Follow by Email

Thursday, March 31, 2011

99 - another quick update

Dear Reader,

I inadvertently deleted this post. Can't quite remember the introduction. But I managed to copy this off Poynty's forum.

Our Poynty is clearly not man enough to argue anything at all. I thought we were in the middle of a discussion. In fact, he was conducting a monologue and - it seems - will brook no argument. But what has now transpired is this. As you may or may not know - he owns a forum. Actually his sidekick Peter Evans owns the forum. But I think they're in partnership of sorts. Anyway. He's now given a mandate to 'Mookie' to rally contributions from anyone at all who has something nasty to say about me. Mookie assures all and sundry that nothing they contribute will be edited. Then, as if this is not enough - he has used his knowledge of my IP address to block my view. In effect, they've started their own little 'hate speech' campaign and prevented me from taking action against all that slander. I've reported this to ALL appropriate authorities. I'm not sure that he's allowed to do this legally. The question is can one undertake to publicly slander another person and then deny that person right to see that discussion. Private would be a different matter. But their's is a public forum.

I could wax eloquent about the morality of this and even the legality. But that's boring. The fact is that Poynty Point is, apparently something less of a man and something more of a big girl's blouse. When punches must be pulled that are that mean and far under the belt - then we're dealing here with something rather contemptible. For some reason they seem to think this is acceptable. Hopefully Peter and Poynty will learn otherwise. So. This is for Poynty and Peterae. Here's your choices guys. Refrain from any further mention of me or give me view of what your saying.

What sad little bullies they all are. But it reminds me how frantic they are to slur this work and my name along with it. Apparently Mookie is concerned that I wear pyjamas all day and do nothing but sit in a tiny little dusty room in front of my computer. LOL. Someone must please tell him that I have really substantial living quarters and rather an excess of space than otherwise. I play bridge. I garden. I consider myself a good cook. I read - EVERYTHING that I can. I have close family and close friends. And, indeed, I have close neighbours. So. A reasonably balanced life with a passionate interest in physics and a burning interest in promoting it's insights. What's wrong with that?

Then. Some good news for me - some REALLY bad news for Mookie et al. We're to do more demonstrations. But this time I'll hold back on details until they're in the bag. The promise is that the protocols will be evaluated prior to the test. So. All will be evaluated prior to that test and the demo will simply be the proof. That's a very good thing.

Kindest regards,

Saturday, March 26, 2011

98 - the model

Dear Reader
This will be edited on an extended basis. It's just that it's easier to work this from here.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
Donovan Martin

An example of current flow with resistance in its path. And a general reminder of how beautiful is our world and how nice it would be to keep it that way.


This field model suggests that the universe is structured from a single magnetic dipole with a velocity of twice the speed of light. It is proposed that the particle, its composites and its field amalgams, permeate space to create a ten dimensional binary system. Its varying properties are deduced through a necessary but atypical methodology, using symmetries and an applied principle of correspondence. Manifestations of this tachyon vary, depending on its velocity and mass that are inversely proportional. Its composite structures are shown to correspond, both with known manifest particles and with magnetic flux. And it is suggested that its movement in a field generates the time constant that is then evident in our tangibly measurable dimensions. By a logical extension of the use of symmetry and these correspondence principles, it predicts certain innate potentials. One such is the reconciliation of the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron, as justification for its proposed composite particulate state. Another relates to its energy potential, the transfer of which results from an apparent break in magnetic field symmetries. The electromagnetic application has been experimentally proven in a test, described in a link appended to this document. This suggests that this model may be consistent with the fact. There is reference to a broader general reach that may point to resolutions that include, but are not limited to, outstanding questions relating to gravitational fields and to dark energy and dark matter. It enables a resolution of paradoxes especially as these relate to questions of locality. It presumes to describe particles and particle interactions in defiance of the prescriptive use of mathematics and suggests that fractal geometry may be a preferred means to describe both particle interactions and this field’s varying manifestations.


As an amateur, the prospect of attempting a meaningful comment on physics is, at best, inappropriate. I am aware of this. My defence is that I am curious. Then without putting too a fine a point on it, science seems to have lost direction. Its best endeavours have somehow been snaffled by the constraints imposed on it by faster than light speeds.

Quantum theorists always worked with paradox the most fundamental of which is possibly Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. But relativity theorists look for a total reconciliation of all things, so to speak, most famously indicated in Einstein’s comment that ‘God does not play dice with the universe.’ As I understand it, the problem for the classicist centres on the fact that paired particles, although spatially separated, are seen to synchronise their spins at precisely the same moment. This begs the question as to how the one can know what the other is doing at a coincident moment when they are spatially separate? And how then do they apparently share this knowledge and adjust to each other - at faster than light speed? And proof of this synchronous adjustment, this want of locality, may also prove that relativity cannot therefore reconcile all things, so to speak. The restraint that harnesses it, is somehow, teasingly and ironically, hidden away in precisely these questions of non-locality. Particles indeed appear to communicate at superluminal speeds through space, the outside limit of which has yet to be established. But this has apparently been proven at separation distances as great as eleven kilometres.

Latterly too is a clamorous search for dark matter, something that can account for the fact that the stars within galaxies orbit at a constant speed. They do not ‘unravel’. This flies in the face of logic and, like questions of non-locality, it is counter intuitive. It seems that new and paradoxical insights into the movement of gross and subtle matter threaten to dismantle classical theories. What is known is crumbling in the face of small and large evidence that all is not as it seems.

The conclusions of this model may reconcile both a classical requirement for locality and quantum theorists’ denial of this need. The locality paradox suggests that something else is there, some principle that lurks behind the manifest, some order behind the chaos. And this something enables instantaneous communication or, action at a distance. Like those great Gothic churches, perhaps classical theory only needs buttressing. But to allow this may require the identification of a fault line in the foundations. The proposal is that one force, fundamental to all the forces, has been entirely overlooked. At the risk of over working a metaphor, it was, perhaps, buried under the corner stones of physics. It then faded from sight in the face of the extraordinary and brilliant achievements of quantum electrodynamics.


