I just thought up a brilliant solution to our expensive space exploration program. All we gotta do... is collect enough lasers and shine them at the moon. The light ropes will attach to the moon, and then simply put on spacesuit and climb!
That vid you posted on Vid 9 was quite amusing, Turb. I wonder what all those curly cues were... and what entity or medium surrounds and provides background to each of them?
The "medium" is an AMD 9600 quad core with 8 gigs of ram. It's a graphing calculator and it's not nearly done yet. If you have specific questions ask them in the associated video and maybe one of the smart-folks this dumb programmer is working with will be willing to answer.
@bgaede Its a modifiable graphing calculator--not a TOE. And and you can explore your own existential ideas as they relate to a computational universe. But, yes, a computer is behind some of the lights and in a few years you may not be able to tell which is natural and which is artificial. Anything with a consistent, observable, behavior can be programmed into a computer. The limit of the illusion is the viewing hardware.
@Theonedue the pitch of the helix, that one's easy, but dont listen to him he's just trying to scrape out a living because he's literally a shit human being who would sell his own mother... look him up lol you'll see what a slime he is if you havent figured that out from his youtube channel
He was a double agent. Working for most goverment agencies is like working for Satan himself. They just use you for whatever purpose they believe is right. When you are a CIA agent, you are a con man. Just ack anyone who works or has worked for them.
Thank you for explaining, i can see light, it's an object. Made me look at the roast dinner i'm cooking, so that's how electricity does it, amazing and thank you.
Yo Geade, I've read about you on wiki, and noticed some interesting things. I couldnt figure out why Cuban agents persuaded you to side with the American Intellegence (CIA), who in turn wanted you to penetrate Cuban intellegence sources, have you do youre intel thing, then frame you for doing it. Idk, how accurate the info is on you, but I can't fit the pieces.
1. "I couldnt figure out why Cuban agents persuaded you to side with the American Intellegence (CIA)"
They were dissidents within Cuban Intel... or acted as such. The CIA was fooled a bit and swallowed the bait, but not entirely. So the boys in DC decided to play a game of patty-cake with the boys in Havana. Both sides love these games. It gives them something interesting to do.
Ever see Spy vs Spy in Mad Mag? It's something like that.
2. "have you do youre intel thing, then frame you for doing it"
The CIA framed me because I was a loose cannon, and I was a loose cannon because I suspected that the CIA was going to do something to me. Both predictions came true.
.
"how accurate the info is on you"
50% is a safe number. They've written so much shit about me in newspapers that it's unbelievable. I promised never to buy another newspaper in my life.
Shit, sounds like stuff they have in movies dealing with CIA agents (like that one with Collen Ferral/Al Pachino). Yeah, thats the way any goverment agency works, they are a bunch of evil bastards who take orders from the illuminati, act like they care about the members they recruit...but when times up so are you (in some cases at least). Medias pretty twisted as well (but look who controls that). Did the fact that you had diplomatic immunity benifit you at all when you were procecuted?
1. "If the ropes... can be viewed, that would show that youre hypothesis is correct (that threads do exist)."
.
Absolutely NOT!
.
In Science, we do not prove definitions, much less by running an experiment. And this again shows why an idiot like you can never grasp the definition of the formidable word 'exist'. You will go around and around in circles like the idiots of Math have done for the last 10,000 years.
If a rope is 3D, according to YOUR def it exists. So what is this fucking bullshit about 'seeing'???? Can't a stupid moron such as you at least use HIS definitions consistently???
.
Where in the definition of the word 'exist' (your version or mine or the synonym in the dict -- real, living, to be) is there a provision for SEEING, VIEWING or TOUCHING?
.
I can't see your hand, Duh. So I guess, it doesn't exist.
Calm down Bill. Thats what the SCIENTFIC COMMUNITY requiers. If they dont have observational evidence of your threads, then they are non-existant according to them. I know if it exists it does irrespective of observers. I think you should know I know that by now.
Well the ropes are either there or they arent. All scientists require evidence and testing to see if youre hypothesis is correct (under the scientific method). Def dont really mean much to them, as they arent part of the scientific method (at least the orthodox version of it). You can explain common phenomena of light more rationaly than the wave-packet theory can, but that may not be enough to persuade them to leave their religion. You also are going to have peer-reviewer issues.
3. "You also are going to have peer-reviewer issues."
The peer-review system was created to protect the religion of Math 'phyz'. By the 20th C, it was developed into an art. Idiots like Bohr and Heisenberg feared the ridicule that was likely to come when they told rational people that light was BOTH a wave AND a particle, so they polished up the peer-review process to ensure that dissidents would never threaten them.
4. Today, we have worked our way to a catch-22 situation. People want to hear something new, but the mathematicians censor anything that is not founded upon GR and QM. This is another sign that we are the last humans on Earth. We die with Math 'phyz'.
5. So I'm not worried about convincing the peers. I published a couple of peer-reviewed papers, but my purpose was not to convince the Mathematical Establishment. It was to have a formal paper out there that common folk can look at side by side with the sites and have another view of the U. What conclusion each individual arrives at is his own personal business.
You speak of torsion signals in this video. Please explain why THIS isn't a 'concept' and therefore not something that is not talked about in your form of physics. What is it that went from one atom to the other? No physical object went from one to the other, there is just your rope, and it was always between them, what is this 'signal'? Not an object, clearly.
2. "What is it that went from one atom to the other? No physical object went from one to the other"
And again, you are correct. The chunk of rope that was at A did not move to the other end at Z. Yet when you torque a rope, there is pressure at the other end. What moved, Boz? Did a particle travel from A to Z as Quantum claims?
You speak of torsion signals in this video. Please explain why THIS isn't a 'concept' and therefore not something that is not talked about in your form of physics. What is it that went from one atom to the other? No physical object went from one to the other, there is just your rope, and it was always between them, what is this 'signal'? Not an object, clearly.
Light on light issues are beyond the scope of YT (See Vid # 7). This is too complex a subject to discuss thru this channel. I would have to show you quite a few illustrations.
1. "is every atom in my body connected to ALL other objects"
.
The underlying hypothesis is that all H atoms in the U are connected to each other via an EM rope. More complex atoms (Helium, Lithium, Beryllium, Boron... have more than one rope converging from a given H atom.
2. It is important to highlight what this entails. In the religion of Quantum, every H atom is just like any other. A mathematician just looks at quantities. Under the rope H every H atom can have a unique set of ropes converging upon it. So, although they have the same 'mass' (i.e., same number of threads converging upon it) the EM rope that goes from Atom A to Atom B makes the set of threads of Atom A QUALITATIVELY diff than the set of threads of Atom B. It's the diff b/w Math and Phyz!
Bill do you believe it is possible to see the ropes atoms are connceted to under any microscope we have today? Also are the threads themselves 3D under youre hypothesis?
Ropes do not converge upon or end in ropes. The only way we would be able to see a rope is if an EM rope ended there. And then, the best you could see is a 'Flatland' cross-section. In order to see the entire rope, you would have to scan it from atom to atom with an EM rope that ends in THAT rope. This vision is surrealistic.
If the ropes that all Hydorgen atoms are connected to can be viewed, that would show that youre hypothesis is correct (that threads do exist). I know you don't like proof but the scientific community does. But, as if you say, the scientists havent even viewed an atom, theres no way they are going to be able to view the ropes that connect them. In any case, theard theory is def an interesting one. Hope objective evidence supports it someday. Btw, what triggers the atoms to pulsate faster?
Quote of the day: "If it is true, then we truly haven't understood anything about anything."
.
ALVARO DE RUJULA, a theorist at CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research, on a report that physicists plan to report that they have detected subatomic particles moving faster than the speed of light.
Yeah, I think I figured out why they call it General or Special relativity. All the theories and belifes comprised by those physicits are REALTIVE to opinion and made man doctrine.
Fantastic series of videos Bill, keep it up. Just out of interest, what are your views on plasma cosmology? And do you think that the recent breaking of the speed of light will be confirmed or turn out to be an error?
I rail against words such as aether, vortex and plasma. These are the terms that 'wave' theorists use. Wave theorists are dissidents within the Mathematical Establishment. They don't buy into Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity.
2. They attempt to explain Special Relativity in terms of Lorentzian Transformation. They focus on the 'wave' aspect of light and reject the particle nature proposed by Quantum. Many of them are followers of Ayn Rand, Nikola Tesla, Walter Russell and the like.
3. I keep the company of dissidents when we attack the establishment. We share many views. I keep my distance from the 'dissidents' when we propose alternatives. Aether, vortex, waves and plasma are CONCEPTS. We don't do Physics with concepts. Physics, first and foremost, demands an object, specifically an object that exists. Physics is the Science of Existence. Physics only studies that which exists.
4. The word 'exist' can only be applied to objects. Aether, vortex, wave and plasma are NOT objects. Thus, they cannot be said to exist, at least not for the purposes of Science. Plasma simply means 'gas which has some of its atoms ionized', again , a concept. There is no physical object called 'gas which has some of its atoms ionized'. The words aether, plasma, vortex and wave should be removed from the scientific lexicon. There is no room in Science for them.
5. "do you think that the recent breaking of the speed of light will be confirmed or turn out to be an error?"
It depends on who writes the report. If the author is an adorer of Einstein, he will prove without a shadow of a doubt that it is a measurement error. If the writer is a guy who feels constrained by Einstein's implacable rule and realizes that it will prevent him from star-trekking out of the SS, he will definitely show w/o room for opinion that FTL is a cinch!
6. In Science, we don't care at what speed light (or a neutrino) travels exactly. It travels fast. We're done. What we care about is for the guy at the LHC to draw a photon or a neutrino for us. Only then can we be certain that 'the' neutrino traveled in the first place. If instead, 'a' neutrino is actually a torsion of an EM rope, we cannot talk about travel. Nothing actually moves from A to Z -- from hand to wall -- when you torque a rope.
7. If light is a torsion along a twined pair of threads that interconnect any two atoms, we have to discard all the physical interpretations of Quantum -- the entire Standard Model -- and start all over. We have to re-interpret every experiment ever done at the accelerators under the new hypothesis.
2. The only requirements of a proponent of 'antimatter' is for him to draw it for us and to describe how it is PHYSICALLY diff than ordinary matter. Is an anti-hydrogen cubic whereas an ordinary H is spherical? Is an anti-electron 5D? Is one green, the other violet? Is one larger, the other smaller? How does the shape of antimatter determine its exotic properties?
In Science, we postulate existence. The mathematicians POSTULATE dark matter to resolve issues such as the galaxy rotational problem or the deceleration of the Pioneer probes. So far, so good.
4. Now, is there dark matter b/w the Earth and the Moon? Because if there is, Newt and Einstein's eq wouldn't describe gravity at all. If there is any bit of DM b/w the E and the M, we have to erase the board and start all over again. (Each grain in the DM sea weighs tons!)
5. Is DM transparent? That's kind of convenient, wouldn't you say? I mean, her we have some shit floating AROUND (as opposed to WITHIN) a galaxy, it is entirely undetectable, but it weighs tons. It's just like the invisible 600 lb gorilla that is in the room... or perhaps the pink, 2-ton elephant that the wino saw floating around after falling into the barrel.
Yes. Existence is the sole possession of Mother Nature. Theory is what we petty humans do. We can only make ASSUMPTIONS about existence. Existence is an inextricable part of the hypothesis, the first step of the Scientific Method.
I thought you said you had no explanation? Now it turns out that you had an explanation! And 'your' explanation is founded on 'the' wave... which you just finished denying!
Typical of circular reasoning!
Again, if wave theory has an explanation (which you are trying to deny for reasons that you only know), then so does the rope. the famous wave of the religion you worship is simply a twined pair of threads.
starting from nothing, using the rope method,.. it doesn't explain why the microwaves [which ARE light] are blocked from exiting the metal honeycomb observation panel
the only way is for the rope to get wider as frequencies decrease,.. and you say it does not. if the rope were always just an atom-thin line, it'd go through any split or fissure
Hey lead, you never answered the Q. How does the particle hypothesis explain the microwave Q you asked? We're still waiting.
.
For instance, how does the particle hypothesis explain wavelength and frequency and amplitude? How does 'wave' theory answer the hole Q? You never told us.
then that means amplitude [power level],.. inhibits the pulse from passing through the tiny hole? that can't be so..
if the power[amplitude] is at 1 volt versus 1 billion volts..that can't make sense. wavelength must mean more than distance from front to back. you can make it a million miles and still go through 1mm. so what's real
You're jumping to conclusions before you understood the basics of the theory. A rope interconnects any two atoms of the U. Therefore, amplitude and link length/frequency may be irrelevant in the context you're raising. The rope doesn't have to travel thru any hole. An atom relays the torsion via the rope to another. Whether this is what happens in the scenario you're describing has to be analyzed carefully.
2. Again, is there a classical 'wave' explanation for the phenomenon you are describing? Y or N? Whatever the explanation is for 'the' wave is the same for the rope. They are no different in this context. And certainly there can't be a particle explanation for what you're describing if your going to talk about amplitude, frequency and WAVElength!
with the em-thread concept.. how does a microwave oven not permit the microwaves to leak through the holes in the observation panel on the door? Do the threads get fatter & are unable to fit through?
wavelength must be how fat the thread is, right? a microwave uses 2.45ghz.. that's about 5 inches of a wavelength, whatever wavelength actually means. So.. a 5-inch fat pulse on an em-thread doesn't fit through the 2mm holes.. right? or no
"wavelength must be how fat the thread is, right?"
No. Under the Rope H, wavelength is known as linklength (length of a link of rope) and is no diff than in classical wave theory. Therefore, if the wave can't get thru the holes of the microwave, the rope is no diff.
.
The 'fatness' is the amplitude.. Here's a synthesis of the primary properties of the EM rope for you, lead...
"wavelength must be how fat the thread is, right?"
No. Under the Rope H, wavelength is known as linklength (length of a link of rope) and is no diff than in classical wave theory. Therefore, if the wave can't get thru the holes of the microwave, the rope is no diff.
.
The 'fatness' is the amplitude.. Here's a synthesis of the primary properties of the EM rope for you, lead...
1. "wavelength must be how fat the thread is, right?"
No. Under the Rope H, wavelength is known as linklength (length of a link of rope) and is no diff than in classical wave theory. Therefore, if the wave can't get thru the holes of the microwave, the rope is no diff.
1. "wavelength must be how fat the thread is, right?"
No. Under the Rope H, wavelength is known as link-length (length of a link of rope) and is no diff than in classical wave theory. Therefore, if the wave can't get thru the holes of the microwave, the rope is no diff.
1. "wavelength must be how fat the thread is, right?"
No. Under the Rope H, wavelength is known as link-length (length of a link of rope) and is no diff than in classical wave theory. Therefore, if the wave can't get thru the holes of the microwave, the rope is no diff.
The 'fatness' is the amplitude.. Here's a synthesis of the primary properties of the EM rope for you, lead...
@bgaede I not here to troll as a stundent i have many questions into a theory that unifies everthying,, So basically your not against Einsten nor any other cientist of the medieval your against modern scholars who come up with theories that do not explain everything? Kind off like Hawking??? But then Black holes don't exist?? Other dimensions don't either??? What about string theory or M theory? How does the rope hypothesis explain string theory or does it explain something different??
Einstein propuso que el espacio es curvo. Esa es la explicacion que la Relatividad ofrece para la gravedad. O sea, la razon que un planeta como Marte no sale volando fuera del sistema solar es que esta sumergido en una olla, una depresion supuestamente creada por la masa del sol sobre lo que el y otros llamaron 'espacio-tiempo'. La orbita de Marte, segun la Relatividad, es como una ruleta: la bolita no tiene mas remedio que rodar alrededor de una pared doblada.
2. El problema con esta caracterizacion es que el espacio no es un medio. El espacio no es un objeto fisico! Entonces no tiene sentido pregonar de que es curvo. Curvo puede ser una hamaca o una banana, jamas 'la nada'!
.
Que Einstein me traiga un pedacito de espacio y me lo coloque sobre la mesa... como si fuera una estatua! O que me lo dibuje! Entonces si podemos aceptar y decir que el espacio es un objeto.
3. Einstein se arrepintio de su teoria y la descarto hacia el final de sus dias. Eso fue lo unico inteligente y productivo que hizo en su vida, pero sus discipulos tapan este aspecto de su vida. Argumentan que el pobre Einstein estaba senil y no sabia ya lo que decia.
Es un pobre idiota! No tiene idea de lo que habla! Deberian arrojarlo desde el techo de Cambridge... con silla de rueda, sintetizador y todo! No merece vivir, ni que hablar de desparramar sus irracionales opiniones.
7. El agujero negro consiste de una singularidad 'rodeada' de lo que se llama 'el evento de los horizontes'. Estos dos terminos son CONCEPTOS! Dos conceptos no hacen un objeto. Entonces, como puede un concepto llamado 'agujero negro' aspirar a un astronauta o a un reloj hacia la singularidad? Que idiotez es esta?
8. Los matematicos han convertido a sus conceptos abstractos en objectos reales para explicar lo que obviamente no entienden. No hay semejante monstruo llamado agujero negro!
.
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/03BlackHole/01What html
Solo despues de 5 o 6 cervezas y un barril de mezcal mesclado con tequila! Hasta el gusanito ve 26 dimensiones despues de nadar en el fondo de la botella!
.
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/05Dim/04Z3Proof html
"How does the rope hypothesis explain string theory or does it explain something different??"
.
Son completamente diferentes. String Theory es una DESCRIPCION matematica. La Teoria de Hilos es un EXPLICACION fisica. Cualquiera -- un chamaco de Primer Grado -- puede entender la Teoria de Hilos. Nadie, ni siquiera los fundadores, pueden entender la tonteria llamada String Theory.
@bgaede Y esa es una critica? O estas diciendo que es siplemente la verdad? Si Einstein esta mal en la curvatura del espacio tiempo entonces la gravedad si es una fuerza? Entonces Newton estaba en lo correcto!!!! No?? O estas diciendo que Einstein esta bien y Newton esta mal? Yo digo que deberías de formular una teoría relacionada a Rope-Hypothesis para explicar el fenómeno de la gravedad, sin duda la gravedad existe pero en si que es y como sostiene el universo.?
1. "the DS-experiment create a particle pattern, and also a wave pattern"
.
In the religion of Quantum Mechanics, an electron is BOTH a discrete entity that orbits the nucleus AND an extended object: the cloud or shell model. An electron is BOTH 0D and has mass, meaning that it is not 0D (hint: 'nothing' can't have mass or, conversely, if it has mass it MUST have > 0 radius, >0D).
2. And light is likewise BOTH 'a' wave AND a particle. The mathematicians, like their counterparts in traditional religion, have converted God into BOTH an object AND a concept. This way they get the best of both worlds. They invoke the particle to explain one experiment and 'the' wave to explain another. In their immense ignorance, they are proud of their dualities, of their paradoxes. They consider them a sign of how weird the world is -- Quantum Magic they call it!
3. In Science, we call it 'irrational'. If the presenter cannot make a movie of HIS theory, it has nothing to do with Physics. The language of Physics is illustration. Mother Nature does not move around CONCEPTS. Mother Nature can only move OBJECTS. This maxim summarily debunks the religion of Mathematical Physics. We can not make a movie of 'transfer energy' any more than we can make a movie of 'carry 'a' force'. These euphemisms or figures of speech have no place in Science.
4. So the mathematician gets stuck with duality and passes this nonsense from one generation to another. The goal of education is not to explain and debate theories. The goal of education is to memorize what has already been 'proven'. Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity and String Theory are not theories. They are now Truth! They are catechism, doctrine, dogma.
5. They are no longer theory, but FACT. There is nothing you can do to challenge Math Phyz because it is the established religion of the university classes. Secret peer review Inquisition Boards have been set up to ensure that the religion is not threatened.
6. The mathematician observes a dot on the wall after the electron passes the slits and explains this result with the particle model. He doesn't realize that he is, IN EFFECT, treating the electron as a particle. In his appalling ignorance, he doesn't realize that he is tacitly invoking the thoroughly debunked planetary model of the atom to make his case.
7. If what struck the screen is a tennis ball, it means that the tennis ball was until then orbiting the proton bowling ball and was somehow compelled to leave it's orbit. There can be no other possible interpretation.
8. Of course, to produce the interference pattern, he must also invoke the classical plane wave model. 'The' wave is an annoying feature because Quantum has NOTHING to do with extended architectures or configurations. Quantum mathematicians do NOT claim to accelerate waves at their accelerators. There is no Standard Model of Waves Chart. Quantum is ALL particles. 100%!
10. So the stupid idiot of Math does experiments without conceptualizing first. And of course, all his 'predictions' fail with the Slit Experiment. He observED, then predicted. He predicted that 'a' wave DID it in this case and a particle DID it in that one. He turns his double slit into a cyclops and still can't figure it out. Eternally he goes round and round between his two hypotheses. Is it a wave or is it a particle? It's been, what now, 400 years of this?
11. But let us assume now that light consists of a physical medium. Light is no longer made of the CONCEPT 'energy'. Light is no longer 'a' force. Light is not 'a' mass. Let us assume that light takes on the configuration of a two-strand rope. The two threads are twined around each other like DNA backbones: in antiparallel directions.
12. The underlying hypothesis is that every atom in the Universe is connected to all others. Now we have a physical mechanism interconnecting all of matter rather than having concepts flying between systems. We are not going to sling energy or waves or 0D 'particles' at each other. We are going to torque a rope.
13. The rope explains why the atoms do not drift apart. The rope explains gravity. But here we are concerned with its other property, the ability to torque and cause pressure at the far end, no differently I may add than when you torque a macro world rope and have the other end of the rope push upon the wall.
14. Now we do have the best of both worlds. We have the extended wave nature of light embodied in the rope and we have the particle nature of light embodied in the signal that propagates practically instantaneously: the pressure at the far end. We no longer need bullets to explain the hole on the screen. We can just as well do it with the end of a rope, just a little pressure, an atom that gets excited because the rope tickled it.
15. So, whereas a mathematician gapes at the mark made on the screen and wonders where the bullet came from, the physicist realizes that an extended object that has stimulated that spot on the screen, that atom (or perhaps molecule) is now excited to a higher frequency. It has more 'energy' (a magical spirit that makes it brighter). Here is an illustration of the entire setup...
16. Now, what happens when we place a detector at the slits?
.
It all depends on where we place the detector and what kind of detector it is. For instance, I have suggested placing a photomultiplier and placing the entire assembly under vacuum (slit-in-a-vacuum experiment). Unfortunately, it's too lengthy to explain why here. YT is an impractical medium for this kind of discussion. I'll just say that the intensity would distinguish between the classical wave nature of light and the rope.
17. In the case of electrons, again, Quantum has no answer. As soon as the mathematician alleges that a discrete particle struck the screen or was swallowed by the detector, he is invariably invoking Bohr's debunked planetary model of the atom. Therefore, the explanation has to divert to a much more fundamental level. If the slit is done by particles, we have to revise all of Quanum Mechanics.
19. The rope version of electricity is a row of aligned electron shells. The entire serpentine spins (Video 9). Therefore, the source is nevertheless connected to the screen via these serpentines. It is not that the gun shoots a bullet that passes the slit assembly. It is that the entire serpentine is already in place and is activated when you pull the trigger. Again, the type of detector and its location in the slit partition will tell us whether the electricity is relayed or not to the screen.
19. The rope version of electricity is a row of aligned electron shells. The entire serpentine spins (Video 9). Therefore, the source is nevertheless connected to the screen via these serpentines. It is not that the gun shoots a bullet that passes the slit assembly. It is that the entire serpentine is already in place and is activated when you pull the trigger. Again, the type of detector and its location in the slit partition will tell us whether the electricity is relayed or not to the screen.
why does the double-slit experiment [with electrons] create a particle pattern on the back wall when under observation for which slit they went through.. what is that all about
1. "why does the double-slit experiment [with electrons] create a particle pattern"
.
The rope hypothesis handles this version of the experiment no differently than Quantum. In the Quantum version, a single bullet is allegedly released and reaches the screen. In the rope version, a single pulse or torsion of the entire electron serpentine arrives at the screen, no differently I may add than how an accelerator works under Thread Theory.
