Whirling Wi-Fi: Vibrant images reveal how wireless networks sweep and surround us

[singular_me]

the human body is a magnet (just like anything else in the universe, atoms stick together because of their own electromagnetic properties)

will telepathy take over at some point?

Electromagnetism is key to understand the Universe and the disaster happening to our species, aka electromagnetic mind control frequencies as thoughts are just that: electromagnetic frequencies

SOLUTION
How effective is electromagnetic thought control?
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/05/how-effective-is-electromagnetic.html


---------------------------------------

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/19/article-2662507-1EEB82F800000578-290_634x556.jpg


Whirling Wi-Fi: Vibrant images reveal how wireless networks sweep and surround us

A student from Newcastle University has made images that 'show' Wi-Fi
Luis Hernan made a programme that can measure Wi-Fi strength
He then took long-exposure photography to expose wireless networks
The results are stunning arrays of colour in fantastic shapes
He has also released an app so can take other similar images themselves
19 June 2014


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2662507/Whirling-Wi-Fi-Vibrant-images-reveal-wireless-networks-sweep-surround-us.html

[Neuro]

the human body is a magnet (just like anything else in the universe, atoms stick together because of their own electromagnetic properties)

will telepathy take over at some point?

Electromagnetism is key to understand the Universe and the disaster happening to our species, aka electromagnetic mind control frequencies as thoughts are just that: electromagnetic frequencies

SOLUTION
How effective is electromagnetic thought control?
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/05/how-effective-is-electromagnetic.html


Good article by Jon Rappaport, it clearly states that thoughts are non-physical in nature, thus can't be electromagnetic. Possibly one could influence thoughts in a person through electromagnetic means, by disinformation, TV-programming or creating pain and suffering. You often accuse others of not doing their homework, how about doing your own?

[singular_me]

thoughts are frequencies and electromagnetism is what makes them move around. without electromagnetism there is no thoughts, just like they wouldnt be no atoms either. Everything is the consequence of electromagnetism. The brain which is an (electrical devise) can interpret thoughts because of this.

maybe you say this because you dont believe in quantum physics in the first place... now if you wish a debate about that, I am not ready for another marathon

yes to change the world it just takes to change one's frequencies/thoughts... just too amazing. Mind over Matter is everywhere.

Agreeing or not on the topic just depends on which side of the fence one sits on: electromagnetism as a *prime* cause or a consequence.

recommended video on youtube:
David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill 1 Thunderbolts of the Gods - plasma theory



Good article by Jon Rappaport, it clearly states that thoughts are non-physical in nature, thus can't be electromagnetic. Possibly one could influence thoughts in a person through electromagnetic means, by disinformation, TV-programming or creating pain and suffering. You often accuse others of not doing their homework, how about doing your own?

[aeondaze]

You often accuse others of not doing their homework, how about doing your own?

Yeah, she hasn't done her homework...she fails to understand the difference bwteen a 'charge' and 'current' or 'voltage.'


thoughts are frequencies and electromagnetism is what makes them move around. without electromagnetism there is no thoughts, just like they wouldnt be no atoms either. Everything is the consequence of electromagnetism.

stricty speaking, thoughts are the result of chemical potential, which is different to electromagnetism, though they both use 'charge' to tranfer energy.

charge (Q)= I (current) * T (time)

therefore I (current) = Q/T, or in effect how much charge is moving per unit of time.

Technically when a synapse tranfers energy it does so chemically by the transferance of a charge (e-), there is no magnetic force involved.

It is NOT electromagnetism.

You confuse terms ad infinitum becaue as I've said before, you refuse to look serisouly at what you are talking about, which I could undertsnad and not care abot but then you have the affront to tell people they should go some homework when you yourlself refuse to understand the physics involved on a serious level.


now if you wish a debate about that, I am not ready for another marathon

Typical, however you don't have to debate anything, just be aware that your thinking is WRONG.


yes to change the world it just takes to change one's frequencies/thoughts... just too amazing. Mind over Matter is everywhere.
Agreeing or not on the topic just depends on which side of the fence one sits on: electromagnetism as a *prime* cause or a consequence.

As I said this is wrong, not electromegnetism, but charge (Q), the charge isn't moving through a magentic field (B).

:)

[vacuum]

Technically when a synapse tranfers energy it does so chemically by the transferance of a charge (e-), there is no magnetic force involved.

It is NOT electromagnetism.

Electrons all have spin, which dictates how they arrange themselves inside atoms and pair up, which is essential to how they transfer chemically. Of course no magnet or anything else will change an electron's spin.

