Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84255
  • *Latest: romeos69

  • *Total Posts: 898232
  • *Total Topics: 15838
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 272013 times)

Offline twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #570 on: September 28, 2010, 03:11:57 AM »
Hi Rosemary,

You may find some interest in the featured uploads on AlienScientist's youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienScientist#p/u

Particularly: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4I5mgBKPZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr_s28wIOzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJJ-4lnwrck
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ruFNzr7kk

This young man does his homework;)

Cheers,
Twinbeard


;D  Hello Cat.  Always a pleasure to see you around and the more so when we're also on the same page.  And very relieved to learn that at least one reader isn't getting hot under the collar.   ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #571 on: September 28, 2010, 08:34:45 AM »
Ok guys - to the 'dwindling readership' that may be going on here.  I think I'm at my penultimate if not ultimate argument.  LOL

Which brings me round to my favourite topic and to another 'inconvenient truth' - to borrow a phrase from Al Gore. Around about the time when Heisenberg and Bohr were forging the foundations of Quantum mechanics, Zwicky, a Polish immigrant to America - saw something that was only enabled by a new found access  to new and improved telescopes.  What became evident were galaxies, in the millions, where prior to this there was nothing beyond our Milky Way Galaxy.  And what was also evident was that the mass measured in the galaxies, was simply NOT enough to hold those galaxial structures together.  If gravitational principles were to be universally upheld - then by rights - those great big star structures should have unravelled or should be unravelling.  Neither was evident.  He then superimposed the requirement for what he called 'missing matter'.

Over time those early results have been systematically ratified and refined.  In effect - many scientists - our leaders in the field of astrophysics - have proved, conclusively that galaxies themselves are held bound by what is now referred to as dark mass - from what is proposed to be dark energy.  In effect -  they've uncovered a new - hitherto unknown FORCE.  No longer are there four forces.  There appears to be every evidence that there is this fifth force - and like a fifth column - it's well hidden but pervasive.  But the new and insuperable puzzle is this.  It's invisible.  Yet it's everywhere.  And we have no reason to doubt this evidence.  Our scientists' ability to measure and observe is unquestionably exact.  But, and yet again - they then make yet another nose dive into yet another explanation for the inexplicable.  All around are frantically searching for its particle - the 'darkon' equivalent of the 'graviton'.  We are back to an Alice in Wonderland world - looking at an upside down reality - a bizzare universe that must first and foremost, obey any and every rule that our mainstream scientists propose - no matter their inherent contradictions.

Why should the particle be visible?  Is this still to do with the obsessive requirement to disallow faster than light speed?  Are we getting ready set, go - to confuse the hell out of another hundred years or more of theoretical physics - simply to adhere to relativity concepts?  Has the time not come - with respect, where we can concentrate of 'field' physics and explore the implications of this - rather than impose a 'field' condition on known particles that none of them are able to constitute a field.  No known stable particles are able to move together.  Electrons and protons are, effectively, monopoles.  Neutrons decay within twenty minutes.  Photons irradiate outwards and can only share a path when their rays are deflected unnaturally.  Nothing known is capable of sustaining a field condition.  So WHY do our learned and revered insist on imposing a standard particle construct on a field?  It is the quintessential condition of forcing a square peg into a round hole - of fitting one incorrect fact into another incorrect fact - in another endless circular argument.  Again, with respect, has the time not come, in fact LONG overdue, to revisit - not so much our answers, which are increasingly shown to be incorrect - but to revisit our questions about physics?  I personally, think that time would be well spent in exploring the conditions required for a sustained field.  And I think the evidence now is overwhelming that the field itself holds matter - and, for obvious reasons, this unhappy, this uncomfortable, this inconvenient truth - needs to be fully explored.  Just perhaps a whole world exists out there that remains out of touch of our actual realities.  It leads - we follow.  It proceeds in one time frame - and we interact with it in another time frame.  That way - just that one small inclusion into our theoretical constructs - and we would be able to reconcile so much with what is evident.  I suspect it's our aether energies - and reference to this has now been long been considered to be politically incorrect.  Perhaps the time is now that this poor, abused concept be revisited and revitalised by our theoreticians.  Certainly we may then salvage some logical coherence that is entirely exempt in current thinking.

