The Universe

Hello again,

I’ve been looking into the EM rope hypothesis that you mention and I have a thought experiment that I would like to discuss.

Imagine if we have a transmitter, A, pointed directly at a receiver, B, which is located at least several light seconds away from the transmitter. We pulse the transmitter so as to send a light signal from A to B. Now, according to the hypothesis, the light signal (torque signal) begins it’s journey along the EM rope(s) connecting the atoms in the emitter to the atoms in the receiver. However, as soon as the signal has departed from A, we immediately position an opaque barrier between A and B. What will happen to the light signal ? will it continue its journey along the EM ropes connecting A to B, going through the barrier and hitting the detector (since the ropes freely interpenetrate all matter), or will the light impinge upon atoms in surface of the barrier, being absorbed or reflected - but if this is the case surely the signal would have had to ‘jump’ from the EM ropes connecting A and B, to the ropes connecting A to the barrier, or there is some type of ‘blending’ of the ropes once they become colinear?

Seen from the viewpoint of light as discrete particles (photons) or as an EM wave propagating through space one would conclude that the light would hit the barrier, never making it to the detector.

To keep it simple let us assume we are dealing with light from say the visible part of the spectrum, i.e. non-penetrating.

This is just one of the aspects that I’m having trouble wrapping my head around.

What are your thoughts ?

My thoughts would depend on the barrier.
But your scenario is sort of similar to Young's Experiment and variations.
Gaede does a variation of Young's Experiment using a needle.     

But yeah all the atoms of transmitter A, receiver B and barrier C are interconnected.
A signal sent from A will induce the atoms of B and C.
 
The protons or neutrons of the atoms comprising barrier C could possibly absorb and diffuse the signals sent from A to B. 
It depends on the barrier and the alignment of the atoms comprising the barrier with the EM Ropes connecting A and B at the time of placement in relation to the EM Rope connecting A and B.  In supposition the signal could make it through pending the type of barrier and signal.
 
On a thin sheet, like a foil they use at CERN the EM Rope could pass through an E shell or the EM Rope could oscillate around the Electric axles of C's protons or temporarily help constitute neutrons of C's atoms.  Something similar happens when we face the Sun.  All the atoms of the Sun are connected to all the atoms of the Universe.  Not all the EM Ropes fork out on your body or Earth's body to form your atoms or Earth's atoms.  Thus gazillions of signals pass right through you unimpeded.  In mainstream they call these signals solar neutrinos, but they are really disturbances of EM Ropes that will end at stars light years away.  A signal sent from the Sun to say Andromeda could very well pass through your body unimpeded and end on a star of Andromeda light years away.  Mainstream is clueless about neutrinos because they have no possibly mediator of light and gravity.       

But the atoms of C will receive the signals sent from A by virtue of the assumption that they are already connected.  Moving the barrier a little won't make any sort of difference.  The signals sent from A will press the atoms of C.  If the barrier is a needle then the atoms of C will relay the signals to all the atoms of the needle.  The lateral atoms on the perimeter would relay signals to the atoms of B and if there is a backdrop there would appear fringes.  
   
And then we are getting into all the various architectures.  
You have to learn the form of the H atom and neutron.  
EM Ropes fork out to form the H atoms.  
M Threads arc out to constitute the Electron Shell
E Threads crisscross to form the Proton Koosh (like in my avatar courtesy of CERN)
Neutrons are a crisscrossing converging of EM Ropes that do not fork out.   

And yes there is convergence, mingling, superposition of EM Ropes.  
The common question asked is why don't the EM Ropes tangle or touch.  
They have the ability to pass through another similar without disturbance to form or motion.
Just confirm this at home by passing two lasers or flashlight through each other.   
This is called light on light.  Its been observed by many including Huygens and Maxwell (see quotes in the Red Shift thread).  
The quantum mechanics are aware of this unique behavior but they don't care anymore.  

Hi Gene.  
No problem. Good to have you here!

I enjoy this stuff.

Yeah the EM Ropes solve some of the dark matter/energy 'problems'. Usually these are blown way out of proportion. Mainstream slipped in dark matter and dark energy into Big-Bang model as an ad hoc.

As far as fundamental property, IMHO the only fundamental property conceivable is Form.  All objects even the Thread have Form and this is innate, intrinsic, observer dependent.  Form is Res Ipsa Loquens.  I and others have articles written about the the supreme importance of Form in philosophy and physics.  
   
Matter is just an abstract concept. It could be defined as the set of objects, or as the two basic units: EM Ropes and H atoms.

Mass is a conceptual property, but extrinsic, observer dependent.
How could mass be a fundamental property when the relation relies on observations?
But its definition and use vary with context.
Usually mainstream is devious with its use of the word 'mass'. Its a 'god' word.

If you get into RH & TT, Gaede has some awesome insights into mass in context to Newton's equations, e.g. M1 * m2 represents the number EM connections between two objects, for example the Sun and the Earth. Or mass is the radial tension mediated by atoms opposite the pull local gravity. Gaede broke into the mysteries of Mach's Principle and Einstein's principle of Equivalence. Interesting stuff.

But I basically understood what you meant.

Its all good Gene!  I'm glad you have seen through mainstream/majority opinions.
The same sort of thing happened with me.  I really felt I got played the fool.  

I don't mean to sound like I'm selling a hypothesis/theory.  
I'm just become very forward and accustomed to it.
They say one is never suppose to fall in love with a theory, but I guess I have a little.  

A couple of your questions are easily answered.  
A couple not as easily answered.  
I will get back to you in a week or two.  I'm very busy now in real life.  

But nothing I write can match the sort of depth Gaede goes into in his book.
And I might add that if one gets into this hypothesis and theory one
will have to start thinking a little differently in terms of physics.
This is not your run of the mill theory.  It takes a little commitment.
There are also philosophical issues we've been working on.  
And I might add that Gaede did not answer all questions in his book.  
His hypothesis and theory have been applied to various problems at RSM, Rope Hypothesis
or my group, Nuclear Physics under EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread on Facebook.  
This stuff is still more or less in its infancy.  
But it seems to me to be rational and have a lot of potential.  I saw that right from the start.     

But the fundamental assumption is that all the atoms of the U are connected.  
That is probably the most radical and revolutionary idea put on the table and the most important.