READ THIS FIRST ---> one inch equation: TL = mc^2

by James Cranwell
http://www.mccelt.com/

Everything in the Universe is made from one type of thread.
All workings of the Universe are result from said thread.

One-inch Equation & Threads Explain All Physical Laws

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing is Solid. Space is not Empty. Everything is Connected
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The unit itself would be just the grey threads (or strings) in the picture (no color and a lot thinner of course).
It would fit perfectly inside of a dodecahedron.
Actual thread (or string) length is about one Ångström and it is fine enough where 10 threads (20 radii) could curl-up into the size of a neutron.

TL = mc^2
|- - inch - - |       It’s one inch

There is a high tension lattice-type thread (or string) network in space (not the string theory type). Everything is connected by the thread network and it moves along with largest mass in proximity (gravity centered, like space-time).
A good 2-D model would be something like a spiders web made from individual yet connected threads (individual thread lengths are approximately one Ångström).
Now imagine an infinite 3-D spiders web. If a vibration was set off in it, it would travel forever and the speed the vibrations travel (through the net) is the speed of light (that's actually what light is, a vibration traveling through a thread network)
The speed vibrations travel through the thread network is the speed of light "c"
The thread network threads have a certain amount of tension, length and mass. That makes 'c' the speed it is. If the tension, length or mass changed so would 'c'

Here is a regular thread (or string) tension formula...

Tension = velocity squared x mass / Length

If we plug c in and rearrange we get the one-inch formula... TL = mc^2

Incorporates thread (or string) tension and length, mass, speed of light, time.
Equation itself explains their correlation and gives understanding of the way energy, forces and everything else truly works. Mechanical reason for c in E=mc^2
Both sides of the equation are in joules or energy... equivalent to "E".
It means the Tension of the threads in space times their length is equal to their energy.
This is why the speed of light is involved in Einsteins mass energy equivalence equation...

E = mc^2

...and actually why light travels at the speed of light...
I always wondered why... now I know.
It had to be something mechanical... tension and thread lengths!

So, you can arrive at Einsteins famous formula from completely different directions.
You can think energy is contained in mass and released.

E = mc^2

Or you can think there is a thread network of threads and mass is inert, the energy is only potential... released (actually pulled) by tension on the threads.

TL = mc^2

They are equivalent. Which is correct? You do not know.

Tesla was correct...
"There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." - Nikola Tesla

Mnemonic memory device...
E for Einstein: E = mc^2
TL for Tesla: TL = mc^2

You can extrapolate anything and everything from it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MASS IS INERT -- ALL ENERGY COMES FROM SPACE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you have a tennis net (2-D lattice-type thread network analogy) it has an overall tension on it. The net threads are being pulled from the extremities (if it were an infinite net the tension pull would be coming from infinity).
If you use a pair of scissors and snip one thread in the middle of the net... vibrations (energy) will travel through the net (remember the tennis net has tension on it).
Every individual section (thread) of the net has tension and can release energy into the net. But you cannot add the individual thread energies together and create a massive sum -- because all of the supposed different energies are all one and the same -- coming from the net as a whole.
If a guitar string has a tension of 9 . So does every point on the string.

~~~~~▪~~~~~▪~~~~~▪~~~~~▪~~~~~▪~~~~~

But you cannot add them together. That would be pure stupidity. The same type of thing has unknowingly happened with the vacuum catastrophe. Space is loaded with energy but it is all from the same source and it is all the same energy. If this is not realized -- there would be an enormous mistake:   10^120   ...in calculations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THERE IS NO PURE ENERGY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If a few threads of the net were balled-up (pulled together in a clump) then suddenly unballed (decayed). It would send vibrations through the net.
The balled up piece of the net would be considered mass and when it unballs it reverts back to normal net (thread network) and releases energy (vibrations) into the net. The vibrations are the energy. You cannot have vibrations travelling in nothing -- thinking that would be pure stupidity.

++++++++++++++++++++
++++++‡++++++‡++++++
++++‡‡●‡‡‡‡‡‡●‡‡++++
++++++‡++++++‡++++++
++++++++++++++++++++

The graphic is a representation of a 2-D gravitational field (thread network). It would be made of only the XY axis threads attached together (like a tennis net but made from individual threads).
The threads are connected -- that creates the network. The network has tension on it so vibrations can easily travel through it on the threads. Any masses ●● in the network will have a higher tension between them and pull together -- that's gravity.
The speed vibrations travel through the thread network is the speed of light "c"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ENERGY CANNOT BE OUT ON ITS OWN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is energy equal to length? How about speed? Is speed equal to mass? No, of course not.
So everyone needs to stop saying mass and energy are equal -- they are not equal.

Everyone has the wrong idea of what energy, forces and fields are.
Energy is a thread (anything of substance) vibration or movement.
You cannot have energy without substance, energy is mass (or substance) vibrating.
Energy cannot be out on its own. (a supposed mass-less particle is a particle nonetheless, but there are no mass-less particles, so that's irrelevant)

Same thing goes for forces.
A force is a group of threads arranged in a network pulling each other... and all of the threads absolutely have to be physically connected.

A force (a group of connected threads) can only push very short distances and in rare circumstances like same pole magnets.

But the point is... a force has to have threads involved.
A force cannot be out on its own.

Most of mainstream physics is a misconception.

There is no such thing as pure energy.
Again... Energy is a vibration on a thread (or thread movement).

Can energy be converted into mass?
Ummm... no, energy already has mass involved, it is a thread vibration or movement. There is no pure energy and you are not going to convert energy into mass.

Think of a guitar string. If you pluck it... that is the energy. If you remove the guitar string from the scenario... can you still have the energy? No, of course not.

Can you convert the guitar string vibration into mass? No... that is ridiculous.

Look at what everything really is...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DIMENSIONS AND UNITS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

```........mass = [M] = kilograms ......length = [L] = meters ........time = [T] = seconds ...frequency = [T^-1] = seconds^-1 .......speed = [L]/[T] ...... = m/s acceleration = [L]/[T^2] .... = m/s^2 ....momentum = [M][L]/[T] ... = kg_m/s .......force = [M][L]/[T^2] . = kg_m/s^2 ......energy = [M][L^2]/[T^2] = kg_m^2/s^2 .......power = [M][L^2]/[T^3] = kg_m^2/s^3 ```

Tension is a Force. Gravity is a Force. A Newton is a Unit of Force.
Velocity is a vector but the dimensions are the same as speed = [L]/[T]
The words like "speed" are only names of what the dimensions on the right are called.
You cannot have anything like pure length, force nor energy. (Pure mass? Yes, that is OK?)

Notice mass [M] is not equal to energy [M] [L^2] / [T^2] ...the vibration is missing

Here is what Einsteins famous equation really looks like...

[M] [L^2] / [T^2] = [M] [L^2] / [T^2]

Energy already is a mass times speed^2.

If you could just lop-off parts of an equation and claim whatever is left is equal... i.e. "energy equals mass" then you could also say that "power equals mass" and so does momentum and force. It is really stupid to think like that.
Speed is NOT equal to length. Speed is equal to length divided by time.
Energy is NOT equal to mass. Energy is equal to mass times speed squared.

READ THIS CAREFULLY: Energy is just a word for vibrating mass (or substance). It's like "RED" -- you can have a beautiful redheaded girlfriend, a red ball or a red firetruck -- but you cannot have just "red."
Could there be a blob of "red" floating around in outer space? NO! it would have to be made from something.
RED is a word to describe a property of something else.
ENERGY is a word to describe a property of something else.
The term "Pure Energy" came from Spock on Star Trek. That is SciFi.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TENSION IS A FORCE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTE: The " `T` " in the equation... `TL = mc^2` ...below is tension and that's a force.
`NOTE: The [T]'s inside brackets below are [time]`