Regards,
Rosemary

« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 04:15:52 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #572 on: September 28, 2010, 08:44:29 AM »
Hi Rosemary,

You may find some interest in the featured uploads on AlienScientist's youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AlienScientist#p/u

Particularly: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4I5mgBKPZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr_s28wIOzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJJ-4lnwrck
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ruFNzr7kk

This young man does his homework;)

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Hello Twinbeard.  I know this man's work well.  In fact I've been in correspondence and in conversation with him.  He's very good.  But he's way too classical.  It is a fact that it would be entirely IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile over unity results within known classical paradigms - which is what he's trying to do.  His presentations are very scholarly - but listen close and you'll find a great number of 'skipped' logic steps - that he uses to support his argument.  What I like about him is that he's at least questing albeit within a classical framework.  I sincerely believe that this compulsive reach that we all have in all these forums is to answer a deep intellectual, emotional, psychological need for a coherent explanation to those many contradictions in physics.  And I sincerely believe that these needs are answered very simply indeed, in aether energies. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #572 on: September 28, 2010, 08:44:29 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #573 on: September 28, 2010, 09:07:00 AM »
Hello Twinbeard.  I know this man's work well.  In fact I've been in correspondence and in conversation with him.  He's very good.  But he's way too classical.  It is a fact that it would be entirely IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile over unity results within known classical paradigms - which is what he's trying to do.  His presentations are very scholarly - but listen close and you'll find a great number of 'skipped' logic steps - that he uses to support his argument.  What I like about him is that he's at least questing albeit within a classical framework.  I sincerely believe that this compulsive reach that we all have in all these forums is to answer a deep intellectual, emotional, psychological need for a coherent explanation to those many contradictions in physics.  And I sincerely believe that these needs are answered very simply indeed, in aether energies. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

I agree wholeheartedly.  The "dark matter" is undoubtedly the aether, the vril, or any number of other names attributed to the same concept... that we have charged magnetic quantum particles smaller than quarks making up everything, resonating at frequencies way above what we understand as the EM spectrum.  In order to reconcile our results, I think we need to rewrite most but not all of modern physics, using the original 1864 work of Maxwell, not the truncated version taught as "Maxwell's equations."

That means rewrite relativity as well.  It is the only way we can account for our respective COP measurements in our circuits, and the only way we can explain other observable evidence that classical physics fails to account for.  I feel the best way to do that is in a collaborative, distributed environment, which bypasses the costs associated with everyone being under one roof.

I do enjoy your posts... if you do feel the need to stop posting, please include me in your mailing list for further updates.  If you do not have one, I hereby offer to host said list on my private list server,
gratis, in perpetuity. 

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #574 on: September 28, 2010, 09:12:03 AM »
I agree wholeheartedly.  The "dark matter" is undoubtedly the aether, the vril, or any number of other names attributed to the same concept... that we have charged magnetic quantum particles smaller than quarks making up everything, resonating at frequencies way above what we understand as the EM spectrum.  In order to reconcile our results, I think we need to rewrite most but not all of modern physics, using the original 1864 work of Maxwell, not the truncated version taught as "Maxwell's equations."

That means rewrite relativity as well.  It is the only way we can account for our respective COP measurements in our circuits, and the only way we can explain other observable evidence that classical physics fails to account for.  I feel the best way to do that is in a collaborative, distributed environment, which bypasses the costs associated with everyone being under one roof.

I do enjoy your posts... if you do feel the need to stop posting, please include me in your mailing list for further updates.  If you do not have one, I hereby offer to host said list on my private list server,
gratis, in perpetuity. 

Cheers,
Twinbeard

 ;D  Thanks Twinbeard.  Always nice to find support.  But I'm not likely to 'leave' our forum unless I'm expelled.   ::) God forbid.  I'm way too fond of the members here.  LOL

