Energy Model : Does it sit well with the EU model?

[InnerSpace]

Hi
I am new to Thunderbolts and Electric Universe concepts. I would like to start by discussing a model for energy that I hope will not be out of place in this forum.

If we start with the proposition that all matter we observe at both the sub-atomic and galactic scales is down to energy and energy alone, then we need to build a feasible model for that energy. Such an energy-centric model might not get us any closer to how energy came into being in the first place, but it might provide a better (i.e. less conflicted) explanation at the atomic level than the Standard Model and theories of relativity and QED. Minimally such a model should be capable of providing plausible explanations of scientific observations and measurements – something that current mainstream models do not.

Up and down quarks are currently considered to be the fundamental particles, representing the smallest building block within the nucleus. Up and down quarks build the nucleons (protons and neutrons) which in turn combine to form the nucleus of an atom. As up and down quarks have differing properties, an energy model would need to able to provide a feasible explanation of their structure.

The starting point for such an energy model could be small bits of concentrated energy that can combine to create up and down quarks.

Spin is an inescapable feature at the sub-atomic level, as acknowledged by the electron orbital models (Bohr, ‘spdf’ etc.) and electron spin. At the astrological level rotational spin is even more evident by planets and well documented spiral vortex-like spin evident in galactic structures. Thus it would also seem reasonable for each small bit of concentrated energy to have fast spin around a spin axis.

With fast spin come powerful centrifugal forces around the spinning object’s equatorial plane. Such centrifugal force could quite easily induce some energy to escape or peel away from the spinning bit of concentrated energy so as to generate a swirling atmosphere of less concentrated energy. Thus we have model consisting of a spinning bit of concentrated energy surrounded by an atmosphere of spinning, swirling, less concentrated energy that could very well present as an electromagnetic field.

Such a simplistic energy model has been proposed for the E2M (Energy-to-Matter) model; and the E2M model leads to some surprising claims, namely that:

• Electrons are bonded internally within the nucleus of an atom or bonded externally to other atoms to form molecules or compounds. This claim conflicts with the widely promoted electron orbital model.
• Photons (presenting as EMR) are generated from within the nucleus as a surplus energy release mechanism. This claim conflicts with the inter-orbital jumping explanation of the orbital model.
• Low level buffered energy atmospheres surround all matter in proportion to an object’s size (i.e. its total number of atoms and thus its total contained energy), and that Gravity results from competition between objects for this energy. This is close to René Descartes’ 1644 proposal that Gravity is inward pressure from vortices within aether, and conflicts with all other current explanations.

Does the E2M model sit well with the Electric Universe model or not? The Low level buffered energy mentioned in last bullet point above could very well equate to the EU concept of aether; and the EMR generation mechanism could provide insight into the cause and nature of solar flares and similar large scale inter-galactic electromagnetic events.

Have a look at the E2M article 'Photons and Electrons' (a 4 page pdf at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1w2QP5 ... HLqi0N6ibj). It has internal references to the articles 'Photons and the Diverse Nature of Light' (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Z3Txv ... QAj97c4Z5d) and 'Relevance of Atomic Structure to the Physical Characteristics of Matter' (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wCuPr ... hCDPBKwmo0) that further expand and explain the model. I hope you find them interesting and worthy of further comment.

[ToEmaster]

At the subatomic and elementary level, matter/stuff as such disappears. The only feasible option for matter at this level is a spherical electromagnetic field. Can’t be anything else. There is no physical spin to these particles. Only the field point vectors create a spinning patterns is we follow them. Energy is the extended magnetic field of these spherical magnetic fields passed on to other particles.

In my opinion gravity is nothing but incoherent magnetic attraction and carried to far distances by the also magnetically vacuous aether.

[Prospector]

I took a physics class once and the professor said plainly "Energy is not a physical unit: it is a philosophical concept."

The only definition I have seen for energy is "capacity to do work." But work is defined as "disordering of energy." So energy is capacity to do disordering of energy, a circular definition.

Is there any clarification of this topic?

[ja7tdo]

Hi,

>Up and down quarks are currently considered to be the fundamental particles,

There is NO quark.Quarks exist only theoretically. It is the same as there is no substance that can not be manipulated directly.

>Spin is an inescapable feature at the sub-atomic level,

If the electron is spinning, the electron is rotating at a speed exceeding the speed of light.You should think of the spin of an electron as it travels around a radius with a certain size.

>Such a simplistic energy model has been proposed for the E2M (Energy-to-Matter) model; and the E2M model leads to some surprising claims, namely that:

Matter and energy are not equivalent. Energy in nuclear reaction can be explained by kinetic energy by electrical repulsion.

For the following discussion, read SAM.
https://etherealmatters.org/sam

My article on SAM should also be helpful.
Quantum mechanics is wrong from beginning Yet another SAM
https://etherealmatters.org/article/qua ... nother-sam