"That which is added to what is observed, Attempts to simplify the overwhelming complexity."

"That which is added to what is observed, Attempts to simplify the overwhelming complexity."

by Erik Cortes

Not math, but visualization is the language of Science

New video from Mike Huttner.

This is an excellent video. Mike makes a brilliant rational analysis to find the root of knowledge, understanding and perhaps even wisdom from a natural point of view.

Visualization is supreme in intellectual life. Our brains continually visualize. And without objects there is no seeing or understanding.

And not only in science but even in religion. From a religious viewpoint even God respects and uses our ability to visualize. I believe God stimulates visualization, especially in say the elect prophets. We have visionaries, like Isaiah in ancient times and Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich in more modern times. "Vision of the valley", "tell the vision to no one" "I saw this", "I had a vision" etc. God makes movies in the brain of the visionaries. And of course there are also false and evil visionaries.

But vision is a key concept in the Bible and in the Judeo-Christian religion and I hope it is not completely lost in Roman Catholic Faith. This is a prime way in which God communicates and helps us to understand or to know. According to Blessed Anne, some ancients Jews even taught that Adam and Eve had some mode of primitive vision stimulated by God which they lost when they sinned. When I pray to Jesus or Mary, I am in some manner visualizing them.

Religion aside, visualizing is of paramount importance in science. Think of Watson and Crick visualizing DNA as a double helix.

We also need to visualize the atom and that fundamental entity that underlies all atoms and enables it to initiate and perpetuate light and electron phenomenon. This is the very core and heart of physics.     

The Hairy Head Model of the Atom (Gold)

Introducing the Hairy Head Model of the Atom.

If Thomson's "Plum Pudding" was an alpha model, "Hairy Head" is omega. Rutherford, who thought that most of the atom was empty space would be stunned by something like this.

This model is based off of Gaede's Thread Theory, his concept of proton, my concept of electron, and mixed with the idea of critical thread density (an intersection or overlap of Thread through which no more Thread may pass) and some ideas developed by friends at my nuclear physics forum at facebook.  Not to mention the host of insights given by many scientists over the years.   

Pathways leading into the nucleus are due more to proton pattern and the corresponding distribution of electron threads around the nucleus. Shorter electron threads collect to force a critical density in heavier atoms thus making division. They superpose to establish temporary critical densities in so called heavier atoms. These critical thread densities are built in resistors.  And yet the electron threads to separate into factions making an atom like gold a decent conductor.   As we move away from the shorter double helical electron threads, there is a host of longer free electrons that move with great ease and can bond with other other gold atoms when heated and then cool to a lattice pattern.  The high mobility of longer electrons threads is why gold is soft, malleable, ductile, etc. However the pathways seem narrow thus gold is the least chemically reactant at least at normal temperatures.

Below is another image of a gold atom at extreme temperatures. You notice that the groups of electron threads are more disturbed and displaced widening the pathways.

from Brookhaven's Flickr account

When atoms start vibrating and colliding in dynamic heat relations, longer more mobile double helical electron hairs get displaced or combed to the side or disturbed etc. This leaves the nucleus exposed so that electron hairs from other atoms can easily latch onto protons and rotate them.

Pathways leading into the atom widen as the atom is induced to move more rapidly in heat phenomenon. Atoms with shorter electron hair like helium are less mobile and grouped together closer because of the simplicity or symmetry of the helium nucleons. And so there are no pathways left open for chemical bonding. Helium is practically non reactant. One has to do some crazy stuff to it in order for it to bond.

Let us just say that gold atoms are heated in the crucible and start bonding. Electron hair oscillates in groups and pathways widen leaving the nucleus exposed so that many electron threads of other gold atoms may enter and latch onto protons. Many electron hairs are potentially shared between gold atoms. When they slow down to room temperature the pathways narrow as the hair relaxes to a more ordinary position. And the gold atoms form a lattice consistent with the proton pattern.

When iron is heated, electron hair oscillates as atoms rotate around and collide. This is how electron hairs get stuck in protons and curved around from our fictitious North to South poles (as in polar covalent bonds).

I think this atomic model is far better than the shell concept, cloud concept, solar system concept, plum pudding, etc. In reality these other models don’t work even if they helped produce technology and fine experiments. Like I said above Hairy Head could be the omega model.

In addition, this model is aesthetically pleasing and easy to grasp. Just imagine a woman with long hair skipping around and her hair starts waving, leaving parts of her head exposed. Helium has short hair like a man. Its great!

Finally this is a real physical interpretation. It is not mathematical or purely conceptual. The hair is just an analogy. The fundamental entity that torques into double helical electron thread has different properties and behaves a lot different than human hair.  I have described some of these unique properties and behaviors in previous posts.  But in reality I assume there are countless double helical electron threads of various lengths bursting out sideways from the proton pending atomic element, much like a human head of hair. The higher the atomic number the more strands of electron hair. Noble gases leave no pathways exposing the nucleus even when they vibrate and collide in heat relations. Hydrogen has fairly long electron hair and the least amount of hair leaving it highly reactant.

The above images were recreated from Brookhaven's Heavy Ion Collider. The folks there seem to think that these images represent quark-gluon plasma (whatever that is). I disagree with them. Thus I doctored the first image and gave my own interpretation. Brookhaven National Lab is funded by the division of Nuclear Physics of he U.S. Department of Energy and many other governments. Since they use our tax dollars, I hold the opinion that I can publicly give my interpretation of their trillion dollar images without monetary or any other sort of profit. This is only for educational purposes. 

In any case, just remember to ask your local quantum mechanic or particle physicist which of the gazillion electron threads, 20 gazillion twists of electron thread, or gazillion electric axles that he is trying to locate in and around the nucleus. Good luck with that.



My crude, primitive and idealized concept of electron. The proton shifts into critical density charging the Thread. Essentially what happens is that the magnetic cable of EM Rope reverse twists at the proton.   

Another idea




Another commentary on a Brookhaven image:

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.

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.  

