photon propeller

Swansont is 100 percent correct. The universe and its mathematical constants existed from the beginning of time, long before the arrival of man and the language or numbers by which man labels it, and will exist long after we are gone. I wonder how many alien civilizations have come and gone, labeling it, yet not understanding it fully, and destroying themselves in the process.

 

Oddly, you are right to say I infer it, even though you meant that I imply it.

I infer that soap-boxing is bad from the fact that the rules ban it.

• Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them."

 

Have we not been discussing the topic? We "discussed" whether or not we were of one complex energy and when presented with the evidence you completely disregarded it. In another post you said there weren't 7 electron shells when in fact as a chemist, which you profess to be, you certainly know there are. You demonstrate a pattern of bias in the disregard of any statement of evidence I have made because you are biased towards me. You are more worried about egos, politics, and the fear of criticism than of having a real discussion and presenting any original thoughts of your own. You missed the part of the definition where they gathered to "DISCUSS" topics. You "inferred" an incorrect interpretation of the definition.

Soapbox

A man soapboxing in Speakers' Corner, London

A soapbox is a raised platform on which one stands to make an impromptu speech, often about a political subject. The term originates from the days when speakers would elevate themselves by standing on a wooden crate originally used for shipment of soap or other dry goods from a manufacturer to a retail store.

The term is also used metaphorically to describe a person engaging in often flamboyant impromptu or unofficial public speaking, as in the phrases "He's on his soapbox", or "Get off your soapbox." Hyde Park, London is known for its Sunday soapbox orators, who have assembled at Speakers' Corner since 1872 to discuss religion, politics and other topics. A modern form of the soapbox is a blog: a website on which a user publishes his/her thoughts to whomever they are read by.

John, you infer soapboxing is a bad thing. In fact, it is an intrinsic concept of this site. Stop hating and start appreciating.

 

I see the problem now. You were asserting your opinion like it was fact, and that brought out the skeptic reaction. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Here's the definition of citation: a reference to a published or unpublished source, to attribute prior or unoriginal work and ideas to the correct sources. Hence it has nothing to do with facts only the credit for ideas. In other words moontanman's comment was a low blow attempt to discredit me for my original eloquent idea. My response was true and justified so if you want to mark a comment down do it to moontanmans and do not perpetuate ignorance.

Most of my statements on the big picture are known "mainstream" principals of physics. Some are speculation.There association to one another is stated in the image. The evidence of their existence is in every rainbow and every spiraling galaxy. Hence real life scientific observation available to any laymen who looks. Nature itself is the inspirational motivator, just as it has been for other thinkers in the past. I gave a sound answer to swansonts question of incompatibility firmly grounded on a rational basis and you completely disregarded it and closed the thread. What we see is an interference pattern, our vantage point is critical, we do not see the scale. I submit my hypothesis is incomplete and not exactly refined. I also assert that exact refinement is difficult to achieve without discussion. Swansont has more or less accused me of forging my own work with his statement, "I doubt its yours." My other thread was unjustly closed and I predict this one will be also. The good ole boys school has prevailed again and stymied their own progress.

My statements are meaningless to you imfataal because your knowledge is based on your faith in your comrades and not on your own education. So I shall hoard the rest of my knowledge as the powers that be do, capitalizing on it and looking down from the mountaintop. The big picture is incomplete without the little one but you will never see it because your eyes and ears are closed, and i shall not present it for any more of your unjustified ridicule.

7colors=7 shells=seven specific points of transition(frequencies)= seven ranges of energy. Countless shades between transitions=countless excited states. Does that clarify it for you? Chemistry and physics adhere to the same principal constants as all of reality does.

 

 

Citation needed please....

Hate to burst you bubble Moontanman, but like the op these are my thoughts, my philosophy. Beautiful, isn't it.

 

I doubt it's yours, either, because then you'd know the occupied shell labels are chemistry. You haven't made any connection between electron shells and the spectrum. You haven't shown what the fundamental frequency is, or how it's limited to seven pure colors and you haven't shown any connection between your seven tones and atomic structure. Light comes from transitions between an occupied state and an excited state, and there are more than 7 levels of excited state.