Tension times Length is equal to Energy.

```TL = mc^2 |--inch--|   tension [M][L]/[T^2] * length [L] = mass [M] * speed c^2 [L^2]/[T^2] ```

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ISOTOPES and NUCLEUS FORMATIONS / CONSTRUCTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The basic thread is approximately one Ångström in length and can be considered 1-D, that's one dimensional (although in reality it must actually have an infinitesimally small width)
Ten of those threads form the basic thread group unit... that's 10 threads joined at their centers (or 20 radii emanating from a common center).
It's the vertices of the dodecahedron or the faces of the icosahedron (platonic solids.)
This is a way stuff can form and happen automatically.

When the threads are balled up or collapsed... they are a proton or neutron.
The individual radii (1 of 20 threads) are the connectors used to connect neutrons to protons (balled up) and protons to electrons (full length but twisted together).

Everything is made out of the same threads and every thread group has 20 threads unless it is smashed up deformed matter.
A proton has one thread (or string) balled (tightly wound together) with a neutron, 18 balled by themselves and one full length twist connected to an electron.

A free proton would look like this   `~~~●~~~`     (that's one free thread, 18 balled, one free thread)

A free neutron would look like this   `●~~~`     (19 balled, and one free thread)

A free electron would look like this   `~~~∗~~~`     (one free thread, 18 free threads in a disc shape, one free thread)

A proton can grab a neutron and an electron.

` ●~~~ ~~~●~~~ ~~~∗~~~`     (NPE on the loose)

` ●●≈≈≈∗~~~`     (NPE combined, aka deuterium)

(that's a neutron with its previously free thread balled up together with one of the proton's previously free threads (now also balled up -- that's called the "strong force") and the other proton thread is twisted with an electron thread (that free proton thread and electron thread twists are still full length -- that's called the "EM force"))

Two free protons   `~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~ `   can combine and still be 2 protons   `~~~●●~~~ `   (that might look like 2 free neutrons but it is not because there are also balled up threads ("the strong force") in the middle of the package holding them together. )
To clarify: two free neutrons   `●~~~ ~~~●`   that are now combined would look like this   `●●`

If you throw another free proton into that 2 proton package   `~~~●●~~~ ~~~●~~~ `

you will get one changing into a neutron when they combine   `~~~●●●~~~ `   that is an Helium-3 nucleus.

If 4 free protons   `~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~ `

...grab each other 2 will change into neutrons   `~~~●●●●~~~`

And then the outer two that still have a free thread can grab electrons...

`~~~∗≈≈≈●●●●≈≈≈∗~~~`   that's regular Helium, it can also be called Helium-4

If you understand the way this works... with a little thinking anyone can figure out isotopes.
For instance why 3 protons would not make lithium-3 ...
i.e. why there can be extra neutrons but not just a bunch of protons (or extra protons)... we've just seen that above the way Helium-3 was created.
Nucleus 3 can only be helium-3   `~~~●●●~~~ `   or Hydrogen-3 (tritium)   `●●●~~~ `
(Lithium-3 would be a nucleus with 3 protons and zero neutrons... and that can't be a nucleus)

"Lithium-4 contains three protons and one neutron. This is the shortest-lived known isotope of lithium. It decays by proton emission to helium-3 with half-life of about 10^−23 seconds."

`~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~ ~~~●~~~ `     (start with 4)

`~~~●●●~~~ ~~~●~~~ `     (combine in only way possible to make 3 protons, 1 neutron... notice one proton is on the loose... not attached to nucleus, say goodbye, it's unstable, eject it)

Atom

Something like an atom with Protons, Neutrons and Electrons has to be the correct model.
Things are different weights, different colors, different properties, etc. but everything has to be made out of the same thing.
An atom is the way to do it.
They almost have the model correct... but everything is actually just threads and tension

Electron   ` ~~~∗~~~`

An electron is shaped like the metal spines of an umbrella (without the hinges or fabric of course).
One thread extents from where your hand would hold it up to the center of axis. There, eighteen threads (or radii) extent out in the same curved disc type shape as the umbrella. The last thread goes straight up (the same length as all the rest) and connects with the network in space (space is made of the same stuff by the way).
Notice the way some elements in vertical columns in the Periodic table chart have an atomic number with difference of 18 between them. Most of the chart is like that (notice how many columns there are).
It's because 18 is the determinant number in electron shell configuration.

Every thread group starts with radii (threads) that are arranged in the dodecahedral axis shape
That's the vertices of the dodecahedron or the faces of the icosahedron (platonic solids.)
This is a way stuff can form and happen automatically.

Every electron has 20 threads.
One thread is attached to the proton.
One thread connects with space (or an electron in the next outer shell).
The other 18 threads form the electron disc.

When electrons connect with each other they have 18 threads to play with.

Check the larger noble gases: Argon 18, Krypton 36, Xenon 54, Radon 86, the amount of electrons in outermost shells will always sum to 18, the first three even have atomic numbers that are multiples of eighteen. Three groups of six radii from one electron can form (along with seven other electrons) the corners of a cube or the "Octet Rule" and seal off the package.

Bond Angles: Notice the way a lot atoms and molecules tend to form and bond tetrahedrally? That's 109.4712° (degrees)
The reason being: A tetrahedron is the opposite diagonal corners of a cube.
Electrons form a thread-mesh-type cage around the nucleus.
Certain sizes are of course the 8 corners of a cube -- that's what the octet rule is and how it happens.
That is NOT probability.
It is NOT a cloud.
It is NOT a blur.
It is NOT uncertainty.
It is NOT counterintuitive.

IT IS EXACT.

Electrons DO NOT have any probability or uncertainty involved

