Energy and Polarity

[Aromaz]

Thermodynamics:Dark Energy, Dark Matter - NASA Science

@jbignes5 - Crystal:
I assume you have studied the works of Nassim Haramein very intensely; the concept of all going fractional...

However small you wish to go; NO crystal is made of anything less than minimum five Atom clusters/lattices. Fixed and Fact. Atoms in themselves are non-crystaline; but is touchable matter. ALL crystals, be it gems, metals or silica are polarized, affected by gravity and contains energy,
mostly even magnetic properties. Crystals could not have been present at the Origin of the Universe.

[Jbignes5]

Well

Thats all fine and dandy if you think the atom is the smallest measurement. Thats the beauty of the fractal... There is no smallest unit. It is the energy encapsulated. If it was not encapsulated then it would all run together.
Like the picture I showed of the gold atoms with the gold crystals on each side. Well does the crystals look like they are grainy? You are assuming there is nothing below the atom or particle scale... Well there is... There has to be. or else structure that replicates would not replicate. It would be mass chaotic masses everywhere. Like the pictures of the snow flakes as well... when in lower resolutions it looked all smooth but when they zoomed even farther in it had texture to it and spaces and I bet if they zoomed in again there would be further structures and the spaces will start looking more evenly spaced.... Do I have to keep going with this?
As far as we can zoom in then the next week we can zoom farther this same process will always keep going. Even the best video we have at the level of atoms and we can see it writhing and bumping like a boiling pot of water. The further we go the more we will see. But at some point will be the spot wherre we will never be able to go. Even now most of the "electron" microscopes use computers to interpret the data they receive. So even if there was a structure how would it see it if it has charges in it? It would just slide by or though the conductor. After all it is a conductor. If you actually looked at the design of the Sierpinski Triangle link you would see that near the end of the article there is a 3d rendering of two models. It says that " In fact, it can be shown that, while having fixed area, it has no 3-dimensional character." Now I don't know about you but if a charge was in such a structure how fast do you think it would be in a fluid mechanics way? Each space in that vehicle would be able to carry charges. A lot of charges. No mass and full of fuel! Oh and that fuel doesn't go away. Until something happens like compression of the structure. Then the charges go squirting out twords a higher charge source which should be not that far away. Some might go back to the vehicle but a lot of it wont if a charge is in front of it. As much as I would like to think that what they ride in is a perfect dialectric I highly doubt that, the vehicles particles wouldn't rearrange to help the next vehicle handle the new larger charge. This would do that automatically. Remember self organizing through geometry and always aware via feelers. Oh yeah those are the smaller conductors that are used to make connections. When not in use they would form as 90 degree angles from that face of the larger conductor.
Has anyone checked out the microscopic bugs they have been finding like virus weird 5 legged 5 planed pyramid headed stick figure and bacteria... ugg they look like cockroaches with weird paddles on the end of feelers.......
Hey you know I really don't like the dark crap they came up with. How can energy be dark. There is only one energy we just can not see it yet. Thats the only reason they called it that. Like the dark ages or something.
In fact I am liking the Quantum physics description of positive and negative. Just spin direction.

[Aromaz]

Thats all fine and dandy if you think the atom is the smallest measurement. . . .

No, the atom is not the smallest measurement (entity);
it is however the smallest possible of matter - touchable item.

The Atom itself is built from smaller entities, those entities are various forms/strength energy units.

no microscope could ever view smaller than an atom. The smallest real microscopic view was of a tungsten needle, see:

Sharpest Manmade Thing

[Jbignes5]

No, the atom is not the smallest measurement (entity);
it is however the smallest possible of matter - touchable item.

The Atom itself is built from smaller entities, those entities are various forms/strength energy units.

no microscope could ever view smaller than an atom. The smallest real microscopic view was of a tungsten needle, see:

Sharpest Manmade Thing

A few posts up is actually the smallest view as of 2008, 2nd link. Soon they will be able to go further. If not already further by now.

[Aromaz]

A few posts up is actually the smallest view as of 2008, 2nd link. Soon they will be able to go further. If not already further by now.

