|"); }//Trusty Tran by Cran www.gootar.com|
|by James Cranwell 10/06/98||Part VII ... Miscellaneous|
Isotopes and Nucleus Formations:
Everything is made out of the same particle and every particle has 20 strings unless it is smashed up deformed matter.
A proton has one string balled with a neutron, 18 balled by themselves and one full length twist connected to an electron.
A free proton would look like this
~~~●~~~ (that's one free string, 18 balled, one free string)
A free neutron would look like this
●~~~ (19 balled, and one free string)
A free electron would look like this
---∗--- (one free string, 18 free strings in a disc shape, one free string)
A proton can grab a neutron and an electron.
●~~~ ~~~●~~~ ---∗--- (NPE on the loose)
●●~~~∗--- (NPE combined)
(that's a neutron with it's previously free string balled up together with one of the proton's previously free strings (now also balled up) and the other proton string is twisted with an electron string (that free proton string and electron string twists are still full length))
Two free protons
can combine and still be 2 protons
~~~●●~~~ (that might look like 2 free neutrons but it is not because there are also balled up strings in the middle of the package holding them together.
To clarify: two free neutrons
●~~~ ~~~● that are now combined would look like this
If you throw another free proton into that 2 proton package
you will get one changing into a neutron
~~~●●●~~~ when they combine... that's Helium-3
If 4 free protons...
~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~
...grab each other 2 will change into neutrons...
And then the outer two that still have a free string can grab electrons...
---∗~~~●●●●~~~∗--- that's regular Helium, it can also be called Helium-4
If you understand the way this works... with a little thinking anyone can figure out isotopes.
For instance why 3 protons would not make lithium-3 ...
i.e. why there can be extra neutrons but not just a bunch of protons (or extra protons)... we've just seen that above the way Helium-3 was created.
Nucleus 3 can only be helium-3
~~~●●●~~~ or Hydrogen-3 (tritium)
(Lithium-3 would be a nucleus with 3 protons and zero neutrons... and that can't be a nucleus)
"Lithium-4 contains three protons and one neutron. This is the shortest-lived known isotope of lithium. It decays by proton emission to helium-3 with half-life of about 10^−23 seconds."
~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~ (start with 4)
~~~●●●~~~ ~~~●~~~ (combine in only way possible to make 3 protons, 1 neutron... notice one proton is on the loose... not attached to nucleus, say goodbye, it's unstable, eject it)
If you study anything, you change it. If you measure an electron, for instance, you will change the state of the electron by absorbing
Time travel :
Dark Matter :
What they call "Dark Matter" is simply the field of flux particles completely filling space (explained in this theory).
Can you see the field or particles? No, it would be like trying to "hear air", you don't hear air, you hear vibrations happening in the air. You can stick this whole scenario under water and it's the same... you hear the sound of for instance a whale but you don't hear the actual molecules of water. You hear the vibrations in the water.
You can't see a particle. You only see vibrations from the particles.
Once again... if you hold a piece of rope, you have a rope. If you shake the rope, you have photons. If the rope is shaking at an high frequency, your eye will detect one pinpoint spot of blue color (from the end of the rope). If it's a slower frequency your eye will pick up a red color. You never actually see the rope.
Black Hole :
The gravitational field surrounding a black hole is a not a regulatory gravity filed. The number of field string connections is the relative strength of any normal gravity field.
This would be approximately one per proton per atomic width for normal gravity. Earth, Sun, even super dense proton star.
The 2-D visual for this field is a regular tennis net made of the finest spiders web.
A large size visual for a proton would be like a tennis ball with a spider-web-like connecting string extending out a few miles.
Normal matter and gravitational fields commandeer as much space as possible with the least material.
In a black hole there aren’t any balled up protons and it is just a solid lump of strings.
The 2-D visual for this field (going from normal to black hole) is a tennis net normal on one side but the other side (black hole side) is collapsed and held together in one spot (the whole net would have a long triangular shape). As you traveled from one side of the net to the other it would be like going into a vise.
So instead of one spider web connection per tennis ball, it would now be just stacked up spider web strings (like the way pencils stack)
That is millions or billions of more connections then usual… unbelievably dense but still not infinitely dense.
And since there is nothing balled up into the regular proton neutron electron groups… Black holes cannot be considered normal matter. It is actually a String Object (like I was explaining somewhere else)
Normal Matter (protons)… a bag of tennis balls with one drinking straw sticking out of each tennis ball.