2. One important Q is whether it is truly 'single'. The slit experiment is famous for being an INTERFERENCE experiment. There is no interference in QM's single photon/electron proposal. There is in the rope version.
but you havent come up with any ACTUAL experiments to verify your claims. Most of your stupid thought experiments have already been debunked. The reason why other scientific explainations are more widely accepted is because there is experimental evidence to support them, you literally have none lol
1. "you havent come up with any ACTUAL experiments to verify your claims"
Now there's 'proof' that you studied 'science' at the monastery, Xero. In Science, we don't do experiments. And we certainly don't verify anything. Perhaps the technology monks got you oriented in the wrong direction...
2. In Science, we JUST explain! That's it. Whatever YOU wish to verify or test thru experiment is YOUR personal business and doesn't concern Science. Science consists entirely of rational explanations. In Science, we are interested in understanding, not in proving or verifying. What you do on your own clock is your business. When it's your turn at the mike, the crowd expects you to explain.
3. So, if you tested and verified and came up with a diff explanation for a phenomenon, you can share it with the audience. Some people will like your explanation and others won't, but again, their opinions are not a part of Science.
5. "other scientific explainations are more widely accepted"
Science is not a popularity contest. The entire Flat Earth Society can vote for the Flat Earth Theory for all we care. Got anything more substantial than your opinions, Xero?
6. "there is experimental evidence to support them"
Again, we clean our asses with experiments, with evidence and with Math. They are not a part of the Scientific Method. You can run all the experiments you want and still be the nincompoop that you appear to be.
7. Throw a pen up in the air 1000 times. If not enough, try a million. Then come back here and explain to the crowd WHY the pen falls to Earth. WHY doesn't it fly out of the Solar System? What physical object comes in contact with the pen? That's all you gotta answer. Use all the Math you want. Run all the experiments you have to. Verify whatever you need to verify.
In Science, we only explain. If you wish to do an experiment, you must do it after the conference, at your own time.
.
"In philosophy we "just" racionaly explain"
Physics and Philosophy are the two broad branches of Science. In both we explain. Physics deals with objects and causes. Philosophy deals with concepts and reasons. You should learn the basics before posting, naf.
Make sense to me. And I'm a simple man. Ropes would add to the "we're all One" mode of thinking.
hoytcb 2 weeks ago
lolwhut? is this a joke?
Layla5915 1 month ago
Yes. Quantum is a joke!
bgaede 1 month ago 3
2:44 its like a pool ball hitting another lol
highhow 2 months ago
Except that the balls aren't moving...
bgaede 2 months ago
Guise!
Hey guys
Hey
Hey listen!
I just thought up a brilliant solution to our expensive space exploration program. All we gotta do... is collect enough lasers and shine them at the moon. The light ropes will attach to the moon, and then simply put on spacesuit and climb!
Problem, NASA?
seriousbees 3 months ago
"simply put on spacesuit and climb!"
.
Whatcha gonna climb on, monkey bee? 'Energy'?
bgaede 3 months ago
Why do I try... you're such an irrecoverable ass.
TurboLoveTrain 4 months ago
That vid you posted on Vid 9 was quite amusing, Turb. I wonder what all those curly cues were... and what entity or medium surrounds and provides background to each of them?
bgaede 4 months ago
The "medium" is an AMD 9600 quad core with 8 gigs of ram. It's a graphing calculator and it's not nearly done yet. If you have specific questions ask them in the associated video and maybe one of the smart-folks this dumb programmer is working with will be willing to answer.
TurboLoveTrain 4 months ago
"The "medium" is an AMD 9600"
That´s the ´medium´ that underlies light?
bgaede 4 months ago
@bgaede Its a modifiable graphing calculator--not a TOE. And and you can explore your own existential ideas as they relate to a computational universe. But, yes, a computer is behind some of the lights and in a few years you may not be able to tell which is natural and which is artificial. Anything with a consistent, observable, behavior can be programmed into a computer. The limit of the illusion is the viewing hardware.
TurboLoveTrain 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My 1 page masterpiece DESTROYS atheism, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 4 months ago
In thread theory how would you explain different colors of light observers see, and reflections say across liquids or a mirror?
Theonedue 5 months ago
"how would you explain different colors of light"
.
youstupidrelativist com/06QM/04Light/02Freq html
bgaede 5 months ago
@Theonedue the pitch of the helix, that one's easy, but dont listen to him he's just trying to scrape out a living because he's literally a shit human being who would sell his own mother... look him up lol you'll see what a slime he is if you havent figured that out from his youtube channel
Xero555000 4 months ago
He was a double agent. Working for most goverment agencies is like working for Satan himself. They just use you for whatever purpose they believe is right. When you are a CIA agent, you are a con man. Just ack anyone who works or has worked for them.
Theonedue 4 months ago
Comment removed
Theonedue 5 months ago
Comment removed
Theonedue 5 months ago
Thank you for explaining, i can see light, it's an object. Made me look at the roast dinner i'm cooking, so that's how electricity does it, amazing and thank you.
Ropes=Birkeland currents power to scale?
AmazedCactus 5 months ago
Yo Geade, I've read about you on wiki, and noticed some interesting things. I couldnt figure out why Cuban agents persuaded you to side with the American Intellegence (CIA), who in turn wanted you to penetrate Cuban intellegence sources, have you do youre intel thing, then frame you for doing it. Idk, how accurate the info is on you, but I can't fit the pieces.
Theonedue 5 months ago
1. "I couldnt figure out why Cuban agents persuaded you to side with the American Intellegence (CIA)"
They were dissidents within Cuban Intel... or acted as such. The CIA was fooled a bit and swallowed the bait, but not entirely. So the boys in DC decided to play a game of patty-cake with the boys in Havana. Both sides love these games. It gives them something interesting to do.
Ever see Spy vs Spy in Mad Mag? It's something like that.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. "have you do youre intel thing, then frame you for doing it"
The CIA framed me because I was a loose cannon, and I was a loose cannon because I suspected that the CIA was going to do something to me. Both predictions came true.
.
"how accurate the info is on you"
50% is a safe number. They've written so much shit about me in newspapers that it's unbelievable. I promised never to buy another newspaper in my life.
bgaede 5 months ago
Shit, sounds like stuff they have in movies dealing with CIA agents (like that one with Collen Ferral/Al Pachino). Yeah, thats the way any goverment agency works, they are a bunch of evil bastards who take orders from the illuminati, act like they care about the members they recruit...but when times up so are you (in some cases at least). Medias pretty twisted as well (but look who controls that). Did the fact that you had diplomatic immunity benifit you at all when you were procecuted?
Theonedue 5 months ago
"Both predictions came true."
I thought you were against fortune tellers. Haha.
Theonedue 5 months ago
@bgaede you'd sell your mother to save your own skin you stupid commie, they should have made you disappear.
Xero555000 4 months ago
"they should have made you disappear"
.
Hey, we finally agree on something, Xero!
bgaede 4 months ago
Also is youre basic premiss that ropes do not get tangled because they either bounce off each other or pass through each other?
Theonedue 5 months ago
1. "If the ropes... can be viewed, that would show that youre hypothesis is correct (that threads do exist)."
.
Absolutely NOT!
.
In Science, we do not prove definitions, much less by running an experiment. And this again shows why an idiot like you can never grasp the definition of the formidable word 'exist'. You will go around and around in circles like the idiots of Math have done for the last 10,000 years.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. I thought YOUR definition of exist is 3D, Duh?
.
If a rope is 3D, according to YOUR def it exists. So what is this fucking bullshit about 'seeing'???? Can't a stupid moron such as you at least use HIS definitions consistently???
.
Where in the definition of the word 'exist' (your version or mine or the synonym in the dict -- real, living, to be) is there a provision for SEEING, VIEWING or TOUCHING?
.
I can't see your hand, Duh. So I guess, it doesn't exist.
bgaede 5 months ago
Calm down Bill. Thats what the SCIENTFIC COMMUNITY requiers. If they dont have observational evidence of your threads, then they are non-existant according to them. I know if it exists it does irrespective of observers. I think you should know I know that by now.
Theonedue 5 months ago
"Thats what the SCIENTFIC COMMUNITY requiers"
.
What's 'scientific' about them? How are these folks related to Science?
.
"they are non-existant according to them"
.