 

You have to cover all of that. "Prove me wrong" or "answer this one bit" isn't how you make a theory. The burden of proof is on you to show your idea works, and covers all of the experiments to which it is supposed to apply. Your recent posts are merely diversions rather than evidence, and yes, we're noticing that. Time to stop tap-dancing.

I did state the frequency range, it begins in infrared at 140thz and ends at 980thz, green is 560thz and is its median. It scales up or down maintaining a 1 to 7 proportion, simple math. Like the relationship of shell number to principle quantum number, you failed to hear me. I have a thought experiment for all you naysayers which is firmly grounded in reality which will address Swansont's question. On a rainy day the clouds part and a ray of sunlight shines through the falling water. Lo, nature has dispersed its own light. I see the rim of the light cone, an arc. Hold your ruler to the sky, do you see the 7 colors? Are they not equally spaced? They are. Look closer, I see another rainbow behind it, the sun's light is periodic. Divide a pie into equal parts, turn it on its side. Do the slices now look unequally spaced? They do. So it is with the difference in vantage points of the straight line spectrum's interference pattern and illusion of distance to the reality of distance in the interference pattern of the arc of the rainbow. When viewed from above the arc looks like a straight line, move orthogonally to either side and lo, it is an arc. A prism changes the orientation of light therefore the vantage point of the observer, as if looking from above. A rainbow is a natural spectrum observed head on. The light cone is properly perceived by the eye because the retinal cones interpret the signal like the continual stacking of ice cream cones. Knowledge begins with the simple observation of natural phenomenon, clues, to the secrets of nature.

!

Moderator Note

photon propeller,

 

I'm giving you one last chance to answer these questions with actual science as opposed to the absolute nonsense you are currently spouting. I'm closing the thread if you cannot do this.

Absolute nonsense? Think again. Closing this thread would be as foolish as burning the witch at the stake. Everytime I give a scientific answer it is disregarded and another attack is initiated because the terminology is not understood. The idea that this topic is not even worth speculation is an insult to the scientific community. Behold the conversations that have arisen already. We mock what we do not understand.

So let me get this straight Swansont, the one very tangible aspect of my presentation, the interference pattern of the fundamental wave, you believe is some forgery or highjack? It is no more a forgery or highjack than any of my images. These are my thoughts on real scientific observation of natural phenomenon. If you can not disprove it, then as one once put it, you must submit it is right. The interference pattern and phase points are correct. My line of thinking is justified. My opinion of your responses is diminishing.

Meanwhile we wait patiently for you to move to the next step of the scientific process and provide one or more of the following:

1. An explanation for why some of your claims are contradicted by evidence.

2. Justification via reasoned argument, or peer reviewed research justifying your claims.

3. Suggested means of testing or falsifying your hypothesis.

 

In the absence of one or more of these what you have offered is not science and takes on the appearance of word salad. As such it has no place in a science forum. Will you offer us any of the three actions I have proposed?

Lets take care of all 3 and all you have to do is respond to my last post on the unified spectrum.

" I assert that this post has substantial scientific value on the basis of thought provocation alone."

And I assert it's a waste of bandwidth because you haven't actually said anything that is true.

There are not 7 colours

There are not 7 electron shells

There are not 7 energy levels so there's no meaningful question about coincidence.

It's obviously no coincidental that you arbitrarily chose the same number 3 times and stuck it in a sentence with no meaning.

And there is no aether.

 

Such a cloud of dross is, btw, not beautiful anyway so the discussion of beauty as a guide is irrelevant.

You missed the interference challenge John, the actual chance to know what your talking about. I said 7 pure color tones, countless shades. There are seven electron shells, also called principle energy levels, wonder why? They are labeled k l m n o p q, and are associated with the principal quantum number, but I dont think quantum electrodynamics is your field. The aether is speculative but founded on the idea of one all pervasive energy, Quantum vacuum energy is the lcd of it. Therefore there is nothing arbitrary other than your useless response.

Poetry has its place, but here is not that place. The rules of the forum (this is a science forum, after all) demand you provide evidence or a way to test your idea.

Yes it is poetic, but it describes a real scientific observation anyone can make when the suns out. And so the scientific method begins.

Sure. But did you miss the last sentence you quoted of mine there? The universe is under no obligation to be aesthetically pleasing to us.

 

It is fine if an idea is beautiful AND turns out to be right. But it isn't scientifically useful to have a beautiful idea that is wrong. It can be nice to look at, but if its scientifically unusable, science rightly rejects it. Because scientifically, the idea that makes the best predictions wins, whether that idea is beautiful, ugly, or anything in between.

 

So the OP's idea of overtones and 7 pure colors and all that is pretty. But it just doesn't fit the facts in any way shape or form. So, it really has no value scientifically. I don't know what more needs to be said. No amount of wishing the beautiful idea was true will change the facts, so why bother?

Well lets test the assertion it has no scientific value. Who of you can disprove the interference pattern of the wave ive drawn? Any waveset of this proportion will contructively and destructively interfere with itself at the exact phase points ive shown. You can test it with a ruler and a compass. The idea is to visualize what interference actually looks like. As for fig) b the relationship to atomic structure is strictly speculative but founded on the idea of real life observation of spectrum, 7 colors, 7 electron shells, 7 energy levels. coincidence? I dont think so. Fig c on photon propagation shows a speculative oscillation model allowing for the influence of gravity and the hydrodynamic drag of the theoretical aether. I assert that this post has substantial scientific value on the basis of thought provocation alone.

There is obviously no such thing as "the one energy which we are all constituents of"

Yes, there is John, and we are all connected by it. It discludes no one, nothing. Beyond civilization, there is no good or evil, only balance and imbalance. The gift of life is the power of choice, to do our bidding with that bit of energy which comprises and connects us. Granted to us by its source, but only for a while. Heaven and hell are fodder for the living. They exist simultaneously now. Which will we choose to call home?

Next time look deeper into that reflection of sunlight, do not focus on its center for you will be blinded. Look to either side and see the pattern of light bent in a cone opening towards you. Look at the repetative pattern of colors. Is it not real? Of course it is, and all of its architecture is relevant. Creation has painted its masterpiece. It is up to every individual to decipher its wonders.

 

Of course not. Do you know what science is? Clue: it isn't just making stuff up. It is about making testable predictions. Something you have admitted you cannot do. (Ignoring the fact that your claims are contradicted by existing evidene.)

 

 

You really think your doodles are going to help design fusion reactors?

The tokamak reactors are already online. Ever here of ITER? Understanding intrinsic field geometry is key to creating stable magnetic fields. They are shaped like a torus and similar to spinning mass of any scale. My "doodles" are an application of this geometry to the macroscopic world to help visualize the simultaneous interaction of fields. Was not every aspect of science mere theory until it was proven? Could it even be considered if no one ever posed the question? I do better than that, I pose an image of my thoughts. What tangible thoughts do you offer?

It is rather poetic. I suppose, if you are trying to convey something that is at the very heart of things , like light, matter, energy, gravity, electromagnetism, it is likely to be pictorially beautiful and visually stunning.

 

If I can get my head around it , I might try to paint it! P P .

 

Mike

 

This is a science forum, not an art forum. It's incumbent on you to at least present the idea in a form that is amenable to testing, if not already tested by comparing to experiment.

Is this image not scientific? Of course it is. So is the text. Do you find it interesting? Intrinsic field geometry is crucial for cutting edge technology like magnetic confinement fusion.

My goal, if I can properly refine this idea, is to produce a three dimensional periodic chart of elements using the mass hyperboloid as a platform. Placing each element in its rightful vector and establishing an underlying "sacred" geometry which correlates all the properties of matter.

 

It doesn't help that it is upside down, I suppose.

 

 

Except it doesn't. Unless you can cite some evidence for this?

 

 

There is no aether. Or at least, there is no eveidence for an aether. Unless you would like to rpesent some?

 

It's a pretty picture, but I think you should lay off the drugs before they do some permanent damage.

The aether is the one dynamic energy unmultiplied. It is the least common denominator of energy. It multiplies itself as it concentrates and divides itself as it dissipates . Gravity is the initiator and light is the liberation of multiplied(bound) energy from mass.

 

Basic rational thinking disproves all existing claims of a deity, forget science. Of which 'God' do you refer to?

 

 

Those who seek knowledge, seek knowledge. Those who seek God, say 'God' did it.

 

 

If science can't disprove God, you can't prove God. Therefore making assertions like that is evidence of no thought process on the matter.

