Notices
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 305

Thread: Electrical universe

  1. #1 Electrical universe 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    This thread is addressed to William McCormick.

    William, you keep posting in every other thread trying to explain your theory of an all electric universe. Instead, let's put all the posts here and try and work the details into something comprehensible.

    First, a question though. Do you agree that good science is built on repeatability? That is, if you do something today and something happens, then by recreating the same conditions, you or anyone else can cause the same thing to happen again.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Id have thought this should be in Pseudoscience. But well see what happens. 8)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Electrical universe 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    This thread is addressed to William McCormick.

    William, you keep posting in every other thread trying to explain your theory of an all electric universe. Instead, let's put all the posts here and try and work the details into something comprehensible.

    First, a question though. Do you agree that good science is built on repeatability? That is, if you do something today and something happens, then by recreating the same conditions, you or anyone else can cause the same thing to happen again.
    Repeatability is what I stand for. Multi subatomic particle scientists cannot repeat what they do.

    They create a train wreck and say "maybe those were some small particles that we can never see, and they have a half spin".

    Then they publish papers to the effect that they have conclusively isolated a new particle. They win the noble prize, that lets us know, it was not a real, or good find. It labels them as poor scientists, gone mad.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Alright. I'll take that as a yes.

    Next question. Since electron means something specific to most other people, for the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion, can we call your particle something else? This isn't particularly important, but it would make talking about it easier.

    In either case, the basis of your theory is that the entire universe is made up of a single type of particle that interacts primarily by repulsion, correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Alright. I'll take that as a yes.

    Next question. Since electron means something specific to most other people, for the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion, can we call your particle something else? This isn't particularly important, but it would make talking about it easier.

    In either case, the basis of your theory is that the entire universe is made up of a single type of particle that interacts primarily by repulsion, correct?

    It is highly important. They were originally called particles of electricity by Benjamin Franklin. And later between scientists of many countries called electrons.

    My understanding is the original understanding. What you were taught after the start of the dark ages does not and should not concern me.
    The dark ages were openly announced by paranoid law makers. There was, and really is, no misunderstanding here. Most know something is horribly wrong with science.

    Each individual had one or two real and cool experiments shown to them, and they believed from seeing a one hundred year old experiment that was no longer talked about publicly in their day, that they were getting the best in education. When the dark reality is that they were getting announced, accepted, counterintelligence information. Along with a cool experiment.

    But each individual had one or two really bad conflicts with what they knew already. So it is a dead issue.

    An electron just repels. It did over two hundred years ago, it does today, and it will tomorrow. We can easily demonstrate that the electron repels all things.

    Our batteries are labeled backwards to Benjamin Franklin's original labeling. If you read some of Benjamin Franklin's work although they were short of the "s" typeset you can still make out what he says. Basically he says that thunder clouds are usually short of electrons. However some here and there are abundant with electrons. He was of course doing the work on lightning that later lead to the lightning rod.

    His lightning rod creates an abundance of electricity to repel lightning. From the rod and the immediate vicinity. Only electricity, an abundance of free electrons, can stop electricity. Nothing else on earth can.

    Today a battery sends electrons from the (-) marked terminal. Meaning that the positive electromotive force, the voltage is coming from a terminal with a (-) symbol.
    Originally batteries did not send electrons from the (-) terminal. They sent them from the (+) terminal.

    However this simple way to use and learn about electricity, seemed very dangerous to paranoid law makers. Colleges were funded to the tune of counterintelligence, for many years at least one hundred or more. Colleges were just about to be closed down, by the research and statistics of good colleges.
    When the government stepped in and said, let all go to college. Blacks, poor whites, and Hispanic people. Hooray.

    Maybe there is some kind of twisted irony in there to learn from.

    And on the other hand they stopped funding to the good colleges that declared colleges a failed practice.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Well, if it's that important to you, we'll stick with electrons.

    Anyway, let me clarify some of what I remember from previous posts.

    - There are two basic states of electrons, energy and matter.
    - Matter is composed of atoms, which are protons orbited by electrons.
    - Protons are tightly packed balls of electrons.
    - Energy doesn't react with energy but repels matter.
    - Matter repels matter, but not as strongly as energy does.

    So far, so good?

    Now for some questions.

    - What keeps the protons together? I think I remember you saying that the ambient energy holds it together, but how were they forced together in the first place, and why don't the electrons within the proton repel each other?
    - How many electrons make up a proton?
    - How much does an electron weigh?

    BTW, a friendly warning, leave off on the racism or you will get banned. I don't need to be a mod to say that with certainty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Anyone who says the universe has operated by a one and only standard has been DONE by that standard. In the case therefore of electricity, we are talking about a lobotomy.

    Giiven though the world dependx on this, on this energy7..............so be it.\]\
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Well, if it's that important to you, we'll stick with electrons.

    Anyway, let me clarify some of what I remember from previous posts.

    - There are two basic states of electrons, energy and matter.
    - Matter is composed of atoms, which are protons orbited by electrons.
    - Protons are tightly packed balls of electrons.
    - Energy doesn't react with energy but repels matter.
    - Matter repels matter, but not as strongly as energy does.

    So far, so good?

    Now for some questions.

    - What keeps the protons together? I think I remember you saying that the ambient energy holds it together, but how were they forced together in the first place, and why don't the electrons within the proton repel each other?
    - How many electrons make up a proton?
    - How much does an electron weigh?

    BTW, a friendly warning, leave off on the racism or you will get banned. I don't need to be a mod to say that with certainty.

    You kind of misquoted me there a bunch. And you are also mixing two areas, or two different isolated instances into one understanding. You would first need to get both understandings so you could then put both isolated instances into one big picture.

    Matter is electrons. The electrons gyrate in the protons. Because they are being bombarded by ambient radiation continuously. Ambient radiation keeps them trapped in the proton sphere. Ambient radiation although it may take a slightly arced path, does not orbit the proton. However if you looked at matter, as if you were a proton, from within. You would see what looked like super fast meteorites whizzing around the protons. But they are coming from all angles and maintaining the straightest path possible through matter. It may just appear that they are orbiting. They only orbit above the proton a fraction of the circumference of a proton. And then they are on their way. To the next proton. This often positively accelerates them.

    So it depends on whether you are trying to understand it or not understand it. It is like yes they do orbit, but not totally or completely orbit.

    It was observed and demonstrated that if you took a basketball and put it inside a huge metal pipe frame sphere. Where marksmen were placed all around the sphere in bullet proof clothing. And they all fired at the basketball in unison.

    All would hit the basket ball. Baring their scope got hit and unaligned. The basket ball would be full of holes. It would probably move a bit back and forth. There would be hundreds or thousands of holes, depending on how big a sphere, or how many shooters you could place around the sphere at once.

    Now if we replaced the basket ball, with a paper sphere. And fired at the paper sphere, all at once all the marksmen. You would note that none of their bullets collided. By viewing where they hit passing through the paper sphere. And even if they did collide against the odds, the slight change in angle would go unnoticed. With all that lead flying around.

    Consider that the scale of those bullets is perhaps infinitely larger in scale to the basketball then the electron is to the proton.

    So when I say that the ambient radiation does not have an effect on ambient radiation. I mean to say that, as it is in free flight ambient radiation has little effect on itself.

    The matter, around the object effecting the ambient radiation is the cause of change in the ether or ambient radiation.

    If you change density from one object to another or one state to another. Like air around an object, either in the earths atmosphere or in outer space. At the surface an effect is created. Where the ambient radiation at the surface is slowed in velocity so much, to create light. That it bottlenecks at the surface. These free electrons soon to be high velocity ambient radiation again, do effect ambient radiation. But it requires the difference in density, in a single or multiple objects.

    Just like a dessert mirage can hide things in plain site. The different density gases create a lens, that bends light.

    At surfaces an effect is created that allows high speed ambient radiation, electrons to be slowed as they leave a lit object, so that our eyes can perceive the electrons as light.

    This below is how I learned light, and it was the understanding, the really great scientists that isolated the elements had. They used some of the most outlandish sneaky methods, and persistence, life long persistence. Tens of thousands of recorded experiments. Creating the scientific method.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/mrbill/mrbill.html


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    If you were someone in disguise, I would be "happpy", as u r (&)0

    But the serious fact about your elecrticity belief humbles me, entirely.









    I have a belief, but it seems to interfere with your hearing, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Well, if it's that important to you, we'll stick with electrons.

    Anyway, let me clarify some of what I remember from previous posts.

    - There are two basic states of electrons, energy and matter.
    - Matter is composed of atoms, which are protons orbited by electrons.
    - Protons are tightly packed balls of electrons.
    - Energy doesn't react with energy but repels matter.
    - Matter repels matter, but not as strongly as energy does.

    So far, so good?

    Now for some questions.

    - What keeps the protons together? I think I remember you saying that the ambient energy holds it together, but how were they forced together in the first place, and why don't the electrons within the proton repel each other?
    - How many electrons make up a proton?
    - How much does an electron weigh?

    BTW, a friendly warning, leave off on the racism or you will get banned. I don't need to be a mod to say that with certainty.

    I just got to the racism part in your post. You have to be kidding me. I have never been a racist. I have black friends.

    There are white people that hate white people. Black people that hate black people. And Spanish people that hate Spanish people. Often rightly so. I have had black friends that have said "now that is a stupid Niger" about other black people.

    I feel like that about white multi subatomic particle scientists. They are some white trash. This statement although perhaps racial, is not intended to be a racial statement. As I feel there are some good white people.

    I have yet to see racism as anything but retardation. If someone is acting stupid then they are acting stupid. If you say you stupid white trash MF then it clarifies who is being stupid. If someone is black and being stupid and you say, you stupid black MF then that clarifies who you are talking about. No racism. Just digs or ways to get someone angry.



    I was talking about what took place in history. Not my actions. Those were actions taken by law makers. And they were intended to create racial overtones.

    Ask people who have applied for welfare what they think of the system. Ask them, if they think it was about and for them, and their welfare.

    If the government gives it to you. It is going to cost you something, probably a lot more, then you would beleive.

    If you contribute to something good, you will end up getting more then you contributed.

    The Catholic churches before World War Two, were winning against law makers and poverty. With nothing but charity, really good soup kitchens and job placement programs for workers. The church had the power to embarrass law makers out of office or the parish.

    The government felt the amazing power of the Catholic church and attacked them. Created welfare. It became hard for the Catholic church to get donations. Because now the parish members were paying much higher taxes to help out their brothers. So the Catholic churches closed down the soup kitchens.

    It cost the American people billions. The rich were insanely taxed. That just trickled down to the worker. The worker is the only one doing anything.

    The workers did not like to pay for what the government purposely announced as exorbitant benefits to poor people not working for it.
    The average working man heard what the government said the poor would get, and went almost mad. It was in some case more then the working man had.
    The government that never intended to give the poor, any real amount of money or comfort, said "alright if you do not want to help out your brother, we will stop the programs or cut the benifits".

    That is all law makers are. They just skimmed the tax money off for their interests.

    By this time the Catholic church had disbanded its vast network. Due to poverty.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Back to science.

    The protons are very small spheres. If you take a look at volume to surface area of a sphere. You can note that as the sphere increases in size, its volume to surface area ratio increases as well.


    A proton is very small. I mean really small. Almost unimaginably small. Yet there are an infinite number of electrons in this tiny sphere.

    The point is that there are a huge amount or volume of electrons, but with only a small surface area to guard. Compared to the electron with a tiny volume and huge surface area.

    So that you get the maximum effect from repulsive ambient radiation as it passes through the atoms. It has to do with escape angle and electron interaction within a sphere. But I was kind of not paying attention or did not ask any questions about this. It seemed very far off before I would ever confirm or discuss it with anyone.

    An electron has no weight. Zero weight. It is only capable of infinite to zero repulsion based on proximity to matter.

    It can be demonstrated that weight is not needed to explain, how matter can appear to have mass or weight. Yet not have any.

    These two different videos one an animation the other of a real life experiment. Show something you can do yourself and check out the phenomena. At a pool hall in America your pop would bring you down, and demonstrate this to you when you were young. It is part of the secret of the all electron universe.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Ball...sAndAtoms.html
    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Ball...lsandTime.html

    The electrons in the proton, are so many and never touch, and cannot be destroyed. So when an object is struck. The velocity is passed from one electron to another and to another. Through what will by human capability remain an infinite number of exchanges. Each using up some of the velocity.
    Because there is no such thing as energy. On the atomic level.

    When you see a nuclear bomb, you are just witnessing high velocity ambient radiation being slowed to create the effect of the bomb. It just removes the bomb out of the way, so ambient radiation can pass through and bring stabilizing high velocity radiation to the rest of the universe.

    The universe does not like when you try to destroy it. Ha-ha.

    On an interesting note. Cancer cells year ago in the fifties were successfully combatted. By consuming alcohol and subjecting the human body to severe exercise in plastic suits. The large volume of most cancer cells compared to the low area cell membrane, did not allow the alcohol to leave the cancer cell in time. The cancer cell became poisoned and died.

    While the small human cells only suffered near normal losses.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    On the racism point, I'll assume I just misread then. To help avoid such confusion, would it be possible for you to stop interjecting so many off-topic comments into the conversation? I'd like to discuss science, not history or politics. I have issues with both as well, but this isn't the place for it.

    Back to the science.

    My own personal experience is contrary to the second half of your animation. With a gap between the first ball and the second, the cue ball still stops cold if it hits squarely, and if it doesn't it doesn't stop in either case. I've played pool quite a bit in the past. It's one of my favorite physical games.

    So you said that protons have a small, but non-zero, volume, and they contain an infinite number of electrons. This must imply that electrons have no volume. That is they are point-like particles.

    What keeps the electrons in the proton? You have a spherical volume full of rapidly moving electrons that would otherwise move in a straight line right out of the proton.

    Also, on its own, away from any matter, how fast does an electron move?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    On the racism point, I'll assume I just misread then. To help avoid such confusion, would it be possible for you to stop interjecting so many off-topic comments into the conversation? I'd like to discuss science, not history or politics. I have issues with both as well, but this isn't the place for it.

    Back to the science.

    My own personal experience is contrary to the second half of your animation. With a gap between the first ball and the second, the cue ball still stops cold if it hits squarely, and if it doesn't it doesn't stop in either case. I've played pool quite a bit in the past. It's one of my favorite physical games.

    So you said that protons have a small, but non-zero, volume, and they contain an infinite number of electrons. This must imply that electrons have no volume. That is they are point-like particles.

    What keeps the electrons in the proton? You have a spherical volume full of rapidly moving electrons that would otherwise move in a straight line right out of the proton.

    Also, on its own, away from any matter, how fast does an electron move?
    If you play pool and you hit the que ball low dead center, with the que stick and some force. It will cause the que ball to leave the que stick, without rolling forward. The que just skids across the felt. I have watched marked que balls to witness this.
    So when the que ball gets to the ball in question it simulates a slight backspin on the que ball. However if you hit the que ball dead center or top dead center it will follow a single ball it hits. Just a measurable amount.

    Try just rolling the que ball, without hitting it with the que stick that causes different effects.

    Try it with those five balls on strings. Some call it Newtons cradle. Cause a gap between two balls before they are hit by the driving ball. You will get the results I showed in the movie and animation.

    Detouring from science.

    I almost got killed one night. I did not drink, but hung out with my friends in a bar. I used to play people that did not know me, for a round of drinks, for my friends. I played rather well, and the bartender said to me look, take on anyone, I will cover you. Heck you almost never lose anyway.

    So one night I am playing a guy who was very good. I ran the table but could not sink the eight ball. The fellow just put me where I had no shot at the eight.

    I would have lost if I could not hit the eight ball. I used low right, English on the shot. Since it was the eight, I called it in the reverse side pocket in case it went in.
    The guy just laughed at me, because it was an impossible shot. I looked at the shot, from using and playing around with English I guessed at the ratio necessary to hit the eight ball. The eight was completely hidden. The que actually had to stop and make a right turn after passing the other ball.

    I really did not think it was going into the reverse side pocket. That shot alone without English is hard. I just wanted to hit the eight and stay alive. Well I put it right in. And he came across the table at me. I thought I might die.

    This place had guns and knives. That was the last time I ever played for a round. His and my friends grabbed him though.

    Back to science.

    The electron has a volume we will just never measure it, in our lifetime from what I can see.

    The tiny electron has a lot of surface for such a small particle. Its surface area is much greater in ratio to its volume then the proton. So its zone of influence is much greater by ratio then that of the proton. The proton sphere imprisons the electrons in the proton. Much like the sun or the planet imprisons atoms. With gravity which comes from around the planet to the planet.

    Each area of a proton effected, is effected in a cone shaped area by a passing electron. The cone although powerful in splitting and separating things. Moves them slowly. By the time the movement is taking place another cone in another area of the proton is being put under pressure. The constant bombardment does not let the electrons out. And keeps them trapped.

    Some ambient radiation electrons the Universal Scientists said, are going so fast that, although they are still there, supplying stabilizing ambient radiation. Are not detectable to any equipment they had. And no bomb detonated had ever stopped all of them. It would just be a guess how fast they are going.

    But as I say the ambient radiation is slowed down to create gravity, X-rays, Ultraviolet and then light. Each one slower then the next.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    William were any experiments conducted to prove this science? If so, could you explain the experiment to me, or provide a link to a description. Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    More questions.

    Can you explain how you can fit an infinite number of things with volume into a finite space?

    You say matter is composed of dense packages of electrons held together by pressure from the free electrons and gravity is created when one of those electrons goes through a proton, slowing down?

    Also, how is a proton is formed in the first place?

    What is gravity/x-rays/light made of?

    @Stuart, hopefully, after I can get the details of the theory down, I can design such an experiment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    ^Yeah that would be dandy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    More questions.

    Can you explain how you can fit an infinite number of things with volume into a finite space?

    You say matter is composed of dense packages of electrons held together by pressure from the free electrons and gravity is created when one of those electrons goes through a proton, slowing down?

    Also, how is a proton is formed in the first place?

    What is gravity/x-rays/light made of?

    @Stuart, hopefully, after I can get the details of the theory down, I can design such an experiment.
    Ok, you have a point. Your point is though however, what they (multi subatomic particle scientists) used to destroy my science and start a quest for something smaller, and other then, an unknowable particle, the electron.

    Universal scientists said literally "Hey look do some real thorough experiments with electricity, light, x-rays" And you tell us if you can isolate one electron. There is no way". But the universal scientists gave firm positive reasons and examples why it would be foolish.

    When you try to see an electron. As an analogy you are going to be looking for a beech ball, through millions of solar systems.
    Basically the solar system sized air atoms and molecules, in scale to an electron.

    You will hear me say a beech ball in the solar system, a piece of dust in the solar system. But the truth is both are legitimate analogies. Because that is how little we know about the size of an electron.

    The electron brings us pictures of such amazing clarity. That their numbers in the ambient radiation is something that I can only say, my God about.

    The universal scientists from pure speculation, and doing multiple tests of projection and density. X-ray clarity. Probability of strike. Came to the conclusion that the electron is infinitely small. They basically said don't even go there. We have been going there for almost one hundred years on and off, and it is not going to happen.

    We can know from the destruction of a proton that the numbers of electrons in a proton are great. Like the atoms in the sun. You can make guesses you can take or make bets. But that is it.
    Nothing like exactly 2310^47 or anything. Just darn small. Crazy small. Don't worry another second about how small. Because you will never know how small.

    The scientists would just laugh like Santa Clause at the idea of seeing one or isolating one. Because they had been there. But after 10,000 experiments they realized that they were no closer then when they started. It is like looking into another galaxy for a beech ball.

    Because you have different density objects between where you want to view the electron and where you want to record the electron. And no one could prove the atmosphere or vacuum was verifiable more then 99.99 percent. Or 1/10,000 parts.

    To understand what I am saying you have to have basics of science. As were once taught. Matter is and was 90 percent space at most, even Tungsten. When you look at an x-ray you would almost have to agree. Look through a window. It must be 90 percent space or more.

    Looking into space is like looking into the subatomic world really. You start to see the ratios. The distances to density. The illusions of distance and density. From one galaxy to another.

    I have not talked about this in almost 35 years. It is bringing back great memories. Thanks guys.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    William were any experiments conducted to prove this science? If so, could you explain the experiment to me, or provide a link to a description. Thanks.
    I would imagine that the experiments although real. Are probably harder to find then the Republic electric Harrier. The Grumman Electric GE powered F14 prototype. The bottles of ammonia both for home use and reagent grade, marked NO2.

    There is only one mention of Universal Scientists on the Web that I know of. Other then me. And it just talks about the last universal scientist. Who was actually a banned universal scientist. Who was actually not the last Universal Scientist. They are talking about Enrico Fermi.

    http://www.anl.gov/Science_and_Techn...rs/unisci.html

    I am not one of those conspiracy kind of guys. I have met with ATF, FBI, Secret Service. And we actually get along well. I actually consider some of them my friends.
    They have a pretty negative view of where it is going, unchanged. By actual day to day living with the impossible mission of keeping other nations off our backs. While our law makers kick dirt in other nations faces. I am not defending their law makers one iota. We should recall all the law makers on earth.

    Pretty much the government and paranoid or suppressed journalists. Told and accurately reported what was going to take place. Without highlighting what it meant for you and me.

    The problem is that if you hear that for "Americas safety", new measures will be put into place for your protection that actually break some American freedoms.

    Your first thought is its about time they did something about these terrorists.

    When in fact, what you don't want to see, is that they have only said that "YOU" no longer have your American rights.

    We have the terrorists number. Just like we had Hitlers number. It is a political thing, a money scam. Buy carbon black cheap and sell high.

    After the Freedom of information act was issued. They released on Government funded television. The actual making of the less then half ton. Non-uranium bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It was built by women. A lot of them. Complete with core size. Core material.

    Up until that time most thought the bomb that exploded violently was an 8,900 pound poison pill. That was also probably dropped along with the half ton bomb.

    The funny thing was it was properly reported, that the secret of the atom would be hidden from public view.
    But each good citizen thought the government meant that, they would only keep it from the truly violent or dangerous types. But they did not. They meant everyone. The real bomb also holds the basic understanding of the atom. You need that to advance the civilization.



    Here is the whole article. Take a look at the combustion engine remark. We already had perpetual motion. Using steam, and electricity. That is what Dr. Joad is talking about.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Explosives...imahalfton.PDF

    You can note that the bombs workings will be kept a secret according to the journalist. Now how at the end of the article can they go into such explicit detail about the mechanism? That is what most miss.

    I come from a place and time that was truly amazing. So I can back up this kind of open no conspiracy, right in your face nonsense. Really being passed off to good folk.

    I would just like to share what our founding fathers wrote down for us.

    "Nothing deserves your utter most patronage more then the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."

    George Washington.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Will, your idea about the importance of science is not a new one.


    When the scientific community finally cracks the atomic nut and knows how it works properly on a level of widespread use to the community, the world will go through a NEW ORDER of intellectual protection and the protection of intellectual property. The smartest minds will be employed by governments to stay ahead in this race of industrial atomic growth. It is SORT OF happening at the moment, but the issue is becomming FAST "the issue of tomorrow, for a long time".

    Those with the most knowledge about the atom will be THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER employees to "any" government.

    Thats the future, Will.

    On a small scale, take a looks at the 007 films: it is all about the "next step technologies" and who should have them and who shouldn't and what role a government should play in that "drama".

    The question is, for today, what Government is IN-LINE to not just handle the next step, but those responsible for helping us get there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Did the universal scientists do any experiments?

    I dont understand what you mean about enrico fermi. He was involved in perticle physics, and definitely believed neutrons existed. This is what he won his noble prize for: "for his demonstrations of the existence of new radioactive elements produced by neutron irradiation, and for his related discovery of nuclear reactions brought about by slow neutrons"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Will, basically, do we need to go a cut above the James Bond Government to a more probable account for the widespread use of a very sophisticated science (compared to the current one) and how that should be best managed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Alright. So it's not an infinite number; just some very large, indeterminite number.

    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    You say matter is composed of dense packages of electrons held together by pressure from the free electrons and gravity is created when one of those electrons goes through a proton, slowing down?

    Also, how is a proton is formed in the first place?

    What is gravity/x-rays/light made of?
    Can you answer the rest of these questions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    Did the universal scientists do any experiments?

    I dont understand what you mean about enrico fermi. He was involved in perticle physics, and definitely believed neutrons existed. This is what he won his noble prize for: "for his demonstrations of the existence of new radioactive elements produced by neutron irradiation, and for his related discovery of nuclear reactions brought about by slow neutrons"
    That is why he was no longer a Universal Scientist. Because there were no neutrons.

