Today I’m going to write down a bullet-pointed list of some recent thoughts, and try not to bring along any chaff …
- Atoms are nested superlattice spheres. Each so-called orbital shell is a different geometry within the superlattice. Some geometries are more efficient (hence they hold more energy). Some of these superlattices are self-similar, resolving to ever smaller geometries, which is why they hold so much energy in spite of their size. It’s because the energy network is so large. An atom is really more like a capacitor or battery than it is like the thing that academia has painted for it.
- There is no such thing as positive electric charge. Other than as an abstraction, we could consider that there is no such thing as charge polarity: and instead there is only the presence or the absence of energy, and the direction of its flow. The polarity abstraction has served to conflate it with something that is real, when it is not.
- All energy is initially scalar. Tesla was correct. But, due to the lyotropic aether, the scalar energy is channelized along percolation paths. Due to the channelization, the individual scalar “rays” each have a vector, and can transform to refracted T-waves.
- All energy momentum transit is a longitudinal percolation. Longitudinal percolation creates a superlattice in lyotropic aether, which aligns the lyotropic aether, creating an impedance/aether discontinuity along the medium boundary of the superlattice. This supports refraction for the secondary T-wave.
- Nature’s mode is longitudinal, as in previous bullet point.
- Gravity is unrefracted energy percolation, coming from the surrounding universe. It is scalar in effect, even though the energy passes through myriad percolation channels in lyotropic aether.
I should explain the assertion that there are no charges – at least a little bit. We’ve had charge terminology wrong since Benjamin Franklin guessed that the electrified clouds were negative and the ground positive. Of course, it’s really the opposite of that, but my point doesn’t have anything to do with positive being negative.
Energy is energy. It doesn’t itself have any polarity. It’s just a stress-force momentum in the aether. So, we really only have one thing, or we don’t have it. We have energy, or we don’t. Dipoles have reflexive polarity, but this polarity is “having energy” versus “not having energy” – so we have only positive “energy” (we call it negative, thanks to Franklin) – and then on the other side of the dipole we have “no energy” (or more likely “lesser” energy) – and we call it negative polarity. The idea of a center voltage of zero is simply a convention built out of the way they decided to build power transformers, with center taps. It’s entirely artificial, and nature doesn’t really have +/- charges in it. It has energy, and alternately, no or lesser energy. Like water, energy flows from where it is to where it isn’t.
The vast majority of the energy in the universe is of the scalar form, albeit it comes with the overlay of the channelization effects of lyotropic aether percolation. We see none of it, because nothing akin to “charge” appears to us except when there is an interaction with mass that results in what we perceive (or our instruments perceive) as charge.
Nonetheless, unrefracted percolated (scalar) energy has an impact on individual atoms with its force, even as it does not affect the so-called “charge” exhibited by those atoms. So, it ends up being an undetected mechanical force that is responsible for gravity.
How do we detect this energy? We have a number of means to measure the effects of gravity, but how do we more closely measure the gravity itself? Unrefracted energy percolation is responsible for so-called quantum entanglement. So, a device that measures how much quantum entanglement happens per unit area (say, by measuring the quantum echoes between two quantum lenses) – we might more directly measure the “gravity”. A candidate material for the lenses would be, of course, graphene.
Note: the author is a writer on technical subjects in some areas, of novels, and of other literature, but does not have any formal credentials related to the medical field, or in physics. Thus, this all constitutes an opinion of what might be possible, based on his own hobby-level knowledge quests.
EE-ppcc = mmcccc.
Energy and momentum can’t be dissociated.
I agree wholeheartedly that energy and momentum are inseparable. Which part of my post says differently?