Cop>17 Here's Why This Result Was Predicted

[witsend]

My email acount is limited in size. I think it is better if you host it on 4shared or filefactory.

I'll have to pass here sucahyo. Have no idea how to do this.

[witsend]

energy levels in atoms and in stars

I'm going over this again in the hopes that I can make the point clearer.

So. Very simply - imagine the typical shape of your average hydrogen atom with the proton at its centre and thin plates of energy levels surrounding the structure.

Now. Back to symmetries. The quark of the proton is held bound by it's own field of zipons. Let's say they have a clockwise justification. Therefore, for symmetry - exactly the same number of zipons would have formed the first 'energy level'. That spin will oppose the binding zipon field. So if the binding field here at the heart of the atom is clockwise - its correspoding energy level will be anticlockwise. Then to the pion. If it's binding fields are anticlockwise, it's corresponding energy level will be clockwise. Then to the gluon. If it's binding fields are clockwise, then its corresponding energy level will be anticlockwise. And the number required for symmetry? The number of zipons in each energy level would precisely correspond to the number of zipons that are binding those composite 'truants' that make up the proton.

Now. This would mean that all these fields - those energy levels that are on the outer boundaries of the hydrogen atom will all be spinning anticlockwise. So then. Charge is determined by the direction of the particle in a magnetic field. What I've proposed is that charge is determined by the particle in the magnetic field - depending on this justification. If all these extraneous fields are all spinning in the same direction then they are 'like' charged. They'll oppose each other. But they've been forced - by the pressure of those 'strings' inside the toroid - towards the centre of the toroid. They've been forced into the 'same' or 'shared' locality. Yet their intrinsic 'charge' characteristics are opposing.

But there are many disassociated zipons in that nebula. They move to a condition of 'charge balance'. It's an immutable imperative. They needs must. So more of these disassociated zipons then move towards that area of experienced charge imbalance. They move in and hold those hydrogen atoms together. Their number is precisely equal to the number of bonds that are required. But the problem becomes compounded. To balance the anticlockwise 'like' charge they establish a field that spins 'clockwise'. But all their fields therefore become 'clockwise'. Therefore instead of neutralising or balancing the field they simply change the first opposing charge to a second opposing charge. And instead of being able to 'settle' into a cold/fast field state they remain hot and slow and perpetually agitated as they attempt to align those particles into some kind of balanced charge condition. Therefore that sun is hot.

But that intrinsic charge imbalance is then discovered by other zipons - the 'twin' of the first zipon that moved in to try and neutralise the star. This twin spins in an opposite direction. They join in and systematicallly generate energy levels for the stars in the exact same way that the hydrogen atom first formed its own energy levels to balance the truants in the proton.

[witsend]

sucahyo - I really need to illustrate this but am too busy this morning. I'll try this afternoon.

[witsend]

Not such a good illustration and I've made a mistake. The pion energy level should be opposed to the Gluon's. The inner 'quark' energy level just looks confused. I tried to illustrate a three part division of this for the three quark structures. Anyway. Hopefully it gives the idea of the required energy levels. My next one will be to show the energy levels outside the nucleus - which are actually the only energy levels known by mainstream. The energy levels within the nucleus are simply required for this thesis.

[witsend]

Back To Gravity

Gravity - in terms of this thesis is the 'pressure' of strings of magnetic fields on particulate and atomic matter which applies a lateral 'force' to move that matter at 90 degrees towards the centre of the field. That's it.

But gravity, in terms of this thesis only imparts a direction or justification. In effect, gravity is the sum of the charge of magnetic fields against the sum of the 'charge' of particulate matter.

Now back to those orbits. Bear in mind that the primary field is all encompassing. Therefore - whatever manifests inside a field can only experience that single justification. In effect, particulate and atomic matter senses a single charge from that field of aether.

Neutrinos, photons and electrons interact directly with the strings in these aether fields. They are moved through the strings by interacting with those strings. Photons therefore move in a straight line through the neutral arms. Electrons are held bound by their inner truant and they 'skip' across the strings (like the photons and neutrinos) and 'against' the strings - alternately, thereby setting up a bidirectional path - which results in an orbit (of sorts). But your proton - or hydrogen atom - is a self-contained system that no longer interacts directly with the field. The strings from the aether cannot penetrate it. But it can wrap around that structure. The aether has a single charge. The orbiting external magnetic fields of the hydrogen's energy levels are, at their least, bidirectional. One half therefore always OPPOSES the charge of that aether field. It is repelled or 'shifted' towards the neutral position of the field. That neutral position is in the centre of the field. Therefore matter gravitates towards the centre of a magnetic field.

[witsend]

The Weight Of Gravity

The thesis proposes that gravity only imparts or imposes a direction on matter. It moves objects - from as small as the 'atom' upwards - towards the centre of a gravitational field.