    You can make, and fusion chain new radioactive substances, without neutrons as well. It was done before neutrons were thought to be in an atom and after neutrons were thought to be in an atom. Fermi was not the first. There were plenty of accidents in laboratories a long time ago.

    Neutron was a German thing. Meaning the neutral effect that matter in the area, air around an experiment, seemed to have on the experiment.

    Air was able to take and remove an enormous amount of electrons or electricity, from an area. Or air was able to give or supply an enormous amount of electrons to an experiment. They called it a neutral effect. This was somehow called the neutron. The neutron was originally about the ether.

    This effect was highly noted in things like X-rays and Ultra Violet. Where suddenly a large amount of radio or micro waves could be made to just disappear, into the surrounding air. Through the use of filters, that just altered the rays velocity.

    If you look at some of the current work into alpha beta and gamma particles. You will see that more and more individuals that work with radiation are seeing that, the particles of radiation appear and can be shown to be the same particles. They are all electrons. Particles of electricity.

    Add in the original understanding that different velocity radiation, of a similar particle can cause different effects.
    And that large elements cause large gaps between rays of radio active radiation. And you get different effects. Still all electrons.

    Rays that are emitted from radio active substances, create rays that are far apart from one another. This allows fro a more powerful bi- polarizing effect, within a substance. Or a Geiger counter.

    Check out something describing what the neutron was originally. And what it was about. It was about the ether.





    Here is a couple more pages from the book.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Electricit...page/Howto.htm

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Will, your idea about the importance of science is not a new one.


    When the scientific community finally cracks the atomic nut and knows how it works properly on a level of widespread use to the community, the world will go through a NEW ORDER of intellectual protection and the protection of intellectual property. The smartest minds will be employed by governments to stay ahead in this race of industrial atomic growth. It is SORT OF happening at the moment, but the issue is becomming FAST "the issue of tomorrow, for a long time".

    Those with the most knowledge about the atom will be THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER employees to "any" government.

    Thats the future, Will.

    On a small scale, take a looks at the 007 films: it is all about the "next step technologies" and who should have them and who shouldn't and what role a government should play in that "drama".

    The question is, for today, what Government is IN-LINE to not just handle the next step, but those responsible for helping us get there.
    America is the only country I see capable of reviving one hundred and two hundred year old science.
    We would have to announce that retards took control, and have now been put in a safe place or made safe. And that we are once again on a road to omniscience.

    Short of that, and you will need a computer to record all the new particles in an atom. It is back to Benjamin Franklin and the insanity his simple understanding created. Or it will just be more of the same nonsense.

    America is science.

    You have the right to Individual Spiritual Freedom.
    You have the right to Assemble and gather to form a more perfect Union.
    You have the right to bear arms.
    You have the right to no taxation without representation.
    You have the right to a Jury by your own peers.
    You have the right to protect your fortune.
    You have the right to practice the religion of your choice under God

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Alright. So it's not an infinite number; just some very large, indeterminite number.

    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    You say matter is composed of dense packages of electrons held together by pressure from the free electrons and gravity is created when one of those electrons goes through a proton, slowing down?

    Also, how is a proton is formed in the first place?

    What is gravity/x-rays/light made of?
    Can you answer the rest of these questions?
    Each atom is like a little solar system to an electron. The electrons move from one proton to the next, in what would be described as a pretty straight path.

    The electrons have to spiral through the matter. They arc slightly as they go around each atom and or molecule. This often speeds them up. Especially in dense metals. Not as much in liquids and less in gases.

    As light hits a piece of metal on one side. It is positively accelerated back to dark radiation speeds. So when it comes out of the other side of the metal plate. You cannot detect light. However some equipment can detect the fact that there was light hitting the other side.

    The electrons do not go through protons to my knowledge. Never heard any reason for it. Or anything it would clear up. They basically just apply a constant pressure on each proton in matter.

    Remember I was talking about a high powered BB gun and a cheaper BB gun. Both can put a hole right through both sides of a beer can. The high powered BB gun will not move the can. The low powered BB gun moves the can. The same is true of ambient radiation. The super high speed radiation that is there, is so fast we cannot even detect it.

    If you slow it down, we can certainly detect it. Slow down ambient radiation enough and you can see your "anti gravity" like effect. You can pick up a battle ship and hurl it like a paper airplane in a white tornado.

    And not effect its structure. Because you are moving it with ambient radiation, that is still going fast enough to penetrate deeply into the body or object. And not just crush the object.

    Matter is like cheese cloth. Ambient radiation is like wind. Cause the cheese cloth to catch the wind and away it goes.

    I would have to say this is theory, below, even though it came from Universal Scientists.

    It was stated that at the edges of the universe. Exists singular electrons rather stationary. This area does not conduct anything. No light no radiation.

    As ambient radiation reaches those positions after its treak through the universe. It lays dormant. Until pressure or some force or lack of force. Allows a super giant proton to form. At that point the giant hydrogen atom is pushed away from the singular electrons. And it is forced back into the universe. Where it shrinks down to normal size.

    That is what supplies us with fresh hydrogen atoms.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Will, your idea about the importance of science is not a new one.


    When the scientific community finally cracks the atomic nut and knows how it works properly on a level of widespread use to the community, the world will go through a NEW ORDER of intellectual protection and the protection of intellectual property. The smartest minds will be employed by governments to stay ahead in this race of industrial atomic growth. It is SORT OF happening at the moment, but the issue is becomming FAST "the issue of tomorrow, for a long time".

    Those with the most knowledge about the atom will be THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER employees to "any" government.

    Thats the future, Will.

    On a small scale, take a looks at the 007 films: it is all about the "next step technologies" and who should have them and who shouldn't and what role a government should play in that "drama".

    The question is, for today, what Government is IN-LINE to not just handle the next step, but those responsible for helping us get there.
    America is the only country I see capable of reviving one hundred and two hundred year old science.
    We would have to announce that retards took control, and have now been put in a safe place or made safe. And that we are once again on a road to omniscience.

    Short of that, and you will need a computer to record all the new particles in an atom. It is back to Benjamin Franklin and the insanity his simple understanding created. Or it will just be more of the same nonsense.

    America is science.

    You have the right to Individual Spiritual Freedom.
    You have the right to Assemble and gather to form a more perfect Union.
    You have the right to bear arms.
    You have the right to no taxation without representation.
    You have the right to a Jury by your own peers.
    You have the right to protect your fortune.
    You have the right to practice the religion of your choice under God

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick


    Will, I think you are genuine about your electron theory, of the way electrons move, because you reflect your belief in the style of your address; you are very rigid with your conversation, and come to a dead stop with "sincerely". I am not trying to be critical either. I however think that electrons are "stuck" to their own core atoms, exist in e;lectron "shells", but represent the track "points" upon which what we measure as current (a combination of quantum-wave and photonic-particle energy) "moves". I think your belief that electrons move in a current is making you seem a little disenfranchised with commonly known basic facts of the atom. I only say this so you know someone has tried to explain this to you when the truth becomes conclusively known.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Ok. So electrons can't penetrate a proton. They just push away from it.

    That leaves the question "What is gravity/x-rays/light made of?"

    So dense metals (or enough of any metal, I suppose) will speed up electrons out of the visible range? Is there any materials that are good at slowing electrons down?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    electrons flip and spin in shells around the nucleus.

    the density of metals is indicative of the forces between atoms relevant to how shells of different nuclei can form virtual bonds with one another.

    quanta is energy. mass is mass. energy is what mass can do when it no longer wants to be mass. mass is what energy can do when it no longer wants to be energy. the two are connected by by a space-time condition called the speed of light.

    we all know this, right, though, don't we?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Ok. So electrons can't penetrate a proton. They just push away from it.

    That leaves the question "What is gravity/x-rays/light made of?"

    So dense metals (or enough of any metal, I suppose) will speed up electrons out of the visible range? Is there any materials that are good at slowing electrons down?
    Gravity, X-ray, light, UV all the same thing, electrons. Just different velocity electrons.
    The demonstrable thing you can observe in real life is the high velocity round verses the lower velocity round. The lower velocity round tends to pick up objects and move them even though both rounds go right through the target. The high velocity round when target shooting can be a pain in the neck. Because you need a sighting scope to see if you hit your target. Because it just goes right through many common targets and does not even move them.

    That is how I was taught about ambient radiation, from multiple sources and that is how I observed it my whole life.



    I believe the military built some polarizing types of glass, that were able to slow down ambient radiation. So that when you viewed an area that was totally dark, the glass would slow down the dark rays and create light. And make it look like daytime.

    Similar to a white cotton "T" shirt, being hit with nearly invisible black light radiation. White cotton had a strange ability to make the black light rays visible. That white painted walls and other white objects did not have.

    Look how X-rays develop regular film just like light. After passing through objects.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Here is something from the past to take a look at.




    Here is the image in a larger version in PNG format.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Health/Xra...allBladder.png



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Ok. So electrons can't penetrate a proton. They just push away from it.

    That leaves the question "What is gravity/x-rays/light made of?"

    So dense metals (or enough of any metal, I suppose) will speed up electrons out of the visible range? Is there any materials that are good at slowing electrons down?
    Gravity, X-ray, light, UV all the same thing, electrons. Just different velocity electrons.
    ...

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I don't know what physics you studied, but NONE of those things are electrons. With the exception of gravity, they are all photons. Photons are distinctly not electrons. We don't know if there is a particle associated with gravity or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    electrons flip and spin in shells around the nucleus.

    the density of metals is indicative of the forces between atoms relevant to how shells of different nuclei can form virtual bonds with one another.

    quanta is energy. mass is mass. energy is what mass can do when it no longer wants to be mass. mass is what energy can do when it no longer wants to be energy. the two are connected by by a space-time condition called the speed of light.

    we all know this, right, though, don't we?
    That is what you were taught. You have not a bit of understanding of what you are saying. You are reciting. You cannot explain what you are selling for others. Others that were not good scientists.

    I know because I heard the accounts of Chadwick, Einstein, and his group try to explain attraction as a force. There is no such thing. They were publicly crushed in open debate. Not a chance that Chadwick and his group could ever sell aspirins over the counter safely.

    You cannot explain attraction and no one else can either. You can only explain the appearance of attraction the illusion of attraction. But that is it.

    The new modern scientists came to the debate with such assurance that they were right, based on nothing, that they never even thought about attraction. There whole theory was based on attraction. They never even thought about it before the debate.

    Yet they were promoted to the highest positions after proving themselves the most blundering fools on earth.

    I was taught something else before your stuff was real or accepted.
    I saw the work that went into my stuff. And then I saw how they pushed through your stuff.
    At the time it was, no contest. The original Universal Science work had 99.99 percent accuracy. With listed variables that had no possible solution.

    The new work "would one day if left to grow show up the old work". The only problem was that they still used 99.99 percent of the old work to do anything. And based their finds on the solidity of the old Universal Science.
    The new modern scientists are a bag of hypocrisy.

    They attacked the old work at its weaknesses, that were admitted weaknesses. But so well known were the weaknesses that they were accepted variables.

    Somehow with money and corruption the modern lazy scientists took over science.

    Nothing that I know of has advanced really. We had everything we have now. Things are mostly smaller and more complex. Often doing senseless things, if these things, were being done in a first world nation.

    We have lowered the standard of living and have introduced witch doctor practices that appear to be the right way to do things. But further the cover up of truth.

    You cannot explain the bond as anything but an illusion. Some older professors in hopes that they were not flushing young scientists down the toilet would say that the forces of attraction are so complicated that, you will learn about it later.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I don't know what physics you studied, but NONE of those things are electrons. With the exception of gravity, they are all photons. Photons are distinctly not electrons. We don't know if there is a particle associated with gravity or not.
    So you are saying that the original work with cathode rays showing that they were electrons, and all the original work with tungsten X-ray elements emitting electrons, was all thrown out?

    Photon by definition is an effect of light radiation. Since when are X-rays light rays?

    And if a photon can be two or three different particles and rays, then certainly the original work, stating that the electron was also capable of the same thing through varying velocity, that can be demonstrated, must be considered, as having been attacked by fools for the last 100 years.

    Radio used to always be considered an electrical effect. Look at how it is captured by a metal antenna. All the radio and telegraph standards call radio an electrical effect.

    Radio can be used to penetrate substances much like X-rays. Is all the original telegraph work being thrown out too?

    Wow, you would think the world would want to know just how much garbage the modern scientist is creating. I don't think Hitler could have burned anymore books.

