[analog]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

When particle physicist talk about energy states of particles, they are mainly referring to the wave function of the particle’s fields. The electron itself appears to be nothing more than an autonomous field that has collapsed to a very short wavelength function; it has a hollow core and thus it is a fundamental base particle. (all negative particles are of this base form and only vary in their wavelength function.)

This is one of the more complex topics that are difficult to discuss on any forum. Let me know if I need to go into more detail.

Hello Dave,

We know that charge is a product of motion; thus would it be fair to reduce positive and negative charge, as they relate to particles (autonomous volumes), down to the two possible/allowable actions that one absolutely moving substance (aether) can actually do with itself; those being accelerate/decelerate?

At absolute zero there are no internal charged particles/autonomous volumes due to all internal resolutions being at absolute velocity/absolute uniform linear motion/zero internal contrast. From this stage any change in state would have to be negative as it relates to the formation of an autonomous volume linearly slowing, thus becoming more random in its motions and causing expansion. As an autonomous volume decelerates from a more uniformly moving spatial medium it would cause a relative hollow core, due to the way the FS accelerates/decelerates itself. It's like saying, expansion/linear deceleration happens from a point outward, and condensation/linear acceleration happens from outward to a point; two sides of the same coin.

From an absolute randomly moving spatial medium in expansion (the other end of the spectrum from absolute zero), the only allowable change in state would thus be positive towards uniform motion which would cause condensation; thus the mass would be concentrated at the center of the core due to a reacceleration/gain in uniform motion from a more randomly moving spatial medium.

Wouldn't the core, whether visualized as hollow or condensed, be the representation of the direction in which that volume is headed relative to the spatial medium from which they are accelerating/decelerating from?

Thus, the proton is viewed as positive with its mass central to the core of the autonomous volume due to its nature of accelerating from the less dense more random moving spatial medium (aether/space) that manifest it, and being as this wouldn't be an absolute uniform/smooth process, any fluctuation of this convergence would create the inverted process of the outer boundaries of the proton going in the opposite direction (decelerating back to the more randomly moving less dense spatial medium from the more uniformly moving more dense spatial medium of the autonomous volume we know as the "proton"), which would thus form the hollow cored fundamental base particle; the negatively charged "electron", as it apparently circled the nucleus of the atom.

Wouldn't this explain the relationship of protons to electrons (attraction) and their ability to form chemical bounds, etc; covalent bonding thus becoming the acceleration fluctuations of the nucleus of two atoms which cause their electrons to decelerate together at the point of contact rather than being completely spatially separated by the less dense medium which they are reverting back to? Thus, some type of motion harmonic in the sense of a type of uniform deceleration would be needed to allow for the bonding, which would explain why it only takes place with certain autonomous volumes (atoms) and not others.


regards,

Tim

[G_burnett]

Originally Posted by G_burnett

Ok ... I will think some more on this. .....very interesting but i will get back to you on the rest. Ty for your reply Regards graham

Dave say :
"Hi graham;
....... When the wave function of an object is harmonically synchronized with the surrounding environment (Aether or other particles) it reduces the destructive interference within that environment; thus it condenses. Heating an object simply disrupts the harmonics of the wave functions and thus results in destructive interference; this causes expansion of the object. A similar affect occurs if the electron orbitals that form the covalence bonding are out-of-sync within the object; heat also causes this to occur. (that’s why heating a magnet will cancel the magnetism)

When particle physicist talk about energy states of particles, they are mainly referring to the wave function of the particle’s fields. The electron itself appears to be nothing more than an autonomous field that has collapsed to a very short wavelength function; it has a hollow core and thus it is a fundamental base particle. (all negative particles are of this base form and only vary in their wavelength function.)

This is one of the more complex topics that are difficult to discuss on any forum. Let me know if I need to go into more detail. "un quote

This is a difficult subject,
first my concept of the electron is the shell of a nucleus, undulating in a wave function to the consideration of the nucleus, and the push of the surround wave form undulating in a bump shoving and the shell itself in a state of change to different shape, endless to the speed of the composite quark in the nucleus proton movement ... and let us not forget the neutron mass.

The pulse of the shell being put into sync with the other in composition by laser alignment of form in stasis containment gives direction to MF. magnetizing the form.

Condensation, the condensing of shell by alignment resonant wave, the cooling then is done by the tweaking of the wave to more condensed degrade of wave, and shape ... linear or spherical?

If linear condense predicted the shape of the proton goes so far then in peanut shape to the shell splits to compression condense ... if both spherical the compact shape still varies to a more soccer ball shape as the arcs of the circle become flattened in d1 depiction, the split bee hive cross section crystallized . with linear the perpendicular condensed shape expansion ... still the quarks move?

I am that far .. the injected wave slowing in absorb by the electron shell near stasis of wave is again tweaked to alignment/lack of function orbit shift and the light dims going through till saturation by force of the push of the laser light in resonance is met? The force though is still behind the wave absorbed waiting to where the form will be unable to contain the wave by cessation of condense.

if the wave form with force is frozen in place and released after the turn of the condensed form would there not still be a flash of light if done fast enough (or slowed to the walk visual) in the new direction as further the never frozen source going through the from non condensed would now have its path still? Redirection of light with out reflection? That would be one for nano tec.

I will still consider this some more to the implications .. Peace graham

hours gone by an i reread above to remember the basis is that energy can not be destroyed or made and if slowed down and stopped from doing work it should continue in the composite it still is, not accelerated but until the lack of condense frees the energy ... G

ok pss I predict it will come out the new direction in a burst, singular to expend of stored energy.

[dleviwing]

Hi Tim & graham;
Let’s see if I can give you more to ponder about. The shell is a good analogy but I would add that you view the shells like you would a soap bubble (SB). Like a SB, when the shells contact each other in constructive interference they form a region like the SB that has its own wave function and is also weaker than the shell as a whole. This allows the sharing of the outer or covalence electrons of the elements or molecules. Now if the shells contact such to produce destructive interference, the shell will expand and basically allow the covalence electrons to wander or escape. We need to remember that this fundamental substance will attempt to stick to itself whenever motion between objects reduce their relative motions. Two shells with their angular momentum in the same spatial orientation will form destructive interference whereas when the angular momentum is opposite, they form constructive interference.

We also need to consider the axes of these spinning shells; they too are weaker and are easily opened causing the shell to collapse into a toroidal band like object; we call these objects “magnetic fields”. These objects quickly return to the shell structure if not sustained by some other motion of an object like an electrical current or synchronized electron orbitals. Well there goes another one of the forces.

Now if we can realize that all these objects ungulate in some way and at some rate of vibration we can see why each shell fluctuates its physical dimensions proportionally to their wave functions. The shorter the wavelength (higher frequency) the smaller the spatial volume. Now imagine a collection of these shells or fields one inside the other like layers of an onion each at a different frequency of oscillation; this forms Tim’s hollow negative particles. What if some of the internal shells collapsed to a very short wave function such that it appeared as if it were solid; we might call that a positron; since now it would interact with normal electrons such to disrupt the wave functions to the point of complete annihilation (randomization of all uniform motions) of the structures. Let’s take this a step further and imagine that the internal shells interact with such violence that they form two independent structures inside what once was the hollow core of an electron; these units are spinning so fast that their uniform motion produces a mass value several thousand times the original structure; might we call that a proton? Now imagine that same unit converting the chaotic wave functions within the Aether until the outer shells, along with a few more layers formed by the Aether matter, collapses the outer shells; this eliminates the wave function interaction with the surrounding Aether and thus makes the structure electrically neutral; might we call this a neutron.

Why have we never detected the decay of a proton? Well, they don’t decay; they simple collect enough matter to form neutrons. Neutrons keep collapsing the Aether wave functions until they become unstable and revert back to an electron, proton, and gets rid of the excess substance as a neutrino. This whole process of collapsing the randomized wave functions of the Aether results in a basic flow of fundamental substance from the space environment of the universe into the particle structures of the universe; we call it gravity.

If you can keep track of all the conversions of one type of motion of matter to another, the whole system becomes quite simple. The details of these conversions are in the numbers and equations that describe mass and energy. Understand “Absolute Motion” and “Self-affinity” and the GUT picture is complete.

Now what do we do about “LIFE”?

[PoPpAScience]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Hi Tim & graham;

Why have we never detected the decay of a proton? Well, they don’t decay; they simple collect enough matter to form neutrons. Neutrons keep collapsing the Aether wave functions until they become unstable and revert back to an electron, proton, and gets rid of the excess substance as a neutrino. This whole process of collapsing the randomized wave functions of the Aether results in a basic flow of fundamental substance from the space environment of the universe into the particle structures of the universe; we call it gravity.

Hi David;

I just love how your explanation of the creation of the neutron and proton/electron matches that of Jimbo's Fluid Energy Theory. Of course you have seen your view long before he has, but it is amazing how the same concepts can be seen from different angles. The only differences, slight as they are, that I can see right now are; He says the neutron is created first and the excess FS becomes a shell/electron that stabilizes the neutron making it a proton. He says that the excess that is thrown off, is a photon and not a neutrino. The only other difference is between his continuous substance and your wave function substance.

As I have said before, I am reading and contemplating about your, Tim's, Jimbo's, and all other theories about the core substance to see if I can see a consensus between all. The main problem that I have been stuck at for the last 15 years, is how to give a boundary to the core substance in order for it to be individualized for consumption into a core. Or how to leave it continuous without it leaving a void behind it. I spend all my free time reading all I can on Preon theories, Zero vectors, Zero points, singularities, etc... trying to get a grasp on how the FS can be left continuous or individualized with boundaries.

I am very excited with what you, Tim, and Jim express about the make up off the core substance and look forward hopefully adding something to the conversation at a latter date.

[PoPpAScience]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

This whole process of collapsing the randomized wave functions of the Aether results in a basic flow of fundamental substance from the space environment of the universe into the particle structures of the universe; we call it gravity.

David;

In the middle of the night a couple days ago, I could see for the first time Gravity at work in my minds eye. I always looked at it as a falling into a well because of the curving of space. Now I see it as a flow of core substance into the the combined nucleus's of the Earth. I see myself caught in the flow, the same as if I was in a river. I see the earth stopping my flow with the core substance, just the same as if I was lying up river with my feet against a rock. I see the flow of the core substance pulling at me, trying to consume me into the mass of the Earth, giving me a pushed upon feeling.

It was Jimbo's book that finally triggered my new insight into the working of Gravity. But it was especially nice to see it express in your post David. Once again similarities from different perspectives.

[dleviwing]

Hi Allen;
Thanks for your support; where were you 35 years ago when I really needed it?

I’ve read Jimbo’s concepts and find that he has good thinking but too many loose ends to account for. I had that same problem over 35 years ago; the concept of “Absolute Motion” being a fixed quantity solve virtually all of them leading to an amazing insight to the mathematical models used for today’s standard model; even though I don’t accept that model as being complete much of the math does work.

The uniform motion component of an autonomous units of FS solves the age-old problem of what causes mass. Einstein’s relativity says that an object would flatten in a parallel direction of motion as it approaches the speed of light; the “Absolute Motion” concept says the entire object would decrease in volume as it approaches the speed of light. Who do you think the numbers and experiments actually support?. I’ll give you a hint; it’s not Relativity!

When the tools start giving a false concept of reality why do we choose to change reality to fit the mathematical tools? The answer to that is quite simple; it’s easy to add parameters to the math equations but extremely difficult to create math for the physical reality of nature when your paradigm of reality is flawed. We need only to remember that we used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth and that could be proven mathematically. It becomes obvious who’s using bad science and who’s using good science when you have a good paradigm of nature.

[G_burnett]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Hi Tim & graham;
Let’s see if I can give you more to ponder about. The shell is a good analogy but I would add that you view the shells like you would a soap bubble (SB). Like a SB, when the shells contact each other in constructive interference they form a region like the SB that has its own wave function and is also weaker than the shell as a whole. This allows the sharing of the outer or covalence electrons of the elements or molecules. Now if the shells contact such to produce destructive interference, the shell will expand and basically allow the covalence electrons to wander or escape. We need to remember that this fundamental substance will attempt to stick to itself whenever motion between objects reduce their relative motions. Two shells with their angular momentum in the same spatial orientation will form destructive interference whereas when the angular momentum is opposite, they form constructive interference.

We also need to consider the axes of these spinning shells; they too are weaker and are easily opened causing the shell to collapse into a toroidal band like object; we call these objects “magnetic fields”. These objects quickly return to the shell structure if not sustained by some other motion of an object like an electrical current or synchronized electron orbitals. Well there goes another one of the forces.

Now if we can realize that all these objects ungulate in some way and at some rate of vibration we can see why each shell fluctuates its physical dimensions proportionally to their wave functions. The shorter the wavelength (higher frequency) the smaller the spatial volume. Now imagine a collection of these shells or fields one inside the other like layers of an onion each at a different frequency of oscillation; this forms Tim’s hollow negative particles. What if some of the internal shells collapsed to a very short wave function such that it appeared as if it were solid; we might call that a positron; since now it would interact with normal electrons such to disrupt the wave functions to the point of complete annihilation (randomization of all uniform motions) of the structures. Let’s take this a step further and imagine that the internal shells interact with such violence that they form two independent structures inside what once was the hollow core of an electron; these units are spinning so fast that their uniform motion produces a mass value several thousand times the original structure; might we call that a proton? Now imagine that same unit converting the chaotic wave functions within the Aether until the outer shells, along with a few more layers formed by the Aether matter, collapses the outer shells; this eliminates the wave function interaction with the surrounding Aether and thus makes the structure electrically neutral; might we call this a neutron.

Why have we never detected the decay of a proton? Well, they don’t decay; they simple collect enough matter to form neutrons. Neutrons keep collapsing the Aether wave functions until they become unstable and revert back to an electron, proton, and gets rid of the excess substance as a neutrino. This whole process of collapsing the randomized wave functions of the Aether results in a basic flow of fundamental substance from the space environment of the universe into the particle structures of the universe; we call it gravity.

If you can keep track of all the conversions of one type of motion of matter to another, the whole system becomes quite simple. The details of these conversions are in the numbers and equations that describe mass and energy. Understand “Absolute Motion” and “Self-affinity” and the GUT picture is complete.

Now what do we do about “LIFE”?

Hmm life ...turn pull in to push in the def of grav and we have creation by clumping and assimilation instead of degrade? "~LIFE!" (i did not mean decay)

lol OK I will look at this above more, the first thing that has me on the SB is the electron release by shape of the nucleus crystalline ... proton quark motion ... size and speed differentials of the atomic structure effecting the wave function of the electron to leave orbit to radiant emit and becoming a free radical ... the most pronounced is the vortical singularity in MF, that dance jet stream I predict cause ref ESAU note of MF field interactions lately to MY vector rule .. I still looking to see when i got to where they have published in Dec but i changed computers and think they beat me by a couple days lol but my predict to the dance and vortical spin perpendicular on that event is here to Vincent ... lets see how long it takes to prove that and i am going to send my paper to it ... just for the fun of it I suppose being no one of note.
The neutrons becoming unstable on the collapse of the electron wave function I see but the mass of a proton and the neutron are relative to equal size in the conjoin of the nucleus of the atom ... this pulse condensed has to form in the nucleus the peanut shape to split unless all would be blowing up in the meld separation ... the sun., Hiroshima, .. and, I see this as a creation of more mass, d1a does not equal the sum of the d2 the split particle and the new d1, the two new diameters are greater then the original form d... the compress nucleus form by electron wave condense cause of the split releases the new form from the condensed state and more mass is noted from perspective taken .. the neutrino picking up another proton and the proton picking up more matter to its containment of quark motion .. who keeps the electron in the case of hydrogen for the example .. Hmm just thinking as i suppose being closer to the aether there is enough to go around. I will read things more a bit later to post. TY again for the reply. G

I think the positron is a frame drag of echo wave function ... spinning back in the vortex pig tail no where else to go ...just a ponder in MOH G (neutrinos an protons after birth having varied quark ... sounds like evolution.)

[PoPpAScience]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Hi Allen;
Thanks for your support; where were you 35 years ago when I really needed it?

I’ve read Jimbo’s concepts and find that he has good thinking but too many loose ends to account for. I had that same problem over 35 years ago; the concept of “Absolute Motion” being a fixed quantity solve virtually all of them leading to an amazing insight to the mathematical models used for today’s standard model; even though I don’t accept that model as being complete much of the math does work.

The uniform motion component of an autonomous units of FS solves the age-old problem of what causes mass. Einstein’s relativity says that an object would flatten in a parallel direction of motion as it approaches the speed of light; the “Absolute Motion” concept says the entire object would decrease in volume as it approaches the speed of light. Who do you think the numbers and experiments actually support?. I’ll give you a hint; it’s not Relativity!

When the tools start giving a false concept of reality why do we choose to change reality to fit the mathematical tools? The answer to that is quite simple; it’s easy to add parameters to the math equations but extremely difficult to create math for the physical reality of nature when your paradigm of reality is flawed. We need only to remember that we used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth and that could be proven mathematically. It becomes obvious who’s using bad science and who’s using good science when you have a good paradigm of nature.

David;

I have thought the way you did when it came to the creation of the nucleus particles, from wave lengths, for the last 15 years. Of course not to the degree that you think, but none the less in the same frame of mind. But, I have always been uneasy about individualizing the waves. I just could not see how the boundaries of the FS could come about. For my theory to be complete, I have to address if the FS can be individualized, or must it stay as a continuous substance.

Jimbo's book goes into much more detail, but as he has expressed, the meat of his theory is coming in the book he is working on now. I believe him on this for he is no intellectual slouch. Don't dismiss Jim's "Fluid energy theory" of hand, give it an open mind, just like I give all theories. There is always something to pick up from the thoughts of others.

Like you and I, Jim sees the work of main stream scientist today spending all their thought process to plugging holes in the theories that have become like a religious cult to them. They act today the same way they acted when it was the church that over seen science. I think it was from the fight with the church that lead to the bullheadedness of today. Main stream science must let down its guard against intrusions for it to move to the next level of insights.

I personally see simplicity in the make up of the universe, and not the complexity expressed with faith based extremism of today's main stream science.

[analog]

Thanks for the insight Dave. It should keep my mind occupied for a while, after which I'm sure I'll have many questions that will require your further help.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

The uniform motion component of an autonomous units of FS solves the age-old problem of what causes mass. Einstein’s relativity says that an object would flatten in a parallel direction of motion as it approaches the speed of light; the “Absolute Motion” concept says the entire object would decrease in volume as it approaches the speed of light. Who do you think the numbers and experiments actually support?. I’ll give you a hint; it’s not Relativity!

In reference to my wandering thoughts from your Toronic's thread Dave:

Shouldn't the absolute velocity of the absolute zero state give us the absolute lower limit to condensation, whereby allowing us the missing absolute platform to build/measure from?

Just curious.

Thanks again,

Tim

[analog]

Added thoughts:

This would mean the lower limit to condensation was defined by the absolute linear velocity of absolute motion at absolute zero state, whereby no matter how long that state was maintained, it would never become more condensed; thus no proof to how long it had been in that state (infinite).

On the other end of the spectrum (after the initial event/bang/collision), there would possibly be no upper limit to expansion (how much could take place), whereby the current state of expansion would be defined in reference to time (elapsed motion), and would thus be measured in how long the state of randomized motion which caused it had been going on (how much motion transpired). It would actually allow for a finite beginning of that state, whereby we are know able to measure and discuss.

One state is defined by constant (infinite/immeasurable) and the other state is defined by change (finite/measurable); but the one state is needed to provide the absolutes by which we measure the other.

Does this make sense?