Double Slit Conversation

Richard making first contact with "J."

I requested your contact details from "G", and I'm happy to help however I am able. I've been at this Tetryonics thing for over 2 years, and although I have a handle on most of the conceptual understanding, turning the corner towards a more practical application is what I'm looking to do this year...I'm always more than happy to give my best understanding to anyone looking at this.

Also, never underestimate your resources where Kelvin is concerned. Please feel free to email him any of your direct questions, as I am still very much a student and learning something new each and every day I gaze upon the T-Theory Materials.

mail@tetryonics.com

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

"Often it is asked "where is Tetryonics practical, what are some testable outcomes for the theory" - well here is one.  Since its creation the 1KG standard has been losing mass and a search has been conducted to better define it and to produce a more accurate reference standard.

Tetryonics is the ONLY theory capable of firstly distinguishing between 2D mass-energies and 3D Matter and, in turn accurately defining all physical aspects of any 1KG mass of Matter [irrespective of its isotopic composition and physical state].

The most recent experiments underway to measure a KG mass fail to address foundational aspects of physical theory and err even further in that their measurements still will not account for the kinetic and thermal energies of the samples being measured [and must also allow for human error in the measurements].

Having released quantum models detailing the absolute rest mass, kinetic energies and charged geometries of all atomic elements it now becomes a simple exercise of math to calculate for the exact relativistic rest mass-energies of any weight of Matter [and account for all the physical processes impacting on the results].

Something hitherto impossible to do at the theoretical or practical level in the physical sciences to date, Tetryonics can even account for the mass-energy contribution of spectral line photons in each and every nuclei in the molar mass-Matter under study. "--Tetryonics

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

When talking of waves, we have to be clear. We have what we measure looking like waves, but the triangles are behind the measurements.

A zoomed in view of a photons quantum harmonic motion....keeping in mind that photons are dual DUAL longitudinal quanta, or two boson pairs...two triangles not one... Bosons are zero point fields and are only a single triangle, but can be considered any ODD number arrangement as well so they don't have to be only One...but three, five, seven and so on. Every quantum level is comprised of an odd number of Planck Triangles. And the summation of successive odd numbers always adds up to a total Square number of Triangles.

http://screencast.com/t/vMYKi9W2N5U

The image above highlights the 90 degree phase relationship between the E field and the M field components...There is a small shift that takes place when you can see the e field max and min points, and relate them to the m field min and max points.

Way more on photons...

http://forallkind.tetryonictheory.com/photons

http://screencast.com/t/e0I49qAnNDj

http://screencast.com/t/26okfNzlH

http://screencast.com/t/DWJsxjRUfkGP

Now this is something that rewrites every physic book on the planet...

Closer examination of the geometries highlights a long-standing error is the mathematical formulation of QM energy formulae, namely the mistaken interchanging of planks quanta [v] for Einstein’s frequency [f] in relation to energy. It, in fact, takes 2 charged Bosons [hv] to create a neutral Photon [hf] mathematically equating the two [as historically has been the case] is the same as saying 2=1 or evens equal odds...

http://screencast.com/t/qmp7jhGt

I have a few password protected pages that I would like to share with you as well. This is basically the best synopsis and advanced teaching I have copied over for two years now, as Kelvin posts these insightful thoughts.

http://forallkind.tetryonictheory.com/tetryonic-research-centre

http://forallkind.tetryonictheory.com/research-centre-two

password is currently: 132

There are a few extra curricular writings mixed in, but they are not hard to miss.

Basically, the sine waves of physics are the passing equilateral triangles, and the dots on the graph should be understood as discrete packets, and we as humans turn these connected points into curved lines...

The probabilistic distributions of Planck quanta of mass-energy momenta in any equilateral charge EM field always form a normal [Bell curve] distribution – and it is this very same distribution that is the foundation of statistical mechanics in quantum theory [see last illustration].

http://screencast.com/t/I2iuIH4p

In other words all the higher level math currently utilised in quantum theory is in fact a reflection of the geometric distribution of Planck quanta at that level of physics.

‘SQUARED” energies are in fact EQUILTERAL field geometries.

SQUARE ROOT linear momentum is the HEIGHT of these same EM fields and

DIAMOND e-field  [Eo] Electric scalars are 1/2Mv^2 with

Dual equilateral fields [Uo] forming Magnetic dipole moments in the same field s[1/2Mv^2]

And CHARGE is simply the asymmetric distribution of Planck quanta in any EM field of Force.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Happy to go into more depth where necessary, but I simply recommend downloading the materials, and gazing upon them when the time permits. The lights will go off at some point, but again, I'm happy to continue this conversation at any time. I can't get enough of this approach, and ever questions requires that I comb through the archive to find the best approach suitable to each individual.

http://TetryonicTheory.com/downloads

Kind Regards,

Richard

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Hi Richard.

Thanks for the introduction. Once upon a time I immersed myself in tetryonics. I used blender to build the models. I stared in amazement at the organic compounds built from the equilateral geometry, surprised how simple and elegant it all seemed.

My goal with tetryonics was to build a nanotechnology/chemistry simulator. I wanted to make a sandbox "game" reminiscent of powder games,  which could accurately predict the complex interactions of mass/matter/energy.

I failed to understand tetryonics to the degree required for this endeavor. As Kelvin has said, geometry is the grammar. I didn't know the language, so I was doomed to fail. Unfortunately the only way I could continue would be to learn classical physics, to backfill my gaps of understanding with the mathematical models of maxwell et al. But this is too big an undertaking for me, a simple hobbiest.

So lately I have been experimenting with cellular automata. I intend to emulate fluid dynamics using a highly parallel computer system (Nvidia graphics card). My goal is to achieve comparable results to purely mathematical approaches. Moreover,  I believe I can be more efficient than the equations under certain circumstances (and given special hardware).

My problem with tetryonics is that the forces, the fields, are completely invisible. We see these wonderful illustrations of the products of these forces, but how does one tetryon become attracted to another? How can Kelvin explain the movements of tetryons as matter and antimatter annihilate?  How can we explain the double slit experiment? Exothermic reactions (when mass is preserved)? The precise movements of 2 simple particles through space as a function of time?  These things are not easily answered from the diagrams I've seen, but I'm also not an expert in masonic symbolism (a joke of course).

Looking forward to your response. Thanks for the help.
-J

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

J,

Concerning the forces themselves, they follow simple mathematical rules. I understand that this just points the way, and that there are still some finer points that you'll probably need to run by Kelvin. I also recommend connecting with a gentlemen and Rene Cormier who did the 3D modeling. I've asked him for some additional insight as I know he's put some through into this, and the two of you may be able to tackle the code or philosophize about the code to move forward. Not sure, but it's always worth a try.  

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/user.html?id=1762392682649332578911373

Concerning Anti-Matter - It is the EXTERNALLY expressed fascia topologies of Matter that determines observed charges. Anti-Matter can be viewed as an inverted Matter Topology and vice-versa. So this explains why we live in a Matter dominated universe as Anti-Matter is still 3D standing wave topologies, simply inverted charge topologies that enclose a 3D volume.

Concerning the double slit or (Young's) experiment, there is a really important point I need to make about Matter in motion. When Matter topologies are in motion, they create a secondary KEM field which is simply a 2d field geometry, and it's the distribution of the photons ( dual boson ) pairs that create the interference pattern. It's not the particle passing through both slits, it's the particle's associated K[EM] field. see attached image.

This is a demonstration that Matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena and establishes the quantum interference principle known as weave-particle duality. Matter particles are stopped by the barrier but the K[EM] wave passes through both slits and is diffracted by them producing weaker EM waves that then superposition with each other to produce interference patterns.

Equilateral super-positioned KEM waves produce constructive and destructive interference waves that have historically been interpreted as being circular wavefronts. Final interference patterns produced will depend on the phase relationships of the two super-positioned wavefronts.

