Energy and Polarity

[Aromaz]

Confusion ?

@ witsend (and All);

Sorry for the possible confusion between my postings #183,184 and 185.

My personal real view on the question asked right on top of this page (#181) is reflected in posting #185. Though my postings # 183 and #184 are true in great sense, it I to show the ability of us using a part of the knowledge and build a theory around that; sounding completely valid – and can mostly be proven by existing experiments. That is what I am calling “Accountant syndrome”. Do not get me wrong, I love accountants and I am using them every day; however I also know accounting myself and I know how the same numbers can be manipulated to present three different pictures in any business.

That is the danger we have with Theory; we must be on the lookout for the other options too; and see how the same answers we have at present, could possibly indicate a complete different phenomena.

[Aromaz]

Back to serious Theory.

Often we state that we know and we understand a certain phenomena.

However, I am sure the majority of us that make such statements do not REALLY understand what is happening. We always think we know how things work, but do we really know? Here is just one related everyday example:

HEAT EXPANSION
We all know that when we increase the temperature of matter, such matter expands. That expansion means the actual atom gets bigger and the space between the atoms also gets bigger.

Any other miniscule particle/wave will find it easier to move through such hot expanded matter than through the same matter in cold state? Off course, less resistance!

RADIATION:
All matter is radiating, faster when it is heated up less when cooled down. Cold temperature conserves material, hot temperature degenerates. We can easily explain this by saying that it is easier for particles (say electrons) to break away from the atom in high temperature – because their orbit is further from the nuclei.

Interesting Part 1:
Magnetism increases with cold temperature, it gets weaker with high temperature. Super Magnet? High temperature actually destroys permanent magnets; neutralize them.

Wait a second, the earths magnetic fields are there because of our hot melted core?

Interesting Part 2:
Electrical conductivity increase with cold temperature – same phenomena as magnets. It is also so that we have less loss of energy in a cold conductor than otherwise. Super Conductor.

WOW; Then why does electrons move faster through a denser (cold) conductor?

Interesting Part 3:
Electrical spark are bigger/stronger/longer when the conductor is cold. Colder temperature reduces the vibration/orbit of atoms; it also reduces the dissociation of atoms. Then why is it that we have a bigger spark? Which means we have more electrons ‘jumping the gap’. Now, here is a clinch: Why are there more electrical storms over hot tropical climate than cold locations; Antarctica rarely have lightning and thunder.

Note of interest: As shown in one of my older videos on internet: Sparks are stronger at the end (tip) of an wire - as if continue straight; than all same conditions but shorting spark along the side of the conductor.

So what? Do we REALLY understand magnetism, electricity and electrons? NO. If we did, we would be using COLD magnetism to generate COLD electricity.

[Aromaz]

Does everything have a Anti-xxxx ?

OK, I am due for certification.
I ask "Is Aromaz crazy"
Very surprised I answer "Yes, of course. But why?"
Myself to myself "Well, it is a proven fact when people talk to themselves."
Before Bonkers Aromaz

I would just like to ask one last question on this tread:
Well, actually the question is Four Prong with two clasps on each.

I ask because I really do not have the answer.
This elusive answer is a serious obstacle in my path.

STATEMENT:
It is said that everything in the universe has an opposite; nothing can exist otherwise.

• Light cannot be without Darkness.
• Positive cannot exist without Negative.
• Ugly is not possible without Beauty.
• Electrons cannot be without Positrons?

I wonder about this.

QUESTION(s):
What is the Opposite of;

• Alpha radiation/ emission
• Beta radiation/ emission
• Gamma radiation/ emission
• Cosmic radiation/ emission (Oh BTW it is now considered not the same as either or all of the above)

How can we possibly deflect the above radiations?

PLEASE ! Any help for drowning me?

[Shamus]

Warning! Philosophical Bloviation Ahead!

Hi Corrie,

I don't know if you realize this, but you've just asked a very deep philosophical question. And of course philosophical questions such as these always seem to attract my attention. Of course it seems that a majority of people hold the view that the universe is a universe of opposites, but without giving it any thought whatsoever (what else is new? ).

