 |
There are currently, 849 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nature of Gravity and the Vacuum of Space (Score: 1)
by masolis on Thursday, November 15, 2007 @ 11:39:13 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Oops...some sort of Javascript error?
The following reply was to the post by "106." I have no idea how it ended up
here.
:- ????????
---MAS
|
| Parent |
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Nature of Gravity and the Vacuum of Space (Score: 1)
by masolis on Thursday, November 15, 2007 @ 12:55:11 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | I will begin by saying that I have no earthly idea where this message is going
to land in the reply list.
This is a reply to nanotech.
It appears that the only way your ideas and mine differ is in my view of what
constitutes "the electric universe."
I presently see "the substrate of space" as tightly packed pure charge of
opposing signs, held in place entirely by the Coulomb force, and possessing
an elasticity in the latticework that results in the periodic expulsion of a unit
charge (due to the wave motion of "white noise" throughout the latticework),
resulting in a Bergman particle (electron or positron, or possibly even a
proton or antiproton). The charge must follow a path through the "monkey
bars" of the lattice that traces out a heliocycloid (the proper mathematical
name for such a path) due again to the Coulomb force, as the particle tries
to reattain a position of equilibrium.
The attraction and repulsion is balanced throughout, with a charge packing
density of around 10^60 elementary charges per linear cm on any of three
Euclidean axes, assuming 10^120 J/cm^3 for the energy density of the QV.
("Balanced throughout" in the quiescent state, that is.)
The arrangement is (or should be) basically cubic, with charges of opposing
sign at adjacent corners of the cube. (Work by Charles F. Brush is echoed
here, as a computer analysis of his freefall data for 17 elements of the
Periodic Table showed higher accelerations for high-mass cubics, and lower
accelerations for low-mass hexagonals.) [Hexagonals?!? Enter Richard
Hoagland, of all people....]
Assymetries within the lattice resulting from charge movement (caused by
wave motion in the lattice, allowed by the elasticity of the lattice), might
result in other structures...perhaps even the BuckyBall...as well as the
external appearance of electron-positron pairs.
The "wave motion in the lattice" is essentially a sort of "white noise" for
which spin "bursts" (described following) are keyed to wave peaks at
certain frequencies in the white noise. (This "white noise" also would be
the "afterboom" of "the Big Bang" as it has been described by others.)
As to the idea of a "multiverse," I do not follow the "party line." I see
the particle spin as being a VERY short "burst," with all mutually interacting
such "bursts" occuring simultaneously (i.e., in "absolute simultaneity" as
per the writings of Leo Van Dromme on this subject ["causality"]). Those
"bursts" which are "out of step" do not intereact with the "in step"
particles, hence "exist in another universe" of particles with time-matched
spin bursts. (Hence, "spin phasing" is the "interdimensional gateway," if
one is to term the alternate universes as being "other dimensions," which
they are, mathematically, considered as a list of "phasor spaces," i.e., a
sort of "tensor field" perhaps, based upon such a spin-phasor model).
This explains a great deal of the Hutchison Effect, among other things.
(I have been sitting on this view, as I am still developing it.)
It also gives a basis for the explanation of "superspin" (a term I coined)
as a "spread-out spin burst" (for which, essentially, the charge is circulating
more slowly, and "anchoring harder" to the latticework as a result. (See work
by Lambert Dolphin, et al, concerning higher energy/lower value for "c").
Side Note: Since the latticework is the ultimate(?) "medium" for the
propagation of light, it is easy to illustrate the difference between the
propagation of "transverse" waves and "longitudinal" waves. The little
"Newton toy" (suspended ball rack) is instructive. The "transverse" waves
move "ball to ball" one ball at a time (hence, "c" as we note it), while the
"longitudinal" waves give us "ball in, ball out" at once, for any distance
(i.e., "near infinite" velocity), no matter 10 cm or 10 light years (minus
delays due to elasticity, of course).
I'll stop there. This is turning into a white paper on my views.
"How do I like that idea?" I'll go check it out.
Which part of what I said struck you as "Bull Crap?" Just curious.... :-)
---MAS
|
| Parent |
|
|
|
