Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

johnreed take 24 - repost

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
johnlawrencereedjr - 23 Jun 2008 21:50 GMT
Concept continued from recent prior posts:

... what then does the planet attractor act on if not on inertial
mass? The planet attractor acts on matter. At first thought, with
this conclusion, I appear to have returned to pre-Newtonian physics.
This is a momentary illusion. Newtonian physics applies to us as
inertial mass objects, and our quantitative interaction with inertial
mass objects, which quantity inertial mass, is emergent in the
electromagnetic universe (see my most recent, prior posts on mass and
the electromagnetic universe).
What immediate benefit arises from this view? Had Newton known of
atoms and the periodic table he would have had something more
fundamentally universal than the quantitative, but nonetheless
subjective, less fundamentally universal, inertial mass matter, to
work with. Stable inertial mass matter today, reduces to stable
atoms.
The planet attractor acts on atoms (see Uncle Al's independent, as yet
unverified (but supporting) experimental results), which is our
gateway into super-electromagnetic, so called "gravitational"
attraction [1].
What is super electromagnetic? It is the result of "constructive
fusion" which is the logical consequence of the atomic structure that
enables super conduction, albeit at a different physical extreme.
Increased compression rather than decreased temperature. The
consequences of each case taken separately are startling (see
johnreed
take 6 and addendum to same and johnreed take 23 - Dark Matter).
Taken
together, they are even more startling. The compression is theorized
to force an efficient constructive join prior to a collapse. Unlike
Black holes which absurdly solely follow from our quantitative but
nonetheless subjective notion for mass generated gravity. Action and
reaction is alive and well as follows:
Where observed electro-magnetism manifests with efficient atomic
structure and resists, conducts, attracts, or repels, by virtue of
different states of atomic structure. Where we have produced magnets
out of plastic by modifying an atomic quantity we call spin. Where
when we reduce the Earth's (or a bar magnet's) magnetic field
structure and view it as a projection of a single atom, it is
reasonable to suspect that the observed magnetic field structure
reflects an especially 'efficient' state of atomic structure (see the
brief introduction to this idea in Take 6 and addendum to same),
where
atomic structure in general, optimally efficient or not, is based on
the structural principle of the observed magnetic field itself
(broadly justified here on the introductory face, in terms of the
well
worn notion of "form follows function").
I put forward the idea of "constructive fusion" where the extreme
pressure theorized to exist within star forming galactic clouds
results in a collapsed, super efficient, contiguous, 'neutron star'
order of magnitude massive, electromagnetic star core, that attracts
or repels (not clearly obvious yet in all cases) all forms of matter,
at any stage of atomic structure, efficient or not. This star core is
the source of super electromagnetism.
If viable, this idea replaces the intellectually untenable blackhole
as well as the neutron star. Moreover, it replaces the idea of
particles in equilibrium for atomic structure. Where here, the atom is
built mathematically, starting from the simplest Occam's razor
representation for a 3D object. That is two circles set orthogonally
with each circle circumference passing through the center of the
other
circle. The periodic table can be mirrored using this template as the
primordial base for an atomic ring structure. One can see rings,
strings, or threads, here. Constructive fusion for star formation
mechanics follows from this structure.
Author's Afternote
Starting from this physical locked join of two rings (representing
say, tired light), a straight forward initially qualitative schematic
representation for atomic structure unfolds. It soon grows in
complexity in any form other than the original orthogonal ring
structure, where additional rings are added on the same planes. Here
one set of rings contracts representing the nucleus while the other
set expands representing the orbital's which orbital's separate
arranging themselves uniformly around the contracted nucleus
according
to shell locations as reflected by the periodic table. The outermost
orbital's are active and interface with the atom's external surround.
The removal or ejection or absorption of an electron is metered by
the
atom where a 'hole' or non shell filling condition near the nucleus
manifests as a metered charged property of the atom itself. Its
missing or excess charge. Thus quantification of a standard magnitude
for charge follows logically. The collapse of the wave function here
(the orbital itself) is the ejected and/or absorbed electron. The wave
function orbits as an integral unit describing a torus around the
nucleus. However the symmetry of this stable state is broken with
electric current which must pass through the nucleus in this proposed
structure for the atom.

Endnote
[1] See the paper by Andre Michaud at:  http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud1.pdf

johnreed
Androcles - 23 Jun 2008 23:11 GMT
| Concept continued from recent prior posts:
|
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
| gateway into super-electromagnetic, so called "gravitational"
| attraction [1].

Schwartz?  Uncle snipcrap himself? The guy with a picture of himself
with his head up his arse?  That fuckwit is no comparison to Ritz,
you clown. Learn REAL physics for supporting experimental results,
little details like a ring laser gyroscope or this photograph:
 http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
(not that you would have a clue what you are seeing).

Signature

Androcles, proud to be as British as Baldric.
 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MagnaCarta.wmv

johnlawrencereedjr - 03 Jul 2008 06:00 GMT
> | Concept continued from recent prior posts:
> |
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Androcles, proud to be as British as Baldric.
>  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MagnaCarta.wmv
jr writes)
Whats with all your wanna be a bad a.s rhetoric? What did Al offend
you? If his data shows that chirality causes a variance in freefall
and it is confirmed freefall then becomes a function of the atom and
not a function of our centrist subjective notion for a causal mass
generated assumption for gravity.  It will also eliminate our foolish
idea  that it is a consequence of spacetime curvature. But I can
understand why you would be affected by Al. Cheers. Someday you'll be
a big boy too.
Have a good time.
jr
Androcles - 03 Jul 2008 09:31 GMT
On Jun 23, 3:11 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "johnlawrencereedjr" <randama...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> Androcles, proud to be as British as Baldric.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MagnaCarta.wmv

jr writes)
Whats with all your wanna be a bad a.s rhetoric? What did Al offend
you?
==============================================
This:
BTW, you f.ck-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper,
nor could it.   --Schwartz.