All they have to do is define 'exist'. Then, we'll all determine objectively whether the rope exists.
bgaede 5 months ago
Well the ropes are either there or they arent. All scientists require evidence and testing to see if youre hypothesis is correct (under the scientific method). Def dont really mean much to them, as they arent part of the scientific method (at least the orthodox version of it). You can explain common phenomena of light more rationaly than the wave-packet theory can, but that may not be enough to persuade them to leave their religion. You also are going to have peer-reviewer issues.
Theonedue 5 months ago
1. "All scientists require evidence"
If they require evidence, they are not scientists. Just petty mathematicians.
.
"Def dont really mean much to them"
No doubt about that! Again, it shows that they are not scientists.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. "persuade them to leave their religion"
In Science, we don't sell bibles door to door. We're not in the business of converting, but in the business of explaining.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. "You also are going to have peer-reviewer issues."
The peer-review system was created to protect the religion of Math 'phyz'. By the 20th C, it was developed into an art. Idiots like Bohr and Heisenberg feared the ridicule that was likely to come when they told rational people that light was BOTH a wave AND a particle, so they polished up the peer-review process to ensure that dissidents would never threaten them.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. Today, we have worked our way to a catch-22 situation. People want to hear something new, but the mathematicians censor anything that is not founded upon GR and QM. This is another sign that we are the last humans on Earth. We die with Math 'phyz'.
bgaede 5 months ago
5. So I'm not worried about convincing the peers. I published a couple of peer-reviewed papers, but my purpose was not to convince the Mathematical Establishment. It was to have a formal paper out there that common folk can look at side by side with the sites and have another view of the U. What conclusion each individual arrives at is his own personal business.
bgaede 5 months ago
You speak of torsion signals in this video. Please explain why THIS isn't a 'concept' and therefore not something that is not talked about in your form of physics. What is it that went from one atom to the other? No physical object went from one to the other, there is just your rope, and it was always between them, what is this 'signal'? Not an object, clearly.
Bozeman42 5 months ago
1. "You speak of torsion signals in this video."
.
Yes. You are correct.
.
"Please explain why THIS isn't a 'concept'"
.
Again, you are correct. 'A' torsion is a concept. There is no physical object called 'a' torsion. Some people never understand that, but you did.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. "What is it that went from one atom to the other? No physical object went from one to the other"
And again, you are correct. The chunk of rope that was at A did not move to the other end at Z. Yet when you torque a rope, there is pressure at the other end. What moved, Boz? Did a particle travel from A to Z as Quantum claims?
bgaede 5 months ago
You speak of torsion signals in this video. Please explain why THIS isn't a 'concept' and therefore not something that is not talked about in your form of physics. What is it that went from one atom to the other? No physical object went from one to the other, there is just your rope, and it was always between them, what is this 'signal'? Not an object, clearly.
Bozeman42 5 months ago
How do ropes interfere with each other?
Bozeman42 5 months ago
"How do ropes interfere with each other?"
.
Light on light issues are beyond the scope of YT (See Vid # 7). This is too complex a subject to discuss thru this channel. I would have to show you quite a few illustrations.
bgaede 5 months ago
Also is every atom in my body connected to ALL other objects by these ropes?
Theonedue 5 months ago
1. "is every atom in my body connected to ALL other objects"
.
The underlying hypothesis is that all H atoms in the U are connected to each other via an EM rope. More complex atoms (Helium, Lithium, Beryllium, Boron... have more than one rope converging from a given H atom.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. It is important to highlight what this entails. In the religion of Quantum, every H atom is just like any other. A mathematician just looks at quantities. Under the rope H every H atom can have a unique set of ropes converging upon it. So, although they have the same 'mass' (i.e., same number of threads converging upon it) the EM rope that goes from Atom A to Atom B makes the set of threads of Atom A QUALITATIVELY diff than the set of threads of Atom B. It's the diff b/w Math and Phyz!
bgaede 5 months ago
Bill do you believe it is possible to see the ropes atoms are connceted to under any microscope we have today? Also are the threads themselves 3D under youre hypothesis?
Theonedue 5 months ago
"possible to see the ropes"
.
Ropes do not converge upon or end in ropes. The only way we would be able to see a rope is if an EM rope ended there. And then, the best you could see is a 'Flatland' cross-section. In order to see the entire rope, you would have to scan it from atom to atom with an EM rope that ends in THAT rope. This vision is surrealistic.
bgaede 5 months ago
"are the threads themselves 3D under youre hypothesis?"
.
Threads, rope, atoms, electrons: all 3D! There are no 2D objects in the REAL world. Squares and triangles are in our brains, not out there.
bgaede 5 months ago
If the ropes that all Hydorgen atoms are connected to can be viewed, that would show that youre hypothesis is correct (that threads do exist). I know you don't like proof but the scientific community does. But, as if you say, the scientists havent even viewed an atom, theres no way they are going to be able to view the ropes that connect them. In any case, theard theory is def an interesting one. Hope objective evidence supports it someday. Btw, what triggers the atoms to pulsate faster?
Theonedue 5 months ago
Comment removed
Theonedue 5 months ago
Yo Bill check out this article when you get a chance. Tell me youre thoughts.
CERN scientists 'break the speed of light'
Theonedue 5 months ago
Quote of the day: "If it is true, then we truly haven't understood anything about anything."
.
ALVARO DE RUJULA, a theorist at CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research, on a report that physicists plan to report that they have detected subatomic particles moving faster than the speed of light.
bgaede 5 months ago
Yeah, now I think I know the true meaning of General and Special Relativity. They are, as the title entails, RELATIVE to man made opinions.
Theonedue 5 months ago
Comment removed
Theonedue 5 months ago
Yeah, I think I figured out why they call it General or Special relativity. All the theories and belifes comprised by those physicits are REALTIVE to opinion and made man doctrine.
Theonedue 5 months ago
Fantastic series of videos Bill, keep it up. Just out of interest, what are your views on plasma cosmology? And do you think that the recent breaking of the speed of light will be confirmed or turn out to be an error?
222nietzsche 5 months ago
1. "plasma cosmology?"
I rail against words such as aether, vortex and plasma. These are the terms that 'wave' theorists use. Wave theorists are dissidents within the Mathematical Establishment. They don't buy into Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. They attempt to explain Special Relativity in terms of Lorentzian Transformation. They focus on the 'wave' aspect of light and reject the particle nature proposed by Quantum. Many of them are followers of Ayn Rand, Nikola Tesla, Walter Russell and the like.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. I keep the company of dissidents when we attack the establishment. We share many views. I keep my distance from the 'dissidents' when we propose alternatives. Aether, vortex, waves and plasma are CONCEPTS. We don't do Physics with concepts. Physics, first and foremost, demands an object, specifically an object that exists. Physics is the Science of Existence. Physics only studies that which exists.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. The word 'exist' can only be applied to objects. Aether, vortex, wave and plasma are NOT objects. Thus, they cannot be said to exist, at least not for the purposes of Science. Plasma simply means 'gas which has some of its atoms ionized', again , a concept. There is no physical object called 'gas which has some of its atoms ionized'. The words aether, plasma, vortex and wave should be removed from the scientific lexicon. There is no room in Science for them.
bgaede 5 months ago
5. "do you think that the recent breaking of the speed of light will be confirmed or turn out to be an error?"
It depends on who writes the report. If the author is an adorer of Einstein, he will prove without a shadow of a doubt that it is a measurement error. If the writer is a guy who feels constrained by Einstein's implacable rule and realizes that it will prevent him from star-trekking out of the SS, he will definitely show w/o room for opinion that FTL is a cinch!
bgaede 5 months ago
6. In Science, we don't care at what speed light (or a neutrino) travels exactly. It travels fast. We're done. What we care about is for the guy at the LHC to draw a photon or a neutrino for us. Only then can we be certain that 'the' neutrino traveled in the first place. If instead, 'a' neutrino is actually a torsion of an EM rope, we cannot talk about travel. Nothing actually moves from A to Z -- from hand to wall -- when you torque a rope.
bgaede 5 months ago
7. If light is a torsion along a twined pair of threads that interconnect any two atoms, we have to discard all the physical interpretations of Quantum -- the entire Standard Model -- and start all over. We have to re-interpret every experiment ever done at the accelerators under the new hypothesis.
bgaede 5 months ago
Bgaede, is antimatter true?
And is dark matter EXISTENCE fallacious??
Is dark matter THEORY correct?
Keep in mind theory and existence are different!!!
GabloFX2 5 months ago
1. "is antimatter true?"
Not nearly as true as the sexy wife who slept with her neighbor while her husband was at work.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. The only requirements of a proponent of 'antimatter' is for him to draw it for us and to describe how it is PHYSICALLY diff than ordinary matter. Is an anti-hydrogen cubic whereas an ordinary H is spherical? Is an anti-electron 5D? Is one green, the other violet? Is one larger, the other smaller? How does the shape of antimatter determine its exotic properties?
bgaede 5 months ago
3. "is dark matter EXISTENCE fallacious?"
In Science, we postulate existence. The mathematicians POSTULATE dark matter to resolve issues such as the galaxy rotational problem or the deceleration of the Pioneer probes. So far, so good.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. Now, is there dark matter b/w the Earth and the Moon? Because if there is, Newt and Einstein's eq wouldn't describe gravity at all. If there is any bit of DM b/w the E and the M, we have to erase the board and start all over again. (Each grain in the DM sea weighs tons!)
bgaede 5 months ago
5. Is DM transparent? That's kind of convenient, wouldn't you say? I mean, her we have some shit floating AROUND (as opposed to WITHIN) a galaxy, it is entirely undetectable, but it weighs tons. It's just like the invisible 600 lb gorilla that is in the room... or perhaps the pink, 2-ton elephant that the wino saw floating around after falling into the barrel.
bgaede 5 months ago
6. "theory and existence are different!"
Yes. Existence is the sole possession of Mother Nature. Theory is what we petty humans do. We can only make ASSUMPTIONS about existence. Existence is an inextricable part of the hypothesis, the first step of the Scientific Method.
bgaede 5 months ago
hahah.. that's where you suck
leadpipe300 5 months ago
///EM-ROPES do not work with the microwave example --- or the particle phenomenon of the double-slit experiment
you just love avoiding this
///
///EM-ROPES do not work with the microwave example --- or the particle phenomenon of the double-slit experiment
you just love avoiding this
///
///EM-ROPES do not work with the microwave example --- or the particle phenomenon of the double-slit experiment
you just love avoiding this
///
leadpipe300 5 months ago
you're a fuckin idiot
you're desperate to protect this fictitious rope shit
leadpipe300 5 months ago
dumb
everyone needs to see this:
EM-ROPES do not work with the microwave example --- or the particle phenomenon of the double-slit experiment
you just love avoiding this
leadpipe300 5 months ago
idiot lead: "particle theory, wave theory, and rope theory all suck"
Bill: "How do you explain the phenomenon... Wiki's answer to what appears to be your Q... wavelength"
idiot lead: "i've mentioned that.. and you wont explain it with rope theory"
.
What a stupid moron! And this bean brain, lead, is trying to answer Qs beyond his intellectual abilities... What a joke!
bgaede 5 months ago
i've mentioned that.. and you wont explain it with rope theory
leadpipe300 5 months ago
I thought you said you had no explanation? Now it turns out that you had an explanation! And 'your' explanation is founded on 'the' wave... which you just finished denying!
Typical of circular reasoning!
Again, if wave theory has an explanation (which you are trying to deny for reasons that you only know), then so does the rope. the famous wave of the religion you worship is simply a twined pair of threads.
Any other Qs, lead?
bgaede 5 months ago
don't distract from the fact that i've found a model where the rope method disintegrates
leadpipe300 5 months ago
Absolutely not, lead.
.
Here's Wiki's answer to what appears to be your Q.
.
"the size of the perforations in the mesh is much less than the microwaves' wavelength"
bgaede 5 months ago
i can't.. i thought the superior rope analysis would show me how
leadpipe300 5 months ago
"i can't"
You seem to have pretty strong opinions for a guy who can't explain. Usually, it's the other way around.
bgaede 5 months ago
no, you see, particle theory, wave theory, and rope theory all suck in this example
leadpipe300 5 months ago
Great! How do you explain the phenomenon, lead?
bgaede 5 months ago
no, i do not believe in wave, or particle theory
neither work
as i said, ***starting from nothing, using the rope method***,.. it doesn't explain the microwave dilemma
leadpipe300 5 months ago
Oh what do you propose, lead? How do YOU explain this hole phenomenon that you are describing? Do you have an explanation?
bgaede 5 months ago
screw particle theory
starting from nothing, using the rope method,.. it doesn't explain why the microwaves [which ARE light] are blocked from exiting the metal honeycomb observation panel
the only way is for the rope to get wider as frequencies decrease,.. and you say it does not. if the rope were always just an atom-thin line, it'd go through any split or fissure
leadpipe300 5 months ago
"rope... doesn't explain why the microwaves [which ARE light] are blocked"
.
Wave theory, lead? We're still waiting. You provide the explanation. We'll provide the interpretation under the Rope H. Okay?
bgaede 5 months ago
"oh.. they must be examined carefully"
may you rot in hell
leadpipe300 5 months ago
Hey lead, you never answered the Q. How does the particle hypothesis explain the microwave Q you asked? We're still waiting.
.
For instance, how does the particle hypothesis explain wavelength and frequency and amplitude? How does 'wave' theory answer the hole Q? You never told us.
bgaede 5 months ago
quit trying to bank on physics mysteries and admit you're a broke, clueless faggot
leadpipe300 5 months ago
you cannot answer the particle element of the double slit experiment.. or wavelength questions
fuck you
leadpipe300 5 months ago
see billy.. you cannot answer anything
your either a fag, or a charlatan
leadpipe300 5 months ago
Comment removed
leadpipe300 5 months ago
Comment removed
leadpipe300 5 months ago
Comment removed
leadpipe300 5 months ago
Comment removed
leadpipe300 5 months ago
Comment removed
leadpipe300 5 months ago
Comment removed
leadpipe300 5 months ago
then that means amplitude [power level],.. inhibits the pulse from passing through the tiny hole? that can't be so..
if the power[amplitude] is at 1 volt versus 1 billion volts..that can't make sense. wavelength must mean more than distance from front to back. you can make it a million miles and still go through 1mm. so what's real
leadpipe300 5 months ago
You're jumping to conclusions before you understood the basics of the theory. A rope interconnects any two atoms of the U. Therefore, amplitude and link length/frequency may be irrelevant in the context you're raising. The rope doesn't have to travel thru any hole. An atom relays the torsion via the rope to another. Whether this is what happens in the scenario you're describing has to be analyzed carefully.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. Again, is there a classical 'wave' explanation for the phenomenon you are describing? Y or N? Whatever the explanation is for 'the' wave is the same for the rope. They are no different in this context. And certainly there can't be a particle explanation for what you're describing if your going to talk about amplitude, frequency and WAVElength!
bgaede 5 months ago
Comment removed
leadpipe300 5 months ago
with the em-thread concept.. how does a microwave oven not permit the microwaves to leak through the holes in the observation panel on the door? Do the threads get fatter & are unable to fit through?
wavelength must be how fat the thread is, right? a microwave uses 2.45ghz.. that's about 5 inches of a wavelength, whatever wavelength actually means. So.. a 5-inch fat pulse on an em-thread doesn't fit through the 2mm holes.. right? or no
leadpipe300 5 months ago
"wavelength must be how fat the thread is, right?"
No. Under the Rope H, wavelength is known as linklength (length of a link of rope) and is no diff than in classical wave theory. Therefore, if the wave can't get thru the holes of the microwave, the rope is no diff.
.
The 'fatness' is the amplitude.. Here's a synthesis of the primary properties of the EM rope for you, lead...
.
worldsci org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6292 pdf
bgaede 5 months ago
"wavelength must be how fat the thread is, right?"
No. Under the Rope H, wavelength is known as linklength (length of a link of rope) and is no diff than in classical wave theory. Therefore, if the wave can't get thru the holes of the microwave, the rope is no diff.
.
The 'fatness' is the amplitude.. Here's a synthesis of the primary properties of the EM rope for you, lead...
.
worldsci org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6292 pdf
bgaede 5 months ago
1. "wavelength must be how fat the thread is, right?"
No. Under the Rope H, wavelength is known as linklength (length of a link of rope) and is no diff than in classical wave theory. Therefore, if the wave can't get thru the holes of the microwave, the rope is no diff.
bgaede 5 months ago
1. "wavelength must be how fat the thread is, right?"
No. Under the Rope H, wavelength is known as link-length (length of a link of rope) and is no diff than in classical wave theory. Therefore, if the wave can't get thru the holes of the microwave, the rope is no diff.
bgaede 5 months ago
1. "wavelength must be how fat the thread is, right?"
No. Under the Rope H, wavelength is known as link-length (length of a link of rope) and is no diff than in classical wave theory. Therefore, if the wave can't get thru the holes of the microwave, the rope is no diff.
The 'fatness' is the amplitude.. Here's a synthesis of the primary properties of the EM rope for you, lead...
.
worldsci org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6292 pdf
bgaede 5 months ago
Comment removed
leadpipe300 5 months ago
just a model, not reality. many, any model can be used to simplify realty
tim300cx5 5 months ago
"any model can be used"
Certainly not Quantum's 0D particle model or the classical plane transverse wave model! Those models can't simulate light or the electron.
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede I not here to troll as a stundent i have many questions into a theory that unifies everthying,, So basically your not against Einsten nor any other cientist of the medieval your against modern scholars who come up with theories that do not explain everything? Kind off like Hawking??? But then Black holes don't exist?? Other dimensions don't either??? What about string theory or M theory? How does the rope hypothesis explain string theory or does it explain something different??
GabloFX2 5 months ago
1. "your not against Einsten"
Einstein propuso que el espacio es curvo. Esa es la explicacion que la Relatividad ofrece para la gravedad. O sea, la razon que un planeta como Marte no sale volando fuera del sistema solar es que esta sumergido en una olla, una depresion supuestamente creada por la masa del sol sobre lo que el y otros llamaron 'espacio-tiempo'. La orbita de Marte, segun la Relatividad, es como una ruleta: la bolita no tiene mas remedio que rodar alrededor de una pared doblada.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. El problema con esta caracterizacion es que el espacio no es un medio. El espacio no es un objeto fisico! Entonces no tiene sentido pregonar de que es curvo. Curvo puede ser una hamaca o una banana, jamas 'la nada'!
.
Que Einstein me traiga un pedacito de espacio y me lo coloque sobre la mesa... como si fuera una estatua! O que me lo dibuje! Entonces si podemos aceptar y decir que el espacio es un objeto.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. Einstein se arrepintio de su teoria y la descarto hacia el final de sus dias. Eso fue lo unico inteligente y productivo que hizo en su vida, pero sus discipulos tapan este aspecto de su vida. Argumentan que el pobre Einstein estaba senil y no sabia ya lo que decia.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. "your against modern scholars who come up with theories that do not explain everything?"
.
No se trata de si la teoria explica todo o es completa. Se trata de si la teoria es racional.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel html
bgaede 5 months ago
5. "Hawking?"
Es un pobre idiota! No tiene idea de lo que habla! Deberian arrojarlo desde el techo de Cambridge... con silla de rueda, sintetizador y todo! No merece vivir, ni que hablar de desparramar sus irracionales opiniones.
bgaede 5 months ago
6. "Black holes don't exist?"
El agujero negro es un CONCEPTO! Es algo asi como el amor o la justicia o la inteligencia. Puede el amor aspirarte y hacerte desaparecer fisicamente?
bgaede 5 months ago
7. El agujero negro consiste de una singularidad 'rodeada' de lo que se llama 'el evento de los horizontes'. Estos dos terminos son CONCEPTOS! Dos conceptos no hacen un objeto. Entonces, como puede un concepto llamado 'agujero negro' aspirar a un astronauta o a un reloj hacia la singularidad? Que idiotez es esta?
bgaede 5 months ago
8. Los matematicos han convertido a sus conceptos abstractos en objectos reales para explicar lo que obviamente no entienden. No hay semejante monstruo llamado agujero negro!
.
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/03BlackHole/01What html
bgaede 5 months ago
9. "Other dimensions don't either?"
.
Solo despues de 5 o 6 cervezas y un barril de mezcal mesclado con tequila! Hasta el gusanito ve 26 dimensiones despues de nadar en el fondo de la botella!
.
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/05Dim/04Z3Proof html
bgaede 5 months ago
10. "What about... M theory?"
La 'M' de M Theory significa MIERDA!
.
"How does the rope hypothesis explain string theory or does it explain something different??"
.
Son completamente diferentes. String Theory es una DESCRIPCION matematica. La Teoria de Hilos es un EXPLICACION fisica. Cualquiera -- un chamaco de Primer Grado -- puede entender la Teoria de Hilos. Nadie, ni siquiera los fundadores, pueden entender la tonteria llamada String Theory.
.
worldsci org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5700 pdf
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede jajajaj Te entiendo!!
GabloFX2 5 months ago
@bgaede Y esa es una critica? O estas diciendo que es siplemente la verdad? Si Einstein esta mal en la curvatura del espacio tiempo entonces la gravedad si es una fuerza? Entonces Newton estaba en lo correcto!!!! No?? O estas diciendo que Einstein esta bien y Newton esta mal? Yo digo que deberías de formular una teoría relacionada a Rope-Hypothesis para explicar el fenómeno de la gravedad, sin duda la gravedad existe pero en si que es y como sostiene el universo.?
GabloFX2 5 months ago
"explicar el fenómeno de la gravedad"
.
billgaede hubpages com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-12
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/04Grav/03AAAD html
bgaede 5 months ago
ok, how's this
why does the DS-experiment create a particle pattern, and also a wave pattern
particle pattern - with detectors on at the slits to find out which slit the electron shot through
wave pattern - with detectors deactivated
what does that?
hiv1111 5 months ago
1. "the DS-experiment create a particle pattern, and also a wave pattern"
.
In the religion of Quantum Mechanics, an electron is BOTH a discrete entity that orbits the nucleus AND an extended object: the cloud or shell model. An electron is BOTH 0D and has mass, meaning that it is not 0D (hint: 'nothing' can't have mass or, conversely, if it has mass it MUST have > 0 radius, >0D).
bgaede 5 months ago
2. And light is likewise BOTH 'a' wave AND a particle. The mathematicians, like their counterparts in traditional religion, have converted God into BOTH an object AND a concept. This way they get the best of both worlds. They invoke the particle to explain one experiment and 'the' wave to explain another. In their immense ignorance, they are proud of their dualities, of their paradoxes. They consider them a sign of how weird the world is -- Quantum Magic they call it!
bgaede 5 months ago
3. In Science, we call it 'irrational'. If the presenter cannot make a movie of HIS theory, it has nothing to do with Physics. The language of Physics is illustration. Mother Nature does not move around CONCEPTS. Mother Nature can only move OBJECTS. This maxim summarily debunks the religion of Mathematical Physics. We can not make a movie of 'transfer energy' any more than we can make a movie of 'carry 'a' force'. These euphemisms or figures of speech have no place in Science.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. So the mathematician gets stuck with duality and passes this nonsense from one generation to another. The goal of education is not to explain and debate theories. The goal of education is to memorize what has already been 'proven'. Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity and String Theory are not theories. They are now Truth! They are catechism, doctrine, dogma.
bgaede 5 months ago
5. They are no longer theory, but FACT. There is nothing you can do to challenge Math Phyz because it is the established religion of the university classes. Secret peer review Inquisition Boards have been set up to ensure that the religion is not threatened.
bgaede 5 months ago
6. The mathematician observes a dot on the wall after the electron passes the slits and explains this result with the particle model. He doesn't realize that he is, IN EFFECT, treating the electron as a particle. In his appalling ignorance, he doesn't realize that he is tacitly invoking the thoroughly debunked planetary model of the atom to make his case.
bgaede 5 months ago
7. If what struck the screen is a tennis ball, it means that the tennis ball was until then orbiting the proton bowling ball and was somehow compelled to leave it's orbit. There can be no other possible interpretation.
bgaede 5 months ago
8. Of course, to produce the interference pattern, he must also invoke the classical plane wave model. 'The' wave is an annoying feature because Quantum has NOTHING to do with extended architectures or configurations. Quantum mathematicians do NOT claim to accelerate waves at their accelerators. There is no Standard Model of Waves Chart. Quantum is ALL particles. 100%!
bgaede 5 months ago
9. They are NOT trying to find the Higgs wave or the waves that comprise dark matter. The only money allocated to catching waves is at LIGO.
bgaede 5 months ago
10. So the stupid idiot of Math does experiments without conceptualizing first. And of course, all his 'predictions' fail with the Slit Experiment. He observED, then predicted. He predicted that 'a' wave DID it in this case and a particle DID it in that one. He turns his double slit into a cyclops and still can't figure it out. Eternally he goes round and round between his two hypotheses. Is it a wave or is it a particle? It's been, what now, 400 years of this?
bgaede 5 months ago
11. But let us assume now that light consists of a physical medium. Light is no longer made of the CONCEPT 'energy'. Light is no longer 'a' force. Light is not 'a' mass. Let us assume that light takes on the configuration of a two-strand rope. The two threads are twined around each other like DNA backbones: in antiparallel directions.
bgaede 5 months ago
12. The underlying hypothesis is that every atom in the Universe is connected to all others. Now we have a physical mechanism interconnecting all of matter rather than having concepts flying between systems. We are not going to sling energy or waves or 0D 'particles' at each other. We are going to torque a rope.
bgaede 5 months ago
13. The rope explains why the atoms do not drift apart. The rope explains gravity. But here we are concerned with its other property, the ability to torque and cause pressure at the far end, no differently I may add than when you torque a macro world rope and have the other end of the rope push upon the wall.
bgaede 5 months ago
14. Now we do have the best of both worlds. We have the extended wave nature of light embodied in the rope and we have the particle nature of light embodied in the signal that propagates practically instantaneously: the pressure at the far end. We no longer need bullets to explain the hole on the screen. We can just as well do it with the end of a rope, just a little pressure, an atom that gets excited because the rope tickled it.
bgaede 5 months ago
15. So, whereas a mathematician gapes at the mark made on the screen and wonders where the bullet came from, the physicist realizes that an extended object that has stimulated that spot on the screen, that atom (or perhaps molecule) is now excited to a higher frequency. It has more 'energy' (a magical spirit that makes it brighter). Here is an illustration of the entire setup...
.
youstupidrelativist com/06QM/04Light/07Slit html (Fig. 4)
bgaede 5 months ago
16. Now, what happens when we place a detector at the slits?
.
It all depends on where we place the detector and what kind of detector it is. For instance, I have suggested placing a photomultiplier and placing the entire assembly under vacuum (slit-in-a-vacuum experiment). Unfortunately, it's too lengthy to explain why here. YT is an impractical medium for this kind of discussion. I'll just say that the intensity would distinguish between the classical wave nature of light and the rope.
bgaede 5 months ago
17. In the case of electrons, again, Quantum has no answer. As soon as the mathematician alleges that a discrete particle struck the screen or was swallowed by the detector, he is invariably invoking Bohr's debunked planetary model of the atom. Therefore, the explanation has to divert to a much more fundamental level. If the slit is done by particles, we have to revise all of Quanum Mechanics.
bgaede 5 months ago
18. So the idiot of Math prefers to say stupid things at this point. He brings in the idiotic Uncertainty Principle.
youstupidrelativist com/06QM/07Uncertainty html
He tells you that his cat is both dead AND alive.
youstupidrelativist com/11Blog/1Math/M0011Tegm html
Or he tells you that Quantum is not a complete theory and that the particle mathematicians are still investigating.
bgaede 5 months ago
19. The rope version of electricity is a row of aligned electron shells. The entire serpentine spins (Video 9). Therefore, the source is nevertheless connected to the screen via these serpentines. It is not that the gun shoots a bullet that passes the slit assembly. It is that the entire serpentine is already in place and is activated when you pull the trigger. Again, the type of detector and its location in the slit partition will tell us whether the electricity is relayed or not to the screen.
bgaede 5 months ago
19. The rope version of electricity is a row of aligned electron shells. The entire serpentine spins (Video 9). Therefore, the source is nevertheless connected to the screen via these serpentines. It is not that the gun shoots a bullet that passes the slit assembly. It is that the entire serpentine is already in place and is activated when you pull the trigger. Again, the type of detector and its location in the slit partition will tell us whether the electricity is relayed or not to the screen.
bgaede 5 months ago
Comment removed
hiv1111 5 months ago
Comment removed
hiv1111 5 months ago
when the double-slit experiment 'detects' an observer.. why does that create 2 masses of particle shots at the screen?
hiv1111 5 months ago
"when the double-slit experiment 'detects' an observer"
You'll have to rephrase that after the effects of alcohol have evaporated.
.
"why does that create 2 masses of particle shots"
Again, you need to be coherent to ask Qs in Physics.
bgaede 5 months ago
why does the double-slit experiment [with electrons] create a particle pattern on the back wall when under observation for which slit they went through.. what is that all about
hiv1111 5 months ago
1. "why does the double-slit experiment [with electrons] create a particle pattern"
.
The rope hypothesis handles this version of the experiment no differently than Quantum. In the Quantum version, a single bullet is allegedly released and reaches the screen. In the rope version, a single pulse or torsion of the entire electron serpentine arrives at the screen, no differently I may add than how an accelerator works under Thread Theory.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. One important Q is whether it is truly 'single'. The slit experiment is famous for being an INTERFERENCE experiment. There is no interference in QM's single photon/electron proposal. There is in the rope version.
bgaede 5 months ago
but you havent come up with any ACTUAL experiments to verify your claims. Most of your stupid thought experiments have already been debunked. The reason why other scientific explainations are more widely accepted is because there is experimental evidence to support them, you literally have none lol
Xero555000 6 months ago
1. "you havent come up with any ACTUAL experiments to verify your claims"
Now there's 'proof' that you studied 'science' at the monastery, Xero. In Science, we don't do experiments. And we certainly don't verify anything. Perhaps the technology monks got you oriented in the wrong direction...
bgaede 6 months ago
2. In Science, we JUST explain! That's it. Whatever YOU wish to verify or test thru experiment is YOUR personal business and doesn't concern Science. Science consists entirely of rational explanations. In Science, we are interested in understanding, not in proving or verifying. What you do on your own clock is your business. When it's your turn at the mike, the crowd expects you to explain.
bgaede 6 months ago
3. So, if you tested and verified and came up with a diff explanation for a phenomenon, you can share it with the audience. Some people will like your explanation and others won't, but again, their opinions are not a part of Science.
bgaede 6 months ago
4. "your stupid thought experiments have already been debunked"
Cheap shot! You forgot to follow your statement with an example. So far all you have is an unsubstantiated opinion.
bgaede 6 months ago
5. "other scientific explainations are more widely accepted"
Science is not a popularity contest. The entire Flat Earth Society can vote for the Flat Earth Theory for all we care. Got anything more substantial than your opinions, Xero?
bgaede 6 months ago
6. "there is experimental evidence to support them"
Again, we clean our asses with experiments, with evidence and with Math. They are not a part of the Scientific Method. You can run all the experiments you want and still be the nincompoop that you appear to be.
bgaede 6 months ago
7. Throw a pen up in the air 1000 times. If not enough, try a million. Then come back here and explain to the crowd WHY the pen falls to Earth. WHY doesn't it fly out of the Solar System? What physical object comes in contact with the pen? That's all you gotta answer. Use all the Math you want. Run all the experiments you have to. Verify whatever you need to verify.
bgaede 6 months ago
@bgaede Acutally, we need experiments in science... In philosophy we "just" racionaly explain, without experiments.
nafativedec 6 months ago in playlist More videos from bgaede
"we need experiments in science"
In Science, we only explain. If you wish to do an experiment, you must do it after the conference, at your own time.
.
"In philosophy we "just" racionaly explain"
Physics and Philosophy are the two broad branches of Science. In both we explain. Physics deals with objects and causes. Philosophy deals with concepts and reasons. You should learn the basics before posting, naf.
bgaede 6 months ago
@bgaede "In science we don't do experiments" - Maybe in your world Gayde, but in my world, the world where things happen, we do.
Your brand of science is little more than mental masturbation and flamewars on the internet lol... you're pathetic
Xero555000 6 months ago
Bill: "In science we don't do experiments"
Xero: Maybe in your world... but in my world... we do.
Oh, what planet are you from, Xero? I speak from Earth.
bgaede 6 months ago