Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Understanding the Lattice, Part III

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Abstract

In Part II, I wrote that a particle in motion undergoes a series of absorption/decay events. I explained why the universe is probabilistic and I railed against quantum state superposition, the basis of the quack science known as quantum computing. I wrote that, once dislodged from its position of origin in the lattice, an LP (lattice particle) moves at the speed of light and interacts only with other LPs of equal energy. In this post I explain why particles interact and why there are four types of LPs. I also describe how a normal massive particle interacts with an LP. Finally, I go over what must be done in order to take advantage of the lattice for propulsion. If you have not already done so, please read Physics: The Problem With Motion and the first two parts of this article before continuing.

Lattice Energies

Some of you may be wondering why an LP is initially at rest in the lattice even though there are a huge number of other LPs located at the same position. The reason is that no two LPs at any original position in the lattice have the same energy level. But why have so many LPs at every position in the lattice? The answer is that the lattice must be able to sustain the motion of a huge variety of massive particles moving at every possible speed up to the speed of light. Obviously, it takes a lot less energy to move an electron than it does to move a proton.

In Part I, I wrote that massive particles have bodies (mass) and wings (kinetic energy) and that body energy can be transferred to the wings and vice versa. I also stated that a particle is moving at the speed of light if all of its energy is contained in its wings. At half the speed of light, only half the particle’s energy is contained in its wings. It follows that it takes twice as much energy to move a particle of rest mass x at a given speed v than it does to move a particle of rest mass x/2 at the same speed v. Note again that this is all governed by probabilities. I’ll get back to probabilities in future posts.

LP Initialization

Before its initial interaction, an LP is in what I call an undefined or non-initialized state. In such a state, the energy in each of an LP’s wings is not defined. After interaction, an LP is primed to travel in a specific direction determined by the properties of the other interacting particle. That is to say, each of the LP’s wings has a specific energy value. The total energy contained in the wings of an LP is equal to the energy level for that LP; remember that only LPs having equal energy levels can interact.

When a moving LP encounters a massive particle, it is already initialized and its wings have set energy values. Obviously, how and whether two particles interact is determined by their intrinsic properties and the states of those properties. The probability that two particles will interact also depends on their proximity. The closer they are to each other, the more likely they may interact. I’ll explain why this is true in a future post.

Virtual Photons, Faces and Orientations

My thesis is that all electromagnetic effects are due to interactions between normal matter particles and LPs. What the physicist calls a virtual photon is what I call an LP except that I don’t subscribe to the pseudoscientific notion of particle/wave duality (more on duality in a future post).

[Of course, calling a particle virtual because you cannot account for its energy in your model is lame to the core. Physics via labeling is crap, period. As you may have noticed, I do not miss a single opportunity to heap scorn and ridicule on the physics community. It's the rebel in me.]

I hypothesize that magnetic fields are the result of certain particles (not necessarily charged particles but having a certain spatial orientation) moving in the three spatial dimensions, whereas the electrostatic field is due to charged particles moving along the fourth dimension. I further hypothesize that there must be four different types of LPs. Three observations form the basis of my EM/lattice hypothesis. The first is that the orientation of a magnetic field is dependent on the direction of the moving particles that cause it; the second is the descriptions of polarized light in the literature; and the third is the polarization of the electrostatic charge. The difference between the four types of LP has to do with the way they are facing, that is to say, with their orientation.
Every particle must have at least one intrinsic property that determines its orientation. This is the meaning of the face symbol in my depiction of an LP above. Think of a face property as the ability of a particle to align itself in a given direction on a dimension. There is a face for each of the four dimensions of the universe. In addition, since every dimension has two directions, a face property likewise has two possible states. In other words, every LP can face in either of two directions. The closest analog to the face property in conventional physics is the so-called quantum spin of a particle. Of course, physicists (and science geeks in general) have a way of complicating the hell out of simple concepts to the point where they alienate many who might otherwise be interested in science. Note also that conventional physics does not associate spins with the four dimensions as I do in this hypothesis. I’ll get back to electromagnetism and spin in an upcoming article.

Recap: Particles, Properties and Principles

So far in this series, I’ve mentioned several particle properties related to the causality of motion and a few principles that govern particles and their properties. It’s good to keep them in mind as we move along. Here’s what we’ve got so far.
  1. There are two types of energy properties, body and wing. The former is analogous to mass energy while the latter is similar to kinetic energy.
  2. All particles have wings and some have bodies. LPs only have wings.
  3. Every LP has three pairs of wings, one pair for each spatial dimension.
  4. The total energy of a particle (body + wings) is conserved. That is to say, it stays the same always, whether or not the particle is moving.
  5. Body energy can be transferred to the wings and vice versa.
  6. A particle is at absolute rest if its entire energy is contained in its body.
  7. A particle moves at the speed of light if its entire energy is contained in its wings.
  8. At every discrete position in the lattice, there is a huge number of LPs, one for each possible energy level up to a maximum value.
  9. Two LPs interact only if their positions are equal and they have equal energy levels and the same orientation (face).
I will add to the list as I continue this series.

How Can We Use the Lattice for Propulsion?

Most people would be surprised to learn that we are already using the lattice for propulsion. Indeed, every particle of matter that moves does so as a result of its interactions with the lattice. This is fine and dandy for inertial motion but how can we use the lattice for vehicular propulsion, i.e., for acceleration? In other words, how can we obtain a usesable force from the lattice? Remember that, according to this hypothesis, the normal way of accelerating a particle is to apply an external Newtonian force so as to change the particle’s energy signature. In other words, the force causes energy to be transferred from the particle’s body (mass) to its wings (kinetic energy).

Is there a way to accelerate a particle without using a Newtonian force? In other words, is there a way to do it by taking advantage of the energy of the lattice?

To answer these questions, we must figure out what happens when a moving lattice particle (MLP) encounters a normal massive particle such as an electron. Obviously, the nature of the ensuing interaction depends on the states of the intrinsic properties of the particles involved.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s suppose that an MLP collides with an electron that is at rest. In other words, let’s say a resting electron temporarily absorbs a moving LP. An electron at rest has all of its energy in its body. The ensuing interaction will cause the electron to move away from the point of interaction in a certain direction dictated by the orientation (face direction) of the MLP, the energies contained in its wings and the orientation of the electron. A discrete jump is a reaction to an imbalance caused when one particle absorbs another and the two temporarily become one. So, why does the absorption of an LP by an electron constitute an imbalance? The reason has to do with conservation. Indeed, all interactions are due to nature correcting a violation to a conservation principle. In this case, the total energy of a particle must be conserved (see list above) to maintain a balance with the rest of the universe. However, the absorption disturbs the balance, i.e., causes an imbalance. In its attempt to correct the situation, nature causes the electron to transfer energy from its body to its wings so as to counteract the imbalance caused by the wings of the MLP. This, in turn, causes the electron to immediately begin to move in the lattice.

Upcoming

So, the answer to the italicized questions I posed in the previous section is that we must cause particles of matter to transfer energy from their bodies to their wings without expanding energy in the Newtonian sense. That is to say, we must use the lattice energy to generate a non-Newtonian force. This is the subject of my next post in this series. Let me come right out and say that it involves the use of electrostatic fields and the identification of the absolute axes of the universe about which I wrote in a previous post. Remember, the lattice is your friend.

21 comments:

Marcus said...

Hi,

I do like this kind of thought experiment, but try not to begin all your posts about how stupid everybody else is, that makes it thoroughly unbelievable. If you are right, you will be able to prove it, and with the prove, others will adopt it, so relax.

Mad

Louis Savain said...

Marcus wrote:

I do like this kind of thought experiment, but try not to begin all your posts about how stupid everybody else is, that makes it thoroughly unbelievable.

Unbelievable to whom? The physics community? Marcus, you've seen nothing yet. I've just begun my crusade against the physics community. I will heap as much scorn on them as I can. It's their job to figure certain things out. Yet, they go out of their way to hide the real truth about the universe. They got no excuse.

So there you have it. By the time I am done, the physics community will look like the bunch of morons that I know they are. If any of my readers take offense, I suggest that they read someone else's blog. Sorry.

