Gravity and Spin

It seems there are quite a few visitors who have their own ideas about one of the great mysteries of our universe, Gravity. Here's a place where all the budding Einstein's among us can wax eloquent on the subject.
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

720

Post by Mikado14 »

Junglelord wrote:Structure and Function cannot be seperated.
All of Physics ignores the fine structure constant.
At their own peril according to Feynman.
APM fully integrates 137, PHI, Pi, e
Without a quantum structure, how can you fully explain the function?
Quantum Confinement is only understood via Sacred Geometry.
Amazing!

This might help. Spin of Space! 720, not 360!
http://treeincarnation.com/articles/Spin-of-Space.htm
Been there, done that, discussed it before, bought the T shirt and everything is relative to who is observing.

I can't wait to see what you will build with all of this.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
kevin.b
The Navigator
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:30 pm
Location: oxon, england

Re: Gravity and Spin

Post by kevin.b »

Junglelord,
Good link, those who haven't seen it, will benefit from seeing it.
This ones thanks to thunderbolts, and hopefully shows why the swastika is central, and not to be ignored just because some bunch of occult driven power crazed zombies utilised it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_1WURAd6VA
Kevin
fibonacci is king
Junglelord
Space Cadet
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

Re: Gravity and Spin

Post by Junglelord »

Its not in english Kevin. I did however find some interesting stuff yesterday on Carbon 13
:wink:

I will side with Feynman on this one as we both have the same position.
http://www.137.com/137/

What a wonderful number.
:D
How it became relative to your position...well thats really amazing, since it never changes.
:lol:
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Junglelord
Space Cadet
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

Re: Gravity and Spin

Post by Junglelord »

The Fine Structure Constant of the Electron exist because of a fundamental unit not known to Feynman and other men of physics, the Conductance of the Aether. The Fine Structure Constant of the electron is not directly related to permittivity. It is a function of the conductance of the Aether, and more specifically it represents the proportion of spherical electrostatic charge to the equivalent spherical electromagnetic charge. Structure and Function cannot be seperated at any level. Knowledge of the structure will allow full functional control...aka quantum confinement.


The Fine Structure Constant of the Proton and the Neutron has been calculated with these frameworks in mind.
http://www.16pi2.com/fine_structure_constant.htm
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Re: Gravity and Spin

Post by Mikado14 »

Junglelord wrote:The Fine Structure Constant of the Electron exist because of a fundamental unit not known to Feynman and other men of physics, the Conductance of the Aether. The Fine Structure Constant of the electron is not directly related to permittivity. It is a function of the conductance of the Aether, and more specifically it represents the proportion of spherical electrostatic charge to the equivalent spherical electromagnetic charge. Structure and Function cannot be seperated at any level. Knowledge of the structure will allow full functional control...aka quantum confinement.


The Fine Structure Constant of the Proton and the Neutron has been calculated with these frameworks in mind.
http://www.16pi2.com/fine_structure_constant.htm
Great, now tell us your opinion on how to apply this constructively.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
FM No Static At All
Senior Officer
Posts: 558
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: Gravity and Spin

Post by FM No Static At All »

Junglelord wrote: The Fine Structure Constant of the Electron exist because of a fundamental unit not known to Feynman and other men of physics, the Conductance of the Aether. The Fine Structure Constant of the electron is not directly related to permittivity. It is a function of the conductance of the Aether, and more specifically it represents the proportion of spherical electrostatic charge to the equivalent spherical electromagnetic charge. Structure and Function cannot be seperated at any level. Knowledge of the structure will allow full functional control...aka quantum confinement.
So the aether is a conductor? Now I am having a problem with the term "Fine Structure Constant" of the electron, since the terms seem to me, to be as different as apples and oranges. As for the notion of structure and function being inseparable, that seems to be a "duh" statement in physics, while it may be called an astute observation in a philosophical sense. Keeping the work of T. Townsend Brown in mind, I am inclined to feel that is in the physics that we should apply the focus, although the philosophical aspect of the man may be learned from Ms. Brown, if she was so inclined to discuss more of her father on levels not mentioned in the book, and not broached thus far in the forum.

Fred a.k.a.
FM - No Static At All
'The only reason some people get lost in thought is because its unfamiliar territory.'