The Compton frequency of any K[EM] wave is comprised of identical wavelength Photons which can combine to produce interference patterns. Any detector placed after the primary screen will remove energy from the secondary KEM fields and affect the interference patterns produced.

You're questions about exothermic reactions, are a little beyond me. But particles in motion, once you've identified the linear momentum, the e-field and m-field components, and their relation to one another depending on the particle in question---along with any external fields in the vicinity , I'm certain someone will be able to model that with computers at some point. I've asked Rene if he has further insight as he's contemplated this, but realizes it is no simple task. It's going to take a team effort.

Regards,

Richard

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

OK now that's just crazy. It's OK to say that the underlying model of electrons has been misrepresented, as it has multiple times in the past. But to suggest that the same physicists who build enormous particle accelerators don't know the difference between an electromagnetic field and an electron? That's absurd. Sorry for being so blunt about it. This would almost indicate that electrons themselves have yet to be detected by scientists at all.

Either that, or we could conceive a  simple experiment to detect the "real" electron vs its phantom EM field, since today we have the technology to detect single electrons.

Also, the illustration doesn't describe the phenomena. The double slit is a collection of several electron collisions, and can be produced even when the electrons are shot one by one.

An alternative solution, one that I would be more inclined to believe, is that the electron interacts with its own EM field, which causes it to "ride the wave" and produce a pattern after multiple collisions.

But the initial explanation is so far off base it raises serious concerns.

J

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

J,

We are suggesting that the Electron Matter Topology has never before been correctly identified, yet the geometry we are presenting still lines up with observations.

I'm going to tread lightly as what you say about devising an experiment is correct. It's just that there are more key points that need be understood.

Matter Topologies are Lorentz invariant, in that once the Matter Topology has formed, it contains a specific mass. Motion of the Electron does not increase the mass in the Matter topology, rather the KEM field is responsible for the relativistic increase in mass due to motion...  So knowing exactly what that mass is, means that any added energies that are measured can be attributed to the secondary KEM field plus the input energies used to detect it in the first place. From what I can tell, we have two knowns and one unknown so the answer and an experiment can be conducted. The trick being to find a laboratory willing to let you or some student use their precision equipment for a 'crazy' experiment attempting to identify the lepton ( 12pi ) matter topology of electrons.

So the rest mass of an Electron in Tetryonic terms is equal to the following.

For example ONE Planck quanta of equilateral EM energy has a mass of 7.3762386346e-51 kg and exactly 1e19 of them make up one charged fascia of an Electron. Electrons have 12 pi Matter topology so we have.

mass of electron =  12Pi*1^2 [7.376238634e-51 * 1e19]

Matter level * nlevel(1n level for electron fascia) [ planck mass * number of quanta]

= 8.851486361e-31 kg

Protons are 25n level fascia, so you can calculate proton mass by realizing protons have 36pi Charge geometry in the faces when counting all the the tetrahedrons comprising a proton.

mass of a proton = 36pi *(25^2) [7.376238634e-51*1e19] Charge geometry fascia of a proton is 36pi * n(25n level for proton fascia) [ planck mass * number of quanta]

= 1.6596537e-27 kg

Adding these two values together gives you 1.6605388e-27 kg

pi simply relates to the triangular shape itself, and not the actual pi value we are all so familiar with, so don't get too confused here. I'm digging deeper than normal so please forgive me if I'm not coming through.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-

Remember as theoretical values, any extra energy currently reported, will be a result of the secondary KEM fields of motion, and the instrumentation used to grab the empirical measurement.

Regards,

Richard

I have plenty more I can add ( but ran out of time ). I will be in touch, and thanks for entertaining the exercise. This sort of thing helps us all out immensely.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

J response...

Let's take a step back here. The specific issue I'm putting into question here is the double slit explanation, which clearly claims that the electron itself is not causing any interference pattern. It states that the electron collides with the barrier, and the pattern is caused by EM waves. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how your description of quantization is related to this issue.

The problem I face is that the double slit experiment, and experiments like it, helped define the current model of quantum physics. We have to remember that the pioneers of this model had serious doubts. Even Einstein famously reserved that "god doesn't play dice" with the universe.

If it was true that the electron was completely uninvolved in this experiment, that EM waves were the real culprit, then I strongly assert that such a reality would have been discovered from the enormous volume of experimentation performed in particle accelerators, universities, and garages (Michio Kaku built a particle accelerator at his parents house when he was in high school I believe).

If I'm wrong and there really is some experiment that nobody has performed, I would need the complete details of this experiment. Convincing a university to help with this experiment is no obstacle. Or to build the experiment ourselves (which may involve no more than a cathode ray tube and some small elemental samples) would surely be affordable.

But remember, if we devise such an experiment, it must a.) Have a result which appears to violate the classical quantum model and b.) Have implications that can best be described by tetryonics. If no such experiment can be devised, then pursuing this theory is scientifically a waste of time. - J

-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Richard Response

Energy is discrete, grainy, it can't be subdivided at the quantum level. This is Max Planck's understanding without the revealed geometry.

Now having the geometry, we see how individual Planck Quanta come together to form larger Equilateral EM fields.

The secondary KEM fields contain many planck quanta, and photo electrons, produce dual boson pairs within these fields. The fields hit the screen, and we measure the distance between the constructive and destructive interference to resolve the frequency of coherent laser beam used in the experiment.

The experiments are just fine ( no problem there ), the problem is they have been interpreted with a human mind looking at pure mathematics without a geometric foundation to guide the math---the grammar is the Triangular relationships that come about.

If somebody at cern ( or any university for that matter ) wants to take this seriously, anyone with access to the data could find the tetrahedron of matter by honing in on the absolute rest masses of particles that we predict directly from theory alone, and doing the math from there.

'God does not play dice" -- Tetryonics suggests that all the probabilities of modern quantum theory are nothing more than these tessellations of equilateral Planck Quanta. Kelvin has nailed it down to pure geometry. This was Einsteins dream. Turing physics into a system of thought.

The pure mathematical approach does not serve us well because the human interpretation...We are describing a fully deterministic universe. There are no uncertainties at this level, and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is erroneous in it's assumptions. We can in fact know the position and velocity vectors simultaneously using this geometric modeling.

So when we consider the Secondary KEM fields, we end up with a distribution of individual photons arriving on the back screen. The distribution of brightness can be explained by the alternately additive and subtractive interference of wave fronts.

The photons running up the apex of the triangle have a higher intensity because they are more numerous per order of time, and the quantity of photons nearing the edges of the em field are less intense because there are fewer of these longitudinal boson pairs per unit of time. A slide on the Single Slit Experiments is also attached.

I'm hoping to cover these basics as I work to develop a method explaining things as I currently see them to date.
Please note I'm still in the learning phase myself, and I will do my very best not to misspeak the terminology and the language T-theory takes great care to specify and differentiate between. These notes will help anyone to follow along, but with such a departure, it's very difficult to wrap our minds around it initially.

I can't necessarily lock you into exactly what you're looking for, but this non-linear approach ( with commentary ) has been more successful, and these are all merely the very basics.

Trust me when I say, I'm doing my best to provide you with the 'cliff notes' version.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The following highlights many items that experiments will be able to observe directly, stemming from the the theoretical model we present.

Attached is something Michael has requested all Tetryonic students to keep to ourselves until a proper work up can be written through the lens of T-theory.

These are electrostatic experiments showing a reduction or increase in mass depending on the polarity of the current running through the device. I don't know all the details other than what I'm forwarding along to you now. I'm still looking at this when I can.  http://screencast.com/t/0RRWw6BCfVz

http://michaeljbull.blogspot.com/2015/01/this-is-cutting-edge-physics.html

http://michaeljbull.blogspot.com/2015/01/this-is-cutting-edge-physics-ii-mass.html

http://michaeljbull.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-truth-about-mass-magnetism-and.html

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Tetryonics suggests that energy itself is that of an Equilateral geometry. A closer examination highlights a long-standing error in the mathematical formulation of QM energy formula, namely the mistaken interchanging of planks quanta [v] for Einstein’s frequency [f] in relation to energy.  It, in fact, takes 2 charged Bosons [hv] to create a neutral Photon [hf] mathematically equating the two [as historically has been the case] is the same as saying 2=1 or Even = Odd. (This should be relatively easy to prove...)