Personally, I don't think this view is correct, especially in light of virtue where it is said that we wouldn't know good without evil. Most defenses of this view seem to follow a line similar to 'you don't know that a stove will burn you until you put your hand on a hot one'. And it doesn't have to be virtue; it could be anything. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that doesn't turn something into its opposite.

So, in my view, who says there has to be an opposite to everything? Why try shoehorning a fat foot into a tiny shoe? If it doesn't fit, then perhaps that's a clue that you need to try a different shoe. Or a different foot.

[Aromaz]

@shamus; Philosophically it might be an option. Personally I still have to find that which does not have an opposite - in general life. In this case, failing to find the opposite: as you said - might just mean we are trying to put the wrong foot in the right shoe or visa-versa.

In that case, we do not have the right model; i.o.w. Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Cosmic rays are not A) Not true, B)Not as described, C)Something entirely different. Presently I lean towards C.

[Joit]

Funny Question

What is the Opposite from a Wave?
Then you may can find the opposite for all other Waves.
The steady Material or the Fluid, what moves with the Wave, or the Wind,
what cause the Wave or the Rock/Resistance, where the Wave moves the Fluid through?
Even i think, some things dont really have a opposite, you may classify them into caused Effects?
Or where else you see a opposite from ie Furniture Cars Creatures.
I cant find really a opposite for all Things.

[Aromaz]

What is the Opposite from a Wave?
Then you may can find the opposite for all other Waves.
The steady Material or the Fluid, what moves with the Wave, or the Wind,
what cause the Wave or the Rock/Resistance, where the Wave moves the Fluid through?
Even i think, some things dont really have a opposite, you may classify them into caused Effects?
Or where else you see a opposite from ie Furniture Cars Creatures.
I cant find really a opposite for all Things.

@Joit: You are right - An effect does not have an opposite!
VERY good point and I stand humble.

Now, any effect does have a cancellation; can be neutralized.
So a wave, meeting a similar wave results in no wave.

Then if a wave of Alpha particles meets another wave of Alpha particles
they should terminate? Interesting thought. I wonder; And seriously I
am NOT joking. Without fully realizing it, you might have pointed me towards a possible solution.

[Joit]

Aromaz. Thanks a lot i blush

This anything has an opposite is still something, where i think,
it is overrated and Science did extended it and tied it to the Cause - Effect
in a way like anything need to have an opposite Effect, what is quiet wrong for me.

I dont think you cant terminate Waves completely when you dont shield them really, but you can reduce them down to ~10-15%, and they lost a lot of the strenght and Information from what they have.

[witsend]

Without fully realizing it, you might have pointed me towards a possible solution.

Well Aromaz. Is there more here? This thread is dying.

[Aromaz]

Well Aromaz. Is there more here? This thread is dying.

Hi wisend;
yes there is a pocket full more. I am working on reducing the volume and still remain
understandable. Here on the forum I wanted to share and have people contributing;
using this as relaxing time; which is turning opposite. However I am just writing for
myself and two others.

I will publish it on my website; a little more effort to reach; but then I can mix in photos,
drawings and video. Once I have all theory sorted logically and making sense, it will be
time to device practical experiments.

One particular important tool will be a plasma chamber, quite big. I am now spending
more time my engineering shop. Just received a new XYZ CNS machine cutting with
accuracy of 0.001 mm and leaning to use it effectively.

[witsend]

Hi Aromaz,

Just quickly I had no idea that you were only addressing 2 members. I wonder if that would have been better addressed through the PM system or through email contact? I rather understood you wanted to discuss this topic with everyone. If you view your earlier posts there was a general call to the membership here to offer their ideas. You then complained about the quality of their contributions and then continued with some comments that pointed out that Einstein himself endorsed your thesis that photons were NOT particles. This statement is factually incorrect. Profoundly so. So are a slew of other posts but since the most of them are contradicted it's difficult to actually see where your argument is going.

My own hope was to see some evidence of that software you mentioned. I didn't actually expect to read any original ideas. But I was wrong. It is now my opinion that you are, indeed, original. On a variety of levels.

[witsend]

I deleted this post because I got the distinct impression that you're tired with this subject. But on second thoughts - perhaps I'll post it - even if there's no reply.