    I suppose that heat rays are photons too. UV too I suppose?

    No, it is all electrons and there was not even the slightest mystery about what they could do almost 100 years ago. There was just horrific poverty brought about by failed leaders, law makers.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 William McCormick 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    28
    Do you ever stick to the subject, or are you just trying to baffle us with BS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    electrons flip and spin in shells around the nucleus.

    the density of metals is indicative of the forces between atoms relevant to how shells of different nuclei can form virtual bonds with one another.

    quanta is energy. mass is mass. energy is what mass can do when it no longer wants to be mass. mass is what energy can do when it no longer wants to be energy. the two are connected by by a space-time condition called the speed of light.

    we all know this, right, though, don't we?
    That is what you were taught. You have not a bit of understanding of what you are saying. You are reciting. You cannot explain what you are selling for others. Others that were not good scientists.

    I know because I heard the accounts of Chadwick, Einstein, and his group try to explain attraction as a force. There is no such thing. They were publicly crushed in open debate. Not a chance that Chadwick and his group could ever sell aspirins over the counter safely.

    You cannot explain attraction and no one else can either. You can only explain the appearance of attraction the illusion of attraction. But that is it.

    The new modern scientists came to the debate with such assurance that they were right, based on nothing, that they never even thought about attraction. There whole theory was based on attraction. They never even thought about it before the debate.

    Yet they were promoted to the highest positions after proving themselves the most blundering fools on earth.

    I was taught something else before your stuff was real or accepted.
    I saw the work that went into my stuff. And then I saw how they pushed through your stuff.
    At the time it was, no contest. The original Universal Science work had 99.99 percent accuracy. With listed variables that had no possible solution.

    The new work "would one day if left to grow show up the old work". The only problem was that they still used 99.99 percent of the old work to do anything. And based their finds on the solidity of the old Universal Science.
    The new modern scientists are a bag of hypocrisy.

    They attacked the old work at its weaknesses, that were admitted weaknesses. But so well known were the weaknesses that they were accepted variables.

    Somehow with money and corruption the modern lazy scientists took over science.

    Nothing that I know of has advanced really. We had everything we have now. Things are mostly smaller and more complex. Often doing senseless things, if these things, were being done in a first world nation.

    We have lowered the standard of living and have introduced witch doctor practices that appear to be the right way to do things. But further the cover up of truth.

    You cannot explain the bond as anything but an illusion. Some older professors in hopes that they were not flushing young scientists down the toilet would say that the forces of attraction are so complicated that, you will learn about it later.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick


    Will, thankyou for the compliment, because what I said is not something I have been taught. What I quoted has been derived from a theory not taught anywhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    Do you ever stick to the subject, or are you just trying to baffle us with BS.
    hey, i find his perspective and lateral tangents interesting. difficult to figure out his thought process's maybe, but i wouldn't go calling it BS.

    especially if you don't find it necessary to be specific on what is BS and what is not. your just being hypocritical.


    i think most people would agree science is deviating from logic, becoming more like a religion, with theories invented to fit theories, invented to fit theories.

    its slowly morphing from a way to understand the universe, to a reflection of how the human brain works.

    will, maybe you should try to organize/condense/summerise your knowledge/thoughts/theories into a post. trying to be as general as possible, and explaining the thought behind your claims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    I think that those who know the most about a subject care most about it.

    When we study for exams, we care for what we study: attention to detail: we are "careful". That brings us good marks.

    Those who know most about SCIENCE care most for space-time, and on this planet, they care most for "nature" as we know it.

    In this forum, some people have absolutely NO REGARD for what someone else is saying, and yet they think they are right about what they say about that person.

    I think it is wisest to focus on the ISSUE, the SUBJECT.........not necessarily the "person".


    In the case of the LHC, I don't think these people know what they are doing, because they have no regard for NATURE..........what "may" happen, that sort of thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Do you know where to get this polarizing material? Do you know of any other materials, that are easier to come by, that can slow down ambient radiation?

    So elections passing through matter, around protons, can either speed up (from light to invisible) or slow down (from invisible to gravity)?

    So how does gravity-speed-elections interact with protons?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Yes.

    iguess so
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

    Will, thankyou for the compliment, because what I said is not something I have been taught. What I quoted has been derived from a theory not taught anywhere.
    I was referring to the electron shells or orbiting electrons. That comes from the same people that created the multi subatomic particle chaos.

    That you were taught in school. That was incorrect.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Do you know where to get this polarizing material? Do you know of any other materials, that are easier to come by, that can slow down ambient radiation?

    So elections passing through matter, around protons, can either speed up (from light to invisible) or slow down (from invisible to gravity)?

    So how does gravity-speed-elections interact with protons?

    No actually I never looked into it. I never went back to the company that manufactured it here on the Island. It was many years ago.

    But it is the same principle as fluorescent colors being hit with black light.

    A white cotton "T" shirt, being hit with black light. A black light that creates invisible rays, can create powerful light rays when striking the white "T" shirt. Or fluorescent colors.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42 Re: William McCormick 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by George Moll
    Do you ever stick to the subject, or are you just trying to baffle us with BS.

    Good scientists cannot be baffled by bull shit.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43 Tried! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    28
    Hence the word tried. If you would follow a logical pattern in your postings, even the laymen could see the mystical instead of sciencetific approach you a trying to push on us. As for being taught that way, people were once taught the world was flat. And it would only be hypocritical if I were doing the same, and then complaining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

    Will, thankyou for the compliment, because what I said is not something I have been taught. What I quoted has been derived from a theory not taught anywhere.
    I was referring to the electron shells or orbiting electrons. That comes from the same people that created the multi subatomic particle chaos.

    That you were taught in school. That was incorrect.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick


    No, I was't "taught" that in school. I found another way.


    But, I wrote this with you in mind, and not just myself:

    I think that those who know the most about a subject care most about it.

    When we study for exams, we care for what we study: attention to detail: we are "careful". That brings us good marks.

    Those who know most about SCIENCE care most for space-time, and on this planet, they care most for "nature" as we know it.

    In this forum, some people have absolutely NO REGARD for what someone else is saying, and yet they think they are right about what they say about that person.

    I think it is wisest to focus on the ISSUE, the SUBJECT.........not necessarily the "person".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    So elections passing through matter, around protons, can either speed up (from light to invisible) or slow down (from invisible to gravity)?

    So how does gravity-speed-elections interact with protons?
    Can you answer the other two questions then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46 Re: Tried! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by George Moll
    Hence the word tried. If you would follow a logical pattern in your postings, even the laymen could see the mystical instead of sciencetific approach you a trying to push on us. As for being taught that way, people were once taught the world was flat. And it would only be hypocritical if I were doing the same, and then complaining.
    I do follow a logical pattern. However at this time you do not wish to see it. Or perhaps do not want others to see it.

    I am not going to be shot down if you are in dispute with what I believe. You are certainly entitled to an opinion other then mine. You have the right to individual spiritual freedom.

    But I would like you to tell me what does not make sense to you, where you were given information that you feel so strongly about. This way I can reply to that information.

    The end of science or end goal of science, would be all knowing. I doubt I, or anyone else, is going to run out of ignorance anytime real soon.

    This journey to all knowing, has up till two hundred and fifty years ago, always been performed in the darkness. Away from the church and nay sayers. To avoid being called the devil.

    What Benjamin Franklin started is so unique and different. That we are just digesting it. Over the years as more and more breakthroughs based on Benjamin Franklin's work came forth. His work was attacked. Not because it was wrong. Because it shook the roots of anyone from any other country. It showed that they spent the last couple hundred years in the dark ages.

    The basics often put less then perfect professors in their places, even here in America. It can still be used to highlight the poor multi particle scientist today. Benjamin Franklin was 1,2,3.....

    If you stray from that I can see you stray. I often wonder if that is all I really know, 1,2,3.

    I often use analogies, and those analogies are important to me, even if not important to you. I am letting others understand my thoughts or thought processes based on my life and its interactions. That often includes politics. The root of poor science.

    As far as the world being flat, the flat world sayers have the wheel unfortunately, of the science ship or vessel.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    So elections passing through matter, around protons, can either speed up (from light to invisible) or slow down (from invisible to gravity)?

    So how does gravity-speed-elections interact with protons?
    Can you answer the other two questions then?

    I think your questions can only be answered as clearly as you have presented them, and if I answer the questions the answer may be a little off track to what you may be meaning. Can you be a little more specific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Sorry, those questions were addressed to William McCormick, who, I think, understands what I'm asking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    I was wondering about that, but now I see what you are requesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Do you know where to get this polarizing material? Do you know of any other materials, that are easier to come by, that can slow down ambient radiation?

    So electrons passing through matter, around protons, can either speed up (from light to invisible) or slow down (from invisible to gravity)?

    So how does gravity-speed-elections interact with protons?
    Yes electrons can speed up from a near dead stop to an undetectable speed. And slow from undetectable rays to Gravity rays, then X-rays, then Ultra Violet rays then light rays, then heat rays, then electricity rays, and even bomb rays.

    Common ordinary stuff often emits X-rays when either malfunctioning, getting old, or turned on and off. Often malfunctioning equipment, turns things on and off or simulates turning things on and off.

    So ordinary stuff that we feel no danger from can be unhealthy in a malfunctioning state.

    Pulsing fluorescent bulbs can output X-rays, Incandescent bulbs can also create a similar effect. Very small amounts however not expected. Or wanted.

    Other equipment as well can create powerful effects often not expected.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    So tell me then if this should work:

    1) Put a very bright light (like a spotlight) in a very dark room
    2) Put a metal plate over the spotlight so that when it's turned on, you can't see the light
    3) Aim the light at another metal plate
    4) Turn the light on

    The light from the spotlight is being sped up by the first plate to invisible speeds, but is still going in the same direction. Then it hits the second plate and is slowed back down. If the composition and the thickness of the two plates are correct, you should see light coming from the second plate, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    So tell me then if this should work:

    1) Put a very bright light (like a spotlight) in a very dark room
    2) Put a metal plate over the spotlight so that when it's turned on, you can't see the light
    3) Aim the light at another metal plate
    4) Turn the light on

    The light from the spotlight is being sped up by the first plate to invisible speeds, but is still going in the same direction. Then it hits the second plate and is slowed back down. If the composition and the thickness of the two plates are correct, you should see light coming from the second plate, right?
    The rays from a spotlight strike a plate. They are accelerated before they leave the plate. Back to dark invisible radiation.

    On the side of the plate that the light is on. If you were to get a look at it. It is lit brightly. However what is coming back at the light is slowed ambient radiation from the dark room, heading towards the light through the plate.

    The metal plate is accelerating the slowed light rays. Another plate will just leave the dark radiation, the dark radiation it already is. Metal accelerates light rays and all other rays that I know of, even X-rays at least to some degree.

    With different detecting equipment we can see through the metal and see the light. As if the metal was mostly space. The rays are coming through, they are just at another velocity.


    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/mrbill/mrbill.html

    This movie shows, just what happens to create a communication of light from a light to your nose to a mirror and back to your eye. I did not show the light continuing on through or reverting back to normal dark radiation, as it strikes each object.
    Because it would be to much to include. And take away from the simplicity of how light actually works. But just imagine that each yellow line just reverts back to a blue line, or dark ray. As it passes through matter. And continues on in a straight path.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Alright. Would this work then: Cover the light with a very thin sheet of metal. A thinner sheet should accelerate the light less. So with the right thickness, you should be able to get x-rays, detectable with photographic paper, or gravity rays detectable with a ball and a level surface.

    Also, you said that all matter could slow ambient radiation down to gravity speeds, so the previous experiment should show an increase in gravity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Alright. Would this work then: Cover the light with a very thin sheet of metal. A thinner sheet should accelerate the light less. So with the right thickness, you should be able to get x-rays, detectable with photographic paper, or gravity rays detectable with a ball and a level surface.

    Also, you said that all matter could slow ambient radiation down to gravity speeds, so the previous experiment should show an increase in gravity.
    Gravity removes an enormous amount of slowed electrons. By accelerating them from an event even slower then gravity, like x-rays. So if you create a small force of gravity you can remove an enormous amount of x-rays. Look at how much electricity is removed by x-rays while creating them. Now on the other hand there are ways to create an enormous amount of x-rays, by tuning an event.
    This is what confuses even the best scientists. But that is a variable and a confusion, to understanding the simplicity of the velocity of the electrons rays at a controlled event.

