Matter is made of only waves?

[StefanR]

The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Vortex.htm

[StevenO]

The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Vortex.htm

From QM we know that matter has wave properties. The electron is an essential link between the quantum world and EM interactions. So...how does an electron look like? When it is tied to matter and when it is free? Milo Wolff and other WSM'ers represent a free electron as two sync functions in space. Although this might look new, it is technically not different from the representation of a point particle:



The essential insight and Gabriel Lafreniere demonstrates that is that the visualization of matter waves show that:

A) The Lorentz transformation is a description of the Doppler effect
B) Matter is subject to the same Doppler effects as EM waves
C) As such it is impossible to measure the ether

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_Doppler.htm

[webolife]

Simple-minded me here again, finding myself amazed to be thinking that matter is wavish, but light isn't; after reading through LaFreniere and Thompson I am inclined to see the universe in a duality of force and wave... light/gravity/EMF/nuclear forces, instantly linking partilce/mass/charge across scaleless crystalline fields ... maybe I'll start a Poetic Universe Postulate... OK that implies I have time to start anything....................

[junglelord]

CONCEPTUAL ERROR ON THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF LIGHT- PHENOMENON IN CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS, LED TO THE COMPLEXITIES IN QUANTUM PHYSICS

Paramhamasa Tewari, B.Sc. Engg. *

Introduction

James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) had theoretically concluded that the oscillations of electric current in a straight conductor, or circulation in a loop of wire, "radiates away" energy, which is "lost" from the oscillating charges constituting the current. This concept, later, conflicted with the atom's model of Rutherford in which electrons moved around the nucleus in closed orbits; and the question arose that like any other vibrating or revolving charge, the electrons should lose energy by emitting electromagnetic waves as per the classical electrodynamics, eventually falling into the nucleus. The quantum theory of light by Planck and Einstein had accepted the possibility of "emission" and "absorption" of light by electron; the atomic model of Bohr attempted partial solution to the aforesaid problem. However, it is shown in this paper through the space-vortex structure of electron, which provides deeper insight into the basic nature of mass, inertia, energy, electrical charge and light; that during vibration, or revolution around a center , an electron does not lose either its structural or kinetic energy; though it produces electromagnet field (light), which is shown to be created due to mere cyclic changes in the magnitudes of its electrostatic and gravitational potentials in space; on account of to-and-fro displacement of the electron's center(discussed further). Thus, if loss of energy from the orbital electrons in an atom can be shown to be non existent, similar to the solar system in the Rutherford's model of atom, the revolving electrons will have stable elliptical orbits; and this would lead to the right course of development of the atomic physics, provided an alternative explanation for the production of light from the vibrating atoms (rather than the orbital electrons) is given. The physical aspects of the process of electron's creation and annihilation, wave length and frequency of light, briefly outlined in this paper (from author's earlier works), enable drawing comparison with the corresponding ideas of quantum physics and, thereby, tracing down those phenomena of quantum theory that led to digressions, one after the other, from reality in the early years of this century.

http://www.tewari.org/Theory_Papers/theory_papers.html

[StevenO]

Simple-minded me here again, finding myself amazed to be thinking that matter is wavish, but light isn't; after reading through LaFreniere and Thompson I am inclined to see the universe in a duality of force and wave... light/gravity/EMF/nuclear forces, instantly linking partilce/mass/charge across scaleless crystalline fields ... maybe I'll start a Poetic Universe Postulate... OK that implies I have time to start anything....................

Everything in our physical world propagates as a wave, so there is no duality since matter must be made of standing waves. It is a logical conclusion if you ask how matter can be so stable and does not fall apart into a hot soup of diffuse radiation. An atom consists of concentric layers of increasing energy standing waves, from the low energy outer electron (spherical) shells down to the higher harmonic proton/neutron shells and even deeper layers. The wave fronts on each layer lock onto themselves and onto the lower layers like (4 dimensional) gears. What we identify as a particle is packet of energy that is able to switch the gearbox from one gear to another. A force is just two interacting wave fronts and a field is a map of that.

[junglelord]

I buy that, it sounds exactly like Wilbert Smith's model. I know its Carver Mead, but the picture they draw is the same. Wilbert Smiths is an Aether model but is all fields and waves. Meyl and Tewari and Correa's and Thomson say the same thing. They just say it in a Aether model. Mead does not.

[webolife]

"a particle is packet..."
"A force is just two interacting wave fronts..."
"a field is a map..."
Three tautologies that don't yet satisfy my need for true connectivity, a true holoverse...
For me the field is a functional entity defined by the space/geometry around/between punctual/point systems, force is the vectoral relationship between the field periphery and its centroid, and a particle... well, a particle is the result of a field of vectors acting on a set of points defined by the geometry of the field........ Is that more or less tautological? I honestly don't know!

[junglelord]

Scalar Field Theory/Meyl
You have to roll the wave into a vortex to make the particle.
Thats really all there is two it. Its always a wave. You need a Scalar/Tempic Primary Field (Aether) to make it work. Its within a tube that particles form from the Aether.

Starting-point is the wave, which for corresponding interference effects can spontaneously
roll up to a vortex, which as highly concentrated spherical vortex finds a new right to exist
and finds to a new physical reality.
The in the described manner formed particles show specific properties of their own. We
now are able to attribute them for instance a charge or a mass. And these properties also
can be investigated and described individually and isolated from each other. Thus are
formed the two special cases, strange by nature, on the one hand the well-known, with the
help of the Maxwell equations describable "electromagnetic field" and on the other hand
the new "hydrogravitational field".
If we overlap the results of the two special cases, e.g. by adding the force effects of
electric charges and accelerated masses, then we summarized obtain a field, which we
accordingly should call "electrogravitational". This case is not at all unknown. Already
Niels Bohr in this way has calculated the radii of the electron orbits in the hull of his
model of the atom, to mention only one example. We can summarize:
The hydromagnetic field is the all encompassing and with that most important field. Apart
from that the electromagnetic field of the currents and the eddy currents and the hydrogravitational
field of the potentials and the potential vortices merely describe the two
possible and important special cases. For reasons of pure usefulness for every special
case a characteristic factor of description is introduced, the charge and the mass!

[webolife]

JungleLord, Ive read all your very informative posts and as many of your references as I can access, with as much of a mind as I can open, but I'm sorry, the phrases

"You have to roll the wave into a vortex to make the particle.
Thats really all there is two it.
Its always a wave.
You need a Scalar/Tempic Primary Field (Aether) to make it work.
Its within a tube that particles form from the Aether."

just don't quite work for me yet. Maybe it just in the jargon. For example I realized some weeks back that your energy vortices were a natural consequence of my unified centropic force field vectors, though you seem mostly to indicate that you think forces are the result of your energy vectors... I can handle the reciprocity of the argument... Perhaps it's because no one has satisfactorily explained to me what the aether actually is. It does this or that, and such and stuff comes from it but...

[junglelord]

I just try to make simple phases of fundamental truths amoungst the Aether models. Thats the basic deal. Thats why I gave the Meyl quote, you either believe it or you do not, I cannot prove it. The people that have written the theory can prove it as thats the whole point of their work. I just champion the cause. To me this is the proper model based on what I have read. I have tried to dedicate many threads to comprehension at the deep level so all would be aware of where I draw my conclusions... I always try to break it back down to basics for simple people like me, which may not work for people like yourself. I live in a world of relationships more then discrete facts. Thats how I think. If you review my threads its there.

I realized some weeks back that your energy vortices were a natural consequence of my unified centropic force field vectors, though you seem mostly to indicate that you think forces are the result of your energy vectors... I can handle the reciprocity of the argument...

There is always two sides of the EM wave conjunct, an infolding and an outfolding vortex dual in the Aether model, a forward time and a reverse time duallity that exists and is proven even in the standard model. This presents to the eye only half of what there is. One therefore must factor both sides to see how the wave rolls to form a particle via two opposite charge vortex spirals that self enclose. This dipole matter/antimatter pair are the archetype form from atomic to galactic.

I use nature to tell me what she is saying and she does not speak english....I see these forms presented as Primary Archetype forms from Double Layers as I have recently pointed out and from the Aether in the models I have read and in the Spiral Galaxies that I see in Hubble photos.

Certainly Black Projects Skunkwork Scientist often state that the theory they work with is not public domain. I do see some lights from the public but they are not the Standard Model and everyone fights against them, yet Dark Matter Reigns Supreme with Black Holes. I know we are all here because we do not believe that. I have found something else to believe in that has been made into several Unified Field Theories and may be what they play with at Skunkworks to make miracles. Its not impossible to figure it out by retracing history as I did with EM theory. Every one that has done experiments with Tesla Technology all have the same conclusion. I think they must be on to something. Nature told them all the same thing.

Boyd Bushman-Skunkworks Scientist

Nature does not speak english. Mother Nature tells us what must be honoured, and has been talking to us on many domains and we have datasets we are still trying to understand but I cannot talk to theorist because there are no theories where we are.

What we have is wonderful and comes from miracles occuring. But that what you see will not be that what we have.
To listen where languages are not taught and verbilization is not used but we must learn its language.

I am working on something that all you have to do is charge it and it begins to lose weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEMbZEacaw

To me in the end, I need a proper model to explain UFO and Exotic Craft. Thats where I believe the secret lies. Explain Gravity and marry it to EM and you have the Holy Grail as Einstein always said about any Unified Field Theory. I think Gravity is a longitudinal closed field line that is a superposition Wave with a Modulating Scalar Field and a Constant Electric Field. That would explain a lot and would work with technology we could make right now. We could bend that, not cancel it out but we could bend a wave like that. Somebody out there is doing something pretty cool and I think that Plasma Science, Birkland Currents, Tesla Technology, make a powerful paradigm shift and a powerful model.

You have to read the material I have read and make the relationships for yourself. I try to post links to everything that I read. I am on a pension and read more then anyone I have ever met in person. I have time and a very curious mind and my personality type is the rarest, only 1% (INFJ). We make logical thoughts based on intuition as much as fact. I do have a Balanced Brain and practice bilateral brain gym stuff in all kinds of ways. My way of thinking is not average or easy to relate except to say I live in a world of relationships when it comes to turning a library of facts into knowledge. Until someone can tear apart Meyl, Correa's, Bearden, Dollard, Thomson, Tewari, Smith, etc Unified Field models (Aether Theory) I think its a much better attempt to explain the EU then any attempt to repair the Standard Model which is hopelessly broke in my opinion. I may not be able to change your mind but thats how you would have to change mine.


The Aether models have most salient points in common and never have I seen one that really misses the mark like the Standard Model does. I do not think any of them are perfect. I draw from each as I see relationships develop that Nature honours. This is powerful to me, maybe not to others. I am still kind stuck on Wilbert Smiths model as my favorite of the ones I have read. Its a good place to try again. I like it the most because it is the most simple of the models possible in my opinion.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:NOd ... cd=3&gl=ca

APM and Ed Whittens String Theory are almost exactly the same except APM has the String/Vortex in 2 dimensions while String is in one. I have no trouble with higher dimensions. If you do not work in higher dimensions then none of the models make sense. I work from 5 to 12 dimensions depending on the model. The fact you can see it or explain in more then one way is not a problem, but rather a strength to me. As Ed Whitten so cleaverly pointed out when he made five views of String Theory one M Theory as they were just seeing it from five different perspectives.

I hope that helps to explain how I came to believe what I believe since finding the EU in November 07.

[junglelord]

Standard Model Pit Falls
1. Light (What is a photon? Is light more then one particle and how does it propagate through space?)
2. Gravity (what is it and is it a primary force?)
3. Wave/Particle Dual Nature Matter (Seems to leave us with no clear answer to the reality of matter)
4 Relativity and QM do not balance (If we cannot marry them then someone needs a divorce! I believe this is where the Aether comes in to play)
5. Strong Force (gluons are a article of faith in the standard model)
6 Weak Force (is the Weak Force explained properly for the proper reasons?)
7 EM (what is the proper and complete theory!)
8 Dimensions (how do we define them and how many do we need?)
9 Sub Atomic Particles (are they a point particle? Do quarks really explain the sub atomic nuceli?)
10 Dark Matter/Energy (do they exist? If so then what is it as their seems to be various interpertations on this term between the standard model and Aether models and proponents of the EU do not like that term!)
11 Spin/Anglar Momentum (what is it and how can we define it?)
12 Creation of Matter (aside from the Big Bang how can matter be created from the vacuum?)

To me Aether models solve these problems. Each of these is a Wave Model

Aether Physics Model
http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/index.html

Scalar Field Hydromagnetic Model Theory
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=47_ ... sublevel=0

Aetherometry Model Theory
http://www.aetherometry.com/index.html

Space/Vortex Model Theory
http://www.tewari.org/

Tempic Field Model Theory
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:NOd ... cd=3&gl=ca
http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/Theory.htm

Tesla Group Theory
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowl ... round.html

I am in the process of taking the above models and making a Integrated Aether model that is a combination of the major points of agreement to the above questions about the Standard Model and its pitfalls. Hopefully this will be simple in its explanations and thorough in its logic.

[webolife]

Hopefully this will be simple in its explanations and thorough in its logic.
That will suit me just fine. I look forward to your integration.

[junglelord]

Until someone can tear apart Meyl, Correa's, Bearden, Dollard, Thomson, Tewari, Smith, etc Unified Field models (Aether Theory) I think its a much better attempt to explain the EU then any attempt to repair the Standard Model which is hopelessly broke in my opinion. I may not be able to change your mind but thats how you would have to change mine.

My mind is not set in stone and lets hope it never gets that way.


So I am open to any simple logical reason why its not right. Or any deep mathematical process if thats your speciality (not mine_.) I tend to trust the math, I am more a theoretical guy. But I spend a lot of time looking at stars, planets in a telescope and even Aurora. So I have lots of real life practice and time to think while I watch. I think we are a lot a like.

StevenO does not agree with the Aether. I find it hard to counter him. Intuitivly I knew I am right and hes not quite getting it yet although his paradigm of the Carver Mead Wave model is correct, it does not disprove the Aether. Its like Ed Whitten showing that five versions of String Theory are five ways of see M theory. QM Wave models and String/M Theory are almost the same thing but not quite complete, (Sorry Steven) and I cannot counter his intelligent and mathematical rebuttals, but I notice one member (Idiot) has been able to do that. That is not my ability nor my way of proving I am right, no matter how right I may be. If you believe something most people do not accept, its very hard to prove to even very open minded people. I just know what I know and I am sure its right. After 30 years of following Cosmology and therefore the Standard Model and Gravity and Einstein, and going to Electronic college and never a word of Tesla in my books, I have to ask myself, what was written out and why?

I always kept coming back to an Aether but in my Einstein, Cosmology brainwashed mind that was not possible. However my UFO mind kept asking myself how do they fly in the Standard Model? Trouble is no one could show me a charge carrier for gravity. And they all say UFO's do not exist.


Once I found the EU, everything fell into place in a manner of three months. I no longer have any questions as on a intellectual level I will die happy feeling I have found the TRUTH!

THE TRUTH ABOUT COSMOLOGY IS THE *EU*
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE FOR IT SHALL SHOW YOU THE PATH
AND I AM FREE INDEED, AND FOR ME THE PATH IS CLEAR!
(Not shouting, just emphatic that the EU makes everything else come to light and I think we can all agree on that as its all related in relationships)

And for the first time I have intellectual people that actually think that National Security and the EU are totally tied up in red tape. Now about that flying triangle and relativistic Birkeland currents

[webolife]

No, we're not that unlike each other. I'd love to live further north where I could see the aurora more often.
Traveling to a family reunion across Route 1 to Saskatchewan a number of years back I had several opportunities to see these.
Did a lot of driving at night because my family was on a time schedule. Here in Seattle I have had the privilege of seeing aurora about a half dozen times since 1970... they have appeared more but the sky was overcast so I've contented myself to find just about every aurora photograph ever posted on the web. I get out my telescope as often as weather and time permit. The EU has been very helpful to me, but I had a "fully functioning" unified field theory before coming here, so I have yet more integration to do. I don't care for Meyl so much. Smith has more interesting points for me. Thomson's APM is quite interesting. All of these folks however are asking the right questions and challenging the right "standard" assumptions. I wish I was smarter. It is really hard to wrap my mind around all the ideas, but especially around most of "your" jargon. That you seem to understand what you're saying keeps me coming back to try again... I'm not a conspiracy theorist, not a UFOee, maybe ready to say "I've found the Truth, I can die in peace," but my Truth is different from yours... so where does that put us? Hopefully on two sides of the same pyramid, working our way to the top.

[junglelord]

I have never found your position to be something I could not grasp or accept. I think thats helpful to our dialogue. Jargon comes from people I read, so I stand innocent. I only work in relationships which is more form then language.
I guess thats why I relate to Boyd Bushmans quote so much and its so hard to articulate for me to others what I see.


Boyd Bushman-Skunkworks Scientist

Nature does not speak english. Mother Nature tells us what must be honoured, and has been talking to us on many domains and we have datasets we are still trying to understand but I cannot talk to theorist because there are no theories where we are.

What we have is wonderful and comes from miracles occuring. But that what you see will not be that what we have.
To listen where languages are not taught and verbilization is not used but we must learn its language.

I am working on something that all you have to do is charge it and it begins to lose weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEMbZEacaw