Cop>17 Here's Why This Result Was Predicted

[witsend]

So back to magnets. They will always conjoin with other magnets and, given ideal circumstances, the north of one magnet will conjoin to the south of another. That's its strongest connection. So these magnetic dipoles may align north to south. That means they'd all line up to make a string. But if the string were to stay 'open' with the first and last magnetic dipole somehow unconnected - then that string would not be strong. It's best - it's most symmetrical arrangement would be to form a loop where the last magnet in the string would join up with the first magnet in that string. And that would then describe a closed loop or a circle. This is in line with Faraday's 'lines of force' which he used to conceptualise the shape of the field.

[witsend]

And another point about magnets. They always move in a straight line away from or towards another magnet - depending on their polar or charge positions. This indicates that they also obey the laws of charge. In the same way it is proposed that these magnetic dipoles also obey the laws of charge.

It has been proposed that the magnetic dipoles are moving at pace - so much so that light itself cannot find them. In as much as it is proposed that they form closed strings then these strings must be orbiting - and orbiting at some extreme velocity that outpaces a photon. Something more than 300 000 kilometers per second. But more to the point. If the north stays north and the south stays south then those fields must also be orbiting in the same direction. To keep to that coherence of charge that is evident in a magnetic field then there must also be a shared justification. They must thereby move in synch and in step always from the north and to the south and then through the magnet from the south and to the north - and so on. Forever.

But why move at all? Could it be that the field is somehow steady and having reached a rest state - some condition of perfectly balanced charge distribution then the field simply becomes static? This would conflict with the evidence. If the field were static we would be able to find those particles. Light would, of necessity bounce off them in some way to expose them. Therefore it is proposed that it is their velocity combined with their size that renders them invisible. So the question then is what is it in the field that renders it unable to reach this 'rest state'.

[witsend]

And here we return to those laws of charge. If the strings themselves have a perfect charge distribution being north to south - head to toe - all the way along the length of each circle then the adjacent strings would also have that same distribution. If the one magnetic dipole were aligned with an adjacent string where its magnetic dipole corresponded with that of the first string - then the two norths and the two souths - placed as they would be, shoulder to shoulder, would repel each other. The one may move away from that 'like charge' and in moving it also moves all the magnetic dipoles in that string. This need to adjust and re-adjust would involve a cascading series of interactions that would propel all the strings in the entire field to continually orbit. In effect the field, compring more than one closed string of orbiting magnetic dipoles may be compelled to continually adjust its position and the combined effect would induce that extraordinary velocity that keeps the particles themselves from detection by light.

[witsend]

Which all seems to indicate much about a magnetic field but says nothing about the relevance to current flow. Indulge me. I have tried to describe current flow in isolation and the exercise failed. It seems the links in these arguments are required.

As a brief overview it's been proposed that a magnetic field may comprise magnetic dipolar tachyons that orbit in coherent and structured fields that comprise strings that conjoin to form circles which then orbit with a single justification. These particles obey the laws of charge.

Now I need to reference the actual orbit itself and must do so with reference to Bell's theorems. I know nothing about the math. All I understand with perfect clarity - is his conclusion. 'The statistical predictions of the quantum theories ...cannot be upheld with local hidden variables.' What this says is that unless there is some perfect symmetry - something that is invariably applied at the most profound and elementary level - then quantum mechanics would have failed. And it has not failed. Their predictions are precisely accurate in all aspects and to extraordinary degrees of accuracy. Therefore the question is this. What is that 'invariable' condition of the field that calls for the consistency required to make quantum theories so accurate?

[witsend]

And as suggested in the previous paragraph, this is related to the effect of an orbiting field and the relationship of each particle in the field. In effect it describes a symmetry that is really jolly profound. The particles would all be moving in one direction or with a single justification. This justification relates to the charge of the field. Always forwards, never backwards, always right to left or left to right. Never does it move in two directions - else there would not be the clear distinction between the north and south poles of a permanent magnet and these two properties are always perfectly defined.

But the orbit itself holds a paradox. There is that within an orbit that suggests perfect neutrality. If one drew a line through the centre of an orbiting magnetic field - anywhere at all - and provided it always goes through the centre of the field, then one half on the orbit would precisely oppose the other half. If one half goes forwards the other half goes backwards. If the one half is moving to the left the other is moving to the right. This suggests that the field is neutral but the justification of each magnetic dipole also presupposes a 'charge' property - or a single direction in space. So any magnetic field would also have a perfect charge distribution and that would render the field neutral. But its particles, assuming they comprise the field, would in fact be charged. Each part of the field is therefore charged. Yet the entire field is also entirely neutral.

[witsend]

According to Bell, quatum theories need an underlying symmetry or some fundamental rule that is required - else their sums wouldn't work. I've said this before. What is now evident is that the magnetic field may provide just such a uniform field - a single particle moving in one direction inside an orbiting string with many such strings making that field. There is certainly a breathtaking symmetry - not only to the strings, but in their inter relationship with each particle and with each particle in that bigger field. Just a whole lot of necklaces of magnetic dipoles spinning in space and moving at speed and simply distributing their particles in a really balanced way to ensure that the whole field has a balanced charge.

Now I need to suggest something else. Let us assume that 'in the beginning' there was nothing but this great big toroid - a whole universe of these particles. Imagine, if you will, that each string is so long that it wraps around and inside all of space. It takes the shape of an enormous toroid and this is the boundary, so to speak, of all that is or was. Just a great big magnetic field. The question is this. What would happen then if through some chance event one of those dipoles separated from each other and became free moving magnetic monopoles? Or what would happen if one of those strings broke - or if God Himself reached in and simply snipped one of those necklaces apart? Here's the proposal. Those little dipoles are simply little magnets. They'd be somehow expelled from that very uniform arrangement - that balanced condition inside the toroid - and the string would simply tumble together, like the magnets they are - and they would congregate in some form or some condition that no longer was able to 'manage' that orbit - that uniform charge distribution - in the initial magnetic field. In effect it would generate a 'singularity' and it would result in something that looks like a nebula.

[witsend]

And then the next question? What form would those dipoles take once they are outside the whole of the field? To get to this answer I need to digress. Just for now - imagine that we have a machine that throws stones. Here's the rule. The force of the throw is constant. And there are no extraneous conditions of air resistance or wind or anything at all. It throws these stones inside a vacuum. That means, that all things being equal, then the bigger the stone the shorter the distance thrown. And conversely, the smaller the stone the further the distance thrown. That's logical. I'll get back to this point. But what I actually need to first concentrate on is an 'interactive constraint'. If the stone were too big then the machine could not lift it to throw it. And in the same way, if the stone was too small then the machine could not detect it to throw it. That's what the model refers to as a boundary constraint. The condition of size would threby limit the interactive capability of the machine. In the same way I'm proposing that if these little magnets in a broken string - tumbled out of the field and congregated into vast nebulae then what makes them visible and would it then be 'out of range' or 'outside the boundary constraint' of the magnetic dipoles in the field surrounding the nebula?

[witsend]

I acknowledge that I've made some extraordinary leaps of logic. We do not know that the universe is toroidal or that it is structured by strings of magnetic dipoles. There may, in fact, be no associative relationship to nebulae with this 'background' structure. But I am only suggesting 'what if'? And - along these lines of argument - I am then proposing that, in as much as we can see nebulae - we can even determine if they comprise mostly iron, or hydrogen, or space dust - or anything at all. Whole stars have been seen spinnng away from those clouds, clearly having been manufactured from inside the nebula which seems to be some vast, really vast collection of disassociated matter - a kind of farm, or seeding ground of suns and maybe even whole galaxies.

Back to the question. What then makes this matter visible and readable while the magnetic field, assuming that there is one in the background, remains entirely invisible?

[witsend]

Just to recap. The proposal is that light is the boundary limit of our measurable dimensions. I've argued that if something is both smaller and faster than light itself it cannot find it and it is therefore invisible to photons. The question now is what would happen when a string is broken and all those little magnetic dipoles congregate together? The first obvious consequence is that they would lose that orbital velocity. If they now become relatively stationary in space - then light would be able to interact with that 'relatively' stationary - or slower moving - particle and we would 'know' of it's existence. It would no longer be outside the boundary of our measurable dimensions. At its least it would have to be slower and bigger which suggests that it was first smaller and faster. Therefore the proposal is that there is an inverse proportional relationship between velocity and mass, or this case, 'volume'. Again. It would suggest that the bigger the particle, the slower it's velocity. And conversely, the smaller the particle the greater its velocity. Decrease in velocity would transmute to increase in volume (or mass) and increase in velocity would transmute to a decrease in volume (or mass). And this also suggests that the actual quantity of potential energy in each particle is fixed. It is only its expression that varies in relation to its volume. And that, in turn, may render it either visible or invisible within the constraints of light speed which is the limit to our measurable dimensions.

[witsend]

So. I think I've covered the main postulates needed to relate this to the 'extra energy' that I've pointed to and that has also been proven in the experimental evidence. From hereon I'll mainly refer to the conclusions of the model rather than the thinking that led to the conclusions. The model actually now goes into a justification for composites of these magnetic dipoles making stable particles and I will spare you the arguments as they are only relevant to the possible proof of these proposals to the field model. This, because it was possible to explain the difference in the size ratios of the proton to the electron.

To start with - I have proposed that the magnetic field is hidden. We cannot see it. We can only see how particles and various other matter react to it. I've then proposed that, in point of fact the field may comprise particles and that these particles move in a field and that they move at velocities in excess of light speed. When they lose the integrity of the field they become manifest in our dimensions and they lose their velocity at the expense of their invisibility. But what exactly are they? And how can I prove this?

[witsend]

I would like, for now to sort of work backwards. I'll go from a known effect and analyse that in terms of known science and then get into a discussion about the effect. Let us, for now look at how a stick of wood burns. Apply an initial flame or apply friction to generate a spark and all things being equal - given enough oxygen in the air - then the stick will gradually decay from its bound condition to a pile of disassociated carbon atoms - possibly some trace minerals - and it may release moisture as steam into the air together with some gas atoms or molecules. Some carbon atoms may also be released into the air and combine with other atoms, such as oxygen to form various molecules and, in some cases - compounds. That fire, or flame, is understood widely to be the result of a chemical reaction. That's its known classical definition.

[witsend]

And far be it from me to argue this. But. What has actually happened? What has changed a perfectly identifiable stick into a pile of ash that bears little if any resemblance to the stick it once was - this shadow of its former self, so to speak? Something bound those atoms together - some interaction - some chemistry - enabled the production of starch and sugars by the plant to provide energy that then enabled this mystical growth of a bud to a twig to a stick. And then a disturbance. The stick ingnited. And now all we have left is a handfull of carbon atoms that have not escaped into the air together with some moisture and gases. Essentially the atoms have not changed. Some may have recombined into molecules. But all that has actually happened is that the previously bound state of the twig is now reduced to these disassociated atoms.

And in terms of classical theory - the amount of energy that was first applied to 'grow' the bud to a twig to a stick, precisely that amount of energy was now liberated to unbundle or disconnect those atoms from that bound 'stick' state to this unbound 'ash' and atomic or molecular state. It took x amount of energy to first be bound, then it took the same amount of energy to become unbound. But what actually was that energy?

[witsend]

What we know about the atom is that it is comprises a nucleus, energy levels, and a distribution of electrons in those energy levels that, in turn, relates to the number of protons in its nucleus. The difference in those numbers of electrons to protons, corresponds to the differences between all atoms. And these have been scheduled in the periodic table. We know nothing about the actual constituent make up of those energy levels. The model proposes that these energy levels simply comprise orbiting fields of magnetic dipoles that belong to the atom in the same way that orbiting magnetic dipoles belong to a permanent bar magnet. They are an intrinsic property of each atom and their numbers and the number of energy levels also corresponds to that atomic number. In other words, these energy levels precisely reflect the charge distribution of the atom. And this, in turn, would reflect the ionisation of that atom. Imbalanced electrons - either too many or too few, would also indicate an imbalance in the energy levels.

[witsend]

This model proposes that yet more fields are extraneous to the atomic struture. It binds the atoms by interacting with the atomic energy leves. They are themselves simply magnetic fields that have somehow become disassociated from the surrounding magnetic fields of our earth and they have entered into the body of living twig and they simply hold the atoms together. A stick is a complex life form. It has many varieties of cells. Each cell comprises uncountable numbers of atoms. The atoms in turn may form complex molecules and compounds. All I am pointing to here is that the cells themselves comprise atoms and molecules and the 'thing' that binds these atoms and molecules are precisely these extraneous invisible magnetic fields that move, always, to ensure a balanced charge distribution of the atoms inside an amalgam

[witsend]

Hi Guys,

Finally managed an upload. Had to reduce the numbers of frames so the talk over is a little out of synch. Anyway. Hope it helps.

YouTube - aetherevarising's Channel

I think that's it.

Thanks

EDIT - I think I've finally posted everything that's relevant. I'll get back here later on tonight. Thanks for your patience Guys. I also may need to redo this youtube number as the speach is way out of synch and it may be confusing. I'll just post shorter numbers in their appropriate posts and leave this one as is.