[Horn]

Fortunately, I smoked from aluminum foil pipes as a child so my thoughts are shielded.

[Cebu_4_2]

Fortunately, I smoked from aluminum foil pipes as a child so my thoughts are shielded.

They don't usually hold up well to a power hit.

[EE_]

They don't usually hold up well to a power hit.

http://cannabisdestiny.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/soda-can.jpg

[Cebu_4_2]

That looks pretty functional. Hahaha memories. Just make sure you don't cough around flammables.

[singular_me]

I stick to the plasma theory, Aeon.
no failure, yours is an interpretation of the consequence, I beg to differ and say it is a prime cause

there is no electricity without magnetism
there is no thought without electromagnetism
there is no matter without electromagnetism

everything spins
where is the SPIN motion coming FROM?
thats a hard one because it is very simple

.. strong and weak electomagnetic forces are ONE... if going along with mainstream interpretations, they are separate.(circular thinking)

anybody who has read Walter Russels understands the dilemma of modern astrophysics, which is bipolarity... there is no such a thing as one explains the other and otherwise, it just is another *divide and rule* in disguise.

THE UNIVERSAL ONE (pdf)
http://abundanthope.net/artman2/uploads/1/THE_UNIVERSAL_ONE.pdf
(written in the early 1900s, just another genius ostracized)


not ready for another marathon, really. Have a good one.


Yeah, she hasn't done her homework...she fails to understand the difference bwteen a 'charge' and 'current' or 'voltage.'



stricty speaking, thoughts are the result of chemical potential, which is different to electromagnetism, though they both use 'charge' to tranfer energy.

charge (Q)= I (current) * T (time)

therefore I (current) = Q/T, or in effect how much charge is moving per unit of time.

Technically when a synapse tranfers energy it does so chemically by the transferance of a charge (e-), there is no magnetic force involved.

It is NOT electromagnetism.

You confuse terms ad infinitum becaue as I've said before, you refuse to look serisouly at what you are talking about, which I could undertsnad and not care abot but then you have the affront to tell people they should go some homework when you yourlself refuse to understand the physics involved on a serious level.



Typical, however you don't have to debate anything, just be aware that your thinking is WRONG.



As I said this is wrong, not electromegnetism, but charge (Q), the charge isn't moving through a magentic field (B).

:)

[aeondaze]

there is no electricity without magnetism

Where is the 'magnetism' in a cry cell battery? Thats right there is none, so your statement here is WORNG, as are all the subsequent affirmations.

Your thinking is flawed and wrong. You do not understand the basics of physics yet think yourself qualified to make these sweeping statements.

[singular_me]

are we talking of batteries or any device producing electricity that needs a terminal A and B to function.... current between the 2 cannot happen without magnetism.

correct I am not a scientist. I just read Walter Russell and his theory of the *electromagnetic/sexed universe*. A 300 pages book that took me more than a year to read as it is extremely dense, 25% of the book still is difficult to comprehend but eventually I will get back to it. But to me it is clear as why there is a agenda to alter our neuronal frequencies using WIFI type of attacks, knowing what I understood from the book.

"Nikola Tesla and Walter Russell knew each other, Tesla urged Russell to lock up his knowledge in a safe for 1,000 years until man was ready for it."

not going to continue this debate with anybody whose views are too far apart from mine.

[7th trump]

are we talking of batteries or any device producing electricity that needs a terminal A and B to function.... current between the 2 cannot happen without magnetism.

correct I am not a scientist. I just read Walter Russell and his theory of the *electromagnetic/sexed universe*. A 300 pages book that took me more than a year to read as it is extremely dense, 25% of the book still is difficult to comprehend but eventually I will get back to it. But to me it is clear as why there is a agenda to alter our neuronal frequencies using WIFI type of attacks, knowing what I understood from the book.

"Nikola Tesla and Walter Russell knew each other, Tesla urged Russell to lock up his knowledge in a safe for 1,000 years until man was ready for it."

not going to continue this debate with anybody whose views are too far apart from mine.

Singular I'm not sure what you are trying to say here but magnetism doesn't exist until theres current.....not "current between the 2 cannot happen without magnetism."
Magnetism is a byproduct of current flow...yes they are related to each other but current flow exists because of a path for electricity to flow not because magnetism must be present first in order for current to flow.

[singular_me]

thats where we disagree... it is a prime cause, not a by product.

it is like saying that gravity is a cause... no, it is the consequence of electromagnetism.