An electron thread goes from the nucleus to the electron disc. There the disc forms one corner of the cube. An electron disc has 18 threads, but they do not reach diagonally across the cube, so the 18 threads bunch together into three groups of 6 threads. All corners actually have 18 threads divided equally and attaching to other corners.
A cube is an automatic shape that forms in the "shell" because the electron threads attach to other electrons based on the amount of electrons and the distance from nucleus -- they shoot for a tight around-the-sphere pack.
EXAMPLE: If you opened-up 8 umbrellas; they would form an umbrella ball -- something like the spherical cube pack. But if you increased the length of the handles you would need a lot more umbrellas to make and fill-in an umbrella sphere -- that would be like an outer shell of an atom.
Any other configuration you can find or think of also proves the electrons are fixed position. It depends on the number of electrons, what shell they are in, if there are double bonds, etc.

Methane (one carbon atom and 4 hydrogen atoms) CH4 is the greatest example of fixed position electrons.
There would be a cubic carbon atom and 4 corners would each have an hydrogen atom electron fixed into place.
If the picture is thought of as a carbon atom -- four electrons are fixed to the nucleus. The other four (grey) empty spots can accept electrons from other atoms -- in this case hydrogen.

QUESTION: If you have an atom or molecule and everything is bonding trigonally at exactly 120° (degrees) ...would you say the electrons are orbiting randomly or do they have a definite fixed position?

Important note: Electrons are actually threads but they (the threads they are made from) form a mesh-like cage around the nucleus. They are also held in place by thread connections to the protons.
An electron is actually not moving... only the vibrations that are traveling around the threads are moving... and that's what everyone mistakenly thinks an electron is.
EXAMPLE: Think guitar string -- the string itself would be the electron but everyone thinks the vibration or note is the electron. That is why there is all kinds of probability and uncertainty -- the vibration is traveling around a spherical thread mesh cage -- where exactly is the vibration? No way to know for sure.
Got that? The electron has exact position. The vibration position is of course unknown.

Electrons (threads) cannot orbit around a nucleus.

The protons are stationary and the (multiple) electrons that supposedly are orbiting would require a massive amount of bearings and axles. And they would also interfere with each others orbits.
You can't use "force" as the holder (or carrier) because any force is also made from threads or their connection.
To make matters worse... an equatorial orbit (supposedly happening) would need something like a circular track around the proton (actually the nucleus as a whole) with a sliding connection. That's ridiculous.

Proton    ` ~~~●~~~ `

The proton is 20 threads (like everything else) one thread radii is attached to a neutron, one is attached to a electron and the other 18 remaining thread radii are balled up or collapsed.
If the threads collapse in groups of three each that would make 6 groups (3 * 6 = 18) or six types of (what they call) Quarks.
And if they collapse in groups of six each that would make 3 groups (6 * 3 = 18) or three (what they call) Quarks in three flavors.
Maybe the grouping during collapse happens in different numbers like... 3, 6 and 9 ...that still sums to 18 threads.
The jury is still out on all of this Quark business. When they smash up protons they assume they have found different subatomic particles because of the different weights. That is just a different number of threads being smashed apart.

If you magnified a proton until it was the size of the dot above the letter "i" then the threads could be compared to something a lot finer than the web of a spider extending out a few hundred meters. Fine enough where eighteen threads can curl into a space the size of the proton and have a spaghetti ball type configuration with a very loose thread (or filament) pack.
It is the way to make the most universe with the least amount of material. And only one type of material.

Neutron   ` ●~~~ `

A neutron is the same as proton but with 19 thread radii balled up or collapsed. And when it is in the nucleus all 20 are collapsed (although one of the 20 is collapsed in unison with a proton thread, 'There's one for you, nineteen for me')

One Proton thread and one Neutron thread balled up or collapsed together is called a Meson.

Neutrino   ` ●`

A Neutrino is a completely balled up or collapsed thread `●` (all 20 threads) or a group of completely balled up threads `●●` NOT connected to the network or anything else.
The speed of light is completely irrelevant to a Neutrino. The speed of light is network stuff, the neutrino is on its own.
You could say the Neutrino is in the "ultimate time" zone.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AUTOMATIC ARRANGEMENT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you ever go to a fair and see some clown making balloon animals -- sometimes he will also just attach 10 full length long and thin balloons together into a cluster and the shape will always be the 3D *∗ asterisk (axis of dodecahedron).

9 balloons would be too loose and 11 will not fit.
10 is the perfect number and it is also the axis of the dodecahedron.
10 balloons attached at their centers create 20 radii.
That is full length thin balloons.

There are also round balloons and everyone has probably seen a balloon cluster (for instance) in a car dealership?
There will always be 12 balloons if they pull the knotted ends into a common center.

That is exactly how many fit. It is the same as the faces of the dodecahedron.
Notice where the balloons always touch in groups of three? There are twenty spots like that. If you stuck drinking straws or pencils into all twenty spots all the way into the center... that is how the arrangement of threads form in the 3D asterisk. Just like the other thin balloon package.

Note: No one is shooting for those shapes when they tie balloons together.
Everyone comes up with the same shape because 12 round balloons or 10 thin balloons is how many fit together like that.
It's automatic shapes.

Automatic shapes happen. It is the way everything happened.
So the point is... threads can form the automatic shapes that then in turn form everything else. If they (the threads) are made from something smaller that automatic formation ability goes pooof right out the window.

The Universe and everything in it had to form automatically by itself (it doesn't have a formation instruction manual).

There is not anything that is complex and there is not a way for things to be complex and also work automatically (which everything must be doing).

You can use anything as an example: for instance -- electrons. They are supposedly being held in place in their orbits by protons (actually quarks) shooting (say 'exchanging' (if you like)) photons at them.
How could they possibly know what direction to shoot the photons?

Check out Gold -- 79 electrons...
The electrons are supposedly orbiting, so the actual quark that is doing the shooting at whatever electron must be constantly changing as the electron goes round the nucleus (and there would be 79 quarks shooting at 79 electrons).

And the quarks that are supposedly holding electrons in place by shooting photons at them are the same quarks are also shooting gluons at other quarks.

Get a good picture of everything that (they say) must be happening inside of an atom and you will realize it absolutely cannot be happening like that, what you are led to believe is actually bonkers.
The basic fundamental stuff cannot do advanced mechanical interactions, everything has to be automatic.

Gravity is also very simple -- impossible to be complex -- at the smallest level everything has to be simple and automatic.

Complex quantum fundamental mechanics are impossible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GRAVITATION IS NOT A WEAK FORCE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gravity is not the weak force you might think it is. You are only realizing a small part of the picture. There is an overall thread tension network in space that is responsible for gravity. Any masses introduced into the thread network create an higher tension -- that's what is thought of as gravity -- but there is more to it.
The Earth is of course pulling you down but space itself is also pulling you.
The Earth has a stronger pull (more connections) so it wins the tug-of-war.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Measured Gravitational Force is Excess Network Tension
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is an all encompassing lattice-type thread network (not the string theory type) in space (and everywhere).
The network is made from individual yet connected threads and conforms to whatever shape it is surrounding. So light traveling through a curved thread network (like the Earth or Sun) will of course curve.
Is gravity curving the thread network? No! The thread network itself is what creates gravity (gravity is network tension).
Does this invalidate any of Einsteins equations? Of course not, it is just another way to look at it. Einstein has field equations and this is the field (thread network).

The threads are connected -- that creates a thread network. The thread network has tension on it so vibrations can easily travel through it on the threads (That's what light is).
Everything is connected by the thread network and it moves along with largest mass in proximity.

++++++++++++++++++++
++++++‡++++++‡++++++
++++‡‡●‡‡‡‡‡‡●‡‡++++
++++++‡++++++‡++++++
++++++++++++++++++++

Any masses in the thread network will of course have / develop more connections and pull together.
NOTE: The mass(es) ●● in this scenario / instance would be balled up XY axis (plus +++ sign) threads. Everything is the same construct.

The network threads extend off in every direction but of course two masses in proximity will have a stronger tension between them than the thread network tension coming from infinity.
The overall Dark-Energy-Like network tension pulls equally on everything -- let's call that force 100.
The two masses immersed in the thread network have a slightly higher tension between them (it's actually just more connections created by the network threads being balled up into matter) and that is all that is needed to pull them together -- let's call the tension force between the masses 109.

+++++++++++‡+++++++++++‡+++++++++++
+++100+++‡‡●‡‡‡‡109‡‡‡‡●‡‡+++100+++
+++++++++++‡+++++++++++‡+++++++++++

If you measured the force between the two masses you would get number 9 as a result -- NOT 109.
Force pulling together = 109, Force pulling apart = 100, Result 109 - 100 = 9
The overall force tension of 100 would be subtracted (you would not even know it is there)

NOTE: if you were directly in the middle of the masses you would of course be weightless and float. But that does not mean the tension or gravitational force was cancelled -- it is just equal pull on both sides. That's the main point -- no matter where you are you are always being pulled on from at least two or more directions.

A scientist fish living deep in the Marianas Trench would not know he is under extreme pressure and would not be able to measure it. He would only be able to measure changes or differences in pressure. Something similar must be true regardless of the theory (i.e. curved-space, gravitons, etc.).
And you cannot measure forces without the measuring devises becoming part of the measurement.

Notice the thread network tension 100 would be everywhere -- completely filling space and pulling on everything. Although it is the same thread network as gravity its force is in opposite direction -- that's the same effect as supposed Dark Energy. It is an expansive force but nothing is being expanded. Stuff can only pulll together.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
VACUUM OF SPACE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Space is not a vacuum, it is normal, we are under pressure.
also... The vacuum energy of (actually non) empty space is not a vacuum, it is tension on the thread network of threads (not the string theory type).

It also explains (what they call) Dark Energy... everything is being pulled on (not pushed) equally from every direction (coming from infinity).
If there are two end points (any type of matter, planets or anything) that creates a stronger connection and they pull together -- that's gravity.