I quote from your reference - With my notes.
Where these two gold crystals (Crystal = many atoms) meet they are joined by a complex arrangement of atoms, forming a nanobridge that accommodates their different orientations. The gold atoms are 2.3 angstroms apart. TEAM 0.5's unprecedented signal-to-noise ratio makes it possible to distinguish individual atoms and, at the edges of the two crystals, deduce their position in three dimensions.

The smaller dots between the two orange masses are each an atom - thousands of them.

To be able to go further they will need to use an entity smaller than an electron, THAT I do not think will be possible. Read more about the working mechanism of this particular microscope. The images are not real images, they are computer generated based on reflection of the electron used as scan 'probe'.

If you are still in contrast, I suggest you open a new thread and I will join you there,

Let us stay focused here on Energy and Polarity

[sucahyo]

@Juju, about wave behaviour when unmonitored and straight behaviour when monitored, I don't know. Maybe the way they monitor interfere the photon path.



About colliding at atomic level, considering its size compare to the empty space it occupy, is it really hitting or just attracted?

When two streams of atoms colliding each other, if they are not attract or repel each other, what is the chance of atomic collision in case atom size is say 1% of space?

The properties of aether have not been established not as dark energy or as aether fields or in any way at all.

I mean, pra Einstein or current opposant like Harold Aspden dynamic aether.

Conventional = "Based on or in accordance with general agreement, use, or practice; customary" That which is generally accepted or agreed with as the correct.

That would depend on the community isn't it? Take medicine, people translate conventional medicine as current doctor medicine when I post it here, where natural medicine is considered unconventional. At where I live it is the opposite.

When you say your photon is not what the man in video says coming out of the laser, but then you said that you use what photon means in conventional science, I got lost...

If Light = Photons; then how can you have absolute darkness? Even the most dark of places MUST have photons, else matter will disintegrate very fast; and you will not have oxygen to breath. Photons (like Neutrino and gravity) is omnipresent; but light is not.

I lost again. Conventional science mention that photon is omni present? What is photon relation to oxygen?

If photon is a building medium, then it is not an energy ball?

Won't it be easier if the building medium of the photon and the oxygen is the same thing? So it is the medium that is omni present. So a complete dark may or may not have photons. Photon exist where EM wave exist (CS quote)?

If there are space in universe without EM wave then photon do not exist in that place? which would mean photon is not omnipresent?

[Aromaz]

. . . That would depend on the community isn't it?

Then consider this community in the perception of location based on majority participants; and science on the perception of majority scientists.

When you say your photon is not what the man in video says coming out of the laser, but then you said that you use what photon means in conventional science, I got lost...

Please define PHOTON for me?

If photon is a building medium, then it shouldn't be an energy spin?

Why in the Universe not?

So a complete dark may or may not have photons. Photon exist where EM wave exist (CS quote)? If there are space in universe without EM wave then photon do not exist in that place? which would mean photon is not omnipresent?

I said Even in complete darkness, there are still photons (and EM waves)
Hypothetical. Is light omnipresent? Yes/No
Light is part of ElectroMagnetic waves. Yes/No
Are photons Electro(Polarized) or Magnetic? Yes/No.

Is there any possible location in space without EM waves? Do you think it is possible to find any spot/location in the universe from where you can not see any galaxy, star, nebula or other form of Universal bodies - or where you are not exposed to EM waves?

[sucahyo]

Please define PHOTON for me?

I don't have mine. I am confuse because in this video mentioned that one unit of laser as a photon:

YouTube - The Infamous Double Slit Experiment

YouTube - Double Slit Expr.

and yet you said:

I believe very strongly that Photon <> Light (It is not the same thing)
Thus photons are also not laser beams

Why in the Universe not?

EM waves varies. There is no relation between the amount of EM waves with the amount of air. Less EM waves do not equate to less air.

There are places where the EM waves is very high. There are places where EM waves is very low. If EM waves indicate photons, then there are places with infinitely small photon. However, that place may not lack building medium.

A place with less EM waves have matter, have thing, maybe as much as places with very high EM waves. A sign that EM waves is not an indication of building medium.

There is even occasion where too much EM waves dissasociate things. EM waves maybe won't share its place with matter. If matter is forced to absorb EM waves, it heat up. If EM waves is photon, and if photon is forced to a thing, and the thing heated up, then photon is not the fondation of those things. Adding a cement to already built wall should possibly add strength.

If there has to be relation between matter and photon, then I think a photon is a dead state of matter.



Can you comment on atom colliding too?

[Aromaz]

Dear sucahyo;

if you do not have an definition, then use the internet and do as much research as you can; combine this with your prior knowledge and understanding - including the occult;

Create your own definition and properties of Photon.

By that time you will most likely have a wide view of how a photon is seen to be and what its general properties should be like.

I am really looking forward to have us walk the road of discovery together.

[Aromaz]

Light !

@witsend;
The more I expand my search on light; the more I think now it is time to
have separation between Photon and ElectroMagnetic in general. It
does have a lot of confusion to it and very misty diffused border lines.

Just more and more leaning towards the effect that Light<>Photons at all.
My 'collection' and notes is getting big!

EDIT #1: Sorry, I meant DARKNESS !!!!

EDIT #2: Really amazing how little was added to know and experiments
with LIGHT and PHOTONS in past 70 years! Either noobody
really did much; or their foundings were not accepted by CS.
I did found some obscure and hidden writings; very interesting
but many real crap too.

[witsend]

@witsend;
The more I expand my search on light; the more I think now it is time to
have separation between Photon and ElectroMagnetic in general. It
does have a lot of confusion to it and very misty diffused border lines.

Just more and more leaning towards the effect that Light<>Photons at all.
My 'collection' and notes is getting big!

EDIT #1: Sorry, I meant DARKNESS !!!!

EDIT #2: Really amazing how little was added to know and experiments
with LIGHT and PHOTONS in past 70 years! Either noobody
really did much; or their foundings were not accepted by CS.
I did found some obscure and hidden writings; very interesting
but many real crap too.

LOL Aromaz. Most theories get somewhat exotic. Glad to see that you're establishing another basis for your arguments. But I do think we need to acknowledge that photons are particles in the same way that electrons and protons are particles. They are thought of as stable - which also implies that they're indestructible. Notwithstanding which a proton is thought to be a baryon or a composite of other particles. The interesting thing is that no-one actually knows.

My own thesis uses magnetic fields. Never needed to go further than this. But I proposed a particle in the field itself. In other words we have strings of particles that orbit and they thereby establish a field. You may want to look into it. It definitely needs improvement and it certainly needs a mathematical framework. Not sure if you're interested enough to look at it. If not it's not a problem. I'm told that the thinking is somewhat obscure. Meanwhile - again with bated breath - I'm interested to see where you argument goes. I think saying that light is not a photon is valid - provided there's a logical justification for this. Interesting. Whichever way the argument goes.

[Aromaz]

. . .Never needed to go further than this. But I proposed a particle in the field itself. In other words we have strings of particles that orbit and they thereby establish a field. You may want to look into it. . .

[witsend]

Guys - I have a question. I'd be glad of answers to it and the question - although simple - may be relevant.

Here it is. We know that Inductive Laws state that a moving magnetic field generates an electric field and that a moving electric field generates a magnetic field. Well. The one moves against the other at 90 degrees. When one permanent magnet interacts with another permanent magnet it does so at an angle of 180 degreees and - there is NO EVIDENCE of an electric field. It may be there - in the material of the magnet itself. But it has never been seen or measured. It's only assumed. A whole Law based on the electromagnetic interaction and yet there is absolutely NO conclusive evidence that a magnet on magnet interaction also has an electric component.

[witsend]

I agree. But math is logical and if we replace the math we then have to keep it logical. But I'm preaching to the choir. I realise that.

[Aromaz]

Guys - I have a question. I'd be glad of answers to it and the question - although simple - may be relevant.

Here it is. We know that Inductive Laws state that a moving magnetic field generates an electric field and that a moving electric field generates a magnetic field. Well. The one moves against the other at 90 degrees. When one permanent magnet interacts with another permanent magnet it does so at an angle of 180 degreees and - there is NO EVIDENCE of an electric field. It may be there - in the material of the magnet itself. But it has never been seen or measured. It's only assumed. A whole Law based on the electromagnetic interaction and yet there is absolutely NO conclusive evidence that a magnet on magnet interaction also has an electric component.

WONDERFUL! You got most people and science right on the . . .

Here is my disputable answer; off the cuff:
Magnetic (influence) overrides electrical (results).