Energy and Polarity

[Aromaz]

@Jbignes5; but you have it, just need to use it!

I wish I had you ability to organize my thoughts..

Thank you for the compliment, but you have it. You did not sort it yet, that is all.

It does not just come easy. I am using the wonderful features in modern word programs called Copy and Paste a LOT! And what I wrote here are basically extracts from a very large 300+ (and growing) page document. That was many notes, edited, re-located and sorted in a 'time-line' module. So it seems easy but it was/is not. My videos are also clipped, cut and joined to make the eventual sequence.

Sometimes I think of something very far from the point I am. I am using MS-Word 2007 mostly and there are two sections in all my documents: The WorkPage and the NotePage, the later divided for this thread is for example:

BigBang to Light
Light to Atom
Polarity
Gravity
Atom to Molecule
Molecule to Universe

!...Each then with sub-titles
The NotePage is more than 1,300 long for this document of 312 pages.

Difficult to believe due to my long postings, but I usually only post some 10% to 20% of what I initially wrote! After writing, I review, trim, delete portions and rewrite portions to condense them.

I would advise you to try and do the same, your insight is very good, but I think you will reach many different conclusions and see obstacles when you 'time-line' your postings. Start by copying all you have here on Energetic forum, then sort them and review what you have.

Lastly: Review what you are trying to explain with the projection that you are somebody that does not know anything at all, and in different format than when you wrote it. So I am for instance writing in Ariel 11 and black, but I review always in a different font, i.e. Blue, Monotype Corsiva 18. It helps you to read what you wrote, not what you think you wrote.

That - is when I am not lazy like now and just posting directly!

[Aromaz]

I Propose Photons <> Light

I need to know how you understand the difference of photons and light. And I will give my best understanding.

My views are not necessarily correct and for now I do not what to “Lead the witness, your Honour”

[Jbignes5]

Rofl

Thank you for the compliment, but you have it. You did not sort it yet, that is all.

It does not just come easy. I am using the wonderful features in modern word programs called Copy and Paste a LOT! And what I wrote here are basically extracts from a very large 300+ (and growing) page document. That was many notes, edited, re-located and sorted in a 'time-line' module. So it seems easy but it was/is not. My videos are also clipped, cut and joined to make the eventual sequence.

Sometimes I think of something very far from the point I am. I am using MS-Word 2007 mostly and there are two sections in all my documents: The WorkPage and the NotePage, the later divided for this thread is for example:

BigBang to Light
Light to Atom
Polarity
Gravity
Atom to Molecule
Molecule to Universe

!...Each then with sub-titles
The NotePage is more than 1,300 long for this document of 312 pages.

Difficult to believe due to my long postings, but I usually only post some 10% to 20% of what I initially wrote! After writing, I review, trim, delete portions and rewrite portions to condense them.

I would advise you to try and do the same, your insight is very good, but I think you will reach many different conclusions and see obstacles when you 'time-line' your postings. Start by copying all you have here on Energetic forum, then sort them and review what you have.

Lastly: Review what you are trying to explain with the projection that you are somebody that does not know anything at all, and in different format than when you wrote it. So I am for instance writing in Ariel 11 and black, but I review always in a different font, i.e. Blue, Monotype Corsiva 18. It helps you to read what you wrote, not what you think you wrote.

That - is when I am not lazy like now and just posting directly!

Yeah it seems that these references that pop up in my head are just sooo chaotic. Even when I write I find myself straying too far from my initial thought. It seems like it grows and radiates much like in nature. I really think that these ideas and concepts are not my own. I am a traditionally taught electronics technician and my father was the same. I learned a lot from him when I was younger and maybe that is where it comes from.
When I started getting into the alternative electronics it was really fun and enlightening. It started to leave me with a feeling that we had things wrong. A lot of what is being described by dogma could be wishy washy and what worked on the largest didn't work on the smallest. This pointed out to me that some things were being put together that wasn't there. Photon and light were distinct entities and that doesn't compute to me. They are the same basic function of charges in motion just different effects by how you view it or the device you measure that movement with. Meaning different translations of the same movement of charge and that charges ability to radiate through the network.

[Aromaz]

I propose Photons and Light are not the same.
Photons do not need to have Light,
BUT light cannot be without Photons.
Photons are merely the “Horse on which light hiked a ride.”

So in my model:
Photons are the manifestation of concentrated globules of energy in pure un-polarized and un-magnetized form.
The lack of Polarity and Magnetism is the reason why Photons can even reach incredible speed (Velocity)
without being diverted by forces the likes of Polarity and Magnetism.
The same lack of forces also explains why Photons are not mass, cannot motivate matter
- but defiantly affect all matter.

IF I say Photons <> Light, THEN – What is Light?

My answer is already written, will post it in the new day.
Good Night!

[gmeat]

As to Space-Time concept of Einstein; I dropped that one a very long way back already. Space is NOT complicated and this is probably our most severe obstacle – we keep on looking for the complicated; while the best and only true issue is in Simplicity. How often do we see this last statement from people who DID succeed in ‘abnormal’ achievements? Forget the complicated, accept the simple easy one.
Hi Aromaz, Could you maybe further elaborate on this statement so that everyone can get a better understanding of your thinking.I personally have a problem understanding Einstein's view of space and time being 1 and the same.Thx for starting an interesting thread.-Gary

[Jbignes5]

Hmmm then we agree...

I propose Photons and Light are not the same.
Photons do not need to have Light,
BUT light cannot be without Photons.
Photons are merely the “Horse on which light hiked a ride.”

So in my model:
Photons are the manifestation of concentrated globules of energy in pure un-polarized and un-magnetized form.
The lack of Polarity and Magnetism is the reason why Photons can even reach incredible speed (Velocity)
without being diverted by forces the likes of Polarity and Magnetism.
The same lack of forces also explains why Photons are not mass, cannot motivate matter
- but defiantly affect all matter.

IF I say Photons <> Light, THEN – What is Light?

My answer is already written, will post it in the new day.
Good Night!

I would say we agree then except for one thing, these photons are particles
and have mass. But it is very little mass and made out of smaller particles made of mass and this goes on and on. The reason it has to be this way is at some point if you break the chain and violate it's own ruleset you have a short and the whole thing blows up. It is the same reason that fractals work in computers and why they never end. If it did end there would be no separation of charges and it would all flow into one big charge in the center. Then you would not be able to separate those charges and it would condense into a super sized charge.
You are right on the other points and that agrees with my logic. No network and it's ability to build or organize as it propagates the charges and it's radiative event and you have no movement or what we perceive as our vision of that event.
My main point was that there are fundamental events that if they didn't happen there would be no way to see or measure that event. So the network grows and flows from point a to point b while at the same time building the network as it moves through the unorganized part of that network. This explains shadows as well or masking of the radiative event from ones point of view of that event. Meaning when it passes other matter it tends to take the path of least resistance. When it does that we see like what happens when an eclipse happens. The same amount of radiative event comes to our point of view because it is focusing around the object causing it to appear brighter around the edges of the blocking object. Even though the original objects radiative event is not stronger. There are somethings that I did not go into like the blocking object sucking in of some of the radiate event but those are losses and should make the object to appear to be dimmer from the source. Yet when this happens the brief flash that we get is the apex of this event based on the angle of viewing as to the time it happens.
You need to also apply Doppler effect to this especially when denser networks propagate the sound. The sound will appear to be multiplied as it comes twords you and subtractive to the frequency because of the networks speed in traversing a denser network with more mass in it. I attribute this to a wake like effect we see in water. With a single portion of a wave or network of that wave being the driving part or speed boat and the wake the resulting wave radiating out and going back to the ambient or the rest of the water. I believe in order to get this effect there is a planar movement as well. This could be due to the fact that we are earth bound in such cases as in our atmosphere. The ground acts like a focus where reflection of the local network and the angle of that reflection come into play. The simple explanation would be that the forward propagation is unimpeded and the wake impedes the sampling that our ears here. The forward movement of that source is multiplied because it is getting there in twos or threes making us believe it is higher in radiation frequency when in fact the source is not. We are fooled into thinking it is higher in pitch when it is only a doubling of the samples we get at one time compared to the wake end that has less samples from our view point because it takes longer to transmit from each successive step away from the source we get or it gets from us. Somewhere in there it is a translation of direction to and away from the source that we are perceiving. I haven't gone to far in that for errors but it shows you how the same network is used for this process either here or out in space. With those being the extreme cases of density of the network.
A good example of this network seen in the extreme environment of a pulsed generator:
http://capturedlightning.com/frames/Z02A.jpg

[CatLady]

Wondering????

Quoted from Aromaz:

Personally I do not need to be here, I am here to share my findings and to consult and expand on knowledge in a constructive manner. Please do not waste my time with junks. Postings like above #64, #68, #69, #71, #72, #75, #76, #77, #82, #84, #85, #87 are not constructive, not welcome and a waste of your time, my time and of everyone that has to read through your junk.




Then why did YOU post #82, 84, 85 if they are not constructive?

[witsend]

Guys, I find myself back in the same predicament that I always seem to get to. I do not follow your arguments - not JB's nor Corrie's. If the basis of all energy - if the actual structure of space and the dark matter or aether that fills space - comprises crystals - then JB - those crystals must - surely - comprise some sort of matter. Anyway. I give up. Too many answers Too few qestions for my appetite. I think I must love you and leave you both. You're way too abstract for my rather pedantic and simplistic way of thinking about things.

[Aromaz]

Guys, I find myself back in the same predicament that I always seem to get to. I do not follow your arguments - not JB's nor Corrie's. If the basis of all energy - if the actual structure of space and the dark matter or aether that fills space - comprises crystals - then JB - those crystals must - surely - comprise some sort of matter. Anyway. I give up. Too many answers Too few qestions for my appetite. I think I must love you and leave you both. You're way too abstract for my rather pedantic and simplistic way of thinking about things.

Nope, that is not what I underwrite. Crystals can not be without gravity, polarity and the whole nine yards of matter. Space is filled with energy that does not have any matter, polarity or gravity; thus no crystals or any similar.

If I am putting ice in my coffee while I am sitting on top of Mt. Everest in icy cold conditions; am I stupid? Actually there are three answers to that: Yes, No, Depends. As for the statements JB made, I personally do not agree with him on many, but I do agree on some. However no human has ever been to a black hole to report back on what is there; in fact did not even see one properly.

In space - that we know is not possible when relating to the energies in question. Simple proof: Any crystaline object = matter. All matter does reflect light and are subjected to atomic nuclear reacions. Thus they can not be the invisible untouchable Pure Energy, Dark Matter or Aether - which does fill space.

[Aromaz]

Energy to Matter

IF we have matter - i.e. proton or even just the Hydrogen atom; everything becomes very easy to explain. However, we will only be able to apply that matter. Matter attract and repel, has friction and created heat, unify and separate. All that is relatively easy to explain; though there are still obstacles that cannot be explained.

My quest is to try and understand the building blocks of that first matter or the process of how such first matter did come to exist. This is not easy – but it MIGHT be possible. Let me explain by means of an example:

Say somebody develop a device that will be able to convert your thoughts into words, which it can broadcast. You do not need to speak anymore, you just think. Everybody will want to know how that is possible. Can they just go and duplicate? Can they make it better or more advanced? NO! They will first buy one and REVERSE ENGINEER IT.

In our (my?) quest, this is what I am trying to do and understand. If we want to understand how to create or advance our use of electricity; we will first need to reverse engineer the source of electricity. Since humans have not been there at the Origin, we need to find out from current products how that origins might have been.

A molecule can be broken down into atoms; easy and by means of various methods, including natural. We know we can force-split an atom – nuclear bombs. But there is also natural Decay. ALL elements (atoms) decay eventually. We even have a name for it – Radiation.

For now let us continue to remain with conventional science (CS). Any atom can by natural means break down into the smaller elements of Proton, Neutron, Electron, Photons, etc.

