|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
The theory that matter doesn't just CAUSE spacetim
(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
files on KeelyNet!
February 24, 1991
BUMP1.ASC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This file courtesy of Double Helix BBS at 212 865 7043.
The author failed to include his name.
This is a short paper on my (author) own view of the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe, as we know at the present time, is composed of
many units ranging in size, for as far as we can tell, from -
infinity to +infinity.
Units like galaxies and clusters of galaxies are some of the
larger units we know of. Towards the smaller end of our knowledge
are the atoms, made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and
interacting with countless other particles such as neutrinos,
mesons, and baryons. Most of these particles are even smaller than
any of the components of the atom.
In fact the only limitation to the size of the particles we find
seems to be in the resolving power of our instruments and the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
This seemingly endless range of universal units leads us to ask,
"What is the universe made of?", "Is there any really basic element
that composes all that we know as the universe?". These questions
will be extremely hard if not impossible to answer.
My idea of the universe is quite simple, particles ARE NOT
particles at all. Einstein gave us the theory of relativity and
gave us the idea that one of the basic forces of nature; gravity;
can be explained as the curvature of spacetime around an object.
Well, what if the object, be it a planet or a Quark, is not an
object at all but simply a "bump" in spacetime? Then the curvature
of spacetime is no longer around that object, it IS that object.
(from a Keely viewpoint, this "bump" is a NODE generated from
interference patterns in the AETHER.....VANGARD)
What if all the units in the universe are composed of simple
distortions in the spacetime continuum?
All universal units have charge, but the most charged in either
direction are the subatomic particles.
Well, what if these charged particles were simply vortexes in
spacetime, the size of this vortex being proportional to the mass of
Page 1
the particle, spinning clockwise or counterclockwise depending on
the charge? (refer to the work of VICTOR SCHAUBERGER, Walter
Baumgartner, Walter Russell, John W. Keely)
This would allow for attraction between two vortexes spinning in
opposite directions (opposite charges attract), and repulsion
between vortexes spinning in the same direction (like charges
repel). Well, what about the fact that these particles CAN be
broken down into other particles?
Not a problem when you consider the behavior of eddys. When a
spinning eddy is disrupted by some other object or eddy in a
specific way, IT BREAKS UP into smaller swirling eddys, hence new
particles are created. (destructive interference and parametric
resonances.....VANGARD)
Magnetism can also be explained if you consider the fact that
many vortexes spinning in the same direction, will cause a general
flow of fluid or spacetime or whatever to flow around them.
Larger units like planets need not be single huge vortexes, but
may simply be MADE UP OF MANY SMALLER VORTEXES, I'd even go as far
as to say that THE NUCLEUS OF THE ATOM is made up of different
vortexes. (Keely says these vortexes occur in multiples of three
throughout all mass and energy manifestations....VANGARD)
Maybe in the atom there are vortexes spinning in different
directions, not just the positive direction (the protons), maybe
these other vortexes cancel out the power of some of the proton
vortexes thus making them "neutrons".
Very much like the proton in every aspect except size and
charge, neutrons are just a little heavier than the protons, this
difference is about the weight of two electrons.
I'm still thinking about this theory, I don't know enough to try
to prove it or even to know whether I missed something or not. I'm
still thinking about this theory and the nuclear forces but I like
this idea and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it so
I'll keep thinking about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics
as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the
Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page.
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