    That is why there used to be, more attention put upon whether an object was being effected by external slowed rays, or was it recovering from an effect by external slowed rays. This was lost in the last fifty years.

    It takes a bit to build an interest in Universal Science, it is like music almost. You need to know where you are, and whether or not you are slowing or speeding the radiation.

    The way you have been taught to think was almost the exact opposite of reality on a subatomic level. This was calculated, and known. I imagine it would be hard to start to think in reverse. I have been able to get a glimpse of what you were taught though, by thinking in reverse. And I have been better able to explain things, the more I see your side of it.

    Matter can slow ambient radiation to gravity speeds or effects. It is not really gravity though as we know it. Because the effect would either have to be enormous, or very powerful and intense. I have created such effects in my basement. But it usually takes intense heat or powerful radiation or electrical force to do so.

    Look at the earth, look at the size of it. It is not really hard to imagine something that large holding things to it, with a rather small charge. Look at the moon and the earth. Again the size versus distance. And you have about what you can do in a laboratory with charged balls. You have to remember that in space between the earth and moon there is a near vacuum. A vacuum will have a different effect upon charged balls in laboratory as well.

    But it is the size of the earth that creates this effect. A very powerful effect. Because to counter gravity you have to go way beyond what gravity does, to create the opposite and overpowering effect to beat gravity. But it is purely size.

    One thing Universals Scientist's were forever giving credit to God for, was the amazing balance created by far superior engineering, compared to mans engineering.
    The way the universe works is almost scary. Because you can almost describe the universe from two opposite points of view and both almost seem reasonable. However there are a few real things that point to an all electron universe only.

    The Chadwick's debated the universal scientists like spoiled children. Quickly asking difficult to explain questions to make the universal scientists look bad. The universal scientist would time and time again beat them back to reality.
    But it just became a joke after a while. And apparently no one cared anymore what happened to earth, humans or anything else. It was like some sort of strange suicidal festival spirit took over. And real science was hidden from the masses.

    In a laboratory I could make just about anything happen, against or for, your or my, science. But that is not my purpose. But no matter what I do a Universal Scientist could figure it out. Or offer the possibilities to explain it.

    If you look at a radiometer and see the speed it can achieve, I highly doubt that pressure created by heating could be making it go that fast.
    That is merely electrons hitting a surface that is abundant with electrons, and repelling it. I almost wish it was not that simple but that is all there is to explain it.

    You can note on the octave chart that light, heat, electricity, radio, and magnets are very close to one another. That is why there is the effect.

    You have to do a lot of experiments. And try not to remember, what multi subatomic particle scientists tell you. Science is not remembering. Science is about understanding so that you do not even have to remember it. You can walk up to anything with a an open mind and from past experiments pinpoint variables or lack of variables and give the proper weight to the experiment.


    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Magn...Radiometer.htm



    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Electricit...Cathoderay.PDF

    I know you guys have not thought much about attraction or the impossibility of attraction.
    Or the way on one hand, we say that electrons from a magnetic field or electromagnetic field can penetrate glass, with ease. And yet deny that matter being disintegrated to its basic form of electrons could, pass through glass.

    These are just some of the oddities I have noted from seeing it from both sides.

    Electrons pass right through the most powerful insulators. That is why the mother ship kept shorting out, when it reached a deeper space vacuum. Insulators only create a diode to stop electricity, by allowing some electricity to pass through them.

    I do not in anyway just agree totally with what is in those links. However they offer some very interesting links to the past of science.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    So far, you've said the following:

    - X-rays can be detected by photographic paper
    - X-rays are faster than light
    - Matter speeds up electrons

    Putting these together, you should be able to place matter between a light and a piece of photographic paper and get an exposure by x-rays, correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    So far, you've said the following:

    - X-rays can be detected by photographic paper
    - X-rays are faster than light
    - Matter speeds up electrons

    Putting these together, you should be able to place matter between a light and a piece of photographic paper and get an exposure by x-rays, correct?
    Yes that is true. But it is the extent or ratio of powerful light, to UV or X-rays that is tilted or not equal.
    The exposure time, the number of cycles necessary to create the effect. That you are not really looking to see. Also the material would have to be very thin, or a gas or liquid would have to be used. Fog might cause UV to be created at a certain velocity or frequency.

    It is like red laser light. In a totally dark room, with the laser, as the only light present. You can create blue highlights when shining the laser through different color liquids and glass. But all you can get is moments or flashes of blue.

    That means that most slower velocity stuff likes to jump right back to normal ambient radiation velocity. Without spending time at each velocity stop along the way.

    So my answer is yes, but it would only be to show what is taking place. There are better ways to make those rays.

    Light is low velocity compared to Ultra Violet and X-rays. Light has less potential velocity then Ultra Violet. Some say energy, however velocity is a safer way to describe it. Because in some situations, slowing or speeding up rays, can create a massive amount of unexpected energy, in either direction.

    I have been doing some experiments, to see if I can find some common stuff to demonstrate this. But I think I am going to have to find a sensitive UV meter to do it. That is why I did not get back to you. But I do have a few more ideas.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Showing what's taking place is more or less the whole point. You believe this theory already. Everyone else needs some experiments they can do themselves.

    Anyway, photographic film is sensitive to all the rays in question. Also, aluminum foil, regular strength, is fairly thin. If that's not thin enough, potato chip bags are coated with a very thin layer of aluminum on the inside. And a laser pointer produces a very bright light, just a very small one. (You're unlikely to blind yourself with even a very good flashlight, but you can easily do it with a laser pointer.) Together with some old Poloroid self-developing pictures and a very dark room, you should be able to make this work right?

    By the way, in the interest of repeatability, please document your setup and results carefully so that others can see how it's done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    174
    I haven't read the other pages.

    I thought the speed of light is constant at 300,000 m/s?

    X-rays belong to higher frequency range compared to light when you check out the Frequency Spectrum.

    Your conversation is saying that passing the light to a metal will cause the light to become an X-ray.

    So is the metal also acting as a Frequency Multiplier? I doubt it. Otherwise, the communications industry will rather use a metal plate rather than a complex waveguide, or other communication tubes (Klystrons, etc...)

    correction made.. I had it reversed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Showing what's taking place is more or less the whole point. You believe this theory already. Everyone else needs some experiments they can do themselves.

    Anyway, photographic film is sensitive to all the rays in question. Also, aluminum foil, regular strength, is fairly thin. If that's not thin enough, potato chip bags are coated with a very thin layer of aluminum on the inside. And a laser pointer produces a very bright light, just a very small one. (You're unlikely to blind yourself with even a very good flashlight, but you can easily do it with a laser pointer.) Together with some old Poloroid self-developing pictures and a very dark room, you should be able to make this work right?

    By the way, in the interest of repeatability, please document your setup and results carefully so that others can see how it's done.
    You are not going to get any significant amount of Ultra Violet, and certainly not x-rays from light. Without having some situations that truly tune the light or flickering light to Ultra Violet or X-rays.

    An area filled with light is going to be exhausted of Ultraviolet velocity electrons. Without another force or diode to slow down the still invisable high velocity ambient radiation that is there.

    What I am talking about is a scale. As you pass from light to dark, for an instance a split second there are ultraviolet and x-ray emissions. You may have to leave your film in that spot for an hour, or a year depending upon the light source. Depending upon what your medium is, to positively or negatively, accelerate the light is.

    But you will eventually detect them. Effects have been noted near lighting, that seem to have effects on humans. Humans do not react well to lights being turned on and off. Or flickering lights. It appears to cause them harm, discomfort. Serious eye damage has been reported.

    You have to understand that when you turn a light on, you have to pass from ambient radiation velocities to light velocities. In this situation you have the velocity to create Ultra Violet and X-rays easily.

    We are so used to light. But when you throw that switch you effect everything in the room. I have seen UV damage from ordinary lighting over years. Changes in the color of plastics exposed to light in the shop. So it exists, we just do not address it.

    I have a mercury vapor lamp, where the frosting is no longer upon the bulb, it flaked off, ultra violet rays come right through the glass bulb, and even activate the ultraviolet sensing beads I have. The beads are very tough to activate. Only sunlight and welding will do it. Nothing else has any effect upon them.

    Sometimes in industrial applications where you have vapors, steam, steam contaminated with solvents, acids, caustics, or salts. And you have light sources that are flickering, being over powered or over volt-ed. Getting high frequency, or even receiving intermittent DC current, there is the possibility of emitting or creating Ultra violet or x-rays, in abnormal proportions.

    I already know to replace flickering bulbs for my health, it was standard safety practice in good shops. Actually good colleges did studies before they were closed and found what we already knew.

    You seem to be stuck on the metal. Metal is far to much of an accelerator to create Ultra Violet or X-rays from standard light. You need something else that uniformly and hardly accelerates light.

    If there is something wrong with this place, it is that, things are very deceptive. Unless you understand the all electron universe. Everything is going smoothly and all of a sudden, it all collapses around you. Because of the tuning by events of ambient radiation.

    The Russians years ago built a plane that had two propellers, one a three bladed propeller and the other a four bladed propeller.

    Sometimes in certain situations, they found that propellers would shatter during testing at certain RPM's. Subjected to certain sonic or other stress testing. So they built this plane so that during an accident if one propeller was destroyed there was a very good chance that the other would survive. Because it was outputting a different harmonic that would or could protect it. There could be a million other reasons and benefits. However this was what I was told.

    It is all about the octave scale and what the scale actually represents.

    Look at a musical instrument. The large strings move slowly and produce a low frequency sound. The smaller strings move more quickly and produce a high frequency sound.

    The same is true of the scale of rays. X-rays are fast moving, Ultra Violet rays are slightly slower. Light is still slower. Heat rays are still slower. Radio is slower still. It is all velocity.




    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by CoolEJ
    I haven't read the other pages.

    I thought the speed of light is constant at 300,000 m/s?

    X-rays belong to higher frequency range compared to light when you check out the Frequency Spectrum.

    Your conversation is saying that passing the light to a metal will cause the light to become an X-ray.

    So is the metal also acting as a Frequency Multiplier? I doubt it. Otherwise, the communications industry will rather use a metal plate rather than a complex waveguide, or other communication tubes (Klystrons, etc...)

    correction made.. I had it reversed.

    These changes are subtle in most cases. You almost don't know they are happening. Until you tune an event, that really breaks all the rules, of the multi subatomic particle scientists world. Or adheres to all the rules of the all electron universe.

    I don't know how metal was introduced as the creator of Ultra violet, and x-rays. Other then that at some point when light hits metal, internally there will be Ultra Violet and X-rays produced. Even if only within the metal. Metal accelerates light to darkness, or invisible rays, when one side of the metal is facing an unlit room or container. And the other side is exposed to light.

    What I am saying is not new or exciting. It is just very demonstrable.

    We might have to turn Boston harbor into a tea pot, to have truth, but truth is available. That is what Benjamin Franklin's and George Washington's push to "science for all" cost last time.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    It is just very demonstrable.
    Sorry, but you have yet to provide a demonstration.

    Back to questions about light. You say that as light passes through a material, it speeds up. This must be a continuous effect or nothing could be transparent. It may be that the speed on the other side is spread over a wide range, but the limits of this range must be continuous.

    So, instead of metal, how about this. If you stack enough glass sheets, eventually you won't be able to see through them anymore. Since this must be a continuous effect, that means that some of the light that was just visible without the last plate must now be just into the ultraviolet and some would still be at x-ray speeds. So, take a very dark room, a stack of glass sheets, a laser pointer and photographic paper. There should be enough ultraviolet and x-rays to leave a mark on the photographic paper even though there isn't enough visible light to do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    It is just very demonstrable.
    Sorry, but you have yet to provide a demonstration.

    Back to questions about light. You say that as light passes through a material, it speeds up. This must be a continuous effect or nothing could be transparent. It may be that the speed on the other side is spread over a wide range, but the limits of this range must be continuous.

    So, instead of metal, how about this. If you stack enough glass sheets, eventually you won't be able to see through them anymore. Since this must be a continuous effect, that means that some of the light that was just visible without the last plate must now be just into the ultraviolet and some would still be at x-ray speeds. So, take a very dark room, a stack of glass sheets, a laser pointer and photographic paper. There should be enough ultraviolet and x-rays to leave a mark on the photographic paper even though there isn't enough visible light to do so.

