[witsend (OP)]

Here's the thing.  Those little fields that actually detach from the flux to bind the atoms in their early accretion stage.  That's the thing that QM does not accommodate.  That's all.  Just the fact that the binding of all amalgams is actually done by a field of 'little curly things' as you once described it.  If you add this to an atomic structure - extraneous to the energy levels, then you can account for the way that atoms retain their structure in amalgams. And a whole lot besides.  I'll list it after this post.

And by having zipons comprise energy levels, one can then see how they hold electrons that are ejected at the fusion of every new proton.  They trap them in an orbit because the electron always follows the path of these magnetic fields.  Their middle truant is 'hooked' into an antiphase spin with the magnetic fields, or energy levels - that do what all magnetic fields do.  They orbit.  So the electron orbits with the field.

Allow for this in all amalgams and you still get a correspondence with known measurements.  And the particles and atoms still do what we know they do.  They've just got the added property of magnetic fields to explain a whole lot of things.

[witsend (OP)]

Vern.  So here's some of the effects of having extraneous binding magnetic fields.  The casimir effect is proven.  It's shown in the bonding of metals on a really small scale.  These extraneous atomic fields, if indeed they exist as proposed, are simply really small magnets.  They'd be inclined to find a bonding condition provided that they can find a sympathetic alignment.  On small scale it's feasible.  And it's been proven.

But on the general effect of gravity.  Here's the thing.  Take two solid balls of anything.  Let's take one glass marble and one steel marble - both exactly the same size.  Drop them and they land at the same time.  But the steel weighs more than the marble.  My proposal is that the steel has more of these extraneous fields.  Therefore there's more to be attracted to the the mass of the earth.  And that mass, our earth is made up of exactly the same sort of bound amalgams all linked by these extraneous magnetic fields.  It could therefore be that the 'weight' kicks in because the more fields, the less inclined is the object to give up its rest or bonded state determined by its proximity to that great big amalgam.

Please ask me questions if any of this isn't clear.

[Vern]

Yes; I understand the concept. However, I don't see that the zipon universe explains more about nature than does established theory. []

[witsend (OP)]

I'll get there.  I'm just too tired again.  I'm going to get some supper.   If I'm up for it will post later.  Else I'll post in the morning.  Thanks Vern.  Glad you're still there.  You've no idea how this exercise exhausts me.  It's not the explaining.  It's that its SO important.

[Vern]

I'll get there.  I'm just too tired again.  I'm going to get some supper.   If I'm up for it will post later.  Else I'll post in the morning.  Thanks Vern.  Glad you're still there.  You've no idea how this exercise exhausts me.  It's not the explaining.  It's that its SO important.

I'll be watching for the important stuff. []

[witsend (OP)]

I'll be watching for the important stuff.Vern

Good.  Glad to see you're giving these ideas of mine due and proper consideration.  []

Ok.  So let me see if I can  WOW you.  Yet again you've got to follow some patterns.

You know how the earth has a magnetic field.  North South, say.  But the magnetic field actually orbits.  Only one half of the orbit is hidden inside the material of the earth itself.  That's what I refer to as 'broken symmetry'.  In other words, all those 'zipons' are simply moving in one direction - same distribution of charge still moving in strings - still head to toe, still with lateral correspondence between the strings.  BUT.  The other half of that orbit is shielded by the material of the earth itself.  That means that EVERYTHING on the surface of the earth only experiences one half of the 'charge' or 'justification' of the Earth's actual magnetic orbit. 

So having one justification it's charge or justification is say, South.  By comparison, I've proposed that all the atoms in all the amalgams that make up the surface material of the earth, are bound by atomically extraneous magnetic fields.  These little 'curly things' express a full orbit.  Its charge is neutral precisely because these little fields are precisely balanced.  Zero charge.  But it's actual justification or charge is north/south.  Because it orbits. You get the picture?  It's a full orbit so it has two inherently different justifications.  If draw a circle and put an arrow going north south, then the other side will be south north.  Same justification - but alternate charge. 

