johnreed take 24 - repost
|
|
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>
|
|
|