    As I have said when you raise the velocity of light, to Ultra Violet, although you pass through the Ultra Violet and the X-ray band. The volume and quantity of these rays are low. However in certain tuned situations, you can record there presence. Or be hurt by their presence.

    And certainly you can record them on the way down the scale.

    Try the red laser in a totally dark room, look for blue glints of light. As you shine and move it over glass bottles and colored liquids. Certainly there could not be any blue light in red laser. But there is. Try red laser on a red rose pedal. Check out those emissions. Certainly an increase in octaves and velocity.

    I was surprised at the amount of ultra violet from the mercury vapor lamp. Up close the mercury vapor bulb, outputs like sunlight. No other bulb would.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    http://www.Rockwelder.com/WMV/laserose.wmv

    Take a look at that movie. You can see that when there are just to many red laser velocity electrons present. That yellow is emitted to relieve the congestion.

    Yellow is a higher velocity emission then red. So it removes more electrons from an area more quickly.

    I know it is hard to fathom, but the universe is engineered so well, that there is only a tiny difference between any one of these rays we are talking about.

    However it is often a pain to prove. I would be the first to admit it. Ultra Violet can certainly create x-rays. Some would argue where the line is between UV and x-rays. Because at certain points one can mimic the other.

    The other thing we need to change is the labeling on the batteries so everyone can be on the same page. Right now most think in reverse, backwards, and sideways around the confusion.

    Electrons flow from a standard battery from the (-) marked terminal. This was not so less then one hundred years ago. When Benjamin Franklin understood electricity. And set the direction most correctly. While stuffed shirts laughed at him.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And certainly you can record them on the way down the scale.
    Previously, you said that you knew of nothing but a few special and hard to obtain materials that could slow down electrons. Has this changed?

    More questions:
    - Do you agree that there are a lot of electrons in a laser beam?
    - Do you agree that whatever happens to light moving through a piece of glass it should happen more or less equally to all the electrons that make up that beam of light?
    - If light moving though matter speeds up, then there are the same number of electrons coming out the other end, just moving faster, right?
    - How does color filters work?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    MagiMaster, I applaud your patience and commitment to your goal. Good on you!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    And certainly you can record them on the way down the scale.
    Previously, you said that you knew of nothing but a few special and hard to obtain materials that could slow down electrons. Has this changed?

    More questions:
    - Do you agree that there are a lot of electrons in a laser beam?
    - Do you agree that whatever happens to light moving through a piece of glass it should happen more or less equally to all the electrons that make up that beam of light?
    - If light moving though matter speeds up, then there are the same number of electrons coming out the other end, just moving faster, right?
    - How does color filters work?
    I do not believe I have ever said that. Because when you say slow down electrons, you have to specify a range of velocity. Like light to heat. Or X-rays to ultra violet.

    I was just thinking about black and the rays of light hitting a black surface. I am going to have to say that light striking a black material is slowed to heat rays.

    I cannot believe I missed that one. Ha-ha.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    More questions:
    - Do you agree that there are a lot of electrons in a laser beam?
    - Do you agree that whatever happens to light moving through a piece of glass it should happen more or less equally to all the electrons that make up that beam of light?
    - If light moving though matter speeds up, then there are the same number of electrons coming out the other end, just moving faster, right?
    - How does color filters work?
    William, please try to answer more than one question at a time. My memory's not very good, so if I only ask one question at a time, I'll forget what my other questions were before you answer.

    As for the light to heat, would a large chunk of something black emit heat on the far side immediately?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    William.

    (u r so brave)




    (keep it up)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    More questions:
    - Do you agree that there are a lot of electrons in a laser beam?
    - Do you agree that whatever happens to light moving through a piece of glass it should happen more or less equally to all the electrons that make up that beam of light?
    - If light moving though matter speeds up, then there are the same number of electrons coming out the other end, just moving faster, right?
    - How does color filters work?
    William, please try to answer more than one question at a time. My memory's not very good, so if I only ask one question at a time, I'll forget what my other questions were before you answer.

    As for the light to heat, would a large chunk of something black emit heat on the far side immediately?
    No, on the far side carbon would not immediately emit heat. It has to do with the surface of substances. That his how objects communicate with other things, by the effects of rays upon their surface and the emissions from their surfaces.

    Almost all rays effect the surface. As you increase velocity of the rays, they penetrate and effect the surface less. Because they are of higher velocity, they become less noticed. Like X-rays just penetrate right through things, the entire object, not just the surface like light. Without x-ray film we might not know they are there.

    As I always say both rays, x-rays and light rays continue right through metal. However only x-rays make it through as x-rays.

    Light is a surface event upon most materials like metal. In most gases and most liquids and glass, you do get penetration with light rays.

    So you have to ask yourself, what is it about metal, metal that is only fractionally denser then glass, but not always. That causes a total blackout of these rays?
    The only difference is that metal accelerates light to invisible rays. Because the rays are there on the far side of the metal, if you use the right equipment to view them.

    These effects I describe below often confuse, because we test them at different velocity levels, or different ratios of high velocity or low velocity emissions, that are not always the norm. In direct sunlight or powerful rays, black appears to create heat. And it does. However that is not the norm.

    Normally black objects in low or moderate lighting do not get hot. And can be seen to actually stay a bit cooler then white objects. However as you increase the light more and more, you get the creation of heat rays from most black objects. It is blacks way of getting rid of excess electrons. That is why they use carbon in some catalytic gas heaters.

    Light is basically ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode), but in the light spectrum.
    Black or carbon black, is a faster light velocity emission then white. It quickly removes electrons from the inside and away from the surface, in a dark light spectrum. It also takes light and conducts a good portion of the electrons away into the surface without much of a bottle neck. That removes more electrons. Then white. So, there is little ARC or returning light from a black surface. The slight slowing of velocity, at the bottle neck, right at the surface, causes heat. Because it does not create a spectrum of light. The black radiation removes a good portion of the white and other color light.

    A white surface is over loaded totally in bright light. It cannot absorb electrons and creates an ARC ray. Similar to a cathode ray, but in the light range. This arc ray allows the object to conduct the electrons into it. Just like a cathode ray tube conducts electricity in both directions simultaneously. This ARC light removes heat rays, by turning them into light emissions, in the thinner gases created above a white object.

    You have to understand all the same number of electrons are there at any second, in both situations. Passing each other in a mad frenzy. So these very slight, and subtle variations in velocity create the communications from objects we see.

    If you have ever seen blood flow through small vessels in the body, under a microscope. I would have to say that best describes the surface of objects as electrons pass into an object. In a slow motion you can view. You have to imagine the other flows, simultaneous and at other velocities.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    William.

    (u r so brave)




    (keep it up)
    Not really, what do I have to lose? I mean everyday I read more and more outlandish nonsense from those that are supposed to be responsible for knowledge, the Scientists, Mathematicians, English language specialists.

    My servants in Washington have run a muck. They want someone to straighten them out. That is why I can do what I do.

    As long as I follow the path of our forefathers I will be ok. And with what they learned from errors, and did pass along to us. I probably cannot go wrong.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Normally black objects in low or moderate lighting do not get hot. And can be seen to actually stay a bit cooler then white objects. However as you increase the light more and more, you get the creation of heat rays from most black objects. It is blacks way of getting rid of excess electrons. That is why they use carbon in some catalytic gas heaters.
    So you're saying that a, say, 50 watt bulb placed near a sheet of black construction paper will cause the temperature to decrease, or just stay below that of a sheet of white construction paper? Either way, this should be easy enough to test using an accurate thermometer that can measure surface temperatures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Normally black objects in low or moderate lighting do not get hot. And can be seen to actually stay a bit cooler then white objects. However as you increase the light more and more, you get the creation of heat rays from most black objects. It is blacks way of getting rid of excess electrons. That is why they use carbon in some catalytic gas heaters.
    So you're saying that a, say, 50 watt bulb placed near a sheet of black construction paper will cause the temperature to decrease, or just stay below that of a sheet of white construction paper? Either way, this should be easy enough to test using an accurate thermometer that can measure surface temperatures.
    No, but in a room that is lit with a 50 watt bulb. The black objects will be the coolest thing in the room.

    A lot of work was done years ago for welding equipment. It is amazing because some of the garments stay ice cold. Even in the summer. Because of their color. Union Carbide was pretty good with that stuff.

    They have a black powder coating that is amazing at getting rid of heat. I mean amazing. I had a part for a hot air pump done with it. It is remarkable.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    That's a very easy prediction to test. If I'm not mistaken, conventional physics would predict exactly the opposite. Unfortunately, I don't have an accurate thermometer to do this with.

    William, try this test yourself and be sure to let us know exactly how you set things up and how you measured things. Also, anyone else reading this with access to a good thermometer and a soft light, please help by doing the experiment too. Again, careful documentation is important.

    As for the setup, I'd suggest using a checkerboard pattern of moderately sized squares of construction paper. That'll help negate any effect of the distance to the light, which should, in either case, have some effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    440
    I juss logged on to read up on all this but it went all blurry, this is I think, because I am a bit pissed so I'll leave the real reply till later... Anyway I think if I was in that room I'd be the coolest thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    That's a very easy prediction to test. If I'm not mistaken, conventional physics would predict exactly the opposite. Unfortunately, I don't have an accurate thermometer to do this with.

    William, try this test yourself and be sure to let us know exactly how you set things up and how you measured things. Also, anyone else reading this with access to a good thermometer and a soft light, please help by doing the experiment too. Again, careful documentation is important.

    As for the setup, I'd suggest using a checkerboard pattern of moderately sized squares of construction paper. That'll help negate any effect of the distance to the light, which should, in either case, have some effect.

    You can see that there is a slight edge black to white at staying cool with a "J" thermocouple.

    However it is not accurate enough to come to any scientific conclusion. I am looking into a digital chiropractors sensor, it will go to 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit resolution. And record from 0 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit. I believe it has a type "T" thermocouple.

    A bit pricey at about $400.00 U.S. with the probe.

    I am going to look around and ask some old friends at Watlow to see what they recommend.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    There may be another principle at work in that radiometer. I believe that metal pin, may vibrate, causing the effect of the guy on TV that would spin plates on sticks.

    I noticed some strange effects. When I broke a radiometer open and tried the magnet on it.
    I noticed that not being in a vacuum caused it to spin in the opposite direction, then if it were in a vacuum under the same circumstances. If I dampened the vibrations in the pin, I could not make it turn. It would oscillate back and forth.

    I made a very large carbon black panel. And I noted that there is not the slightest want to move even in very powerful light.

    We know light in a vacuum can cause vibrations. I am going to say that is what is turning those vanes. The vibrations in that metal antenna.

    Other tests I did with different magnets showed that you could make it turn, one way or the other with different magnets. Probably having to do with which way the most powerful movement of the magnet effected the pin. If it repelled or attracted.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    24
    Sorry if you've already answered this above, I scanned through quickly and didn't see anything.

    Would it not take an equal or greater number of electrons to be passing by the protons at any given time in order to overcome the repulsive force of the electrons which make up the protons by your logic? Your theory on the movement of electrons as free moving, near linear-pathed particles seems common sensical to me.. but i cannot help but wonder my previous inquiry.

    Furthermore, if all force in the universe is ultimately repulsive is there any room for harmony? A balance? It would seem that nearly everything is doomed to ultimate chaos as a repulsive universe can only create larger gaps between the bonds of the macroparticles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by camtaylor17
    Sorry if you've already answered this above, I scanned through quickly and didn't see anything.

    Would it not take an equal or greater number of electrons to be passing by the protons at any given time in order to overcome the repulsive force of the electrons which make up the protons by your logic? Your theory on the movement of electrons as free moving, near linear-pathed particles seems common sensical to me.. but i cannot help but wonder my previous inquiry.

    Furthermore, if all force in the universe is ultimately repulsive is there any room for harmony? A balance? It would seem that nearly everything is doomed to ultimate chaos as a repulsive universe can only create larger gaps between the bonds of the macroparticles.

    It is the velocity of the electrons that determines how much effect they have on matter. If they are going fast enough you do not even know they are there. There is total darkness. Slow them down and you get some gravity, x-rays, Ultraviolet, light, heat, electricity.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    24
    So the electrons are repulsive only in their quick state, and within the bounds of the proton their slow movement creates different frequencies of vibration to produce gravity, heat, etc.?

    Also, the post about the radiometer above is very interesting indeed!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by camtaylor17
    So the electrons are repulsive only in their quick state, and within the bounds of the proton their slow movement creates different frequencies of vibration to produce gravity, heat, etc.?

    Also, the post about the radiometer above is very interesting indeed!


    Electrons are always repulsive. I would guess or venture to say always equally repulsive.

    But if an electron is only in an area for half the time, it will apply half the repulsion.

    So that the faster the electron the less repulsion. To some extent, and between certain velocities. Once slowed the electron also looses its pounding driving effect. Even light was believed to be a rather slow zig zagging electron. Taking away from its ability to create gravity.

    Gravity was believed to be created with electrons just above x-rays velocity.

    Here are some almost obvious things, if you think in an all electron universe sense.

    When you have a planet the size of earth. Even though there is a slight slow down of ambient radiation, heading to the earth, to create the gravity, because it is such a huge effect over such a large area, the effect is great.

    To counter gravity would be like a house fan compared to a hurricane. No matter how fast the house fan goes, you are not going to be able to protect your house from the hurricane with it.

    That is why gravity is so hard to beat. You are dealing with a uniform hurricane sized effect, compared to a house fan. When we go to counter it, it is natural in this universe for strong small effects to be neutralized, spread out. So that we cannot easily, beat the big wind of gravity. But you can.

    Here is one more and probably the last confusion I can offer about gravity. And that is that it is all a play on words or a total relativity to everything else.
    The most positively accelerated rays are those from a planet. These rays from the planet do not apply as much pressure upwardly to you, as do the slowed rays from above. You could argue scientifically that the planet just creates a low gravity or low repulsive area. And I would have to agree to the plausibility of it. Rather then just the slowing of radiation to the earth.

    The problem also is that when we see gravity, we tend to think that is it, no more left.
    No, that is only a small percentage of ambient radiation being turned into gravity around earth. Create more of a percentage, of gravity velocity electrons, and you can crush a tank into the ground. As if it were fired into the ground by a large gun. We are only witnessing infinitely small demonstrations of ambient radiation.

    Protons hide the repulsion of the electrons. By shielding so many electrons repulsive force within the spherical protons geometry.

    If you have ever seen a rack of billiard balls, that is loose. What is termed a "loose rack". When you go to hit the loose rack, it does not spread out all over the table.
    As it would if it were a "tight rack". Instead it just rather easily absorbs the tremendous energy you applied to the que ball.
    Well, a ball of electrons, a proton, is just about the same thing. It is a dead bunch, of velocity less electrons, that cannot reach escape velocity. So they sit and gyrate a bit back and forth. Without much velocity. This creates an effect of weight and mass. Weight is just an illusion in actuality. Created with distance, structure, time and velocity. And of course ambient radiation.

    If you were to turn off ambient radiation on one side of an object, the object would take off, and perhaps no camera could record the speed at which it left.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Ball...sAndAtoms.html

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Ball...lsandTime.html


    I was warned about that radiometer device many years ago when I was a kid. It did not check out to other experts as well. But I could never come up with any other solution. Until I hit that thing with all kinds of effects. And made it go in all kinds of directions. With and without a vacuum.

    I wish I had filmed more of the experiments. Some of the very low power magnetic effects, were silent. It looked like light was moving the radiometer. I am going to do some more experiments and film them.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    24
    Hum, that does all connect very nicely. But I have a few questions still..

    If there truely is an all electron universe, are there a finite number of electrons?

    How does an all electron universe begin? It seems fairly logical to me that in an atomic sense the universe may have very likely began as pure hydrogen, and supposedly that could be broken down to electrons. But if there are electrons flying everywhere from the get go, does that not mean that beyond all protons in the edges of the universe (assuming you support a big bang theory) would be an exponentially further number of electrons flying away?

    And how might quarks fit into this theory? I personally suspect that subatomic particles may exist on different universal scales than us, such as in one spatial and multiple temporal dimensions. It would allow them to have extremely long lives, exist throughout time while appearing to die in an extremely small ammounts of time, and have few variable states! That brings me to another question..

    What would the lifespan of an electron be?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    William, how's it going with finding a good themometer? Have you seen the infrared thermometers?

    Another question about light. How does a prism work?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by camtaylor17
    Hum, that does all connect very nicely. But I have a few questions still..

    If there truely is an all electron universe, are there a finite number of electrons?

    How does an all electron universe begin? It seems fairly logical to me that in an atomic sense the universe may have very likely began as pure hydrogen, and supposedly that could be broken down to electrons. But if there are electrons flying everywhere from the get go, does that not mean that beyond all protons in the edges of the universe (assuming you support a big bang theory) would be an exponentially further number of electrons flying away?

    And how might quarks fit into this theory? I personally suspect that subatomic particles may exist on different universal scales than us, such as in one spatial and multiple temporal dimensions. It would allow them to have extremely long lives, exist throughout time while appearing to die in an extremely small ammounts of time, and have few variable states! That brings me to another question..

    What would the lifespan of an electron be?
    You have to understand that the most brave most dedicated scientists are all dead. Anyone in science today and not screaming for reform and a recall of all law makers, is not going to be making any major breakthroughs in science.

    Because they have no idea of what science is, other then a pay check. If you look at the communications systems today they carry a far lesser percentage of correct information then they did 100 years ago. So although they have taken very old technology made if faster, smaller, they have not done a thing for humanity. And have actually hurt it. With a higher percentage of wrong information.

    What is my point? My point is that the older scientists spent their lives really getting down to the tiniest bits of unknown information possible for a man to fathom or witness.
    Their science was better then ours today. And their honest answer with total openness and total sharing of all their life's work was. That we cannot go beyond the atom. The electron is the block. It is that small.
    It is the particle that brings us the information about matter. How can you use the messenger that effects matter, matter that we use to detect light with, to see the messenger.
    A messenger that effects matter, matter that we trust to be bringing us the right information. Using more electrons, that we cannot see. The answer you cannot. They conclusively said not possible, with the greatest most simplistic well thought out explanation I had ever heard.

    What I hear about science today sounds so silly that for others sanity I will leave it at that.

    Spoiled scientists that fought Universal Scientists, just wanted some quick find or quick fix. If we better recorded chemicals the direction of electricity. I believe in time with deep space travel we could at least get better looks at what we have, from different points of view and have better understanding of what and where we are.

    But we are actually in the dark ages, heading away from science.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    William, how's it going with finding a good themometer? Have you seen the infrared thermometers?

    Another question about light. How does a prism work?
    I tried it out with a digital, turkey thermometer, that we use in HVAC to check TD (Temperature Differential) from the system return, to the register, nearest to the evaporator, usually the first hit or takeoff from the supply duct.

    This way you can tell if your system is functioning optimally. Optimally a 22 degree differential is ideal. I learned that from a fellow I worked with Kevin Convey, years ago. It is true. He works for Air Ideal, they do some pretty wild work, in both industrial air conditioning and large homes here on the island.

    Often the systems of today that come with the fan speed set at the factory, do not supply 22 degree air differential. However if you lower the fan speed or restrict them they will. The problem can be icing or condensate problems. Along with condensate lines getting very cold and forming condensate themselves. Especially if occupants turn the system on and off completely for hours on end.

    Some of the modern two speed compressors and variable speed blowers/evaporators fix this problem from the factory. In conjunction with a high low or two stage cooling thermostat. They run so efficiently that you can leave them on all the time or shut them off. Because they also cool the house very quickly.

    Back to business.

    The thermometer measures to 1/10th of a degree. And it appears very repeatable. I believe they use the same type of high ohm resistive sensor as in some of the equipment they use today for energy management. Also very sensitive, fast acting and rather accurate at least in repeatability.

    I found exactly 0.4 degree difference, black material is cooler then white. With an incandescent light source approximately six feet away.

    However in strong sunlight I found the opposite.

    I used two pieces of similar cloth. One died black the other bleached white. Both 97-99 percent cotton. Both kept together in similar humidity and light. The black is exactly 0.4 degrees cooler then the white.

    I am going to try some other experiments.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If you look at the communications systems today they carry a far lesser percentage of correct information then they did 100 years ago. So although they have taken very old technology made if faster, smaller, they have not done a thing for humanity. And have actually hurt it. With a higher percentage of wrong information.
    But be fair William: if you were to stop posting the ratio would change dramatically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    The thermometer measures to 1/10th of a degree. And it appears very repeatable. I believe they use the same type of high ohm resistive sensor as in some of the equipment they use today for energy management. Also very sensitive, fast acting and rather accurate at least in repeatability.

    I found exactly 0.4 degree difference, black material is cooler then white. With an incandescent light source approximately six feet away.

    However in strong sunlight I found the opposite.

    I used two pieces of similar cloth. One died black the other bleached white. Both 97-99 percent cotton. Both kept together in similar humidity and light. The black is exactly 0.4 degrees cooler then the white.
    Good. A result. Repeatability is key though, so can anyone else verify this?

    Also, William, my other question: how does a prism work?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    The thermometer measures to 1/10th of a degree. And it appears very repeatable. I believe they use the same type of high ohm resistive sensor as in some of the equipment they use today for energy management. Also very sensitive, fast acting and rather accurate at least in repeatability.

    I found exactly 0.4 degree difference, black material is cooler then white. With an incandescent light source approximately six feet away.

    However in strong sunlight I found the opposite.

    I used two pieces of similar cloth. One died black the other bleached white. Both 97-99 percent cotton. Both kept together in similar humidity and light. The black is exactly 0.4 degrees cooler then the white.
    Good. A result. Repeatability is key though, so can anyone else verify this?

    Also, William, my other question: how does a prism work?
    A prism accelerates light into the deeper parts of the prism. Whether the actual electrons that brought the light are in fact the same electrons that leave, is speculation.

    However from an observable perspective, light is bent into the deeper part of the prism just like a magnifying convex, lens does. As light/electrons move into the deeper part of the lens the electrons are positively accelerated. Causing the bluer emissions.

    The reds are caused by a slow down of electrons in the thinner portion of the prism. That becomes abundant with electrons. The other colors are just ratios in between.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If you look at the communications systems today they carry a far lesser percentage of correct information then they did 100 years ago. So although they have taken very old technology made if faster, smaller, they have not done a thing for humanity. And have actually hurt it. With a higher percentage of wrong information.
    But be fair William: if you were to stop posting the ratio would change dramatically.

    I can see your point, but why create jealousy in others? Besides they will soon be amateur Universal Scientists.

    It is funny but we still believe light to be particles, as Newton did. But we say that the number of times a second a particle is emitted causes the light to bend more or less. To me that is just too outrageous to accept and call yourself a scientist.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    But we say that the number of times a second a particle is emitted causes the light to bend more or less.
    To be fair, that's not what anyone says, but that's also beside the point. This thread is about proving or disproving your theory of an all electron universe. Doing that means coming up with experiments to compare your theory to what most people believe. If your theory is right, then the experiments will show that and convince everyone else too.

    Along those lines, has anyone else managed (or even attempted) to repeat William's first experiment? (The one with the light and the black and white cloth.) Also, since this is supposed to contrast the two theories, can anyone offer an explaination why both should give the same result?

    William, what you say about the prisms can't be the whole story. Earlier you said that white was a specific speed of light. If that's true and what you said about prisms is true, then a rainbow would be red-white-blue instead of red-yellow-blue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    But we say that the number of times a second a particle is emitted causes the light to bend more or less.
    To be fair, that's not what anyone says, but that's also beside the point. This thread is about proving or disproving your theory of an all electron universe. Doing that means coming up with experiments to compare your theory to what most people believe. If your theory is right, then the experiments will show that and convince everyone else too.

    Along those lines, has anyone else managed (or even attempted) to repeat William's first experiment? (The one with the light and the black and white cloth.) Also, since this is supposed to contrast the two theories, can anyone offer an explaination why both should give the same result?

    William, what you say about the prisms can't be the whole story. Earlier you said that white was a specific speed of light. If that's true and what you said about prisms is true, then a rainbow would be red-white-blue instead of red-yellow-blue.
    Light is still a particle if I am not mistaken, I say electrons, some say photons. That technically does not mean not electrons by the original work on light. A photon is actually a photo, an effect of light. Nothing more. Then came the photo particle or the photon particle. And the rest is sciences embarrassing history.

    So when you emit particles at intervals, that is the frequency of emission. A wave is a wave. A wave is the effect of those particles hitting matter at a certain velocity causing a certain frequency. High velocity particles cause higher faster vibrations in matter. Slower velocity particles cause slower vibrations in matter. You are mixing cause and effect. Not me.