The Half Integer Value of the Spin Quantum Number

Now that I have a new, and what I think is a rational, physical interpretation of the electron, the half integer value of the spin quantum number seems deeply significant. In a fundamental interpretation it could describe the location where EM Rope (considered as a single close looped whole) spins in reverse directions. Links of EM Rope re-twist in reverse and that is the electron.  At these locations, the EM Rope redirects itself, it transforms. Hence the inverse function or inverse work. Without this opposition hydrogen atoms would be impossible. I think mainstream calls this the weak interaction, but they have no object such as Thread or Twined Thread to explain it.  And to be quite frank, light and the electron do not interact since each of these in their context refer to concepts.  At the electron, the fundamental entity, the Thread, twists in reverse directions, and superposes, aligns with the converging EM Rope that imparts form to the proton.  A critical number of these superposing EM Ropes and electron thread is a location where they influence one another.  They turn one another CW or CCW, and this is a primal light event.  I call this Critical Ethereal Thread Anomaly.    

But where two opposite spinning signals along the Twined Thread meet at the proton . . . a single closed looped magnetic thread protrudes outward. Two opposite spinning signals of the Twined Thread equals one of an electron double helix, four two, six three, and so on until we have the unit mass of the hydrogen atom (and not to mention a new source of tension a.k.a inertial mass).  For 2 two EM Ropes there is 1 electron thread.  Or in terms of mainstream, we assign photon a value of 1 and electron a value of 1/2. The Thread itself has no spin value and this they validated in the Higg's Boson project without defining or understanding what they are verifying or validating.  In any case, this would be an alternative way to interpret the half integer value.

When we added the + and – signs then we would be describing the dynamics of a double helical thread in its excited and/or ionized state. A twist of the electron double helix in one direction (+, CW) equals the absorption of two light signals (or reel in of two links) coming from opposite directions along an adjacent EM Rope. So the corresponding electron double helix builds itself upward, winds up. Two twists in one direction equals the absorption of four and so on. The two incoming signals pressing in from both sides could correspond to various wavelength and amplitude of EM Rope thus an electron juts out in different trajectories which seem unpredictable or improbable and this is the origin of Born’s uncertainty principle, but the electron is not literally ‘smeared between two states’. That is sheer nonsense and a failure of the founders of quantum mechanics to imagine light and the electron. If a laser is used to induce a hydrogen atom to excitation or ionization then many double helices may beam out along the same imaginary axis and interfere with each other since many electric axles of the proton could be aligned along the same imaginary axis (note that the assumption is that the hydrogen atom is a crisscrossing convergence of EM Ropes coming from all the atoms of the Universe).

One twist in the opposite direction (-, CCW) equals the emission of two signals (or release of two links) bidirectionally along an EM Rope. So the corresponding electron double helix collapses downward, or winds down.

I’m sure there are other ways to interpret the spin quantum number.  For example the switch between half integer to integer values (1/2, 1, 3/2, etc.) if we multiply s by n where n = 1, 2, 3, etc. could represent the emission and absorption of light signals. In this scheme an integer represents a new link built up in the double helix, a half integer before it represents the absorption signal needed to build up the new link.  When a new link is built up a light emission occurs because a torque is bidirectional motion.    


my rough illustration of an electron double helix (not to scale)

And I now think the whole shell/subshell concept is bunk as is the orbital idea. I think these ideas mislead. The threaded magnetic loops or electron threads that constitute the electron are things that jut out. Heck they blitz out.  A spiked clothing of light around the proton. And the value of the electron ideally equals one because each electric axle of the proton has a threaded double helix structure protruding out from it . . . charging out from it. When they came up with the value of one they didn't realize that the electron in its context refers to a concept. If there are 2 gazillion electric axles of the proton in a single hydrogen atom there are 2 gazillion magnetic loops or double helices protruding out (note: Each threaded double helix has its own EM field and intrinsic magnetic moment because of its structure and rotation). In any case, divide them and you get one. One in my understanding would signify unity, stability, completeness, wholeness, etc.

The Helical Electron

In hydrogen, the electron moves under the electromagnetic influence of the proton. (Rigden, Hydrogen the Essential Element, p. 251)

A rough draft of my new physical interpretation of the electron. I've got a lot crammed into this picture, but essentially when one of the links of a tightly tied rope like entity is pressed in from both sides a loop forms. From this I conceived that the electron must spiral upward into a double helix like structure with a closed tip:



So I just assume that the electron for say a hydrogen atom is a nest of a gazillion magnetic loops inseparably linked to electric axles of the proton. These fork out from converging EM Ropes coming from all the atoms of the U. These looped magnetic threads spiral upward and downward, constantly twisting signals similar to light and in fact inducing light. It is only when they are pulled out to great lengths that they form arcs and combine to produce magnetic fields which structure persists with time because light signals have to slowly push them back into a loop. But this can be delayed by getting stuck on protons.

Not that most people, even physicists would care, but this conception of the electron has great explanatory power. It should be able to work with most if not all the famous experiments done on hydrogen and the electron. It should be able to work with some famous math equations like Dirac's and Schrodinger's. Notice how it literally takes on the shape of a rectilinear ray or beam.  An electron, literally, is a twisted ray of thread.  An electron blitzes outward from the proton at great speeds.  These beam like structures can twist signals of various frequencies and so they are fittingly called radiant matter by Sir William Crookes. They basically have the same form and motion as light postulated and explained by Gaede in EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory.

This structure and motion of the electron would explain the supposed wave/particle duality of the electron. The tip or the twists could be able to apply pressure meanwhile the form is inherently wavy!  One can see similar forms in some diagrams of a solution for Schrodinger's equation.  The closed tip could get redirected by a magnetic field or by a proton, in other words diffracted.

This unique triple twined structure and motion is able to illustrate the conservation of energy and momentum.    

This form has parallel and anti-parallel 'lines' inferred in the magnetic moment experiments and predicted by Dirac's equations. The motion explains the torque inferred in the magnetic moment experiments. The form also has inherent angular moment, and a spin up in one direction and spin down in another direction. The electron literally winds up and unwinds down.  It has Bohr's energy levels in discrete values. Each twist is what mainstream calls a photon or a particle. It explains Dirac's sea of photons/particles in the electron cloud. It is sad.  Mainstream thinks, or has been led to think, that particles are spontaneously created and annihilated when these so called virtual particles are really the threaded magnetic helix continuously twisting up and down at various frequencies.

My conception also shows how the electron charges outward and collapses. Really the tip is twisted outward in relation to the proton but this value is much weaker than the charge, i.e. rushing motion, of the proton since the proton is comprised of more Thread.

Most importantly this form is able to generate push and pull simultaneously. It is able to pull in and push out light signals along the parallel EM Rope worked into the assumption of light and gravity. It provides a mechanism whereby the Thread could be reeled in and released out.  The electron can form new links of thread perpendicular to the proton.  And again as I have mentioned numerous times on this blog, Nature is continuous.  The fine structure works, continuously via the Thread configured in a rope like form to and from atoms as well as through atoms.
       
This form and motion of the electron could help explain a host of phenomena, such as electricity, atomic magnetism, some modes of ionization, some gamma and X signals, Compton scattering, light relay, chemical bonding, aurora, lightning, superconductivity, Cherenkov Radiation, photoelectric effect, pair production and a host of other phenomena, foremost electricity. It also gives something of an interpretation of those weird spirals seen on the particle physicist's reconstructed bumble chamber images.  

Nuclear Radius and Charge Radius

For all practical purposes nuclear radius and charge radius are synonymous.

Charge radius is a concept they use in their electron scattering experiments, the first of which was done under Rutherford's direction. All they did was emit helium ions at gold foil. After this experiment they knew that some central region of the atom is impenetrable. Rutherford surmised that the atomic center is the seat of an intense electric field and came up with the name Proton (literally meaning first). Since then they have measured the size of this impenetrable 'electric field' to be about 0.8775(51)*10-15 m.

But the question remains, what is it that they are measuring???? A field refers to a concept. Concepts relate objects. So what is it that causes atoms to deviate from their normal trajectory when they come close to this 'electric field'. What is a proton? What is its form? What is it comprised of?  Meanwhile there is this very nebulous concept called charge. What does charge relate???

Around 1997 Gaede came up with a mercurial model and assumption of the Hydrogen atom. He supposed that the proton is a crisscrossing convergence of electric threads coming from all the atoms of the Universe. So the proton is shaped like a star.  It is an intersection of electric threads. I have many pictures of the proton in previous posts on my blog. Some of these are reconstructed images of the proton done by the very scientists who use billion dollar equipment and yet do not understand what the proton in reality is.

Under Thread Theory assumption, as we approach the center of the proton electric thread density increases. The location where all the electric threads converge is impenetrable. There is a critical density of thread through which no more thread can pass. Thus when Rutherford's Helium ions came close to the gold atoms they were redirected. Essentially what happened was the tips of the magnetic threads of the Helium ions crossed paths with the critical density of electric threads of the gold atoms. A gold atom is a fusion of 79 hydrogen atoms. Thus there should be 79 impenetrable locations clustered in the center of a gold atom. For all practical purposes we can call these protons or the nucleus, but it is extremely important to note that these protons are not discrete entities. Protons are symmetrical and continuous entities. Their structure is supplied by EM Ropes coming from all atoms of the Universe. Gazillions of EM Ropes coming from all atoms of the Universe fork out to straight electric thread/axles and magnetic thread arcs. These are inseparably paired. The Magnetic Arcs oscillate as well as spin around their paired electric axle.  For the motion of the magnetic arcs of the electron shell we like to use analogies such as pumping and jump roping.

Rutherford et al could not locate every single impenetrable location with their experiment. They just assumed a conceptual charge radius. The way the word 'charge' was used meant that this relates a fundamental interaction within the network of matter. Force, that is push or pull can only work with a critical density of Thread in at least one of the objects of the interaction. Thus a proton can push through thread or pull thread, usually that arced thread of an electron. It does not carry charge, rather it charges, like a horse. Horses don't carry their gallop. They gallop. Protons don't carry their charge. They charge. And they can change location by shifting along the electric axles of which they are made. This is probably what the scientists detect as nuclear spin, at least for the Hydrogen atom.  As we move around the periodic table proton spin could be induced by some spinning magnetic arcs of the electron. In any case a proton can move toward or away from any atom of the Universe to which they are connected via their electric axles.  They slide through EM Rope and induce it to torque.   

Sklar on Newton's Force

Here is an excellent quote I found in the library last week:

From Philosophy and the Foundations of Dynamics by Lawrence Sklar (2013)

For Cartesians Newton’s force is, of course, a terrible Aristotelian throwback. It is an “occult quality” that objects possess in and of their nature. For example, all objects, merely by virtue of having their inertial mass, also have what would now be called “active gravitational charge.” They possess the property of affecting the motion of other objects by exerting a gravitational force upon them. (p. 93)

The invocation of the notion of force in the Newtonian sense immediately leads to controversy over what such an element of the world ought to be taken to be. Is force some primitive quality of things? How do we grasp its nature in the world? What is the status of the term used to refer to? Here we see the continuation of a long-ongoing puzzle about fundamental theories. How do we interpret those concepts of the theory that are introduced in its explanatory apparatus in a manner that is internal to the theory, not imported into it from pre-existing language. The concepts relating to the position of things and their variation in time seemed to most of the physicists to be unexceptionable – at least until their “absoluteness” is claimed! But how do we grasp the meaning of “force” as used in Newtonian dynamics, where it has ceased to be merely some measure of a quantity of motion? (p. 115)

The question Sklar poses at the end has never really been answered, at least not in mainstream established physics. In physics force is a verb meaning push or pull. So we always have to ask ourselves what physical entity is doing the pushing or the pulling? What is mediating the push and pull between atoms? We can describe push or pull in an infinite number of ways and this is obvious with all the descriptive forces coming out of the physicists since Newton, e.g. nuclear force, Lorentz force, Van Der Waals force, etc. But we always come back to the fundamental question: WHAT is doing the pushing or the pulling in between. What object is mediating gravitational force between atoms? Electromagnetic force??? Without a hypothesized object doing the pushing or the pulling it is impossible to explain force.  And so the forces are fittingly described as occult, and so can particle physics, quantum mechanics, physical cosmology, relativity, etc. be described as occult.  They do not understand what they are describing.
   

