In using time in the following calculations it might be more useful to use a ratio related to the particles themselves rather than “earth time”. Figure as follows, for a particle A and A1 traveling at the same speed. The distance A travels linear while A1 rotates from an endpoint equals the interval ds (ds – distance-speed) If set at a convenient speed, say the speed of light all other speeds are a ratio to this distance over the same interval.
That is also for any velocity X that A= A1 for a set C and C1 having a velocity 2xX then over a complete rotation of C, C1 would also travel a distance d (same distance as A1 ) but in ½ the time as C completes its rotation twice as fast as A. By the standard of A at some convenient distance, say 1 meter, all comparisons in time are comparisons of a distance such that over the interval (of A’s rotation) the distance equals the velocity of a particle as a ratio of the distance of A to that of another particle.
This is nothing that is not standard math and physics, only that in putting the units of time as units of the interval ds there is then an easily applicable, measurable7, and calculable unit for time.
So velocity (speed) = distance x time (here the interval ds) as in standard physics. However I like to use the interval ds (a set time) for many calculations non-experimental of course). Here with time set constant, distance = velocity, so just a number can be used without units (of time, or distance until it is assigned).
In conserving motion velocity must be conserved. For a rod (A) moving linearly with a velocity = 10, it moves a distance of 10 over the interval ds. Over a subsequent equivalent interval it moves a distance = 10 again.
3 factors are conserved;
The direction of A, defined as moving from a point (O) on plane (P) perpendicular to the motion of A, to any point (S) on a plane parallel to plane P.
Also, the distance and direction, that is direction as just defined and a distance 10 between point O & S.
If a particle X travels a distance of 10, with velocity equal to 10, and a particle Y also, then a particle A with components as X & Y (Fig. 8-2) must travel both distance-directions of 10 each for a total distance covered by A which must = 20 (over the same time X or Y would individually cover a distance = 10). Also a combined velocity = 20 (1/2 the mass X and Y combined, so velocity doubled).
So although A is drawn with a distance = M ( square root of 200 = 14.14) and therefore a “drawn/observed” velocity equal to M (14.14), but its true velocity must equals 20 and its true distance covered equal 20.
conserve velocity and distance/direction, consider A in traveling M,
it can be considered to be traveling both “toward” X & Y
simultaneously. That is its motion is crossing over the same area
simultaneously (see also Section 4, Appendix A). Both direction (s)
and velocity and direction-distance are therefore conserved.
But this added velocity is undetectable by standard observation.
Without considering how this state is reached, consider that the universe is divided into approximately equal spheres where the total inward motion toward a center is concentrated (that is, that area of space was more concentrated than others). So taking all the inward motions toward the central area of concentration and canceling out the outward motions which disperse one is left with all motion of matter (PP, elements, etc.) directed inward toward a central area.
Because this cloud is so large we can consider here that all this inward motion is essentially parallel as
This is the primary vector component to every particle. Along with this each particle might have a slight deflection. If this deflection is too great it then is a outward not a “centrally bound” particle. If this deflection is small however, particles with similar deflections will tend to group and could collide with particles deflected from an “opposite” area as
Here there is a process for the formation of galaxies. As particles collide they may take on circular motions that, with a multitude of collisions become somewhat associated in there circular speeds, as is seen in a galaxy; with the primary vector still moving every particle through space, as is seen in the movement of a galaxy through space.
Now this formation of galaxies maybe considered as these deflections or by the established principle of uniform motion, where for all bodies moving in uniform motions, with respect to one another they are as at rest. So any relative motion among them is to each body as if all bodies were at rest as to their uniform motion.
So the formation of galaxies is as a relative motion of a group of particles with a uniform primary vector component.
So the galaxy itself can be considered as a cloud also, with inward motion and outward motion (dispersing). This is seen in the actual observed structure of a galaxy with their central nucleus.
This process repeats itself, next on the level of stars and solar systems, then on the level of planets within the solar system. Here the process ends. At the level of planets, before any further “accretion by cloud” could occur, the motions of matter in groups (smaller clouds) around a planet “equalizes out” to a unison motion with the planet. The planet(s) then sweeps up that matter in its orbital motion
The sun does not sweep up planets as it moves around the galaxy as distances involved are greater. Therefore the orbital motion of the planets and the sun to the galaxy “equalize” out before this sweeping up could happen.
Another reason this doesn’t repeat down to a smaller and smaller level (as to atoms as vortices), is that the PP have a minimum size and the interaction of PP and elements with each other causes, in essence, a repulsive force that controls this cloud accretion process at a minimum size.
