a new kind of visible radiant energy?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I would love to see it.  Google Images cannot come up with a actual picture of an electron for me, which is what I was intending on referring to... not an entire atom.  If you find such an image, please let me know.  The thought was that the electron it itself comprised of many smaller quark type aetheric particles.

Hi again twinbeard.  I think classicists consider that the electron is a fundamental particle or what they call a lepton.  But I agree with you.  I also think the electron is a composite of something much smaller. 

I'm just curious what the extent of the B field looks like, given that the flux, by my estimation, should not be able to escape what amounts to a toroidal core, yet the particular geometry of this device may be creating really interesting eddies.

I'm into symmetries and when one uses just two charges - n/s or add neutral - 3 potential charge conditions then one actually is working with something that's closer to a binary system.  Binary systems are good.  We all know how effectively it's used in computer software technologies.  But for me it's essential - because I've had an entire dearth of schooling in math.  So.  It's my 'fall back'.  But what it does is sharpen the focus on those symmetries and I find it entirely engrossing.  Definitely finding all sorts of strange configurations in the toroidal magnetic field that's needed to keep the proposed velocity of the fields.  I think it needs a kind of repulsion and attraction - also and always assuming that the field comprises any kind of fundamental particle at all.  Way too many suppositions for a really earnest thesis.  But it's the best I can do.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

BTW I've also seen an photographic illustration of an electron - in Paul Dyson's book 'Conceptual Physics'.  It looks something like this * * * * *

It's the 'gaps' between that intrigue me.  It seems to drift in and out of our dimensions.  Now you see me - now you don't.  Effectively there's a momentary decay.  The hell of it is that it is still considered to be a stable particle - into INFINITY.  It's very curious.

[wattsup]

@sparks

Good brain candy. Thanks.

Added:

OK, one question about those guys doing the space traveling. With all that back and forth. Did they get any older? Was their time or length of actual existence any different?

[cletushowell]

Rosemary you can try to talk your big words
gravity is three frequency
hutchestion levetates with just frequency
temperature is a odvious
and magnetism is polatirity
you need all three or a surplus of any of the three
so gravity = magnetism + temperature+ frequency
you can add words all day there is no other laws of energy
period
and i have string theory to so talk big
havent seen you warp anything
but i have

[cletushowell]

You so indebth in math huh
so you must have the axis of all number
ya i solved them all how about i amuse you
with this 7/3
solve that
2.333 smart
you pass with a a+
but you failed
7x144,000=1008000/3
=336,000 a perfect number
how bout the problem if the 47 uclid
did you do that well i did
you cant get past 10 much less 11
47  =11 have fun
i beat marco rodin want to sed our debate its on my board
all his books i set him back 12 years
so maybee you see your way behind
darling but your the queen

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary you can try to talk your big words
gravity is three frequency
hutchestion levetates with just frequency
temperature is a odvious
and magnetism is polatirity
you need all three or a surplus of any of the three
so gravity = magnetism + temperature+ frequency
you can add words all day there is no other laws of energy
period
and i have string theory to so talk big
havent seen you warp anything
but i have

You're right Cletus.  I've warped nothing.  But I actually didn't mean to offend you.  I just wanted to point out that there's a level of rich comedy in your posts.  I realise that it's not intended.  But it's still there.  And WHAT big words?  I use simple english - I hope.

Rosemary