So, let's say that a stone is dropped from the top of the Empire State building.  Then it will be dropped through the Earth's magnetic fields.  And one half of the quantum of all its 'curly little things' at the surface of the stone, will conflict with the justification of the earth's magnetic fields.  It will always present a north/south justification.  So. 2 charges from the surface of the stone to 1 charge from the earth's magnetic field.  One half of the 'curlies' cancel out with 1 charge from the Earth's fields, leaving 1 charge or justification.  This - like the photon - would result in a repulsion or propulsion of the stone away from the greater field, the Earth's magnetic field, at an angle of 90 degrees.  Which means it would be propelled to the surface of the earth.

Now - if its charge was 1 and was the same as the earth's 1 then it would move in the same direction as the earth's fields and - given the right size - it would enter the south pole, fly through the centre of the earth and then extrude again at the north and repeat the cycle.  If its charge was 1 but in antiphase to the earth - then it would do the same thing but enter the North pole and exit the South.  And if it were antimatter it would move at 90 degrees but away from the surface of the earth.

Which means that this model proposes that magnetic fields are responsible for the effect of gravity. And they only interact with those magnetic fields that are on the surface of amalgams.  This means that in a curious way the 'volume' of the stone is the only thing that interacts with these fields.  Nothing to do with its weigth. In other words the magnetic fields determine the direction of the motion of that falling stone.

However, as mentioned in the previous post, what kicks in as the stone gets ever nearer the surface of the earth is it's experience of the attraction of those curly little things with the earth's curly little things.  Magnets attract.  And once it's grounded, then the attraction is strong.  And as mentioned, this 'pull' imparts the property of weight to the object. 

EDIT - that's the significance re gravity.  Still has all the evident properties of gravitational force - but with an entirely different explanation. 

[Vern]

You involve the earth's magnetic field with its gravity production; that can be consistent; but, what about planets that have no magnetic field? Mars and Venus don't have magnetic fields around them.

[witsend (OP)]

but, what about planets that have no magnetic field? Vern.

No such thing.  You need to get back to the picture of the star genesis from the nebulus.  That star accreted - courtesy of the zipons that bonded the atoms together.  Now.  Just as the hydrogen atom forms with energy levels made up of zipons - so, for perfect symmetry, the accreted star also has energy levels also from truants from the nebulus.

Here's the thing.  Those energy levels are simply closed system magnetic fields that hold the planets in their energy levels in exactly the same way as the electron is held in its energy level.  In other words, the energy levels of our sun are partially reflected by the orbits of its planets.  All such will have an induced magnetic field.  If, however, it also has its own magnetic field - then it may generate an axial spin as well as an orbit.  And it may then also support its own moons. Either way, these planetary bodies are bound in an orbit - not by an attraction to the sun, but by these undetectable smooth fields of zipons. 

[Vern]

Are you suggesting that we are mistaken about Mars and Venus not having a magnetic field; or is it that the planetary magnetic fields in the zipon universe are not detected by our measurements?

[witsend (OP)]

No.  No at all.  What I'm proposing is that there is an induced magnetic field - from the energy levels.  In other words, this smooth, neutral field of zipons have one overriding property.  Unless they have 'broken symmetries' - I'll give you more examples later, then they are entirely undetectable.  They simply interact with the superficial 'curly little things' at the surface of all the planets.  Very much like our own magnetic fields interact with matter on the earth.  We can't find those extraneous fields because they're pefectly neutral and very small.  In the same way the neutrality of the field of orbiting zipons from an energy level is absolute.  It is balanced in every which way and from every direction.  It simply forever moves - and moves in the background.

EDIT the reason we know our earth has a magnetic field is because it's got broken symmetry.  We only know of one charge.  If there were two we'd never know it had a magnetic field.

[Vern]

Okay; I can get that vision. []

[witsend (OP)]

Vern.  I need you to fit this in to known science.  But I don't think there's anything proposed, thus far, that conflicts with observed realities.  I need the zipon when I get to current flow, superluminal communication (I can see you wince)  [] and the the electromagnetic interaction.  But I just want to point out the thing about fire.  I'm assuming you haven't read it in my blog.

Here's the idea.  If these little zipons bind matter, and if their symmetries get broken by friction or some such then they'll also unravel.  Exactly as that great string in the cosmos unravels to form a nebulus.  But the difference is that these truants would lose velocity - gain mass - become visible.  They're neutral and follow each other's path.  The flame would grow.  And.  As the fields unravel they cluster into that flame - like a mini nebulus. But when that flame has expended its energy as a manifest truant - it will lose mass, regain velocity and slip back into the greater field.  In this instance it would be the Earth's magnetic fields.  And since they probably came from the earth's field at the time of manufacture, then they simply go home, so to speak.

This means that the bound condition of the amalgam will be compromised by the loss of these binding fields.  And you'd be left with nothing but the atom.  Still consistent with observed and measured reality. 


I think that's it.  I'm going to try and get some sleep.  My dogs need to be taken out first.  We're blasted by arctic gales.  We live in Cape Town. It's beautiful most of the time.  But come winter it's beauty is hidden by pretty consistent mist, fog rain.  But I love it - except for those times I have to take the dogs out.  And its my chore - because I'm the only one who cares for them.  If I died, I think they would die from neglect.

[Vern]

Vern.  I need you to fit this in to known science.

There is very little chance of fitting your concepts into known science. Established theories at present are Quantum Mechanical. Quantum Electrodynamics enjoyed great success, now I think Quantum Field Theory is becoming more popular. From all I can understand of your concepts, they are far removed from those. [] I discount string theory; I don't see it going anywhere.

I like alternative ideas. They are fun to think about. But when we get down to making aeroplanes and ships and bridges and even weapons of war, we need to use established rules that we know work.

[witsend (OP)]

Couldn't resist reading and answering your last post.  You're looking for simple solutions.  I know this.  I read all your posts.  What could be simpler than mine?  And I think it may have some modest applications including cheap energy!!! 

Any way, Good night Vern.  And, yet again, many thanks for all your help.  I see the amazing work you do through this forum.  Does anyone ever acknowledge it?

 []

[jerrygg38]

Couldn't resist reading and answering your last post.  You're looking for simple solutions.  I know this.  I read all your posts.  What could be simpler than mine?  And I think it may have some modest applications including cheap energy!!! 

Any way, Good night Vern.  And, yet again, many thanks for all your help.  I see the amazing work you do through this forum.  Does anyone ever acknowledge it?

 []

I appreciate the effort Vern makes.

[jerrygg38]

Vern.  I need you to fit this in to known science.

There is very little chance of fitting your concepts into known science. Established theories at present are Quantum Mechanical. Quantum Electrodynamics enjoyed great success, now I think Quantum Field Theory is becoming more popular. From all I can understand of your concepts, they are far removed from those. [] I discount string theory; I don't see it going anywhere.

I like alternative ideas. They are fun to think about. But when we get down to making aeroplanes and ships and bridges and even weapons of war, we need to use established rules that we know work.

You have over one million physicists in the world today. You have the brightest minds, the best memories, the greatest team efforts. Who could compete with that?

  The only reason I attempt to compete with the greatest minds is due to an encounter in 1981. Was it true? Was it pure insanity? The only thing I could do was study the limited data I got and true to determine if it is wrong.
  After 28 years I cannot say that the data is wrong. The big problem is that there are so many variations and possibilities.

  So the question is why does W believe that she can contribute something to this very complex field filled with the most brilliant of people? My reason is an encounter with an intelligence field. What could hers be???

[witsend (OP)]

You have over one million physicists in the world today. You have the brightest minds, the best memories, the greatest team efforts. Who could compete with that?Jerrygg38


I can.  And I don't have brains.  I just have an edge.  So does everyone who tries to work out problems for themselves.  If you only hear one side of an argument there's no discussion.  The trained scientist has only heard one side of an argument supported, he believes by empirical proof. Well.  I of all people know how anxious the scientific community are to test their hypotheses Laws, and general paradigms.  I have seen how happy they are to look at empirical proof in experimental data.   I have a really, really simple electric circuit that repeatedly delivers energy efficiencies that boggle the mind and blow the unity barrier into the dark ages.  If empirical proof is everything - THEN GO TEST IT.

Read through the thread again on that circuit.  Where did all that critical arrogance come from?  I only asked people to check some numbers out.  And the sad part is - THAT reaction is typical.  Par for the course.  It seems that one can question anything in this world today.  We've finally enjoyed a sort of inalienable, international, constitutional right to speak our minds.  We can question the existence of God.  We can question the wisdom of our leaders.  And we can even question justice.  These are really subtle things that call for really subtle concepts and absurdly abstract qualifications.  And very often they reach into the actual soul structure of a person, they matter so much.  So it also tests ones tolerance.  But DO NOT DARE QUESTION A SCIENTIST.  Then objectivity flies out the window and you get a display of testosterone more typically confined to bulls in a rutting season. 

Fortunately there are also those out there who still like to look at alternative ideas.  I just wish they'd also look at alternative experiments. 

[witsend (OP)]

So the question is why does W believe that she can contribute something to this very complex field filled with the most brilliant of people? My reason is an encounter with an intelligence field. What could hers be???Jerrygg38

Nothing quite so exotic.  The only exotic thing I do believe in is superluminal communication - because I have personal experience of it.  I sort of knew the moment when my husband was killed.  That was many, many years ago.  I want to hear more about this experience of yours.  But I think that BenV and - more to the point Sophiecentaur will object to any such discussion in a science forum.  Can you please tell us about it - and then point out where the thread is?  I think it's allowed in the Chat section, or some such. 

I also want to know about that dream of 5 dimensions.  It sounds amazing.  Where did you post that thread? EDIT Sorry. I should have said which thread did you post that in? EDIT  In fact, for any language purists, I should have said 'in which thread did you post it'?   

EDIT

Sorry Jerrygg38 - back to that question.  Are you actually implying that I have no RIGHT to question scientific paradigms as I am neither trained nor brilliant?  Surly not.  If I have a mission in life it is to explore my own logical faculties, - clusmy as they are.  And let these faculties take me where they will.  I sincerely believe that I must find my own answers.  And better still my own questions.  And if ever stop exploiting this God given property of curiosity and the challenging logic that it confronts, then what am I?  I may not be equal to the task.  But I'm up for the challenge.  I think my human condition makes me better than a plant, with due respect to the entire botanical universe.  Plants seem to keep thinking to a minimum?  Ants do a sort of collective number?  People - on the other hand - can argue and question and test. Quite apart from which - it's such an exciting journey.

And, since I'm so free with my opinion I can only hope that it amuses readers or that they find it interesting.  Either way.  I'm happy. I'm only sorry when it offends them.

[Vern]

Couldn't resist reading and answering your last post.  You're looking for simple solutions.  I know this.  I read all your posts.  What could be simpler than mine?  And I think it may have some modest applications including cheap energy!!! 

Any way, Good night Vern.  And, yet again, many thanks for all your help.  I see the amazing work you do through this forum.  Does anyone ever acknowledge it?

 []

I am really just playing here; and it is fun; no need for acknowledgement. I think I already mentioned it, but using a tuned circuit for air conditioner motors has saved many billions already. We went a lot of years without that tuned capacitor in the circuit. Now days, the wrong size capacitor will cause the motor to overheat.

So, it is possible you may have some efficiency gain by coupling inductive kick back into the battery powering a circuit. In my experience it will always be less energy than it took to charge the inductor.

[witsend (OP)]

So, it is possible you may have some efficiency gain by coupling inductive kick back into the battery powering a circuit. In my experience it will always be less energy than it took to charge the inductor. Vern

I sort of tried to highlight those phrases and words that might not be entirely commendable scientifically.  Surely it is in the interests of good science to test ALL foundational concepts.  And, equally, surely nothing is better than a really good question?  Here's mine.  Why NOT build the circuit?  And why NOT test it?

Anyway.  I'm not really that phased.  I'm just so, so sorry that your pre-determined opinion on the matter may forever prevent you from finding the answer.  Just really glad that you're around to argue my curly little things.

There's a really bright Professor - I don't think I should give out his name.  He mentions this 'EFFECT' in a publication on electronics.  It's a sort of bible on the subject.  In any event.  He himself, knew of the effect - but did not know of the benefit.  He simply ignored the effect because it was easily stabilised by applying pressure - any sort - to the wire.

But - I only mention this as it's an enduring regret.  I intend coming back to this subject when I get onto current flow.  Whenever that is.