You think that idiotic c.nt is going to retract such a stupid statement?
Huh? Do you? Why don't you find out what the facts are before sounding
off at the mouth?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If his data shows
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never mind any f.cking "if", the guy is a mouthy idiot who wouldn't
know data from theory.
Now do your homework properly and shut the f.ck up before you
pick on me, I can bite back.
johnlawrencereedjr - 03 Jul 2008 15:29 GMT
> On Jun 23, 3:11 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> Huh? Do you? Why don't you find out what the facts are before sounding
> off at the mouth?

jr writes>
I still dont know what your talking about. What I usually get from you
are name calling insults interspersed with an attempt at civil
communication. I promise you that if we were face to face you would
not dispense with words like "clown" when refering to me. You just
would not do it.  I can take any criticism of my ideas but you have to
be civil. I don't engage in name calling.  And you could only engage
in it once with me face to face. And Id flat out call you on it. Life
is too short to put up with such bullshit. You dont have to respect me
but if you choose to openly disrespect me in public Im gonna kick your
a.s. Or your gonna kick mine. Either way the air gets cleared and
civility ensues. Not possible when your protected by your mother's
skirts and choose to act like what you never were and always wished to
be. And Al uses his mothers skirts at will. Make him stand for his
wanna be a bad a.s attitude and see how quickly he tones down and
shows some deference. I wouldn't even respond to that statement from
Al.  It contains no relevant info and the attitude of a little man
that wishes he was a big man.
Have a good time
jr>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------
>  If his data shows
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---------
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Androcles - 03 Jul 2008 16:24 GMT
On Jul 3, 1:31 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "johnlawrencereedjr" <randama...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> Huh? Do you? Why don't you find out what the facts are before sounding
> off at the mouth?

jr writes>
I still dont know what your talking about.

================================================

In plain language, you asked me "What did Al offend you?"
(which is not English but never mind) and I have answered.

The stupid c.nt called me a f.ck-faced baboon and declared that
(c+v) appears nowhere in Einstein's paper.

Is that so f.cking hard for you to understand, cretin?
Now why don't you be a good little imbecile and f.ck off?
johnlawrencereedjr - 03 Jul 2008 20:55 GMT
> On Jul 3, 1:31 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> (which is not English but never mind) and I have answered.
> jr writes>
What? Did Al offend you? He offends a majority.
> The stupid c.nt called me a f.ck-faced baboon and declared that
> (c+v) appears nowhere in Einstein's paper.
>
> Is that so f.cking hard for you to understand, cretin?
jr writes>
He calls you derogatory names and you call me derogatory names. In
plain English it is clear here.  Earlier however it was not clear as
you were calling me an idiot (clown) because I cited an aspect of his
work. I took his statement to you as a disclaimer regarding my
citation not as a statement directed to you.
>  Now why don't you be a good little imbecile and f.ck off?- Hide quoted text -
jr writes>
I do not initiate communications with you precisely because you so
easily degenerate intellectualy into an insulting irrational
reactionary state.  I fail to see a significant difference in a f.ck
faced baboon and a good little imbecile. I suppose it would be in
order for me to join in but I will take your advice and f.ck off.  I
suggest that you put me on that claimed kill file status. I dont mind.
Have a good time anyway. Its tuff to do.
jr>
> - Show quoted text -
In plain English it is clear
Androcles - 03 Jul 2008 22:17 GMT
On Jul 3, 8:24 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "johnlawrencereedjr" <randama...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
> (which is not English but never mind) and I have answered.
> jr writes>
What? Did Al offend you? He offends a majority.
> The stupid c.nt called me a f.ck-faced baboon and declared that
> (c+v) appears nowhere in Einstein's paper.
>
> Is that so f.cking hard for you to understand, cretin?
jr writes>

He calls you derogatory names and you call me derogatory names. In
plain English it is clear here.
================================================

Yep, and you sided with the bastard. What do you expect me to do,
lay down and meekly take it?
I don't even care that much about the "f.ck-faced baboon" part, I have
a thicker skin than a rhinoceros, but when discussing physics and
mathematics don't babble about "Uncle Al's independent, as yet
unverified (but supporting) experimental results", he's never even
read Einstein's paper and calls everybody an idiot.
============================================
Earlier however it was not clear as
you were calling me an idiot (clown) because I cited an aspect of his
work.
============================================
He isn't capable of work. He's another bullshit artist.
I took his statement to you as a disclaimer regarding my
citation not as a statement directed to you.
> Now why don't you be a good little imbecile and f.ck off?- Hide quoted
> text -
jr writes>
I do not initiate communications with you precisely because you so
easily degenerate intellectualy into an insulting irrational
reactionary state.
============================================
Hahahaha! It is YOU that has a bug up your arse. If you had
any intellectual capability you'd have responded to

" Learn REAL physics for supporting experimental results,
little details like a ring laser gyroscope or this photograph:
  http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
(not that you would have a clue what you are seeing)."
instead of defending the cretin Schwartz with your irrational
reactionary state.
============================================

I fail to see
============================================
Go to an optician, they get paid to help you see.
============================================

a significant difference in a f.ck
faced baboon and a good little imbecile.
============================================

You've just degenerated into an insulting irrational reactionary
state and can't stop harping about it like an old woman. Discuss
physics, not praise your f.cking hero Schwartz, the f.ck-faced
baboon.

BTW, "chirality" appears nowhere in the paper, nor could it.
============================================
I suppose it would be in
order for me to join in but I will take your advice and f.ck off.  I
suggest that you put me on that claimed kill file status. I dont mind.
Have a good time anyway. Its tuff to do.
jr>
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.