Black hole… A bag of just straws.
p.s. Light is just a vibration along the strings and since a black hole would have the extreme dense string pack… I don’t think that would allow vibration. So yes… it would be black
Michelson-Morley Experiment :
Michelson-Morley Experiment won't work if the field is moving along with the experiment apparatus. It's actually ridiculous. They thought it out pretty good but forgot one thing and it became garbage.
Can any of you ding-dongs understand that? If you are on Earth, and there is a field directly connected to the earth, you can set up all kinds of mirrors and other things and twist and turn them and it just won't matter because the field is moving with the earth.
When I first thought of the idea for the particle shape in my theory…
I realized it could explain protons, electrons, electron configuration and just about everything else.
I knew everything must be made of one type thing and I was thinking… this would even work as a field in space to convey light.
But everyone (including myself at the time) knew that Michelson–Morley disproved the Ether with their experiment.
So, I actually decided to read about the great work of those men.
I went to wiki or something and I immediately realized those idiots did not test for an Ether…. they tested if the Earth is rushing through it. That is complete baboonery. I was flabbergasted.
Even a simpleton can do a thought experiment to show how ridiculous that is…
I.E. If there were a stationary Ether, it conveyed light and the Earth is rushing through it at an enormous speed… how could that work if you are inside a closed building or underground in a cave?
Do little sections of the stationary field get cut off and remain in place behind closed doors?
Anybody understand this…?
The only way for a stationary Ether to work is if it could penetrate all matter. But then that would mean the light that is using this stationary field would also penetrate everything. Get it? If that were the case you would not be able to see matter because light would go right through it.
The only thing more ridiculous than MM is the fact that the scientists of today still snuggle up with it. All modern physics is based on it.
Everyone is full steam ahead but they are on the wrong tracks
No one else can see how stupid it is.. correct?
Everything is correct with Math...?
I like math. You can describe anything you want with it.
Think about all the theories in physics that are opposite or oppose each other.
They all use intricate, exacting math equations to describe the theory in question.
But since only one theory can be correct... that means at least 90% of the math used is describing nothing more than a fantasy (or a cranky theory).
Got it...? Even if you can back up your theory with math... it doesn't mean squat.
You can make anything appear correct using math.
hmmm... yes, that is the problem.
Idiots come up with wacky math equations then try to make the Universe fit it.
Then idiots who understand the math are fooled into thinking it is correct because they understand it.
It should be the other way around... get a good idea of what is really going on then formulate some math equation and see if it also fits mathematically... but that's the original problem, you can make anything seem correct mathematically.
So what is the real problem...?
That's easy... idiots are (and always were) the problem.
Math does not describe reality.
Math does not describe reality.
If you have an equation for a sphere, it is mapping out a solid sphere...
Nothing is Solid (except something like a neutron star, a proton is supposedly solid but that might just be a very loose string pack)
A "reality" math would be based on strings and commandeering sections of space.
In a 3-D world (only XYZ axis) a 2 x 2 x 2 cube would look like picture on right.
It would be made from 8 particles (the red and grey).
The blue picture would be a "reality" 2-D plane.
I like the one inch equation below even though it is using regular math because it is actually a string tension equation (non-solid).
Notice there is no width.
Tension * Length = mass * speed of light squared
TL = mc^2
Extrapolate it yourself...
1) There is definitely something filling space and there are lot of different models and names for it.
2) Einstein called it Space-Time, others call it the Higgs field, others call it something else.
3) It has to be made out of something and strings are a good choice. Individual string particles (not the string theory type) that join together forming a field. (zero-dimensional Ø-D point particles won't work, next option 1-D strings)
4) Particles in the field also pop-in and pop-out of existence... that means the field has to be made of the same thing that forms regular matter.
5) Everything also has to have a direct physical connection (or the only way things would work is by magic (and magic is not allowed)). So the particles also have to be able to disconnect and reconnect by themselves.
6) Everything would also have to work and form automatically (particles do not come with an instruction manual they can look at).
Here is an example of spontaneous self-assembly formation... Something like that must also be happening at the quantum (most basic fundamental) level.
7) If you add in things that you know are happening (like light or energy being transmitted at specific frequencies and definite speed) you can eliminate a lot of theories that cannot be correct.... like foam and most others.
TL = mc^2
No Magic Allowed...
Energy cannot be out on it's own...
Energy is a vibration on a particle or movement of particles...? Yes.
