Thread: spherical standing waveform of matter in space

has anyone heard of or read this theory?wonder what people think of it.i find it very intreging.

Post a link, sounds interesting.

Found an explanation on Youtube, interesting. thanks for bringing it up.

here is a linkhttp://www.spaceandmotion.com/

i havent seen the math on this yet,but it sounds very promising for solving alot of paradox's and "dead ends".the site i linked above gives a very detailed explanation.by simply replacing the "particle" with a wave center.what helped me to visualize this was watching the rain hit my deck and side walk.seeing the ripples it became very clear of how the out waves and in waves interact.

Yes, I have studied these researchers at spaceandmotion.com. There is a Very big problem with: what creates the IN wave? So all their pretty graphics about it are artificial. Another problem is that their guru Milo Wolf writes about hf=mc^2 as being valid for both matter and light (f=frequency). It is only valid for light because all experiments relating to Planck's constant h are about kinetic energy, not mass equivalent energy mc^2. They claim to have resolved the wave-particle paradox, but they are confused. I have working experiments toward resolving the wave-particle paradox. See http://www.unquantum.net

Anytime two objects go into an orbit pattern, I think of that pairing as a standing wave. This is like matter tying a knot, a square knot. There is one thing that both Buckminster Fuller and Einstein agreed upon, is that matter was energy tied into a knot. I predict, that inside some stars and especially inside of black holes, light waves are intersecting perpendicularly and spin around each other and form matter. The gravity makes friction/pressure, heat and light from hot bodies, and lots of light from nuclear interactions. So in this model I'm describing, gravity is a free energy input, and matter is being grown from other matter. Stars and black holes would be gaining matter/mass, but it would be difficult to measure, so I haven't really thought of a good way to prove that in real life, only on paper. So, in this model I'm describing, matter is being created mainly inside of black holes and a little bit inside of stars, but the stars are mainly converting matter into light. I want to say that it balances, but I'm not talking about trying to balance equations and obey old assumptions that everything is going to be conserved. I'm saying that there is free energy in the universe, and that much of the light is cast out into space and if there is a central body to the universe, then that light energy is lost as it goes shooting off into nothingness forever, except for a small amount that gets pulled sideways enough for it to circle back into the central body of the universe. And, I think that at some point, black holes do decay, as do all stars and orbits and everything else. After it reaches some point, where perhaps the stellar nucleosynthesis keeps making heavier and heavier atoms until you have a black hole with a large percentage of plutonium or whatever, and the thing eventually explodes and makes a little big-bang.
Another good thing to point out is, that light is said to be circularly polarized, but is made of an x wave and a y wave that are entangled together. Wikipedia has a good visual of this. Polarization (waves) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When the electron switches to a lower orbit, the electron has both x and y components to it's rotation that give the light wave it's x and y components. Both the light and electron travel forward in the z dimension. So, I think that the 'spherical standing wave' is refering to the xyz waveform of the electron. It is a standing waveform because it maintains it's orbital path. Until things heat up and the electron precesses about the nuclues until it can't take it anymore.

I spent many nights trying to get my head around what's proposed on the spaceandmotion website. It all "seems" right, to me, but I found it was impossible to discuss it because Geoff will insist that it is TRUTH, in an absolute sense, and all arguments come back to that.
Whether or not it is right to use scalar waves rather than electromagnetic waves is the question that needs to be answered. (I think)

There are many other versions of "aether physics" out there - but I like this one.

I don't think the question of "where did the in-waves come from?" is any more of a problem than "what caused the big bang?" In fact I think it may be less of one.

Two particles are spontaneously created out of nothing, in space, they get so startled at being that they run into each other, and annihilate.
That may describe the "choppy" nature of the "surface" of waving space.
In the course of infinite time, it must be that that has happened twice at close enough proximity for a particle to run into the partner of another particle. The two remaining particles may find it impossible to collide if their direction and velocity are greater than their attraction for each other. So, off they go, part(icle)ing and waving.

Not only am replying to correct myself, but I have something else to add.

Correction: If I am Geoff, then I thought that my statement was implied to be 'just what I think' and not fact. I did use the words "I think" and "I predict". And when I said, "in this model that I am describing," , I mean, in the model for which I claim original authorship.

Additionally,

One: An electron travels around a nucleus in an elliptical orbit.

Two: An electron traveling in a wire in a circle is a simple electromagnet. This produces a North and South polarity in the electromagnet.

One + Two: When an electron travels in a circular path, whether it be through a wire or through empty space (macro-scopically or micro-scopically), a north and south is produced.

Now, when the electron is going xyz around the nucleus, it forms a north and south that is shifting xyz constantly as the electron shifts xyz in orbit. So, what do you get when you take a north-south bar magnet and rotate it end for end ? Same thing when you get when you rotate an electromagnet. Electromagnetic fields and forces and so on.

I think this model works for a simple hydrogen atom, but as neutrons and more protons are added, you get polarities in the nucleus that the electron wants to avoid when it orbits. (This is assuming, what I believe, is that the electron and proton each has it's own north and south polarity.) The polarity of the electron orbit mirrors that of the nucleus, and you start seeing more divided orbit patterns as the nucleus has more polarity spikes. Visuals at Atomic orbital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia