VPM versus APM

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

VPM versus APM

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue May 20, 2008 8:15 pm

- Steve Smith said at the APM thread that EU theory doesn't need 5 dimensions etc and suggested this link: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-vpm.asp
- There it says hydrogen is created by gravitational fields from aether, or vacuum, the latter being the 5th form or phase of matter. How compatible is this claim with Wal's theory? Upriver, can you do any of these experiments? Here's some of the explanation and evidence mentioned at the site.
- The phase shift mechanism proposed in this model, does in fact show how the ionosphere and earth's own atmosphere are maintained. Hydrogen and Helium were never a gas by-product released from planet's or moon's interiors, and presently my VPM is the only physical model that explains their presence on all the planets, including the sun. If one could go on Neptune or Jupiter, and start pumping out Hydrogen from Neptune's atmosphere into space, or somehow utilising it as an energy source, he would find out that the supply of Hydrogen will be inexhaustible. This is because, the thickness of Hydrogen around a planet is simply vacuum with its phase shifted to the lightest gas phase, so a new layer of Hydrogen will be instantly converted by the gravitational field from the surrounding vacuum, resulting in an inexhaustible supply of hydrogen. The same of course applies to our sun, and explains its inexhaustible supply of hydrogen. As you see, the term 'phase' of matter fits perfectly with its equivalent electromagnetic phase angle, and the old term of 'aether' (a gas like medium) for vacuum was not that bad at all!
- More experimental evidence of vacuum phase turning into gas phase
- The following is the introduction to a 1905 article by Clarence Skinner of the University of Nebraska:
- While making an experimental study of the cathode fall of various metals in helium it was observed that no matter how carefully the gas was purified the hydrogen tested spectroscopically, persistently appeared in the cathode glow. Simultaneous with this appearance there was also a continuous increase in the gas pressure with time of discharge. This change in gas pressure was remarkable because of its being much greater than that which had been observed under the same conditions with either nitrogen, oxygen or hydrogen. Now the variation in cathode fall with current density and with gas pressure in helium was found to be so like that obtained with hydrogen that it appeared necessary to maintain the helium free of the latter in order to make sure that the hydrogen present was not the factor causing this similarity in the results. Futile endeavors to attain this condition led to the present investigation, which locates the source of the hydrogen in the cathode, shows that the quantity of hydrogen evolved by a fresh cathode obeys Faraday’s law for electrolytes, and that a fresh anode absorbs hydrogen by the same law.1
- Skinner employed various metals as cathode and found that most tarnished during discharge in helium and each produced hydrogen. Metals tarnish in the presence of atomic hydrogen, but not in helium. The following quote is from his article:
- Altogether about two cubic centimeters of gas have been given off by this silver disk, which is 15 mm in diameter and about 1 mm thick. It shows no sign of having its supply of hydrogen reduced in the least.2
- Many respected experimenters have reported the surprising appearance of hydrogen gas in their experiments. The following quote is from a 1914 article by Sir J.J. Thomson: I would like to direct attention to the analogy between the effect just described and an everyday experience with discharge tubes. I mean the difficulty of getting these tubes free from hydrogen when the test is made by a sensitive method like that of positive rays. Though you may heat the glass tube to the melting point, may dry the gases by liquid air or cooled charcoal and free gases you let into the tube as carefully as you will from hydrogen, you will get hydrogen lines by the positive ray method, even when the bulb has been running several hours a day for nearly a year.3

Plasmatic
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by Plasmatic » Wed May 21, 2008 4:47 am

I just dont understand why folks cant get the idea that the "appearance" of something is not the actuality always. A straw "appears to bend when its in water but it does not "bend". Talk of projecting a shadow into "another dimension" is ludicrous. The fact that mystics have been saying this for millennia should be a first cue.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by junglelord » Wed May 21, 2008 7:13 am

There is a big difference between what you believe or understand to be true, vs disproving something with that disbelief.

Simply restating your personal position does not validate your personal opinion.

I know of no shadows, water and a straw....not related. Another example of using classical mechanics to dispute quantum theory. We have been down that road of anology before.

When one discusses a UFT and we all recognize a 4-D construct does not and will not create one, then we are forced to examine the next most simple possiblity, that would be 5-D. Kaluza Klein did this back in 1919 or so. Einstein was full aware of the way 5-D made a UFT. It is not possible to make a UFT from 4-D. Therefore 4-D cannot be a proper construct, and that is the true shadow, a standard model that is not complete is a shadow. A 5-D that creates Quantum Constants and Quantum Structure which creates all functions, that is a UFT, not a shadow.

Bent straws do not refute this fact. Indeed bent straws have nothing to do with it. I could say your clucthing at straws to hang on to your 4-D reality.
:lol:

Peace and love brother.
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.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Plasmatic
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by Plasmatic » Wed May 21, 2008 9:25 am

Sorry chief I live in a 3d reaity. As long as you dont seperate the other 2 abstract conceptual dimensions from the 3 you can actually experience with your senses youll never see my point. And yes as long as I refuse to accept concepts that dont reflect the world as experienced through my senses I wil not be visiting platos funworld of holographic soccer balls! :)
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by junglelord » Wed May 21, 2008 9:53 am

3-D reality has nothing to do with the standard model. Or better yet the standard model has nothing to do with 3-D reality.
:lol:

In reality we are debating the standard model as a failure. What ever other concepts arise. I think even you must conceed that the standard model, with a 4-D construct is a failure. The fact no one can reconcile the standard model and the 4-D accepted reality into a UFT is proof that it is defunct. If it was possible to reconcile the four "known" forces with a UFT then someone would have done it by now. After 100 years I think we can safely say its impossible...becausce the standard model is incomplete and the 4-D construct is incomplete. That is a shadow with no substance.

You may be personally ok with all that. I am not. I therefore have thrown in the towel on the standard model and 4-D constructs as no one has made a complete and unified field theory from either. If one can believe in fairy tales for 100 years and the if Feynman, Bohm and others are correct about it being the dark ages of physics, then I think its time to come out of the dark ages.

We need to conceed the standard model and 4-D constructs have a dark age approach to them. So hanging on to it serves little purpose. Throw it away and be done with it.

I have found 5-D constructs of several models that all have a nice UFT that is simple and elegant. I have no trouble with the fractal nature or the holographic principles inherit in these approaches. I also enjoy the implicit order and collective behaviour of these UFT 5-D constructs. Quantum Constants is a must for a UFT. So is quantum structure. Any one can conceed that. I certainly can with my clinical experince, background in electronics and understanding of Fuller, Rolf, Bohm, Mead, Feynman, Klauza Klein, Thomson, Meyl, Tewari, Tesla and others. I stand on the shoulders of giants.
;)

Men who all came to the same conclusion, the standard model and 4-D is not complete. Beyond that it is not logical to stand as a model any further, since it is such a failure, dispite their attempts to claim other wise.
Last edited by junglelord on Wed May 21, 2008 10:04 am, 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.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Plasmatic
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by Plasmatic » Wed May 21, 2008 10:03 am

"standard model" is a little general, but I agree it is all messed up and that we need a fresh perspective. I was commenting on MY position not theirs .I just dont see APM or adding another dimension as the answer. I thought we where discussing Dimensions and not "forces" [3-d ,4-d]
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by junglelord » Wed May 21, 2008 10:05 am

Standard model is not general....come on.
Its very specific and you know it.
PS how do you disassociate dimensions from forces when making a UFT?
Both must be re-examined.

Even if the Standard Force Model was accurate, (which it is not) the inablity to make a UFT without 5-D is very clear even with the Standard Model as so cleverly pointed out by Klauza - Klein. So by default 4-D cannot be accurate.
Its only logical, Spock and Sherlock Holmes would agree with me, since we have examined 4-D to death and it will not make a UFT.
:lol:

I think Klauza - Klein was not properly examined because of the time period it was presented in. In todays String Theory 10 dimension M Theory world view 5-D is not a big deal. At least APM quantifies each dimension, unlike string theory, has quantum constants, has evolved the first orbital binding energy for all elementals, and gives us quantum structure to produce quantum forces. I have already shown why electronic components by necessity must have geometric shape. To manipulate the forces, one must use the same structure. This is proof of quantum structure and dimensional non material structure.
Last edited by junglelord on Wed May 21, 2008 10:35 am, 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.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Plasmatic
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by Plasmatic » Wed May 21, 2008 10:32 am

What I meant was there are alot of different variations of the "standard model" . But certainy they are mostly "4-d" which is not my postion so its not relevent as Im commenting for myself. ;)
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by junglelord » Wed May 21, 2008 10:37 am

One standard model my good friend. I know of no variations. Thats why its called the standard model.
;)
Strong Force (mediated by gluons and pions)
EM (Electric Magnetic right hand 90 degree rule of charge - field relationship, its Boson is the Photon)
Weak Force (mediated by W and Z Bosons)
Gravity (gravitons or gravity waves)

This Standard Model and the accepted 4-D view of GR/SR are incapable of being reconciled with QM or a UFT in its present state. This is the dark ages of what I speak. This failure of phyiscs is being sported as the holy grail of knowledge.
:?

Cosmology is in the same state of denial.
:shock:

I mean the tooth fairy comes to mind with we discuss these ideas as good science. So I leave them at the door.

I start fresh and new, the old dirty laundry will only come back to haunt you.
: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.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by StevenO » Wed May 21, 2008 11:14 am

One standard model my good friend. I know of no variations. Thats why its called the standard model.
Even though we say that the standard model is messed up, it is the accepted theory because even though there is discussion on the theory there is agreement on the results. Any completely new theory will have to climb that mountain first...

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~Philip K. Dick

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. ~Abraham Lincoln
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by junglelord » Wed May 21, 2008 11:36 am

Thats why APM is so acceptable. It takes the known measurements, and units and by creating a unifying prinicple around Quantum Constants has taken all results and organized it properly so that Quantum Constants are the base of all further expression. Again let it be noted no one has created a UFT within 4-D. Therefore the fact the Quantum Constants of APM exist in a 5-D framework is only vindication of Kaluza Klein. Its not a earth shattering paradigm, no matter how much it rocks some peoples worlds, its old hat.

I say again had higher dimensions been in vogue almost 100 years ago as it is today with string theory, no one would bat an eye at it. It was maybe some ego on the part of Einstein that he did not push it. I am pretty sure that is not beyound possiblity. No doubt the ability to create what he worked for his entire life after it was presented to him, should have taught him something. Maybe because he had to make it only within the framework of GR/SR is why he would not pursue it. Certainly David Bohm distanced himself from his work in QM, and Alfven distanced himself from the current model they use for the sun. Einstein never distanced himself from his work.

Bohm and Alfven and Arp, have less ego in my opinion and have no trouble even putting down their own accepted work, even if it is the accepted paradigm within the industry. Because they have realized critical mistakes in their previous endevors. Trouble is the industry ignores their further revelations. Revelations of their own admission, that the work is invalid. Yet dispite this fact the corrupt work is the holy grail of the industry.....
:?

The dogma of control and power within the scientific establishment is corrupt in my opinion.
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.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by junglelord » Wed May 21, 2008 1:33 pm

The only 4-D model of UFT I have seen is ECM. StevenO said its not worth the paper its printed on.
;)

A little review of history of Kaluza - Klein would serve us well. I think APM is a nice example of how Kaluza - Klein 5-D and String Theory are able to be completed with each other under the unifying principle of Quantum Constants of established results as shown in APM. How this translated into the APM theory is explained in the last paragraph.
Kaluza - Klein Five Dimensional Model - page 292- 293
In the standard model of particle physics, particles or points moving through space, tracing out a “World Line”. To take into account the different interactions observed, one has to provide particles with additional degrees of freedom beyond position and velocity, including mass, electric charge, color charge and spin. In string theory, all particle types are replaced by a single fundamental building block called a string.

The goal here is to try to visualize a basic string-like theory as developed by Kaluza - Klein. Kaluza first developed this method in 1919. In his original work it was shown that if we start with a theory of general relativity and five-space time dimension's and then curl up one of the dimension's into a circle we end up with a four dimensional theory of general relativity plus electromagnetism. If we assume that the electron has a degree of freedom corresponding to a point on a circle and that this point is free to very on the circle as we move around in space time, we find that the theory must contain the photon and that the electron obeys the equations of motion of electromagnetism. In 1926 Oskar Klein extended this idea. Instead of assuming total Independence of the extra dimension, he assumed it to be compact. This means the fifth dimension would have the topology of a circle with the radius of the order of the Planck length. The Kaluza Klein mechanism simply gives a geometric explanation for the circle. It comes from an actual fifth dimension that has been curled up.

The object represents a superimposition of three objects if viewed in 3-D slices. A helix in the w-x-z coordinates, a sine wave in the x-y-z coordinates, and a circle in the w-x-y coordinates. Being viewed in these three-dimensional slices the object can be defined as both open and close-ended. We will define the four dimensional object as representing light. Maxwell’s wave theory will be shown to be defined by the sine wave into x-y-z coordinates, while the quantum nature of light will be defined by the helix’s end points rotating on the circle in the w-x-y coordinates.
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.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Define Dimension

Unread post by Lloyd » Wed May 21, 2008 7:00 pm

- How is Dimension defined whereby there can be more than 3? There is length or distance as the first dimension, which is measurable as l^1; there is area, which is measurable as length squared: l^2; and there's volume, measurable as length cubed: l^3. The coordinates in 3-D are perpendicular to each other.
- How do you measure the 4th dimension and how can it be perpendicular to the other 3 dimensions? Logically, the 4th dimension should be length to the 4th power: l^4. How do you measure that?
- The same questions hold for the 5th dimension.
- If this has been answered specifically somewhere on or off this forum, please provide a link to the answers, or a quote.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by junglelord » Wed May 21, 2008 7:32 pm

This means the fifth dimension would have the topology of a circle with the radius of the order of the Planck length. The Kaluza Klein mechanism simply gives a geometric explanation for the circle. It comes from an actual fifth dimension that has been curled up. This is primary angular momentum in APM, Planck's constant, which unites mass and charge, combined with the spherical constant creates subatomic particles.

Frequency in APM is two distinct attributes, linear and distributed. Linear (space-time) and distributed (space-resonace) a quantum reality and a quantum constant which creates the Electrostatic Charge.
Chapter 2, SOTA third edition, Ontological Foundation, Aether Physics Model

6. What is Dynamic Space in APM?
Answer Page 34-35
In APM space and time are united in such a way that the two are inseparable, producing a single unit called double cardioid (dcrd). We need a coordinate system that includes both space and time. The perception of space time through our bodies, gives us the appearance of just one dimension of linear time, just one linear time is an illusion. In reality, the time dimensions of aether are actually frequency dimensions, and there are two of them. Together these two dimensions of frequency produce a spherical unit of resonance. In reality, the quantum universe has the qualities of space-resonance, we perceive the physical, macro universe with the qualities of space-time. Space and resonance integrate through a shared geometry. In other words, space and resonance are the same entity, but viewed from two perspectives, which are orthogonal to each other.

The Aether explains the non-material and higher dimensional aspects of existence, which particle physics chooses to ignore. As for the wave model, the wave models are Quantum Mechanics, the Aether Physics Model (as I have presented it) is Quantum Structure. The APM says the Aether is structured as two spheres (hence the 16pi^2 geometrical constant) and in five dimensions. The Wave Models describe the behavior of subatomic particles in terms of spherical dynamics. Now tell me, how hard is it to connect the dots from spherical dynamics to spherical structure? If spherical mechanics work for describing subatomic mechanics, then why would people not be interested in a theory that describes the structures that produce these mechanics?

It is only a matter of time before the APM and Spherical Wave Models are united into a single theory.
3 Length, 2 Frequency, that is 5 spatial temporal dimensions. Primary angluar momentum is not a dimension, but a dimensional unit which is equal to Plancks length.

There are also five characteristic dimensions in APM that add to 10 individual dimensions.
Length = 3
Frequency = 2
Mass = 1
Charge = 2
Spherical Constant = 2 spin = 4pi x 4pi = 16pi^2 which is a 2 spin total
Last edited by junglelord on Wed May 21, 2008 8:23 pm, edited 3 times 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.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: VPM versus APM

Unread post by junglelord » Wed May 21, 2008 7:54 pm

I find concencus of a primary attribute of these aether models and it is massfree concepts. I find power in agreement. Dispite they all have varying different approaches they see the same thing.
Aetherometry
Since 1999, Dr. Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa have proposed an immanentist-monist model of an imponderable dynamic Aether. This model defines the Aether as primary massfree energy (Dark Massfree Energy) in electric (ambipolar) and nonelectric (latent heat) forms. Massfree energy also exists in secondary (eg gravitons, kinetons) and tertiary (eg photons) forms affected by matter, and no theory of a dynamic Aether can be complete without accounting for these massfree energy forms, or without providing a model for the creation of mass-energy from Aether energy processes. Experimentally, the Correas have demonstrated the existence of Reich's orgone and dorgone energies, and quantitatively identified them as contiguous subspectra of ambipolar (electric) massfree energy. One of the fundamental characteristics of aetherometric theory is that light waves are not waves that transmit light, anymore than waves need to ride or require a medium. It is the medium or media that are already composed of waves, already undulatory; and what transmits the stimulus of light is not light or electromagnetic waves, but precisely the Tesla radiation (or Orgone), the ambipolar radiation through its longitudinal waves. Aetherometry clarifies therefore the relationship between transmission of the light stimulus and a local generation of all blackbody photons that was once suggested by Einstein himself. Light waves are local and solidary with the photon particles, in full agreement with classical Quantum-Mechanics, and without need to resort to relativistic transformations.
The variable phase model (VPM) of the nucleus, can totally describe matter in terms of electromagnetic field structures. The phase of the nucleus, giving different properties of 3D motion to its constituents, can be described by the real and imaginary components of electromagnetic fields. If the real component is much greater than the imaginary one, the phase will tend to be solid or semi solid. When the imaginary component increases, the phase will tend to be more gaseous or plasma. The VPM predicts that for the matter phase having negligible or no real component at all (the dipoles being purely capacitive), the nuclear phase will change into that of a vacuum. This brings vacuum into the list of phases of matter, matter with no real mass component. The idea may not be so new, as we find that Plato's Timaeus, long time ago had already proposed the existence of a fifth element which he called quintessence, of which the cosmos itself is made. Despite having no real mass components, VPM still requires that vacuum retains its electromagnetic properties, as we know it does. This explains enigmas like the observed matter popping in and out of empty space, and variations in energy levels and refractive index of empty space, for example close to a huge mass like the sun. The VPM also predicts that since it is known that refractive index of space is being altered by strong gravitational fields (due to bending of light phenomena), the space around a huge body will have its real component gradually increased from that of vacuum to plasma, to gas. The first evidence for this is the fact that over 99% of the universe is known to be made of plasma. Further phase change of such plasma would in fact generate a real gas atmosphere around each planet, starting from the lightest gases on the outer surface.
Chapter 3 SOTA third edition, Gforce APM
Gforce
1. What is the quantum constant of the Gforce?
Answer Page 44
1.21 x 10^44 Newton is the quantum constant of the Gforce. Generally, we think of force as pressure exerted over an area. The pressure can be either positive or negative (vacuum). Force applies to either pushing or pulling something. The Gforce operates in the same way. The Gforce both pushes and pulls masses together or apart and pushes or pulls charge together or apart. Oddly, these are the only two manifestations of force in the universe. The only manifestation of force is either push or pull, relative to mass or charge. It is truly the only force in the universe, and it acts directly through the primary angular momentum and charge of each onn. Primary angular momentum is the physical description of the electron, photon, proton, and neutron. Physical strong charges the result a primary angular momentum spinning with in the Aether unit. Essentially, primary angular momentum and physical strong charge describe the same onn, but from orthogonal perspectives. Every individual quantum of Aether has the full effect of the Gforce acting through it. This Gforce acts upon the three physical qualities of onta, angular momentum, strong charge, and electrostatic charge. Thus, the quantum Aether units and onta can perform individually or collectively as fields and matter. The results of these interactions are a dynamic universe.

2. What new properties of the universe are explored with the Gforce?
Answer Page 44
The properties of reciprocal mass. The inertial mass of the Aether exist reciprocal to the dimension of mass we familiarly apply to visible matter. Reciprocal mass is a relatively unexplored concept in physics and has different properties from familiar mass, just as frequency has different properties from time. In addition to being a more primary order of reality, the nonmaterial nature of the Gforce likely relates to the Aether's reciprocal inertial mass.

3. What is the Gforce derived from?
Answer Page 45
The Gforce constant can be extracted from both Isaac Newton's constant of universal gravitation and the coulomb constant of electrostatic attraction-repulsion. It is also derived from the newly defined Aether unit constant also known as a rotating magnetic field unit of measurement or the Aether electromagnetic constant. The three manifestations of Gforce directly relate to the three force carriers, electrostatic charge, electromagnetic charge, and the mass within primary angular momentum. The coulomb electrostatic constant is the interaction constant of the Gforce with electrostatic charge. The unit of rotating magnetic field is the interaction constant of Gforce with the electromagnetic charge. And the Newton gravitational constant is the interaction constant of the Gforce with mass.
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.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests