Unified Field Theories. Nor is it a philosophical treatise on the idea of the Unified Field. Nor is it an esoteric model based on extravagant and untestable hypotheses. Nor is it the revelation of some new math, so difficult it requires large computers just to store the equations. This paper is the announcement of the Unified Field that we have always had, but not recognized. This paper is the solution of a very long mystery.

I will show that Newton’s famous gravitational equation is a compound equation that expresses both the gravitational field and the E/M field. I will separate the two fields mathematically, showing the distinct equations and how they fit together. I will then do a Relativistic transform on each new field, showing that a new Relative field equation can be achieved directly without tensors or any difficult math. I will then re-unify these two Relative field equations into a Unified Field Equation, which I will show is just Newton’s classical field with a simple transform.

Harry Costas 7/31/2009 [2025]
I think this was posted before. It’s not just to challenge the BBT, it’s more to do with being scientifically responsible.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4284
Tolman Test from z = 0.1 to z = 5.5: Preliminary results challenge the expanding universe model

Authors: Eric J. Lerner
(Submitted on 23 Jun 2009)

Kicklabuka 7/31/2009 [2025]
Does anyone still think the speed of light is constant? How we doin on that distance problem?

Harry Costas 7/31/2009 [2025]
The speed of light is constant under the same conditions.

Its potential speed is contant.

Junglelord 8/7/2009 [443]
The direction of funding for various contracts, and by who, is what interested me lately (due to a book I am reading and the information it has chronolgically displayed between 1952-1958 and electrogravitic research and public documents), and I guess that is too much evidence for what ever reason to be practical discussion towards the very SCIENCE that drives that FUNDING. Trying to seperate the results, from the intent is comical. Trying to then pigeon hole that simple process into some “lala” scene is ingenous. The military has the most advanced physical systems and understanding of physics and it is classified. So talking about it will always step on someones toes.

Junglelord 9/16/2009 [443]
Centrifugal force is exerted on the projected plasma is directed toward the center of the circular motion of the spiraling plasma, not away from it. This phenomenon is attributed to the massively rotating charged naked singularity at the end point of the projected plasma. This three-phased projected plasma confines the excitonic gasses and provides a path of parallel transport — a fine connection — that automatically aligns the trapped charged particles in one direction like the atoms in a magnet.

Junglelord 8/16/2009 [443]
Based on our patented laser system, UNITEL’s all-electrical, aerospace electromagnetic laser propulsion system will act much like a conventional helicopter and will be able to hover, fly sideways, anywhere on the x, y or z axis, at velocities unattainable with conventional vehicles. This vehicle design will be able to travel to areas in deep space that are unreachable by any other space propulsion designs known to date. This will be accomplished by employing macroscopic quantum tunneling (MQT) technique that will allow us to travel throughout the universe at velocities several times faster than a space vehicle traveling at the speed-of-light.

Kicklabuka 8/16/2009 [443]
JL. Please don’t use quantum to travel through space. The errors will propagate.

Junglelord 8/20/2009 [443]
I am quanta and travel through space right now, as does everyone else….so I have no idea what your talking about.

Freedomrocks 9/6/2009 [443]
I must say, junglelord, that I agree with you. If the military owns and operates the very topic, then how can it be excluded? I am not much one for conspiracy theories, but have a knack for conspiracy facts. Iran/Contra was one, and i was laughed at when I even mentioned the name Barry Seals. Of course it all came out in the end, but the military hushed it up, assassinated Barry Seals and then made Ollie North a super hero.

Junglelord 9/6/2009 [443]
Thanks for the vote of support. It seems odd to automatically ignore the elephant in the room, yet that is the way they keep conversation within “reality”….by pretending that there is no elephant there and then they insinuate that to talk about one is like saying it has pink pokeadots, how odd!

Logic, argument, and logical fallacy. Dated 3/31/2008, created near 6/15/2009, posted 7/22/2009, removed, posted again 8/21/2009.

Tina, dated 8/1/2008

The Slippery Slope argument says that If [A] then [B]then [C] – this is the fallacy. There is no way of showing that [A] will necessarily lead to [C] so I really think the fallacy status of this type of argument needs to be upheld. …and the real cases of ‘slippery slope’ that you speak of would need to be expressed through valid arguments using actual emphirical evidence.

StevenO » Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:43 pm
Logic fallacies should be avoided by keeping the archetypical knot (the Borromean rings) into mind:

Two rings are just stacked but three rings tie a knot. Only at least three elements can create a stable structure.

Gray cloud 8/19/2009
Individuals, or groups who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes by using rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none [this is flatly wrong. It is essentially justifying the status quo because a group of people said “this is so.”]

Kicklabuka 8/21/2009
one correction. Circular logic is bad. Circular reasoning is good. CR is saying, if a then b is true and if b then c is true, And if c then a is true, therefore you have a solid logical argument.

GaryN 8/14/2009 [2216]
Hi JL, I only have a very limited understanding of the APM model, when I first looked at it and saw..

The Aether Physics Model predicts black holes are implosion events, which release the encapsulated dark matter back into the sea of dark matter. A black hole has a short life span and then it evaporates.
..I thought I’d give it a pass, for now anyway.
It doesn’t seem to deal with the origin or geometry of the proton, but perhaps I’m selling the model short?

Junglelord 8/15/2009 [2216]
Dark matter in this case is angular momentum. Dave Thomson agrees that there are no black holes and no dark matter. The terms in that sentence are not representive of common usage in cosmology. [the punch line comes at the end]

Junglelord 8/23/2009 [2216]
I have always said that we are just frozen light….APM says what the Photon model says, just the other way around, a photon is an electron expanding at the speed of light. I had the revelation in Electronic College that when a electron and a photon exchange, they exchange spin, angular momentum, which APM says is actually correct. How cool a imagination I have too. [this is typical misuse of logic to justify the jungle theory]

Junglelord 8/26/2009
It is the Tesla Magnifying Transmitter sitting at the heart of the galaxy. INCREDIBLE, I think I have made another discovery, that the Phase Conjugate System is the normal method of the galaxy powerhouse. This one came from the informaton and inspiration of the LaViolette Antigravity book and this information took me back to the beginning, but now with a much better understanding of the physics of the Impulse Magnifying Transmitter, based on Subquantum Kinetics and the Aether Physics Model. The synesthesia is wonderful, so many thanks to TT Brown and Tesla, Tom Bearden and Paul LaViolette and Dave Thomson. Thanks to Wal and Dave for opening the door.

8/18/2009 email
“coniglio” , “musialowski/defelice” , “hanson” , “rachinger” , “nowakowski” , “dow” , “deacon, sharon” , “ovitt, meg” , “Marrano, amanda” , “Walck, Brenda” , “cozzarelli, claire” , “Trombley, Dana” , “Brady, Diane” , “harper, nancy” , helives121805@optonline.net, “Murphy, Jackie” , “frost, joanie” , justinbcat@yahoo.com, “kugler, kathy” , “Toner, Kathy” , “donner, kathy” , kerrijancewicz@yahoo.com, “piazza, laura” , “wells, margie” , “cardona, marty” , “weber, melanie” , mev40@yahoo.com, “yu, milan” , mwells1020@yahoo.com, “swanson, noelle” , paboo3@aol.com, padmms@verizon.net, pcg@glauber.com, rda162@verizon.net, “ATTEA, REBECCA” , “richter” , “bailey, sharon” , “willette/smith” , “podraza, suzie” , “toner, steve” , sudin@buffalo.edu, “daley, denise” , “berger, wendy” , “pachla” … more

Hi Everyone:
This is our last luncheon before all the kids go back to school!!
When: Tuesday, September 1st, 2009, at noon
Where: Arirang Korean Restaurant
1416 Millersport Highway
Buffalo, NY 14221
(between Flint Road and CR-192)
Restaurant phone number 639-7384
What to bring: Yourselves, your family, your friends,
your wallet!!
PLEASE CALL OR E-MAIL ME IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND WITH YOUR COUNT NO LATER THAN 8/29. I hope to see you there!! Brenda 731-9638

Junglelord 8/23/2009 [2270]

I might mention that I am first a self taught mathematician. My background
is highly steeped in what is called the ccp aka fcc from the sphere packing field.
This has been the sole driving force in my work….where does it apply ? My physics
theories all come from that. I was forced into physics, and Einstein and relativity.
it was not my intention to challenge it – more a consequence of this path that
I followed. I still follow the path of the ccp after some twenty years. This, with
the amazing help of many graphic collaborators…has produced some neat
graphics, as shown in some of the click-outs above.

While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself is not subjective.
Only believe in the results not necessarily the interpretations or the conclusions.

I believe that the spiral vortex preceeds the sphere. Ever consider that? It is the underlying scalar from the aether (rotating magnetic field) that makes spheres of ElectroStatic Charge and the torus of EM Charge. The Scalar form, is the archtype form from which the spheres arise. The elemental and most powerful structure is the spiral, the sphere comes second. The spiral galaxy has phase conjugate longitudinal em waves along its faraday disc and phase conjugate waves from the center which emenate from its poles as the pump beams. The Phase Conjugate four beam mixer.

The device thus powers the external load directly off the energy organized and gated from the local vacua surrounding the excited, activated, self-pumped barium nuclei.

The Scalar Potential Has An Internal Structure and it is a Dual Opposite Vortex that creates a Torus and a Sphere around it.

The Aether Physics Model is very clear about the role of Pi in the UFT from which the geometric charge structures of the EM torous and the ES sphere emerge from the sea of vortexes of rotating magnetic fields. So the Golden Mean of PHI is more fundamental then Pi, I believe. The two live with Eulers number (e) to make our universe. [this is a common tactic. “The junglelord model is very clear.” ]

There is a reason that the Vortex makes a Torus
http://img29.imageshack.us/i/toroidcolor.jpg/http://img29.imageshack.us/i/toroidcolor.jpg/

Here are the Constants of the Aether Physics Model
http://img15.imageshack.us/i/curvedconstants.gif/http://img15.imageshack.us/i/curvedconstants.gif/

So Pi makes both the Torus and the Sphere.
http://img199.imageshack.us/i/sphereplanessmall.jpg/http://img199.imageshack.us/i/sphereplanessmall.jpg/

Everything starts with dual opposites vortex creating dual opposites spheres – Electron, Positron. They come from a dual vortex.

Everything is spinning, not just close packing.

Birkeland Currents are twisted for a reason and it is not close packing…it is spin.
http://img39.imageshack.us/i/birkelandcurrentpairtwi.jpg/http://img39.imageshack.us/i/birkelandcurrentpairtwi.jpg/

You do not get to the Fuller 720 without spin
http://img15.imageshack.us/i/720axis.gif/http://img15.imageshack.us/i/720axis.gif/

So spin cannot be seperated from the sphere hence the vortex is the fundamental structure.
http://img29.imageshack.us/i/largeweb.jpg/http://img29.imageshack.us/i/largeweb.jpg/

Woldemar 8/23/2009 [2270]

The conversation is way off topic. What else do you have on the ccp ?

Junglelord 8/24/2009 [2270]

Sorry dude, I have taken others to task for that when they disagreed and were trying to derail a topic. I however agree 100 percent with your observations, I was throwing in more. You many not agree with me. I guess that is the disconnect.

I figured that since your 100% correct lets go forward. I have nothing else to add, I like your work. It is not a revelation to me at this point, though I can see how since you put so much effort into it, that you want to tell others about only that in your thread. Sorry about that. Close pack away to the masses. I for one have understood the deeper aspects of closed packing for some time. It is a revelation to each one who “gets it”.

Woldemar 8/25/2009: Please remove your non-ccp stuff from this thread.

Impossible. I do not have that ability. Sorry. Edit functions go away after an hour.
Structure and function cannot be seperated. Your using math, I am using visual geometry. Your talking close packing, which is geometry. Besides I have done contributing, maybe someone else has something to add, like Steven O. He is the master of math, not me, I am just mental thinker.

Woldemar 8/25/2009 [2270]

While you may see this as ccp related, I do not see such a connection.

8/26/2009 kicklabuka [2270]
Junglelord. You are making a mistake. The concept is electromass and the fundamental is the differential target. And your revelation is mistaken.

Junglelord 8/26/2009 [2270]
I have no idea what your talking about, this thread is not mine and it is about the ccp.

9/6/2009 kicklabuka [2346]

In aether physics, Phi is a lattice placed over atoms to explain them. truth demands that if phi is unnecessary, it is gone. In electromass, phi is an angle, like theta.

9/6/2009 junglelord [2346]
quoting
Keely worked, without succes, on the theory that polar and depolar current actions were circular. He found success when he found and proved that these forces act with a spiro-vortex motion!
Keely recognized the relative pitches between atoms and states that this is just as important as the spectra (vibrational frequency) of the atoms themselves.

A few interesting points can be made if we compare this knowledge with new findings from quantum mechanics, bio-energetics, psycho-energetics, elektrogenetics, bio-holographic studies, biofoton research, research into acoustical and elektromagnetic influence from and on DNA, bio-geometry, structured water studies, digital biology studies from Benveniste and his team, scalar elektromagnetics studies (Bearden), zeropoint energy (Akasha) studies and crop circle research.

Third: sound, light and geometry really are releated to each other in a fundamental way and this fact contains possibilities the Ancients allready realized and our new sciences now finally seem to rediscover (or remember?).

9/7/2009 kicklabuka [2346]

You mean peace and love and all that hippy stuff?

9/7/2009 junglelord [2346]

3-6-9 are my PHI baby, and my grasshopper is Jeet Kune Do.

9/7/2009 kicklabuka [2346]

Well you sure do seem quite pleased with yourself. So the only way to stop this is to beat or explain the 369 qualitatively.

9/7/2009 junglelord [2346]

369, Is that some thing from the 60’s?

Look what I found in the TV Guide.

UFC 1000, its PHI vs Electromass

in the faraday cage

here come the ring girls, 3-6-9
my don’t they look lovely tonight?
They seem quite pleased with themselves….

Its gonna be a great fight.
OOOH, I can’t wait.
What side you picking?
No, not of your nose, I mean in the ring,
And no, not the ring in your nose….
Hey NASCAR, Marry your sister much Bubba?

Where’s the popcorn????

I think we can safely move this over to the Mad Ideas section, everyone gather your popcorn, it should be good.
I heard its a tag team match, with Lizze and JL as the PHI tag team champions, of the world, vs electromass,

Electromass???

Yeah, thats right. I think its a DC comics guy….son of Magneto
MUUHHAHAHAHAHA< But wait in a strange twist of fate, Electromass is 3-6-9 disguised as PHI.... Phew, thats weird. Kicklabuka 9/9/2009 [2346] Hey leave the town alone. They don't know any better. Was that really on tv? My tv broke at christmas 2007. Course you knew that too. Junglelord 9/9/2009 [2346] I did not know that you knew, now that I know that you know, I will let you know that I just don't know, you know? [On mass and einstein] Webolife dated 4/25/2008, posted near 8/4/2009 [430] Mass is the result of centropic vectors in a gravitational potential field (oops, sorry, electrical, oops, unified?). It's compliment, energy, is the result of extropic vectors, or more to the point kinetic effects outwardly displaced through Newtonian inertial type principles. Net centropic effects, universe-wide, and scaleless, are seen as entropy. Junglelord 4/25/2008**post dated [430] Mass is a Dimension in APM Five Dimensions of APM. 1. Length 2. Frequency 3. Mass 4. Charge 5. Spherical Geometry Mass is a Dimension and does not Equal Energy which is a Unit, and they are therefore not convertable, especially as taught in the Standard Model and in Relativity, because the construct is different. Units come from Dimensions, but are not Dimensions. An important point to observe. In APM Theory this is Momentum, it is a result of three Dimensions interactions. Momentum = Mass X Length X Frequency Junglelord 8/5/2009 [430] Total Science wrote: "What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908 APM says exactly that....Mass is the linear aspect of distributed EM. Junglelord 8/18/2009 [430] StevenO wrote: StevenO wrote:You guys all hide in complexities, just like mainstreamers Mass, gravity and inertia is simply a three dimensional outward acceleration of matter. That this statement is true can be proven in a simple way. E.g., calculate the gravitational deflection of light from the sun. 1. We all know that photons travel straight lines since the speed of light is a universal constant, so even the idea of curved space is a little absurd since a curve always describes an acceleration... 2. Putting the transit time of a photon grazing the sun to the earth at 500s, we get that the surface of the earth during this time expands an unexpected distance of: s= at2/2 = (9.8m/s2)(500s)2/2 = 1,225,000m 3. The angle of deflection can then be calculated from: tan(θ) = s/1 AU = 1,225,000m/1.5x1011m θ = 1.68 arcseconds 4. Voila. The famous result from General Relativity that made Einstein a celebrity. Only this way you get the result in three lines of algebra instead of 40 pages of Tensor math... I like it, your a smart man. But I still think that the Subquantum Kinetic theory is the best gravity theory I have seen. I think APM is the best field theory and helped me understand Mass, I believe, fundamentally. Influx 8/18/2009 Mass is drag on subatomic particles caused by the casimir effect, so is inertia and momentum. Problem solved. arc-us » Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:39 pm KickLaBuka wrote:Is anyone still following this? I've just been hit with the most absurd question imagineable. Can someone tell me who this person is who refuses to let E=Mcc go? StevenO wrote: What's wrong with E=mc2 ?? Apparently, nothing but the [mis-] &/or [re-]interpretation. –arc_us StevenO 10/6/2009 [430] All physics laws using radius dependencies (Newton's gravitation, GR, Coulombs force law, QED, radiation laws,...) are basically Unified Field theories expressing those two forces using different scaling factors. KickLaBuka » Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:38 pm StevenO wrote: wait, what’s wrong with E=mc2?? Pulsars... If E=mc² without reference to the flow of charge in the surroundings, then it is only an approximation for a certain scope; one that excludes electricity in the cosmos. KickLaBuka Guest 1/4/10 Junglelord 1/4/2010 [2788] There is no equality in e = mc^2 try it. e is measured in joules as the standard m is measured by the kilogram as a standard so 1 joule is equal to 1 kilogram times the speed of light squared.... I don't think so. yourself 12/22/2009 [2768] Thanks for your comments. I was unable to follow it so I made another post as to why I think the sun has a hole in it. Please tell me if I'm full of bull. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2788 Yourself Posts: 4 Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:59 pm Location: Richmond, Virginia USA Arc_us: Dated 4/2/2008, posted 8/25/2009 It seems that the University of Cologne has demonstrated faster then light microwave energy through a tunnel. Or was it? to be fair I give a question of the validity here. http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw105.html This is explained with the Field Theory Model and is quite interesting as the Longitudinal Energy is faster then c in a tunnel. The tunnel and the vortex create faster then c speeds. junglelord 11/21/2010 [2644] Dave Thomson who wrote the Aether Physics Model has been stating this since its conception. EM charge holds the nucleus together, the so called weak force, is the quantum spin difference b/t EM charge geometry and Electrostatic charge geometry. So yes the guy is correct, as far as I am concerned. I have a thread about the strong nuclear force not being created by gluons but rather by EM Charge. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=506&start=0 Junglelord 11/29/2009 [2644] Its clear to me that the nucleus is held togethe via EM charge. [wrong] The weak force is the quantum spin difference b/t EM charge and ES charge, so its really not a force at all. [lacks an explaination] junglelord » Tue May 06, 2008 7:04 pm, posted around 11/21/10 [2092] [506] Here is a quote from the Meyl Scalar Technology Book, in his reworking of EM he has gotten rid of the Strong Nuclear Force. It builds on his previous work to identify the electron as a dual voretx dipole configuration and his math leads to this startling conclusion. According to today's textbook opinion (course of the field indicated with a in fig. 7.8) the forces of repulsion between the individual protons increase further as the distance gets smaller, to obtain immense values within the nucleus. They theoretically had to be overcome by new and unknown nuclear forces. Therefore physicists assume the hypothesis of a "strong interaction". But they are mistaken. Well I think I get it. The Strong Force is the Electromagnetic Charge in APM The two types of charge recognized in the Aether Physics Model are the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic charge. Our white paper, "A New Foundation for Physics," explains the two types of charge in greater detail. The reader will note that the above values for proton and neutron angular momentum differ from the values given by NIST (interestingly, NIST has subsequently deleted values of the proton and neutron angular momenta from their web site). This is one of a few units the Aether Physics Model disagrees with the Standard Model over. [common method of false creation of the junglelord model] Junglelord dated 6/28/2008, posted _______ More evidence, this time from Dirac's Sea of Negitive Energy, that the strong force is the electromagnetic force. [dirac’s sea of negative energy is a reference to a thread created during my tenure. Posted Soon before July 25 2009] Arc_us: dated 4/2/2008, posted 8/25/2009 "Strong interaction" A central question of nuclear physics concerns the forces which keep the atomic nucleus, which consists of many neutrons and protons, together and give it its very good stability in spite of the like positive charge (key question XIV fig. 7.13). According to today's textbook opinion (course of the field indicated with a in fig. 7.8 the forces of repulsion between the individual protons increase further as the distance gets smaller, to obtain immense values within the nucleus. They theoretically had to be overcome by new and unknown nuclear forces. Therefore physicists assume the hypothesis of a "strong interaction". But they are mistaken. Junglelord: dated 4/2/2008, posted 8/25/2009 I have to say thanks again. My mind is spinning...ROFL I am doing my best to give a meaningful journey of the book...although there is some translation slips. Arc_us: dated 4/2/2008, posted 8/25/2009 If we overlap the results of the two special cases, e.g. by adding the force effects of electric charges and accelerated masses, then we summarized obtain a field, which we accordingly should call "electrogravitational". This case is not at all unknown. Already Niels Bohr in this way has calculated the radii of the electron orbits in the hull of his model of the atom, to mention only one example. Arc_us: dated 4/2/2008, posted 8/25/2009 Now that we have identified the fundamental state of the hydromagnetic field is dual opposition vortex and the way these dual pair opposition vortex particles are created and how the different fields of the vortex dualites exist we have now reached the holy grail....Free Energy. Consequently he had built a receiver for free energy and registered for patent (1901, Patent No. 685,957). Dated 4/2/2008, posted 8/25/2009 If the newly discovered vortex phenomenon of the vortex of the electric field exists, then it will be possible to practically use it. Whereas we still think about possibilities for technical usage, there by all means exists the possibility, that nature already is successfully using the vortex for a long time. We should look precise at things. We can only learn of nature! Junglelord: dated 4/2/2008, posted 8/25/2009 What have we learned so far and what is the best way to see this in a physical system? In plasma we see the Langmuir Sheath and Birkeland Currents In the river we see the vortex In the air we see the tornado In the Galaxy we see the Spiral This personal voyage of discovery I am on is the correct path. As I learn I see that my direction is correct. All paths lead to the Scalar Field, especially the EU. Very Happy Stephen0: dated 4/5/2008, posted 8/25/2009 Dear Junglelord, I'm still digesting all the material you posted, but I have a few remarks to help you weed out the bad theories, for better progress of science... 1. Please do not waste any time on Myron Evan's theories. If Einstein's General Relativity is bad, ECE is an order worse. If Einstein's theory turns spacetime into Yello, then Evans turns it into soapscum. I actually bought his ECE book to study it, but it's the worst 65 dollars I ever spend. Here is a qualification of a recent Noble price winner about his work: 3. Resonant circuits can transfer power through phase coupling relatively independent of distance. It is pretty well explained in the Collective Electrodynamics booklet from Carver Mead that I have referred to a few times already. Junglelord, dated 4/5/2008, posted 8/25/2009 Hi Stephen, The whole purpose was to return to the original work of Maxwell, Tesla, Faraday. I hope its served its purpose. I agree about ECE and Einstein. That was three months ago and the origins of a learning curve. I saved the money on that purchase. I figured it out as the Aether came into view. To me it all boils down to gravity. The way any new model explains gravity is the best way for me to determine if its accurate. Thats my lithmus test. I think you must have read my view on modern cosmology and gravity and the modern four force model. Gravity is pure dogma as currently taught. The inability to isolate a charge carrier is the reason its dogma and not science. I therefore contend it is not a primary force. The model I have proposed is the model supported by all those scientist mentioned in many post of mine. Three dimensions of space, three dimensions of fields, all at right angles to each other. They also agree on the archetype dual vortex spiral opposites that originate from the three primary fields and this model fits all parameters as explained by Meyl. StephanR, dated 4/8/2008, posted 8/25/2009 What if this work helps to clear up the nature of gravitation, which is as dim now as it was in the times of Newton? What his concept of the vacuum shows the road to the long-awaited explanation of the Grand Unification theory? "As as experimental physicist I won't say our theory is 100 percent correct," Chernetski declares. "It's much more an opportunity now to have indisputable experimental data to prove the opportunity of creating a basically new power industry. The present paper develops this concept from another view. So, the motion of charged particles is the current. But there are both the wattful current and wattless current. To create the free energy system it is necessary to transform the wattless current to wattful current. Junglelord, dated 4/8/2008, posted 8/25/2009 Eric Dollard (from Functional Thinking) E:If we take Tesla's three phase electricity, or rotating magnetic field, we find that it is based on the archetypal form known as the Solar cross or by various other names. Some good stuff for the second editon of the EU. First Science Officer reporting for duty Sir. Cheers Dean W Dated 5/7/2008, posted 8/25/2009 Is Mead correct? Was I correct to use his statement as a proper rebuttal to plasmatic or am I still caught in the classical mess myself with the half way stage of Collective Electrodynamics Mead/Frenyman rebuttal, caught in my own double worded rebuttal? Is Collective Electrodynamics more classical mess, just less messy? I love Bruce Lee so I am live by his philosophy. (if you know any of his work, you will love the satire on classical mess) Your APM is very much to Physics what the Tao of Jeet Kune Do was to the Martial Arts world if I am correct in my anology. Your constant correctsions of my questions to be formulated in a unclassical style has taught me much. (very bruce lee of you)! So this is the post in question from "the Problem of Spin" I started. I believe we have proper terminology when we have proper defintions of "constant", "dimension", "unit" and "measurement". APM of course is what taught me this. I am now in a position to say that I see the entire universe 180 degrees in opposition to 6 billion people at every level. I think I have found all the face value cards from APM to the EU. This is my Telsa Face Value Card. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=847 Junglelord dated 1/19/2009, posted 8/25/2009 I have the intellect and the intelligence and the synesthisia and the understanding to know that what I can see as the same thing takes others much longer. But there is no difference. Its just all the same thing. Any attempt to discredit or to distance any of these ideas does have an ego trip, not a grasp of the truth....only idolization of one model. I support all three. I have no ego and no agenda. But I can put two and two together. Junglelord, dated 8/23/2009, posted 8/25/2009 Tom Bearden on Tesla http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk2-oOyvRUg StephenO, dated 8/24/2009, posted 8/25/2009 Excellent book!! But...why do you read all the books I read? Coincidence? Or synchronicity? Junglelord, 8/25/2009 Great Minds Think Alike MattEU 12/4/2009 [2702] Fractal universe site: Has any one seen or investigated this websites before? What are peoples opinions on it? http://www.fractaluniverse.org/v2/ Therefore research for the following hypothesis, was begun using pictures, not maths, but the attempt to explain the wide-spread occurrence of spirals in space produced unexpected results. The identification of similarities between all sizes of bodies from super-galactic to atomic brought with it, like it or no, a clear connection to Schroedinger’s quantum mathematics! This website is an extended conversion of a slideshow that was presented to Manchester Astronomical Society in September 2002 Kicklabuka 12/5/2009 [2702] Both fractal and quantum approaches look at data and write formulas. The trouble comes when they see something new or without a formula. Also its tedious data entry and endless steps to find solutions. Another problem is that it ignores the why question. This is the same approach that led to the assumption of the big bang in the first place. Find a function and extrapolate then explain why. This line of reasoning makes for false realities, like saying an objects angular momentum can be quantized, or worse. Mharrastc 1/10/2010 [2852] "what are photons really?" and I was wondering- could photons simply be some flavor of energized neutrino? o.O (Don't laugh at me! I told you I was unedumacated! ) junglelord 1/10/2010 [2852] Being uneducated, as you put it, is a bonus, your head is less full of brainwashing lies of deceit. So on with the lesson, Photons, 101. [it is no coincidence that the above sentence is followed by the below giberish] The normal definition of Photons, is that they are EM radiation. They come in the form of everything from RadioWaves, Infrared, Visible Light, UV, X-ray, Gamma Rays. I believe that light is a expanding electron, moving out in the shape of the Compton wave length, at the speed of light. I think its more probable that electrons and photons exchange spin, or angular momentum, to do what they do, which is come and go from atoms. If you consider light and electrons (protons too) to be made of two charges....EM and Electrostatic. Then you have a picture of a photon that is made of two things, not one. Two charge manifestations, EM and ES, must be accounted for. EM works as a traveling wave or transverse wave, ES is a standing wave or scalar or soliton and also called longitudinal. Both charge domains are fundamental components of photons and electrons. The failure of the standard model is to make ES CHARGE FUNDAMENTAL..... With ES charge being made fundamental, and a two charge entity being observed, we see that EM would make a nucleus and that radioactive decay would be the direct result of the quantum spin difference b/t EM and ES charge. All that is left in the three force model is gravity. So there you have it, the universe in a nutshell. There is no wave/particle duality, what there is is two forms of distributed charge. One is a traveling wave, one is a standing wave (which appears to the scientist as a point particle). The dual slit experiment now makes total sense. There is therefore no quantum mechanical probability wave waiting to collapse into a particle if I look at it, there is only distributed charge, in two forms, for every electron, proton. That means there is also no quantum Uncertainty Principle either. Having a composite unit, of distributed charge, is the proper way to understand sub atomic physics. A neutron, which is a proton and a electron together with the angular momentum of a neutrino folded in a aether unit is a composite sub-atomic domain. Neutrons decay into their common three parts in 14 minutes, when isolated from a nucleus, so they are not fundamental. Junglelord 1/15/2010 [2881] junglelord wrote: EM toroidal charge surrounding spherical ES charge . solrey wrote: I like it, junglelord. Excellent! I like it too, your explanation gave me a wonderful insight! It is within the electrostatic field that the UFT lies, agree 100%! So you admit higher levels of reality build larger dimensional relationships. In that case APM is valid. Has Miles formula been able to predict the first orbital shell of all atomic elements? How far up can he scale anyway? [deleted]kicklabuka – You’ll still be looking for units when your counterparts are interpreting spectra on the fly. [deleted for being a personal attack on a user] Frost 1/21/2010 [2044] Are there spectral changes associated with the dimming event? The various descriptions seem to imply that there are, perhaps information about these spectral changes would help us determine the best EU explanation. StevenO 1/20/2010 [2852] Now you show me an experiment that shows how electrons expand into photons... Or how "two-dimensional" matter looks like in our three dimensional world... Or how I can measure this conductance of the aether... Or how electrostatics replace gravitation... Or how APM explains electrostatic attraction and repulsion mechanically... Seriously, I think you should stop wasting your brain on this APM stuff. Friends should not be afraid of telling eachother the thruth and that is that APM is just nonsensical gobbledygook. Worse than the Standard Model. You can try to blanket it with comparative methodologies and stuff, which is fine for comparing mythology, but physics should be all about rigorous definitions, clear mechanics and transparant formula's. APM provides none of that, it just hashes some out-of-context Standard Model quantum stuff into absurdities. Junglelord 1/20/2010 [2852] StephenO, Being friends I can tell you that all levels of reality are valid, so your way off course, SI measurements exist, you built your home on them, not two field theory. The Compton Wavelength is the connection b/t electrons and photon as they change quantum spin domains. dimension, measurement, unit and constant are there for the organizing. Nothing more, nothing less. StevenO 1/21/2010 [2881] Hmmm...I think you are still a bit confused here. Miles shows that both Coulomb and Newton are unified equations containing a gravity and a charge field contribution. ES and EM are derived from the charge field. Please show me how APM explains Newton/Coulomb as UFT. Junglelord 1/21/2010[2881] APM's UFT is based primaryly on k thought you knew that.


HomeTimelineBack to Discovery

Comments are closed.