Electricity and magnetism were long thought to be separate forces. It was not until the 19th century that they were finally treated as interrelated phenomena. In 1905 Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity established beyond a doubt that both are aspects of one common phenomenon.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/183324/electromagnetism



Singular I'm not sure what you are trying to say here but magnetism doesn't exist until theres current.....not "current between the 2 cannot happen without magnetism."
Magnetism is a byproduct of current flow...yes they are related to each other but current flow exists because of a path for electricity to flow not because magnetism must be present first in order for current to flow.

[aeondaze]

it is like saying that gravity is a cause... no, it is the consequence of electromagnetism.

Don't bring gravity into this, it has nothing to do with your FALSE assertions about the mechanisms for thought and 'electromagnetism'. Concept drift is one of the ways you derail a subject and try to avoid talking about or concedeing error in the falsehoods you preach.


Electricity and magnetism were long thought to be separate forces. It was not until the 19th century that they were finally treated as interrelated phenomena. In 1905 Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity established beyond a doubt that both are aspects of one common phenomenon.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/183324/electromagnetism

You bring this up like you are the keeper of all knowledge, but I mentioned Maxwells equations to you before, when you went off the deepend over Tesla. He is the one that formulated the equations which describe the behaviour of light, or electrmagentism which you're so fond of.

7th is trying to show you that magetism follows from the fllow of electrons, without which it would not exist, unless its a particular property of the compound or element (where a magnetic dipole exists).

BUT, this is not a major part of our concious thought.

Any magnetism is the result of flowing electrons, which in the case of a firing synapse, is not much at all, just a very small transfer of charge between molecules. To call it 'electromagentism' is VERY misleading and to a large extent FALSE. Thoughts or electrical FLOW aren't the result of magentism, magnetism is the RESULT of it.

Electromagnetism as it is technically known on the other hand, is a property of photons.

Also to go back to your undetanding of 'spin' in a sub atomic particle, spin doesn't indicate that an electron is 'spinning' like a top. Its an ABSTRACT concept named after a simple process which humans understand.To think that it 'spins' in the traditional sense is childish!

These concepts are highly technical, and all you seem to want to do is reduce the subject matter down to the lowest common denominator so that you can claim false mastery of a subject then make grandiose and tragically FALSE assumptions about the universe and our existance.

When anyone tries to show you that you have it wrong or ass backward you start getting nasty and/or introduce some concept drift, like gravity in this instance, or mention some obscure and untested theory like 'plasma' theory, without adressing the flasehood in question at all.

On that note, I don't think you actually know what plasma is do you?

[Horn]

Key points



A wide range of environmental influences causes biological effects. 'Biological effect' does not equal 'health hazard'. Special research is needed to identify and measure health hazards.
At low frequencies, external electric and magnetic fields induce small circulating currents within the body. In virtually all ordinary environments, the levels of induced currents inside the body are too small to produce obvious effects.
The main effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields is heating of body tissues.
There is no doubt that short-term exposure to very high levels of electromagnetic fields can be harmful to health. Current public concern focuses on possible long-term health effects caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields at levels below those required to trigger acute biological responses.
WHO's International EMF Project was launched to provide scientifically sound and objective answers to public concerns about possible hazards of low level electromagnetic fields.
Despite extensive research, to date there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health.
The focus of international research is the investigation of possible links between cancer and electromagnetic fields, at power line and radiofrequencies.





http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html

A targeted dosed with high levels, or certain frequencies directly could trigger natural response signals in the body. Possibility of that being used to cause general feelings of anxiety or restlessness, some people being more sensitive to being placed in a microwave than others.

My estimation is the current levels of bombardment detaches humans from their natural environs, creating a weak soul.

[Buddha]

Fortunately, I smoked from aluminum foil pipes as a child so my thoughts are shielded.

Top HA! I did too, perhaps that IS why we are here.......

[singular_me]

I dont go by "conventional knowledge" and maxwell and co

every living cell, planet and star and galaxy spins

Biological molecules select their spin - Phys.org

also it doesnt matter which example we/I choose since talk of electromagnetism which is everywhere, that of gravitation makes it more obvious to illustrate what I mean.





Also to go back to your undetanding of 'spin' in a sub atomic particle, spin doesn't indicate that an electron is 'spinning' like a top. Its an ABSTRACT concept named after a simple process which humans understand.To think that it 'spins' in the traditional sense is childish!


scientific materials speak of the motion as a spin. Are they all childish? where did you get that I speak of it the way you describe?

abstract, childish?

The electron spin is the electron’s electromagnetic field angular momentum
http://www.electronspin.org/

You and I are from different planets :)

[vacuum]

Also to go back to your undetanding of 'spin' in a sub atomic particle, spin doesn't indicate that an electron is 'spinning' like a top. Its an ABSTRACT concept named after a simple process which humans understand.To think that it 'spins' in the traditional sense is childish!

This isn't the case. See Ohanian, H.C., Am. J. Phys., 54(6), 500.

http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/courses/phys425/AJP_54%286%29_p500.pdf

According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or of some other particle is a mysterious internal angular momentum for which no concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog. However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6, 887 (1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the electron. Likewise, the magnetic moment may be regarded as generated by a circulating flow of charge in the wave field. This provides an intuitively appealing picture and establishes that neither the spin nor the magnetic moment are ``internal''-they are not associated with the internal structure of the electron, but rather with the structure of its wave field. Furthermore, a comparison between calculations of angular momentum in the Dirac and electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the electron is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave.

[aeondaze]

This isn't the case. See Ohanian, H.C., Am. J. Phys., 54(6), 500.

http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/courses/phys425/AJP_54%286%29_p500.pdf

According to the prevailing belief, the spin of the electron or of some other particle is a mysterious internal angular momentum for which no concrete physical picture is available, and for which there is no classical analog. However, on the basis of an old calculation by Belinfante [Physica 6, 887 (1939)], it can be shown that the spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the electron. Likewise, the magnetic moment may be regarded as generated by a circulating flow of charge in the wave field. This provides an intuitively appealing picture and establishes that neither the spin nor the magnetic moment are ``internal''-they are not associated with the internal structure of the electron, but rather with the structure of its wave field. Furthermore, a comparison between calculations of angular momentum in the Dirac and electromagnetic fields shows that the spin of the electron is entirely analogous to the angular momentum carried by a classical circularly polarized wave.

Vac, with all due respect, I understand what you are saying but, just because the calculations are 'analogous' to classical angular momentum, doesn't mean the nature of the phenomena are same.

The most analogous phenomena to classical 'spin' angular momentum is orbital angular momentun, which differs form 'spin' in quantum mechanics.


Spin is a solely quantum-mechanical phenomenon; it does not have a counterpart in classical mechanics

As I correctly stated, 'spin' in the quantum mechanical sense does not represent the same physical phenomena as classical angular momentum.

Orbital angular momentum (the counterpart of calssical 'spin') and quantum spin are different phenomena.

As I stated this is a VERY technical area, and prone to misunderstandings (of which I'm not attributing to you, you have an excellent grasp of physics).:)

[singular_me]

when working with the size of an electron, it is obvious that the motion cannot be compared with that of earth, but it has the same functions, that of sustaining electromagnetism within.

http://images.tutorvista.com/cms/images/83/electron-spin.PNG


http://ishtarsgate.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/vortices-electromagnetic-earth-2.jpg

we can go bigger, the sun and the galaxy have one too

http://transitionculture.org/wp-content/uploads/WEB_Still_Galaxy_02.jpg

[7th trump]

when working with the size of an electron, it is obvious that the motion cannot be compared with that of earth, but it has the same functions, that of sustaining electromagnetism within.

http://images.tutorvista.com/cms/images/83/electron-spin.PNG


http://ishtarsgate.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/vortices-electromagnetic-earth-2.jpg

we can go bigger, the sun and the galaxy have one too

http://transitionculture.org/wp-content/uploads/WEB_Still_Galaxy_02.jpg

Something wrong with the universe pic. Instead of the galaxy looking like its spinning the rings would look like ripples of water emanating out from the center after throwing a rock.
The pic of the galaxy has the rings attached to the center...that's an impossibility using your model. So I don't really believe the galaxy has a north and a south pole

[singular_me]

One thing that is good is good with Aeon, is that it prompts me do search the topic further :)

I only have watched several videos about the Electric/Plasma Universe which make more sense than any other theories, so based on this I have found that page.

-------------------
http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com/2012/02/solar-systems-trojan-asteroids-model.html

The Electric Universe Thunderbolts video shows the orbital angular momentum of the sun and planets as they travel around the galaxy along filaments in a vortex superfluid state. The planets never see one side of the sun, proving that circuler gravitational orbit theory is wrong, replaceable with helical vortex magnetohydrodynamics MHD, and vast cold single atom thick superfluidity cosmic scale filaments.


please note the fibonacci sequence, which fibonacci found out about centuries before the telescope was invented. (sacred geometry)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UJA13IbeFNg/Uk-C8MdyQpI/AAAAAAAACng/GqxxX15A4Gg/s1600/Electric_Universe_and_Birkeland_Currents__seen_in_ the_helical_model_of_our_solar_system__hd720%25282 %2529.gif



Quantum Planetary Orbits
The classical physics to describe both Trojan asteroids and Electrons are IDENTICAL. Electrons orbit the atomic nucleus just like asteroids orbit the sun. Gallagher and Dunning targeted an electron with electric field pulses that limited its location options to a narrow, comma-shaped band on one side of the atomic nucleus, akin to where the trojan asteroids hang out. A second electric field, applying a radio frequency field that rotated around the nucleus ensnared the localized electron forcing the electron to orbit the nucleus like a planet.

Important Questions: Could atoms or electrons under special conditions behave entirely as 100% self-similar Fractal analogues with the solar system and asteroids? Could there be a size-scaling relationship that is mathematically equivalent for solid atoms and asteroids? Trojan asteroids are where comma-shaped electron wave packets attract towards lagrange points. Jupiter stabilizes the orbits of its trojan asteroids by an EM field. The Sun's heliosphere electric field and current sheath, must clearly force the orbits of planets, moons, and asteroids around the sun. This has huge implications: The sun orbits the center of the galaxy by an electric field in the ISM interstellar medium, that is produced by the galaxy's spin and rotation !! Quantum Gravity does not exist and there are not Gravitational Black Holes! Gravity is the extreme viewpoint of description of Electromagnetic reality. There are those who say both gravity and electromagnetism exist. But there is no proof of gravity and everything about it comes from Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetism. Lagrange points are observational where THE APPARENT PSEUDO-GRAVITATIONAL FORCE IS THE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE states Wikipedia. An observer appears to see gravitational attraction because the electric field strand is being rotated and the centrifugal force appears to pull objects like stars towards the center of the galaxy. Lagrange points mark positions where the combined pull of two masses precisely equals the centripetal force required to rotate with them.
http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com/2012/02/solar-systems-trojan-asteroids-model.html

[aeondaze]

Do you think is is a physical 'model' of the phenomena of quantum mechanical spin?

http://images.tutorvista.com/cms/images/83/electron-spin.PNG

...because it is not.

It is a physical 'representation' of quantum machanical spin.

The elctrons doesn't 'spin' as in the representation, its just portrayed that way to conveniently express the concept pictorially. You do understand that don't you?

It is showing you that theres i +1/2 and -1/2. Right?

The reality is there are integers all the way to infinity.


The conventional definition of the spin quantum number s is s = n/2, where n can be any non-negative integer. Hence the allowed values of s are 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, etc.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/3/d/a3dcfc1fafbf03f2a2934d98fc82533c.png

The +'ve and the -'ve distinction comes about here.


One can see that there are 2s+1 possible values of sz. The number "2s + 1" is the multiplicity of the spin system. For example, there are only two possible values for a spin-1/2 particle: sz = +1/2 and sz = −1/2. These correspond to quantum states in which the spin is pointing in the +z or −z directions respectively, and are often referred to as "spin up" and "spin down". For a spin-3/2 particle, like a delta baryon, the possible values are +3/2, +1/2, −1/2, −3/2.

As I have stated BEFORE, and this is fact...

it does not have a counterpart in classical mechanics (despite the term spin being reminiscent of classical phenomena such as a planet spinning on its axis).

You need to accept that you're thinking about quanrum spin is misleadingly rudimentery. Even posting that image is proof of this.

[singular_me]

yes I understood this but I posted the 3 pix to show the electromagnetic vortex at different levels.... not the *spin*

dont build your case on this, this is kinda trivial. Otherwise I would not have posted the angular momentum link, to go ALONG with your words.

how interesting, I googled "angular momentum and planets" and found the link above.... any of the videos I watched about the electric universe were peaking of this (most likely because they were too short to go at that level of depth), so I have learned something.



Do you think is is a physical 'model' of the phenomena of quantum mechanical spin?
The elctrons doesn't 'spin' as in the representation, its just portrayed that way to conveniently express the concept pictorially. You do understand that don't you?

[singular_me]

anything that is spinning has a south and north pole otherwise there wouldnt be any motion. The Universe is itself a vortex

feel free to download The Universal One, which explains all all this, I posted the link earlier


Something wrong with the universe pic. Instead of the galaxy looking like its spinning the rings would look like ripples of water emanating out from the center after throwing a rock.
The pic of the galaxy has the rings attached to the center...that's an impossibility using your model. So I don't really believe the galaxy has a north and a south pole

[aeondaze]

From that website, it showed this model...

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls0vpfpWpG1r0ghuc.png

And this is bullshit. electrons don't orbit about atoms like planets do suns.

All the links you showed are just a lot of crackpot ideas, saying nothing with a lot of fancy words, but claiming accepted theories are wrong, then making statement like this...


Could there be a size-scaling relationship that is mathematically equivalent for solid atoms and asteroids?

What a lot of cods-wallop. You want to believe it because it made a statement that conventional wisdom is wrong.

Its nothing but a mouthfull of nosensical bibberish masquerading badly as technicaly savy.

You should be embarased by this stuff, really :rolleyes:

[singular_me]

ok Aeon, but just know that the Electric Universe theory has its support from many scientists, whether you agree or not. That is just one theory among others.

however it doesnt say *always*, but *under special conditions*. when something is true, it should be always so in any case figure, and the Electric Universe theory proves that it isnt.

Questions: Could atoms or electrons under special conditions behave entirely as 100% self-similar Fractal analogues with the solar system and asteroids?

[aeondaze]

Questions: Could atoms or electrons under special conditions behave entirely as 100% self-similar Fractal analogues with the solar system and asteroids?

No. The underlying mathematical modelling used to desribe these phenomena are uterrly different. They belong to two completely different understandings about the universe. There is no doubt this is an enigma in and of itself, but by no means invalid no matter how difficult it is to reconcile intellectually. This is the nature of our universe.

Only in very special circumstances do these two worlds collide, like black holes and the Big Bang..


It is possible, in some theories of quantum gravity, to calculate the quantum corrections to ordinary, classical black holes. Contrarily to conventional black holes which are solutions of gravitational field equations of the general theory of relativity, quantum gravity black holes incorporate quantum gravity effects in the vicinity of the origin, where classically a curvature singularity occurs. According to the theory employed to model quantum gravity effects, there are different kinds of quantum gravity black holes, namely loop quantum black holes, non-commutative black holes, asymptotically safe black holes. In these approaches, black holes are singularity free.

The effective quantum model and classical models bear no connection through fractal theory. This is just another dodgy attempt to reconcile these two disparate and stark models of universe and matter.

Whenever I think of some transecendant guru meditating, I like to think that he is holding two completely irreconcilable thoughts in his mind, equally in balance, like the difference bewteen the classical reality or our universe on a large scale and the sheer enigmatic nature of the quantum model in the micro.

Another one is wave/particle duality, the sort of concept that can send one batshit crazy if you think about it too much, or even lead one to believe that quantum theory is absurd and false. (Neuro, I still love ya brother, not in a homo way though...ahem....)

[singular_me]

There is no doubt this is an enigma in and of itself, but by no means invalid no matter how difficult it is to reconcile intellectually. This is the nature of our universe.

aeon, there are many ways to look at things, the angle of observation varies according to the data at the time of the observation and questions arising in someone's mind. Thats why we all think different.

astrophysics, although still in its infancy, must question the nature of electromagnetism as it sustains Life as a first step or theories will fall apart at some point - eventually. Thats why I go along with Plasma/Electric theories. they may not get it all just yet, but thats the path to go. IMHO

[aeondaze]

aeon, there are many ways to look at things, the angle of observation varies according to the data at the time of the observation and questions arising in someone's mind. Thats why we all think different.

astrophysics, although still in its infancy, must question the nature of electromagnetism as it sustains Life as a first step or theories will fall apart at some point - eventually. Thats why I go along with Plasma/Electric theories. they may not get it all just yet, but thats the path to go. IMHO

Plasma theory has a shaky history that defies the gains made in astrophysics since the 1970's. It is another dead end theory that ONLY appeals to neophytes. The guy who proposed these ideas died twenty years ago, and no one has ANY time for it and not because its a conspiracy!


Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the evolution of galaxies[30] and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.[18] In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for dark matter in galaxies and with the need for supermassive black holes in galaxy centres to power quasars and active galactic nuclei.[30][29] However, theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times [of the universe are disfavored]",[19] i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (1018 Amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.[33] Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the cosmic microwave background and the nature of quasars, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe. [B]Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the expanding universe; their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology

quantum mechanics says a lot of CRAZY shit about how our universe 'could' be, but the scientists working in these abstract fields recognize the need to adequately explain the way it ACTUALLY is, rather than the way an equation may say it is. Equations don't always have one solution, even though one of the answers may make NO sense whatsoever and defies reality.

:)

[7th trump]

Singular,
Keep in mind that just because an animation showing a trail behind the planets as they rotate around the sun looks like a vortex as the universe goes on a path........the planet are still on a flat plane rotating around the sun....the planets are not themselves vortexing around the sun...they are rotating on a flat plane around the sun.
Its easy to get the vortex confused with the truth that the planets are rotating around the sun on a flat plane when adding a trail behind the planets.

If the planets were indeed vortexing they wouldnt remian in the solar system...they would have been left behind long go.

[Dogman]

Speaking of whirring!

The earth rotates about 1000 mph at the equator.

The earths orbit around the sun is about 67,108 mph.

The solar system orbits around the milky ways center at about 500,000 mph.

Everything is moving!

Enough to make your head spin!


Edit:

And most mothers orbit around their kids at varying distances and speeds!

:)

[Horn]

If the planets were indeed vortexing they wouldnt remian in the solar system...they would have been left behind long go.

A good indication that we are heading northwise rather than southwise is the ozone hole.

Although you may be heading south.

[singular_me]

I never implied such a thing... the vortex is the electromagnetic field each atom, planet, star, galaxy has on its own... so, the ellipses of the planets around the sun are not vortices.

this is a vortex
http://ishtarsgate.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/vortices-electromagnetic-earth-2.jpg

the planets rotating around the sun show the fibonacci sequence that I just threw in for the eyes and illustrate electromagnetism. Sorry if it was confusing.

the plane is not completely flat (it is an optical illusion because of the huge dimensions of the galaxy) but slightly waves


Singular,
Keep in mind that just because an animation showing a trail behind the planets as they rotate around the sun looks like a vortex as the universe goes on a path........the planet are still on a flat plane rotating around the sun....the planets are not themselves vortexing around the sun...they are rotating on a flat plane around the sun.
Its easy to get the vortex confused with the truth that the planets are rotating around the sun on a flat plane when adding a trail behind the planets.

If the planets were indeed vortexing they wouldnt remian in the solar system...they would have been left behind long go.

[singular_me]

wanna spin, watch this!:)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCYp1O_ZjPY


A good indication that we are heading northwise rather than southwise is the ozone hole.

Although you may be heading south.

[Horn]

It is another dead end theory that ONLY appeals to neophytes.

From the lips of a modern archaeology general major...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1dy44jV8EM

[singular_me]

not if one regards electromagnetism as the *blood* of the Universe

however, for each theory there are debunkers... Einstein has already been debunked, who is next?

I dont think scientists can go too wrong with that:

The Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo's Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized "gases") which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields. Much of the material considered by the Electric Universe is peer-reviewed, but not all

http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction



It is another dead end theory that ONLY appeals to neophytes.

[Dogman]

Electromagnetism is fairly understood.

The bogy man is gravity, yes more mass = more gravity but how and why!

And I bet gravity has a spin, it seems like everything in in existence as understood by man does at some level!

[Horn]

The bogy man is gravity, yes more mass = more gravity but how and why!

Sounds like you need cohesion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oseMtH1M1o

[singular_me]

this is contradictory
more mass = stronger electromagnetism


Electromagnetism is fairly understood.

The bogy man is gravity, yes more mass = more gravity but how and why!

And I bet gravity has a spin, it seems like everything in in existence as understood by man does at some level!

[Dogman]

this is contradictory
more mass = stronger electromagnetism

Wrong but also right.

My statement stands as stated!

More mass = more gravity!

Now if a electromagnetic field is generated depends!

Nothing proves more mas = more electromagnetic fields.

Unless there are hot planetary cores rotating!

[Horn]

All you need is love, of another like you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4phxw3QJPF4

[singular_me]

mainstreamly speaking, it is said that gravity is not a byproduct of electromagnetic force but they are considered to be two of the fundamental forces. The other two are known as the “strong” and “weak” forces.

It still is electromagnetism.

I wish you'd read the "Universal One" some time, Walter Russels nailed it. His book offers the basic theories in simple terms and which regard gravity as an element of divide between scientists to spread confusion. Hence the title of his work

(2002) This paper presents an attempt to unify gravity and electromagnetism
(I didnt read this, too long and filled with complex terminology, just posting the link to show that some are working on it)
http://noeticadvancedstudies.us/Amoroso17.pdf



Wrong but also right.

My statement stands as stated!

More mass = more gravity!

Now if a electromagnetic field is generated depends!

Nothing proves more mas = more electromagnetic fields.

Unless there are hot planetary cores rotating!

[Dogman]

mainstreamly speaking, it is said that gravity is not a byproduct of electromagnetic force but they are considered to be two of the fundamental forces. The other two are known as the “strong” and “weak” forces.

It still is electromagnetism.

I wish you'd read the "Universal One" some time, Walter Russels nailed it. His book offers the basic theories in simple terms and which regard gravity as an element of divide between scientist. Hence the title of his work

This paper presents an attempt to unify gravity and electromagnetism
(I didnt read this, too long and filled with complex terminology)
http://noeticadvancedstudies.us/Amoroso17.pdf



Been there and done that years ago!

I do keep up on current thought.

Plus refine my own!

Peace!

Edit

Gravity is one of the mystorys still unexplained!

And so far not connected to electromagnetictics! As known and understood.

Android Forum Runner

[aeondaze]

mainstreamly speaking, it is said that gravity is not a byproduct of electromagnetic force but they are considered to be two of the fundamental forces. The other two are known as the “strong” and “weak” forces.

(I didnt read this, too long and filled with complex terminology, just posting the link to show that some are working on it)
http://noeticadvancedstudies.us/Amoroso17.pdf

There is no non-mainstream in this regard. You're just trying to conjure up something that doesn't exist.

It is we who are 'educating' you on the physics of the universe so its patronising to hear you regurgitate information we've already fed you, but thats how you operate, with an air of arrogance that isn't justified.

Right on cue, here you are providing links to papers you haven't read and don't understand.

Why would we accept anything you say then on face value?

At least the other posters here have a decent understanding of the physical world. All you're doing is trying to push some absurdly false theory that fits your misunderstandings about the universe.

o)(~

[Neuro]

Wrong but also right.

My statement stands as stated!

More mass = more gravity!

Now if a electromagnetic field is generated depends!

Nothing proves more mas = more electromagnetic fields.

Unless there are hot planetary cores rotating!
Exactly Mars and the moon don't have hot cores rotating and thus no significant magnetic field... But the gravity they exhibit is proportional to their mass...

[singular_me]

why did you remove the title of this paper?

(2002) This paper presents an attempt to unify gravity and electromagnetism
...just posting the link to show that some are working on it)

We ALL fall for theories that seems right to us. And thats why there are MANY theories out there. Do you know them ALL? I bet you do not.

Electromagnetism (electricity) is the blood of the Universe. irrefutable. Any scientist would agree with that... and this is the point I merely wanted to make in this thread. So to me it is clear that the electromagnetic and plasma theories are the most valuable out there, as they focus on a prime cause.

Most of the scientific field just responds the way society is, coming up with laws to address the consequences. Thats why most theories end up being replaced with new ones endlessly.

Einstein was not right about everything, but his flawed research is still taught in colleges. But since the truth has been available for centuries, the Academia knows. They just push for flawed or extremely time consuming theories (such as gravity), so they can control knowledge, and those getting close to the truth are being ostracized or ignored.

The American Institute of Physics
“From before 1920 until his death in 1955, Einstein struggled to find laws of physics far more general than any known before. In his theory of relativity, the force of gravity had become an expression of the geometry of space and time. The other forces in nature, above all the force of electromagnetism, had not been described in such terms. But it seemed likely to Einstein that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure. The quest for such an explanation — for a “unified field” theory that would unite electromagnetism and gravity, space and time, all together — occupied more of Einstein’s years than any other activity“. - http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/philos1.htm

by the way, I just found an interesting page.
http://www.theimagineershome.com/blog/?p=42




There is no non-mainstream in this regard. You're just trying to conjure up something that doesn't exist.

It is we who are 'educating' you on the physics of the universe so its patronising to hear you regurgitate information we've already fed you, but thats how you operate, with an air of arrogance that isn't justified.

Right on cue, here you are providing links to papers you haven't read and don't understand.

Why would we accept anything you say then on face value?

At least the other posters here have a decent understanding of the physical world. All you're doing is trying to push some absurdly false theory that fits your misunderstandings about the universe.

o)(~

[aeondaze]

(2002) This paper presents an attempt to unify gravity and electromagnetism
...just posting the link to show that some are working on it)

Big deal, there are many theories because there are so many fileds...but there is whole lot of consensus that liess within these communities, something your silly theories will NEVER have.


We ALL fall for theories that seems right to us. And thats why there are MANY theories out there. I bet you do not.

I never claimed to know ALL theories, so what does this prove...I don't fall for anything...I meticulously analyse, then decide...MAJOR DIFFERENCE.


Electromagnetism (electricity) is the blood of the Universe.

No, its just one part of it, its far, far more complex than you could even begin to understand, seriously.

So stop with the petulant diatribe of 'science is bad, scientists are dictators, scientists eat babies'.

[Horn]

Exactly Mars and the moon don't have hot cores rotating and thus no significant magnetic field... But the gravity they exhibit is proportional to their mass...

6449

Mars was a recent victim of plasmatic discharge, don't count him as a rogfurt machine made and hollow moon.


Lab study indicates Mars has a molten core

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11962-lab-study-indicates-mars-has-a-molten-core.html#.U6xjIfldXTQ