The Thread of Thread Theory

One cannot detect the twined EM Threads, directly, with the eye since 1. they are microscopic & 2. they are supposed to mediate light phenomenon to and from the atoms of the eye. Also, the EM Ropes and even more fundamentally the Thread can intersect, converge, superpose, or pass through another similar without any hindrance to their motion. This idea has been a stumbling block for some, but it is consistent with observation and experiment, e.g. pass two lasers through one another.

Something similar has been noted by renown scientists of the past and up to this day; only we assume that a unique fundamental object intersects and performs without disturbing another similar. So for example EM Ropes can cross right through other EM Ropes or the arced Magnetic Threads of the Electron can pass through one another as they spin around the nucleus. 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 a crisscrossing convergence of gazillions of taut and straight electric threads fed by the EM Ropes coming from all atoms. Protons of course are very powerful and durable.

The critical density can also be exemplified by the arced magnetic threads of heavier atomic elements. The tips of a gazillions magnetic threads could briefly converge as they spin.  This would temporarily render that location impenetrable. This may have something to do with the magnetic moment. And then when we consider the human body obviously the skin is composed of a high density of thread and so alpha (a helium ion) easily gets stopped.

Here are some quotes (but note Maxwell and Huygens are stuck in wave mentality):

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” (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)

The medieval philosopher Robert Grosseteste was onto something here. Notice how he compares this first corporeal form---which for us is basically synonymous with the EM Ropes---with angels and God. These are his believed supernatural forms that exist apart from the network of matter.

So what is obvious to me is that the Thread is unique.

lasers pass through each other unimpeded

Newton on the Medium of Gravity

It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly . .. ; (Newton Letters to Bently 1692-3)

That Agent/Medium acting constantly is of course also the unique 3D physical medium of light phenomenon:  our supposed twined threads consistent with Schrodinger's wavefunction and described by c squared in Newton's gravitational equation and Einstein's relativity equation.  All the atoms of the U are interconnected by a twined entity:  one to all others.  The ying thread and the yang thread, the x & the y, the E & the M are intrinsically tied to all atoms of the Universe.  In supposition they converge upon all atoms and fork out at the atomic perimeter to form the magnetic electron skin and the electric proton star.  The protons at the edge of the U are configured a little differently.

Light is torsion of 'medium' and gravity is tension of one and the same 'medium'.

The EM Ropes torque in two directions:  to and from every atom of the Universe.  Atoms pump.  As they pump, they reel in (in expansion) or release (in contraction) links of EM Rope.  

Gravity generates strength by number of tensions multiplied when the distance between any two objects comprised of two or more atoms decreases.  As distance decreases, more and more atoms tug on one another at increasingly steep angles via the EM Ropes that connects all atoms.        

The Solution to Red Shift

The first corporeal form . . . is in my opinion light.  All things are one by the perfection of one light. (Robert Grosseteste, De Luce) 

... both incline to the opinion, however, that if the red-shift is not due to recessional motion, its explanation will probably involve some quite new physical principles [... and] use of a static Einstein model of the universe, combined with the assumption that the photons emitted by a nebula lose energy on their journey to the observer by some unknown effect, which is linear with distance, and which leads to a decrease in frequency, without appreciable transverse deflection. . . (Edwin Hubble, Two Methods of Investigating the Nature of the Nebular Redshift, Astrophysical Journal, 1935)

Thank you for the introduction Hubble. Indeed it turns out that the solution to redshift is deceptively simple. It was never to be found in a mythical and impossible expansion of this concept called spacetime. It was always hidden within the architecture of the physical mediator of light phenomena. Physicists of the 20th century dropped the ball on light and the electron. They failed to discard irrational assumptions and models so as to brainstorm new ideas and new models of light as well as it's intrinsic relation to the electron. Instead they turned to an exclusive focus on describing the behavior of light and the electron via mathematics. These blunders will be featured in my next article, however in this article let us focus on Redshift.

The Physical Mediator of Light      

Redshift and blueshift is a natural mechanism of the twined DNA like mediators interconnecting all the atoms of the Universe. A fundamental assumption of Thread Theory is that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by Electromagnetic Ropes. These DNA like entities converge and bifurcate to form all the Hydrogen atoms of the Universe which consistent with modern thought fuse or combine to form heavier atomic elements or molecules. These of course serve to build stars, galaxies and us. Here is a simple model of two Hydrogen atoms:

The physical mediator of Light, the EM Ropes, furnishes the principle of continuity in nature, as the first physical form it is common to all things in the Universe from the lowest of the elements to the stars and galaxies. 

EM Ropes converge and fork out to form the electron shell and proton. All atoms are induced to pump like a heart (i.e. Bohr's quantum jumping). As they pump they torque the EM Ropes extending radially to all the atoms of the Universe. The composite friction of the Electric Threads and Magnetic Threads rubbing as the atom pumps is what is detected as charge. Light resolves to a phenomena collectively mediated by all atoms and the torque signals moving rectilinearly along the taut EM Ropes connecting all atoms one to another. All atoms torque signals to and from each other consistent with the c squared concept.  Tension between all EM Ropes is maintained by the continuous torquing of the EM Ropes in quantum jumping (as well as vibration), a motion which is unceasing.  Here is a model of a type of quantum jump:







