Toronic Concepts

[G_burnett]

true 'c' or absolute wave motion through a period of time at that absolute .... is in all places of observation at the same moment from different points of observation platform per observation ... usually a gone past observation ... heh heh ... kind regards graham

[G_burnett]

so is all of space aligned to wave interactions with a direction ? thus agreed a reality the torus is formed by the torque wave function applied to a atomic structure of wave transfer medium .. .. ok i wont inturupt you in your experiment duties i have heard your working a team to some interest and priority .. nice to hear hi from you occasionaly Dave .. take care hope all is well .. graham

[G_burnett]

so an increase of enrichment would seem to be best reaped from the inside of the shell structure ... hmmm just a thought
kind regrds graham

[G_burnett]

here is another thought ... nope ... lost it ... yup ... lost it

no ... wait, here it is ... if the toronic structure was set to motion the predicable change imagine if in a linear direction thus a current flow and MF and Mf suffer the frame drag ,... but ,... the Mf has to be in the advanced position of the causal .. considering the perpindicular rule and if the force casual was ended ... no lost it again ... sorry kind regards sage

[G_burnett]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1129141146.htm

the interesting was the flat disk visual. but it does have a sort of mirror quality to it on the enlarged pic .. just the prediction coming true on the disk now .. kind regards, grhajm

[G_burnett]

Graham, as to my thoughts__One can describe the QM as Dave has, for the larger quantum picture__but it doesn't give us the full fine-structured picture, within say the hydrogen atom. My thoughts had many years ago gone to hydrodynamics, due to the cosmology being figured in the hydrodynamics of fluid state analogies. Then I discovered that Los Alamos' physicists had used hydrodynamics to figure the dynamics of the blast potentials, which I years ago posted in one of Dave's threads. In other words, they__the cosmologists and the bomb makers both used hydrodynamic frame drag dynamics to figure the QM and greater forces of both... I posted the Los Alamos hand written documents, but can't find them now__On my stored computer... I see no other way to understand the hyper-fine structure of even the simple hydrogen atom, without using the hydrodynamic frame drag forces involved, just as I posted to you about our atmosphere, or any soft gel, or gas slowing photon entries from space, thus increasing spin, shortening wave-length, and increasing and still conserving all angular momentums involved, according to materials the photon fields are passing through, on way to entering our hydrogen atom__then the exits have to be figured oppositely__but all we have is a best guess, as we don't know the exactness of hydrogen's hyper-fine structure mechanics and drag... I think the best achievable is a general sensible model, then apply general probability maths to the new model... Also, Dave has mentioned the neutrino radiations, which many other public sources have corroborated for years, now...

You see imo, what we've got is the unknown of how many photons are in the hyper-fine structure of a quantum packet. What I'm trying to do is compare all motion in a galaxy, to all motion in a H-atom... Lotta' blind spots to deal with in the knowledge, between galaxy black-holes, and the atom's proton center mechanics__in and out...

Best I have to date, at this moment...

Are you talking about the electron shell field spaces as torus'...??? If so, sounds sensible, but entire torus would in changing states, move low and high orbits__quite complex...???

What's your take on it Dave__Hyper-fine structure dynamics of H-Atom, beyond std. QM...??? Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
I cannot speak for Dave or with his experience in these matters. I would like to read the Los Alamo if you would be as kind as to pm them to me or attach to email if you would look them up.
The consideration I am having in ponder is indeed the structure of the sub atomic of the electron as the more known standard of reference. I see in the simple the immediate rise of the structure to the atomic consideration. The fundamental substance is not as Dave pointed out the electron but at the sub atomic it may be the blue print of a pictorial to indicate the FS reality.
Dave will not vary in the nature of his postulation to other consideration then what he has been postulating and is really quite understandable by me the path he is on as I have gotten there by another path in consideration of a fundamental vibration structure in the sub atomic which led me to realize the area of thought is missing the fundamental basis of required evidently presentation to any premise given based on the assumption spoken of by Max Planck in the collaboration with Einstein way back. (see my signature)
As Dave pointed out the failing of Feynman going from wave to particle describe and why he did this would be a good point to start from with a good understanding of the term mass. I will not go there because it is a side bar issue so to speak but point it out for a comparison argumentative point worth consideration and not answer to where does one brotherhood lay, just worth contemplating.
There is every indication that we must advance the vibration observation of all matter to the causal of the vibration. Intuitively the logic path goes to separate the composite of the atomic to consider each structure. As stated I am looking at the electron, in the forum of toronic consideration and presentation of such a dynamic picture.
The mention of symmetry against the conception of asymmetry I may have overstepped in saying it be an observation paradox to a never ending circle to otherwise explain the Mechanical alter of the electron based on testing and technology limitations again Dave pointed out so nicely to keep me on track.
We attribute vibration in the standard as having been caused by other wave but how this is done must come to certain clarity or the assumption will not support any postulation. Can the toronic structure be pictured in such a manner that it will go up the line and down the line from my example of the electron and lead to a FS being quantified?
The respond has to be based on setting a value of a sort which can be identified as a Planck scale foundation. The consideration of time in the perfect measure does not yet do this even on the average taken. The path of personal choice is to consider the vibration as having two part of it wave function as a torus structure. This is the observation of any vibration singularity of a pulse event. I hate that word singularity but at the level I am writing on in the sub atomic is the use by observation of a particle having the singularity forward register to experimental testing.
In a line of wave transient we imagine the positive or negative forward singularity of charge as to it potential to affect other state. In the torus structure we have no forward or back described but an in and out of the structure described. The shell of Marsden and Geiger based on the scattering experiments indicates the wave action of the torus receive to just these ends of clarity. This though is in the atomic and subatomic picture being mixed as is the |ESA plasma redirect findings of more recent where energy wave is effecting atomic. Again this is supportive evidently but not a clear subatomic reality of quantitate measure of the torus.
To understand the measure we must first establish as postulated the two part function of wave in the toronic structure and to do this we find it based on the created forces of a non-cyclic (as so much) to a cyclic structure using torque entropy force coming into play between two linier wave which can be done in a constructive and destructive view in wave theory. The containment of the wave energy by the frame drag consideration of the spinier MF and Mf in the fluidity nature of energy wave or multi pulse establishes the formation of an eddy and thus the fluid dynamics of energy is worthy of review and applicable to the torus structure having such a transition of motion forward to cyclic end.
The degrade of the transferred energy in the structure of the torus electron becomes clear as it radiates the energy as thermal emit Muon and photon as a free radical understanding the [- + -] symmetry to an asymmetric
[+- -] to degrade into [+ -] [-] for an example of the matrix potential based on causal forces. Causal forces though end at the presentation of the two part structure in the torus pulse considered. The structure first emit degrades the structure potential to the next emit and thus we have a pulse quantifiable. What then is the first emit scaled dimension comes the question and this goes back to setting a standard of one. The primary and fundamental base of the electron in a toronic structure given a standard of one is depict of a dot.
To understand this said the consideration of motion of a toronic structure should be considered. Consideration expanded to not just the cycle of energy in the torus containment but it motion spinier as a whole structure that gives us a shell forward in the constant c considered. If you get to this point of consideration you quickly come to realize the features of the shell having input and emit are based on wave constructive and destructive law.
I gave the toronic structure the inverted y-axial determinate for the quantitate measure of such a measure in a geometric reality.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

This is what I am looking for Graham:

"We attribute vibration in the standard as having been caused by other wave but how this is done must come to certain clarity or the assumption will not support any postulation. Can the toronic structure be pictured in such a manner that it will go up the line and down the line from my example of the electron and lead to a FS being quantified?

The respond has to be based on setting a value of a sort which can be identified as a Planck scale foundation. The consideration of time in the perfect measure does not yet do this even on the average taken. The path of personal choice is to consider the vibration as having two part of it wave function as a torus structure. This is the observation of any vibration singularity of a pulse event. I hate that word singularity but at the level I am writing on in the sub atomic is the use by observation of a particle having the singularity forward register to experimental testing."

And, I still don't have a link to that old Los Alamos paper...

[G_burnett]

As i would continue to ponder and understanding the mutual need of such the foundation then it be indeed the necessity to set the foundation.



What word would suffice to do this?



I have used the word 'dot' with a value of one. A multitude of reasoning is behind this as i have given review of the electron having the two one half values symmetric in the theoretic that fails it equality value of phase variant in the asymmetric reality evidently association with time relativity and entropic degrade ... asymmetric up the line more ease imagined in the atomic study.



Other have used the dot as the value of zero but then it would not be a dot.



The argument has to go to acceptance of one over zero within the quantitate measure.



The end of the structure after degrade is not entropic to void in virtual wave physics with a design understanding that the energy was transferred in direction back to a linier form.



We see this in the structure of some 100,000 times smaller then the electron in the wave of quark fundamentals.



The excited quark in it composite variant has to be excited by something and that is other wave of a sort to a momentary symmetry then in the loss of excitement the degrade there too. Dave was in wonder to the possible unscrewing by ... wish i was there lol ..



hmm ok just fuel for thought.



kind regards graham

[Lloyd Gillespie]

This may stir your juices: 'A Fundamental Theory of Knowledge' based on Zulu dot math system...

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3743/1/MPRA_paper_3743.pdf

Originally posted somewhere on 'East Meets West...'

Flavor of the idea:

To eliminate this complication that arises from using the word infinity and resulting unwinnable arguments ; existence and the laws that govern it have been termed Konke - a Zulu word that means everything. Konke is represented by the symbol ●. Konke's properties are similar to that of infinity but for one major difference. Whereas ∞ - 1 = ∞, ● -1 ≠ ●. The rationale is simple. Once you subtract out one Konke is no longer everything.

At the same time ● x ● = ● because there is only one existence. Also when added upon itself Konke must equal itself, i.e. ● + ● = ●. This property will be made clearer towards the end of the chapter when the sum of knowledge is discussed. Given that existence is singular and clearly defined as the limit it follows that the mathematical expression ● + 1 is impossible for the reason that there is nothing more to add up. This is very different from the concept of infinity as the expression ∞ + 1 can be used and the answer is still infinity. One existence means that the mathematical expression ● ÷ ● can exist and the answer will be one. Having defined Konke and demonstrated its mathematical properties the question of knowledge can now be answered...

[dleviwing]

What is the value of "false knowledge" Lloyd, but to distract the seeker?