Tetryonics claims to show us the true Planck-scale geometry of the quantum world that makes up our Universe. At first the theory was driven towards just matching existing mathematical expression in an attempt to understand what was actually happening at the quantum-scale, in turn driving our macro-scale physics.

It quickly became apparent that a purely mathematical model of these interaction leaves too much room for erroneous assumptions and the entire formulation of the quantum processes turned to reflect and model the actual Planck mass-energy geometries and their interactions.

This is not to say the mathematics is completely wrong, but it does not afford us the fullest picture of the mechanics at work at this scale, and in turn has let itself be molded as much by philosophy as a true understanding of the quantum processes.

It is up to us as individuals in all our fields of endeavor to break free of the chains of education, and to use our intelligence to create a better understanding of our Universe.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

mass is always a lowercase mass, even at the beginning of sentences. The word should remain lowercase always and forever. mass is a measure of 2d planer equilateral geometry, and can be modeled as short circuited inductive loop, that resists changes to it's energy content. This modeling is simply an artifact/abstraction to help electrical engineers grasp the Quantised Angular Momenta - which is the geometry itself, and not a rotational (omega) around a central point. It's likened to angular momenta to help with the understanding at large.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"The measurement of equilateral [square] energies per unit of Time gives us a physical unit of m^2/s, historically interpreted by physicists as a quantum scale rotational vector about a point in space. It is not.

Quantised Angular Momentum {QAM} is a measure of the area of equilateral geometry/second .... in turn its equilateral [energy/sec] can be shown to be the quantum source of Electric CHARGE.

If the QAM is viewed as being the 2 directions of EM energy flux within the Energy geometry then we obtain a positive [clockwise] charge or a Negative [anticlockwise] charge - the two charges being opposite sides of the same equilateral energy 'quoin'.

Please note: at no stage does the charge flux actually exists - it is a artifact of how we can explain CHARGE in electrical engineering terms - ie by viewing the equilateral geometry of energy as a quantum ideal inductive loop of energy that circulates in one direction or the other - remembering inductors are often termed electrical masses as they resist changes to their energy levels, like inertial mass does in physics."-Tetryonics

The term mass-less photon is being re-termed Matter-less photons because photons contain mass-Energies but do not enclose a volume of space.

The Green capital M represents Matter Topologies.

Tetryonics takes care to place quotes around the word 'square' because the English language adds confusion again. In an honest attempt to remove this confusion, I should mention that any 2d shape can be defined in terms of a 'square' area. Square numbers are not 'square' geometries. Mathematical roof will be provided shortly.

We differentiate between the words Topology and geometry.

geometry = 2d planar equilateral shape of mass energy

Topology = Matter Tetrahedral Arrangements - 4 EM fields forming a platonic solid, enclosing a 3D volume. There is no energy inside the Tetrahedron, it's null space. All the energy of Matter is stored in the Charged Faces ( fascia )...

This null space within Tetryoncs is gravity at the quantum level. Quantum gravity is the null space inside of tetrahedrons of Matter.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

We are moving way beyond the notion of Spherical point charges, and KEM fields are secondary Kinetic EM fields accounting for the added mass of Matter in motion. This differs from Special Relativity as it explains this away as distortions of the spheres.

In Tetryonics, these secondary KEM fileds only apply to Matter in motion. The secondary fields attributed to charge geometries within the Matter Topologies are Lorentz Contractable, in that more and more Planck Quanta are squeezed into the KEM field geometry as more energy is added. Particle Accelerator experiments, like C.E.R.N. do not know how to differentiate between the Matter Topologies, and the secondary KEM field geometry. If they did understand the difference, someone could look for the Tetrahedral Topologies of particles, and identify them accordingly.

As students of Tetryonics we musn't ignore the massive amount of work that has gone into this model. Everyone will come to understand Tetryonics from their own perspective, yet the more we learn the correct terminology and express that to others, the better we are going to get at bridging the gap between the various scientific disciplines.

These models apply at all scales, and we can work to bring the sciences together by rearranging our terminology to fit the geometry of energy itself, along with piggybacking upon existing understanding along with much of the work that was done before us.

Einstein's Error of Perceptions Explained.

http://screencast.com/t/xx2E8xH7

Spheres and Tetrahedrons both share the EXACT same total curvature, so from a purely mathematical perspective that is no difference, but the geometry highlights the error in excruciating detail.

The Euler formulation concerning the platonic solids holds the mathematical key to proving that Spheres and Tetrahedron both share a total curvature of 4 π. http://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/eulers-formula.html

Euler's Formula

For any polyhedron that doesn't intersect itself, the

Number of Faces, plus the Number of Vertices (corner points), minus the Number of Edges, always equals 2

This can be written: F + V − E = 2

Revealing the Tetryon as the the atom of Matter. Yet to be experimentally verified, because they are not looking for Tetrahedrons. Mainstream physics is stuck modeling with Spherical point charges. And since spheres and tetrahedrons share in this mathematical principle, it's very difficult to convince career physicists that there is a better way.

http://screencast.com/t/IFIP314KzzZX

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The statistical probability distributions that mathematicians lovingly attribute to indeterminacy and uncertainty in physics is nothing more than the Gaussian distribution of bosons and photons in EM fields that make up all mass-ENERGY-Matter and fields of Force in our Universe...

http://screencast.com/t/maXdWQLd

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Quantum Mechanics - The 'squared' numbers found in physics are arrangements of equilateral Planck quanta. The charged topologies of all particles, along with the Tetryon (meaning a Tetrahedron 3D platonic solid enclosing a 3D volume ) is hidden deep within the data mined at CERN. If CERN wants to look for this tetrahedral topology of Matter, I'm pretty sure they'll find it. Today's high energy experiments are simply off-base.

The subtleties of the quantum world will remain ever elusive to those adding more and more energies to a system they don't understand. Their experiments only add an unnecessary layer of confusion upon an already confusing topic. Wasting billions while they're at it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Irrational numbers pop up everywhere. They have been a constant frustration and a source of many theses for mathematicians investigating where they come from in physics and what their source is. All of the source of mysteries and problems in mathematics within physics come back to equilateral geometries of energy.

http://screencast.com/t/vbFURN04

Of note in the image above are the 'square' numbers running down the right side. Tetryonics takes care to place quotes around the word 'square' because the English language adds confusion again. In an honest attempt to remove this confusion, I should mention that any shape can be defined in terms of a 'square' area.

'Square' numbers are now understood in a new way. Equilateral triangles of Planck quanta can form into tessellations of 'square' numbers creating larger equilateral EM fields. A self reflective geometry where fractal like extensions are experienced in the macro-cosmic universe.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
For additional commentary on a relatively new idea concerning Units, Triangles, and 'Square' numbers, see Wayne Roberts Scale Structure Theory.

http://www.principlesofnature.net/number_geometry_connections/scale_structure_theory_applied_to_the_squares.htm

What Wayne Roberts shows, from a pure mathematics perspective, is how 'square' numbers can result from the "summation of successive odd numbers." I'll break that down below.