Question comes to mind: Photons=Light or Photons<>Light.

Photons are proposed to be the carrier particles of a signals that - within certain limited frequencies - can also be seen by the eye and/or by especially developed instruments. What we see as light is attributed to photons.

Are you proposing to rename the photon - or are you proposing that light is not particulate? If the former then it would be somewhat redundant. Convention is happy with the term. If the latter - then I am sure you are more than entitled to your opinion. However, I am not sure that any mainstream scientist would concur. But there you go. Mainstream science is often modified - corrected - varied - changed. Perhaps they need your input here. One may just as readily question whether or not an electron<> electron. For the analogy to be accurate one should actually ask 'is the electron <> electricity. LOL It certainly looks scientific. Those signs. '<>'.

Frankly I was of the opinion that this sign proposed the options 'smaller or greater than' which is tantamount to asking is a photon smaller or greater than light? But there again. I don't suppose one needs to adhere to mainstream interpretation of anything at all. I know I tend to confront convention - as often as possible. But it's a unique slant to actually vary the sense of known symbols used in general equations. I'm sure we can't accuse you of being pretentious here. Clearly you had a unique sense of the sign. I'm just not sure how 'unique' you require 'light' to be. Perhaps you could advise us.

[Aromaz]

Hi Aromaz,

Just quickly I had no idea that you were only addressing 2 members. I wonder if that would have been better addressed through the PM system or through email contact? I rather understood you wanted to discuss this topic with everyone. If you view your earlier posts there was a general call to the membership here to offer their ideas. You then complained about the quality of their contributions and then continued with some comments that pointed out that Einstein himself endorsed your thesis that photons were NOT particles. This statement is factually incorrect. Profoundly so. So are a slew of other posts but since the most of them are contradicted it's difficult to actually see where your argument is going.

My own hope was to see some evidence of that software you mentioned. I didn't actually expect to read any original ideas. But I was wrong. It is now my opinion that you are, indeed, original. On a variety of levels.

Dear witsend;

my purpose and idea was to share with all; and to build an interest group
that would help and work together. The complete interest group came to
be so small; I am writing for myself most of the time. 209 posts, 137 mine.

You are one of the two people I appreciate here the most.

AND I would like this cooperation to continue.

I complained about the absolute foolish contributions from some, yes. Because I know the pain of trying
to follow a developing idea and having to read though huge amounts of junk; just to try and get updated.

Why I am concerned: In all honesty; I am sitting on fire, this will go somewhere and I hope to be a small part in it.

Einstein did not 'endorse my theory'; but Einstein was not happy with later findings on his
own Relativity theory and also his BigBang. Meaning he was trying to develop something new,
but his time ran out before he achieved satisfaction.
Same happened to Isaac Newton and so many other people.

Thank you for the compliment. I have not stopped.
When I start posting on a web page, I will let you know. In the mean
time, I will still peek in and out here to reply and cooperate with interesting parties.

My theory is bu NO MEANS perfect or even complete. What I have are groups of images.
Concepts, observations, etc. I need to get it sorted, verified somewhat
and then 'pulled apart by others'
That way I can see where there are misunderstanding, wrong method or
improper explanation.

By the way of interest; I noticed you posted somewhere about "Thunderbolts of the Gods".
David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill are the closest to my theory that I have ever seen;
I am very happy to see I might not be so far out of line and lonely as I thought! However, their
theory on the Origin of The Cosmos and the Electrical Universe lack some; there are too many
phenomena they can not explain. I still fail to find phenomena that I can not explain with my model.
There must be, there should be and there will be; that is what I was hoping to get involvement from Energetic Forum people.

[Aromaz]

I deleted this post because I got the distinct impression that you're tired with this subject. But on second thoughts - perhaps I'll post it - even if there's no reply.

By no means in the world am I tired. I am developing and I am working VERY hard on it. Even with speed reading I have a mountain of my own material and notes to work through. In all my "Research" directory on my computer is
610Gb, of that more than 30% are my own notes. I wish I took typing in school!
NO, I am definitely NOT tired.

Photons are proposed to be the carrier particles of a signals that - within certain limited frequencies - can also be seen by the eye and/or by especially developed instruments. What we see as light is attributed to photons.

There needs to be an separation between Photons and Light. They are not the same thing.
I remain with PHOTONS as a behaving like a 'particle' object of energy;
but Light is not the same. Light is a RESULT or EFFECT of photons.

KEY: 'Dark Energy' and Photons has much more in common than currently accepted. BUT we will need to go back to the Origin of the Cosmos;

Are you proposing to rename the photon - or are you proposing that light is not particulate? If the former then it would be somewhat redundant. Convention is happy with the term. If the latter - then I am sure you are more than entitled to your opinion. However, I am not sure that any mainstream scientist would concur. But there you go. Mainstream science is often modified - corrected - varied - changed. Perhaps they need your input here. One may just as readily question whether or not an electron<> electron. For the analogy to be accurate one should actually ask 'is the electron <> electricity. LOL It certainly looks scientific. Those signs. '<>'.

Correct, light is not particulate.
As for Main Stream; I am very blessed. I am completely out of the stream, therefore my thoughts has not been shaped and formed by others. Frankly, I do not really care either. I do however believe that when the theory is completed, experiments will follow - and practical results will be very impressive. If you truly UNDERSTAND a subject, it becomes a very powerful tool in your hand. Even the most powerful nuclear military aircraft in the hands of a Kalahari Bushman would be pretty useless; unless he learns all the ins and outs of such craft.

Frankly I was of the opinion that this sign proposed the options 'smaller or greater than' which is tantamount to asking is a photon smaller or greater than light? But there again. I don't suppose one needs to adhere to mainstream interpretation of anything at all. I know I tend to confront convention - as often as possible. But it's a unique slant to actually vary the sense of known symbols used in general equations. I'm sure we can't accuse you of being pretentious here. Clearly you had a unique sense of the sign. I'm just not sure how 'unique' you require 'light' to be. Perhaps you could advise us.

You are correct. My meaning there was not clear. I meant to use <> in the sense "Is NOT equal to" I should have used ≠ but fail to find it on Energetic editor! Sorry! On the other hand, it is most likely that Photons are greater than Light anyway ! Well, that is my 'picture'

Light is a tough one. It is not existing, it is a wave effect - Paradox.
If photons are the carrier of light, do we imagine a rider on horseback?
Light only comes to existence AFTER an collision incident and manifest in
the process of reflection/deflection.

Water is a carrier of waves. Such water could be gentle rolling waves on a nice beach day, it could be destructive waves from a flash flood - if could be
a shock wave of a Tsunami. Therefore we observe and say Water=Waves ??

The waves of water can also assist us in understanding another issue:
If there is absolutely no resistance against the flow of the water - iow a complete vacuum - would there be any waves? Thus is it right to say that the waves only form because of resistance? NO. Water waves came to exist only after REFLECTION or DEFLECTION.

Now; remember water is A carrier of waves. There is also air, metal, earth - well, any matter. Are all waves light or photons? No. Maybe. yes - another paradox.

This I think is the best way I could even think of explaining Photons and light.
Photons is a pocket of energy that could also be a carrier of the light effect.

What we will have to determine somehow is which was first? Who is the parent: Photon or light? The answer is easily answered by two others:
Can a photon exist without light?
Can light exist without photons?
Thus - Photons <is NOT equal to> Light.

This is what I mean in previous post above: You help me to think of how to
convey the picture I have in mind.

THANK YOU

[Aromaz]

A short hypothesis

IF Photons≠Light.
THEN either must have existed before the Other.

IF Photons can exist without light.
THEN Photons existed before Light.

This is the MAYBE:
IF Photons are responsible for Light
AND Photon(With or Without Light) is responsible for Polarity ? ? ?
TRUE Polarity is responsible for Electricity.
THEN maybe we need to look at Photons for Alternative Energy
NOT the Electron.

The result (light) will be our guide to understand the cause (Photons)

Remember the earlier Magnetic vs Elecricity model?

A prompt for pondering:
Maybe it is NOT and Electric Universe;
Maybe it is a PHOTONIC universe.

And this is the key to my model.