In between stars and galaxies is a mesh of countless EM Ropes extending to and from the atoms of all galaxies and this constitutes the so called Background Radiation that they have spent billions to measure. Consistent with century old observations, the fine microscopic EM Ropes comprised of the fundamental, non-composite, 3D physical entity (the Thread) are able to converge, superimpose, and pass through another similar unimpeded, without hindrance . . . without destruction to their structure . . . without interruption to their torquing motion . . . without disturbance. This unique property of the EM Ropes, and the Thread has been a stumbling block to many, e.g. the particle physicists.  Even so, it has been recognized by many that light can pass on light. Everyone can confirm this by taking two lasers and passing their rays right through the other. Indeed this is why the EM Ropes DO NOT tangle on their way to and from all atoms.  For appeals to authority both Maxwell and Huygens have recognized this unique property of the physical medium of light:

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” (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) 

Please note that both Huygens and Maxwell were stuck in the old assumption of waves.  This assumption has never been dropped to this day even though transverse waves cannot simulate all the static and dynamic properties of light.  A rope like architecture is a standing wave and can simulate all the dynamic and static properties of light with flying colors.  A twirling rope is able to apply pressure to an atom inducing it to pump due to the unique bifurcation architecture of the EM Rope in relation to the atoms. A rope-like configuration can even be used to explain the famed EPR experiment (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) which the quantum mechanics have never been able to offer an even remotely rational explanation for to this day.

Redshift  

Now suppose we have two galaxies separated by a great distance. Every single atom of galaxy A is connected to every single atom of galaxy B by EM Ropes.  Suppose you are in galaxy A looking at galaxy B at night.  Galaxy B appears to you as a dot.  The reason is that over a great distance the EM Ropes connecting all the atoms of the two galaxies converge and superimpose. Light propagates rectilinearly, so light “rays” have no choice but to converge together as they propagate from their source to their target object when the distance between them increases.  Distance is really the length of an EM Rope connecting any two atoms.  

When the atoms of galaxy A and galaxy B are connected at great lengths the links of EM Rope should become longer, i.e. there frequency decreases (in quantum/relativity lingo lose energy) as we move further away from the light source, that is the atoms.  Indeed, as the twisting light signals extend outward from the atoms of galaxy A toward the atoms of galaxy B (or vice versa) the link-lengths (corresponding to frequency and color: see picture below) should 'shift' becoming longer (corresponding to lower frequencies and change of color or redshift).  As signals move further from the ends of the rope, the atoms, and unto the center the links become longer and longer.  All rope entities exhibit this 'unravelling' architecture around their center.    

This mechanism is static: it invokes no momentum or motion or collision because this is what a rope like architecture exhibits at rest!!!  It matters not whether galaxies A & B are moving toward or away from one another and the age of the galaxies is irrelevant. There will always be a central location along EM Ropes of great length where the twisting signals over-extend.  This is because of the architecture of the physical mediator of light which is configured like a rope. This is why all distance galaxies exhibit redshift in relation to others.

As a corollary it stands to reason that the greater the distance, i.e. the greater the length of the EM Ropes connecting that atoms of any two galaxies, the more opportunity there is for the twisting light signals originating in the atoms to 'shift' toward ever longer link-lengths (corresponding to lower frequency and change of color to the left of the EM spectrum).

Now suppose galaxy A and galaxy B are moving away from each other.  The links of EM Rope will simply dynamically redshift, i.e. the same links connecting the two become longer as they move away from their atomic sources.  And when galaxy A and galaxy B move toward one another the atoms will slightly compress the EM ropes in the direction of motion in what they call 'blueshift' (decrease in link-length, increase in frequency, change in color toward right of EM spectrum).  And by the way, some of these ideas were experimentally confirmed by the Harvard Tower Experiment performed by Rebka-Pound.  They simply could not conceive of the correct mediator of light to work Mother Nature's magic tricks. It seems that the scientists gave up on light a long time ago in favor of mystical creation and annihilation of photons and a gooey stretchy spacetime.

an atom of galaxy A is connected to an atom of galaxy B by a single EM Rope

But of course we try to live by critical thinking and rational analysis.  A rope like entity is a rational supposition for the mediator of light and gravity.  A magical photon suddenly appearing or disappearing, to and from nowhere (in gazillions of creation and annihilation events happening at all electrons) and then stretching as a transverse wave due the metric expansion of this mystical concept called space is impossible, not to mention ridiculous.

And so it is.  Redshift is easily explained by EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory.  The underlying mechanisms of Mother Nature are elegant and beautiful just like any sane physicist of the centuries supposed.  The only wonderful and breathtaking mystique is the incomprehensible and inexplicable ability of light rays (EM ropes) to pass through light rays (EM ropes).  I hope to share additional thoughts on this unique behavior of the medium of light in future articles.  Suffice it to say that the fundamental entity is non-composite thus it stands to reason that in this radical microscopic context it would be able to pass through any similar without touching.  EM Ropes are the most durable and wonderful physical entity of the Universe. What else could be responsible for the wonderful work of heat and energy?  
 

Stellar Transformation Hypothesis by Abruzzo

I seemed to have accidentally deleted my endorsement of Stellar Transformation Hypothesis. A few years ago a philosophy major out of New York by the name of Anthony J. Abruzzo comes up with the stunning fundamental assumption that planets are the end products not the byproducts of stellar evolution. In other words stars naturally evolve into planets. Planet Earth and all the planets of our system and of all systems are old stars. This assumption is rational and consistent with observation, ESPECIALLY in light of all the new Kepler data of the exoplanets.  The Nebular Hypothesis is IMHO dead.  It is a irrational bloated hypothesis.  But the planetary scientists have put a lot of work into that artifice.  So it will die a slow death.

Here is the link to his series of research papers:

Papers Written by Anthony J. Abruzzo

Some quotes from his papers:

From:  Are Planets the End Products Rather than the By-Products of Stellar Evolution?

Article Summary:

This article presents a new hypothetical framework for planet formation that utilizes a transformation rather than a derivation mechanism. Since this transformation mechanism takes a different approach to planet formation, it radically departs from orthodoxy in this field, an orthodoxy whose foundation, in my view, is built on the inherently unstable ground of the  nebular or accretion hypothesis in all of its permutations.