1+3 = 4
1+3+5 = 9
1+3+5+7= 16
1+3+5+7+9= 25 and so on...'square' numbers do not have to be square geometries. This whole thing hearkens back to a prior time in human civilization, and I have a feeling that they were way more 'with the program' than we are today.

http://screencast.com/t/ikBP1mXK08

"[In light of the equally-triangular nature of the so-called 'square numbers'] ..is it not curious then, that in the history of mathematics, squares have served the role of 'general-purpose units-of-area', it would appear by default rather than design? We have applied square plugs to nearly every shaped hole under the mathematical sun. The notion of units-relative-to-wholes has not been taken up seriously perhaps because issues of comparison have tended to focus on differences more than similarities or 'resonances'. In the comparative measurement of areas, we have inducted the square as the default unit of area and a universal arbiter of comparison ('this area is so-many-square units whereas that area is a lesser number of equivalent square units, and is therefore smaller'). It is ironic because comparisons involve relating something to something else, and thus a choice of units relative to the system concerned must ultimately be simpler and more powerful."-Wayne Roberts

The word "topologies" in Tetryonics references Matter in Tetrahedral arrangements, and is distinct from that of 2d mass energy geometries, ie, bosons, photons, and EM waves.

http://screencast.com/t/SryTGE8215

Quantum Electrodynamics - Relativistic Kinetic EM fields of electrons [replacing SR], spectral line series geometries, and finally an explanation of mystery surrounding wave~particle duality. Particles are particles, and Waves are waves. Moving Matter creates a secondary KEM wave, thus adding to it's overall mass energies. It is these precise fields that create a Magnetic Moments in relativistic particles.

Lorentz velocity dependent factors relate only to Kinetic EM mass-energies of motion.

We are moving way beyond the notions of Spherical point charges, and KEM fields are secondary Kinetic EM fields accounting for the added mass of Matter in motion, that Special Relativity explains away as distortions of the spheres.

http://screencast.com/t/xx2E8xH7

Spheres and Tetrahedrons both share the EXACT same total curvature, so from a purely mathematical perspective that is no difference, but the geometry highlights the error in excruciating (for most) detail.

http://screencast.com/t/IFIP314KzzZX

Chemistry - Deuterium makeup of atoms, new periodic table, complete models of charged topologies of all 120 periodic elements.

http://screencast.com/t/TwotQY6N9k

http://screencast.com/t/iqOZsX3c

http://screencast.com/t/pHIfmpGW8

Cosmology - Differentiation between 2d Mass & 3D Matter leading to geometric unification of Newtons' G & Einstein's GR at all energy scales [unified quantum gravitation], a new explanation of the true mechanics of stars [not fusion] leading to clean, limitless energies.

You'll need to pause this screen cast as it's about a minute long. Ultimately, if this is extrapolation of data is interesting to you, download Tetryonics books and just open them up. Peer deep into the contents. There are some who will understand, and there are others that won't. I accept both, and am willing to discuss these topics with either.

http://screencast.com/t/UT7hHDyDK

=-=-=-=-

For those who are seeking the higher knowledge available in order to contribute to the betterment to humanity, we must update our models in such as way as to add as much precision, accuracy and truth as possible. In order to manifest a 'heaven' on earth, if you will, something must change in the hearts and minds of as many people as possible. The answers we all seek are there for the taking. A discourse of this kind, is an essential component to the development of a new refined system that can resonate in your mind. Once you have the ability to visualize and comprehend any visual language, I promise that you will surprise yourself with what you can accomplish.

Richard

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Very Good Richard,

You have now graduated from undergrad to final year student, congratulations.

Your understanding is growing and you are finding your feet regarding explaining the basics of physics as explained using Tetryonic geometries..

The ONLY change I would make is in the  comment below:

So when we consider the Secondary KEM fields, we end up with a distribution of individual photons arriving on the back screen. The distribution of brightness can be explained by additive and subtractive interference of individual kEM wave patterns with each other and the resultant final DISTRIBUTION of bosons & photons of mass-energy momenta as these waves reach the screen or detector apparatus..

A minor but significant point – as the interference of wave patterns creates the final intensities whereas the distribution determines the bright and dark regions seen in interference patterns.

If you need anything better explained just message me and we can chat in detail about the topic of concern.

All the best,

Kelvin

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

J comments,

I appreciate all the work you have done to explain the basics of Tetryonics to me. However, I already have this high level understanding (albeit not to the degree of your understanding).

Let's get a few things straight here. I believe that there's a lot of truth to Tetryonics. The way it can provide simple intuitive models for the building blocks of matter. The way it can accurately build a new periodic table.

I understand that the scientific community has built their models based on what they can see. And I understand that this has led to models of the forces around particles and not particles themselves.

I also believe that there could be a lot of inaccuracies in Tetryonics, some so great that any self-respecting physicist would lose hope at a mere glance. I think we need to assess our mindset on the subject. We all are getting very excited about this theory because it is revolutionary and it has a lot of truth. But we need to look at this as critics, not as true believers. Blind faith will never improve a theory, only criticism and lots of experimentation will. So allow me to bring my talents to the table.

Unfortunately these high level explanations are not enough. I seek satisfaction only at a direct rebuttal to my assertions:

1. The given explanation does not explain the actual experimental results of the double slit experiment. Scientists have the ability to produce and detect single electrons at a time. If your explanation was correct, then a single electron would produce a wave of EM energy and we would be able to detect this entire wave, but instead we detect a "wave function collapsing" or in other words a single collision. So unless your EM triangles also exhibit collapsing behavior, your explanation is simply wrong.

2. When scientists put a detector at one of the slits, again the wave function collapses and the wave starts acting like a particle again. And according to your explanation, the electron itself collided with the boundary so at this point all the EM waves have already been emitted so interaction at one slit should not affect the wave at the other. However this is the observed reality, again conflicting with your explanation.

3. It is theoretically simple to differentiate between an electron and an EM field. An electron can for example interact with an alpha particle to create helium, whereas an EM wave cannot. Again, I'm no physicist, so this may be inaccurate, but I think u know what I'm getting at. If it was really this simple, then let's build the darn thing and test it. As I've stated before, none of this is scientific unless some experiments are performed which conflict with the current model and result from the new.

I hope my arguments are met with direct explanations. Thanks. -- "J"

-=-=-=-==-=

Kelvin Response --

"Firstly, it is important to note (as I try to highlight in my Slit experiment [SE] illustrations in Tetryonics QED) that the equipment used to detect and determine results for single and double slit experiments are usually not designed as a specific particle detector but rather are a photo-detector whose resultant interference patterns are interpreted as being associated to the particles use. And while this logic is indeed correct there are aspects of the logic extrapolated from this that do lead to erroneous conclusions...

As noted in my work every material particle in motion has an associated kEM [kinetic EM] field of Planck energy momenta whose distribution within the said field follows a normal Gaussian distribution pattern which in turn produces the familiar ‘bright & dark’ bands of interference experiments.

It is these individual bosons & photons within the detected KEM fields that are interpreted as individual electrons forming an interference pattern over time, not the electrons themselves. In order to detect individual particles as suggested a different particle detector should be employed for detection [ie a modified Geiger/scintillation counter] which is sometimes employed and results in a count of the particles that encounter it, BUT is unable to produce an interference pattern of the same said particles as well – it is a simple either or situation where we can either count the particles passing through the experimental setup OR measure and record the KEM field wave pattern associated with the particles and their motion.

In short the slit experiments are EITHER-OR experimental setups that are being interpreted as an INCLUSIVE-AND experiment, and repeating the experiment twice over using each differing type of detector and assuming the results are indications that particles themselves have inherent wave-like properties that produce an interference pattern when passed through single or double slit experiments is fraught with problems.

[This is not to say such properties don’t exist which they clearly do – but the SSE & DSE setup is not capable of elucidating the actual quantum Planck charge distributions within 2d kEM wave geometries and 3D Matter topologies as revealed in Tetryonics]

What is emitted when an electron is accelerated from the electron ‘gun’ source is a burst of kEM energy which is intimately associated with the electron and its velocity of motion [see spectral line emissions of photo-electrons] which propagates along with ( and causes the electron ) to accelerate like a surf board rider on a wave. These associated kEM waves going through the slits illuminate the detector screen in the typical interference pattern [whereas the detection of the particles themselves are single event scintillation counts which produce no interference pattern].

This interference pattern is clearly visible when a large stream of particles AND their associate kEM field photons illuminate the detection screen all at once but if we systematically lower the intensity of such an electron beam the interference pattern may be so faded that it is not manifested immediately but only after a significant period of time. It is here that most experimenters and theorists make an assumptive error of logic by assuming that the long term interference pattern must be the result of the material properties of a single electron as it passes through the setup – it is not, it still remains a property of the kEM field distribution of photons but vastly weakened as they fire individual electrons either slower or at greater spaced intervals in order to count them as they pass through the equipment – and again please note that scintillation detector cannot produce an interference pattern and interference detectors [or photographic emulsions] cannot count the number of particle impacting on their surfaces.

The kEM field of Planck energy momenta [bosons & photons] going through the two slits is distributed over large areas [in comparison to material particles moving through the same experiment] and as they spread out there exists the possibility of two wave forms overlapping over time to form constructive and destructive wave cancellations that in turn affect the double slit interference patterns observed. For as already noted, the Planck quanta distribution of bosons [hv] and photons [hf] in such fields is inherently that of a normal distribution of various phase electromagnetic field arrangements. Thus the accumulated energies of the resultant wave front placed at a distance from the barrier will not be sufficient for the interference pattern to be immediately apparent when low numbers of electrons [or slowed down electrons are passed through the barrier with its slits – but the interference pattern produced is that of the KEM fields not the electrons just as the scintillation count is that of the electrons not the KEM field photons.

Yet sentimentalists and theorists alike continue to assume that the results of both experimental setups are related and somehow infer that those same result must prove that electrons exhibit a Wave~Particle duality in their material properties. While any particle in motion does in fact possess these there are clearly shown in Tetryonics to be the properties of material 3D Matter and immaterial non-localized 2d planar mass-energy momenta.

The temptation to ascribe all these properties to the single identity of the electron is tempting but all the same erroneous, they are distinctly different properties of the one object in motion..... just like a boat moving on a lake produces an associated wake [made of water not steel of wood] that changes as the boat passes through openings in the harbour wall depending on the speed and number of boats moving through over any given time.

"Any detector placed after the primary screen will remove energy from the KEM field affecting the interference patterns produced."

Likewise now that we have (hopefully) clearly defined and differentiated between 3D Matter particles and their associated 2D mass-energies of motion we can now see what happens in the same experiments when a single particle in motion [with its associated KEM field] passed through a double slit experiment. The material particle itself with either impact with the barrier material or pass through ONE of the slits in the barrier BUT the KEM field of energy momenta being non-localised will be spread out spatially and must pass through 2 or more slits as well as impacting and being absorbed at points by the barrier material resulting in a number of wave fronts on the other side of the same barrier that continue to expand over time to interact with each other constructively and destructively to produce the familiar interference pattern at some distance from the slits. Note however that even IF a particle where to pass through a slit it remains a localised material topology and cannot be detected as a waveform interference pattern, only as a discrete particle ‘count’ in a detector or similar not in a EM waveform detector] Thus ANY detector placed behind ANY slit will absorb the energies emanating from the slit [in order to detect them] and remove them from the experimental setup. This then has the flow-on effect of preventing any constructive or destructive interference from taking place after the barrier and leaving only one much reduced kEM field wavefront to propagate until it impacts with a second further placed detector where either the particle is detected or the kEM wavefront is resolved over time. Run the experiment long enough and the single bands [indicating localised electron particle detection] will resolve to the same WITH an interference pattern [if the right detector is utilized for the experiment given the vastly different energies involved in the detection of particles and waves].

IN ALL CASES, the results of SSE & DSE are the result of either the localised 3D Matter topologies of the particles employed and detected OR the planar normal distribution of Planck energy momenta within their associate [but distinct] 2D kEM fields of mass-energy momenta and how those fields interact over time as they spread out from the slits in the experiment before impacting and interacting with the detectors [Reference illustrations Tetryonics Chapters 38.xx & 39.xx] This is a brief overview of SSE & DSE results and the explanation of the same, as there are many experimental setups achieving similar but differing results obviously I cannot hope to produce a detailed explanation of the same within the confines of this ‘brief’ reply but the same fundamental error of logic [the inability to discern localised 3D particles from their 2d mass-energies of motion lies at the heart of resolving and explaining Wave~Particle duality back into a 2d Wave~3D Particle velocity association]

The Michael Bull experiment is a completely different phenomena where divergent electrostatic fields can be manipulated [or configured electro-dynamically] to counteract the measured convergent pull of Gravity on an experimental setup [its weight] either negatively or positively.

Ultimately Tetryonics does not rest entirely on its ability to explain either slit experiment to validate its success or existence but defines and differentiate between 3D Matter Topologies and 2d Mass-energy geometries on all energy scale sin physics [quantum through to the cosmological] and to apply those geometric definitions to resolving many other aspects of science in QM, QED, Chemistry, Biology, Cosmology and even Maths and Music.... The results may not be perfect in all respects but certainly do provide a major leap forward in understanding how Nature works in the Universe.

I have no doubt not illusions that just as Tetryonics will advance our understanding of the Universe within which we live, it will continue to be refined and improved as time advances like every other theory we have devised to explain the same mechanics and one day be replaced by yet another theory, but this does not mitigate the strength of Tetryonics to unify the science in a meaningful and coherent way from its single foundational postulate that the ‘squared’ Planck numbers of mathematics in QFT are in fact reflective of equilateral Planck geometries [quantised angular momenta]

I hope this has helped."

Tetryonics

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard response to J,

I appreciate all the work you have done to explain the basics of Tetryonics to me. - "J"

It's truly my pleasure as I seek to dig as deep as I can. I appreciate your willingness to participate! And your pointed questions are a great sign of your interest to learn more. I make no hesitation to state that I'm doing my best here, and having fun, but may not be able to satisfactorily answer your questions. I'll need to ask Kelvin to highlight some key items that I have yet to consider, but until then, here's my best response.

Let's get a few things straight here. I believe that there's a lot of truth to Tetryonics. The way it can provide simple intuitive models for the building blocks of matter. The way it can accurately build a new periodic table. 

I understand that the scientific community has built their models based on what they can see. And I understand that this has led to models of the forces around particles and not particles themselves.

I also believe that there could be a lot of inaccuracies in Tetryonics, some so great that any self-respecting physicist would lose hope at a mere glance. I think we need to assess our mindset on the subject. We all are getting very excited about this theory because it is revolutionary and it has a lot of truth. But we need to look at this as critics, not as true believers. Blind faith will never improve a theory, only criticism and lots of experimentation will. So allow me to bring my talents to the table.

Unfortunately these high level explanations are not enough. I seek satisfaction only at a direct rebuttal to my assertions:

1. The given explanation does not explain the actual experimental results of the double slit experiment. Scientists have the ability to produce and detect single electrons at a time. If your explanation was correct, then a single electron would produce a wave of EM energy and we would be able to detect this entire wave, but instead we detect a "wave function collapsing" or in other words a single collision. So unless your EM triangles also exhibit collapsing behavior, your explanation is simply wrong. - "J"

The crutch of the problem is that modern approach does not know how to differentiate between energy, mass, and Matter. With our way of thinking, the differentiation can be made and then mathematically applied. We know the absolute rest masses of all particles, and can then subtract that mass out from the total energies involved to arrive at the kEM field energy content for various velocities. CERN has the data to cross reference, but finding a tetrahedron in their quest, would de-fund their entire operation, so we need some independent thinkers to do the experiments for themselves and simply do the math. There are people working on how use the math to reveal the tetryon and identify the secondary kem fields of Matter in motion.

I totally agree that we can't go on blind faith alone with these things, but there is always the chance of error when math equations are all you have to work with. I don't believe in the collapse of the wave function. It's more simple that that.  Any detector placed after the primary screen will remove energy from the KEM field affecting the interference patterns produced. A laser beam is coherent light, and any detector causes de-coherence. The interference of wave patterns creates the final intensities whereas the distribution determines the bright and dark regions seen in interference patterns.