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Dictionary??

Post by Mikado14 »

FM No Static At All wrote:
Junglelord wrote: The Fine Structure Constant of the Electron exist because of a fundamental unit not known to Feynman and other men of physics, the Conductance of the Aether. The Fine Structure Constant of the electron is not directly related to permittivity. It is a function of the conductance of the Aether, and more specifically it represents the proportion of spherical electrostatic charge to the equivalent spherical electromagnetic charge. Structure and Function cannot be seperated at any level. Knowledge of the structure will allow full functional control...aka quantum confinement.
So the aether is a conductor? Now I am having a problem with the term "Fine Structure Constant" of the electron, since the terms seem to me, to be as different as apples and oranges. As for the notion of structure and function being inseparable, that seems to be a "duh" statement in physics, while it may be called an astute observation in a philosophical sense. Keeping the work of T. Townsend Brown in mind, I am inclined to feel that is in the physics that we should apply the focus, although the philosophical aspect of the man may be learned from Ms. Brown, if she was so inclined to discuss more of her father on levels not mentioned in the book, and not broached thus far in the forum.
Mr. FM,

I believe perhaps we should look at the definition of "conductance" from Dictionary.com -

con·duc·tance
n. Symbol G
A measure of a material's ability to conduct electric charge; the reciprocal of the resistance.

Therefore, a next logical question would be, - If the aether is conducting, what is it conducting?

If in past posts it was mentioned that charge is a product of the EM produced by the aether, is the aether capable of conductance of that which it creates? Therefore, if it creates it and it conducts it, is it self sustaining?

This is why I believe that perhaps when entering into a new science it is difficult to communicate the concepts for in order to communicate we can't use old definitions for those new concepts as I am learning.

Let's look at constant in the same manner as I did with conductance -

con·stant

n.
1. Something that is unchanging or invariable.
2.
a. A quantity assumed to have a fixed value in a specified mathematical context.
b. An experimental or theoretical condition, factor, or quantity that does not vary or that is regarded as invariant in specified circumstances.

A constant is normally viewed in a mathematical or engineering view as something that can be counted on to NOT change. Planck's constant does enter into this but then one has to ask the question - What are we missing? Why must we only use half of Planck? What does this indicate? Isn't this stuff wonderful? Makes one realize how much there is to learn.



But then, my view has been misunderstood before and I am probably on a mountain top standing all alone.....but I do have a wonderful view..<g>

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
kevin.b
The Navigator
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:30 pm
Location: oxon, england

Re: Gravity and Spin

Post by kevin.b »

Mikado14,
I can follow this aether STUFF about, I just can, and a mountain top is a good place to start.
The mountain top is a mountain top because of the specific movement of this stuff, as the water hole in the valley is it's equal opposite.
In the "new age " world, many hill tops are called goddess hills, and if you view them from afar , you often see that they resemble a female laying down, the hills silhouetting the sticky up bits.
Because I can follow this stuff with ease, and using one rod held in one hand, whilst still holding the steering wheel, i can simplty think of where the vector points of such areas are, then navigate to them by noting the rods alignment at different points thus triangulating to the point, it is often on a hilltop, and is where most incoming negative anti clockwork spin charge is to be found, hence the hill is created, and that will occur whatever relative temperature or condition is occuring over time at that point, as the point will never ever move.

Thus volcano's etc are prime such spots, as its all on a geometric lattice of FIXED proportions.

This must all repeat infirnitum out in space, but it is only where the geometry of 3D occurs that the content of the aether is released, that is light and whatever creates gravity.
the geometry is therefore CENTRAL and absolute to the amount of released.
hence thats why in my opinion there is so much released at the stars, they are proportionally that big, that they allow the release of far more content.

Junglelord has studied this geometry, and has I consider seen the geometry, what We have never understood , imo, is that there are other dimensions that transfer between occurs upon geometry points, and that the aether flows in DNA fashion with mirror like faces that have to reflect/refract or whatever the word is at specific angles to allow Alice through the looking glass, as such, otherwise it remains contained.
We are, and are created in 3D, and all our sciences are KEPT based in such, veiled as such from the creation and dissolvement between dimensions.
Rambling now, as one does when wandering about on mountain tops?
kevin
fibonacci is king
Junglelord
Space Cadet
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

Re: Gravity and Spin

Post by Junglelord »

I have fully explained APM 3rd edition, Secrets of the Aether, in the first thread I made.
https://www.ttbrown.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 92&start=0
The websites are also available from the author himself.
http://www.16pi2.com/
His White Paper
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

Its SI units. Same definitions apply.
Surely you have heard of them?

The APM is fully derived from SI units.
Its really fundamental stuff.
I find it hard to believe you need to get a dictionary for Conductance.
It is a constant of the aether, it is a quantum 2 spin RMF (rotating magnetic field)
APM is derived from c, compton wavelenght, Coluombs constant, gravity constant, plancks constant, permittivity of space, permeabilty of space, etc.
It is there in the measurements. The measurements just need to be rearranged.
Seriously simple. Seriously profound. Quantum Structure. SI units. Rearranged so that the quantum fundamental measurements are the building blocks for everything, as they must be by design.
:D
I suggest you read the thread over and over for three months.
I took three months to learn the APM model as it was a assignment given to me by Dave Talbott of the Electric Universe. His co-author, Wal Thornhill was in agreement with the Ralph Sansbury Model of subrons, and neutrinos having a dipole charge. I don't buy that myself. After I learned the APM model, I was in total agreement, for way to many reasons to mention.

The resistance to re-organization of the SI units is really unbelievable, but quite real.
In APM Electrostatic Charge is given a Fundamental state. It is not so in the Standard Model.
ES Charge is distributed and is spherical.
Mistake #1. ES is not fundamental. HUGE MISTAKE.

The EM Charge is responsible for the nucleus. Gluons do not exist. EM Charge is torodial and is distributed.
Mistake #2. The belief in a four force model with non existant gluons.

The Conductance of the Aether is quite verifiable because it is derived from SI units.

So we have a three force model, ES Charge, EM Charge, Gravity.
A Aether unit which is a 2 spin RMF, encapsulates angular momentum, and via tensegrity creates matter.
Quantum spin and their relationship to Aether Cycles make PHI and phi.

The relationship of ES to EM creates the so called Weak Force and is responsible for radiation.
Light and electrons exchange pure angular momentum, not engery.
Energy is a product of 5D, it is not fundamental.
Mass is a fundamental dimension and the mass of the electron, proton, neutron, aether, never changes.
Mass is a linear dimension. It consists of a 2 D circular string that scans a Aether unit.

APM is viewed several ways as dimensions.
5 D or 10 D and each is very well identified, unlike string theory where the dimensions are NEVER identified.
APM views the univese in Frequency, not time.
There are two Frequencies, the one not spoken of is Quantum Resonance, which is distributed Frequency...
All charge is distributed by the way.
Space-time, is a linear Frequency.

That is APM. There is much more, but that is some of the fundamental framework.
It would be best for you to vist their site, read the material, read my comphrensive Q&A.
It was reviewed by the Author himself.
Cheers.

PS Quantum Confinement, Nanotechonolgy, Sacred Geometry, Synergetics, Blaze Labs, TreeIncarnation, Teslas Impulse Longitudindal Magnifying Transmitter, Faraday Inductance, Maxwell Quaternions, Konstatine Meyl, Howard Johnson, Buckminster Fuller, Kirstian Birkeland, Schaubruger, TT Brown, they all talk the same language.

In my mind these are all the same thing. The relationships that connect them are to be found through much effort and time, at least for me it was. A lifetime, started when I was 10. The Electric Universe started the whole domino effect. 12 years of intensive education, and 12 months of dominos. I can only say I see the entire educational knowledge 180 opposite of what is taught.

Law of Attraction, Law of Equality, these Laws are not true.
Magnetic Poles are Never equal.
Like Charges Do attract.
I stand by the work of Howard Johnson and his book the Secret World of Magnets.
The structural analysis of magnetic fields is the place to start.
The iron filing demonstration is a totatlly invalid explaination.
:roll:

Yet we walk around thinking that current is electricity, and iron filings are showing magnetic fields.
We believe in almost 180 subatomic particles.....LOL.
What a joke that is.
Last edited by Junglelord on Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
FM No Static At All
Senior Officer
Posts: 558
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: Gravity and Spin

Post by FM No Static At All »

Although I am no longer a "newbie" to the forum, there is much that was written before I came along, and I am still catching up. I am still reminded by others that there are topics and discussions in the "archives" and hints on how to use the search feature to find them.

What has occurred to me is that when a "new" piece of information is introduced, it isn't just scrutinized on its own merits, but how well it fits into the context of what has been and is currently being viewed as possibility, if not accepted as "fact" by the peer review community (yes, it is obvious that we have a review board here on the forum) at-large.

There are times when our resident "Enforcer" may seem to be "ragging" on someone, and I myself have come under this scrutiny before. But I also know that it is intended to both teach as well as "reprimand" us when we get too far off course. Maybe we can build a NOT database for all of those things that come up which are NOT possible based on known principles, or experimental analysis.

I'm sure that programmers are familiar with top down logic, so rather than elaborate on the nuances of Boolean Logic, IF-THEN-ELSE, may be a great place to start when analyzing the postulations of aether physics. As pointed out, even Einstein did not eliminate an "ether" from reality, he just did not consider it as a factor in general and special relativity.

Now as Mr. Mikado has provided us with definitions for "conductance" and "constant" allow me to pose the questions that I find relevant to a discussion about aether physics:

1. Is the aether truly a conductor?

2. Are the Fine Structure and Gravitational Constants really constant? Or is that an "illusion" of relativity?

3. If the aether has a structure and function, then what "intelligence" of design is/was responsible for its creation?

Fred a.k.a.
FM - No Static At All
'The only reason some people get lost in thought is because its unfamiliar territory.'

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/
Junglelord
Space Cadet
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

Re: Gravity and Spin

Post by Junglelord »

I hold more to the Blaze labs theory on gravity (radiation pressure differance), over APM.
APM is valid math, simple algebra, but Blaze Labs shows that gravity is not constant.
This is based on spin domains. Its really Mayen knowledge of how the relationship of spins cycles occurs.
I agree with that and believe that gravity varies over a year between six months cycles.
I do not think gravity is a constant, and would rather have members know that at this time, I believe it varies.

Fine Structure Constant would be constant.
The intelligence is the Gforce of APM, the push/pull fundamental force that drives all quantum spin and galactic spin.
I think this is Gods heart beat. His mind is the constants.
8)

E=mc^2 has no validity in APM.
Energy is a product of five dimensions, not a fundamental.
That is a place where we need to use my terminology.
Mass is a Dimension. Energy is NOT fundamental.
There is no such thing as a electron exchanging energy with a photon.
There is such a thing as an electron exchanging primary angular momentum with a photon.

If E was in Joules which it would need to be
If mass was the kilogram, as it would need to be
then there is no equality with c^2 what so ever.
It is not a formula, it is not equal.
it is invalid.

There is no such thing as fundamental energy.
I do not buy that, every talks about energy and mass, yet I believe they all have invalid definitions.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Trickfox
The Magician
Posts: 1461
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:06 am
Location: Quebec or Montreal
Contact:

Re: Gravity and Spin

Post by Trickfox »

COPY AND SAVE THIS...... THIS IS REALITY... THEN NOTE: The first three definitions make up all the rest
Image
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Huh?

Post by Mikado14 »

Mr. FM,

Who is Mr. Junglelord talking to? It must be you for I remember this:
Junglelord wrote:I never lack proof, you lack rebuttal with proof.
Thats why I ignored you before and will now for ever more.
Either someone was doing a reading of Edgar Allen Poe or I misinterpreted the meaning of the above, therefore, I believe he was "ragging" on you.

For clarification between us Mr. FM, an SI unit is not a value.

here is a link:

http://www.techexpo.com/techdata/si-units.html

Perhaps you can ask what unit of measurement is being discussed, I have before.

I am just glad that he is ragging on you, at least I am in good company.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
FM No Static At All
Senior Officer
Posts: 558
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: Gravity and Spin

Post by FM No Static At All »

I hold more to the Blaze labs theory on gravity (radiation pressure differance), over APM.
APM is valid math, simple algebra, but Blaze Labs shows that gravity is not constant.
This is based on spin domains. Its really Mayen knowledge of how the relationship of spins cycles occurs.
I agree with that and believe that gravity varies over a year between six months cycles.
I do not think gravity is a constant, and would rather have members know that at this time, I believe it varies.
Is that what Dr. Brown spent a great portion of his life detecting and measuring? He called it sidereal radiation. Others think that it fluctuates not only as the Earth orbits the Sun, but also as the Moon orbits the Earth. Also, the solar system is orbiting around the galactic center, so there are lots of “spins” happening. I would surmise the spins and orbits that start the process of creation happen on a quantum scale, and that is where the issues lie. An equivalence of scale is required to match those movements of planets and stars to the protons/neutrons and the electrons that orbit the atomic core. Again, I ask, are these particles of solid mass of a different substance than energy condensed?
Fine Structure Constant would be constant.
The intelligence is the Gforce of APM, the push/pull fundamental force that drives all quantum spin and galactic spin.
I think this is Gods heart beat. His mind is the constants.
And here is another place where I find mixed metaphors in describing aether, fine structure, divinity as a requirement to explain that which the rest of the story lacks in explanation.

First, without debating on the possibility of the existence of a god, are you not projecting the physical body (heart, mind) onto the notion of a spirit entity, which by definition would be without a physical body? Isn't that the premise of Christianity, the projection of the “holy spirit” of god into the physical body of man (Jesus) as the perfection of body/spirit?


E=mc^2 has no validity in APM.
Energy is a product of five dimensions, not a fundamental.
That is a place where we need to use my terminology.
Mass is a Dimension. Energy is NOT fundamental.
So if we consider APM as valid, Einstein is rendered invalid? Now while I am not a big fan of Relativity (General or Special) it would seem that a whole lot of applicable physics has yielded results from that equation.

If Energy equals Mass times the Speed of Light squared, then would not the reciprocal indicate that Mass is energy condensed or compressed?
There is no such thing as a electron exchanging energy with a photon.
There is such a thing as an electron exchanging primary angular momentum with a photon.
Then what is angular momentum if not energy? It's certainly not mass. And if matter/mass is a product of energy, then from what is that energy derived? Is it contained within the aether, which is what aether physics (not necessarily “the” APM you subscribe to) claims is happening with those particles than seem to blink in and out of existence, and only creates a proton” when conditions are just so.
If E was in Joules which it would need to be
If mass was the kilogram, as it would need to be
then there is no equality with c^2 what so ever.
It is not a formula, it is not equal.
it is invalid.
Please elaborate, I fail to find the validity of this statement.
There is no such thing as fundamental energy.
I do not buy that, every talks about energy and mass, yet I believe they all have invalid definitions.
What definitions of energy and mass do you subscribe to and find valid?
By the way Mr. Junglelord, I am a Leo, therefore "lord" of the jungle in my own right, yet I find that all creatures are part of the life I love, and claim no dominion over any other.

Mr. Trickfox, I have copied that page from your web site and printed it. I just haven't put it up on my cork board yet for easy reference. And Mr. Mikado, I am certain that my life will continue without providing Mr. Junglelord with rebuttal proof. If he chooses to ignore me, then that is his prerogative. You an I have agreed to disagree many times and remain compadres in the quest. I seem to recall an "invited" fusion expert also tried to rattle my cage, with little success. Bless him just the same.

Fred a.k.a.
FM - No Static At All
'The only reason some people get lost in thought is because its unfamiliar territory.'

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

The Beauty of it all!

Post by Mikado14 »

Mr. FM wrote:And Mr. Mikado, I am certain that my life will continue without providing Mr. Junglelord with rebuttal proof. If he chooses to ignore me, then that is his prerogative. You an I have agreed to disagree many times and remain compadres in the quest. I seem to recall an "invited" fusion expert also tried to rattle my cage, with little success. Bless him just the same.
Yes, Mr. FM. I do enjoy our talks from time to time, on and off of the forum. The commonality in our quest is just that, the quest for truth. It will never be over in our lifetime, of that I am sure, but look at the individuals I have met, that is the beauty of it all. The wonderful diversity in our views and all we seek is why?

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Locked