From:  Interpretations of Solar System Phenomena according to the Transformation Hypothesis

Introduction

A previous paper presented a framework whereby planets can be viewed as end products rather than by-products of stellar evolution. It was pointed out that Descartes first proposed this hypothesis in the 17th century but for reasons also briefly discussed therein, his idea was lost to all but historians of science. Nonetheless, I suggested that the central idea animating Descartes’ planetogony – what is being called the “transformation hypothesis” - holds the key to understanding how planets form. Unlike the nebular or “derivative hypothesis,” as I call it, in all of its permutations, which proposes that planets form from material derived from proto-stars in one process, the transformation hypothesis views individual planets as later stages in the evolution of individual stars. Thus, the transformation hypothesis can be viewed as the natural history of stellar objects as they evolve through various stages. While the purpose of the previous paper was to lay the general groundwork of the transformation hypothesis, this paper will interpret specific phenomena in our own Solar System according to it.

From:  The Formation and Age of the Solar System

In conclusion, it can be stated that the Solar System is as old as the time when the Sun began to acquire planets, since by definition a solar system is a central stellar object that has at least one planet in orbit around it. However, at this time of acquisition, the planet or planets that gave rise to the “system” were already in existence and were not formed in the same process from which the Sun was formed. This condition of preexistence is, in essence, the negation of the derivative hypothesis. It is just as likely as not, that the Sun formed in a region of space that was already populated by non-stellar objects and that some of them, by their relative proximity to the forming Sun, were attracted to it and subsequently captured. But it should be clear that the sequence of capture events and the chaos that must have prevailed during each of these events cannot be determined with any degree of rigor at this time. Inventing a capture event scheme now would amount to sheer guesswork. Nonetheless, as our knowledge of the Solar System continues to grow, the time may come when the delineation of such a scheme will become possible with some degree of certainty.

From:  Brown Dwarf Stars – The “Missing Link”

Conclusion

It is hoped that the foregoing analysis has provided the reader with an insight into the confusion that currently exists in conventional stellar and planet formation theories. The misapplication of the “missing link” concept demonstrates that the line separating stellar objects from planetary objects is no longer clear. But, hampered by their adherence to outdated notions regarding the evolution of stars and planets, conventional theorists will continue to stumble over the mounting anomalous data that observational astronomers are dropping in their path. On the other hand, the missing link concept makes perfect sense within the context of the transformation hypothesis. The brown dwarf object is but one link in an evolutionary chain that extends from the hottest and heaviest stars to the coolest and lightest spherical dwarf planets.

From:  The Transformation of Gas Giant Planets into Rocky Planets

Introduction

This is the fifth in a series of papers whose purpose has been to introduce and explore the implications of the transformation hypothesis. In brief, the transformation hypothesis views planets as the end products rather than the by-products of stellar evolution. Put more simply, stars evolve into planets.  Although the subject of this paper has already been touched upon in the previous papers, its purpose is to examine further the processes that transform gas giant planets into rocky planets and highlight an external mechanism to which some gas giants are subjected that accelerates this transformation process.

From:  The Planet Migration Hypothesis - Saving the Paradigm

Conclusion

While the observed resonances existing amongst the various bodies in the Solar System, with one or two exceptions, are empirically verifiable, there is no theoretical justification to use them as the foundation upon which a “new and improved” derivative hypothesis can be erected. And, since the resonances, at least those obtaining with respect to the gas and ice giants, stand on the shaky footing of the planetesimal mechanism, for which there is no empirical evidence, the planet migration hypothesis reveals itself as merely another “epicycle” whose sole purpose is to save the appearances, which, in this case, is how the nebular or derivative hypothesis adequately accounts for the Solar System’s formation and current constitution.

Indeed, some of the more candid researchers in this field view their work as nothing more than imaginative exercises that seek to account for some elements of the Solar System’s initial formation and further evolution to its present overall configuration. In fact, one particular research team that has done work on the formation and migrations of the gas and ice giant planets actually includes “Fairy Tale” in the title of one of its papers.  In the introduction to this paper, the team unabashedly observes, “Our model…contains elements that are probably wrong in detail. However, large portions of it may be correct and it illustrates the lengths to which we must go in order to understand the formation of these planets.”  Implicit in this statement is the team’s adherence to the underlying paradigm of the planetesimal-type derivative hypothesis.

In general, the planetesimal version of the derivative hypothesis is the unquestioned premise from which all of the planet migration hypotheses spring. It is obvious that without the formation of these small, solid bodies from the dust and gas of the primordial disk surrounding the proto-Sun, not only would no planet migrations have occurred, but also no planets would have formed. The entire edifice is based on the presumed existence of planetesimals.  And, it is so firmly entrenched as a premise beyond dispute that a perusal of the relevant literature will yield a diversity of opinions bearing on the possible mechanisms operative during the planetesimal formation process itself.

However, no amount of patching and tinkering can save this paradigm from its inherent flaws. Nonetheless, one wonders to what lengths the advocates of the derivativehypothesis would go to save appearances if an Earth-like planet were discovered orbiting the Sun in the far reaches of the Kuiper Belt or further out in the scattered disk? Such a discovery – certainly within the realm of possibility – would surely result in the production of new and “enhanced” computer-simulated “fairy tales” seeking to explain why and how such a large object could exist so far from the Sun, within the context of the planetesimal paradigm.

Summing up, it is clear that the planet migration hypothesis fails as a building element in the Solar System’s “final” architecture because it is incorporated into the derivative hypothesis, which views the Solar System as having formed from one unitary evolutionary process. The transformation hypothesis, on the other hand, views the Solar “System” as essentially a work in progress, wherein the architecture is continually subject to change. Sometimes these changes are gradual and virtually unnoticeable, while at other times, they are abrupt and “catastrophic.” Conventional planetology will remain trapped in its theoretical dead end until this reality is grasped and accepted.

