FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Guest: Milo Wolff - 'Drifting in a Universe of Waves'
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> TreeIncarnation Audio Shows
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Okay, it's now official - you guys are light years beyond me in intelligence.


That's the way I feel when people start talking about the fiat money system, or in economics jargon. My economic testis are way up there, frightened and hiding! We all have our own talents, smart in some things but useless in others.

Rumpl4skn wrote:
My brain glazed over about 5 minutes in, when the "obvious" mental picture of the "many small waves becoming one large one" failed to materialize twixt my synapses.


I drew this picture that should help.



Imagine you drop a pebble in a pond, and the waves ripple out. That's the black circles with the arrows. What happens when you drop a bunch of pebbles in the pond at once, in a ring pattern? You create a new wave front, from the combo of other waves (the red line). The more original waves you have, and the further away you are from them, the smoother the new wave front will be. The orginal waves were moving out from the pebbles, but this new wave front in moving inward toward a new center (the yellow circles). But as Milo said in the audio, when the inwaves get to the new center, they are not going to just stop, they are going to do a little spin like the Philippine Wine Dance and go back out again.

Now (your brain might bleed here) consider that the original ripples were not made by pebbles, but they also formed like the yellow waves in the picture, first starting as inwaves, then becoming outwaves, and a group of those gave birth to even more inwaves, and so on and so on. Then all the waves are totally intermeshed and dependant on each other for their existance -- that's where this theory has social and religious implications: all matter, and all of us, depend on each other to exist.

Hocus Locus wrote:
The points of charge in our universe -- the proton, the electron -- are singularities that are approachable but not arrivable in our Universal context.


You could be right, but in Milo's theory I don't think this is the case. The electron is the smallest wave pattern possible, and therefore it's NOT turtles all the way down. There's a lower limit. You may be familiar with quarks, which are supposed to be smaller than electrons, but I think quarks are names for the node points in the standing wave pattern found in most atoms.

The world surely has a fractal nature, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it goes on forever at both ends of the scale. But repeating of simple patterns to get complex ones? Yes, definately.

Fintan wrote:
that de-composes from that mathematical 'Kantian perfection', de-composes into what we observe. Which is the 'less than perfect' sphere; which is the approximate point -- and not the perfect point -- and there's an underlying mathematics that may in some way de-compose to product the observed result, from these 'infinities'.


I'm not sure if he's getting at a iterative system or not, but what I think Fintan is hinting at is something very much like Platonic Idealism. Plato believed that there is a transcendant world of ideal forms, and the physical world is an inferior copy. So we could be rediscovering what the Ancients understood, in our own way. Our physical world is a 'less perfect' version of another world (Fintan:"it decomposes into what we observe"). Or, put another way, maybe it's not 'less perfect', but it may be that only certain mathematical forms descend into the physical patterns we observe through the senses.


Last edited by urbanspaceman on Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8212

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:42 pm    Post subject: Great Posts Reply with quote

Great posts everybody, it's really helped flesh things out.

And thanks to Urbanspaceman. It's great that you are already very
familiar with Milo's work. Can't believe our luck Very Happy

Quote:
Matt: ...could mass be one 'wave', and lack of mass be another ? ...by
which, i mean that if 'somethingness' attracts, then why not 'nothingness'
repels - therefore you don't need dark matter (?!) - and the massive and
mostly empty space between planets, systems and galaxies, is pushing
all the 'stuff' together, as much as the 'stuff', is pulling things inward...


Well, as urbanspaceman replied, that's not in Milo's conception or
conventional physics.

But, and it's a big but. I think this is a classic case of why people who
may not have studied these issues closely should continue like Matt to
make intelligent suggestions. The beauty is that if you don't know you
are not supposed to put things in a particular way, then you go ahead
and do it.... and who knows, it may be an original spark of inspiration
towards a solution. I like it. I like it before i even care if it's going to
be the final answer. Matt's way of putting it has a yin-yang ring to it.

Every perspective is useful. Like the way I took the collapsing branes
of Neil Turok at Cambridge, then largely discarded the string theory
connecting them, made them spherical --not planar..... and saw a
confirmation of my early conceptions of the inside and outside of the
IOSphere. Give us your babies and bathwater --who knows what we'll use Laughing

Quote:
urbanspaceman: Where the Ether is more compressed like
this, we call that a 'mass'. In that definition, there is no such thing as anti-
mass. You may have heard of anti-matter (yeah, that stuff used to power
the Enterprise on Star Trek), and in WSM it's understood that anti-matter
are matter waves that are 180˚ out of phase with matter....

That's what Urbanspaceman replied and it's spot on. But the exchange did
highlight for me a potential looseness of terminology in all this. Really,
when you come down to it, Matt is using the right terminology. If we are
using the term mass then the opposite must be termed anti-mass.
But let's stick with the conventional phrasing for now. That got me thinking......

What if Matt is really getting at the compliment --not the opposite?
The opposite of matter is another type of concentration of energy pattern
called anti-matter. Ok. and they mutually cancel out. Fine.

But, maybe the compliment of mass is not merely negative, oppositely
signed anti-matter. It's valid of Matt to suggest a complimentary
lack of concentration, and to suggest it is a repulsive force.

And it makes me think we need to look at spin, and handedness and
these issues of opposite and complimentarity. Maybe somebody's got
some suggestions?


Quote:
urbanspaceman: But the distinction between stuff/not stuff
is the object/field, not the in/out waves. The in/out waves give us the
stable matter, basically a standing wave.

OK. But I think you still have some "not stuff" left over. (great term lol)

We have In and Out waves.
And we have the resultant apparent objects and apparent fields.

But these's something else implicit. It's what those fields are propagating
through. At the level of matter and fields --we call that medium Space.

We have objects, and fields propogating in space between objects.

But similarly there is an analogous medium through which those
Scalar Spherical Waves of Milo's are rippling.

An unseen medium supporting the Aether(Milo's waves).
See, I'm calling the Aether the waves -not the medium.
So I'm going beyond Aether.

You might say it's Space --the same medium which
seperates objects at the EM/spacetime level. But is it?

If the Aether is the First Turtle.
Maybe this medium is the Second.

Some kind of "not-stuff"..... that's "not-space" either.

It's an idea. Wink

I've got an answer, and it relates to what I said
in the audio (quoted by Hocus Locus below).

But I need to lay more groundwork in audios before it would make sense.

Quote:
"Suppose there was a perfect mathematical system? Which operated at infinite frequency, and which did have these perfect characteristics, but you can't quite achieve them, and that de-composes from that mathematical 'Cantion perfection', de-composes into what we observe. Which is the 'less than perfect' sphere; which is the approximate point -- and not the perfect point -- and there's an underlying mathematics that may in some way de-compose to product the observed result, from these 'infinities'."
~Fintan Dunne, Milo Wolff interview

Hocus Locus: It sounds like you beginning to describe an iterative
system. What is apparently an edge of the Mandelbrot set -- could it
actually represent a boundary between possibility and impossibility?

....But in a context where probability and time are mutual coefficients to
something else,

A complete certainty in the far distant future is merely an extremely
unlikely possibility at this moment.

A complete certainty in the moment is a complete impossibility ever
before, forever after.

Intuitively I feel we are somehow riding on these boundaries represented by this transformation......


Wow. We could do a whole show on nothing but this notion of 'possibility'
and how we arrive at it. I'll reserve comment on Mandelbrot until I know
what the hell I'm talking about Laughing , but simplifying a lot, I certainly
concieve of us riding like surfers on a spherical outwave which is spreading
out across the sea of.... possibility itself!

Reminds me of my earlier writing and statements in those first audios
that to stand on the surface of this planet was essentially to walk opon
the Standing Wave of the Supermind. That was before I heard of Milo.
Milo now explains the nature of the standing wave.

I wrote this back in 2000:

Quote:
The Eternal Wave



In your hand you hold a large White Stone.

You are suspended far above a vast dark sea.
The surface of the sea is as flat as a millpond.

All is silent.

When you drop the stone you will create the Universe.

So drop it.

The stone falls towards the ocean below and after an age you see it
strike, throwing up a waterspout when it impacts. The surface seethes
and a great circular wave starts to ripple outwards at a steady rate.



Your Universe is up and running.

That circle is a possibility wave. Within the circle is the realm of the
accomplished. Outside the circle is literally "outside" the bounds of
possibility- that which is yet to be done. Time events move from outside
the circle, across the 'Now Wave' boundary and into the containment of
the actual- the realized. This is the primal mechanism of reality. This is
how nourishment is drawn into a single-cell organism. The cell wall of the
amoebae is equivalent to the circumference of that circle.

Rippling across an infinite sea, an expanding circle has no frame of
reference. It becomes a great standing wave. The Earth's circumference
is, in effect, the standing wave of the Eternal Now. For, with each daily
rotation of Earth a new daily quota of possibility is drawn into the actuality
of our lives.



Stand on any beach and you can see these waves of possibility lap
against the hard shore of reality. The peaks of the waves, when viewed
from above, make a pattern like the concentric rings in the cross-section
of a tree trunk. To find evidence for the wave nature of reality, simply
stand on a beach. The evidence is within every tree.



The expanding circle is like the rings of a great old oak tree. Layer after
layer, as the trunk of the tree expands. Dying each winter and growing
again in the heat of summer.

It's TreeIncarnation.

The Now Event takes place at sea-level of the planet --the circumference
of the circle. There the spinning (i.e. expanding) Earth draws "Possibility,"
out of thin air. Within the leaves of trees it synthesizes, or binds light into
the actual. Photosynthesis is a primal event that creates both subjects
and objects. That is, it creates both dynamic leaves and static branches
or roots. The Now defines both Future and Past. The tree is rooted into
the surface of earth. Underground, the roots extend down into the past
towards the hyperspace point that lies at the heart of the Earth.



As we see when all those sperm try to penetrate the circle of the egg,
inside the circle is female. outside is male. We can also call these two
forces: Rhythmic and Chaotic.




Non-Integral Universe construction set and harmonic bells. Interesting.

Quote:
Hocus Locus: Just tossing darts blindfolded to yelps of pain around me, trying to find the bullseye by empirical trial.


Lol. Not a bad technique.


Quote:
urbanspaceman: I think Fintan is hinting at is something
very much like Platonic Idealism. Plato believed that there is a transcendant world of ideal forms, and the physical world is an inferior
copy.


Well, yes it is a Platonic ideal forms thingie, I'm getting at. But I'd have to
refresh on my knowledge of Plato to avoid giving a bum steer.

I hung my 'ideal forms' comment more on the Kantian structure of reality.
Here's this from Wikipedia on Immanuel Kant:

Quote:
With regard to knowledge, Kant argued that the rational order of the
world as known by science could never be accounted for merely by the
fortuitous accumulation of sense perceptions. It was instead the product
of the rule-based activity of "synthesis". This consisted of conceptual
unification and integration carried out by the mind
through concepts or
the "categories of the understanding" operating on the perceptual
manifold within space and time, which are not concepts, but forms of
sensibility that are a priori necessary conditions for any possible
experience. Thus the objective order of nature and the causal necessity
that operates within it are dependent upon the mind. There is wide
disagreement among Kant scholars on the correct interpretation of this
train of thought. The 'two-world' interpretation regards Kant's position as
a statement of epistemological limitation, that we are never able to
transcend the bounds of our own mind, meaning that we cannot access
the "thing-in-itself". Kant however also speaks of the thing in itself or
transcendental object as a product of the (human) understanding as it
attempts to conceive of objects in abstraction
from the conditions of
sensibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant


And there's the issue of Kant's statements on the nature of arithmetic.
It's a minor point right now, but I wanted to mention it, as the nature of
number is important in all this. Paraphrasing from Wikipedia:

Quote:
Declarative 'synthetic' statements require experience. Such as this one:
‘the horse is black’. First you got to find the horse, observe it and come
back to tell the rest that the horse is black. Go back a week later and
check again, and them come back saying 'Yeah. It's definitely a black horse". Synthesizing from experience.

Whereas, an 'analytic' statement like: 'a red horse is red'...
you can say that sitting on your ass.

Kant said Arithmetic is both 'synthetic' and 'analytic'. Which seemed wierd. Because you can do math sitting on your 'analytic' ass.

However, in the calculation 5+7 ? Answer: 12, there is nothing in either
5 or 7 that infers the number twelve. So we got to get up off our mental
asses to work it out.

However, the answer is 'a priori' 12, whether we bother to work out the
answer or not. 'Cos it's a rule based system , I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant


As I say, great posts. Thanks for shedding more light on all this.
Any further comments? Anyone else? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
The beauty is that if you don't know you
are not supposed to put things in a particular way, then you go ahead
and do it.... and who knows, it may be an original spark of inspiration
towards a solution

...but the odds of being laughed at are good Wink

okay, so i think i was dangerously close to off topic bringing that up, and mixing my terminology here and there, but in that spirit of 'never mind the rulebooks', i challenge anyone to prove to me that what we know as gravity is 'stuff' pulling, rather than 'not stuff' pushing - who's to say that gravity is a force of attraction by something-'something' when it might be a force of repulsion by nothing-'something' ?...it's just a thought, and it's not precious to me


yes Fintan, you managed to redeem and find something in my post which i had not described too well, complimentary - exactly the word i should have used - i don't see how gravity can be one sided - seems only half the story...

always good to try and turn things on their head or indeed view them in the mirror ! and see how they look, sometimes a different viewpoint works wonders, i need to give that audio a few more plays


Last edited by Nat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
just0



Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 556

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great thought provoking posts guys, I must admit I'm not up to speed on
all of the in's and out's of the WSM, but I think i've got the jist of it

Don't let the techinical terminology put you off getting into thinking about
this kind of stuff, as fintan was saying, sometimes it's those seemingly
obvious (or "dumb") questions that go unnoticed by the people who may
be too closely involved in the area.

It's kind of like being too close to the information to ask what it's actually
saying, seems to be how milo was able to ask the question about the de
Broglie equation in the first place.

matt wrote:
i challenge anyone to prove to me
that what we know as gravity is 'stuff' pulling, rather than 'not
stuff' pushing - who's to say that gravity is a force of attraction by
something-'something'
when it might be a force
of repulsion by nothing-'something'
?...it's just a
thought, and it's not precious to me


Great question, It's something I haven't though of, I'll have to get back to
you on that one. Keep asking those kinds of questions and you might
start putting people out of jobs. Great attitude to have and I agree, lets
not get possesive over ideas, it's all open to scrutiny IMO.

It can be dissheartening with some of the dogmatic ways in which physics
is thought in schools and universities, but hey, thats all in the past, that
kind of thinking is obsolete now, the internet is the university of the future
where everones a teacher and everyones a student.

I'd like to add in some of my latest thoughts in relation to In/Out which
echoes some of fuller's ideas along the way.

Fuller wanted to make science experiential in order for people to
understand the feelings of the forces that were operating in nature. Once
you grasp how something works through direct experience, you can apply
that understanding to many different special case areas in science.

The renowned physicist Sir James Jeans defined Science as "The easnest
attempt to set in order the facts of experience", with such a clear
definition of science, it's clear to us that each individual is born with
adequate faculties and has numerous opportunities to experience.
If experience is the raw materials of science, then we already have more
than enough equipment to start making scientific experiments.

Heres a brief synopsis on my interpretations of whats going on with the
In/Out motions.

Up and down are percieved as oppostes in the traditional way, i.e for
every action you have an equal and opposite reaction.

But, I think it's misleading to think of in and out in the same way.

In respect to In and out, we learn that they are not opposites in the sense
that up and down are opposites, In and out have their own unique
characteristics.

You can get a feel for these two coexisting actions if you imagine yourself
playing with a paddle ball, where the ball is attached to the paddle with a
string.

When you bat the ball it bounches out from the paddle in a myriad of
possible directions, but when the string tenses, the ball gets pulled back
to one specific location, the paddle.

We see that the 'In' operates convergeantly while the 'out' operates
divergeantly, we can see then that push and pull are not equal and
opposite, but more like a complete inside-outing of each other.

From further analysis of the feelings of these two motions collected from
everydayday expereance, we might get a better understanding of other
related words and how they might be opperating.

These are just some of the ideas I've picked up so far

Concave(In), Convex(out), Integrative(In), Dissintegritive(out),
Continuous(In), Discontinous(out), Tension(in), Compression(out),
Gravity(In), Radiation(out), syntropy(In), Entropy(out), Black(in), white(out).

That last one, black/white is a good one, when light is reflected from
paper, for example, white is when the light gets completely bounched out
from the surface, black is when it is completely obsorbed. This gets me
thinking about the sky at day-time and night-time, the whiteness of
daytime and the blackness of deep space..... Interesting.

_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John Muir



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 3:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is the universe a analog or digital computer? This whole debate is so Pythagorean. The universe is a mathematical object? I dont know. very interesting piece though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bornfree



Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This has to be the best audio ever.

Here's a site for consideration

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John Muir wrote:
Is the universe a analog or digital computer? This whole debate is so Pythagorean. The universe is a mathematical object? I dont know. very interesting piece though.


Yes, it is a computer. A living one.

It doesn't have to be a choice of "is the universe a living being?" vs. "is the universe a mathematical object?" Depending on how you probe and inquire into the fundamentals of the universe, different aspects of the universe will present themselves.

If you use the techniques of the objective scientist, everything is an object, and if you probe deep enough you will see the computational and memory abilities in the very fabric of the universe, which looks very much like a vast computer.

If you use the techniques of the mystic or shaman and inquire into the self, the fundamental living aspects of the universe present themselves. You will find that there is ultimately one consciousness that never goes away.

The inside and outside path are not opposed, but complimentary. Claiming that the universe is a computer does not deny that it is also a living being. These are different methods, that lead to different kinds of understanding, that highlight different aspects of the universe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
just0



Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 556

PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All the technology that has been developed has come about through
understanding principles that were already present in nature.

Technology is pure principle, the computer is not the silicone or metalic
materials which are used to manufacture it, its the culmination of our
understanding of natural laws that already exist in the unuverse. In the
same way, its true to say that technology is natural, because nature is in
the principles underlying all technology(biological or man-made), if technology
was not natural, it simply could not exist.

