Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Give me an example.

Based on the three statements above Amps must always be zero. The number of electrons passing a given area never changes. You have argued that it is their rotational speed that changes.

you are right. I should have said it is how many Quantum or units of energy pass a given point at a given time. The electrons are rotating, the energy is moving down the conductor. It is kinetic energy being transferred from one atom to the next. Is that correct?

I think the picture is fairly close to correct. My description of the picture sucks

No, it isn't correct. You are spouting complete nonsense.

Let's look at why it is nonsense.
If we assume that electricity is merely the rotation of atoms and their electrons then you would need to explain why some materials don't conduct electricity but others do.
I can hardly wait to hear you explanation. Are you going to argue some atoms don't have electrons? Or are you going to argue that in some atoms the electrons don't rotate?


Then you would have to discuss the molecular weights of atoms and their relative size and how it would affect your claim of rotation in respect to angular momentum. What happens when I run a current from aluminum to copper with respect to this rotation?

Rotate isn't quite right, pulsate in the atom in a twisted figure 8 pattern is more like it. If you look at my discussion http://embeddeddimensions.com/#_Toc435250697 on the ether,(space time continuum) I think space is is divided into groups of two dimensional interlocking strings. (Could be Higgs Bosons, dark energy, dark matter) We can create a magnetic field by moving a magnet through the ether by using a generator. This adds energy to the ether in this area. The added energy causes the virtual particles in the ether to spin faster and realign their axes to the 90 degree relationship. This creates an area of higher spatial density in the ether in the generator. Since I think matter is made up of these same interlocking strings, some materials like copper and iron can conduct electrical currents because they have atoms with few electrons in the outer shell. The electromagnetic fields established by, a generator, around the atoms of materials that can carry electrical current, would line up the force axes or energy axes back to their 90 degree relationship. This lining up of the axes would look like wheels lined up in a row.Electric current is caused by lining up the axes of conductive materials so that the electrons in one atom can transfer rotational inertia as momentum to the electron of an adjacent atom. There are six positions that a quark can be in as the virtual particles inside an atom rotate. So, we can divide the rotation of a virtual particle into six sixty-degree increments. An electron is a quark in the outer most space of an atom. So as the electrons of one atom transfer inertia to the next atom in a current, they would look similar to a gear with six teeth with sixty degrees of rotation between the teeth. The virtual particles could then be compared to the gears in a gear train, and the electrons the teeth on the gears. In reality the gears are made out of fluid space put into order. In matter the teeth of the gears are the quarks, and in space they are the virtual quarks or photons of the ether. In space the photons construct a ring gear of virtual particles around the atom. The virtual particles are two interlocked 6-tooth gears, but where the two gears come into contact with each other becomes an axis of rotation as the universe of the atom becomes imbedded in the universe of the ether, like a sun gear. Since these two teeth become an axis the atom becomes an imbedded 10-tooth gear. The two virtual particles would then act like imbedded planetary gears inside a ring gear of ether, or adjacent atoms in the wire, depending on the location of the initial atom.

So your words seem to be wrong. Gosh. Just like I said. It's gobbledygook.

Repeating your gobbledygook here doesn't make it not be gobbledygook.

Electrons are not made up of quarks. Electrons are leptons and an elementary particle under the standard model.
http://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model



If this was true then wouldn't those atoms with more electrons on the outside conduct more electricity since they have more teeth? Wouldn't larger atoms have more spacial density?

But you haven't explained why some materials conduct electricity and others don't under your theory. All atoms have electrons. Can't all atoms spin and realign their axis?

I haven't even introduced the real world usages that would violate your theory. Under your theory electrons don't leave an atom. How does a cathode ray tube work then if it is not electrons being directed at the screen?

You are right an electron is a lepton. In my picture of an atom an electron weaves into the atom and changes places with the quarks of the proton. It is the location of the particle in the atom that defines its name and its mass. The more the particle is in contac with the virtual particles that make up space or The Ether ( Higgs bosons?), the less mass they have. In actuality all those particles have the same amount of space in them but the density of that space changes and the amount of momentum that it is stored in the atom rather than shared with The Ether changes. it is the shape of the atom that makes it conductive to electricity and its shape is determined by how many electrons are in the outer shell. I am looking at physics in a different way. I have a real picture of what I think the inside of an atom and the structure of space looks like. The geometry this structure should allow us to back out the constants like to find structure constant. The picture works I do believe I am trying to learn how to describe it and sometimes I'm trying to describe something they don't have a word for yet, or they have a word for it but they don't know what it looks like in the picture. I will do my best to fix the words I'm interested in what people think of the picture along thle way.

Now you are just entering crazy town.

The electrons change places with the quarks in the protons?
This change would result in no change in the structure of the atom?
Atoms can gain or lose mass simply by changing where the particles are?

How does the shape change the number of electrons in the outer shell? The number of electrons in the atom affect the number in the outer shell.

If the electrons changed places with the protons, you would have antimatter. Do you know what happens when matter meets antimatter?

You still have not answered the simple questions I have asked about your theory. How can you tell which atoms conduct electricity? It can't be because of the number of electrons in the outer shell because those have taken the place of the quarks in the protons. You are contradicting yourself repeatedly.

The atoms aren't changing mass, the particles inside the atom change mass. The mass of the atom stays the same as long as the total energy of the atom stays the same. As a lepton rotates into the atom a quark from the proton rotates out and replaces it so that electrons always stay the same unless one is emitted into the ether and becomes part of that space. As the lepton rotates into the space of the quark in the proton its mass increases because it's no longer in contact with the ether. As long as the particle stay in groups of four in the structure of space and groups of 8 in the structure of matter matter and antimatter particles will offset each other. If that balance is broken the matter and antimatter balance is broken. Naked singularities always find an opposing particle in The Ether to match back up with and disappear.
The number of electrons and protons 2 sided shape of an atom and how it is going to conduct electricity. Everything is pulsating on 90 degree axis. When you add energy to the system that pulsating will turn the atom like gyroscopes and line the atoms up so they can carry a current.