Here’s the thing. On simple electric circuitry, changing electric fields invariably induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields invariably induce electric fields. But magnets can and do interact with other magnets without inducing a measurable electric field. It may indeed be there, hidden in the body of the material itself. But it’s neither evident nor measurable. My own take is that a magnetic field may be a primary force compared to which the electromagnetic forces are secondary phenomena. This was my starting line, the ‘kick off’ for this proposal.


As a means to determine the properties of a magnetic field a principle of correspondence was applied. What is meant by this term is that, on a fundamental level, everything seen, all gross evidence of matter, such as an electric kettle or a rock, simply comprise collections of molecules and atoms. I have referred to these composites, or 'bound' states, as'amalgams' throughout this work, this to remind ourselves of the chemical and transitional condition of all bonded states of material. The term is atypical but its use, in this context, is nonetheless, intentional. In effect the idea is that THE WHOLE IS THE SUM OF ITS PARTS. If things could be ground down to their finest structure, and given that we had instruments to detect this matter in a powdered form, so to speak, then we would simply find a collection of atoms that were manufactured by forces into their earlier state as an identifiable, gross amalgam. It’s fatuously self-evident but nonetheless, correct.


The correspondence principle proved a surprisingly incisive tool. And here’s how it works. Just as a kettle is simply the sum of its parts so too, a magnetic field may be the sum of its parts. This being given, then to determine the parts of the field, all that is needed is to first determine the nature of the field as a whole and apply those same properties to its individual parts. For ease of reference the following only refers to permanent bar magnets but the principles apply to all magnetic fields.


Flux seems to extrude and then intrude the crystalline structure of a magnet at one of two poles, commonly defined as a north and south respectively. That it exists at all is evident in its influence on magnetisable matter and on other permanent magnets. This influence is manifest. A north pole from one magnet repels other magnetic norths and a south pole repels other magnetic souths. Conversely, a north and a south pole attract. This suggests that a magnet only has precisely two poles and that neither manifest independently.

Video showing magnets doing what magnets do best - click here

These fields appear to exit and then enter the body of the magnet. And extrusion and intrusion are probably equal as there is neither a gain, nor a loss of weight to the magnet itself. If replacement is consistent with displacement, then it may be that the fields somehow belong to the body of the magnet and simply orbit through and around it. An orbit describes a single direction on a circular path. Put simply, an orbit chases its tail.

If this describes some properties of a magnet and if the whole of the field is simply the sum of its parts, then the inference is that flux may comprise smaller parts or particles. And in the same way, these particles would both extrude and intrude the body of the magnet. They would each comprise a north and a south pole. Each north of one would repel the north of another and each south would repel another south. Equally, a north and a south pole from different particles would attract. All these movements exactly reflect the laws of charge. So, by implication, the polar attribute of a magnet may, in fact, be a charge attribute in each magnetic particle. Correspondence to the field would then suggest that each particle is in fact, a magnetic dipole with a neutral charge. And, as there is no gain, nor loss of weight to the body of the magnet, if replacement is consistent with displacement, then it is reasonable to infer that the quantity of these particles would be constant within the body of the magnet.

simple representation of Faraday's lines of force - click here


The question then is this. If flux comprises magnetic dipoles why is it that we cannot find them? They remain elusive even to the most sophisticated equipment available to modern day science. The answer to this goes to the heart of questions of locality. Light is the ultimate gauge of speed. If light is required as a comparative measure of speed and if magnetic particles are both smaller and faster than light, then light would never detect that particle. On a macrocosmic scale it would be like wind that we cannot see blowing a balloon that we can see.

And, if we lived in some medium that was somehow separated from that wind so that we knew nothing of its force, then we might mistakenly, assume that the balloon has its own energy to move it through space. This is the fundamental question that this model attempts to address. Is energy the property of the particle or does it, in fact, belong to a field that moves the particle? Or indeed, is it perhaps a combination of the two? I am now rushing in where angels proverbially, fear to tread. But as light speed is a critical value to this field model, it is possibly required that I digress to enlarge on this point more fully.


I do not buy into the logic that precludes superluminal speeds for the reasons given above. If something exceeds light speed it would, effectively, be invisible. Dark. The puzzle was to find some property that relates to the mass of a photon without offending classicists who describe a photon as having no mass. For instance, while a rock may weigh, for example, 10 tons, if that rock were positioned outside earth’s gravity it would weigh precisely nothing. So, weight only has relevance within a gravitational field. Therefore, the weight of an object would somehow relate to the size of an amalgam and its atomic density. But in the context of this model, I am proposing that mass may be applied to anything that has an inferred or defined boundary. In terms of this, mass relates to volume and not weight. And given that the particle is the ground reference point and that the photon may be the smallest evident particle, so to speak, then I am proposing that a photon has a mass, and in this context only, a ‘inferred’ boundary of 1. But I will get back to this point.

Returning to the argument that a magnetic field comprises particles, for ease of reference it would be as well to name this. My first choice was a luminon as this hearkens to an earlier concept of luminiferous aether that was assumed to fill all space. But I have since become aware of the search for zero point energy or the God Particle and, as I am proposing that the magnetic field in fact holds this particle, it would perhaps, be more appropriate to call it a zipon. This is loosely based on an acronym of Zero Point Energy compounded with concepts of infinity, which makes it more of an acronymic oxymoron. In any event it is easier to say zipon than luminon. But I am not married to any of these names and hope that someone will come up with something more appropriate. For now and for purposes of this exercise I shall simply refer to it as a zipon.


What has been deduced is that the zipon may be the smallest part of magnetic flux. If it exists at all then it may be a magnetic dipole that moves at superluminal speeds orbiting in fields of such particles, around a fixed position in space. It may have the mass of something less than a photon which, combined with superluminal velocity, makes it a tachyon. In as much as it is proposed that they are dipolar they would also be neutral. They would then move in fields structured by these orbits, clearly then allowed in terms of Pauli’s exclusion principle. And they would congregate in some equally structured amalgam that is self-sustaining, so to speak. The object then is to find the pattern that could sustain that closed system.


It has already been said that magnets move together with their poles aligned north to south. But to reach this alignment the entire structure of the magnet is propelled through space. It suggests that the requirement to fuse with other magnets overrides the requirement to move apart or even to remain in a rest position, this latter option resulting in no movement at all. If so, then a logical progression of this would be that many zipons would attach, head to toe, or north to south - at an interactive angle of 180 degrees. And if that string were open then the first and last zipon in that string would not be conjoined. So. For both stability and enhanced symmetry, then that string would need to attach their open ends which would then change the shape of the string into a circle.

However, when two magnets do conjoin they come to rest, so to speak. So also, conjoined zipons would also reach some kind of rest state. This would conflict with the proposal that they are invisible or immeasurable precisely because they move at such extreme velocities. What principle then would apply that could account for the velocity of a conjoined string of zipons?

The answer is again evident in principles of correspondence. Given a critical proximity, magnets will always move towards or away from other magnets. So, within that proximity, one string would adjust its position against another. And, if each string is a closed circle, as suggested, then one movement of one zipon would result in a sympathetic and corresponding movement of all the zipons comprising that closed string. This ripple effect would result in an orbit.

On a fundamental level the proposal is that this first orbit ultimately occurs on many levels and in many dimensions. And the velocity of the orbit is determined by the rate at which each zipon moves to displace its position against neighbouring zipons. This, in turn, would induce a corresponding movement in the neighbouring strings in a field of zipons.

The movement of flux is orbital but the orbit itself has a fixed justification. This is evident in the directional flow of current that only varies in relation to an applied voltage or in a permanent magnet that moves its entire structure to adjust to other magnetic fields. Therefore its direction or justification can be described as being coherent. Equally therefore, correspondence principles suggest that the field would reflect the coherent positioning of each zipon within the field. And all those zipons would move with a shared justification.

To describe such groupings of these circular strings and their relationship to the field as a whole, is possibly, enabled by drawing an analogy. Imagine a string of beads, each bead coloured, one half black, the other half, white. Each bead would represent a zipon and the two colours would represent the two magnetic poles. The entire length of those beads would form a one dimensional string.

Now, inside that first string is a second identical string and inside that is a third string, and so on, until one has filled a saucer full of such strings.

Just as a point of interest. This arrangement is something in the nature of a discovery. It's a natural symmetry found by Riaan Theron. Here's the thing. Take any size circle. Add six - identically sized - to perfectly fit around that first inner circle. Add six more such circles to every other outer concentric cirle. They all fit. Perfectly. And into infinity. Add a charge value to each circle - and you get a radial and gradual triangular subdivision of those circles. That's for our number and symmetry purists. Definitely something mystical in the number 6

What is shown hereunder is that triangulated subdivision of the field - but intentionally over emphasised.

Due to the proximity of neighbouring strings, all those strings continually move away from each other resulting in an orbit. Or, perhaps this would be better described as a merry-go-round where the strings orbit on a shared and spinning axis.

The merry-go-round, or beads, would be a two dimensional magnetic field. Now, pile many merry-go-rounds, one of top of another until one has a cylinder of merry-go-rounds moving together. That would be a three dimensional magnetic field.

In fact, that cylinder would have exposed charges at the top and the bottom, which could also be unstable, so, under perfect conditions these would also conjoin and one would then have a toroid.


The illustration is small scale. In effect I am proposing that the background structure of our universe could comprise this highly structured field of zipons, evenly and smoothly distributed throughout a really big toroid. If this is right then these zipons and their field, would comprise an invisible force located throughout space. The biggest, that universal enfolding toroid - the first principle construction of that torus, would have a velocity that is greater than a photon and the field itself would have a fixed justification or orbit. And most critically, as a force and precisely because of its faster than light speed, it may then also reconcile questions of non-locality and point to the requirement for dark matter. But thus far the proposal has been purely speculative depending as it does on the tenuous possibility that there is some merit in the principles of correspondence. My object now is to try and extend that correspondence which, in turn, may prove the proposal that these zipons do indeed exist as a first principle.

In summary, therefore, it is proposed that the fields would be self-supporting provided that they congregate in one, two and three dimensional structures. They would be balanced that repulsion would be perfectly counterpoised with attraction. And they would by dynamic - their continual adjustment to other strings being the motor that generates that extreme velocity at greater than light speed.


So far the arguments, largely based on a rule of correspondence, suggest that the most perfectly balanced magnetic field may be toroidal in shape. And, because of the complex positioning of the poles or charges of each zipon within those strings, the entire structure and each part of each structure would be orbiting sympathetically with the next. If, prior to some singularity, such a coherent structure existed, thereby forming a universal and skeletal backdrop, then it would only need a minute disturbance to spoil those symmetries. This may be as small as a single misplaced magnetic monopole. Or perhaps God stirred that structure with a great spoon. Or perhpas he simply cut through one of those uncountable number spinning loops of zipons that shapes our universal boundaries. On a universal scale - then I imagine those little zipons tumbling out of that structure - an impossibly long necklace of beads spilling into a localised area of space - to form a nebula suspended in space.

Then some of those zipons within that structure would break away from the field. The question is, if they did break away, what would then happen? Essentially each particle would retain its shape but its spin or charge would be at variance with the field. As they lose their relationship with the field, then some may get bigger and slower. Others may get smaller and faster. But the thing itself, that particle, would retain its essential dipolar nature.

Zipons that have disassociated from the field and that are also visible are here referred to as Truants. And, correspondingly those zipons that have disassociated from the field that are not visible are referred to as quarks. It is proposed that both manifest from that 'broken string' and that both are in that nebula. But some of those particles would be visible to light - the truants in the visible nebula - and some would be invisible - the quarks that remain hidden inside tha nebula.


The assumption is made that the zipon is removed from its position in the field by some event. And the zipons in that broken string may lose their velocity and become visible to manifest as matter. This broken symmetry then resulting in the nebula - a seedbed for the gradual emergence of measurable particles and measurable matter into our own dimensions of space and time. Essentially each truant would still be a magnetic dipole. It would retain the properties of the zipon but, in relation to the field, the truant’s direction and orbit would be asynchronous. In the same way, each quark would retain its charged properties but unlike the truant it would remain invisible. Whatever their charges of both the truant and the quark, it would, of necessity, oppose the justification of the field.


It is proposed that zipons interact with each other and with expelled zipons or truants. To describe these interactive associations it is, perhaps, first necessary to establish the physical properties that enable any interaction at all. All interaction is limited to a boundary constraint. This may be explained through the use of the following analogy. Imagine that a machine is designed to propel stones inside a vacuum and also, in this example, inside a gravitational field. Therefore no extraneous forces are brought to bear on that interaction other than a gravitational pull. Then it is reasonable to infer that the heavier the stone the shorter the distance thrown, and the lighter the stone then the proportionately greater would be the distance thrown. But if the stone were either too big or too small, too heavy or too light, then the machine could neither lift it nor detect it. Such extremes in weight or mass would represent a boundary constraint. At either extreme, the machine would not be able to throw the stone. Equally, if one truant were too small or too big, then the field would not be able to influence that truant.

The proposal is that if the truant is manifest, it may have a velocity equal to or less than the speed of light. Correspondingly, its velocity would be less than that of a zipon in the field, which always remains invisible precisely because it would be out of the interactive reach of light itself. In fact, what I am here proposing is that, as the truant ‘slows down’ it also thereby gains mass in an inverse proportion to its loss in velocity. And equally, as the quark speeds up it loses mass in inverse proportion to its gain in velocity. In effect, the truant slows down to some speed that enables an interaction with light, which thereby renders it visible. And the quark speeds up to a velocity that exceeds even the velocity of the zipons in the field. This speed thereby renders the quark entirely invisible either to light or to an interaction with the field itself. At both points, as a truant or a quark, it would be outside the boundary constraints of the field – effectively outside the reach of that containing field of zipons.


A truant, by definition, presents a conflicting charge to the field. Theoretically, it could manifest in an almost infinite variety of directions and sizes, or charges and masses, depending on the force at which it was first expelled. We have established that the first principle of the zipon is establish a charge alignment with other zipons in a field. But - outside the field - and without having another truant to anchor it outside that field, some partnering truant with which it could orbit, then, when that initial separation force is expended, it would lose its mass and regain velocity. Then, just as magnets move towards other magnets, so too would the one truant gradually and inevitably accelerate back into the field - that apparent vacuum - until it was again the same mass/size as the zipon in the field. Then it would simply slip back and align itself into the field as a zipon. Presumably these are nuances or virtual particles.

But for purposes of symmetry it must also then be argued in the same way, that when the quarks that have separated from the field, they would also, eventually, expend that initial separation force from the field. Then they too would then lose their speed and regain their mass until they too would return to that earlier state prior to their separation from the field. Then they would recongregate into those strings, now being the same size as those zipons, those particles that are proposed to make up the field. So. Without a partner, without something with which they could interact – then they too would ultimately decay back into the field. The essential difference being that we never see the quark. The quark like the field has a velocity in excess of light speed. We only see the truant when its velocity is less than light speed


While unstable truants may manifest in an infinite range of mass and charge, stable composites need to comprise some combination of, two, three or nine truants else they would eventually decay and accelerate back into the field. This numerate limitation is difficult to explain. Broadly, the argument goes like this.

Given that the field is greater than the truant, by virtue of the large number of zipons in the field, then the truant will be positioned within the field and would, therefore, only experience the field’s single justification or charge, that clockwise or anti clockwise spin that is proposed to determine a magnetic field's charge. For ease of reference I shall simply refer to charge. So, with single truants, one charge for the truant and one for the field, then the truant would eventually decay into the field. They cancel out.

A composite of two truants would give two charges and one charge for the field. Then the charge of the field and one truant cancel out leaving one charge for the truant. This would result in a residual charge or a single direction or a single justification. And, as the photon is the only particle that moves in a single direction, which in effect, is a straight line, I am proposing that a photon comprises two truants. It’s interesting to note that two truants would, in fact, have a combined neutral charge. The only neutral charge in the field is in the radial arms between the zipon. This is always straight lines radiating outwards from a circle. So. Regardless of the size of the field, the photon's interaction with the field, this 'straight line' also precisely describes the path that photons follow. They always irradiate outwards in straight lines from a source.

A composite of three charges for three truants and one for the field, then one would cancel out with the field, leaving two opposing charges for the two remaining truant. This would result in a bidirectional path or a spiral within the field. And as the electron is seen to spiral in a bubble chamber then I am proposing that the electron may be a composite of three truants.

A composite of four, five, six, seven and eight truants would all variously subdivide into one, two and three composites, as the localised condition of the field would only express one justification. But a composite of nine truants would in essence, be the same as three electrons. And, as it is proposed that an electron is a stable particle then it, in turn, may be a composite of three electrons, or nine truants. And the 'threes' are proposed to be stable.


If therefore, I can reconcile the mass of the electron to the proton then it may indeed, indicate that a proton is a composite of three electrons, which by default, may then also prove the composite of the photon. But before I do this, I need to describe the interactive association between stable composite truants.


I have proposed that a photon is a composite of two truants. As required by the laws of charge, each truant would present opposite charges and move towards each other to attach, in the same way that magnets attach. But if these truants are positioned in a field with a single justification, as proposed, then in whichever way they are positioned ‘out of true’ with the field’s justification, the one truant would present an opposite charge to the other in relation to the field, as illustrated.

This means that if the one truant were substantially attracted to the field’s zipon in the juxtaposed string then the other would be substantially repelled. They would respond differently. The truan, would gain mass and lose velocity. The quark would lose mass and gain velocity. In fact, the mass of both truants would exceed the boundary constraints of the zipons in the field. But the one would become larger and more measurable and the second, moving at a velocity that exceeds the velocity of the field, would become smaller and less measurable.

Again, with reference to that machine, the distance covered by each throw is dependant on the force of the throw and the size of the stone. In effect, the strength of the throw is a constant. But we know that it is the speed of a photon through space that is constant. It is not, in any way, dependant on the size nor frequency of the photon, which can, in fact, be infinitely variable. And just as the constant in the machine determines the strength of the throw, so it would require some constant in the field to determine the required energy or force of throw. This is also based on the assumption that the magnetic field moves the particle, as proposed by this field model.

In effect, if the magnetic fields in space move the photon through space, then they can achieve something that the machine cannot. If the analogy were to ‘hold’, so to speak, then the field would be able to compute the size and frequency of each photon and then adjust the strength of their throw to ensure that each photon moves at precisely the same speed regardless of its frequency - which is hardly probable. So what then, determines that velocity that always moves at light speed regardless of its frequency. The following concepts are subtle, and determine a velocity, mass and time constant that may underpin our manifest universe.

If one photon were bigger or smaller than another then it would take each manifest truant correspondingly more or less time to move to the zeniths of their orbits, that point when the one truant is as great as it will ever get and the other as small as it will ever get. This time must be relative to something which is constant else there would be no such thing as a predictable passage of time, which there is. The proof of a time constant is ultimately, vested in the velocity of a photon that invariably moves through space over a certain distance within a precise quota of time. It is proposed that this time constant is provided by the orbiting zipons within the magnetic field.

If zipons orbit in space, and if the zipon’s velocity is dependant on its size and, if these structured fields are as coherent as has been proposed, then they will, invariably, orbit at a constant speed. This is based on the proposal that mass and velocity are proportional and that the zipon’s mass in the field, is constant. This time frame is referred to as a standard zipon moment, that time required for one zipon to displace the position of another in its orbit within a string.

It is proposed that speed and size are relative – velocity replaced by mass and mass by velocity. Then, assume for now that a photon is four zipon moments big. Being neutral, it passes through the radial arms of the orbiting zipons across its strings. It would therefore take two zipon moments for the one manifest truant to complete the zenith of its orbit, that time which takes it away from the influence of the field. Therefore, it would have crossed two strings. And during those same two zipon moments, the vanishing truant would complete the zenith of its orbit away from the influence of the field following the path of the first truant across two strings. And all this, while precisely two zipons within the field would be displaced exactly twice.

Having reached that orbital zenith, then the manifest truant would accelerate during another two zipon moments which means that it would lose mass and regain velocity, which effectively holds it in the same position. And the non-manifest truant would decelerate during those same two zipon moments as it increased in mass at the expense of its velocity, until both truants would again, be the same size as the zipons in the field. The truants would then swap lattices with each other, at that interactive moment, four standard zipon moments later, when they are, again, the same size and speed as the zipons in the field. At this point in the orbit the photon would not be visible. It would momentarily flicker out of our measurable dimensions. Then the orbit would be repeated, like a dance, two steps forward, two steps hold, to every four beats of the music.


Then, regardless of the frequency of the photons and regardless of their size, being half, or indeed any fraction, of one, or one, or even one thousand zipon moments big, each photon would be propelled through space only at that interactive moment, when they are brought into the range of influence, or the boundary constraint of the zipons in the field. This would then account for the consistency of their velocities through space regardless of the frequencies of each photon. In effect, the rate at which the photons complete a crossing, or an orbit through the three dimensional strings of the field, would be precisely half the rate at which the zipons displace the position of other zipons in the field. Therefore, as light speed is C, then the standard luminon moment would be 2C. Effectively the velocity of the field of zipons would always be at twice light speed. And the photon's velocity, correspondingly, would then be a light speed.


The point that needs to be stressed is this. In terms of this model, each stable composite particle must comprise a vanishing charge. This is that truant that moves towards a point in space at a velocity that exceeds the speed of the zipons in the field. It is known that the quark comprises the vanishing charge of a proton. In the same way, this model requires that photons and electrons also comprise a vanishing charge or quark, else the particle will not be stable.


It has been proposed that an electron is the composite of three truants. It is possible to deduce their interaction simply by relating this to the known properties of an electron. For instance, the electron always has a fixed justification or charge. Depending on the alignment within a bubble chamber, they will always spiral from right to left or left to right before they come to their rest state. It proposed that magnetic fields orbit in strings. A spiral is a partial orbit. If one particle in the electron's composite is also and always the same size as the zipons in the field then they are within the boundary constraints of the field to enable a continual interaction with the field. The composite truants and quarks of the electron continually swap lattices. Therefore they would alternately interact with with that charge in the strings, first moving against the direction of the one string then repelled by that entire string. And in that repulsive moment they cross over to the next string. It must be remembered that this argument relies on the coincidence in mass of one of the three composites making up the electron. Else they would not be within the field’s boundary constraints to enable any interaction at all. Because an electron is a stable particle then that same truant must oppose the charge of the zipon or they would decay into the string, as do nuances.

It is possible to photograph an electron, and it is seen to appear then disappear from view. Because a mass/velocity coincidence with the zipons in the field is required, then at that moment, the particle would simply disappear from view at the coincident phase of their orbit. This is at the point when all three truants would be the same size as the zipons in the field. At that moment it would be out of reach of our measurable dimensions. At that same moment they would then 'swap lattices' with each other. This may then explain why it is that the electron 'appears' to disappear.


Therefore its composite may be as follows. That first truant would be manifest, the second would be aligned with the field but move in anti phase to the field and the third truant would be the vanishing charge. They would then decay - as they moved to a co-incident velocity/mass with the zipons in the field. Then they'd swap lattices. Then the manifest truant would again appear.


It has been proposed that the proton is a composite of three electrons. Because the proton spirals in a bubble chamber, in a similar but opposite way to an electron’s spiral, it may therefore have the same but opposite charge or 'justification'. The question is, at what point do the three electrons attach to create the proton? Simply because the proton is bigger than an electron it is possible that their attachment is at the third smallest truant which would then be the same mass/velocity of the zipons in the field. This would then give the remaining truants more comparative mass as is required by the fact.

The proposal is that the proton comprises three electrons but at its formation it immediately formulates into a hydrogen atom. To maintain a requirement for symmetry it is proposed that this is how the fusion unfolds.

Three electrons are randomly brought together through the interaction of chaotic strings in the primary field. The zipons in those strings are the same mass/velocity of the second truant that binds the electron to the field. These three ‘second’ truants meet, then disassociate from their electron structure to form a second, entirely independent electron. This is expelled from the structure leaving the three remaining quarks and the three third truants, detached from one another. None of these truants can interact with the primary field as their mass/velocities are outside the zipons’ boundary constraints. However the net charges of these third truants and their quarks align to attract. They move towards each other gaining mass and losing velocity until they attach. They retain the difference in their size ratios being four times bigger or smaller then each other, as they were when they were attached to the second truant that became the electron. In other words the third truant remains four times bigger than the second truant which second truant was formerly the quark of the electron. Then, three more truants detach from the primary field to form the new anchor or vanishing charge of the proton. This, in turn remains the size of the zipons in the field. Reconciliation of the mass/size ratio between the proton and the electron is then calculated as follows.


If the photon comprises two zipons then the zipon would be half the size of the photon. Velocity and mass have an inverse proportionate relationship. So, if the photon moves at the speed of light (C) then the velocity of the zipon would be 2C. Velocity and mass are inversely proportionate so, if the mass of the photon were given as 1, then the zipon would be 0.5. If the electron comprises 3 truants then its mass would be 0.5 x 3 = 1.5. And, if the proton comprises three electrons then, each electron would comprise 0.5 for the quark. 3 quarks having no volume is 0.5 x 3 = 1.5. Four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the second truant is 1.5 x 4 = 6. And four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the third truant is 6 x 4 = 24. The second and third truants only have two dimensions of volume as they manifest within a prescribed space, that merry-go-round referred to in the field description. Therefore, 3 second truants, having length and breadth is 6 x 6 x 3 = 108. 3 third truants having length and breadth is 24 x 24 x 3 = 1728. This gives a mass of 1837.5, minus 1.5 for the quarks that have neither volume nor mass, giving a total of 1836. Some variation of this number is, no doubt, required to accommodate the spherical shape of the truants, but it’s complex – a 2 dimensional sphere.


I am reluctant to deal with the neutron at all, firstly because it’s an unstable particle, and secondly, because I have only resolved its mass. According to this model, instability is due to properties in a truant, or many truants, that prevent a bonding with a contained magnetic field. Being unstable, therefore, means that the neutron does not have an anchor to bind it to the magnetic field, either in the atomic structure or in the primary magnetic field of space. It floats free and, because of this essential instability to bond, it must, inevitably decay back into the field. But because the neutron is evident in all complex atoms it possibly needs to be incorporated in this analysis.

The size of a neutron can be resolved, as illustrated. In effect it is an upside down neutron with three exposed charges on the outer boundaries. But it is not certain that this combination results in a neutral charge. It is possible, however to have an apparent neutral charge if the composite remains detached from the field. If, however, the second and third truant interact with the proton’s second and third truant, it may then, perhaps, be indirectly and partially anchored. Essentially therefore, it would simply comprise two manifest truants in each of the three radial arms and a third smaller ‘almost vanishing’ truant that interacts laterally along the length of the arm. This third vanishing truant would not interact with the field or the proton’s quark. As mentioned, the lateral interaction with the proton’s second and third truant may enable the relative stability of the neutron within the nucleus of the atom.

But, as mentioned, the neutron is most certainly neutral. And I have not been able to resolve that neutrality within the proposed structure which points to the possibility that this structure has not been fully defined - not yet complete.


It must be stressed that, for symmetry, the manifest and non-manifest truants inside all composites, be they particulate or atomic, must have a continuing interaction with each other in that composite. The proposal is that truants form an helical orbit on a shared and spinning axis. In other words they interchange their velocities and masses and charges the one transmuting into the other in a perpetual series of dance steps so to speak. The challenge would be to represent this, diagrammatically, with fractal geometry. In any event, these interactions would enable variations to the mass and charge of each truant thereby giving rise to the apparent variation of manifest particles. Therefore too, while the mass of a proton can be determined, it is only representative of the quantum of potential variations and not to the ‘moment by moment’ measurement of each of its truant masses.


I have proposed that the quarks of a proton can interact directly with the zipons in a magnetic field. But in an atomic structure, the atom is disassociated from the field and operates as a closed system. In effect, the quarks only interact with each other and with the second and third truant. The mass of the second and third truant is too large to be influenced by the boundary constraints of zipons. But protons and neutrons can interact laterally, one with another, as illustrated in the proton model. This, combined with lateral interactions with the neutron’s truants would give rise to the apparent variations in the number and charge of truants that form a proton.

The most fundamental atom in the periodic table is the hydrogen atom. This model suggests that it forms a nucleus of one proton comprising three electrons, as referenced. Orbiting the proton is at least one disassociated energy level that binds the expelled electron to its orbit. Around the nucleus of this structure are other orbiting strings of zipons that have disassociated from the field. These two dimensional fields form the atom’s energy levels, the number of which, precisely corresponds to the force that generated the proton and its expelled electron in the first instance. Each hydrogen atom is thereby contained by its own magnetic flux field to constitute the first closed system.

What is now proposed is that, as the atom increases in complexity, as more energy is introduced to the system, so the zipons, from those atomic energy levels, those fields that have been disassociated from the primary magnetic field, are then transmuted into truants, electrons, neutrons and protons. And at the formation of each new quark that forms the basis of each new proton in that changing atom, a new electron would also be formed that would then collect and be trapped in the energy levels of the atom. Correspondingly, each new electron would then belong to a specific energy level and its orbit would be determined by the justification of that energy level.


As more zipons become transmuted into protons, neutrons and electrons, so the density of the atomic structure is increased, always at the expense of the number and size of the energy levels and a corresponding increase to the electron cloud. And it is proposed that the electron is not able to nosedive into the oppositely charged proton precisely because it is forced to interact with and orbit the zipons that hold that electron cloud. Effectively the electron his held – trapped inside or between energy levels – which, in turn, are proposed to be those orbiting two dimensional fields of zipons.


When one considers the extraordinary volume of empty space between the proton and the electron in atoms, it begs the question as to how matter resists the encroachment of extraneous material into that atomic space. Given that emptiness, so to speak, it should be possible for some permeability between atomic structures. This, in fact, is never evident and is widely attributed to the interplay of the strong and weak nuclear forces that bind the atom. While in no way contradicting this conclusion, this model therefore proposes that these atomic spatial demarcations are defined, not only by the electron cloud around a nucleus, but to the zipons that comprise the atomic energy levels which, in turn traps the electron cloud. In other words, while it may be possible to separate an electron from, say a hydrogen atom, it may not necessarily result in the removal of the proton’s energy levels. They can remain. Separation of an electron from its atom would then result in an intrinsic imbalance to the ratio of truants forming the proton in an atom, and the number of zipons that circle the nucleus. This imbalance predisposes the atom to a readiness to bond with atoms that have a compensatory valence condition. And the resulting charge of those molecules can then, partially, compensate for this imbalance.


In other words, the proposal is that spatial demarcations on an atomic level are determined by those energy levels that, in turn, comprise a structured field of zipons. These are two dimensional magnetic fields that belong to that atom or to bonded atoms, thereby forming a molecule. They remain largely undetectable as they orbit, because, as mentioned, an orbit always expresses two justifications, two charges. If the one half of the orbit is ‘down’ the other half is ‘up’. Charge is determined by direction. Therefore the sum of the field, comprising as it does, both halves of the orbit, would render the entire field neutral and thereby undetectable to our measuring instruments designed, as they are, to determine ‘charge’ variation.


Photons from stars are so plentiful that they should, in fact, light up the night sky. If the path through space were constructed by a smooth distribution of orbiting zipons, then the radial path of photons, through the neutral arms of the field, would allow an easy passage, so to speak. The only thing that can block a magnetic field is another magnetic field. In this way the earth’s magnetic fields shield it from the sun’s energy levels. It is proposed that photons can only move through magnetic fields. As they encounter the complex structures of the earth’s magnetic fields and its atmosphere, which structures comprise vast amalgams of disassociated atoms and molecules, then its path would become more varied and in some instances, blocked. Loosely bonded amalgams such as the atmosphere and water, would enable a continued easy passage through their amalgams by virtue of an abundance of extraneous energy levels or magnetic fields. But these magnetic fields within and around those atoms would vary the photon’s frequency to an extent to make it momentarily visible during each interaction.

But as the photon passes through solid amalgams of denser atomic structures, the photon’s velocity is more critically varied. This interaction also slows down the frequency of the photon and being slower means that the manifest truant becomes ever more visible. As it reaches more critical levels of penetration in that atomic amalgam, it would eventually reach the atoms’ own tight energy levels around the electron cloud. Depending on the frequency of the photon it may then be deflected at some angle relative to the angle of impact, and its frequency or velocity at the time of the impact. Smaller faster photons would find the bound state of more solid amalgams to be relatively transparent. And, conversely the bigger slower photons would not be so penetrative.


In effect, the photon’s frequency is altered by its passage through, and interaction with, magnetic fields. The resulting frequency then depends on the force of interaction with primary magnetic fields in space, secondary magnetic fields around atomic structures, and tertiary magnetic fields that bind the nucleus of atoms. The density of each of these fields may vary which would then account for the visible spectrum of colour at the point of interaction, and for the absence of light or colour in those apparently empty regions of space.


Briefly, therefore, this magnetic field model proposes that all of reality is contained within ten dimensions described as follows. The first reality comprises our measurable dimensions of length, breadth, depth and its movement in time. All such measurements are constrained to the speed of light. The magnetic fields comprise length breadth and depth that share our own spatial dimensions, but they determine the movement of all matter through space and in time. Their time, velocity and size is constant and, because their velocity is invariably twice as fast as the speed of light, their time constant precedes our own time frame. This is the second reality. The third reality is the movement of the vanishing particles that move at velocities that exceed the magnetic fields’ constants. Technically, however, they do not occupy any spatial dimensions, as their mass has been entirely forfeit to velocity. They, therefore, exist in a different albeit simultaneous time frame to the first reality in an entirely different area of space that, in fact, is best described as non-spatial.


So, four dimensions to the first reality, four to the second and only two to the third makes a total of ten dimensions which would then contain all universal manifest and non-manifest matter. So, it is that this model proposes that the entire universe comprises innumerable zipons that interact and move to create a ten dimensional binary system being our universe. Matter and matter particles may have a limited interactive property. But it is the magnetic fields comprising zipons that move such matter through its fields.


I have tried to justify the model in terms of correspondence principles and the requirement for symmetry at the most basic level of particles and atoms. I can continue using that symmetry to illustrate the ‘growth’ of matter into identifiable amalgams but cannot do so without introducing concepts that are properly related to gravity.

But, before I get there I would again refer to the evident ability of matter to amalgamate into structures that are spatially separate. It is proposed that all amalgams of matter accrete within magnetic fields. In other words, when matter is divorced from the primary field it first collects as flux from nebulae, first forming into elementary particles of photons and electrons. This flux is gradually structured into accretions as it responds to the primary magnetic fields surrounding the flux and as the flux itself systematically re-assembles into magnetic systems reflecting their innate dipolar material. These vast flux nebulae then release a number of its disassociated quarks and truants in a quantity that relates to the force of the singularity that separated the flux from the primary field. And included in that release are discrete one dimensional fields or 'packages' of zipons that then bind those diverse atomic structures into amalgams, being our early suns and - over time - whole galaxies.


