Thursday, July 31, 2014

From the Book of Wisdom (11:17)

{11:18} For it was not impossible for your all-powerful hand, that formed all things from unknown material, to send forth upon them a multitude of bears, or fierce lions,

The sacred author wrote this thousands of years ago. I think he basically understood that the fundamental entity that underlies the set of objects related matter is made of unknown material. The literal translation from Hebrew to Latin is "ex materia invisa" meaning invisible material. One cannot see it since it is the finest physical structure in existence not to mention it mediates light signals to and from atoms.

One can make up any name one wants to describe what the hypothesized Thread is made of. Assuming the Thread exists no one knows what it is made and no one will ever know unless they fly up to Heaven and ask God himself. Lol!

Good luck with that!

And I doubt anyone will ever fully understand how Thread passes through Thread without disturbance up to a critical density (strong interaction). Or maybe people in the future could do experiments or research projects.

Contra Space, Pro Thread

Space (void, vaccuum, nothing, etc.)

Space refers to a concept. Just an idea
Space lacks form.
Space does not exist.

Space does not contain or impart form to the assumed fundamental physical entity or first form. The fundamental entity or any object whatsoever does not depend upon a human concept called space for its form or existence. The fundamental entity is finite, bound of itself, self-contained. It is just there. Res Ipsa Loquens.

Literally it is impossible for an object to fill up space. This is like saying stones fill up justice.

Space does not need to be postulated to explain dynamic or static physical concepts such as light, gravity, electricity, magnetism, ionization, strong force, weak interaction, inertial mass, critical density, etc. Void is a concept some people use but I don't remember using it to explain electron, or magnetic field or light, or gravity, or inertial mass, or critical density or proton or electricity, or magnetism or ionization or stellar evolution or neutron. I've never drawn void in my illustrations. All I draw is Thread. All I need is an object or objects to work with. And that is all Mother Nature needs. All I use in my assumptions and explanations are objects. What is all this talk about void?

None of the philosophical thought I admire has anything to do with void. Void is for fools who cannot trace back to the fundamental entity. Those who cannot wield the concept void are void. Newton postulated absolute void as an intellectual band-aid and now Neo-Geocentrists drool over his absolute void. In ether theory void contains the ether.

Space is an illusion. At best it is a useful conceptual tool, a mathematical tool or can be used in ordinary language to streamline discussions. I don't think there is anything wrong with this just as long as people understand that space is just an idea that cannot possibly exist and DO. This concept can never be taken literally to have form, substance, perform causal actions, undergo change effects, or interact with any sort of physical objects. A concept called space cannot perform the verb extend. The assumed fundamental object called Thread, does not extend into a concept called space. A concept (void) cannot perform the verb extend. The Thread, an object, does not extend into a concept (void). Concepts such as void do not begin or end.  Human apes only dream void and worship void and spend long nights troubled by void. And then start long useless books about void.

Space cannot bend, inflate, warp, etc. because it is just an idea. Its all in your head. A zombie. Strictly speaking it is impossible to travel across space. This would be akin to saying a bird travels across love. Space cannot be created or annihilated because it refers to a concept that lacks form. Space cannot BE or DO. When objects come closer together or go farther apart, space does not increase or decrease, but the physical mediator that connects them changes.

To me it is debatable whether this concept called space even belongs in physics, since in physics I presumably study objects and their causal relations which are always mediated by objects. A physical hypothesis and theory IMHO begins with an object and seeks to explain how that object works. When we trace back to the fundamental entity, I assume that this fundamental entity does not rely on space to operate since it does not conceptualize like humans.

I have never claimed to have seen space, observe space or test space. Again I have never postulated space. I have never drawn space to illustrate a physical object or physical concept such as electron. I do not measure space. Billion dollar satellites built by NASA on the public funds do stupid works like measuring space.

Space is the whore of philosophers and weak minds. Space is for Star Trek and Star Wars and Einstein. Void is for NASA who thinks they will save this human race by sending us into the void. Void is for Rutherford who thought most of what we think of matter is void. Void is for people whose brains relate void all day. Void is the whore of philosophers and weak minds. Void is sexy sci fi. Void is for an intellectually bankrupt Western society.

And I'm not in any way implying that space is not a useful conceptual tool in math, engineering, communication, and day to day life. Humans use this concept with breathtaking efficiency.

Thread (the assumed single closed loop continuous fundamental entity)

It is just when we start probing the most profound problems of physics and philosophy that space shows its true colors. Space is unmasked. Space DOES NOT impart form to the Thread. This is complete nonsense. Concepts like space do not impart form to objects, let alone the fundamental physical object. This is elementary.

I just assume the Thread has a unique Form or is the First Form. What is the single closed looped Thread made out of? I don't know. Call it Threadium or Paulium. Or just ask God. The Thread is a monolithic object, a plenum, a genius stroke of architecture, a web of delight. Twined Thread emanates from atoms in all directions. 
Entanglement, the death knoll of quantum ideas is easily explained with Thread and there are several possibilities. E.g. a half or full twist of an electron thread will eventually twist the entire adjacent EM Thread in opposite directions (CW & CCW). Each twist is a quantum. The twined Thread connecting atoms are like worlds. And there are many.

Some smart and respectable philosophers of the past flirted with this hypothetical object giving it different names like First Form, Simple Entity, Substance, etc. Gaede comes along and assumes a twined Thread to explain the H atom, light, gravity, electricity, magnetism and proton. Then CERN reconstructs an image of Gaede's hypothesized proton formed of crisscrossing Thread. The Thread is an ultimate Empire strikes back.

Thread intersects to a critical density thus imparting form to hydrogen atoms. Atoms take on two or more locations via twined Thread. A proton is a dynamic structure.  As they move, perhaps protons continually take in a feed of twined Thread to maintain critical density. As they shift into critical density they charge their Thread and torque the twined EM Thread emanating to all atoms. As they shift out of critical density double helical electron thread collapses and feeds links to the twined EM Thread connecting all atoms. Atoms vibrate sending high amp torsion waves along the Thread.  Atoms work together to form to stars, molecules, etc. via the twined Thread connecting them. Protons and Neutrons rotate about an axis weaving double helical electron thread (or magnetic fields) that can shoot out for light years, across galaxies and maybe even from galaxy to galaxy. Double helical electron threads emanating from magnets cut into objects, torque other protons to form new magnetic fields or simply twist them tighter and on and on to eternity. A magnetic field could also penetrate to protons in a wire, hold them, push and pull on. If they are torquing them creating waves along the electric axles which burst out into electron thread of the next atom and so on to eternity.

A rough sketch of nucleons forming a magnetic field (please note that countless twined threads are left out of this picture because it would be impossible to draw them all)

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Unique Property and Behavior of the Fundamental Physical Entity

When a person is introduced to Gaede's Thread Theory they tend to question the idea that Thread can pass through Thread without tangling.  How is it that the EM Ropes do not tangle?

This is a huge stumbling block for people who are introduced to Gaede's thought. Gaede devoted several pages in his book to this and people have filled up a lot of internet space discussing this issue. Speaking for myself I think perhaps Gaede could have taken a better approach. He decided to harp on the concept 'touch' but I think this is a misnomer for this context since touch is associated via human sense or interaction of macro objects. Tangle too is not even appropriate for this context. Touch and tangle can only be used as figures of speech or common language in context to the fundamental entity.

When one gets to the end of the road, one must conceive anew.  The quantum mechanics and particle physicists understand this well although I think they have made the issue too complex by their lack of tracing concepts back to hypothesized object or a single object underlying all things. But the context is radical . . . unlike anything or any relation encountered in day to day life.  So how can one answer such a question?  

A first way to approach this problem is through the history of physics. Physicists have long understood that light can pass on light and in fact you can imperfectly demonstrate this for yourself at home using two lasers or flashlights. The equivalent question in QM and PP is "How do photons avoid colliding?" Some physicists are well aware of this. Others are not. But it has enormous implications even in terms of what we call 'proton'.

Here are some quotes from some of the great physicists:

Maxwell: “ Equation (361) for the electromagnetic field is linear in the field,… this means that two waves can travel through each other without disturbing each other”

“ Here then we have two independent qualities of bodies, one by which they allow of the passage of electricity through them, and the other by which they allow of electrical action being transmitted through them without any electricity being allowed to pass.” (J. Maxwell, On Physical Lines of Force, Philosophical Magazine 21 (1861))
Huygens: “ Another property of waves of light, and one of the most marvelous, is that when some of them come from different or even from opposing sides, they produce their effect across one another without any hindrance…the waves do not destroy nor interrupt one another when they cross one another” (C. Huygens, Treatise on Light (1678) trans. S. Thompson (1912) p. 22)

Grosseteste: "Corporeity, therefore, is either light itself or the agent which performs the aforementioned operation and introduces dimensions into matter in virtue of its participation in light, and acts through the power of this same light. But the first form cannot introduce dimensions into matter through the power of a subsequent form. Therefore light is not a form subsequent to corporeity, but it is corporeity itself.
Furthermore, the first corporeal form is, in the opinion of the philosophers, more exalted and of a nobler and more excellent essence than all the forms that come after it. It bears, also, a closer resemblance to the forms that exist apart from matter. But light is more exalted and of a nobler and more excellent essence than all corporeal things. It has, moreover, greater similarity than all bodies to the forms that exist apart from matter, namely, the intelligences (i.e. Angels). Light therefore is the first corporeal form." (Robert Grosseteste, De Luce)

If the hypothesized Thread performs the dynamic concept called light conceived as torsion waves then this fundamental object or first form can superpose, overlap, pass through, intersect etc. without hindrance, interruption, disturbance, tangling, etc. It is only when we have an intersection or overlap of so much Thread at a location that another moving Thread may get disturbed, hindered, stopped, redirected, reformed, etc.  This critical overlap is exemplified by the proton which is supposed as a crisscrossing convergence of gazillions of taut and straight electric threads fed by the EM Ropes coming from all atoms of the U. And this idea of critical density* is I think EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. If it were not for this critical density, I think light, gravity, electricity, magnetism, inertial mass**, fundamental interactions, etc. would be impossible. And yet if it were not for the ability of the Thread to superpose the same phenomena would be impossible. So this is seemingly paradoxical.  

I'm reading this Nobel Laureate's book called "Lightness of Being". Notice what he says about the proton:

One the one hand the interior of a proton is a dynamic place, with things [electric axles] moving around. On the other hand all protons of everywhere and everywhen behave exactly the same way. (Wilczek, The Lightness of Being, p. 44, brackets mine)

In my interpretation protons can change location by shifting along and between the electric axles of which they are made. They are able (or have freedom) to move in the direction of all atoms of the U, the same which feeds them for their constitution. This is why on the one hand they are dynamic, and on the other hand are immutable, unable to decay or split apart, etc. At least this is a partial answer.

But can me or a Nobel Laureate or anyone offer an explanation for these seemingly miraculous properties? I don't think so. That said I think that given the context these are not miraculous properties and behaviors. Perhaps it is reasonable to think the fundamental object could intersect without disturbance. Otherwise how would the light from the most distant galaxies ever reach us? This property could also help explain neutrinos. How is it that billions of neutrinos supposedly pass through our bodies every second without interacting? Well maybe neutrinos refer to twists of the Thread that end on atoms of different galaxies.

So I would say that this property and behavior of the supposed Thread is a natural wonder. A sort of pleasant surprise at the end of the road in terms of physics. Unfortunately modern physicists had made this issue way too complex and this IMHO has led them to some absurd conclusions. For example Wilczek thinks the pull between quarks (whatever those are) increases exponentially with distance.

I don't pretend to have all these difficult issues figured out, but its a never ending journey because conceptualization has no limits. Who knows maybe someone in the future will make a new and perfect conception.

* Critical density is a concept found in some 19th century works and is used by Gaede to explain proton.  It could be defined as an overlap or intersection of Thread through which no more Thread can penetrate.

** Inertial mass is a seminal concept in Newton's work.  It could be defined as a proton's resistance to being pushed or pulled by other proton's in the vicinity.  The resistance originates from all protons (or H atoms) of the Universe.  When a proton (or H atom) is moved in a given direction by the proton's in the vicinity, for example in what we call gravity, the same is pulled in the opposite direction by all other atoms of the Universe.  Inertial mass is always in the direction opposite the pull of gravity.  Inertial mass resolves to the critical Thread density of all protons, the inherent connection of all proton's by way of twined Thread constantly torquing, as well as the unique configuration and sideways motion of electron thread.  Electron thread bursts out sideways in relation to the proton since the EM Ropes constituting the H atom seem to be set up in such a way that on one end say the north pole, the EM Rope torques Clockwise and the other end, say the south pole, the same EM Rope torques Counter Clockwise.  This enables Thread to burst out sideways from the proton in the concept called elementary charge or simply electron.  The electron thread can be conceived to 'begin' as an arc, turn as a loop and then if fed more Thread at high frequencies, twist up into a double helical form. From there we can begin to conceive chemical bonds, cathode rays, Compton scattering and all sorts of other micro phenomena.

But if the crisscrossing EM Rope spun in one direction at the location of convergence then we would be talking a neutron and not an H atom.  The EM Ropes constituting a neutron torque in one direction, in integer values, thus there is no elementary charge of Thread (or electron).  The EM Rope of a Hydrogen atom spins in opposite directions in half integer values, thus an electron thread bursts out sideways in relation to the proton.  This is what one can call electron, elementary charge, or the reeling mechanism.  It is the Hydrogen atom is able to constantly reel in and release Thread maintaining constant pull between all atoms through the dynamic motion of what we call electron.  For each Hydrogen atom there are gazillions of electron threads paired to an equal number of threaded electric axles constituting the proton.  Pending circumstances this electron thread can take on all sorts of double helical forms, work levels, lengths, etc. My plan for the future is to draw many illustrations of the electron threads because pictures are worth a thousand words.   And much more could be said about the Thread and has been said in Gaede's excellent work called Why God Doesn't Exist.