Above is a picture used in the video from the link.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/62332/einsteins-telescope
All I see in this picture are two inverse square regimes! One inverse square regime originates in the star that goes supernova, and the other originates in the Earth. The only way to reasonably explain an inverse square regime for light is by assuming that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by a tense and rectilinear ray that mediates light. Why else would the rays spread out in a 1/distance squared??? (see: The Inverse Square Law of Light)
All the atoms of the three objects in this picture are already connected by an invisible, tense and rectilinear rays that signal light. When the star explodes these rays enacts signals and these are relayed or reflected by a set of atoms at the edges of the galaxy or of it's halo, rectinlinearly, or straight to the Earth or telescope stationed around Earth. The rays of light never bend, and little balls don't roll around space like in a roulette table. We don't need a concept called gravity, enacting a causal relation BEND on another concept called space which undergoes a change effect and then somehow influences rays of light in order to explain the signals of the star going supernova.
Proof is subjective. They say that this proves Einstein's explanation but to me this proves someone else's explanation.
A few months ago I had this thought that the neutron must have a tiny charge. Even the standard model of particle physics predicts a tiny charge separation leading to a permanent electric dipole moment. But the value is well below sensitivity of experiments. And besides they say the net electric charge is zero, the net average. Whatever this all would mean in reality.
I think of a neutron as a baby hydrogen atom. A hydrogen atom and a neutron have about the same calculated mass. But for some reason this baby neutron has not grown out its electron threads to lengths of 53 picometers and beyond. Or perhaps it's electron threads have been crushed and shortened at the center of a star. In some decays perhaps it gets a substantial feed of EM Ropes, which work to twist out the electron threads to greater lengths so they would align and superpose with the converging EM Ropes and thus actively charge, effectively making it like a hydrogen atom (which it always was), or in a figurative manner, an adult atom.
But anyway perhaps a neutron has tiny little loops of thread that emanate around a few picometers or maybe even on a fentometer scale. Maybe this is why they are able to fit through or even make pathways between and through some atoms, effectively falling on protons. These tiny loops of electron thread perhaps enable a neutron to sort of clamp onto a proton or cacoon the proton of an 'adult' atom so that they remain bound together rather strongly.
But when I had this thought I tried to find any sort of evidence or information that the neutron might have charge which to me means it has twisted out at least one set of threaded electron signals sideways from the crisscrossing convergence of EM Ropes.
I found this article:
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1167106quotes:
"We have found that a neutron actually carries a negative charge at its inner and outer edges, but has a positive charge in between" said Gerald Miller, a University of Washington (Seattle) physics professor.
The idea that neutrons were actually composed of subatomic layers of charge that cancel to zero can be traced to speculation made in 1947 by Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi. However, Fermi speculated that neutrons had a positive charge at their core, which was offset by a negative charge on its outer surface. The uncertainty of his speculations, however, relegated them to historical footnotes not deemed worthy of including in textbooks.
"We believe this is a clear fact of nature that we didn't know before," said Miller. "It is significant because nobody realized this was the case until now."
Here is an excellent quote from Gaede's WGDE. It is extremely useful for conceptualizing Thread Theory. It's not easy at first because it is different:
In Thread Theory, the word light embodies both structural and behavioral aspects of a rope. Therefore, we have to specify whether we are alluding to an entity or to a signal, to the rope or its motion, to a noun or to a verb. Unlike in Classical and Quantum Mechanics where both waves and particles are outgoing mechanisms, in Thread Theory the rope does not travel from the Sun to the Earth. The rope already interconnects an atom in the Sun and an atom on Earth. The torque signal is the alleged ‘transverse wave’ or ‘particle’ that the mathematician believes ‘travels’ from one point to another. I put the word travel in quotes because actually this is an observer-related phenomenon. Each link of the rope actually rotates in place. Torsion is essentially a standing wave. Verify this yourself. Ask two people to hold the ends of a stretched out rope and to twist it. Has any link gone anywhere? Are the participants receiving any new links at their respective ends as the rope rotates? Only you – the lateral observer – can see waves. The rope as a whole and each link looks at itself and says that it is just twirling in place. Yet, despite that the rope twirls in place, the torque signal causes pressure on the surface of the electron shell where it ends. Torque a rope while someone holds the opposite end. Although the rope twirled in place, the other person feels a force. This phenomenon explains why light ‘travels as a wave’ and ‘arrives as a particle’. The pressure that Hertz and Lebedev (Ch. 3, § 2.4) observed in their experiments has to do with this attribute of the rope. It is this pressure that the mathematicians detect as a ‘particle’. The rope also differs from the wave and particle models of Quantum in that it necessarily ends in another atom. The mechanics believe that waves and particles travel to infinity if there is no atom present to absorb the ‘energy’. (Pages 198-199)
Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, Berkley, California
Lecture 03: Gravity and Satellites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdoU2YQJvOg
At 25:00 He says:
"What is the force of gravity on me? Well, its the pull of the Earth on my body. That is what we call the force of gravity. Newton figured out that the force of gravity is actually a force of attraction between mass. So, for example if you have the Earth, its a big mass here, and you have you, with your little mass here, that every atom of the Earth is pulling on every atom of you . . . you are also pulling on it. Ah you are pulling it up. You may say you don't have much mass, so you don't pull very much, but there are a lot of atoms here, and you are pulling on all of them. The amazing thing about gravity is that it goes RIGHT THROUGH THINGS; more effectively than even neutrinos. You are pulling, RIGHT NOW, on the atoms of the other side of the Earth. They're far away, so its not very strong, in fact your force of pull depends on the distance. The rule is given here. The force of pull is 1/r2, so we say the force of pull for gravity is a bunch of constants, G, mass of the first object, mass of the second object, divided by r2. . . . There is gravity between my two hands right now, the masses of first hand and second hand are kind of small, [not a lot of connections] when you plug in the constant here and so the force isn't very big. G is 6 * 10 to -7. But if you have enough fists and a whole Earth made of fists, then it all adds up. So we're being pulled in every which direction by ??? (he says gravity) and because the Earth is a sphere it feels as if, I mean the sideways forces cancel, that thing over there and over there are pulling me in opposite directions but they cancel each other. But the net effect is AS IF I am being pulled straight down.
Let me show you that again. Here is the Earth, here am I. Every bit of mass is pulling me in its own direction. These forces are weaker than these cause this is closer, its 1/r2, go twice as far away the force is 1/4, 100 times away 1/100the squared times, so most of the force is coming from nearby stuff and most of it is pulling me straight down. Now suppose the Earth is not a completely uniform sphere like this, and suppose there is a hole over here. What do we fill that hole with? Well we could fill it with vacuum (conceptually) but those don't really EXIST. Lets fill it with something light. Lets fill it with oil. Now look at the gravity on me. The rock over here is pulling me down this way, but the oil over here is pulling me, but not very much. They no longer cancel. So if I have a very accurate meter I can search for oil using the gravity anomaly."
Every once in a while I like to see what madness the Stringers (those who adhere to String Theory) are up to. Today, at the book store I found them selling this mother called
The Shape of Inner Space: String Theory and the Geometry of the Universe's Inner Dimensions
Yeah. Well I started to cringe when I opened the cover to find:
SPACE/TIME
Time, time
why does it vanish?
All manner of things
what infinite variety.
Three thousand rivers
all from one source.
Time, space
mind, matter, reciprocal.
Time, time
it never returns.
Space, space
how much can it hold?
In constant motion
always in flux.
Black holes lurking
mysteries afoot.
Space and time
one without bounds.
Infinite, infinite
the secrets of the universe.
Inexhaustible, lovely
in every detail.
Measure time, measure space
no one can do it.
Watched through a straw
what’s to be learned has no end.
Shing-Tung Yau
Beijing, 2002
Cringe, cringe, cringe. Scratching your nails against the chalkboard couldn't make me cringe more than that piece of idolatry.
What else did I find? Of course, the author shamelessly preaching the nihilistic religion of Geometry with oodles of sugar. He even compared Euclid's writings to the Sacred Books of religion like the Bible. And of course he doted on himself and his colleagues, in subtle and not so subtle manner.
BUT, but, but that is not what I was looking for. You see I have this 'hypothesis' and it goes something like this. All geometers, seemed to have lacked any sort of healthy relationship with women in their time of undergraduate studies, thus they become fascinated with perverted ideas like curves. They say I have to practice what they call Science, and so I have to collect evidence in support of my hypothesis and then have it peer reviewed to make sure there are valid correlations (never mind about causation). Someday I'm hoping my hypothesis will be sanctified into a theory.
And lo and behold I didn't have to go far and Yau delivered for me. I have evidence!
p. X
I still recall the thrill I felt during my first year of graduate school, when—as a twenty-year-old fresh off the boat, so to speak— I was struck by the notion that gravity and curvature could be regarded as one and the same, as I’d already become fascinated with curved surfaces during my undergraduate years in Hong Kong. Something about these shapes appealed to me on a visceral level. I don’t know why, but I couldn’t stop thinking about them.
Fascinated with curved surfaces . . . visceral . . . something about these shapes appealing . . .
Um yeah. Not only are those Stringers mad, they are degenerate.