    The prism alters the speed of the white light. No doubt about it. Fortunately or unfortunately even Wikipedia agrees that light can have different velocities and this causes the effect of the prism. They also go on and negate most of what they say. And basically contradict themselves.

    A prism does not take white light and split it up. And I don't see how it could take the red light, on one side of the light beam, and somehow guide it to the other side, past the blue, that is crisscrossing to get to the blue side.

    So, you have an effect probably at the surface of the prism, that causes a filter for fresh ambient radiation heading in the direction of the refraction to carry this communication to the far side of the prism. Where another fresh ray of ambient radiation is again effected by this surface, and carries the information of the colorful rainbow to a target, at yet another angle.

    I will try to get some photos of light and laser going through a prism. It is probably different then what you think it is. The refraction is outrageous. The angles are outrageous. It really does highlight the way ambient radiation comes from behind an object to bring light away from an object. Because there is no way light could bounce as many today claim.

    Think about the moment that light hypothetically strikes the surface and bounces away, with some information it got while striking the surface. It would not be going light speed, as it changes direction.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    You didn't answer the question though. If, as you say, a prism speeds up and slows down white light to red and blue speeds, the light in between would still be at white speed and a rainbow would be red-white-blue. Obviously a rainbow is not, it's red-yellow-blue. Why is the light that should still be at white speeds turning yellow?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    24
    Considering electons and photons are both theoretical particles, I think its fair within the basis of this theory to assume they can work in the same way. The electrons only need to exist and travel about the universe without orbits (similar to photons) in order to provide the medium for them to exist. If the universe were all electrons then you would assume that all forces and types of radiation are just different wavelengths of electrons travelling at different speeds.

    The prism does not technically "split" the white light, only to the naked eye. What it's doing is allowing the white light to travel through it, where it slows down. Because the prism is not equadistant for all rays of light (because its a prism) they exit the other side of the prism after different lengths of time spent inside of it. The colours of light are just the gradual transition from white, through to red.. or infrared or whatever, which exist because the photons, or electrons, are travelling at the necessary wavelength or velocity to create that visual colour.

    It makes sense to me, that in an electron universe this could happen, assuming photons are basically electrons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    No. William's theory says that only electrons exist. Everything else is just made of electrons. Also, William has said that there is no wavelength, only speeds.

    Also, the point about spending different times in the prism is exaclty the problem. On one end, it's red. On the other it's blue. According to what William said, it would be white in the middle.

    William, for clarification, can you give a fairly complete list of the speeds of electrons, especially around the visible speeds. Also, the question about a prism still stands.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by camtaylor17
    Considering electons and photons are both theoretical particles, I think its fair within the basis of this theory to assume they can work in the same way. The electrons only need to exist and travel about the universe without orbits (similar to photons) in order to provide the medium for them to exist. If the universe were all electrons then you would assume that all forces and types of radiation are just different wavelengths of electrons travelling at different speeds.

    The prism does not technically "split" the white light, only to the naked eye. What it's doing is allowing the white light to travel through it, where it slows down. Because the prism is not equadistant for all rays of light (because its a prism) they exit the other side of the prism after different lengths of time spent inside of it. The colours of light are just the gradual transition from white, through to red.. or infrared or whatever, which exist because the photons, or electrons, are travelling at the necessary wavelength or velocity to create that visual colour.

    It makes sense to me, that in an electron universe this could happen, assuming photons are basically electrons.
    People today throw around wavelength especially experts and have no idea what it is. Most do not even know they have no equipment to measure it. They can measure the frequency of a transmitter polarizing something. Or the frequency of a strobe light. But that is it.

    They can make up a theoretical distance between transmissions, based upon a number created, rounded up or down to something workable. By a government institution, in the late 1800's, and supposedly checked again in the early nineteen hundreds. With what, and how, I don't know. I have to highly suspect it.
    They can take the time between transmissions and the theoretical velocity, and come up with theoretical distance traveled, and call that the wavelength.

    But wavelength is totally a hypothetical distance between transmissions. So every time you hear someone with assured precision in their voice say wavelength, you have to doubt, or verify that they are just using it hypothetically. Because the speed of radio was proven faster then light during the Apollo missions.

    It meant that they threw away real science for grant monies, so the proof was not even talked about. It was just hushed up.

    Wavelength would just be the hypothetical distance between transmissions if the transmission speed was known. Wavelength is useless without a velocity. If as I and many others find that velocity, is often very different then what is believed. Then wavelength will have to wait for verification of velocity. Frequency only means the number of times a second a transmission is sent. Nothing more.

    That is why sometimes I hear individuals discussing this and I know they are very sincere about wanting to get something across. It is just that they have no idea of what they are saying, when they say wavelength. Most think it is very important.

    There is one more confusion on this subject, a confusion that probably started the problem a long time ago. It is theorized and actually to some extent proven. That electrons travel in a spiral path. Powerful rays of white light are said to travel in tight zigzagging patterns. While faster ultra violet rays are said to travel in smoother larger diameter helical paths.

    Very bright light, starts to emit ultra violet rays and becomes purple.



    These rays will actually suntan me through a white "T" shirt. But not a colored "T" shirt.

    You are not supposed to leave aerosol cans on a welding bench because they can become punctured if they are accidentally used as a path to ground. I had a friend that did this once. His plastic zipper on his jacket melted and his hands and face got burned badly trying to get it off. He had to be hospitalized.

    You are also not supposed to put your finger over the camera lens.

    But my point here is this. White light is an excited emission. It breaks rules.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    No. William's theory says that only electrons exist. Everything else is just made of electrons. Also, William has said that there is no wavelength, only speeds.

    Also, the point about spending different times in the prism is exaclty the problem. On one end, it's red. On the other it's blue. According to what William said, it would be white in the middle.

    William, for clarification, can you give a fairly complete list of the speeds of electrons, especially around the visible speeds. Also, the question about a prism still stands.

    I don't believe I ever said that white light is colored light. I believe white light has the potential to create all the different color light there is. But if you have ever seen very powerful ultra Violet rays, you would realize that Ultra violet has the potential to create very powerful white light.

    And in no way shape or form am I trying to confuse this. It is just that without everyone thinking in terms of electrons only. You get all kinds of weird thoughts injected into conversations about disassembling light rays. But sooner or later we will get back to electrons. And good old Benjamin Franklin.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    A question then, since I'm not sure if I've asked this yet, what is white light?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    I have a question also, although perhaps i missed this bit. If everything is made from electrons, why do protons have a positive charge?

    Also an experiment can be done to show that neutrons exist.

    If you bombard beryllium with alpha particles from polonium, it gives off an electrically neutral radiation. It was first assumed that this was a type of gamma radiation. However, this radiation, when directed at paraffin caused protons to be emitted from it. As gamma rays have no mass, there is no way it could knock the proton out of the paraffin. So that means that this electrically neutral radiation had mass.

    How does the all-electron model explain this result?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    A question then, since I'm not sure if I've asked this yet, what is white light?
    It is an overload. Of normal colored light rays. The sun is actually white, if viewed without the atmosphere. The filtering causes it to look yellow through the atmosphere.

    An area of white light has an abundance or would have an abundance of electrons, equal to that of red light. But since more electrons are being slowed in a specific area, in order to keep the object from exploding. The objects start to emit rays of a higher frequency or higher velocity.
    This causes the effect of yellow or white light. As you add more of a bottle neck, more of an abundance of electrons, you get those purple rays. They remove a higher number of electrons during any given second then all the types of light put together.
    Ultra Violet and X-rays can remove a substantial amount of an abundance of electrons in an area, in such small fractions of a second that we often do not even detect them. However they are there in almost any heating and cooling that involves light.

    Here was an interesting experiment that I have not been able to figure out totally yet.

    If I hit the radiometer with light from one side, that is not nearly powerful enough to turn the radiometer. Just a very weak light source. Probably weaker then a night light.

    And then I take a radiant heater, that is just barely making visible light. Just into the dull red light octaves. If I place the heater on the side of the radiometer that is getting hit by the night light, it turns. If I put the heater on the opposite side it does not turn.
    So it shows that light is a very powerful thing. Because the radiant heater is certainly putting out wattage. But evidently nothing compared to light. In other words you need the white light in conjunction with the heater hitting the same panel to make it turn. Or hitting the device from the same side to make it turn. Because I do not know what exactly makes it turn yet.

    Someone doing experiments might think that because they are in a dimly lit room that dull red heat rays will move the radiometer. That is not true though. You apparently need the white light emission as well.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    I have a question also, although perhaps i missed this bit. If everything is made from electrons, why do protons have a positive charge?

    Also an experiment can be done to show that neutrons exist.

    If you bombard beryllium with alpha particles from polonium, it gives off an electrically neutral radiation. It was first assumed that this was a type of gamma radiation. However, this radiation, when directed at paraffin caused protons to be emitted from it. As gamma rays have no mass, there is no way it could knock the proton out of the paraffin. So that means that this electrically neutral radiation had mass.

    How does the all-electron model explain this result?
    I have no hostility towards you in anyway. I am just getting across the really sick reality. Before we cannot turn back.


    You were taught that protons have a positive charge. Benjamin Franklin did not mean for you to learn it that way. Science/America were pretty much shelved after World War Two.

    Every night on TV, radio or in the papers, the law makers and their mouthpieces the media would tell tales of horror about Germany's weapons of mass destruction. Then it was Russia's weapons of mass destruction. Now it is the goat herders weapons of mass destruction. Soon it will be my weapons of mass destruction. Ha-Ha.

    What you are getting or not getting is just the few, that would rather lay waste to all the law makers on earth, rather then let science get flushed. When we go, you will think making fire is done by the Gods. Because the same people that got you to believe in multi subatomic particles will tell you it is that way.

    Most do not understand radiation in any way shape or form. All radiations are just electron radiations. What is not thought about or understood? Is that the objects emitting radiations are of different sized atoms or molecules. Or of special frequencies that seem to break some of the standard rules.

    But all radiations are just electron particles. Some objects create rays that have a large distance between the rays. Rather then a uniform ray, like light. This allows for those rays to bi- polarize objects with much more powerful effects. Some objects use frequency of X-ray emissions to create horrific effects.

    However it is still just all electrons, it started out that way, it will finish up that way. Everything cool we have in electronics, science, chemistry was done with the all electron universe. Later came all the phony sub atomic particles.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson
    I have a question also, although perhaps i missed this bit. If everything is made from electrons, why do protons have a positive charge?

    Also an experiment can be done to show that neutrons exist.

    If you bombard beryllium with alpha particles from polonium, it gives off an electrically neutral radiation. It was first assumed that this was a type of gamma radiation. However, this radiation, when directed at paraffin caused protons to be emitted from it. As gamma rays have no mass, there is no way it could knock the proton out of the paraffin. So that means that this electrically neutral radiation had mass.

    How does the all-electron model explain this result?
    I have no hostility towards you in anyway. I am just getting across the really sick reality. Before we cannot turn back.


    You were taught that protons have a positive charge. Benjamin Franklin did not mean for you to learn it that way. Science/America were pretty much shelved after World War Two.

    Every night on TV, radio or in the papers, the law makers and their mouthpieces the media would tell tales of horror about Germany's weapons of mass destruction. Then it was Russia's weapons of mass destruction. Now it is the goat herders weapons of mass destruction. Soon it will be my weapons of mass destruction. Ha-Ha.

    What you are getting or not getting is just the few, that would rather lay waste to all the law makers on earth, rather then let science get flushed. When we go, you will think making fire is done by the Gods. Because the same people that got you to believe in multi subatomic particles will tell you it is that way.

    Most do not understand radiation in any way shape or form. All radiations are just electron radiations. What is not thought about or understood? Is that the objects emitting radiations are of different sized atoms or molecules. Or of special frequencies that seem to break some of the standard rules.

    But all radiations are just electron particles. Some objects create rays that have a large distance between the rays. Rather then a uniform ray, like light. This allows for those rays to bi- polarize objects with much more powerful effects. Some objects use frequency of X-ray emissions to create horrific effects.

    However it is still just all electrons, it started out that way, it will finish up that way. Everything cool we have in electronics, science, chemistry was done with the all electron universe. Later came all the phony sub atomic particles.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I don't think you answered my question. I don't understand something about your theory. If a proton is just tightly packed electrons, how does it have the opposite charge to an electron? If something repels electrons, then you would think it would also repel a proton, but this is not the case, the proton is attracted towards it. Why does this happen? I don't include any conspiracy stories please, the confuse me :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •