E-M-G

[kevin]

KarenAnn23,
Could I suggest keeping something in mind?
We are veiled.
Very very cleverlly We have been hoodwinked, and the reason appears to be to keep ourselves away from the true universal nature, perhaps for the best of reasons?
Take for example the days in a year, or the time divisions, or measurements of feet and inchs and metric, or the even temprement alteration of music.
All done to veil.
All done to obscure, so that the cyclic universal nature of universe isn't recognised.
What goes unseen then is that time varies, it alters in a cyclic manner, and thus by staying within these false parameters of measure and timings You will never glance through the veil.
Put yourself in Dr Browns shoes, try and imagine what He was observing, think of his graphs, think in terms of cyclic returning phenomena, think of graphs without trying to fix a false dating to them.
Our minds have been fixed, locked at a level, but this is where Alice falls into a wabbit hole, where time and proportions can alter.
Just try and keep this in mind, that all is not how it is portrayed, a false picture painted by very very clever people?
Kevin

[KarenAnn23]

Kevin,

a very wonderful comment...I agree wholeheartly , and thank you for putting it up here.

Karen

[langley]

Hmm.

In the beginning there was nothing. Not even time/space.

Bit of a problem that. How do you boot up the Big Bang when there was no reference point from which a sequence could begin.

Anyway, as it turns out, the Big Bang was an energy release. And as that energy released, somehow or another within the energy field particles formed. From the energy. Now I think we are all agreed that stuff is stuff. Its all the same stuff in different states. Matter and energy are the same. Just as classical science realised the law of the conservation of energy, Einstein realised that M and E were transmutable, they were equivalent.

One could be turned into the other. Which makes sense, because , in the beginning, there was nothing. Then there was energy and then there were particles. (matter)

So ignoring for a minute the boot sequence, it seems that particles may be a conditon of energy in context with the irregularlites within the field of energy which now occupies the void.

And when we talk energy we are basically talking frequency. So if matter arose from energy (seems to me the big bang didnt shower house bricks, it released energy.)

And therefore matter arose from energy at frequency with a given density. And we are talking HF. we are talking of frequencies which generate electromagnetic effects.

Energy density and physical density. Matter as a resultant of variations in the energy density of the field. Popping out and holding itself out of the field as the field attempts to gain uniformity .

The electrical balance of the atom. Normally there is a balance between the negative and positve. Atoms which have been disturbed seek out the components with which to regain neutrality. The electron embodies the negative and the proton embodies the positive. The positive has more mass than the electron per unit.

The energy held by the protons and electrons is DC. Its always positive in the protons and always negative in the electrons. But there is a rotational relationship between the two fields - one field being resultant from the protons and the other fields (the protons relative to each other are static) being resultant from the repeating orbits of the electrons. (Lets leave Heisengberg out for the minute) OK its a cloud of electrons that is not stationary. OK so each atom has in fact a frequency resultant from the strength of the positive field (ie from the number of protons, the number of protons define the element) and the strength of the negative field but the components which generate the total negative field are orbiting the positive field. All hunky doory from the perspective of each atom but externally each atom has an apparent field frequency.

It all hangs together because although the postive positive electrons and negative electrons are attracted to each other they are prevented from meeting by Couloumb's law, which is a complete mystery to me. It may as well be a traditional Italian Dad who says no way you two are getting together. If they did they would disappear (+1 + -1 = 0)

Yet they came from the same field originally. One bit popped out as a positive (proton) and the other bit popped as a negative (the electron).

They were together once and didnt cancel out, so they must be resultant from the frequency peaks in the underlying energy field. Which is Electromagnetic with frequency. High frequency.

At this point Ive merely demonstrated that as a Lay person, Im a trained monkey with an understanding that might have been cutting edge when Faraday was a boy.

Except Im a bit updated because Ive been told about electrons and protons. I know about neutrons (but I aint introducing them yet) so age somewhere between 1750 and 1932 in the level of my comprehension.

Anyhows. Thats how come helium was detected on the sun before it was ever found on the earth. But a study of the frequencies the atoms in the sun.

Where was I. Oh yea. Matter at the atomic level holding energy that is no longer part of the underlying energy field. Its been ejected and is being stored in the components of the atom.

And each atom has a field around it as a result of the charges it holds. When you put enough atoms together you can buy em by weight at the supermarket.

So basically the building blocks of the physical world are electrical units held as discrete entities by the characteristics of the atom.
The heart of the atom is electrical charge. This is definately 1933. The problem is, given that there is no issue with the mutual repulsion of the electrons, they still are free to cloud around the proton in organised chaos. But the protons repel each. So how does the centre hold? It does not matter for hydrogen, it only has 1 proton. Sweet. It matters for Helium because Helium has two protons stuck in the middle repelling each other. Whats the glue? Up pops the Neutron and the nuclear forces.