~~~~~~~~~
FINE TUNED
~~~~~~~~~

Nothing can be fine tuned. Everything is made from silk-like quantum threads (not the string theory type).
Everything can only work exactly the way it must -- like a guitar string -- if you pluck it, it will vibrate. You cannot fine tune the way it automatically works.
The only thing that can be changed is the tension but everything else would change right along with it. So, it would NOT even be noticed unless the tension were extremely high or low.
Understand? You could change a guitar string tension to all different tensions and thereby change the frequency, note or pitch but it would still work.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...that's a mind bender.

Oxygen has 8 protons, 8 neutrons and 8 electrons making a total of 24 threads per atom.
Aluminum -- number 13 -- would have a total of 39 threads.
Gold -- number 79 -- would have 237 threads.
The properties of elements are known with great precision but they are in actuality just a different number of the same thing (that is true regardless of the theory).
Somethings might be soft, hard, liquid, gas, solid, different colors, magnetic, rubbery, stiff, etc. but they are all just a different number of the same thread. You don't know the properties of it... you only know the properties of a large group of it.
In other words... even though you might know a thread has a thread-like shape, you can't know what the thread is made from because it is what is used to make things.

A different number (amount) of the exact same thing makes completely different things (elements.)

If you do a chemical test and you find out something is Aluminum... you have only found out there are 39 thread threads in a group... not what the actual threads are.
So, it (a thread) is not an element and cannot be like any element or molecule unless it is by pure coincidence.
The thread (purely by happenstance) might be just like a bendable but non-stretchable fishing line or spiders web. But they also might be something that is completely inconceivable and unknowable to humans.

Also... when you look at Gold you can see it has a nice color, correct? No, gold is a group of atoms made from 237 threads each. And those atoms are made from threads.
Color is only the frequency of vibrations that are traveling to your eye along the threads. No matter what you are looking at you are only seeing a different vibrational frequency from a different number of threads in a group.
Could a thread actually have a color anyway? Or even be white, black or grey? I have absolutely no idea. I'm sure it cannot be invisible though, because... for something to be invisible it would mean that light passes through it. And light is only a vibration coming from that same type of thread. There isn't anyway to see it but it is not invisible.

Zeno? If you take any object like an iron bar -- you can crack it in half because it is made from individual atoms. At a quantum level the iron bar is NOT made from one continuous substance. But the threads in this theory (or regular string theory) actually possibly are continuous. So if you took a (quantum) thread and magnified it until it was the same width as a pencil, could you snap it in half? It would be like having a big fat piece of fishing line. But, Instead of the fishing line being made from billions and billions of individual molecules of plastic... it would be just one continuous thing.

A thread is: Bendable not stretchable. Not invisible but you cannot see it. There is no way to know if it has color. And I know about ten other things about it.

