The Details of Thread Theory

[jjohnson]

I forgot to note that, as Peratt's text is out of print and is inexcusably expensive on the used market, you may need another source to help think about the Biot-Savart Law. I looked in my old intro physics textbook (Fundamentals of Physics, Halliday & Resnick, Wiley and Sons) and there it is, Section 31-2, Calculating B; the Biot-Savart Law, along with illustrated examples and some worked problems showing the attractive force of parallel currents and repulsive force if anti-parallel. So, it's not exactly rocket science, and it dates from the 19th C. and should be readily (and cheaply) accessible in book form, and probably free if you Google it.
Jim

[junglelord]

Nice post jjohnson.


The fractal nature of the universe just leaps out of the page from your post...at least to my mind it does.

are short-range repulsive. This means that the net force between two parallel current-carrying conductors are long-range attractive,

Reminds me of the work of Coulomb and the identification of both attraction and repulsion via distance. From this simple work came Coulombs Constant. If we take the two charges we know of, em and es charges, with todays quantum knowledge, the re-analysis of Coulombs work by the Aether Physics Model delivers a two charge model that specificly is clearly seen in lab experiments and the forces that create atoms and molecules. Long range attractive, short range repulsive, is another fractal feature of the universe from quantum to plasma, the rules are the same.

Your vivid verbal identification of dual opposite spirals was marvelous. The understanding of different size spirals based on charge and mass was great. The re-combination of these positive and negitive ions and their subsequent tragectory was wonderful and well explained. Your explanation and understanding of plasma physics and of how acceleration, biot/savart forces, play their role within plasma physics, from Anthonys book, should make everyone want to buy one.

Cheers to a fantastic post.

[altonhare]

A hypothesis is just an image on the screen, a model, etc. It is not a list of characteristics. The hypothesis stage consists of only one aspect, an object. Any implications or conclusions you draw are in your own mind. Objectively all the presenter has done is show you a form.

So yes, collision/deflection ("solidness") is inferred from our everyday macro experience. There is no reason to force it upon Nature. A semi-permeable chain seems, to me, capable of reproducing our observations.

If i understand correctly:

The hypothesis stage entails a presentation of the shapes of the objects involved. That is the core element of producing a hypothesis because it provides a clear and communicable identity without which logical analysis is impossible. There is no room for the usual vague definitions of an object, such as mathematical concepts, metaphysical implications (like space "itself" bends), relationships in a single frame (like quantitative length or distance), relationships between frames (like magnetic, electric, or gravitational "fields"), observations, measurements, or experiments. Shape is the only definition that doesn't involve relationships which insert frames into one another. Regardless of philosophic discussions on what ultimately separates "a priori" from "a posteriori," the important distinction is that in physics the hypothesis and the theory are not open to empirical confirmation or disconfirmation, they are competing explanations for observed phenomena. Which theory is "true" is really an opinion about which one best accounts for what is observed, while the real test of a theory is internal consistency, ie, the hypothesis and the theory must be rational, and the theory must avoid supernatural explanations, ie, causes without effects and effects without causes.

Sounds like you understand reasonably well.

Measurements and experiments cannot be used for definitions or explanations since their very interpretation relies upon some prior attempt to visualize the objects involved. Using them to develop definitions leads to couching frames within one another, which means concepts being morphed into objects, ie, internal inconsistency.

The hypothesis establishes the shape, and, if i understand this right, the theory establishes the behavior of the shapes. This is where cause/effect enter the picture, and where the "rules" are laid out.

Very good!

That is why i'm confused about the semi-permeable chain. If a chain holds together in successive frames, doesn't that mean that the surfaces of the individual links push against one another when they collide? And wouldn't that mean that the links will do the same when different chains collide? Touch is difficult because in the collision frame when there is no longer any space between the objects they are essentially one, since they own a single surface. Is it the purpose of the theory to answer these questions?...to set rules about surfaces meeting and what happens?

Touch is a very "touchy" subject. Do two things merge and become one or do they somehow retain their separateness even though there is no boundary between them?

My proposal is that they become one thing only if they hit hard enough. If they hit too gently there is zero distance but nevertheless each constituent maintains its individual integrity. So yes the links do push against each other when they collide.

Really i need to just buy Bill's book and then ask questions. I will say tho that thread theory is a fascinating idea, although i dont quite understand the structure of the atom. Regardless, the mainstream approach to physics is rife with problems, the method of relying upon measurements and experiments is bunk. Interestingly enough a very, very similar problem exists in economics...economics is actually deductive and can neither be confirmed nor disconfirmed through experimentation. Economic theory is necessary for understanding empirical data, not the other way around. I think my fellow economics nerds will be able to appreciate Bill's insights, and so ima definitely spread the word on this stuff!

The book will definitely help a lot if you're still having trouble with the structure of the atom even after watching Bill's vids.

[Plasmatic]

Alt, rainmans post reminds me that I need to get back to my review on Bills epistemic method!

[EpicYarn]

The rope hypothesis is fascinating. I read every post in this thread, watched all the videos, and spent about 30 hours on the website. After all that I still have a few Qs:

How do ropes superimpose and "pull as one"? What is the physical mechanism by which that superimposition reduces the gravitational pull?

Also, if gravity works in that way, does that mean two rods of planet-sized length but small diameter arranged like this

------------------------ ---------------------------

would exert very little attracting force on each other? Especially compared with if they were oriented like this:

| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |

[EDIT: supposed to be more space between these vertical rods]

As an aside, Alton, I note most of this thread has been spent dealing with trolls and arguing over petty aspects. This hypothesis is just too important to be bogged down by stuff like that. Anyone who can't accept Bill's level of rigor in language usage will never be a scientists, and will only backbite you incessantly if you feed them replies.

Since many here already have their own pet theory, it may be worth taking it over to "ET"s - lay people who have no vested interest, but that still skeptical of establishment effects. In that vein, there has been some discussion of Bill Gaede's ideas over on the Mises Community Forums (highly non-mainstream economics), and the fascinating thing is that Mises himself often argued that his field had been destroyed by mathematics and the desire to describe rather than actually explain. Same with defining terms in a consistent way. I would call Bill Gaede the Ludwig von Mises of physics, or we can say that Mises is the Bill Gaede of economics. (If only Bill would study real economics, he's learn why his extinction theory is totally bogus...although he is right that food will be much more expensive in the near future.)

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/11533.aspx (Is Steven Hawking the Paul Krugman of Physics)
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20419.aspx

[altonhare]

Hey Epic, welcome to TT.

The rope hypothesis is fascinating. I read every post in this thread, watched all the videos, and spent about 30 hours on the website. After all that I still have a few Qs:

How do ropes superimpose and "pull as one"? What is the physical mechanism by which that superimposition reduces the gravitational pull?

I'm not sure I agree with Bill on this particular mechanism. I don't see why a rope's tension would cease being a factor simply because it contacted and melded with another rope.

I've been brainstorming other mechanisms. I'm tempted to go along with some of the modern LeSage theories. The geometry involved in TT makes this tempting. On the other hand, LeSage theories are on uneven footing still, even though they are doing much MUCH better than the old "heat death" models.

I think the best proposal is also the most obvious. An atom is a little coiled up ball of tension. All the thread circled around the shell is under tension, it would expand and straighten out if it could. It doesn't because there's a layer of thread above it. At a far enough distance the outermost shell of thread can't expand simply because it's not under enough tension to to push the rope to coil in further.

However, the thread in the electron shell is pushing against the surrounding ropes, pushing them to coil in tighter. As we move further from the atom the rope is coiled less tightly. This is simply because, the further from the atom we are, the more rope there is in total (and thus the more total tension there is) between us and the atom to oppose the tension of the atom's electron shell.

Any atom placed some distance from i.e. the earth will experience the tension that is on the rope in the immediate vicinity. The tension in an infinitesimal portion of the rope is lower at higher distances.