Very much simplified:
If a neutron looses an electron it becomes a Proton.
If a Proton decays (some CS says it does not happen); it will become a ‘lighter sub-atomic particle”; most likely an Electron and Positron.
(Electron and Positron = annihilation, what happens then with that energy?)
If electrons looses a photon it becomes ??? – photon and Neutrino?
If all accept the decay from Atom to Proton, Neutron, Electron, Neutrino, et.al; then why do they not accept e further decay of all those material? All matter decay into various particles, and those particles decay further to eventual Photon (or Neutrino if you wish).

For one thing we learned in all of nature:
It is ALWAYS cyclic.
What is the END line of Decay?
Where does Decay turn around into Creation again?
This we know, there is new creation on-going at all times; the cycle is very active.

[Jbignes5]

This is it.

Guys, I find myself back in the same predicament that I always seem to get to. I do not follow your arguments - not JB's nor Corrie's. If the basis of all energy - if the actual structure of space and the dark matter or aether that fills space - comprises crystals - then JB - those crystals must - surely - comprise some sort of matter. Anyway. I give up. Too many answers Too few qestions for my appetite. I think I must love you and leave you both. You're way too abstract for my rather pedantic and simplistic way of thinking about things.

What I suspect is the structure of these crystals:

Sierpinski triangle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try to read about it and what it says like surface area and the likes and you should start to get the geometrical fractal nature of it. It is evident by almost all the things that we don't understand about nature and how it could be fractal. That must mean somewhere there is a fractal base and since metals show signs of fractals and water as it phase changes it means they tend to hold the underlying nature that made the fractals in the first place. It is the order from chaos.
And yes I think they are quartz(charge,cubic) and salt(vehicle, pyramidal). The salt by virtue is the mover the provider of polarity and the quartz is the charge container or source.
I know other don't agree but If one does a study on metals one will actually find out that they are indeed crystalline in structure. Crystals also would explain the voltage capability (piezo) and light reflection or refraction as well (prism). And the most important fact about crystals is the if we don't ingest 5 grams of salt a day we will die. I am suspecting that what is in the larger salt crystals is actually what helps energy propagate on the smallest scale just like it replaces the spent salt from our own system .
As a reference what Bedini was seeing in batteries is actually those minute crystals growing from them loosing their charges and being deposited on the plate as it is used in normal mode. Those crystals I suspect are the reason for movement of charges and they are very attracted to potentials. So Bedini used a method that didn't attract the crystals fully because the voltage wasn't on long enough but it still passed the potential because of the density of the fluid. Create a wave then ride it out. Since most batteries are static devices meaning the flow of water from the acid attraction to the positive plate hit's the positive plate generating a steady static charge. Batteries have two terminals or antenna if you will and they are in and out. When you short the two together the battery revs up and the flow increases thus trying to keep the two terminals in ballance but the flow actually raises the potential of the positive and flows back to the neg looking for free charges that are on the plate waiting to flow to the positive. Flow is from smallest charge twords the higher charge. Remember that once a battery is started it continues to run till it is no good or shorts out.
It's very simple really. Nothing complicated and no long drawn out computations and references to obscure theories that have been hacked apart as we learn more about these processes.

[Aromaz]

What I suspect is the structure of these crystals . . .

'crystal' is an exact item of matter; which I am unable to apply to this logic.

Let me try to understand your reference and example:

You are saying that any item is composed of the same item but in smaller units.
In example: (Never mind the numbers, just an illustration)

1 Photon = 1 Photon
1 Electron = two or more photons
1 Proton = two or more electrons; which is two or more photons each
1 Hydrogen Atom = 1xProton and 1x electron; which is multiple Photons?

OR in the same direction – as example:

1 Photon = 1 unit of the same energy
1 Electron = 3 units of energy
1 Neutron = 4 units of energy
1 Proton = 5 units of energy
1 Atom (H) = 1 Proton, 1 Electron thus is 8 units of energy.

So what you are trying to convey is that all matter, particles and whatever is just multiples of the exactly the same thing? Small building block of the same material forms a big building block and a number of big building blocks forms even a bigger building, a number of big buildings forms a complex; yet the complete complex is just a collection of the same small units we started with.

If I understand your trend above correct. Then I do agree 100% with you.

Above all said: it is leading off topic because we are talking here of
ENERGY AND POLARITY; not the crystaline structure of the universe.

[juju]

So what you are trying to convey is that all matter, particles and whatever is just multiples of the exactly the same thing? Small building block of the same material forms a big building block and a number of big building blocks forms even a bigger building, a number of big buildings forms a complex; yet the complete complex is just a collection of the same small units we started with.

sorry for the non constructive post...

but that words makes a lot of sense to me!

round 2, fight!

[sucahyo]

@witsend, some people call orgone as useful but unmeasureable. Some people call permanent magnet to be useless but measureable, they believe it can not do work for us by it self.

I think it is better to mention the usefulness or measureability of energy so we know what can be verified.




@Aromaz, don't you think it is better to call your photon differently? Without reading your description about your photon, people may think it is the same as what currently established and may result confusion.



Aromaz's photon <> light, because we obviously can see light. Still can not decide whether they can be put into a same group. Still can not decide which come first.

Aromaz's photon is useless and unmeasureable. Light is useful and measureable.

[witsend]

@witsend, some people call orgone as useful but unmeasureable. Some people call permanent magnet to be useless but measureable, they believe it can not do work for us by it self.

I think it is better to mention the usefulness or measureability of energy so we know what can be verified.

sucahyo. The usefulness and measurability of the forces have been well documented and by minds far, far greater than our own. We don't need look any further into science than into the four known forces and then to mainstream's account of what the potential is in those forces. They've taught us and taught us well - how to do the measurements. What they have never pretended to advance is the conceptual understanding of those forces. You must have heard this. Newton was asked 'what is gravity?' and his famous answer 'I do not hypothesise'. Prior to this it was acceptable and reasonable for people to propose invisible forces. Subsequent to this science's new bench mark became the 'need to give experimental evidence'. That takes the less than respectable 'thesis' to the more than acceptable 'theory'. For example - Farrady was an intuitive. He could only 'hypothesise' and show partial experimental evidence of his hypotheses. Maxwell proved his hypothesis to transform the 'inductive thesis' into the Inductive Theory or - as they're now known - The Laws of Induction. In the same way - Einstein's unproven 'grand unifying theory' is actually still a thesis. It has never reconciled 'gravity'. And no-one knew this better than Einstein himself. It was his enduring regret and he carried this regret to the grave.

It may be argued that this need for 'experimental evidence' is required. But mainstream have, thereby, shot themselves in their own poor feet. They have known about 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' from dark energy - since before the advent of quntum mechanics. I believe Hubble himself was the first to point to this. Quantum mechanics took the 'hypothesis preclusion' to levels of absurdity. Niels Bohr is on record as stating that the nature of the atom CAN NEVER BE UNDERSTOOD. So. How does one explain 'dark energy' and dark matter from dark energy when one cannot see it to measure it? Only latterly have they managed a loose measurement through the art of gravitational lensing. But speak to any mainstream academic. Even those teaching physics will tell you that dark energy has not yet been proven. Only the need for it is evident.

So. Here we have an identifiable force and the mathematical requirements for it's existence - and yet no tangible measurable proof of such a force. No one knows what it is - what is looks like - what the particle or matter is that is its 'foundation'. They suspect that it's a fundamental particle. But it does NOT conform to the standard model - in any way at all. It requires mass - as it's base. And the search for this particle has cost sundry tax payers and governments many, many billions - in whatever currency they operate. It's a respectable branch of science to explore. But mainstream only consider it respectable if it can first be measured. What will we all do when mainstream finally say - we cannot find that paricle? Personally I'm looking forward to that day and to that admission.

I put it to you that the only way to discover this particle is through reasoning. But I do mean reasoning and not pure speculation. And, on a purely intuitive level - I agree with Aromaz. It is very likely a fundamental particle from which all particles are developed. My own thinking is that the photon itself is a composite of this particle. As is all matter. And we can yet only measure that matter - not that particle.