Wave~Particle duality is easily accounted for [both single and double slit forms] by using basic tetryonic geometries to differentiate between fields of kinetic mass-energy momenta and their associated Matter topologies and using this geometric understanding to produce accurate models of the quantum processes at work in these experiments that give rise to the 'baffling ' results that modern physics has mistaken misinterpreted as a wave-particle duality of sorts.

2. When scientists put a detector at one of the slits, again the wave function collapses and the wave starts acting like a particle again. And according to your explanation, the electron itself collided with the boundary so at this point all the EM waves have already been emitted so interaction at one slit should not affect the wave at the other. However this is the observed reality, again conflicting with your explanation.

3. It is theoretically simple to differentiate between an electron and an EM field. An electron can for example interact with an alpha particle to create helium, whereas an EM wave cannot. Again, I'm no physicist, so this may be inaccurate, but I think u know what I'm getting at. If it was really this simple, then let's build the darn thing and test it. As I've stated before, none of this is scientific unless some experiments are performed which conflict with the current model and result from the new.

I hope my arguments are met with direct explanations. Thanks. - "J"
---------------------------------------------------

Michael Bull's experiments have been performed to some degree, and conflict with current models. Kelvin did the modeling and according to his understanding, anti-gravity is simple in theory. Create enough electrostatic voltage around the object in question and since there is an overall divergent force vector within electrostatic fields, the force of gravity can be overcome.

 

--=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-==

"J" response

"Crutch of the problem...absolute rest mass...CERN..."

So this is like the third time this has been brought up. We've already established that modern scientists don't "see the picture correctly" or whatever. And then this thing about rest masses comes up again, as if to say "look! We got something right." But we still haven't established a solid explanation of the double slit that matches the experimentally observed phenomena. You're beating around the bush.

"Any detector placed after the primary screen will add or remove energy from the KEM field affecting the interference patterns produced."

OK this is what I'm looking for. You need to elaborate more on this. You are saying that removing energy from the KEM field (by observation) prevents the interference pattern from forming? This explanation can easily be disproven. Because I can put a detector at either slit and suddenly the interference pattern disappears, replaced by 2 bands of equal intensity and no interference pattern. If the detector was removing energy from the field then the side with the detector would have a lesser intensity, but the interference pattern would *still exist*. Just because I detected it on one side doesn't make it magically disappear on the other side. Unless u introduce the concept of a collapsing wave, then the wave really does "magically" disappear on the other side. You simply CANNOT explain this phenomena using waves or particles alone. Again I repeat, if the double slit experiment could be described by waves or particles alone there would be no need for wave-particle duality. But the results of real experiments performed by thousands of scientists seems to indicate otherwise.

" Wave~Particle duality is easily accounted for [both single and double slit forms] by using basic tetryonic geometries to differentiate between fields of kinetic mass-energy momenta and their associated Matter topologies and using this geometric understanding to produce accurate models of the quantum processes at work in these experiments that give rise to the 'baffling ' results that modern physics has mistaken misinterpreted as a wave-particle duality of sorts."

Now you're just saying "trust me I can explain it" but you're still not explaining it.

"Michael Bull... anti gravity..."

And now you're changing the subject. Again, let's take this one step at a time. We simply cannot move on until I get a reasonable explanation of the double slit experiment in terms of Tetryonics. If you can't explain it, forward me to someone who can (Kelvin).

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Hi Kelvin.

We spoke a long time ago about Tetryonics. If you remember I was the guy who was trying to create animated models of tetryons and was asking a lot about how to calculate their motions. I’ve recently reignited my interest in Tetryonics. I’ve been conversing with your friend Richard and he’s been trying to explain the double slit experiment to me but I’m not getting the answers I seek. So let’s re-cap:

The classical explanation of the double slit experiment is particle-wave duality. This explanation was created because waves alone cannot account for all the observed outcomes of this experiment. Waves can be used to describe the interference pattern, but things start to get funky when detectors are positioned at either of the slits, regardless of what these devices are actually detecting, be it an electron or some residual KEM field.

Your explanation goes something like this, and please correct me if I’m wrong: “The electron collides with the boundary (it doesn’t pass through either slit), but its KEM field passes through the slits resulting in two waves forming an interference pattern on the back wall.”

I assert that this explanation is easily proven to be invalid. Here is my proof:

1. I place a special device at one of the slits, which may interact with the wave but not stop its propagation. (it doesn’t matter what this device is for the purposes of this proof)

2. When I run the double-slit experiment, the result is 2 discrete bands of equal intensity rather than an interference pattern.

3. If the stuff in question was a wave then an interference pattern would be inevitable. No amount of interaction with this wave could cause it to stop interacting with other waves.

4. Therefore, the double slit experiment cannot be described by waves alone.

This proof becomes even more obvious when you consider that the “special device” is actually an electron (or KEM field) detector, and that the back wall is sensitive enough to detect collisions of quantized units of energy (single electrons). When I fire an electron at it and the detector reads positive, the back wall lights up at some point on the detector’s side. When I fire an electron and the detector reads negative, the back wall lights up at some point on the other side. An interaction with one wave cannot affect the outcome of another, unless you introduce the concept of a collapsing wave function.

So, there’s actually 2 proofs that this is wrong :)

Looking forward to reading your rebuttal,

-J

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Hi J,

“The electron collides with the boundary (it doesn’t pass through either slit), but its KEM field passes through the slits resulting in two waves forming an interference pattern on the back wall.”

The electron may or may not impact the barrier material – but should it pass through it will impact the detector in line with the peak linear momentum of the kEM field interference pattern in any case contributing to a bright band in the resultant interference pattern should it impact the detector and not the barrier [ which normally goes unnoticed as the detectors are designed for photon detection not material impacts from particles]

1.     I place a special device at one of the slits, which may interact with the wave but not stop its propagation. (it doesn’t matter what this device is for the purposes of this proof)

It certainly does matter for the points of this discussion, because as per Heisenberg any attempt to measure a quantum system will unavoidably add [or remove] energy to it anion and affect the system itself and the outcome of the experiment.

As per my reply email to Richard and yourself great care must be taken in these experiments as modern detector are designed either to detect wave pattern interferences OR particles via scintillation etc…. to use a ‘special’ device places the thought experiment into a dubious state where outcomes can be imagined and interpreted to suit…. I would suggest that photographic paper [or at the very least a very sensitive CCD] be used for modelling non-localised kEM field energy moment distributions and interference patterns and a Geiger counter [or similar scintillation device] be used for measuring the passage of localised charged particles such as electrons.

2. When I run the double-slit experiment, the result is 2 discrete bands of equal intensity rather than an interference pattern.

The two discreet bands produced I assume are the impacts of electrons given you state there are two lines produced but no interference pattern suggesting this detector is tuned or designed for high energy impacts registrations rather that the collection of low energy photons over time in order to build up an interference pattern which must be there as it is associated with any particle in motion..?

The slower you send the electrons through the weaker their associated kEM fields are – and accordingly more time is required to register their presence (especially if the detector is design for particle impacts rather than low energy photons)

-        The same applies if you space the electrons out in order to ensure that only one particle is passing through the experiment over any given interval as is sometimes the case.

3. If the stuff in question was a wave then an interference pattern would be inevitable. No amount of interaction with this wave could cause it to stop interacting with other waves.

Agree but in that case your detector has changed from a scintillation or impact counter used for registering the impact of electrons back to a more sensitive  photographic emulsion or CCD device in order the register and show the interference pattern of the much weaker photons of kEM field/s alone.

4. Therefore, the double slit experiment cannot be described by waves alone.

Again I agree, the component of the Wave~Particle duality experimental setup must firstly understand that they are dealing with both a planar 2d kEM field of Planck energy momenta arranged in a normal Gaussian distribution which in turn by itself [SSE] or via constructive and destructive interactions [DSE] produces the observed interference patterns associated with these slit experiments.

And that the electron [or any other particle] is a completely different entity [a charged 3D Matter topology in deference to the planar 2d mass-energy geometries of kEM fields of motion]

See attached Wave~Particle duality illustration.

Current experiments rely on the assumption that the measurements of a detector can be extrapolated to/with the results of the another detector place in the same or similar experimental setups when in point of fact what is required is a detector that can measure both the inertial mass of the electron in order to identify it as well as the  2d planar mass-energy momenta of the kEM field itself associated with any particular electron simultaneously as it transitions its way through the SSE or DSE… to this new form of wave-particle detector.

This will obviate the need for a ‘special’ detector in this thought experiment outlined and allow us to see that the electron wave function does not collapse at the point and time of measurement or observation and that a photoelectron moving through the experiment is a material 3d Matter topology with an associated kEM field waveform that stores Planck energies of motions [mv^2 = E = hv^2] in a normal distribution within its photonic waveform

Until this detector is created we are forced to carefully examine the current experimental setup and Tetryonic theory in order to determine the most logical explanation for observed particle behaviour and associated kEM field patterns in these slit experiments.

PS – I have also replied to Richard on your previous email question on this topic and as I am not sure if he has had time to on-forward it to you yet I will send you a copy of that reply as well [and cc him a copy of this email].

Kelvin

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Please allow me to apologize for my negative tone and obvious frustration. It is my own character defect that I should convey such emotion when I am an instigator and you are volunteering your time to help me understand such a difficult topic. I do appreciate your efforts (and Richard’s) in helping me along on my quest for knowledge.

But I am a perfectionist. And I must strongly disagree with the statements in the attached image.

“Matter particles are stopped by the barrier but the [K]EM wave passes through both slits and is diffracted by them producing weaker EM waves that then superposition with each other to produce interference patterns.”

“"electrons will be stopped by the material barrier but their associated KEM field energy momenta will be absorbed by the screen and... contribute to the interference pattern""

“It is not the Particle passing through both slits that produces the interference pattern it is the particle’s associated K[EM] wave”

1. This Implies that “we don’t even need to consider the possibility of the Matter particles (electrons) passing through the slits. It has no bearing on the results of this experiment."

Whether this was the intended meaning or not, it is the literal meaning. If this isn’t your intended message, then you need to change it.

2. Nowhere in this diagram have you stated "that it may well pass through a slit itself is an obvious conclusion to make,” in fact you are very clearly in contradiction to this statement.

You also say in your email that "should it indeed manage to pass through Any slit in the diffracting grating then it should also be noted that the electron will still be located in the middle of the normal distribution of the energies detected in the interference pattern,” but again failed to say anything of this sort in the diagram.

3. The possibility of the electron hitting the boundary is completely irrelevant. When this experiment is conducted, nobody is scratching their head asking “where has the electron gone?” when they don't detect anything. They don't spend hours trying to recalibrate their machines to ensure that the electron doesn't touch the boundary. The only interesting thing about it is when the electron DOES go through.

4. Yes, you’ve made your point very clear when you say “not all detectors are actually indicating to electrons,” but this point is again irrelevant because in the link I pasted they were able to detect single electrons, not just the KEM waves (if they did detect KEM waves, why are they showing up as little dots? Are these wave functions collapsing?).

5. I think Richard has also been confused by this. I went back and forth with him on this topic and he never once mentioned that the electron could pass through the slits, even though I adamantly proposed that it was. At one point I even said "An alternative solution, one that I would be more inclined to believe, is that the electron interacts with its own EM field, which causes it to "ride the wave" and produce a pattern after multiple collisions,” which appears to be in complete harmony with what you are now saying. But he neither agrees nor disagrees with the statement, and instead digresses onto the topic of calculating absolute rest masses.

6. "If one slit is observed for the passage of the electron... its KEM field wave will be absorbed.... enforcing a classical particle outcome.”

Again, you're not admitting that the electron will actually pass through the passage, you're just saying that “if you try to detect the electron, you’ll end up absorbing a KEM field instead,” but there are other problems with this explanation that I won’t delve into at the moment to keep the waters from getting murky.

Again, please forgive me. I am not saying these things as a personal attack on either of you. I am really, truly, honestly, trying to help. I have no doubts that Tetryonics is a remarkable theory that provides incredible insight to the true geometry of Matter. I understand much of what you guys tell me, so please don’t mistake my disagreements as close-mindedness or misunderstanding.

But being the brutally honest person I am, I must say, neither of you are good teachers. And this is where I can help. Last year I taught the last of several Computer Science classes, where I taught a volume of information equivalent to a 2-year computer science degree plus 2 years on-job experience, all in 3 months time for 2 hours each weekday. Many of my students, having no prior computer programming experience, have gotten full time jobs at such companies as JP Morgan Chase, Nationwide Insurance, Cardinal Health, and a few others. They are valued by their managers and some have even received promotions after less than 1 year of employment. So occasionally I consider myself a good teacher. But I’m more proud of myself for being such a good learner, because I taught myself HTML when I was 8 years old and doing 3d modeling, javascript, actionscript 3.0, and much more by the time I was 13. Knowing how to learn efficiently is helpful for being a teacher.

If you are willing to accept my recommendations and take action on them, then I am happy to continue this line of inquiry. Otherwise this is a waste of time for both of us and I should again abandon this for the time being.

J

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Not at all J,

In simplistic models of Double Slit experiments it is assumed that the experimental setup is such that the electron beam is placed central to the diffraction grating so the odds are that the material electron will impact with the barrier material….. as illustrated in the first picture in the experimental link you sent.

Given the scale of our macro scale experiments wrt the diffraction grating  spacing’s and the size of electrons I think you will agree that we can only work on such ‘simplistic’ assumptions.

The second comment, when I stated that it may well pass through a slit itself is an obvious conclusion to make – unless the diffraction grating slit spacing precludes it.

But should it indeed manage to pass through Any slit in the diffracting grating then it should also be noted that the electron will still be located in the middle of the normal distribution of the energies detected in the interference pattern – and contribute to the maximum amplitude measure [if the detector is designed so as to detect it] as is evidenced in the results obtained in the experiments to date….. ie the electron will always impact in the centre [maxima] band of any interference pattern [assuming there are NO charge-Lorentz forces on the electron as a result of the experimental setup]

As you commented in the your Skype message – Wave~Particle duality is a complex subject that must be fully explored in detail along with a clear understanding of the charge topologies of the particles involved and the mechanics of their motion… it seems you have chosen to dive deep into one of the most complex and baffling aspects of quantum theory as a way to refute my work while giving no credence to the full extent and application of my work

Tetryonic is a unified theory and as such must not only explain the WPD interference results but also mesh with known facts in other fields of science, QFT, QED, Chemistry and Cosmology etc…. should Tetryonics struggle in its explanation of the experiment, I am more than confident that the theory as a whole is far superior to that of any other single [or multiple] theory in modern physics at present and any such limitation is simply that a limitation of our understanding of the mechanics at work utilising Tetryonic particle topologies and field dynamics… and that this is still far superior to the current explanations of the same proposed by existing theories.

I am sure you will agree that there are many results from many differing WPD experimental setups and in fact the article you pointed my to backs up my previous statements that all too often experimenters run two distinctly different experiments [photon detection vs particle detection] and then assume that both experiments are associated with each other despite their differing physical experimental setups….. I am not seeking to ‘cloud’ the waters as you put but to paint the clearest picture possible of what is actually happening and the exact electron~KEM field dynamics at work – but I constantly also have to correct time honoured assumptions ingrained in the current explanations of the experimental results.

Tetryonics affords me an exact model of the particles and EM fields involved and the distribution of energy momenta within these same particles and fields and I strive at all time to be as clear and consistent as possible with my answers – but again please bear in mind this is a complex topic….. imagine describing the motion of a small speed boat from the wake it produces as photographed from a geostationary satellite with limited resolutions and you’ll have a good analogue for the WPD experiments.

Kelvin C. Abraham

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

How convenient that we can start referring to KEM waves as “photons”, as if they were little particles. Tell me, how is this possible? I fire a single electron at the double slit, it collides with the boundary, but then I detect a single collision on the screen, or even a bunch of dots. At this point the particular technology we are using, be it phosphor paper or something else, doesn’t really matter. Your description of the KEM waves, which basically consists of a million of these 2D geometries flying around in different directions, cannot possibly describe the phenomena of individual dots of equal intensity popping up on the screen, unless you admit that we are seeing actual electron collisions or there’s some kind of “collapse” happening. And if we are in fact seeing electron collisions, then 39.10 is the only accurate illustration you have provided, and it’s not even a double slit!

The other illustrations will cause wild confusion by both the layman and the physicist, both people who you will be alienating by providing information that they willinevitably reject because it provides the information in such a way that it’s confusing and non-intuitive.

Again, the most important aspect of the double slit experiment is when Matter acts like a wave, or when a wave acts like a particle, not when waves act like waves. So far none of these diagrams actually explain the “gold stuff” that you have told me (that the electron can “ride the wave”, that different detectors may produce different results), and instead they are beating around the bush.

I don’t know how I can make my point any clearer. It seems as though you are completely unwilling to take my advice into consideration. These diagrams, the hundreds that you’ve created and posted on the net, they make sense to you because you have a million-mile-high view of Tetryonics. But as far as I know, you’re the only person who has this level of understanding. What’s the difference between a hundred diagrams that one person can understand, vs ten diagrams that anyone could understand?

J

-=-=-=-=-=-

1.      It was indeed the intention OFR THAT specific illustration, as I mentioned previously there are a number of Particle~KEM wave interactions that can be effected depending on the number of slits, position of particle wrt to the number of slits and the type of detector used in the experiments.

Indeed it is immaterial wether a particle is used in the experiment, but should one not be employed then we simple move from a Wave~Particle duality interference experiment to a much simpler diffraction-interference experiment utilising light waves [as Newton and young originally conducted]

See attachments 39.08 & 39.09  where waveforms [and particles] produce interference patterns from the normal distribution of photons as they interact with detectors over time.

Each illustration in Tetryonics is specific to various possible arrangements of the slit experiments and the wording relates to those specific configurations, but an overall discussion on Wave~Particle duality and interference patterns usually devolves into a discussion involving many differing measurement mechanisms and an equally bewildering interpretation of these results.

Of note also is the fact that the current interpretations and explanations of the results rely on non-localised ‘fuzzy’ Wave~Particle mechanics in most modern theories while Tetryonics is strictly local and deterministic [hence no Uncertainty Principle] and clearly differentiates between 2d mass-energies & 3D Matter at the quantum level.

2.      The statement of the possibility of the electron passing through the slit is not in the illustration as you note – but I included it as I felt you were bound to raise the question of it doing so at some stage and ponder its effect on the observed interference pattern produced – my apologies if this clouded the issue at hand in any way, but it remains a realistic path of motion that must also be accounted for in these discussions.

Perhaps attachment 39.10 better illustrates the point I am making here in that particular comment [taken from my QED eBook]

3.      The possibility of the electron hitting the boundary is NOT completely irrelevant, its material properties play a significant role in the interference pattern produced as its inertial matter determines the KEM field of the electron that in turn creates the final interference pattern – in all WAVE~PARTICLE duality experiments they are intimately tied to each other and affect the results produced… again harping back to my original statements that most experimental setups detect one or the other and then extrapolate connections from the results… depending on whether they are measuring resulting EM wave interference patterns or the distribution of material particles on a phosphor screen or similar.

4.      Leading us to this point, indeed the detected electrons are material particles impacting the detection screen but they create a distribution pattern that RESEMBLES an interference pattern….. they two things are quite distinct from each other. And associating the two as some sort of wave function collapse is akin to relating cats to dogs because they look similar [tails, 4 legs, fur and found around humans etc].

We need to be much more discerning when it comes to differentiating between the deterministic motion of material 3D particles and probabilistic 2d waves of mass-energy momenta [photons & bosons] in experiments such as this.

IF the detectors were phosphor screens for example that exists the possibility that some of those ‘dots’ are in fact the result of photons impacting the screen in addition to the impact of the electrons themselves [I have no data on the specifications of the screens utilised and their sensitives etc. – and none was provided]. But I also note that if the screen did register photon impacts as well as electrons this will result in a smearing of the registered impacts along the horizontal axis due to the rhombic geometry of photons themselves – an effect often attributed to the electron being a non-local bundle of negative charge in such experiments

5.      Indeed the electron does ‘ride’ the KEM field wave as you put it, as the KEM field contains ALL the energies of motion and the electron is just a material particle being accelerated by the kEM field associated with it [by applied force].  It is understandable that Richard may have missed upon this point and/or possibly mis-explained it based on his own understanding of the mechanics involved and materials provided, but kudos to both of you for seeking further clarification and discussion on the matter.

Again, there are many ways this particular experiment can be configured, even more ways for the mass-Matter to make its way through the experimental setup and a number of differing outcomes dependent on the experimental setup and theoretical models used to explain the observations.

6.      "If one slit is observed for the passage of the electron... its KEM field wave will be absorbed.... enforcing a classical particle outcome”

Not sure where that comment was, perhaps I mis-spoke  in this instance.

In SSE if the electron is detected the electron is absorbed by the detector leaving only the KEM field free to progress and create an interference pattern based on the probabilistic distribution of photons in its field geometry [if a suitable detector is there in addition the electron detector].

In DSE odds are the electron ill impact the barrier medium between slits and be absorbed anyway leaving two [or more] weaker diffracted KEM fields [that go on to interact over time to produce an interference pattern that is different from the original kEM field pattern] to be absorbed by the detector

Additionally in either of these two experimental setups there remains the possibility of the electron’s path being deflected by the barrier material itself [if it is not specifically neutralised to prevent such interactions]…… again there are many, many configurations and interactions that all impact and affect the outcome of these particular experiments.

Not offense is taken, I do note that you are at least seeking further explanation and clarification, which I am happy to provide. We all benefit for this process – if for nothing else in creating a clearer, better defined set of illustrations and explanations that all may use from this point forward.

--Kelvin

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Well greetings to everyone!

I'll be playing catch up on this conversation, and do greatly appreciate everyone's efforts to include me in the discussion at large.

These are some very well thought out responses, both in inquiry and explanation! It will indeed take me a little bit of time to absorb all this.

Valuable insight is so difficult to come by, and every sentence brings me closer to the full picture.

Although I'm not an educator of any kind, I see my role as helping to point interested individuals to the source work, and am able to highlight many, many key components of Kelvin's theory while showing how it is in direct contrast to the mainstream teaching.

I've spent a lot of time familiarizing myself with the Tetryonic terminology, and will certainly continue to do so. My only hope to become better equipped to discuss these finer points as time goes on. So it's time I apologize if any of my own comments have added confusion, and why I do my very best to stick to the Tetryonic terminology as strictly as possible.

I make no hesitation when discussing these things to outright state that I am merely a curious mind seeking and researching Tetryonics as it does a much better job at cluing me into the subtleties of physics than anything else I've come across to date.

I gave it every attempted to grasp these concepts through university studies, but the entire time, I knew the education I was receiving was watered down and riddled with errors and misunderstands from start to finish. But thank to Tetryonics, my grand curiosity, that was literally fading away into the distance, was revived through this work.

The light bulb that went off in my mind, will likely never dim and I intent to pass on the torch to those willing to dig deeper than I ever thought was going to be possible in my lifetime.

If I can simply spark this same sort of renewed interest in even a small handful of individuals, then I consider my efforts worth the time. I can't stop studying T-theory, and see no end in sight for the abundance of descriptive and fully coherent explanations it offers.

Thank you all for allowing me the opportunity, and I'll be combing through these discussions in order to arrive at an even more more holistic understanding of these experiments.

Kind Regards,

Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-