~~~~~
WAVES
~~~~~

Space is a thread network.

The vibrations (energy) move in waves. When light is emitted from a source it will actually be a group of vibrations (what they call photons).

You can have the individual threads vibrating in some type of unison creating a traveling wave or a massive shock to the whole network. If you have a beach towel made of vibrating threads you can also give it the sine wave shake to get the sand off.
The individual threads vibrating would be light. The massive shock to the whole network would be caused by something like gravitational waves.

Here's a question: The speed of light would be the speed the thread vibrations travel through the towel... what is the speed of the shock wave / sine wave? (a shock wave would be caused by something like a supernova or gravitational waves). The shock waves (gravitational waves) should be slower. If they turn out to be traveling at the speed of light it is only a coincidence.

NOTE: You can also have a compression type wave.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PARTICLE FIELD PRIMER II
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

● Space-time is a lattice-type thread network in space.
● Empty space is completely empty / null / void. There is a big difference.

Space-time must be made out of something. Space-time is NOT empty space.

You can easily fold up, distort and curve Space-time, but you are NOT going to do anything to the empty space it resides in. (actually, curving space-time would be doable but folding-up space-time would NOT be so easy -- think of air or water, etc.)
To sum it up: What Einstein calls "Space-time" is a lattice-type thread network in empty space (not the string theory type). Also, Gravity Probe B proved there is something in space being dragged -- that means what Einstein calls Space-time must be made out of something. And that something must have similar properties to Space-Time -- so the Earth would NOT be rushing through it. It is a medium and that is why light travels at the same speed regardless of reference frame.

Dark Matter? The network is made from individual yet connected threads. The network is NOT fixed in space, it moves-along-with / is-held-in-place-by the largest mass in proximity. The Earth is NOT rushing through it -- that would be a ridiculous idea.
It's something like the way gravity works, relative strength due to size and proximity.
It's all made from the same threads.

Part of the network is surrounding and moving with you.
You are completely immersed in the Earths thread network.
The Earth network moves with the Earth and is inside of the Suns network.
The Suns thread network encompasses the entire solar system (plus more) and moves with the Sun.
A Galaxy of course has a thread network and it moves with the Galaxy (as a whole and with the movement of individual stars and systems).

So if there is a galaxy shooting through the Universe at high speed, the thread network it contains is of course traveling with it. If it collides with another galaxy the threads will of course interact. The stars can shoot right by each other but the thread network(s) are completely filling space so they would collide, bunch up and some threads stay put (they cannot keep moving with the galaxy, there is already another thread network in that direction.).
It's the same thread network but two groups are forced together (like tectonic plates)
The galaxies would still have their thread networks (what they think dark matter is) even after the collision. But where the galaxies collided there would be a clump (enough threads for 2 thread networks schmooshed into the area of one) and it will take a long time to renormalize (smooth back out).

What they call "Dark Matter" is completely filling space -- it's the thread network explained in this theory. The clumps around galaxies and other spots are excessive amounts.
If you understand this theory you will realize the thread network in space is made from the same stuff that makes matter -- everything is actually made from the same stuff.
Four thread groups of the network in space could be converted (by easily changing shape) into 2 protons and 2 electrons. That would make one molecule of hydrogen gas. So empty space could be considered 1/4 (one quarters worth of) matter. That means there is an enormous amount of the-equivalent-of-matter in supposed empty space.
Larger atoms and or molecules would of course require a larger chunk of space (more material (threads)) but even a simpleton should realize that.

~~~~~~~~~~
CONCLUSION
~~~~~~~~~~

There is only one type of thread and it can easily change shape and function.
When a group of threads are arranged into a tensioned network in space -- they can transmit vibrations and pull stuff together.
When the threads are balled up into matter -- they become protons, neutrons and electrons and can easily hold themselves / the different parts together.

When threads form into the electron mesh-type cage around the nucleus they can store vibrations (energy). This is why forbidden de Broglie wavelength orbits with destructive interference are not allowed.

2πr ≠ nλ (n = integer)

The electrons actually *are* threads and only the vibrations are travelling around (orbiting). If a thread is not connected it will not vibrate. (they made that picture to show the supposed path of an orbiting electron but it works even better as a diagram for the thread vibrations). The example is actually (inadvertently) the way things are really working -- threads.

So, the threads (just through a simple shape change) can do 3 things...

● Hold & pull stuff together.
● Transmit vibrations.
● Store vibrations (energy).

And if you think about it -- that is all that is happening in the Universe and / or all that is needed to create the Universe. Think about it for 20 years if you have to.

TL = mc^2
|- - inch - - |

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE GENIUS OF MICHELSON-MORLEY, NOT!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

They used to think light needed a medium to propagate. That is actually correct.
The only mistake they made was thinking the medium was fixed in space and the Earth must be rushing through it (that is what they call an erroneous constraint).

The medium is actually the thread network.

The thread network from the Sun encompasses the solar system (plus more) and the network moves with the Sun.
The Sun (and solar system thread network) are also moving at high orbital speed around the galactic centre.
If you had to pick a fixed position for a supposed stationary network (or medium), that would be a better choice... but not the best because the Milky Way Galaxy is also moving through the Universe.
Claiming a fixed medium would be relative solely to the Earth's orbit is not only wrong in more ways than one... it is complete baboonery.

The Earth has of course the same thread network but smaller and it is inside the Suns thread network.
The Earths thread network is moving with the Earth. You have a thread network surrounding you.

MM tested for a Stationary Ether... They thought the Earth was rushing through it at an enormous speed... how could that work if you are inside a closed building or underground in a cave?

»»»»»»»»/»\»»»»»»»»»»»
»»»»»»»/»»»\»»»»»»»»»»
»»»»»»/»»»»»\»»»»»»»»»
»»»»»/|-----|\»»»»»»»»
»»»»»»|»»||»|»»»»»»»»»
»»»»»»|»»||»|»»»»»»»»»
Does the Ether rush through the walls of your house
or do sections get cut off and stay in place?
It does not matter... neither of those work.

Do little sections of the stationary network (that the Earth is supposedly rushing through) get cut off and remain in place behind closed doors? That would mean the thread network is being dragged. So it is not stationary.

Anybody understand this?

The only way for a stationary Ether to work is if it could penetrate all matter. But then that would mean the light that is using this stationary thread network would also penetrate everything. Get it? If that were the case you would not be able to see matter because light would go right through it.
1) If light could pass through things completely unfettered... everything would be completely invisible.
2) If light can pass right through something but you could still tell that something was there it would look like glass or clear ice.

GP-B just tested for Space-Time... Yes... It is there. What is space-time? it is this same thread network explained in this theory.

Is the thread network it creates curved? Yes, but only because the mass it surrounds is spherical. You can think of it like an atmosphere. Any light passing through a curved thread network will of course obviously curve (gravitational lensing) or deflect.

The thread network is responsible for the conveyance of light, electromagnetism, gravity, dark energy, mass and everything else.
Everything is made from the same thing, the threads.
The threads and the networks they create are all there is, it is everything.

I wonder what's going on?
Everyone believes that MM experiment without question and they pass the information on through generation after generation. It is actually bringing modern physics to a standstill.

Answer this simple question...

Stationary Ether?

If you were going to test if there is a medium for the conveyance of light, would you...

A) Test if the Earth is rushing through the medium.
2) Test if the Earth is NOT rushing through the medium.
C3) Both of the above (same as: just test for medium, no constraints)

Here is your chance to agree with those great men and pick "A", everything you think you know is based on that.

NOTE: The correct answer is of course "C3" but modern physics is based on Michelson-Morley experiment and they picked "A"
Michelson-Morley picked "A" and everything you think you know is based on that. (it's actually a pillar of modern science)
The only problem is if "2" is happening they are completely in the dark about it.

NOTE: Newton thought there was a medium for the conveyance of light. He called it the finest Ether. He also thought it was responsible for gravity and a few other things. That is absolutely correct.
If you were going to test for gravity would you test if the Earth is rushing through gravity? Yes! if you are an imbecile!

Tesla was also correct...
"There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." – Nikola Tesla
That is absolutely correct.

Einstein also thought there was an Ether / medium (but he renamed it Space-Time to keep everyone happy).
http://www.tuhh.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
If you were going to test for Space-Time would you test if the Earth is rushing through Space-Time? No! You would do an experiment like GP-B and test if Space-Time is being dragged -- that is absolutely correct.
And now, thanks to LIGO we know Space-Time can be stretched -- that means Space-Time must be something.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PARTICLE FIELD PRIMER I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you test for a conveyance of light [MEDIUM] you test whether or not there is one.
YES or NO.
Michelson-Morley also added an erroneous constraint "if the Earth is rushing through the medium."
That changed it into 3 possibilities...

5) There is a medium and the Earth is rushing through it.
6) There is a medium and the Earth is NOT rushing through it.
7) There is No medium

The only thing they proved is the Earth is NOT rushing through a medium.
GOT THAT?
They absolutely did NOT disprove a medium

Then everyone completely loses all sensibility and accepts the experiment as valid.

That means (they think) light does not have a thread network it travels in and since it cannot be just a pure vibration or energy (since there are no such things) they have to invent a mass-less particle. That is compounding the mistake and it is 2 levels deep at the moment.

But everyone knows matter does have mass (some kind of substance).

But this supposed massless particle does not. So, to explain it they come up with an Higgs field that is completely filling space (in the same way an ether would) and that is what is giving mass only to certain particles. Now the mistake is 3 levels deep.

NOTE: The Higgs field would actually be a particle field. They think they found the Higgs by smashing protons together and getting the mass-energy?
That is guess work. I have something the weighs 2 grams, what is it?

The funny thing is they think photons are massless particles.
Think about how many there would be.
Space would be almost solid with massless particles all zipping around in every possible direction at the speed of light. That would mean space is actually filled with particles. And space is also filled with the Higgs particles.

So, what happened is they thought they eliminated the one particle field that explained how light travels (the ether, medium) and now to explain light they need at least 2 particle fields.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A LITTLE LATE TO THE PARTY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At this point in time they are debating whether or not space is empty? But the magnetic compass has been around for thousands of years.

With a simple compass you can easily verify:
● There is something filling supposed empty space.
● Whatever is filling space is also lining-up
● Whatever is lining-up also has a direction.

Can General or Special Relativity explain something in space is lining-up and having a direction? Of course not.
String theory with tiny vibration strings can also absolutely NOT explain it.
The supposed Higgs Field does NOT explain it.
There is nothing in the Standard Model that can explain it.
Loop Quantum Gravity? Quantum Mechanics? Nope, nothing explains it.

NOTE: you might get Mr. Simple that claims it is vectors in the EMF (field) but that is just infuriating because a "vector" is just another word for a direction -- and the reason for space having a direction is what is NOT explained. (Richard Feynman would tear you a new one)
They also think a "field" is just math -- like a set of numbers. So, that offers no explanation whatsoever.

Analogy: If you threw a bunch of ping-pong balls into a box container they would pack the bottom. They would actually line-up.
Lining-up is easy.
And if you threw a pencil into the box with the ping-pong balls the pencil would also be forced to line-up along one of the troughs made by the ping-pong balls. But there is absolutely NO direction involved. The lining up would be just random -- for this scenario it is one of six ways.

Having a direction is the monumental thing -- space itself can force something physical into a specific direction.
Got That? The directional line-up would be like putting the pencil in the box and the ping-pong balls somehow mechanically move the pencil so it points north. And if you rotate the whole box the ping-pong balls will change the direction of the pencil again -- to point north

Think about it: A simple compass completely wipes every known theory right off the map. But it proves there must be a substance in space and it can line-up somehow. Is that even possible? Yes, it is easy, it's Quantum Thread Theory.
QTT explains everything...

So, Yes -- there is medium and now you know how it is working.
Here is a regular thread tension formula...
Tension = velocity squared x mass / Length.
If we plug c in and rearrange we get the one-inch formula... TL = mc^2
http://www.mccelt.com/the-one-inch-equation-to-explain-all-physical-laws.php

_________________________________________

References
[3] Flux Particle Theory & Why the Speed of Light is "C"
http://vixra.org/abs/1510.0103
Authors: Seamus McCelt
Category: Quantum Gravity and String Theory
.
.

## Add a Comment

 Font Size A A A A A A A The 3rd 'A' makes a nice size for print Font Family t v g a s c m r mccelt.pdf The thread group unit itself would be just the grey threads in the picture (no color and a lot thinner of course). It would fit perfectly inside of a dodecahedron. Actual thread length is about one Ångström and it is fine enough where 10 threads (20 radii) could curl-up into the size of a neutron.