So if the seemingly physical substance which we see around us, is at the
most fundamental level, simple binary In/Out waves of pattern, then the
universe does seem to be operating like the principles used in the computer.
But if we mistake the principle of the machine with the physical
components that are used to build it, then we imagine the cold and
unfeeling substance to be all that there is, we overlook the beauty of the
metaphysical principles that is the true reality of the structure.

“The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine” ~ James Jeans ~

_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:08 pm    Post subject: Those who control the now event... Reply with quote

Wow. Fascinating stuff.

I mean, can you believe what Britney was wearing at - wait - oops, wrong thread ... Wink

I'm still digesting the interview and reactions, but I had to comment on this before it slips by -



Fintan wrote:

The Now Event takes place at sea-level of the planet --the circumference of the circle.


From: The Next Level :: View topic - Milo Wolff - 'Drifting in a Universe of Waves'
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1464&highlight=


From what I understand, the foundational human economic and social structures of planet Earth operate according to this principle, with 'sea level' representing the boundary between the physical and non-physical states of energy.

Conceptually, it is identical to what we're discussing here.

A 'level sea' is an expression of unity, zero. Not 'zero stuff', but a sea of 'stuff' with no movement, no motion, or no 'waves - basically, a flat, horizontal line.

If you add energy interaction perpendicular to this plane, like dropping a pebble sure, but think of it like jamming a broom handle into a still pond. You can see the concentric waves generated around the stick - on either 'side' if you were to look at the broomstick across the flat plane of the water level, rather than from above.

This concept has an iconic foundation in all the major systems of social interaction.

If you are a Theologian, you call it a 'Holy Cross'

If you are an Economist, you call it an 'Ledger of Account'.

If you are a Judge, you call it the 'Scale of Justice.'

If you are a scientist, you call it the 'Electromagnetic waveform."


IMO, this is a recurring social expression of the same basic principle of reality that we are exploring here as well.

Fintan wrote:


The Now defines both Future and Past.

From: The Next Level :: View topic - Milo Wolff - 'Drifting in a Universe of Waves'
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1464&highlight=


And we all know what Orwell has to say about those who control the past...

Anyway, I think you're onto something with the Universe of Waves concepts.

I've been interested in wave theory for a while, actually. The most practical application of contemporary wave theory, however, comes from one of my most revered philosophers of this generation - .

Quote:
"All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine."
- Jeff Spicoli, Fast Times at Ridgemont High



Apparently, the universe agrees. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8212

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:23 am    Post subject: Fundamentals Reply with quote

Quote:
Jerry Fletcher: .....'sea level' representing the boundary
between the physical and non-physical states of energy.....

This concept has an iconic foundation in all the major systems of social interaction.

If you are a Theologian, you call it a 'Holy Cross'
If you are an Economist, you call it an 'Ledger of Account'.
If you are a Judge, you call it the 'Scale of Justice.'
If you are a scientist, you call it the 'Electromagnetic waveform."

IMO, this is a recurring social expression of the same basic principle of
reality that we are exploring here as well.

Nice one! A very important insight, deserving of a topic in itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8212

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:00 am    Post subject: Paydirt Reply with quote

Quote:
bornfree: This has to be the best audio ever.

Here's a site for consideration

http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

A site for consideration? Well, yes... if by consideration you mean costing
me a night's sleep due to being hypnotically glued to that website, and
then following the thread on to other sites to Miller's aether experiments,
(ending up at a little-known, vital debate between Velikovsky and Einstein).

Or in other words: Paydirt Smile

Milo says that all matter is waves. This site agrees, but differs from Milo
over the structure of those waves --especially as to the wave center.

The author, Gabriel LaFreniere, Bois-des-Filion in Québec, goes on to
assert convincingly that all nuclear matter is formed of electrons
--those electrons being wave structures riding on and refreshed by aether waves.

Quote:

A proton.

This wave structure can explain a lot of phenomena, such as atomic shells, chemical bonding, electric current, semiconductors, etc.

The six-electrons structure looks like this along 8 different axis around the proton.


The shade cones. They can capture up to 8 electrons on the external atomic layer.

Those axis coincide with the centre of 8 equilateral triangles which form the octahedron.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_protons.htm


Unfasten your intellectual/scientific seatbelts.
In fact, get your surfboard out. This is a wild ride. Laughing

Quote:


Anyone knowledgeable in standing waves could rapidly reach the same conclusions. The wave forming the electron turned out to be surprisingly simple. Starting from there, everything falls into place. Everything can be explained. There are never any anomalies. Never any exceptions. The formulae are of childish simplicity. Complex equations are not necessary, and Euclid's geometry is sufficient. We are very far from the decidedly weird ideas of general Relativity.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_conclusion.htm


The matter wave properties are well admitted today. Then the Lorentz transformation should appear merely obvious, as Euclid's geometry is. No tricky reasoning. No breathtaking equations. Pure mechanics. Pure logic.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_wavetheory.htm


Newton used to say :

"If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

Because Lorentz was standing on Newton's shoulders, he has seen even farther. He still is misunderstood after 100 years.

Now I am standing on Lorentz's shoulders, so I also can see farther. My contribution is a mobile spherical standing wave system, the electron, and a coherent explanation of matter and all physical phenomena. In my opinion, this wave system alone explains the whole Universe.

So simple that nobody would believe it.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_wavetheory.htm


THE WAVE THEORY POSTULATES

Aether exists.

Electrons are spherical standing waves units capable of motion.

Each electron is amplified by incoming waves from all electrons in the Universe.

The speed of aether waves is constant and absolute.

All electrons at rest oscillate on the same constant frequency.

Matter is purely made out of electrons.

All forces are the result of genuine Huygens' spherical wavelets.

The radiation pressure is a repulsive force, and it is the only existing force.

The shade effect is an attractive force as a result of a radiation pressure from the opposite direction.

Motion is the result of the radiation pressure.

Matter mass is fixed with its waves energy.

The law of Constancy of physical phenomena as worded by Henri Poincaré is true.

Action and reaction wave forces are submitted to the Doppler effect and they are simultaneous.

Energy is the result of motion.

There is only one basic speed: the speed of aether waves, which is also the speed of light.

A Cartesian frame of reference is at rest inside aether and its coordinates are absolute.

Space and time values should be linked to the electron's constant frequency and wavelength.

Any Effect has a Cause and becomes a Cause acting at the speed of light by the means of waves.

Matter waves undergo the Lorentz Transformation.

Facts are absolute, hence Relativity is false.

The law of Relativity is true because it only describes appearances.

Gravity is the result of a slight deficit in the electrons' wavelets action because they are spherical.

The light is made of composite wavelets pulsed by electrons on a lower secondary frequency.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_postulates.htm


I know that nobody will believe it, but light is not stopped by matter. Matter as standing waves simply cannot stop progressive waves. However, the light can exert a pressure on half of the electrons according to their spin. So all electrons will finally radiate wavelets which will cancel the incoming light effects. This produces a shadow behind any massive objects. See the page on light for more details.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_postulates.htm


Electrons borrow energy from aether waves and constantly radiate it. This produces spherical wavelets, which are compressed or expanded according to the Doppler effect. Hence the Huygens' Principle appears to be true, but there is an important difference. The number of those wavelets is not infinite. The very small difference between an infinite and a finite number of wavelets can explain gravity. Those wavelets can explain light and its polarization, and they can also explain all forces.

Neutrinos do not exist. Photons do not exist. Maxwell's electromagnetic waves do not exist. The electrons' Quantum properties have been incorrectly transferred to light.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_postulates.htm


In all good faith and sincerity, one must admit that there is no material explanation for aether. Its origin is postulated to be un-material.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_evolution.htm


A tribute to Mr. Milo Wolff.

So far as I know, Mr. Milo Wolff first proposed this spherical standing wave as the basic unit for matter.

He told us that the electron and the positron was the same particle.

He discovered the important lambda / 2 phase shift.

He showed that the mass increase was related to the Doppler effect.

And he also demonstrated that while their central core is seen as a point, electrons are present inside a rather large space and can interact by the means of their waves. Electrons and positrons are not isolated. They can form a structure: a Wave Structure.

Divergences are likely to slowly disappear.

On the other hand I do not agree with Milo's many other ideas.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_phaseshift.htm


I strongly believe that Lorentz was right. His Relativity is true and complete. Space and time are distinct and absolute. Einstein's Special Relativity seems to be true but it is not. The speed of light is not the same in all frames of reference. He also mislead us for 100 years about photons and gravity. His ideas about space-time contraction and/or curvature are ridiculous.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_phaseshift.htm


UNIFYING ALL FORCES

Matter is purely made out of electrons, which are standing wave systems constantly radiating spherical waves all around. All forces are transmitted by those waves, and the result is motion as a result of the radiation pressure.


http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_mechanics.htm


I also agree with Mr. Serge Cabala's ideas. The piston machine on his home page is very interesting. It shows how the Lorentz transformation acts on matter. In my opinion this pioneer should be remembered as the first person on this planet who discovered (around 1970) that matter is purely made out of waves. He postulated that aether should exist, and he also showed that Relativity is consistent with aether.



http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_phaseshift.htm


THE AETHER

" The material Universe is purely made out of Aether "



René Descartes (1596-1650).

This site does not explain how aether works. Any medium capable of transmitting longitudinal waves could do the job. In order to maintain things simple, one should postulate that aether is perfectly homogeneous, and that it can preserve energy without any loss. Then it would transmit sinusoidal waves which speed is constant. This is c, the speed of light, but it also is the speed of all forces transmitted by aether waves.

The aether, as a lossless medium, should also allow the existence of electrons as spherical standing waves systems, which can vibrate eternally. Such systems constantly radiate spherical waves and need replenishment. This is why aether must also have been filled with energetic waves since its beginning in order to perform the electrons' amplification.

René Descartes.

This great scientist postulated that the light as waves should be carried by a medium, the aether. This web site shows that aether exists and that the light is made of waves.

So Descartes was right. His pupil Christiaan Huygens described aether as "subtle air spheres in contact" in order to explain the way such waves could be transmitted.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_aether.htm


Lorentz probably applied Huygens' Principle, which postulates that any wave can be seen as billions of "wavelets".

Huygens' Principle.

This web site does explain the light by such wavelets, but this detail is not relevant here. However one must admit that those wavelets should be spherical.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_Michelson.htm


LORENTZ WAS RIGHT

The interferometer really undergoes a contraction in the direction of motion. Lorentz's explanation was the right one, but nobody believed him. All scientists preferred Einstein's special theory of Relativity, which predicts the same effects but negates the absolute point of view.

This was a huge mistake. There *is* a mechanical explanation for all phenomena. This includes gravity, light, magnetic and electrostatic fields, nuclear forces, etc. The absolute point of view is important because the goal is to explain what is really going on. Otherwise scientists will stay ignorant forever.

One must postulate that aether exists and that matter really transforms the way Lorentz showed. The goal is to describe carefully how a moving observer should see things inside his own frame of reference.

Relativity is not complicated. It is not a mysterious theory any more. It is a law of nature. The next pages show that it can be deducted using elementary formulas about the Lorentz transformation and the Doppler effect.

The main difference from Einstein's concept is that any moving observer is wrong about his situation, while one at rest always see things the way they really occurred. However, because the moving observer also thinks that he is at rest, he sees the observer at rest undergoing the Lorentz transformation, and this strongly suggests that he is moving. Finally, nobody can tell for sure who is really moving.

So the main difference is that one is right, and the other is wrong.

Einstein postulates that they are both right. Einstein's Special Relativity cannot make the difference between appearances and reality. So it is false.

Lorentz's Relativity can predict the same phenomena, but it also can explain them. This is an important improvement. Starting from now, scientists will be able to mechanically explain matter and all physical phenomena.

The ether thus should be rehabilitated. It was banished wrongfully, and it proves to be essential.

Matter transforms the way Lorentz explained.

This web site mechanically explains matter and all physical phenomena. This is no longer a theory which will be confirmed some day. It is a fact. A verifiable fact.

At all events, there is at the present time only one logical explanation:

The Michelson interferometer really underwent the Lorentz contraction.

This occurred because matter is made out of standing waves, which undergo such a contraction.

The aether is essential in order to explain such waves, and also gravity, magnetism, the light, etc.

Finally, Relativity can be explained using solely the Lorentz transformation.

Conclusion: matter *must* be explained in a mechanical way. Because it does contract the way Lorentz predicted, and because standing waves also contract this way, one must deduce from it that matter is made of standing waves.

This is obvious.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_Michelson.htm


This situation leads to Lorentz's Relativity, which is different from Einstein's special theory of Relativity. The Lorentz Relativity is not a theory any more. It is a very simple law of nature, which can be worded like this:

From its point of view, any material entity seems at rest, and other entities only act, react and seem to undergo the Lorentz transformation in accordance with their apparent speed.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_scanner.htm


While trying to explain that the light should deviate near the Sun because "gravity is bending space", Albert Einstein did not explain anything. The result is even worse because he did not explain how gravity could do that. We need a mechanical explanation, not sorcery.

Einstein's explanation was an insult to our intelligence.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_gravity.htm


Inertia.

This was Newton's first law, as the Inertia Principle. However Galileo had already described this. Both of them had stated that any moving object should go on moving on a straight line unless it is slowed down, accelerated or deviated by some force.

This behaviour may seem obvious, but it had to be explained. One must also explain why and how such a force can destroy the normal equilibrium. This is especially important because one must also conciliate the existence of the aether. Returning back to the 19th century, this had been a rather painful problem. Most physicists were aware that:

" Aether does not affect motion ".

Let's face it. Apparently, inertia is incompatible with the existence of the aether. But as soon as one realizes that matter is made of waves, this objection is no longer relevant.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_active.htm


Electromagnetic waves and Maxwell's equation.

This means that the so-called electromagnetic waves do not exist. The light and radio waves are just standard traveling waves, which nevertheless can induce electric and magnetic fields inside matter.

This also means that Maxwell's equations just explain how electric and magnetic fields behave around any material device such as an antenna. Nobody can demonstrate that such fields are present everywhere else because a material device is needed to do so.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_magnetic.htm


The shade effect and the radiation pressure.

A previous page about wave mechanics explains that forces are always the result of a difference between the radiation pressure and the shade effect. For example, this means that the Sun will extract energy from aether waves in order to amplify all its electrons. This produces a shade effect, which is an attractive force. On the other hand those electrons will radiate this energy as spherical wavelets, which will exert a radiation pressure. However this pressure is slightly weaker for spherical waves then the maximum value for plane waves.

It should be emphasized that the difference is very small. So gravity is not the "fundamental force of the Universe". It is only a residual force, quite insignificant as compared to forces involved. Matter deals with huge quantities of energy, constantly transferring it from aether waves to electrons, then into outgoing wavelets. The sum of all this emitted energy per second is far greater then Einstein's m c squared.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_gravity.htm


1. The light waves do not vibrate transversely.

2. The light is made of composite waves pulsated on a secondary, lower frequency.

3. Photons do not exist.

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_light.htm



LaFreniere links to a few other sites where
people are thinking along similar lines:

Quote:
Mrs. Caroline Thompson's "phi-waves":

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/

Mr. Serge Cabala, about the Wave Nature of Matter and Lorentz's Relativity:

French: http://members.aol.com/scabala25/ (with graphics)
English: http://members.aol.com/sergecabala/ (text)

Mr. Yuri Yvanov, about standing waves compression and "lively" moving standing waves:

http://www.keelynet.com/spider/b-104e.htm


There's more... But a convincing and inherently simple wave mechanics
explanation of the universe is probably enough to get started with. Wink


Last edited by Fintan on Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
DrewTerry
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:27 am    Post subject: free energy everyone thinks equivalent “perpetuum mobile”... Reply with quote

Anyone speak German?

This was autotranslated but I am pretty sure there is something here that will nicely compliment the discussion. Or not. If not, pay it no attention and it will have no power.

Quote:


Introduction

If it concerns free energy (FE), everyone thinks equivalent on “perpetuum mobile”.

That is however wrong.

All sweeping advice show that the energy does not come not from that ANYTHING. She comes only an exactly not recognized source.

There are devices, which obviously interact with the gravitation. But they do not move simply only downward and upward or in one level. They rotate in the area and possess at least two separate rotation axles, which produce brake phases and acceleration phases. A closed, very flat spiral coil around a torus can serve first approximation as model. Such a course leads during the power consumption downward AND to the side, and it participates in general no symmetry. The way leading downward is longer, flatter and accelerated (external half of the torus), the way leading upward is steeply, briefly and less braked than before accelerated (interior of the torus). Why “less” braked, in the following text described.

In liquid systems cascade sub-structures with always new, smaller eccentrically turning rollers form. Is characteristic with a rockers increasing number of the turning vectors. For hierarchical systems, which carry not-adjustable turning vectors in itself, there are at present still no analytic representation possibilities, so that also no appropriate physical preservation-corrode were set up.

The so-called Pirouetteneffekt (during reduction of radius in x-y plane) does not arise nearly, if the thing is three-dimensional and the path speed surplus evades into the sign component. The angular speed remains constant despite reduction of radius. “Postabove rockers” with the smaller radius, against an outside Kraft, thereby one facilitates while “with that larger radius the overall system accelerates postdown traps” (open system). It is in-pumped thereby energy which holds the space eddy despite losses on.

With respect to quantum physics (spectra) still spin and angular momentum of the electron are differentiated, one know there also the accurate adjustment to the outside field, without striking the bridge to the hierarchical liquid eddy, like here in the following Torkado text.

Beyond that the gravitational field seems not statically to be dynamic but i.e., to be compound from asymmetrical oscillations which appear only stationarily as constant. Those the gravity field against-arranged half wave can become technically closed by temporal-resonant movement in the shorter ascending course section, not only than mechanical rotor, but also with electromagnetic applications, where one produces resonant vibrations in Spulenkernen or dielectrics.

Continuation: 0 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2C 3a 3b 4 5

This text of Gabi Mueller rises: www.torkado.de/torkado.htm

My email address: info@aladin24.de

Home


Quote:

The harmony spiral is an arrangement, with which the electron trajectories (E) and the H-Feldbereiche (spiral hose around E) of other electrons (a turn more deeply) could meet or approximate. If it actually comes to this meeting, an ether river would have to take place into the third direction after classical physics and the energy flow vector P=E x H. It points radially outward, pumps ethers from the thing (cooling effect). It keeps as it were the negative pressure (and thus the proton mass) constant, which otherwise constantly diminishes by “leakages” (Beschleunigungskräfte=Erwärmung).

The progressive rate of the electrons is under normal conditions however possibly like that that the neighbouring electron from the next turn does not have the same phi phase, because the area more closely is in such a way filled. The pure parallel river of two electrons of neighbouring turns in same phase and thus the meeting of E and H in the same place, take place only at disturbances or periodically at pumping need.

The electron distance on the course is one behind the other probably constant (Ce), but the way the available (extent at the circle) halves itself with each turn. It becomes ever closer. Electrons are also eddies and are forced now to compress. If they stand from the outset (Perlenkette), must themselves also their radius per circulation halve (plan view, tilting angle 90 degrees). But the length could double itself, if in another direction one avoids. The way becomes thus inversely the screwing narrowing longer: Doubling of the elevator increase with each turn. Thus also the total speed remains constant.

First result of the simulation:

Torkado with internal magnetic field ball, with little magnetic external effect:


In the next picture the reverse interpretation:

Ether particles (or electrons) move on the red-blue courses. The associated magnetic field is the closed Mohornspirale, the elevator variance is to be possibly also omitted. There the H-field (curve C) is closed, gives it no core mass, which is accelerated in (nearly) the homogeneous master panel.

Could the thus photon-similar thing be?





Quote:

Near field, far field and scalar waves

In the far field of a dipole antenna e and H-field are in same phase, that are the normal electromagnetic case of field (see applet). This corresponds to the circular surface water wave of a lake, into which a straight stone is hineingeplumpst.

Simplified linear view: If sinusoidal e and H-field has at the same time their maximum to have and then again at the same time minimum, despite orthogonaler oscillation levels, then also the achievement sinusoidal behavior, even if the knots should move thereby: The Pointingvektor P=ExH describes the surface of a party small sausage chain moved slowly in longitudinal direction (small short mini small sausages in space and time for instance, like a Perlenkette). P moves on a periodically growing and zero shrinking “small sausage surface”.

Our nerves look outwardly also in such a way, them are packed up into myelin packages, which are accurately periodically together-tied (tying rings), this promote the electrical excitation line and/or the frequency filters. We know also the term of “wave packets” from quantum physics.

In the near field of an antenna are not these “packages” yet finished packed, there begin their a swinging phase. The energy straight only paid from the resonant circuit, that as well known only stably swings with Pi/2 - phase shift between river (H) and tension (E).

The energy comes besides from two sources swinging to each other deferred: Inductance L and capacity C.

The vector sum drives off a spiral in timing, sees picture.


There as it were straight only the stone is sunk in the lake. Or a better picture: We have no stone, but a fishing rod with float and a constant pulling the seal.

Locally at the mass movement place there is completely different propagation characteristic than the distant transversal surface wave.

What now is a so-called scalar wave?

There the phase shift between e and H-field is not Pi/2 (near field) and not zero (as in the far field), but pi.
Two oscillations (with same amplitude) in opposite phase would constantly extinguish themselves mutually, if they were in one level. E and H are however not in one level, them stand always perpendicularly to each other. They can form thus likewise a “[i]small sausage chain” as in the far field, but there is now a completely enormous difference.[/i]

In addition I must out-curve something into (hypothetical) ether physics:

Oscillations generally according to Torkado hypothesis:
Each Torkado must always have a volume, therefore he never consists of purely transversals or of purely longitudinal oscillations. They are in the Torkado biuniquely verkoppelt.

Transverse oscillations are thus accompanied by longitudinal oscillations, completely directly, as large or small their amplitude is.
A positive transverse oscillation excursion is accompanied by other longitudinal oscillations (e.g. positive pressure), than more negative (e.g. negative pressure).

One can let energy just as few disappear, if one brings acoustic waves in opposite phase, in order to extinguish it. Their accompanying transverse waves are strengthened thereby additive and the energy is further-carried as light wave (e.g. infrared).

Furthermore:
E-fields are from house ether positive pressure fields.
H-fields are from house ether negative pressure fields.
Rockers both fields, it will come at the same time to ether pressure interference of its accompanying longitudinal fields.

In the electromagnetic far field the phase difference is zero, but the oppositeness of E and H concerning the accompanying pressure components leads to pressure extinction in each place. The pure transversals of portions remain remaining.

By the “small sausage chain” only the surface remains, quasi the “skin of the sausage” is everything, the remainder is hollow and massless. (Photon?).

In the scalar wave opposite phase between E and H exists. leads because of the ether pressure oppositeness from E and H to additives a pressure overlay at each point of space-time.

The “small sausage chain” is this time actually filled with “sausage” and has a genuine periodic thrust force (graviton?)

How and where does a scalar wave develop?

The stone is fallen, that for bang is verklungen, those surface waves is ebbs. And now? Now time passed. What is new, is the stone at the reason. The classical physicist thinks, does nix, is appropriate for rum simply quietly. That is not correct.

It delivers elementary waves, according to its atomic composition. Those are spatial-standing waves with no or only small temporal change. With it it isolates its atoms against the ether heat outside, it builds itself heat isolating walls, how it does also each flower with their petals, or how also the Same is protected by the fruit, until it is ripe. A so-called aura has each article, already each stone. It is the overlay of all of its atomic oscillations.

Atoms ARE oscillations, them ARE Torkados of electron trajectories, nothing else.

Protons and neutrons are the result of the Torkado movement of the electrons. They are identically to the axis of rotation, the H-field, them are attractive only dynamically produced cavities in the ether (H-Feld=Unterdruck), cold and therefore (gravitation). The neutron H field develops in the close central hose of the Torkados, and the term neutron includes the producing electron also. With the proton the producing electron is called electron of the atomic shell.

Both H-fields (p, n, strength ca.918) are parallel, because the direction of rotation in the Torkado does not amend itself despite on and, and they have the ca.1835-fache strength (mass MP) like the external portion of the H-field (ME) around the electrons, which is against-arranged the outside H-field (earth) of the absolute strength approx. 917 (917-918=-1), inside however parallelly (917+918=1835). At the surface of liquids one sees the constant reorientation of the heavy mass, it forms each moment again and by additional movements is affected. To illustrations see next side.

Probably the near field of such an elementary oscillation (the stone as antenna) has, not Pi/2 phase shift, but - Pi/2, thus 270 degrees. Accordingly shifted over - pi and/or pi is then also the evenly regarded far field of the elementary waves (addition of the ether pressures), contrary to the far field of the dipole antenna (shift zero, subtraction of the ether pressures).

When do artificial conditions for Gegenphasigkeit develop?
As general with interference:
- With wave reflections between standing walls of fitting distance.
- With rotating motion along two tilted axles, under use of the phase factor of golden cut (reproduction of a atom Torkados).



Quote:

Elementary Resonance - Comptonharmonie

after the equation by Frithjof Mueller:
(raum&zeit Nr.86 (1997), S.5/Nr.88 (1997), S.36/Nr.97 (1999), S.5/Nr.130 (2004), S.36)


L = Z * Ce * 2^N

with
Z = nuclear charge number
Ce = Comptonwellenlänge for electrons Ce=h/(mc)
h = Planck quantum of action
m = electron mass
C = speed of light
N = whole number (frequently up with N=33+13*k, k completely)

http://www.torkado.de

_______________________________________

Ether model conception and derivation of the elementary resonance from that

Comptonstreuung

The well-known Compton-effect: Quasi-free, resting electron collides with photon, thereby in any direction is accelerated and forms afterwards with the photon the angle Theta.

• The photon loses thereby energy, therefore its wavelength extends by DL = (h (mc))* (1-cos (Theta)) with m as electron proper mass.

• With the stosswinkel Theta=90 degree is DL = (h (mc)) = Ce (Ce=Comptonwellenlänge) and with the direct Gegenstoss (Theta=180 degree), if the photon and the electron opposite flies on, is the cosine of Theta equal minus unity and therefore is DL = 2*Ce.

• One considers please the factor 2.

• The wavelength change takes place independently of the original frequency of the photon, because the electron can take up only a quantized energy, which stands with its proper mass in the connection.

Comptonharmonie

We take now an atom as impact partners. It possesses more electron masses than a single electron in its covering Z (Z=Kernladungszahl) times, has Z-subject the capacity to the quantized power consumption.

• The light again could lose Z-times as much energy, increase thus with a direct hit its wavelength around dL=2*Z*Ce.

With which suitable quanta could an atom frequently collide?

• We regard moved atoms and motionless ether as impact partners:
The earth, including sun, races by resting light ether.

• Ether of the seventh hierarchy, all other ether intermediate layers is meant is partly along.
• We speak each atom, which is also only one wave and/or an eddy, of at least v=30 km/s. crack constantly frontally on the standing ether wall and produce in the ether propagation waves with exactly the wavelength L=2*Ce*Z, preferably toward east because of the daily and yearly turn of the earth.

This procedure could be called inverse Comptonstreuung: The rest energy of the entire atomic shell produced by the deceleration impact a new quantum in the ether with a wavelength proportionally to Z. these quanta are natural eddies, have waving and a particle character and to meet again on the resting ether, whereby quanta of the quadruple size result, then the eightfold, then the sixteenfold etc.

• Here itself in order of size doubling, but energetically weaker impact partners always are in the play.
• A constantly doubling wavelength basic constant becomes new in each case starting point.
• This concerns a chain of subsequent impacts due to the movement of only one atom.
• If one regards the many atoms in the material, a tidy intensity might come off despite the energy halvings.

Further representational form of the same connection:

De Broglie: L = h/(m * v) and m = ME/Z

v = C/(2^N)

with

h = Planck quantum of action,
m = ME/Z effective electron mass,
ME = electron mass,
Z = nuclear charge number, e.g. Z=8, as sum of the external effectively swinging charge quantity (fermions) in the oxygen atom to see is, and/or as sum of the H-fields belonging to to the fermions in the axle (m as with cyclotron frequency defines).

v = C/(2^N) are all possible speeds, which can result from repeated halving of the speed of light (C) -- See wild waves or the speeds, which experimental realm brook found.

• By the 2^N L comes into each desired scale.

• N = whole number (frequently up with N=33+13*k, k completely)

• The highest frequencies are computed like always with f=c/L.
Programs


Quote:


Electron resonance

1. Resonance lengths, the frequencies, as well as thirds and three-way ones of the frequencies
Look for L from Z (+ f and f/3 and f*3)

2. Resonance lengths, length times phi, as well as thirds and three-way ones of the lengths
Look for L from Z (+ L*phi and L/3 and L*3)

3. Resonance lengths, length through phi, as well as fifths and fivefold ones of the lengths
Look for L from Z (+ L/phi and L/5 and L*5)

4. Resonance lengths, length by 3^2, by 5^2 and by 7^2
Look for L from Z (+ L*8/9 and L*16/25 and L*32/49)

5. Resonance lengths, length times 3^2, times 5^2 and times 7^2
Look for L from Z (+ L*9/8 and L*25/16 and L*49/32)

6. Resonance lengths, the synchronous times T, as well as third and three-way one of T
Look for L from Z (+ T and T/3 and T*3)

7. Resonance surfaces, - volumes, - masses (density by the example copper)
Look for A, V, M from Z

Note: The frequencies apply only to speed of light. Generally a speed noise, and concomitantly a frequency noise exist.

Reverse calculation: Input of a length and determination of the resonant element
Look for Z from L

Conversion frequency <--> wavelength with C

Protonen-Resonanz

1. Resonance lengths, the frequencies, as well as thirds and three-way one the Fequenzen
Look for L from Z (+ f and f/3 and f*3)

2. Resonance lengths, length times phi, as well as thirds and three-way ones of the lengths
Look for L from Z (+ L*phi and L/3 and L*3)

3. Resonance lengths, length through phi, as well as fifths and fivefold ones of the lengths
Look for L from Z (+ L/phi and L/5 and L*5)

4. Resonance lengths, the synchronous times T, as well as third and three-way one of T
Look for L from Z (+ T and T/3 and T*3)

5. Resonance surfaces, - volumes, - masses (density by the example copper)
Look for A, V, M from Z

Note: The frequencies apply only to speed of light. Generally a speed noise, and concomitantly a frequency noise exist.

Reverse calculation:Input of a length and determination of the resonnaten element
Look for Z from L

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> TreeIncarnation Audio Shows All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.