Eventually the inward forces (vectors) of the large masses in each of these “clouds” interact, as the particles become closer and closer, with particles from the opposite side, and as this happens with all the particles they, generally put, rebound from each other and the inward motion all becomes an outward motion. For just PP interaction though please see gravity section at the end of this chapter.
With planets this process is mostly taken up in a rotational motion of the planets.
With suns stellar evolution occurs.
With galaxies because of the larger distances much of this “cancel out rebound” occurs over a wider central area? Slowly dissipating the galaxies, along with whatever happens to the most central area?
As far as clusters of galaxies, this is not from “clouds” but from clouds that form from or near each other so there vector components tend to be similar.
Some more detail on the orbital motion of planets and solar systems etc., how is it to be accounted for?
1. We are not traveling through space at a great speed [unlikely]
2. The particles have a dynamic exchange of motions from one moment to the
This circular motion on a macro-scale is just compounded linear motions. But all compounding results in a single resultant vector (though its overlapped compounded vectors), which is linear not circular at all (whereas current thinking the force of gravity and linear motion results in a circular motion).
Compounding, as I imagine it, could produce a circular like motion from constant impacts from the right angles, but it would lose any overall directional motion though space, so the object it is orbiting would pull away. But consider two vectors on A perpendicular, from a direct hit as per Appendix A section 4. One component could be stopped while to other keeps up, the impacting rod (B) say randomly flying off. Next the PP flow catches back up to A, accelerating it back to two vectors. Next A gets hit again by another rod, but this time from the other vector side, losing that but keeping the other going. This Ying-Yang goes over and over on a primary level, in addition to the electron formation etc., or perhaps co-incident with it. This then allows the component of traveling through space to occur, while on the other ying it travels a bit circular, or results in circular from repeated hits downward added to the perpendicular (both relative to object orbited).This means a downward flow of primary particle ether toward the object occurs. But what happens to that flow? Would it not flow into the object and coleuses? Well in aggregates of nucleons it does, but with just rods it is pushed back up by the election repulsive forces i.e. the outflow from mass. So there would be an oval flow or such downward in places and then upward in places perhaps but also see gravity below for other ideas. Objects like the moon must be caught in a down ward flow area to maintain an orbital motion as per above mechanism. Is this the magnetic Field(?), or an unseen PP flow(?), or both ? So also this means orbiting objects on a very primary level would be wobbling back and forth, rather this is perceivable or not I do not know (if any of this is true), but like this idea much better than #1 and previous ideas.
Gravity is a vector quality. It is of two types, perhaps more.
1. As in figure 8.3 and associated idea in the text, gravity is the resultant vector left over from such a situation where, from clouds of matter, inward movements go inward toward a center of mass and all outward movements are lost to space. The question then becomes if the PP flow is going inward, toward, say, the earth, and moving at the speed of light, where does it go to? Quite absurd it seems, and theory buster, as it either travels thought the inter-spaces between matter and out the other side of the earth, only to cancel out the effect of the flow from the other side, or it accumulates in the earth, greatly increases its matter, in the blink of an eye! (you see the problems of an atomist hypothesis are somewhat different than standard physics!)
But here is an idea, heat is a form of electromagnetic radiation, this is the light particles described in the chapter on light. One thing I haven't mentioned yet, is at one time, I have lost the notes on the same, I realized that as a light particle, with its combination of rotational plus linear motions, there is a ability, not 100% of the time but much of it, to roll off a collision and continue on. So if the amount of PP coming toward the earth is balanced by heat radiated off as electromagnetic particles. This electromagnetic radiation going up from the earth has therefore less impact on matter; therefore the net effect is for matter to remain being propelled inward more than outward.
On colder masses heat is colder, but still radiated. In fact the mass radiated is proportional to the amount of radiated particles, not their energy or heat level, that being a function of the rotational value. Absolute zero then would correspond with a rotational value of zero, and this being -273 Celsius I wonder about a connection to the idea of the mass of a Nucleon being 272 PP.
2. The second effect is one of shadowing between masses, such that the PP flow draws masses together, but this is also the reason probably for molecular bonding. As the masses get too close however resonance of PP occurs back and forth between masses, causing both increase of impact and vectors opposite to the "gravitational" attraction, plus the masses themselves, from greater impacts from the resonating particles, can have turn arounds in their motions as per principle 18.
To say something more about this, gravity herein is than not really something to be "unified" with the energy related and mass creating processes, but different from them so I do not think unifying them is the point nor possible, but perhaps I am missing the mathematical connection that still may be here, even in my odd hypothesis.
5-6-2018 A New Idea on Gravity
I want to get away from the centric view of gravity for a while. It does create a problem in combining motions. But if you make gravity like follows, motions maybe easier to combine. N (Nucleic-Atoms) matter travels slower than the PP (Primary Particle) flow, as mentioned related to light, but here it is gravity that is the issue. As N’s accumulate, this is an important subject in itself (bonding, etc.), to a super-mass, the PP flow on the lee side propels small masses more than the large mass. This is because the large mass has shielding (so less collisions) and has a field of reverse particles, like a Kirlian energy glow around it, which counter-act acceleration rates. On the starboard side this is reverse, and the smaller mass above the earth’s surface is shield by the earth, so the earth travels faster toward it than the small mass is propelled away by the PP flow.
On the sides I will resort to the random motion of spinning particles to explain inward motion of a small mass toward the earth. That is as the PP propels the small mass forward, parallel to the earth, on each acceleration there is a spin direction toward any point on the compass before linear motion is reestablished. On the downward side there is some shielding from the earth, so there are more collisions on the upward side. Each collision has an equal chance of going upward or downward so to speak, but on the linear motion runs, the N goes farther downward, before a new collision due to the diminished PP flow from shielding mentioned above. So, this process caused an overall inward, toward the earth motion.
These three processes must be well balanced for the gravity around the total earth to appear the same.
So, it appears to me that this is now the scenario:
1. Electrical energy, electrons, are PP traveling < > than the PP flow speed.
2. Magnetism is directional deviation from the PP flow direction, at PP speeds or also at a differential from that speed(?) (two types).
3. Gravity is the relative speed differentials created between smaller and larger masses, due to the effect of the masses on the PP flow that
also moves them.
4. Bonding of elements may involve this gravitational effect, but also the mechanism of resonance (not expounded on anywhere on website
yet) of PP between elements.
5. The process of formation on N or other particle sets up to N size from PP perhaps needs to be part of this hereto laid out list of
Phenomena of PP universe.
6. The formation of larger cosmological structures would stem from all the above.
7. The reverse process of dissolution of large cosmological structures needs to be considered, as well as the question, can a N ever break
See http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm for info on the absolute motion of the earth through the ether (but no, I do not believe in Orgone energy).
Some Interesting Thoughts Related to Gravity.
Off of ideas from chapter 3-5. The possibility of equidistant dual rotation = linear is really very much like linear motion of a doublet via principle 12. And when the arms are not in balance rotation occurs off the longer arm with more force to it, in effect, re-directing all the motion in that predominate direction. Similarly on a see saw, the heavier side causes all the see-saw to swing that way, although at varying speeds depending on the balance, as the force of gravity is in play. However on the primary level here the particles themselves are the carriers of gravity, by intrinsic inward motion which is part of the overall flow of the system, but not effected on a moment to moment basis, so the speed of rotation is entirely proportion to particle speed, regardless of balance issues. Thought the longer the arm the slower the apparent motion because of more area swept, but this is not the same thing I was talking about. So this also implies that in the system motion (inward component) which shows up on the slightly more macro analysis of system motions, not the flux by flux motion, but the more overall configurations, there must be the math for the gravitation, something that surprises me, as I had not thought gravity could be unified with electricity, but perhaps it can be in a way.
So as a Christian I think the Bible is saying that God created the world. Even if you leave out Genesis description, which can be considered poetic in nature, there are other accounts in the new Testament indicating this. And it makes sense that if humans existed forever back in time, then they in a sense would have to be the same as God, which we are not so it seems. So likely we are created, that is our known Universe was, and a process set rolling. Indeed this could be part of the "deep" meaning of the Gospels, that God sacrificed part of him/her self so that Humans could exist.
Anyhow that then leads me to believe not in a ever existent universe, but one more in line with the Big Bang. However I agree that the inflationary epochs this entitles are problematic, as having different time periods with different rules to the game is too mixed up. I think God would have created the same set of rules from the get go. So then rather than a singularity of area at the moment of creation, I might prefer a creation of matter, and motion, that appeared universe wide, and evolved from there. So That would have to negate the Hubble reasoning of the red-shift representing a expansion of matter. But instead, as I mention elsewhere, the Hubble red-shift may represent the average density of matter worldwide, in that as light travels and collides with other matter, for some collisions energy (motion/momentum) is peeled off the light particle ensemble without destroying it, leaving a light particle with lesser energy, hence the red-shift. See also the purple section and others is in chapter 6, and parts of chapter 7.
1 From a theoretical standpoint, not experimental as such.
2 That is at any instant the direction of motion is as original, but the particle is displaced so the motion is “compounded”.