user737 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:51 pm
The observation of electron "generation", normalized to time, gives current, a speed, or s/t. How can this be an anti-material particle or otherwise? This makes the electron the "waste" motion and as such the higher the current the higher the REAL losses (P
LOSS = I
2R). The observation of current flow (1-dimensional motion) is the residue (in a gravitational field) and as such would be a reification process of our consciousness to explain away the apparent (outward) progression in only one dimension.
"Waste motion" is a good description and very appropriate. Particularly Beta decay (see Gustave LeBon's books on the evolution of matter).
I no longer believe that the electron is a primary particle--it is a shattered remnant of something else (as is the positron). As LeBon had noted, beta decay puts out far more particles than can be accounted for within the atomic system, itself. This is why he assumed atoms where a storehouse of energy. What I found is that beta decay originates from the SUN and is transmitted intra-atomically (through 3D time, rather than space), breaking out of the atom into 3D space like a flood gate. I was able to demonstrate this with my research from a few years ago that correlated solar flare activity with radioactive decay rates in thorium-232. It is almost spooky how they change together--but the radioactive decay rate changes BEFORE we see the corresponding flare activity, indicating that the effect is instantaneous (through time), rather than through space.
I have also determined that the dielectric field, itself, is not actually any kind of structure--it is nothing more than the net push/pull of scalar motion in a single dimension. When dielectric lines "repel," what we are seeing is the progression of the natural reference system--the lines are a contour map of the push apart, not an actual "thing." The same with attraction, except this is the 1D version of
gravity, an inward scalar motion.
Based on the quaternion model, it seems that all particles start out as a 3-dimensional rotating system. The Universe is 3D by nature, so Larson's approach to starting with a single dimension doing a "direction reversal" seems flawed. There would be no bias toward a particular dimension (like the one coincident with the reference system), nor a bias towards the number of dimensions involved, so the basic motion would be a 3D, inward rotation to start with. When this motion is cosmic, rotation in the space region, we only observe the
projection, but it isn't a
true projection--it is just another way to look at the SAME motion.
Let me explain... you are dealing with motion, an abstract concept, not a "thing." This means that the original structure and
all its projections are the SAME THING. Unlike a shadow cast upon a wall, you can manipulate the projection and the original motion will also be manipulated! This is very important to understand. The projection is just an ASPECT of the motion, not something created by interaction, as a shadow is.
So, when we manipulate a 1D electron through our electronic circuits, the underlying 3D cosmic motion is also manipulated. This is how semiconductors work (read Gopi's papers on the positive current).
The same goes for the positron, except the situation is reversed. The positron, being a "rotating unit of time," will be absorbed by the atomic rotation of the time region, but in the space region will act as a positive current. We see this as a 2D structure, because we are in the same reference frame as the positron (time to time), so it appears to be a kind of magnetic current (aka Leedskalnin or
Spring's magnespheres--a quaternion). Spring's work is interesting as it defines EM radiation as a 3D sphere--a quaternion--and if that radiation can be 3D, one would think that the photon of light has the same structure (see the Photon 2.0 stuff).
Every dogma has its day...