Could you put that in English? It still doesn't explain why in your idiotic hypothesis some materials conduct electricity and others don't.

So you have no evidence to support this. It violates the most basic laws of physics when it creates mass. You are nothing but crazy. There are too many real world examples that show you are crazy. Under your model an electron gun would not exist and yet an electron gun has been used in television cathode tubes for over 80 years. The most basic thing about any hypothesis is it has to match up and explain observations. Not only does your hypothesis not explain anything in the real world, your idiotic ideas are completely contradicted by working electrical components that have been around for over 100 years.

The mass of the atom doesn't change. The quark in a proton becomes a lepton and the lepton moved into the place of the quark. They both gain and lose the same amount of mass. The only thing that changed is they exchanged places. The name of the particle depends on where it's located. The mass of the particle depends on where it is located. When it moves to the outside of the atom it is an electron as it moves into the center it becomes part of the proton. The electron the proton the antiproton and the anti electron makeup an 8 particle or 4 string pulsing structure of matter. I would like you to just look at the picture I am trying to explain. I might have the terminology a little messed up sometimes but I think you can see the picture. Conductivity in my theory is decided in the same way as physics. I don't disagree with the physics World in anything accept I am explaining in a picture what their data and Math is saying. I meant to say the number of electrons and protons decide the shape of the atom. I'm sorry I spoke this into my phone. Don't you ever wonder what the inside of an atom really looks like. And don't you ever wonder how gravity manifests out of space and matter. Don't you wonder what is bending or stretching as gravity warps the space-time continuum. I am just proposing a structure to space and matter. This structure requires a lot of order in empty space and the space inside an atom. I don't really care where the order came from but the order gives us an explanation for the origin of gravity and why the constants are what they are. I have illustrations of matter and The Ether, did you look at them? I think there is quantumization of the space time continuum. I think the Higgs boson is evidence of that. I think the shape of the atomic orbitals is evidence of it.

A particle can't lose mass even if it is part of an atom. You don't seem to understand basic principles of physics. An electron has to have the same mass it always has. It's a basic particle. It can't change it's mass without violating the rules of thermodynamics.

No, you aren't explaining what their math is saying. You are making **** up and then when it is pointed out it doesn't match reality, you simply claim it does. Your ipse dixit argument is bull ****.


Wondering about something doesn't give me license to make **** up and then pretend I know what I am talking about. When I wonder about something I do real research. In most cases some very smart people have done a hell of a lot of science. That science tends to match the reality I live in.

Before you make your silly argument again about electron's mass changing read this....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass


This only makes it even MORE evident you aren't using their math. You are simply making **** up.

There is no such thing as a completely stationary electron. The ion is held stationary in the magnetic fields of a Penning trap, but the particles are still oscillating within it.The mass of the particles at each location of the oscillation is always the same. The name of each particle at a particle location is always the same. But, like musical chairs, it is not the same particle. For instance if you have four people on a merry go round and the position marked electron is the the one that has a stationary person standing there pushing each individual as they pass. Each individual has the same force exerted on them in three positions away from the pusher, but all have a different force in the electron position when the pusher pushes them individually as they pass him. In my picture the pusher is the space time continuum, or the ether, or the higgs boson, or whatever science calls it. The ether is made up of virtual particles that are oscillating with it and thus absorbing some of the momentum of the electron thus drastically reducing its mass in that position. Since in everyday life, unlike in a penning trap, the electron is not interlocked with the ether causing an electron cloud. This creates a larger statistical area the electron can be located, so it isn't trapped. If it was trapped it area would look like one of the atomic orbitals. Such as this l=1,n= 3 hydrogen orbital. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P3M0.png Note as the energy decreases the atom oscilates only in the first layer of ether surrounding it, instead of two layers deep, and the outer lobes disappear leaving a simpler orbital l =1 n=2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P2M0.png In between the red and blue clouds is where the quarks of the proton are located still interlocked, interchanging, and oscillating with the electron.

How did I hang myself? I just think a designer might be part of nature. We just have to find a scientific way to understand this possible designer along side evolution. This could be like looking at the first plane and trying to understand Wilbur Wright and how he built the plane, along side of trying to figure out how a bicycle shop could have been rearranged by the wind and had enough new parts blow in over time that, over multiple generations of shop owners, one eventually slid an airplane out the door by selecting the best wind assisted arrangement of bicycle parts over generations. I think it's a good idea expressed with really piss poor writing.

You need to learn to express it in Mathemathics. Then the ambiguity of concepts will disappear and any errors revealed.

It seems you are arguing that the electron changes places with the quarks in the proton in name only. The make up of the atom doesn't change. It's electrical charge doesn't change. It measures the same in every way. We should just accept that although everything is still the same your argument that it is different should take precedence over every measure showing it to be the same.

Your argument is idiotic. You have presented no scientific evidence. What you are saying continues to be gobbledygook. You have no math. You have no science. You are absolutely loony.

You still have not explained how under your theory an electron gun works. I have asked you to do so. Rather than doing that, you simply repeat your same unsupported garbage over and over. I have cited real world examples that fit the normal model better than your idiotic one. If you were really interested in understanding something, you would respond and correct your model to fit known observations.

Except you don't have science. You have gobbledygook that is easily shown to be gobbledygook because it doesn't match observations. You haven't found science. You have found idiocy. Then you just keep repeating the same idiocy while ignoring anything that points out what you are spouting is idiocy.

He reveals more and more often his religious point of view, but remains dishonest about it.