Replying to Dick Fojut <[email protected]>...
Subject: Spinning Ring Model of the Atom
The idea of the atom being a spinning ring is not new - even if the web site you quoted
(http://commonsensescience.org/) seems to imply this. I know that you cannot browse internet back
issues of The Scientific American earlier than 1993, but I have a 1957 (!) reference to an article
written by Robert Hofstader in a 'recent' issue of The Scientific American in which he (RH) said:
"...that individual units of matter might prove to be merely rings spinning around an empty point,
with maximum density at that point and a decrease of density from the inside out. The following
drawing and the caption under it are reproduced from this article:
You can see by the above, that some modern thinkers are rising above the illusion practiced upon
them by Nature."
The problem is that the laws and postulates of early 'scientists' were based on observed effects
such as the the awesome and seemingly ordered spiral arm nebulae in the heavens. All of these are
merely EFFECTS of dying stellar systems and it is a pity that the early 'scientists' imposed on us a
model of observed EFFECTS (sense observation) rather than the truth of REALITY as Nature (to use a
neutral word) designed it.
You are perfectly correct when trying to replace the, to me, incomprehensible Rutherford-Bohr atom
model with one that makes more sense, even if this 'ring' would have to be replaced with a vortexual
torroid. It is clear that the outdated model of spinning electrons around a solid nucleus is
retarding the intelligent progress of an entire scientific civilization that still cannot see beyond
their own obsession with sense observation. "If it can't be seen it ain't real" - what arrogance and
what short-sightedness!
The one aspect that is primordial and that needs to be kept in mind when dealing with vortexual
concepts related to elements is the fact that neither elements nor solar systems nor universes are
all at the same stage of development. Think of hydrogen, carbon, silicon and others as an example.
These are mature elements, born from a specific inert gas, whereas other elements are unbalanced and
unstable - either immature or beyond maturity. The conceptual model of balanced, mature elements
would look very much like the spiral nebula in M.V. 44 Camelopard, or M.33 Triaguli or the great
nebula of Andromeda. Unbalanced systems display more complexity and disorganization such as the Crab
nebula. Again - you are looking at dying systems, centrifugal efforts to disintegrate - while the
creating, life-giving or -sustaining effort is unseen and unsensed by us.
The trouble is that we conceive, or wish to conceive, everything as a particle. You know now that
light behaves as a particle when perceived, or going through, a medium - and it changes its velocity
at that time; but light reverts back to a wave when exiting the medium. Matter is somewhat the same.
It is essentially a wave form, spiral at that, even when still in the process of unperceived
creation, and it is only perceived in solid particle form when it is already in the process of
returning to its source as IDEA WITH INTENT.
Concerning "An Earth Dweller's Return" - yes, I have read it and I need to read it again! Are you
referring to Part Seven - A Working Theory of Matter - or should I look elsewhere for the
'cosmology' you mentioned in your reply?
The one thing science has yet to learn about the successful manipulation of energies and elements is
that, for certain desired effects to happen or when certain results are to be obtained, then
specific conditions must be in harmony first. Resonance and results are only obtained when the
following are considered and provided:
a) The amount and purity of the materials to be worked with
b) Proper operating temperature
c) Specific sound frequency (or chords)
d) and in some cases - unique color or combinations thereof, or the presence of light.
I think of a concrete examples - the famous challenge of the mercury-iron engine that was supposed
to have powered the ancient Indian aerial vimanas.
Bruce Cathie has done much to bring us closer to a reasonable understanding of the associated
harmonics and required factors when dealing with transmutation and successful interaction of
elements. Without such understanding we will forever wander in the darkness of ignorance and limited
sense observation. It is high time we give him credit for his achievements!
Now, if you combine a new and better understanding of harmonics with vortexual or improved wave
concepts - then I think the secrets of Nature can and will open up in wondrous and exciting ways for
the safe use and cost-effective benefit of mankind. That would be for brighter minds than mine.
Dick - I have no 'expert' opinions - I grope in my subconscious mind for cellular remembrance of
concepts I seemed to have been familiar with 'in other times' - certain concepts just fall into
place and make sense. With a large-enough horizon and a bit of cross-disciplinary knowledge one can
discern a glimmer of a new and promising universal science that has the promise to become more solid
than all the demoralizing and limiting theories we are presently asked to believe in - like some
comforting religion. No thanks - I prefer to remain a novice - this stance provides me with more
freedom of expression and achievement.
Your input is always appreciated!
Juergen.
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Dick Fojut wrote:
Juergen (from Dick Fojut)... Thanks for your comment below about the error in the IMPLOSION
article. I'm the one who re-posted the URL after Rebecka listed it. I had some disagreements and
agreements with the author (and others who were part of his sources). But I found the overall
presentation very unique and thought provoking, about basic matter possibly consisting of vortexes.
And especially the idea that radiated "particles" from a distant sun may not be "traveling" in
actuality (exhausting the output of the body no matter its generative power).
Instead, as I understood the author, "waves" are created in the "aether" substance postulated
to be permeating all space, and ripple from there to us here. The author didn't further explain, but
I can imagine such "waves" in the universal substance (itself probably of similar, though ultra
"thin" composition) might be imbued or "stamped" with an exact duplicate of the "character" of the
initial particles radiated at the source. Not precisely the right analogy, but perhaps like a
current of similar identity "stamped" on
electrical waves flowing through wires.
Now, if you have the inclination, please give us YOUR expert analysis of "COMMON SENSE
SCIENCE, Spinning Ring Model of the Atom," a URL thoughtfully posted earlier by List member
Leslee... http://commonsensescience.org/
I found those several papers carried on the website that I read, also thought provoking. And
particularly hoped Dean and Scott
would scan through the material and see what may agree or disagree with their personal views in
their continuing, fascinating
"discussion" about Gravity.
I also read "Dweller on Two Planets" many years back. Did you read the "sequel," "Earth
Dwellers Return?" Purportedly it was
supposed to be further dictation from Phylos. Years after reading it, I heard (though it may not be
true) that a guy living here in Tucson who ran a metaphysical "university" (whose name escapes me)
was the author. Whatever the truth, the writer produced a brilliantly imagined cosmology for the
creation of this physical universe, beginning with the "BOLT." If you read it, you already know the
details. It far exceeded the simpler concepts written by Oliver in the first book, in my opinion.
- Dick
Yahoo Groups removed 1 attachment from this message: Proton.JPG (application/octet-stream)