Structure of the Atom

[gymnastics]

Hello!

A question, if I may:
Is there a consensus view of the structure of she atom for Plasma/EU model proponents?
Please excuse me and/or redirect me if this is discussed in other threads.

Thank you,

gymnast

[gymnastics]

sorry; the atom

[nick c]

hi gynnastics,
The Electric Universe model provides an alternative macro view of the cosmos. It is acknowledged that eventually there will have to be a corresponding development of the micro (atomic/subatomic) perspective. Right now, there is not very much EU literature at the micro end; we must keep in mind that this is a work in progress, and not necessarily the finished product!
From the holoscience site:
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11

At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force** in matter interactions. It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton, neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a classical sense in stable, resonant orbits. That is, the energy exchanged between those sub-particles in elastic deformation during each orbit sums to zero. Being charged, the sub-particles interact via the electrostatic force. A simple calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light - some 2.5 million light-years per second, or from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second! So the electrostatic force must act at a speed which is almost infinite on our scale for the electron to be stable. It is the stable orbital resonances of these sub-particles, both within and between particles that give rise to the phenomena of protons, neutrons, electrons and atoms. Other denizens of the particle "zoo" are merely transient resonant states of the same charged sub-particles. The so-called "creation" of matter from energetic photons is an illusion in which pre-existing matter is reorganized into new resonant states that give the impression that a particle has suddenly materialized. Antimatter is a misnomer since it too is formed from the same sub-particles as "normal" matter except that the total charge is mirrored. Matter cannot be created or annihilated.

[Lloyd]

Nick quoted: A simple calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light - some 2.5 million light-years per second

* It would be nice to see that calculation.

It is the stable orbital resonances of these sub-particles, both within and between particles that give rise to the phenomena of protons, neutrons, electrons and atoms.

* I understand that the theory is that each electron contains two negative and one positive charge sub-particle, while each proton contains two positive and one negative. As for resonance, I'd like to know what that means exactly.
* One problem with this theory is that it doesn't explain what charge is. It just accepts it as a given.
* Another problem is that it also accepts attractive forces, which are action-at-a-distance, as real, without trying to explain how that's possible. The much more plausible alternative is that attraction is an illusion, caused by the inward motion of aether particles moving from a higher pressure area to a lower pressure area.
* Kanarev, Santilli, Miles Mathis et al have interesting ideas that may help explain these matters.

[GaryN]

Lloyd posted:

caused by the inward motion of aether particles

Perhaps you or NickC could clarify the position of the EU movement with regards to the existence of an Aether? The sites I have looked at either don't mention it at all, or do not appear to promote it. Ta.

[Michael Mozina]

Hello!

A question, if I may:
Is there a consensus view of the structure of she atom for Plasma/EU model proponents?
Please excuse me and/or redirect me if this is discussed in other threads.

Thank you,

gymnast

While I prefer EU cosmology theory over mainstream cosmology theory, I have no personal beef with standard particle physics theory. I doubt the consensus on particle physics theory is any different in the EU community than anywhere else.

[nick c]

hi GaryN,

Perhaps you or NickC could clarify the position of the EU movement with regards to the existence of an Aether? The sites I have looked at either don't mention it at all, or do not appear to promote it. Ta.

The focus of the EU is on cosmology and cosmogony, that is the macro. There are little or no references dealing with the subatomic and/or including the aether.
Wal Thornhill has suggested in one of the Thoth newsletters, that the aether may be "a plenum of neutrinos." So I would assume that the EU would probably be "aether" friendly, but that is only my guess. With limited resources, sometimes you have to pick your battles and it seems that at the present state of the EU, the emphasis is on electic currents in space and the implications thereof.

[Lloyd]

* Yes, Wal has told me that he regards the aether as a sea of neutrinos. He said he thinks neutrinos form when antimatter particles come together. The subatomic particles consist of 3 subtrons each and when they come together they collapse into a very small mass, the neutrino, with 3 positive and 3 negative subtrons. If a neutrino absorbs a gamma ray, it can return to the original antimatter particles by expulsion or something.

[dusthurricane]

It would seem, my theory of a crystal universe has more substance than the EU model.

At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force**

From the outset, this just stacks on top of phenomena without starting at the bottom.
I have posted much of my work on this forum explaining from the ground up. I offer substance. Not stacking on misunderstood phenomena. Electrostatics on earth are the result of our orbit band around the sun. If the earth stopped on its orbit, electrostatics would collapse, but magnets would continue to sustain a flux.
The sun ( and any star's associated jets ) highlight the loop of magnetism which has its source at the centre of a galaxy. It is not coming from the star. This follows for galactic jets.
Our magneto-origin is the sun. As long as the sun shine our permanent magnets shall sustain a flux.
Heavy stuff i know people, but 'electric' is a result of magnetic exchange. Magnetic is the only primal force.

[Goldminer]

It would seem, my theory of a crystal universe has more substance than the EU model.

At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force**

From the outset, this just stacks on top of phenomena without starting at the bottom.
I have posted much of my work on this forum explaining from the ground up. I offer substance. Not stacking on misunderstood phenomena. Electrostatics on earth are the result of our orbit band around the sun. If the earth stopped on its orbit, electrostatics would collapse, but magnets would continue to sustain a flux.
The sun ( and any star's associated jets ) highlight the loop of magnetism which has its source at the centre of a galaxy. It is not coming from the star. This follows for galactic jets.
Our magneto-origin is the sun. As long as the sun shine our permanent magnets shall sustain a flux.
Heavy stuff i know people, but 'electric' is a result of magnetic exchange. Magnetic is the only primal force.

Sorry Dusthuricane, I have it from a higher authority (an Adept Druid, as a matter of fact,) flamulated gramulons are the primal force! Their temperature is -32 Kelvin, but each one burns with a thousand Suns. Their radius is -15 attometers, and their rest velocity is 2c. They were known to the Ancients, who understood that by going backwards in time, which is in realty a simple torus, one would meet the future, wherein these measurements have been obtained. Just Google it!

[Lloyd]

DH said: Electrostatics on earth are the result of our orbit band around the sun. If the earth stopped on its orbit, electrostatics would collapse, but magnets would continue to sustain a flux.

* The main EU theorists say that magnetism requires electric currents to produce it.

[johnm33]

Is there a consensus view of the structure of she atom for Plasma/EU model proponents?
Please excuse me and/or redirect me if this is discussed in other threads.

Gymnast I can't speak for EU but as outlandish as it may seem these two pages which refer back to 19th century remote viewing show how remarkably accurate their 'visions' were http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html
http://www.smphillips.8m.com/occult-chemistry-07.html and in my view if what can be verified proves accurate what can't be verified is probably accurate too.

[mharratsc]

To summarize:

Individual EU proponents have offered some personal thoughts on sub-atomic/atomic/molecular structuring, but - as pointed out by Nick - there so far has been no formalized attempt made by the EU to classify or define the microcosm in such a way.

Although you will get quite a few people who will take your query as an invitation to offer you their ideas, it seems.

[dusthurricane]

Again - a magnetic vortex does not behave electrically.
Electricity is the flow of electrons via valence bands.
Magnetism has nothing to do with electrons moving through a conductor - it has to do with electron spin.
A permanent magnet does not require electron flow from negative to positive - to display flux. The electrons are static but spinning.

[tayga]

Electricity is the flow of electrons via valence bands.

I think you need to be careful with this. It's been stated many times on this forum that the flow of electrical energy is not the same as the flow of electrons. The two happen at different rates: one at c, the other much slower. For sure, there is an association between the two but they are not the same thing.

Magnetism has nothing to do with electrons moving through a conductor - it has to do with electron spin.

Spot on. A simple point which is so often overlooked. But is spin a movement, an orientation or something else?