The effect is nonlinear. Whatever tension T there is in the atom, the total tension at some point along the rope must be less than T (else the atom would actually unravel). The differential change in tension as we move along the rope must decrease as distance increases. The tension felt by an atom (our test atom) at some point on the rope may be inversely proportional to the distance:

T* = K/D

So the change in tension is the derivative, which we can define as force:

F(D) = dT*/dD = -K/D2

The negative sign comes in because the convention for a change in something is final minus initial and we are talking about moving away from i.e. the earth, so the final tension is less than the initial tension. Delta(T) is, hence, negative. M in the numerator comes in as the number of ropes binding our "test atom". Also, K doesn't have to be a constant, it could be a function of distance or time. It is a characteristic of the rope that expresses how malleable it is.

Remember, tension is, physically, a static concept whereas the universe is inherently dynamic. Force is a dynamic concept. Whereas motion is defined as two locations of an object, force may be defined as two tensions of an object. Change in location/Motion;Change in tension/Force. Force is always what we inevitably measure because we can't freeze the universe. However, tension is still a useful concept in our thinking and visualization. Similarly, the concept of location is useful to us, even though we cannot, in practice, actually measure any object's true/absolute location because we cannot freeze the entire U.

Finally, it's likely that the tension on one portion of the rope is not immediately "felt" at another portion of the rope. In this case a test atom placed near i.e. the sun as the sun suddenly speeds off in the opposite direction will still feel the original tension of the sun until the local rope the sun has left behind relaxes all the way to the test atom.

Also, if gravity works in that way, does that mean two rods of planet-sized length but small diameter arranged like this

------------------------ ---------------------------

would exert very little attracting force on each other? Especially compared with if they were oriented like this:

| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |

[EDIT: supposed to be more space between these vertical rods]

Yes, you are correct. If gravity functions as Bill proposes then a simple test is to measure the weight of highly nonspherical objects like rods or plates. Gravity is very weak and the effect is miniscule, but I think it is within our means to measure if anyone had the funding and the impetus.

(If only Bill would study real economics, he's learn why his extinction theory is totally bogus...although he is right that food will be much more expensive in the near future.)

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/11533.aspx (Is Steven Hawking the Paul Krugman of Physics)
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20419.aspx

[/quote]

I also disagree with Bill's extinction theory. I think there will be significant social strife and upheaval in the coming years, but when is there not really? I don't think our current way of life is sustainable, especially in the US. We'll have some rocky times while people and corporations readjust to using resources differently, but we're not All Gonna Die.

Thanks for the links, I'm leaving work now and I'll have to check them later.

[altonhare]

I should point out that, when talking about the tension on the rope at some distance from i.e. the sun or the earth, the presence of our "test atom" actually perturbs the local tension (since the atom is, of course, a little ball of tense thread).

Since the sun and earth produce tensions of such a large magnitude we can, for all intents and purposes, ignore the atom and pretend as if it didn't also contribute to the local tension in its vicinity. Of course, this is just an approximation to reality.

But, let's ask the question. What would be the resultant tension? Is it simply additive? I don't think that will work except in the special case of a very tiny bit of matter placed near an immense chunk of matter.

------------------------

Since the rope is coiled more tightly near the atom than away from it, any undulations of the rope will take longer to traverse such a portion of rope than a portion of rope that is far from matter. This is easy to imagine. Think of a slinky with only a few turns, stretched to a certain distance, compared to a slinky with a great many turns in it, stretched to the same distance. A sound or other vibration will take much longer to get to the end of the slinky with a great many turns.

This would be the reason why atomic clocks appear to run slower when placed closer to a chunk of matter like the earth, and faster when placed away. It is also why the speed of light is slower near a large chunk of matter like the earth.

However, this theory does not contain provision for dark matter or black holes. It is impossible to coil the rope up "infinitely" so that a vibration or undulation simply spins around in a circle at the surface of an atom or other bit of matter. It is impossible for any matter to interact gravitationally but remain unable to transmit light signals, since both occur along the same fundamental entity.

Of course there is the possibility for objects of extremely high density, for which light may take an extraodinary long time to escape, or for objects that absorb light of almost any frequency but retransmit it only along an extremely low frequency that we have yet to detect. These are possibilities. There are also a host of other explanations for phenomena commonly assigned to black holes and dark matter. It's likely that there are many causes and many factors.