Blane said...

I think he's pointing out that your confrontational, derisive attitude gains you no friends, in or out of the physics community. Using words like 'crusade', 'scorn', and 'moron' detracts totally from the message you're attempting to spread, and damages any credibility you may have. Basically, any ideas you have are completely and utterly worthless to the human race, unless you back it up with experiment. Based on past reactions to you, you had probably be able to back those experiments up with your own money, because you won't get anyone elses to play with. So unless you manage to put your proof in the pudding, so to speak, and hover over Los Alamos in your free-energy craft, you're going to die with nobody believing you and any legacy you may have to pass on will die with you, all because of your pathetic attitude. Good luck!

Louis Savain said...

Blane wrote:

I think he's pointing out that your confrontational, derisive attitude gains you no friends, in or out of the physics community. Using words like 'crusade', 'scorn', and 'moron' detracts totally from the message you're attempting to spread, and damages any credibility you may have.

Blane, are you kidding me? What credibility? I have no credibility. So I don't see how my attitude can damage it.

Basically, any ideas you have are completely and utterly worthless to the human race, unless you back it up with experiment.

I agree. But it's funny that a lot of the crap that comes out of the physics community is equally utterly worthless to humanity and yet, it gets a lot of favorable press. Some of the more famous physicists even make a fortune selling that crap to a mesmerized public.

Based on past reactions to you, you had probably be able to back those experiments up with your own money, because you won't get anyone elses to play with.

I've been doing my own research in physics, artificial intelligence and parallel computing for over 20 years without a cent from anybody. Do you think I need help now?

At any rate, I don't think you getting a handle on this lattice stuff yet. When I do publish my experiments, anybody with a few basic tools and a couple of trips to the hardware store will be able to perform them. And the cat will be out of the bag. Big time.

Heck, I happen to know that this stuff (the experimental setup, not the theory) was known thousands of years ago by a handful of secretive priests/wizards who did a good job of hiding the knowledge from their subjects. Places like Stonehenge, Giza plateau, Baalbek and Tiahuanaco come to mind.

LOL. Now, I am really entering deep into crackpot territory and, guess what, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Marcus said...

Louis said:
Unbelievable to whom? The physics community?

No, to me and everybody else reading this :( Ranting is mostly a sign of delusion and not knowing.

Louis said:
Marcus, you've seen nothing yet.

Thats true, so show us :)

Blain said:

I think he's pointing out that your confrontational, derisive attitude gains you no friends, in or out of the physics community. Using words like 'crusade', 'scorn', and 'moron' detracts totally from the message you're attempting to spread, and damages any credibility you may have.

Exactly my point

Louis said:

Blane, are you kidding me? What credibility? I have no credibility. So I don't see how my attitude can damage it.

When somebody open minded comes here the first impression he gets is: Hmm, interesting idear, lets read on, but after the fifth paragraph of ranting this changes to: Hmm, sounds more like a crackpot. At least thats how it was for me.

Mad

Louis Savain said...

Marcus,

My goal is not just to expose my ideas to others but to show how deeply wrong and deceptive the scientific community is about fundamental aspects of nature. I suspect that both you and Blane are either members of the scientific community or sympathizers. If so, it pleases me that I sound like a crackpot to you.

At any rate, it's obvious that you are offended by my writing style and my open hostility to the physics community. If so, I strongly suggest you go read someone else's blog. My stuff is not meant for you. Good luck.

Marcus said...

My goal is not just to expose my ideas to others but to show how deeply wrong and deceptive the scientific community is about fundamental aspects of nature.

A simple proof of your theorie would suffice I guess :)

I suspect that both you and Blane are either members of the scientific community or sympathizers. If so, it pleases me that I sound like a crackpot to you.

Hmm ... I definetly believe in proofing stuff to show that its right, I guess that makes me a sympathizer, sry.

At any rate, it's obvious that you are offended by my writing style and my open hostility to the physics community.

Don't worry, I'm no american and not that easily offended.

If so, I strongly suggest you go read someone else's blog. My stuff is not meant for you. Good luck.

Let me worry about what I read and what not.

Mad

Louis Savain said...

Marcus wrote:

A simple proof of your theorie would suffice I guess :)

You ain't gonna get no proof from me that we are immersed in a lattice of energetic particles. This is not a theory. It's a simple inference that falls logically from the causality of motion and the discreteness of the universe. If you or the physics community cannot make this simple deduction on your own, you can go fly a kite, if you know what I mean. Nobody should have to explain this obvious truth to physicists. It's their job to figure out things like that. They've been sitting on it for centuries. What's the deal with that?

The fact that I have done all this homework and explained the true nature of motion to you should be cause for joy. You should be grateful. What do you do instead? You come out whining like somebody owes you soemthing. What kind of shit is that?

My only hypothesis/claim is that there is a way to exploit the energy of the lattice for propulsion and energy production. The proof of that will be revealed at a time and place of my choosing. If you can't wait for it, again, go fly a kite or something and see if I care. I ain't your servant, man. I owe you nothing.

As I said, if you don't like my shit, go find somebody else's shit to whine about.

Marcus said...

You should be grateful. What do you do instead? You come out whining like somebody owes you soemthing.

Actually, my only observation was the one I stated in my first comment. The only one whining is you about the bad physicst and us not believing and seeing the things as you do.

Nobody should have to explain this obvious truth to physicists. It's their job to figure out things like that. They've been sitting on it for centuries. What's the deal with that?

What now ? Didn't they do their homework or are they sitting on it ?

The proof of that will be revealed at a time and place of my choosing. If you can't wait for it, again, go fly a kite or something and see if I care. I ain't your servant, man. I owe you nothing.

I neither implied nor stated that you owe me anything.

As I said, if you don't like my shit, go find somebody else's shit to whine about.

See above

Mad

Louis Savain said...

Marcus wrote:

Actually, my only observation was the one I stated in my first comment.

In which you whined about my insulting tone.

The only one whining is you about the bad physicst.

You are confusing my insulting with whining. But even if I did whine, I would be justified in doing so since I am a member of the public who pays for almost all research in physics. The public deserves a good return for their money.

and us not believing and seeing the things as you do.

Nope. I am just exercising my right to freedom of opinion and I am of the opinion that those who believe in continuity and acausal motion are members of a religion of cretins, the stupid, flat-earth kind. Like it or lump it.

What now ? Didn't they do their homework or are they sitting on it ?

Huh?

I neither implied nor stated that you owe me anything.

You sure fooled me. Your first comment was to make a request. So you were expecting something in return. But like I said above, like it or lump it.

Alexander Orozco said...

I've been reading these stories for some time. I don't mind at all the smack on others, I myself am tired of all the BS in almost every industry. I'm curious, so I listen.

True is, I don't get everything Louis says, but the same I can say for most of other BS I've been taught.

This is his blog, let the guy hang out nude, or get the hell out of his house. We don't need to like the dam dude, but he might be on to something.

Worst thing could happen is he might waste our time, not unlike many nobel prize winners.

Louis Savain said...

Alexander,

The whiners don't like me simply because I don't kiss their asses and they know I am not afraid of them. They read my blog everyday, and they know that I am right about the causality of motion and the discreteness of the universe. They know I am right when I insist that the only explanation for motion is that we are moving in an ocean of energy.

But guess what? They cannot acknowledge that I am right because I am not one of them. You see, in their minds, if they did not come up with something, it cannot be any good. So now, they have to figure out a way to BS everybody into thinking that they've always known this stuff and that they've just been waiting for the right time to come out with it.

I'll be damned if I let them get away with it. I will rub their nose in their own crap every chance I get. The big problem that they have is that this stuff completely exposes the lies they've been pushing on the public, crap like the Big Bang, it all happened by chance, curved spacetime, time dimension, black holes, wormholes, time travel is possible, and all that other Star-Trek religion crap.

I am preparing a big nasty surprise for them. Hang in there and keep your eyes and ears open.

Marcus said...

This is his blog, let the guy hang out nude, or get the hell out of his house. We don't need to like the dam dude, but he might be on to something.

If he does not like criticism he should simply close the comments ^^

Worst thing could happen is he might waste our time, not unlike many nobel prize winners.

Only the chance is much higher here.

The whiners don't like me simply because I don't kiss their asses and they know I am not afraid of them.

Truth is, nobody gives a rats ass about you after reading all your whining.

They read my blog everyday, and they know that I am right about the causality of motion and the discreteness of the universe. They know I am right when I insist that the only explanation for motion is that we are moving in an ocean of energy.

They definitely only know that you have nothing other than a few unsubstantiated claims. ( I know you don't like proofing / peer review since it might contradict your ... whatever, claims ? )

And so on so forth.

Just like you wan't the scientists to stop spreading bullshit, I'd like you to do the same, the energy used to keep up this nonsense online is created by burning valuable fossil fuel.

I read about some of your other claims ( christian AI and such shit ) and must say that they destroy the rest of your credibility, thats the wrong word, "mild believability" maybe more correct. In fact I'm convinced that all you write is just to have something to do / start flamewars OR are just a product of not taken medication.

Anyways,
Good luck,

Mad

Marcus said...

Wohoo, I just found one of YOUR statements in some blog taking apart your christian / Neurology mixup:

There is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist. If a scientist claims to have a theory about a natural phenomenon but is unable to explain the theory in a simple language that the average layman can understand, one can be absolutely certain that he is as clueless about the nature of the phenomenon in question as anybody else.

Yeah, pretty much fits yourself

Thanks for the laugh,
Mad

Louis Savain said...

Yo, Marcus,

Would you care to write your full name and affiliation at the end of your comments? You know, a man should never be ashamed of who and what he is.

If you got any gonads, that is.

Marcus said...

Nah, having my first name pop up here is bad enough.

Mad

Louis Savain said...

Just as I thought. Miniscule gonads. LOL.

Sean said...

Louis, please permit me to say that like most persons ignorant of the genuine esoteric tradition, Marcus does not realize that metaphor, allegory, parable, hyperbole, picture-symbolism, etc., were media by/through which the initiates of the great mystery-schools of yore safely transmitted their secret knowledge of 'Aether' ('lattice') vibrations -- and how they create physical reality --to future generations such as ours. One of the reasons that the great esoteric tradition is not widely known and acknowledged is to be found in the very definition of the word 'esoteric,' which means, "understood by, or meant for, only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite; abstruse." Conventional materialist-reductionist scientific training may make it difficult for a person to accept the reality of such an enlightened tradition; nevertheless, this does not justify the belief that such a tradition is non-existent, and is not of inestimable import to this era and the future unfolding of humanity. The Bible is a book that preserves and transmits this recondite information. Keep up the good work, my doughty, crusading brother!

emburz said...

I see a revolution here. A force ready to upset the established methods and findings of the day however popular and well-encroached they may seem.Great minds and their works incomplete or not were always seen by the majority of their own time as bold and silly but that's how science has been taking leaps, small and big throughout the centuries.

What Louis Savain has been writing is far more refreshing, revolutionizing, all-encompassing than all the scientific books I've ever read combined.

emburz said...

Savain is here to upset the well-encroached establishment of scientific community. I can see a revolution here as seen by honest people seeking honest answers.

Tobias Davis said...

Hey Savain,

I have been trying to read through your posts, and I got about this far when it all started to be a little "over my head", as it were.

You say a lot of things and use the term "obviously", but I guess it's not obvious to me what exactly you mean. I understand the general (Newtonian reference method) physics rules, but you say things like:

"It's a simple inference that falls logically from the causality of motion and the discreteness of the universe."

But I don't understand: What about the universe is discreet? It's not simple to me, that's the problem.

If you are writing this to people who know some of the experiments done on the atomic particle level, so that they would be able to say "yes, that fits in with what is observed", then that would explain why I'm not understanding things like why the lattice must be three (plus one) dimensions, as opposed to five or whatever.

Anyway, I say this about modern particle physics, and I'll say it about your intriguing theory: What matters is results. I guess I'm a practical guy, I don't care who is right so much as I care about getting my anti-gravity boots :-)