The God I refer to is the source of the one energy which we are all constituents of.

How do you test the idea? How is it falsifiable? IOW, how do you show that this isn't just a string of buzzwords, which is what it appears to be?

The terms are expressed by the image, do you see its motion? Do you see the simultaneous field orientation? I believe these are the basic field dynamics of any sphere of any scale.

When an artist paints a picture he envisions the idea he wants to convey. It is up to the observer to decipher his work.

Why can't you post your ideas (*) on the forum? Why do you have to post pdfs of illegible scribble and meanignless diagrams?

 

(Although, to be fair, it doesn't detract in the least from the quality of the ideas which appear to be quite meaningless and contradicted by reality.)

the scribble isnt illegible, but I will type it out for you. As for meaningless, the image is extremely meaningful, try to absorb it. The Universe is a scalar energy field. It is a particle wave medium of complex transforming energy. It is comprised of simultaneously interacting gravitational, electromagnetic and quantum vacuum subfields of various properties and magnitude. Interactions result in variable energy density while total energy density remains constant. Gravity gyroscopically concentrates energy and light is liberated as subfields mediate potential differences. Aether structure is spectral, harmonic, gyroscopic, and hydrodynamic in nature. It resonates frequencies which amplify and interfere. Its matter is distinguished by its angle of incidence to the intertial point of equilibrium and its magnitude.

A book of analytical geometric terms can be described in one image. The nature of the universe can be perceived when all its properties are represented and set into motion as an image. Let the image speak for itself. I invite your criticism or approval. see attachment jd page 4.pdf

 

Which seven electron shells? Of one atom? Which atom, and which transitions?

 

Jeez, getting you to give useful detail is like pulling teeth.

there are only seven possible shells, they all fall within a fundamental range of the nucleus, that range is proportional to the energy level, each level has a single shell range. transition points are median points between pure tones where shades become predominately the next consecutive color. see fig on atomic structure.

 

In actual physics the resonances arise because of the excited states having discrete energy levels. If that's what you're referring to, each atom has more than one resonance (actually an infinite number) and there are many atoms and even more molecules.

 

Given that, how can there be only one fundamental frequency of light? Or seven?

an infinite number of shades can be achieved, the fundamental wave is the primary wave of pure color tone, exact semicircles, a state of equilibrium, the resonant frequency of the inert gases, all the other shades are distortions of it. Pure tones fall directly on medians between electron shell transition lines, points of inertial equilibrium, shades arise at ranges in between median points. The seven pure tones coincide exactly with the seven electron shells. It is the measuring device. any state of matter may have multiple frequencies but the interference pattern of those frequencies is distinct. when we have the primary pattern to compare them two we can decipher those combinations accurately.

Is what you are saying?

 

That each resonant point is a distinct colour or shade that represents a distinct element on the periodic table of elements ?

 

So. Say the spectrum is split into 92 distinct colours or shades ranging through red ,orange,yellow,green,blue,indigo,violet split 92 ways?

 

Representing hydrogen, helium............uranium ?

 

Is this what you are proposing photon propeller ?

 

So that would make 13 shades of red for 13 elements , then 13 shades of orange for another set of 13 elements etc etc 13 shades of green etc etc to ....... 13 shades of violet. ( 13.something )

 

Is this what you mean ? Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick. So to speak .

 

 

(13 and stick both have bad connotations ) sorry I jest . Not minimising your theory, just trying to get my head around it. Sounds quite interesting. If that is what you mean.

 

I think your comment that light is an amazing phenomenon , and no doubt there are all sorts of interesting features of light that we do not yet understand.

 

Please correct me if I am going off on a wrong tangent !

 

Mike

yes, this is how we identify elements through light spectroscopy, their absorbtion and emission lines. their resonant fingerprint.

 

 

Still vague nonsense. What is vibrating? Is is mechanical? Electromagnetic? When you say all matter has one, are you saying that all matter shares this or that each has its own unique value?

the specific energy field, the unique combination of the electric, magnetic and gravitational fields. The architecture of that combination produces a unique frequency.

All matter has a specific energy vibration rate, its natural frequency. Plot the wave amplitude vs. excitation frequency and it will peak at the resonant frequency. The peak is the spectral line.