From:  The Origins of the Nebular Hypothesis - Or the Genesis of a Theoretical Cul-de-sac


Although the nebular hypothesis has risen to a paradigmatic status within the corpus of the conventional astrophysical sciences, it is still just a hypothesis. And, as such, it is subject to eventual supersession, as are all outmoded hypotheses, if it cannot support the incorporation of new data that proves inconsistent or “anomalous,” in the Kuhnian sense, with its theoretical architecture. In previous papers, I have endeavored to present these inconsistencies, as they relate to both established facts about the Solar System and new facts about it and exo-solar systems, and reinterpret them within the framework of the transformation hypothesis.

This paper will examine the origins of the nebular hypothesis. It is generally believed that the nebular hypothesis was developed during The Enlightenment, but its roots can be traced back to a few Renaissance thinkers and ultimately to the speculations of several ancient Greek philosophers. It is hoped that the historical sketch to follow will help to shed light for the reader on how the nebular hypothesis has become so firmly entrenched in contemporary science even though its central conception has no bearing on the formation of solar systems.

However, it will not examine the several varieties of catastrophic hypotheses for the Solar System’s formation that have been promulgated over the past two and a half centuries, whose lineage can be traced back to 1745, in the work of Buffon. Nonetheless, as was pointed out in the first paper of this series, these catastrophic hypotheses are classified as “derivative” hypotheses in the sense that the material from which the planets are formed comes from the debris that is blasted from the Sun, either by another passing star or a very big comet after a collision or interaction has occurred.

Some Notes on Robert Grosseteste

As a warm-up to my upcoming articles on the fundamental entity of physics, neutrons, and neutrinos I decided to parse a little of the medieval thinker Robert Grosseteste. He was an Englishman and a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. He wrote a treatise 'On Light', did work in optics, wrote other little treatises on physics. He was very much preoccupied with light. His thought was unique in that it split from the stodgy Aristotelianism of the day. In spite of the impoverishment of his mind due to his time some of his ideas are interesting. Grosseteste seems to have gotten close to conceiving the fundamental physical entity out from light (though not it's shape)

Here is the first line of his work called De Luce:

Formam primam corporalem quam corporeitatem nominant lucem esse arbitror 

The first corporeal form which some call corporeity is in my opinion light

He was close and onto something. Unfortunately I parsed through most of his works and he failed to define his key terms and really develop his fundamental notion in terms of physics. In any case he had some neat ideas and these are encapsulated in an Introduction written by a translator of his works named Clare C. Riedl. Here are my notes from her.  I highlighted in bold what I thought was important:

For an understanding of the treatise On Light it will be necessary to consider some of the characteristics of Grosseteste's doctrine of matter and form, although his terminology is Aristotelian, the ideas which he expresses in that terminology are often decidedly un-Aristotelian in content. The chief point of divergence is that for Grosseteste matter is not pure potency, as it was for Aristotle, but possesses in its own right a certain minimal reality. Thus Grosseteste speaks of matter as a substance, 'Both corporeity and matter are in themseIves simple substances.'; 

'It is clear that every higher body, in virtue of the light which proceeds from it, is the form (species) and perfection of the body that comes after it.' In connection with this theory of interaction in virtue of which 'in a sense each thing contains all other things', it is interesting to note the dynamic aspect which Grosseteste assigns to form. Form, that is to say, the first corporeal form, or light, is in his view more than the 'form of corporeity,' the principle of extension, it is also a principle of activity. Every body, he believes, has a motion or activity which is natural to it, because it proceeds from an intrinsic principle. The intrinsic principle from which this motion or activity proceeds must be the form . . . 

The subject matter of the treatise is indicated in brief in its opening sentence, where Grosseteste sets forth his thesis that light is 'the first corporeal form.' The remainder of the treatise is occupied with explanation and attempted proof of this proposition together with a detailed analysis of the process by which this first corporeal form united with primordial matter to produce the material universe.
Grosseteste bases his 'light metaphysics' on the consideration of the properties of light and of the nature of material substance. He finds as a characteristic note of corporeity the requirement of extension, 'the extension of matter in three dimensions is a necessary concomitant of corporeity.'  

Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.' It is also the principle of distinction and multiplicity since the 'things which are many are many through the multiplication of light itself in different degrees.'''

One other interesting I learned from Clare is about the lux/lumen dichotomy in Genesis 1. To quote her:

There seem to be no suitable English words to convey the distinction between lux and lumen. For this reason I have translated both by 'light': indicating parenthetically the Latin word used in each case. The distinction appears to be this: lux is light in its source, whereas lumen is reflected or radiated light. (all above quotes taken from Robert Grosseteste On Light, Introduction Clare C. Riedl)

 

Fun Physics Pictures

The Dazzling Proton!

*

For visual aids please use my article from a couple of days ago:

A History of the Proton in Pictures

The Proton is not made of three discrete quarks held together by gluons. Nor were protons formed in the mythical Big-Bang, a supposed event that never occurred.

After a series of experiments and meditations Rutherford gave the name proton to a hydrogen nucleus.  To the Royal Association he described that "the atom is the seat of an intense electric field".  Of course the mystical catch-all word 'field' refers to a concept. Concepts are an embodiment of the brain: relating two or more objects. Rutherford never assumed a fundamental fine physical 3D entity which aggregate would constitute the proton.  And since Rutherford all they, the mainstream establishment, have assumed is a hierarchy of discrete particles that somehow mediate a mystical force magically holding the proton together. In the early 1900s they were making great insights but they failed to suppose a fundamental physical entity and use that entity to make a unified model of the atom, light, gravity, electricity and magnetism. Soon they got lost in ideas/ideology and started to move ideas in their description of phenomenon.  And then came the particle accelerators.  
  
In EM Rope Hypothesis & Thread Theory a 'free proton' is synonymous with a hydrogen atom since it is impossible to separate the proton from its weave of magnetic threads arcing out at the atomic perimeter and ultimately twisting straight taut light rays (EM Ropes) extending to all atoms of the Universe. You would literally have to unwind all the stars and galaxies and all atoms to destroy a proton. This of course is impossible.  It is impossible to disintegrate a free proton (e.g. hypothetical proton decay). It would be easier to create something from nothing than for a proton to naturally form or disintegrate.  

The proton is comprised of a converging crisscross of Electric Threads originating from all atoms of the Universe.  Some comparisons of the proton would be a koosh ball, an urchin like entity, a star pattern.  The Electric Threads comprising the proton are all in microcosmic tension due to the vibration and constant 'jumping' of all atoms---torquing signals to all atoms (the C squared concept) via the continuous EM Ropes interconnecting all atoms. This powerful tension of gazillions of crisscrossing Electric Threads making up the kernel of the atom is what the mainstream calls strong interaction or strong force (residual strong force is the triple twined physical configuration of a neutron bound to a proton).

Protons are the ultimate physical structures: built to last forever. And they are beautiful.  They are everything a rational human would expect.  And it is impossible to calculate the age of a proton. One cannot trace a supposed beginning or end of protons since they are literally linked to all the atoms of the Universe.      

In certain circumstances a hydrogen atom can convert to a neutron which would include the transformation of the proton into crisscrossing convergence of EM Ropes (a neutron) as in the example of so called 'electron capture' or 'inverse beta decay'. In electron capture perhaps high frequency torsion signals mediated by the intrinsically connected EM Ropes induce what is essentially a misshapen Hydrogen atom fused to the side of a complex atomic shell configuration, to collapse into a crisscross of EM Ropes (a neutron)---through which torsion signals immediately propagate in all directions to all stars and galaxies along the same continuous EM Ropes connecting all the atoms of the Universe. These twisting light signals conveyed along the EM Ropes are the neutrino ghosts that the established scientific community are spending billions to detect. Neutrinos are twisting light signals linked to decay, fusion, fission and compression events.

Because the proton is not a fundamental particle, it possesses a physical size—although this is not perfectly well-defined since the surface of a proton is somewhat fuzzy, due to being defined by the influence of forces that do not come to an abrupt end. The proton is about 1.6–1.7 fm in diameter. (Wikipedia)

The proton is comprised of Electric Threads converging from all atoms thus it is not the fundamental entity. The Thread weaving all protons and all atoms and configured as EM Rope in between IS the fundamental continuous object.  The Thread physically underlies the entire set of objects in existence.  The Thread is non-composite. The Thread cannot be cut to pieces since it is the finest entity which cannot be broken down, but by some supernatural miracle.

The Electric Threads constituting the proton can bend in the event of a super fast collision, but they cannot break.  So in a proton-proton collision protons may recoil a bit (and perhaps release a neutron) but they do not and cannot break or even stretch.  The Thread is non-composite.  It is unable to be broken down. This may be why these continuous objects can superimpose at the micro-level. But the Threads do not break into pieces or much less explode in a creative sea of particles as is assumed in the ridiculous particle physics and quantum mechanics.  

Within the confines of an atom, Electric Threads extend to the center in a crisscross pattern to form the proton. Electric Thread density increases as one approaches the center of the atom. This explains why at some small region near the atom, it becomes impenetrable and protons can directly collide with one another. The Proton's surface is fuzzy and not perfectly defined due to the asymmetrical arrangement of all the stars and galaxies contributing E threads to an intersection that is the proton's structure. The Electric Threads mingle and perhaps some superpose so as to become a single entity yet all the Threads, I assume, remain distinct and serve as axles of atomic motion.  Since the Electric Threads 'extend' in all directions to all the atoms of the Universe, an atom can move in any direction in accord with constant atomic quantum jumping and vibration however these directions are always straight/rectilinear!!!  Curved trajectories are a conceptual illusion of the mind.   

Scientists are having difficulty measuring the proton since their method is to pass light signals through the nucleus. But the extraneous light rays may be oscillating around single bare Electric Threads of the protons and on their way to other atoms where they bifurcate to contribute to a new atomic structure.  Thus the quantum mechanics have nightmares trying to measure these elusive entities.  

Does the Proton have charge? Charge refers to a concept: a relation between two or more objects. In EM & TT charge refers to the rubbing of two or more threads usually at 90 degree angles. The Electric Threads of the Proton rub together in atomic motion. Perhaps the spin of a proton refers to the constant realignment of Electric Threads in the unending motion of all the H atoms (and atomic elements), stars and galaxies of the Universe.  However the proton does not spin or rotate about its axis like a planet because it is obviously not a discrete bead.  

A Hydrogen ion is a proton with an expanded shell of arcing Magnetic Threads.  Ionization of the H atom could be induced in several ways but that is not the topic here.  

The Sun constantly sheds hydrogen atoms. The movement of these atoms in relation to the Earth and planets is called Solar Wind. The electron shells of these hydrogen atoms may be loosened in relation to their protons due to magnetism. The H atoms are released from their alignment in magnets on the solar surface thus their Magnetic Threads are already loosened and sweeping out in great arcs leaving the proton seemingly bare. This confuses the scientists.  They think that free protons exist where the electric shells of these protons are inherently weaved to the E threads only they sweep out in great arcs.  Exposure to an intersection of E threads (i.e. proton) is dangerous to tissue. The Electric Threads of the exposed proton rip through biochemical compounds.  Fortunately the great arcs of Magnetic Threads originating from the Earth sweep out and deflect these Hydrogen ions. 

We are not made of stardust, essentially our bodies and all bodies comprised of two or more atoms are made of tense converging intersections of bifurcated Light Rays (EM Ropes) called protons and electron shells. Another type of converging intersection of light rays where the EM Ropes do not fork out to form the atoms are neutrons.  EM Ropes crisscross on their way from atoms and meet somewhere.  A neutron is a crisscrossing convergence of EM Ropes.  Sometimes, the bundle of EM Ropes that are Neutrons get caught in the web of the bare electric threads of Protons.  And Neutrons remain grounded in the atom via an exclusive triple twined architecture only possible within the confines of an electron shell.  Some EM Ropes of the Neutron oscillate around bare Electrical Cables of the Proton.

  

* (please note that Light Rays and the supposed EM Ropes are synonymous in this article.  Light Rays is the affectionate name for Gaede's EM Ropes.)