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #574 on: September 28, 2010, 09:12:03 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #575 on: September 28, 2010, 04:22:01 PM »
Mainstream?  Sorry "mainstream" should we instead call them guided or mislead.   I played pool to many times not to understand the simple physics of it.     Two balls hit by one ball equally will distribute the force between the struck balls.  AND the opposite is also true where two balls striking one ball will transfer their energies into the one ball.  If the two photons traveling at the speed of light hit another photon at the correct angles ..... we must account for the transferred energies.   I say BLARGH! on those can't theories.  I believe physics is quantum and is proof already of how it works.  This is an example of how momentary over the speed of light can happen, AND DOES.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #576 on: September 29, 2010, 02:05:35 AM »
Mainstream?  Sorry "mainstream" should we instead call them guided or mislead.   I played pool to many times not to understand the simple physics of it.     Two balls hit by one ball equally will distribute the force between the struck balls.  AND the opposite is also true where two balls striking one ball will transfer their energies into the one ball.  If the two photons traveling at the speed of light hit another photon at the correct angles ..... we must account for the transferred energies.   I say BLARGH! on those can't theories.  I believe physics is quantum and is proof already of how it works.  This is an example of how momentary over the speed of light can happen, AND DOES.

Interesting thought Hope.  I've actually never considered the effect of two balls striking one ball and resulting in faster than light speeds.  I'm sure you're right. 

What I'm actually proposing is that our 'force fields' gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear, 'dark', whatever, actually comprise particles that are hidden from view because the operate faster than light speed so they remain invisible.  It would need two things.  They would need to be both too small and too fast for photons to ever find them.  But if they did move at a velocity of say, twice light speed, then they would effectively be moving in a time frame in advance of our own.

One of the puzzles in particle physics is the fact that twin particles can never move entirely independently of each other.   If you moved the one to the 'north' say, then the other would adjust to that movement - INSTANTANEOUSLY.  This is regardless of their spatial positions.  The one could be 11 kilometers away (as tested) or, theoretically a million miles away.  They'd still move in synch, so to speak.  The implication is that if they can communicate their positions instantaneously then they're also communicating that at faster than light speed.  Else there'd be a required delay when the one signals a change in position to the other.  In essence this is the only proof that anything actually travels at faster than light speed.   It's a paradox - which is a euphemism for a 'scientific fact that contradicts the theory'.   ;D 

In any event - if a field comprised particles and if these indeed exceeded light speed, then think of the implications.  It would explain telepathy, remote viewing, all those rather esoteric interests that have plenty of proof as being extant - but, thus far, no scientific explanation. 

Just a thought.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #576 on: September 29, 2010, 02:05:35 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #577 on: September 29, 2010, 09:00:38 PM »
That conclusion you realized so quickly is amazing, Rosie your wired for this stuff for sure.  It enlightens me on a lot I have been studying.   Heat is a byproduct of a gathering of radiant energies.... how do you feel about this statement?  And when super heat is generated many forms of radiant energy can be formed,  perhaps this can explain Geet Thermal dynamic properties and abilities to decompose gases.  I even read where radioactive particals lost energy when tested through a simple reactor of this design.   Same are true of super cold fluxes which react in their own theater of effects.
edited   i goofed up usage

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #578 on: September 30, 2010, 04:37:21 AM »
That conclusion you realized so quickly is amazing, Rosie your wired for this stuff for sure.  It enlightens me on a lot I have been studying.   Heat is a byproduct of a gathering of radiant energies.... how do you feel about this statement?  And when super heat is generated many forms of radiant energy can be formed,  perhaps this can explain Geet Thermal dynamic properties and abilities to decompose gases.  I even read where radioactive particals lost energy when tested through a simple reactor of this design.   Same are true of super cold fluxes which react in their own theater of effects.

Dear Hope,  this is indeed an interesting question.  My own thinking here is that these little particles that make up the field - are magnetic monopoles - or tiny little magnets.  And they always move in the field.  I can find a required velocity in a field structure to justify the 'movement'.  But this is the proposal.  When they're in a field they're small and fast and invisible and cold.  But get them out of the field - however it's done - then they can become big and slow and visible and HOT.  What we do with electromagnetic imbalances is induce them to become hot.  Here's why I think this.

You know - for example - that when a house or anything burns to the ground - then all we're left with is the ashes?  Well.  What our physicists can prove is that no single atom or molecule in that fire was disturbed.  They are still intact - inviolate.  Their molecular structure may have varied.  Their position in space may have varied.  Some of those atoms may have dissipated into the air - or may have combined with other atoms and molecules in the air.  But the fire itself would not reconstitute the condition of the atoms themselves.  Fully accounted for.  In effect the 'bound' condition of those structures has been compromised.  Not the atoms themselves. 

So.  Let's assume this.  Let's assume that the atoms were previously 'held' in a bound condition by small disassociated fields of magnets.  Little strings.  And then picture this.  We have coke or wood under a ceramic pot - and we have iron filings loosely assembled inside that pot.  Then.  We apply friction to the wood to get it to burn.  What we're doing is we're disturbing the 'field' condition of those those little magnets that are holding the atoms together.  They lose their 'field' condition and change from small/fast/cold/invisible to sparks and flames - being a big/slow/hot/visible condition - out of the field.  They then transfer their fields through the ceramic pot.  They can't find a 'home' or atoms to 'join together' so they pass through the pot.  Then they come to the iron filings.  Now they definitely have 'loose' structures to form into some kind of aggregate.  They move in.  They align atom with atom - on a really deep/small basis and systematically 'join in' and 'join up'.  Gradually the loose aggregate becomes more bound as more and more of these little fields 'move in'.  Then.  When all the wood has burned - it has lost it's previously bound condition and remains there as 'ash'.  And all the aggregate that was previously 'unbound' is now liquud and melted and hot.  The 'binding' fields have found a new home.  And when there is no further disturbance from more 'fire' then they settle down and become small/cold/invisible/fast (scif?) - which means they re-establish their 'field' condition.  In effect the bound condition was lost to the wood - through burning - and then transferred to the aggregate which becomes bound - in relation to the number of 'fields' that were effectively transferred through that flame.

The only difference between this and classical assumption - is that this seems to be consistent with the fact.  And it would give a far finer balance to our energy equations.  Effectively a bound structure would thereby have more potential energy than an unbound structure.  Two atoms together would have more energy than each atom alone.  And all that is different is that the energy itself is a kind of material or particulate piece of matter than is applied to each atom.  It's visible in our dimensions as 'flame'.  Otherwise it is entirely invisible.  It's visible nature is plastic and shows a progress of the field to another 'abode', so to speak.  It would also then have the real merit of answering the casimir effect which is also something observed on a 'small scale'.

In any event that's how I see it.  LOL.  Not a popular view point.  But I do think it has some sort of logical merit.   ;D  Maybe?

Kindest regards,
Rosie
EDITED

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #578 on: September 30, 2010, 04:37:21 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #579 on: September 30, 2010, 05:34:09 AM »
Sorry guys.  Just compelled to add something about a magnetic field.  If you consider the lines of force that extrude from a permanent cylindrical bar magnet.  Then take away the magnet and leave those lines of force.  There is absolutely nothing to determine a 'charge' in that field.  All it has is a single 'justification' or a single 'direction'.  But each part of that field would have an 'opposite' in the other half of that 'toroid' shaped field.  Perfect magnetic balance.  In effect the thing that determines a north from a south is the distribution of matter within the field itself.  This then tells us about the 'justification' of the field - and indeed - the charge of that matter responding to the field. 

So.  The proposal is this.  Perhaps the field is extant regardless of the matter that we can measure responding to that field.  Perhaps our aether energies - our aether fields - are just varying sizes of a basic magnetic field.  Smallest would be one dimensional strings - holding atoms together.  Biggest would be a universal toroid holding matter bound in its centre and anti matter?  Perhaps this is distributed in its outer boundaries.  That way all we have to determine is how it is that matter responds to the field.  ?   ;D 

Perhaps, therefore, our magnetic force is a primary force and the electromagnetic interactions that we can see and measure - may be a secondary phenomenon.  Frankly I see no exception to the way matter would relate to such a field than it is seen to relate to the 'forces'.  And it has the dubious merit of accounting for the invisibility of the forces.  But if it's right.  If the field is there?  Then we have that abundance of energy that I think we all realise is there - on a deep intuitive level.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #580 on: September 30, 2010, 08:23:15 AM »
Guys, so sorry about the previous incorrect postings.  I think I'm there now.  This is a picture of a cross section through a proposed toroidal magnetic field.  The thing about it is that it is symmetrically consistent - comprising as it does 6 extra circles or 'zipons' to each new concentric circle added.  You will note that there is a consistency in each of the circles but a required repulsive arrangement from one circle to another.  This is proposed as the 'source' of the velocity of the field.  Effectively the field can NEVER stabilise to a 'rest' state. 