Is there pure energy? Just energy? ...Nope.
A force has to be (made out of) something. i.e. a particle.
Particles have to be directly (physically) connected to other particles or they won't be able do anything (except magic).
Everything has to happen (or form) automatically but it cannot be by magic.
What Einstein calls "Space-Time" has to be made out of something.
Anything (field, foam?) that fills space will also have to convey light (and a host of other things).
If something fills space and you can see it... that would mean you would not see anything, it would be like being immersed in a pool of dark muddy water. When you open your eyes you can't see anything... the muddy water is right up against your eyes.
p.s. foam will not work.
The Limit :
Mathematical equations are a great way to describe the physical conditions and properties of Matter except when an infinity or a zero denominator is thrown into the equation, then it might not actually work in the real world. In the same way Zero Kelvin (negative 273.15 Celsius) is an absolute zero or a temperature limit and calculating molecular movements mathematically at for instance, negative 4001 Celsius would be ridiculous. The amount anything can compress to or exert force on also has a limit. You can write anything you want on paper but, mass isn't going to collapse to a pinpoint and thereby make the gravity approach infinity.
Inflaton Field... Spatial Expansion?
Imagine an orange or grapefruit floating in space and then the space around it expands. What happens to the grapefruit...?
Nothing, it does not move.
The supposed expansion has to be happening on all sides
<---> ● <--->
Can the inflaton field push or pull matter...?
It would have to be pushing or pulling on all sides.
---> ● <---
<--- ● --->
--- ● ---
Push on both sides of an orange really hard...
---> ● <---
Which way did it move...? Whoooops, it didn't move.
More than one orange (object)...? Same thing...
<--> ● <--> ● <--> ● <--> ● <--> ● <-->
Add pressure or increase field strength...
<==> ● <==> ● <==> ● <==> ● <==> ● <==>
Remember the black dots (the oranges) are not going to move... it doesn't matter how many there are, each one has the same pressure or expansion of space on all sides and that cancels any movement.
Analogy: place a bunch of oranges on a table in a room and then pressurize the room... will the oranges move apart from eachother? Nope... nothing's going anywhere... they won't move at all.
No movement, no change in distance between matter
Net effect...? Figure it out for yourself.
TL = mc^2
The proton-electron connector is of course strings and if it is considered regular matter they might have a left hand twist like so… ////////////////////
So if it meets up with other regular matter, connects and there is tension on it, there won’t be any problems… //////////////////// ////////////////////
but if it meets up with anti-matter with right hand twist (reverse chiralty) and there is a tension pull, they (everything) will be able to completely unwind. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////
This releases their energy and converts the particles back into the normal state… no twists, nothing balled up.
An infinite quantity of matter would not completely fill space if space is also infinite.
It might actually have been an infinitesimally small bang that happened.
If there was an infinite particle field in an infinite space without any balled up matter (end points) to interact with or pull together, the vibrations that were traveling around would just keep traveling. There had to always be vibrations, because… they are energy (regardless of whatever the theory).
There is a massive amount of energy traveling around the Universe now… how could so much energy be created out of nothing? It would have taken some form of energy to explode the supposed Big-Bang.
The energy must have always been here.
So, then if anything happened in the field that would cause particles to collapse (ball up, or just mass together in unorganized packs) that would start the chain reaction.
The initial particle groups might not have had the same configuration as what we call normal matter (proton, neutron, electron). It may have been massive, very dense lumps of strings (like a spaghetti ball).
A neutron star has one field connection per proton width. Something like this (unorganized spaghetti pack) would have a massive amount of connections to the field in space, one per every string width?
It would be unbelievably bright, and a possible explanation for what a Quasar is?
A field in space made of strings easily explains it.
A 2-Dimensional model of the regular field would be like a highly stretched tennis net.
If there is a massive lightning strike and a section of the net was cut (not necessarily loose), some of the strings in that section could connect and form a circular shape (just like a hole in the net).
So instead of the vibrations of electrical current (lightning) traveling in a line from point A to point B… they would be contained in the circular shape and travel in circles.
3-D is just about the same but of course everything would be spherical and since you can actually see ball lightning it means there are some connections still connected to the regular field (that goes to your eye (and every other possible direction)) and it would of course dissipate. If you can see something… it is giving off energy, either reflected or internal.
Ball lightning must be self-contained internal so it will have to fade away or lose containment and explode just like they say it does.
Space is just the field of strings. (not the string theory type)
Friction is just a transfer of energy to something else, and at quantum level I don't think there can be friction... it is a large scale thing.
A vibrating guitar string would lose energy to the guitar body or the air as sound, etc..
A (quantum) vibration can't get off (leave) the strings. (not the string theory type)
The string itself is vibrating
No Big Bang, no inflation, no inflaton field.
Note: This is not String Theory Type Strings
TL = mc^2
If you smash 2 marbles together at high speed and measure the weights of all the pieces...
Any pieces that are the same weight are the same type particle.
Any pieces that are different weights are different type particles.
Does that sound correct? Of course not, but that's the way particle colliders work
(and it's exactly what their thinking on the data is).
Smash 'em Update...
The same thing is in effect at Greek weddings with the plates...
hmmm... yes, if you smash up two marbles (same thing) and you get pieces that are different mass / weights that will be regarded as different type particles (even though they are actually the same).
But... if you smash up a marble and a Greek plate and just happen to get a piece from both of them that are the same mass / weight... guess what...?
You have found the same particle (at least you think you did).
An elephant weighs the same as a truck so they are the same thing?
Strings are just inert strings.
Energy is string vibrations caused by field tension.
Matter is what the strings make.
The strings are the basic fundamental universal substance.
I'm pretty sure it is impossible for there to be more than one type of thing (substance) everything is created from (or has always been here).
When they collide particles together they are smashing the group (agglomerate) of 20 apart into whatever number like 3, 6, 9, 15 and they think they are elementary particles (quarks etc.)... it is still just the strings.
TL = mc^2
Molecular combiner :
When there is a lack of vibration Flux particles are destined to curl and be confined as mass. To break them free from this restive state and set them in motion once again will take energy. So, to create matter you have to take away energy. This means a matter making machine or replicator will create a surplus of energy, not only from a proton and neutron combining one charged radius each and ejecting an electrons worth, also from whatever residual quantum fluctuations are left on the free flux particle before it is combined into a proton.
Note: there are two completely separate and different ways to look at this (of course).
One is combining atoms and molecules already in existence into different structures. The Other is somehow converting the actual field or particle strings into Protons and neutrons. If you have elements you can make anything. The question is how do you make Hydrogen out of supposed empty space.
Zero Point Energy (ZPE), or vacuum fluctuation energy are terms used to describe the random electromagnetic oscillations that are left in a vacuum after all other energy has been removed. If you remove all the energy from a space, take out all the matter, all the heat, all the light... everything, you will find that there is still some energy left. The Flux, you can't remove the flux, for it will always connect to any apparatus of evacuation thereby reviving itself. Any apparatus of evacuation or metal plates are made of atoms with orbiting electrons with charge.
Energy is just a mechanical vibration, these vibrations happen in this universe, they have no where else to go. They can divide into lower and lower frequencies, add together and change states but never dissipate into oblivion. It's the cause and effect scenario once again, there isn't anyway to stop a vibration because the stopper will be affected, thereby continuing the process.
If there were an hypothetical edge to the flux particle field (hypothetical edge of the universe), vibrations would travel to the edge of the field, run out of particles, have no where to go and be completely reflected (180 degree phase change) back and almost focused. The same effect as a spherical mirror (assuming the edge is curved), thus creating the same effect as deep space telescope. Reflecting the light of possible nearby objects (observer to object) from a very distant past (object to edge of universe then all the way back to observer). Any pocket of space that is void of particles or any break in the field where vibrations cannot traverse has the same effect. Therefore energy remains.
Raisin bread :
The Raisin bread model of expansion is also a farce. It can't expand because if the universe were a loaf, it would have to be an infinite sized loaf, or an infinite amount of loaves with no room left to expand.
String technology and construction
Flux particle string technology and construction will be well known in the future (not the string theory type).
New types of matter will be made without the need of the regulatory proton-neutron-electron configuration as we now know it.
Things can be constructed of just string. There is an unimaginable amount of different type (string) things that can be made and also an unlimited supply of raw material (space itself).
A string object can be unbelievably strong and durable and does not necessarily need to be connected to the gravitational (or any) field so, regardless of what size something is it can be completely weightless. Also, if only one side of an object uses the non-connect property it can be propelled by the gravitational field (tension) of space itself, something like this could actually “fall away” from the earth.
TL = mc^2
|Properties of Energy & Matter||* constants *|