In terms of this model, just as one magnetic field cannot penetrate another, so the primary field cannot penetrate secondary or tertiary fields. And secondary fields cannot penetrate tertiary fields. It is proposed that tertiary fields bind matter together. The glue of the universe. They're the smallest of these fields and they simply find 'abodes' inside amalgams that are larger than an atom. They hold molecules together and arrange the charge of that molecule - in the system seen and known as co-valent bonding. They distribute mass in terms of its charge and then - depending on the condition of that binding they either disappear - into a cold/fast/small state - such as in the average bound condition of a brick, or rock or kettle - or anything at all - or they remain broken and agitated and hot - such as in a star structure where they cannot hold to a 'field structure' but continually vary that bound condition.

It is proposed that all matter is held bound by these fields. Therefore the biggest collection of such fields would be the structure of the solid material of the earth itself. In effect it is held bound by isolated small linkages - these tertiary magnetic fields which, in turn, are held fast in the centre of a primary magnetic field. On our earth that primary field is the earth's own own toroidal magnetic field. If and when a planet has no self-generated magnetic field - then it is held in the grips of one or more energy levels from its sun - that holds it bound in an orbiting path - but the directional path now determined by the justification of those energy levels.

That much matter bound in our earth makes for a really big collection of tiny little magnets - each with varied direction but all of them orbiting and, being magnets, all of them linked through their proximity to all that matter that makes up our material earth.

This is the 'force' that lends 'weight' to a fallen object. The example I use is this. Fill one tennis ball with stones and then simultaneously drop both this and an 'empty' tennis ball. Both will land at the same time. But try and lift them and the ball filled with stones will have a stronger 'pull' to the earth's magnetic fields than the other. It will be heavier. This 'pull' is determined by the added mass in that ball which has a corresponding attraction to the 'mass' of our earth. That mass is purely the result of a magnetic attraction of that added mass. It gives weight to the fallen object that was simply first moved by the magnetic or gravitational fields. Therefore the 'weight' of any amalgam is proposed to be the result of tertiary fields responding to other tertiary fields holding amalgams bound.

In effect the apparent gravitational effect that results in the movement of amalgams through space, is from primary and secondary magnetic fields. The property of 'weight' is imparted as a measure of the mass of an amalgam determined by the amount of 'fields' - tertiary magnetic fields - that hold that mass in a bound condition.

[witsend]

That's It Folks.

I think I've finished this thread. I need to make some small points which I'll add when and as they occur to me. Sucahyo - please give me more questions if things are not fully explained yet. And I'll do some diagrams to show the movement of matter inside primary fields and why our earth's magnetic field is also a 'primary' field.

This little thesis tells much about magnetic fields which, if it's right - then it should be possible to make a magnetic monopole and, indeed, we are planning to do just this. I'll let you know more when I have some diagrams ready. It also suggests the requirements for a 'closed' system which should be self-perpetuating. But that depends on the level of understanding and I'm not at all sure that I've made any of this clear yet.

Happy to answer question. I see many readers here but am not sure how many of you are also members. If you want to know more then email me.

ainslie@mweb.co.za

[witsend]

To cover some quick notes regarding correspondence of this thesis to KNOWN effects.

- reconciles the mass/size ratio of the proton/electron
- reconciles all known properties of the proton
- reconciles all known properties of the strong nuclear force
- reconciles all known properties of the weak nuclear force
- reconciles all known properties of gravity
- reconciles all known properties of current flow
- introduces and reconciles the thermodynamic properties within matter

AT QUESTION
- universe would need to be a closed system
- dark matter would be defined as tertiary magnetic fields
- widely held consensus on universal expansion would be challenged
- all particles would need to be composites of a single magnetic dipole
- all stable particles would require a quark structure
- the thesis suggests an alternate universe of antimatter
- the 'three fold' nature of magnetic fields being primary, secondary and tertiary.
- the casimir effect 'writ large' as being the source of 'weight'
- the bound condition of the proton with energy levels trapping the gluon, pion and quark structures
- the fact that energy levels are ascribed to orbiting 2 dimensional secondary fields
- matter is held bound by 1 dimensional magnetic fields that moves that matter
- therefore ALL energy is dependant these three aspects of magnetic fields.
- 'black holes' can be ascribed to dense magnetic fields that unravel matter back into strings into the primary field.
- 'weight' depends on proximity to mass and has nothing to do with the movement and direction imposed on matter - by primary and secondary magnetic fields.

[witsend]

For those 'inventors' - here's the thing. If this analysis of energy is correct then all is magnetic and all is created from a single magnetic dipole. Lots of them. Broadly the proposal is that they separate into fields and these fields are singular - in tertiary or binding fields therefore one dimensional. Or they are secondary or 'plate shaped' which are found within our atomic energy levels - which are two dimensional. And finally, the primary magnetic fields - which take a toroidal shape and which, in turn, are three dimensional. All such fields are proposed to be self-sustaining. They move forever. They are perpetually mobile.

But all these fields move at twice the speed of light and are, therefore, out of 'range' of our measuring instruments. We're constrained to measure things within light speed because light is also our fastest measure. The first three dimensions comprise these magnetic fields that move at speeds that exceed our time dimensions. Therefore they have their own time dimension. Then we have our measurable universe - described by Einstein and our classicists. That's also three dimensional space, shared with our magnetic fields - but it has its own time dimension which 'drags' behind the time frame of the fields - that 'zipon moment'. Then we have the dimensions of the quark which are outside our space dimensions but these dimensions have no spatial dimensions. But they share out own dimensions of time. So. Four dimensions to the first 'reality' of magnetic fields - then four dimensions to the second 'reality' of our universe structured from measurable matter - and two to the hidden quark dimensions that are out of range of even the magnetic fields. That's a total of 10 dimensions. Therefore one can argue that the entire universe comprises 10 dimensions structured from a single magnetic dipole. A universe as a 10 dimensional binary system.

The 'reality' or the universe that we know - is the universe according to Einstein. And here's the problem. That universe is subject to invisible forces and this project has simply pointed to the fact that the apparent energy available in this visible universe always and only ever comes from the invisible. It comes from those hidden fields where the strong nuclear force, the weak force, and gravity are ascribed to pure magnetic fields that move matter in line with immutable imperatives. It is organised on a profound level and responds to a need for 'charge distribution' and balance that - over time - becomes perfectly determined.

The question is this. If these fields are the 'aether fields' and if they are - themselves - perpetually mobile - then how can these forces be actively induced to generate 'perpetual mobility' within our own time frames? This answered and we would then have the secret to 'boundless energy'. We would then be able to liberate energies on a scale that has, heretofore, been unknown.

The intention now is to try and define the parameters required for just this event.

[witsend]

The Holy Grail

So then. Let's look at what does move 'in perpetuum'.

- an electron orbiting the atomic energy levels
- planets moving around their suns
- stars moving inside galaxies
- galaxies moving through space

In fact EVERYTHING moves perpetually - only and unless it's held in a comparative 'rest state' inside a gravity field - or, as has been proposed here - inside a toroidal magnetic field. Then it seems that a combination of magnetic forces can, theoretically, hold matter in a grip that depends on the mass of that matter and the mass of the field where it is at rest.

So then. What is the nature of an electron? Essentially it always presents a single charge. We - in these classical Einsteinian dimensions - only ever see an electron with a single charge. Therefore, is it reasonable to propose that given a 'single charge' or a 'magnetic monopole' that we would be able to position that monopole inside a primary or a secondary magnetic field to get it to 'spin eternally'.

It is not difficult to construct a magnetic monopole. It's only expensive. Essentially all it needs is symmetry and a single exposed charge. This can be constructed. Here's the recipe. Take your average magnetisable material. Shape it into a sphere. Divide that sphere into equal parts - like a soccer ball. Cut through that surface shape in a diminished line to the centre of that sphere. Then when you have that first magnetisable crystal cast as many of those shapes as are required to make a sphere. Then magnetise each part - north at the broad surface, south at the sharp base. Then put those parts together to form a sphere. Then hold that structure bound in some material that is not magnetiseable - glass - rope - cotton - whatever.

Then put that sphere inside a toroid - another magentic pipe that has a hollow in the centre. Then either let it loose and see if it will orbit inside that 'pipe'. Alternatively, hold it on an axis and see if it will spin. Either or both of these options may work.

If it does spin - either axially or in orbit - (or both) then it conclusively proves that the electron is held bound inside energy levels and that those energy levels are magnetic.

If it spins then the changing magnetic fields inside that toroid should induce an electric field provided only that some closed circuit wire is in the required proximity to experience those changes. That - in terms of the laws of induction - should generate a perpetual current flow.

Surely this is within the budget and experimental skills of some readers here to try and duplicate? I do hope so.

COPYRIGHT RESERVED

[sucahyo]

Nice .

Classical theory use electron volt as the smallest electricity unit. How small is zipon volt compare to electron volt?

[witsend]

Nice .

Glad you like it.

Classical theory use electron volt as the smallest electricity unit. How small is zipon volt compare to electron volt?

No such thing as a 'zipon volt'. The thesis proposes that all voltages are the result of a 'field of zipons'. Take the zipon out of the field and you get that hot slow big state - which is 'fire'. Leave it in the field and it can generate current flow - another field of zipons. But - as the thesis is that as my zipons simply replace the 'electron current flow' theory - then my zipon volt would be precisely equivalent to your electron volt. Same thing. Just mainstream's incorrect assumption that the voltage relates to the electron. You see. I'm quite presumptuous. LOL

[sucahyo]

I see. So the smallest voltage unit is still based on electron volt?

Each zipon has voltage similar to electron? and thus the number of zipon on one atom is proportional with the number of electrons?

[witsend]

I see. So the smallest voltage unit is still based on electron volt?

Right.

Each zipon has voltage similar to electron? and thus the number of zipon on one atom is proportional with the number of electrons?

Sort of. Zipons make up an electron - proton and all particles. 3 = electron - 9 = proton 2 = photon. More zipons work in fields INSIDE THE ATOM. Those are the atoms' energy levels. Then More zipons link one atom to another. Those are the invisibe 'dark matter' fields that bind matter. Those LINKS are 1 dimensional fields. The energy levels are 2 dimensional fields. And our earth and the universe is proposed to have toroidal or 3 dimensional fields.

[sucahyo]

Ok, thanks.

Can you give explanation for right hand rule of electric current flow and magnetic field?