Thread Theory

[Peron]

The thread theory, I was surfing the net, and stumbled upon this.

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1106&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

 

The theory is simple. Every atom is connected by a EM rope. Explaining many different phenomena in nature.

 

Proof of these ropes can be seen, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_Gold_Beam-Beam_Collision_Events_at_RHIC_at_100_100_GeV_c_per_beam_recorded_by_STAR.jpg

 

Those lines are, EM ropes!!

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Electrons would be made of EM ropes, entangled like a ball of yarn.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is not my Idea, nor my posts. I just agree with them.

 

So, the theory is that every atom in the universe is connected to every other atom via twined, double stranded, taut electromagnetic rope. The electric thread of the rope terminates at the center of an atom and the magnetic thread wraps around the center like a ball of yarn. When the magnetic ball expands it must do so at the expense of a few links of rope. This compresses the rope near the atom, thus decreasing its "wavelength" (fewer links per length). This torsion wave propagates along the rope to the next atom and so on and so forth. This is why light always travels rectilinearly but also has a finite velocity. It also explains why light always retraces its path, torsion waves propagate in both directions. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM.

 

This also explains universal gravitation and why it appears to act "instantaneously". Fundamentally, every body in the U is connected to every other body, so there is nothing to transmit! The connection is already there. The reason gravity acts more strongly at close distances is because of angles. If you imagine two large spheres close to each other, the ropes connecting them criss-cross each other with a very small region in the center where most are intersecting. There is a very large aggregate angle between all the atoms. At long distances the ropes lift and the angle aggregate becomes smaller and smaller. The ropes are effectively superimposing on each other. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QmsngMRpE.

 

Magnetism can be visualized intuitively and simply under this theory. When the atoms spin their magnetic threads also spin. When many close atoms spin in the same direction their magnetic threads spin in the same direction (either CW or CCW). In a single block of a magnetic material the threads are spinning predominantly CW or CCW. When the "north" end of the material is brought near the "north" end of another the ropes collide with each other. In the alternate scenario, the ropes twist around each other and pull. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8.

 

Electricity occurs when an atom spins its magnetic thread faster, inducing adjacent atoms to spin faster and in the same direction, and so on. It's much like "a drill bit spinning in place".

 

That's the theory in a nutshell.

 

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1259&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Edited May 8, 2009 by Peron
Consecutive posts merged.

[Bignose]

I hope that there is a lot more that just one pretty picture as "proof".

 

Any quantitative predictions at all? Where's the mathematics that makes those predictions? Come back and make some predictions somewhere in the neighborhood of the current well-supported theory and then get back to us.

 

edited to add:

 

Saw the additional comments and just needed to add a few more things. RE: "This is why light always travels rectilinearly (sic) " Light does NOT always travel in a straight line. It is affected by gravity, and can be bent. Gravitational lensing a a very powerful technique http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

RE: "This also explains universal gravitation and why it appears to act "instantaneously"." Gravity doesn't act instantaneously -- As near as we can tell today, the speed of light is the speed of gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity Definitely not instantaneous at the very least.

RE: "Electricity occurs when an atom spins its magnetic thread faster" please cite some proof that the spin rate of an atom causes electricity. Take a cylinder of oxygen gas. The molecules (and hence the atoms) will collide with one another, and those collisions, rarely being square, cause the molecules to spin. And yet the cylinder doesn't spontaneously create electricity. Spin and yet no electricity.

 

I find this idea (it has not earned the word theory yet) very, very lacking compared to reality as we know it today.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Bignose

[mooeypoo]

Doesn't that oppose Relativity?

 

Seeing as relativity is a working, well evidenced, mathematically based, and repeatedly successful in predictions theory, I am awaiting something a bit more substantial than a wishywashy explanation with no evidence and no math.

 

In other words: if you want us to abandon a working theory for this one, you need to supply equal or better evidence for the alternative theory.

 

~moo

[Peron]

Science is about explanation, and that picture does prove that atoms do have threads.

Notice how we dont see particles, but long thin lines.

 

But I do have a question, can EM radiation turn into a thread/rope?

[mooeypoo]

No, science is about explanation of reality, and the rigorous pursuit for evidence is a way of making sure that theories explain what's real, and not what's imagined.

 

Your theory is bunk without evidence, and it's useless without better evidence than the current one.

[Peron]

I myself have many problems with the theory, but I like the idea of EM ropes connecting atoms. Because it explains how magnets work.

And thread theory explains Entanglement, better then relativity.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The picture shows the tracks -- i.e. paths -- of particles, not threads. It's just showing that particles moved in those trajectories. Where do you get threads from?

[Peron]

http://www.freewebs.com/iondynamics/Beam-Beam%20Collision.jpg

 

http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mvigeant/univ_270_03/Jaime/atom-smasher-gold-collision2.jpg

 

If only TWO gold Ions collide they would only release 1400 quarks and gluons. We see tens of thousands. Where are the extra particales coming from, simple anwser those are not particales but EM ropes.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Or more than two gold ions are colliding. Given that beams are being accelerated at ludicrous speed and collided, I doubt anything would have the resolution to pick up each individual collision. Heck, if you fired two gold ions at each other it'd take an insane machine to even get them to collide head-on.

 

So we're not likely looking at one collision. If you want an answer, ask a physicist working on the project instead of speculating that this means there are EM ropes.

[Mr Skeptic]

Science is about explanation,

 

Nope, science is about predicting reality. Or rather, the only explanations that count are the ones that make predictions that can be tested.

[Peron]

Science a tool to EXPLAIN nature, all we see around us.

 

My explanation differs form yours. Proof has nothing to do with science.

 

When we smash particles, we see what the theory predicts. We see EM ropes being unwound and scattered in all directions.

 

Proof, and the theory explains far more things.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

RE: "Electricity occurs when an atom spins its magnetic thread faster" please cite some proof that the spin rate of an atom causes electricity. Take a cylinder of oxygen gas. The molecules (and hence the atoms) will collide with one another, and those collisions, rarely being square, cause the molecules to spin. And yet the cylinder doesn't spontaneously create electricity. Spin and yet no electricity.

 

I find this idea (it has not earned the word theory yet) very, very lacking compared to reality as we know it today.

 

What do you mean? When electrons move they produce electrcity, same with the threads they spin producing electrcity. Like a ecletric motor.

[ajb]

Reminds me of the old idea of atoms as knots in the aether.

 

If the idea of EM knots (non-trivial topology of the electromagnetic field flux lines or something?) has anything to do with "YouStupidRelativist.Com" then I would leave it alone.

[Bignose]

Proof has nothing to do with science.

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

Oh wait, you're serious

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

Shoot -- I gotta catch my breath.

 

Nope -- one more round in me

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

Without proof, there is no such thing as science.

 

Without proof, I can write statement like "Peron is a purple spotted jellyfish" and then get angry when you don't believe me.

 

And, hey, since proof isn't needed anymore, I have got a great car to sell you. Only $1000. It is brand new and you have my word that it will run perfectly for the next 100 years. You should drive it over my bridge -- which I will also sell to you for only $450. You don't need anything like proof of my ownership with a deed or anything -- you can take me word at it. I also have this rock -- it's totally awesome -- it keeps bears and penguins and elephants away. I'll sell it to you for $550. That's a steal for total protection from elephants alone! But I'm going to throw in tigers and penguins for free. And in fact, if you buy all three, I'll even give you a discount. You get the car, the bridge, and the rock, all for only $1900.

 

I also have an explanation for everything else unexplained, too. Unicorns. Unicorns wished there to be EM ropes and hence there were. Unicorns are the real reason everything is exactly as it is.

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

Have I made my point yet?

 

Proof and evidence are EVERYTHING in science. Without proof and evidence, there is no such thing as science. Without evidence that your idea is right, why should anyone believe what you write? Anyone else could write anything else and have the exact same weight. Science comes in, and cuts through all the nonsense, and picks out only the ideas that are supported by evidence. That is the whole point of science in the first place.

[Peron]

Science is explanation. Explain a phenomena in nature. All science needs you to be is logical.

[Klaynos]

Science is explanation. Explain a phenomena in nature. All science needs you to be is logical.

 

Nope. Science has no requirement for logic.

 

Science is our best attempt to model the universe, and compare those models with the universe.

 

It's the comparing that requires leads to 'proof', science is ALL about evidence, and predictions. The explanation as you call it is just our current best model.

[swansont]

I myself have many problems with the theory, but I like the idea of EM ropes connecting atoms. Because it explains how magnets work.

And thread theory explains Entanglement, better then relativity.

 

Entanglement is a QM effect, not a relativistic one.

 

The problem is that a new explanation has to explain how everything within its sphere works, and allow us to calculate things.

 

You picture of "ropes" is a recording of the tracks of particles in a collider over a period of time.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Science is explanation. Explain a phenomena in nature. All science needs you to be is logical.

 

No. Logic can only proceed if the premise is valid.

 

But, even within that flawed regime, "it looks like X, therefore it is X" is faulty logic.

[Mr Skeptic]

Science is explanation. Explain a phenomena in nature. All science needs you to be is logical.

 

If that is the case, than the "God did it" theory is superior to your theory because it explains more things. But I already told you, science is about predictions, not "explanations".

[Peron]

So you guys don't think these threads exist?

 

I dont see how QM explains attraction and repulsion. I have never, ever read anything about HOW a magnet atracts another magnet. The thread theory is the only theory that explains this.

[Mr Skeptic]

So you guys don't think these threads exist?

 

Perhaps, but until you show any evidence there is no reason for anyone to believe in them.

 

I dont see how QM explains attraction and repulsion. I have never, ever read anything about HOW a magnet atracts another magnet.

 

This just shows your ignorance of physics. Not only does it explain the attraction, it predicts the attraction and how strong it will be.

 

The thread theory is the only theory that explains this.

 

No, as I noted both QM and the "God did it" theory explain it. But the QM theory also predicts it.

[Bignose]

If that is the case, than the "God did it" theory is superior to your theory because it explains more things.

 

As I wrote above -- it isn't God, it isn't QM, it's unicorns! Sheesh!

 

Hmmmmm, if only there were some method by which such debates could be settled.... because all three sure are logical. Oh well....

[swansont]

So you guys don't think these threads exist?

 

I dont see how QM explains attraction and repulsion. I have never, ever read anything about HOW a magnet atracts another magnet. The thread theory is the only theory that explains this.

 

I'm sure some people find argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance convincing.