Add more and more saucers in layers and it will end up as a toroid.  Just added here to show up the structure of a magnetic field if, indeed, it comprises bipolar particles.  BTW it was Riaan Theron who found the relationship between each concentric circle that - add 6 to each and it 'grows'.  LOL.  Very clever of him.

 ;D

Regards,
Rosemary

http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #580 on: September 30, 2010, 08:23:15 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #581 on: September 30, 2010, 02:39:02 PM »
Twinbeard - abject apologies.  I tried to amend that post size of yours and deleted it in error.  Please repost this but make its size page appropriate if you can.

Sorry for the trouble.  I recognised the picture as one of your youtube fractal themes.  Would love to see it on the thread if it's not too much trouble.  And sorry about the deletion. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #582 on: September 30, 2010, 02:49:50 PM »
Sorry about that.  I had intended to fix it, then wandered off to eat.  When I saw your image, I saw that pattern.  Its a Netwon fractal:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_fractal

Cheers
Twinbeard


Twinbeard - abject apologies.  I tried to amend that post size of yours and deleted it in error.  Please repost this but make its size page appropriate if you can.

Sorry for the trouble.  I recognised the picture as one of your youtube fractal themes.  Would love to see it on the thread if it's not too much trouble.  And sorry about the deletion. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #583 on: September 30, 2010, 03:38:31 PM »
Yours is much prettier - twinbeard.  But the point is this.  The three arms as depicted by Riaan - are not quite in synch.  If the charge had been illustrated as it should - then you'll see that there are two that are the same and one is not.  What I find intriguing is the effect if you assume each sphere to be a magnetic dipole.  The inevitable result is a precisely proportionate repulsion to attraction throughout the field.  That's blow away symmetries.  And it all starts off with a single circle and then 6 with the precisely same diameter - then add six and so on to each new concentric circle and one can go on into infinity keeping precisely the same symmetries. 

Only highlighting this because I've been rabbiting on about the construct of a magnetic field.  And I do see it as having a kind of logical symmetry that would lend itself to this kind of 'build' or whatever - 'congregation'?  The strings - necklaces - through the centre 'cross section' also being reflected in the 'strings' or lines around the length of the toroid.  Not sure of the right vocab for this.  Perhaps you can manage better what I think you realise I'm trying to point to.

Your point about the 'newton fractal' may be right.  I see the division into three but I think there's optional divisions into other numbers including 2.  I'm rather hooked on the field - so I actually need 6's.  Lots of them.  LOL

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #584 on: September 30, 2010, 09:09:59 PM »
Twinbeard - just to let you know where I'm going with this.  My proposal is that the hydrogen atom - our simplest - 1 proton 1 electron - each are 'baryons' the electron comprising 3 magnetic dipoles and the proton 9.  These dipoles have been extrapolated from a field of magnetic particles comprising 16 concentric circles - x 2 such 'saucers'.  I can then justify the interaction of the proton and the electron with both magnetic fields.  Effectively the proton would be in the centre - the electron somewhere on the outskirts - but I am not sure of it's actual position.  Just see it as being 'trapped' between these two saucers. 

In effect as the atom 'transmutes' into more complex structures then it extrapolates the magnetic particles from the field - from the actual magnetic dipoles that form the 'fields' or energy levels that hold those particles.  These particles are then transmuted into protons, electrons and, as it gains in complexity, neutrons.  In effect, the denser the atom - the smaller it's radius as it's done at the expense of those dipoles in the energy levels.  In effect - the proposal is that the atom's energy levels are simply two dimensional magnetic fields - 'saucer shaped' that circle the nucleus.

I can get some startling reconciliations if I use this method.  But I can't 'grow' all the atoms.  I think that all atoms are transmuted from both hydrogen and deuterium - and there may be a third rare development from tritium.  This may account for the differences in the periodic table where the sizes don't 'add up' so good.  But I'm not clever enough to do the math.  Certainly the 16th concentric circle x 2 gives a symmetry as well as a required ratio to the sizes of the proton to the electron.  May I ask if you have followed my model at all?  I'll give a link hereunder.

Certainly this exercise of Riaan's is what I've been looking for for a long time.  What was required was the logical progression of those circles as I've long held that these would hold the symmetries needed to conform to this kind of analysis.  I find it entirely engrossing.

Kindest regards,
Rosie
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM

 

OneLink