The higher up the Periodic table you go, the more protons there are in the nucleus, the more the mutual repulsion there is in those nuclei and the more neutrons there are excerting binding energy holding all those protons together.

The electrical forces remain fundamental. As the one goes up the Periodic table, one gets to Uranium. 92 protons all repelling each other and theres barely room for all the neutrons needed to exert sufficient binding energy to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion present within that element's nucleus. And so uranium is a really heavy element. It has a lot of mass. Its wound up like a two bob watch just waiting for one of its rubber bands to snap. Its wobbly.

So yea, well, I have little idea about gravity. But the mass of the elements are determined by the components present in the particular element's atoms required to keep it hung together because intrinsically the nucleus would fly apart from mutual electromagnetic repulsion. Neutrons, particles without any charge, are the heaviest of the particles. They are compound particles. That is there are other particles inside them. Perhaps the nuclear forces are the resultant of some inner workings of the do dads inside the neutron. I dont know.

But the mass of the atoms is resultant from the charge repulsion of the nucleus of each atom and to hand it together neutrons are needed. And neutrons are the most massive component of the atom. So while I can say the mass of an atom comes mainly from the neutrons in each atom, the number of neutrons present is directly related to the charge of the nucleus. ie how many protons there are.

As mass and gravity are related (if something has no mass, it wont exert or respond to gravity (much) (light bends around massive objects etc) ) and as the majority of the mass of the atoms, especially the heavy elements, is due to the number of neutrons, and as they are present due to the charge of the charge (as that total charge is held by individual entities called protons) the majority of the mass of the planet is due to the electrical charge of the atoms which make it up.

So whats the problem? Being stuck in 1933, its pretty easy. All I have to do is figure out how a neutron works. And what the spin vectors of the sub sub components acting contribute. But thats a few years off yet, so Ill leave it out. Seeing as I havent the foggiest.

[langley]

Ok Im in 1936 and 1750.
I now know that neutrons can change their mass. According to the situation they are in.

If present within a bundle of protons neutrons at work holding the protons together, they have a different mass then when they are not at work. thats is, when they not in the presence of protons.

So ok its the electrical repulsion of the protons which cause the neutrons to do their work and that causes them to change mass. Its E = MCsquared in action.

And if I sneak my knowledge base up 3 more years, and understand that firing a neutron at the right speed into a Uranium atom results in the fission of that atom, then Im in a position to say well, shiver me timbers, when you collect all the bits that result from the break up of one uranium atom caused by the jolt of the neutron fired into it, you find that there is significant mass missing. Applying E = MC squared to the amount of mass lost predicts that the mass loss should equal an energy release of 200 million electrons per atom fissioned. And Lise Mietner confirmed that it did in 1939. Its a freaking large amount of energy due to the direct conversion of mass to energy.

So to the extent that mass has been lost, there has been a gravity reduction also. And the mass loss is expressed in terms of conversion to energy with negative charge. So one can say that gravity is related to the electromagnetic some how because the mass loss in fission is a direct conversion to electromagnetic energy, Its fundamentally gamma radiation. Part of the atom that was previously mass has directly converted to gamma photons. The remains has less mass and therefore exerts less gravity because the mass was directly converted to gamma, an electromagnetic wave. A wave with frequency and energy density.

If you had a planet made enirely of uranium and you fissioned it 100%, the gravity loss would be noitceable. The loss of gravity would be seen to be directly proportional to the gamma photons emitted as a result of the fission process. You'd have krypton and barium (one option path) and no uranium. And if you put the residue all back together again the planet would be smaller and would have less gravity. Not because stuff got lost but because of direct conversion of mass to energy. Mass to gamma photons.

I know nothing about gravity. But the mass of an atom is directly related to the total charge of the nucleus (ie to the number of protons and consequent number of neutrons needed to hold em together.)

So yes, at the level of the processes involved there is a relationship between electromagnetism and gravity. Probably if you could trick the neutrons into thinking they werent were they were, they'd change their mass.

[PeeTee]

Take for example the days in a year, or the time divisions, or measurements of feet and inchs and metric, or the even temprement alteration of music.
All done to veil.

The illusion of reality disguising the abstract of asymptotic limits

I know nothing about gravity. But the mass of an atom is directly related to the total charge of the nucleus (ie to the number of protons and consequent number of neutrons needed to hold em together.)
So yes, at the level of the processes involved there is a relationship between electromagnetism and gravity. Probably if you could trick the neutrons into thinking they werent were they were, they'd change their mass.

OKKKKKKK......So it is reduced or comes down to our "second brick" -which is "Mass"...... Understand MASS and distance and you are two thirds ready to do something practical with it.

Peetee le trickfox

[langley]

I know nothing about gravity. But the mass of an atom is directly related to the total charge of the nucleus (ie to the number of protons and consequent number of neutrons needed to hold em together.)
So yes, at the level of the processes involved there is a relationship between electromagnetism and gravity. Probably if you could trick the neutrons into thinking they werent were they were, they'd change their mass.

OKKKKKKK......So it is reduced or comes down to our "second brick" -which is "Mass"...... Understand MASS and distance and you are two thirds ready to do something practical with it.

Peetee le trickfox

Oh dear. Mass is a transform of E, but its confusing because the atom is a functioning electro magnetic system. Held in check by the neutron. As the neutron is massive (relative to the other bits) and is compound and is neutral, it appears on the surface to be a bowling ball among ping pong balls. But er, if you look inside the neutron, you find functioning sub systems and these sub systems consist of polarised entities. And it seems these sub sets polarised entities produce the mass and the neutrality of the neutron. And probably give the neutron the ability to excert the nuclear force

Mass as a resultant of a set of balanced polarities? Mass as a result of the functioning of the sub systems in relation to each other ? What happens when a neutron changes its mass?

The problem is, the description of sub atomic particles is totally whacked in my view. Its not a language I understand.

Distance? what was the singularity still is the singularity . when e transformed into m in the first instance, the transform included some characteristic of e that manifests as volume in m . Does e need volume? m does. what would the equivalent of volume be in e ? In terms of the original transform, when for some reason some of what was all e transformed into M material displacement was accompanied by the container known as the cosmos. But thats just a container for surplus e that popped up as m. The underlying field is still a singularity.

I guess. I can say that no. 3 cylinder ran hotter than the others until the introduction of the 1302 S. the oil cooler got its own air supply and didnt blow hot air onto no 3.

Lets assume the singularity is a uniform locus. That means it has to be a sphere.

When things pop out of it as m the resulting construct is a projection.

The closest analogy I have is


http://science.nasa.gov/Realtime/rocket ... cator.html

"A Mercator projection is a mathematical method of showing a map of the globe on a flat surface. This projection was developed in 1568 by Gerhardus Mercator a Flemish geographer, mathematician, and cartographer. Before this time, navigation charts used by sailors did not correctly account for the recently proven fact that the world was round. Mercator's equations allowed cartographers (map-makers) to produce charts from which sailors could easily navigate. Mercator’s projection preserves exactly what sailors needed -- shapes and directions; they were very willing to accept the size distortion. "

distance is a distortion in the projection that we live in. The distortion is bit more complex than the map analogy, because the cosmos is, as we experience it, is 3 dimensional. chances are the singularity is different to that.

Ill stop there. Im probably wrong and should stick to adjusting no.3 tappets.

[PeeTee]

Everything you said here is true and important for sure Natecull but we are still going to have to look at the PRACTICAL application of a unit of measurement for MASS. Let's just use "the Proton" as "THE" unit of reference (like the rest of classical science does) and then assume that it's only the closest practical estimation of a basic starting unit for identifying the quantity we call MASS.
This will become more clear when we finish setting up our third Brick.....TIME.... Although TIME is the most controversial of these three primary units.

So we will go back to my sandbox a bit later after we look at TIME.

SO...... what is the primary NATURAL reference unit for "time".....Does anyone want to take a wild guess?

Peetee le trickfox

[langley]

Everything you said here is true and important for sure Natecull but we are still going to have to look at the PRACTICAL application of a unit of measurement for MASS. Let's just use "the Proton" as "THE" unit of reference (like the rest of classical science does) and then assume that it's only the closest practical estimation of a basic starting unit for identifying the quantity we call MASS.....


SO...... what is the primary NATURAL reference unit for "time".....Does anyone want to take a wild guess?

Peetee le trickfox

Let me just say something after quoting

The proton is a subatomic particle with an electric charge of +1 elementary charge. It is found in the nucleus of each atom, along with neutrons, but is also stable by itself and has a second identity as the hydrogen ion, H+. It is composed of three fundamental particles: two up quarks and one down quark.[3]

Wiki

Again, an entity containing a set of sub systems, this time producing the charge. It also has more mass than the electron but less than the neutron.

I wont even try to stumble around in the quark.

[PeeTee]

Again, an entity containing a set of sub systems, this time producing the charge. It also has more mass than the electron but less than the neutron.

I wont even try to stumble around in the quark.

How do we judge if a unit of "mass" is either smaller or larger than it's "primary reference" Langley?

It must have something to do with FORCE and Newton's definition of gravity, or is it the Electric force????, aw but shucks Newton was unaware of the Electric force..... So we are back to the definition of FORCE ITSELF somehow right?

So what is FORCE...... According to our best scientists F=M x A (In the unit Vector)

So "e" (the basic unit of Charge in the unit vector) is either one third, or two thirds of a balanced charge....KEEP THIS IN MIND as a departure from even symetry.




OK....This is interesting..... Finally we get a triangle "odd" symetry after working with "even" symetries like Positive OR Negatige Charge, and Positive or negative magnetic poles. Now our "electric charge" symetry is balanced acording to THREE units of "Quarks" which are symetric in "Electric Charge" "ONLY", So that means we have to back up into a universe with empty space and ONLY one Charge either positive or negative......NOTHING ELSE (including the observer) exists....
Can you imagine this universe yet?????

Let's call it .... the "Square root of minus two" universe

Remember the issue we first talked about; "Falling bodies which follow odd or even numbered units" Karen ????

I think this whole analysis is commonly refered to as "supersymetry".

I'll be back with info on this "single charge within the whole universe" idea in a while.

I want to give everyone time to comment as much as I do about all this. I'm learning as we go here.

Peetee le Trickfox

[Hut Master]

Anyway, as it turns out, the Big Bang was an energy release.

Where did the energy come from? What caused it to “condense” to sucha point that it then would burst in the biggest explosion ever?
First there was nothing and then it explodes? That is one of the big problems that I have acceptingthe Big Bang model. No, I feel that “To be was inevitable and the proof is in being.” In the beginning was not intelligence predecessor to structure? Did the Big Bang explosion somehow “luck out” and produce a particle?
I have a similar problem with the lightning bolt striking the primordial goo and creating life. Very Frankenstein-like don't you think?

Which makes sense, because , in the beginning, there was nothing. Then there was energy and then there were particles.

Again I ask, where did energy come from? What takes place between “there was nothing” and “then there was energy and then there were particle”? See I have a problem determining the source of all that energy. My “theory” is that it eminates from the energ of the intelligence, the consciousness of the Creator. And it seems to reason that looking at the structure of the Universe, the elegant design that is the foundation for complex structures, much be based on an “intelligent design” although my vision of that is most contrary to the various deities of religious beliefs and dogma. In my view of a perfectly created Universe, “god” does not have to “see everything” and does not judge, because all of the consequences of our actions are based on that perfect design, and while we have free will to choice the actions we take, the consequences of them can be more accurately predicted than the weather.

So ignoring for a minute the boot sequence, it seems that particles may be a conditon of energy in context with the irregularlites within the field of energy which now occupies the void.

What void? There is no void anywhere. Space is occupied by something always. Energy/matter and the various forms of each which are of the same energy that was “created” by thought. As our Hobbit writes, swirls, eddys, vortices, and condensates. Is a particle really a particle? Or does energy condense to such a degree that it can reflect and refract light, and appear to be solid?

From the 30 Nov. 1929 Science News-Letter
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/12_ ... meline.htm
"SOLAR SYSTEM RUSHING THROUGH SPACE
The Earth and the rest of the solar system are rushing at a rate of some six miles a second toward the portion of the sky in which is seen the constellation of the Dragon, [an early estimate which was later revised] Dr. Dayton C. Miller of the Case School of Applied Science, Cleveland, has discovered. That there are at least 12 different experimental evidences of such a cosmic motion of the solar system is announced by Dr. Miller for the first time in a report to the National Academy of Sciences. Among these are the famous ether drift tests that he has been making for the past decade. This year's tests were made at Cleveland within 300 feet of the location of the original Michelson-Morley experiment on ether drift upon whose supposed negative result Einstein supported his theory of relativity. Dr. Miller, on the basis of reinvestigation of the original test data and thousands of observations of his own on Mount Wilson and at Cleveland, concludes that the original experiment of 1887, cited in every textbook as proof that there is no ether, in reality shows the same sort of motion that he has found in his much more extensive repetitions of the experiment."

Supersymmetry? What does that mean? is there something going on the the Jinn is unaware of? I don't think so! I can be very, very BIG! or I can be infinitesimally small! But I will never be symmetrical super or otherwise. That takes too much energy!

So are particles real? Or is that how we "see" them? And a force expends energy, so Mr. Peetee I must disagree with Newton. However your Minus Two is only off by One! Computers are also missing a digit because they are only binary, and we live in a trinary Universe!