These detached truants and quarks then form secondary and tertiary magnetic fields gradually forming the simple hydrogen atom and penultimately resulting in the formation of stars and star systems. Then the ultimate accretions would be in that structured formation of an entire galaxy. And all, including the manifest star structures, are then also proposed to be bound by energy levels – zipons that have disassociated from the primary field. It is proposed that this quantum - regardless of the size of each of those amalgams, is always restricted to a number that precisely relates the mass of those amalgams. Therefore, what is visible and measurable is the star. What is invisible are those myriad magnetic fields, be they discrete atomic binding fields, atomic energy levels or whole toroids within those planetary or star structures - that hold the star systems and then whole galaxies, in a closed or nearly closed system. In other words, just as electrons are trapped within the energy levels of atoms, so are planets trapped within the energy levels of stars and stars trapped within energy levels of galaxies. And those energy levels comprise orbiting zipons that move with a fixed justification around the planets, our earth, the sun and the galaxies in exactly the same way as orbiting fields of zipons are proposed to move around atomic structures as energy levels.

Of interest is the possibility that at the time of the singularity, the flux that was separated from the field of zipons needed some time to form the stars. This may account for the difference in the rate at which such stars and subsequent star systems moved apart. This, in turn, may account for the difference in the apparent rate of expansion that is evident between the young and the old universe. And the evidence of colliding galaxies may be the single fact that contradicts claims of a universal spatial expansion. Also of interest is that this would account for the consistency in the velocity of stars within galaxies. If the orbits of stars are not determined by its own energy but by the force applied by these binding energy levels then the rate of the orbital velocity would remain constant with that binding field.


While the proposal is that magnetic fields may account for the demarcation of spatial boundaries, it does not answer questions concerning gravity. If the rule is that magnetic fields keep matter within certain orbits what then accounts for the movement of some of that material in a straight line towards gross objects in space? And why is it that matter particles are entirely exempt from the influence of a gravitational field if their composites are, in fact, influenced? And, in short, what then makes a gravitational field?

Our earth has a magnetic field. We do not know if it is induced or permanent but we do know that the polarisation of Earth’s fields has changed during the course of its long history. We have evidence in rare earth magnets that indicate that this polarisation has shifted, often. We also know that it is impossible for a permanent magnet to change its polarisation unless artificially acted upon to do so. Therefore, because of the switching poles, it’s likely that the earth’s magnetism is the result of an induced rather than a permanent magnetic field.

If the magnetic field is induced then there must be some ferrite material in the Earth’s crust to conduct that magnetism. In fact there are vast quantities of this material. And there must be an electric field within that core to bring about the induced magnetic field. This electric field may very well result from movement of the core, hot and molten, against the more solid crust. This would, at its least produce friction and possibly, a consequent electric field. An electric field, in turn, would produce an induced magnetic field in the crust of the earth which field would then extrude and intrude at its north and south poles respectively. It does. So this may be the explanation of our earth’s magnetic field. As a point of interest – this interaction may very well be a closed or nearly closed system. It may also be the explanation for the axial spin of the earth – contained, as it would be, within energy levels or magnetic fields around the sun.

The question then is this. Is the magnetic field and the gravitational field one and the same thing? To explore this question one must analyse the nature of a magnetic field and the moment that particles within the magnetic field are moved.

If one assumes that all magnetic fields orbit, a movement both from and then towards a certain point in space, then the entire orbit expresses two alternate moments being forward and then backward, or, off and then on. And the result would be that the entire field would be neutral. But each zipon within the field would in fact, be moving in a single direction inside their strings of zipons. This justification or charge of the zipon in the field, introduces an anomalous association. It means that the zipon is charged, having a fixed direction, but the entire field is neutral, having no fixed direction. The part is charged but the whole is entirely void of charge.

However, stable particles, those truants that are ‘out of true’ with the field, are too small to experience the neutral charge of an entire magnetic field. They interact with a very limited number of zipons that all move in the same direction, unless, as in the case of an electron, it can be moved to the centre of a magnetic field as in a bubble chamber. At this point it would merely express a spin as is evident. At all other times it would move in a path that would be coincident with the charged property of a limited number of zipons in the field. So, the influence of these zipons that align in Faraday's Lines of Force, acts like an applied vector. Therefore, in terms of this model, potential difference is simply the sum of the zipons in a field of zipons that move with a single justification or charge. This may be better explained by the concept of neutral symmetrical orbit, expressing a single broken symmetry at each of its parts.

This single charge, or broken symmetry is macrocosmically evident in our Earth’s magnetic fields. All matter that is contained within the Earth’s magnetic field has only ever experienced a single direction of that magnetic field that encompasses the Earth and its atmosphere. The second half of that orbit is hidden within the material of the Earth itself. In effect the symmetry of the orbit has been apparently broken but is, in fact, merely shielded. So, whether this magnetic field is vast, as is evident in our Earth’s magnetic fields, or whether it is small, as is evident in the energy levels of atoms, it invariably applies a vector to contained matter. And the sum of this vector is, in fact, potential difference. In effect every piece of matter on and around the surface of our earth has only experienced a field with a single or mono polar charge.

Gross and identifiable matter is in a bound state. Referring back to the kettle and the rock – the molecules and atoms in both objects have been bound into a certain identifiable amalgam. This model proposes that in the process of manufacture – energy, in the form of heat or of some force, was applied to amalgamate those smaller atoms into that form.

According to this model it may be that the ‘things’ that were transferred through space and ‘borrowed’ from the environment around that energy force were magnetic fields induced from the body of the earth – as mentioned. In the process of cooling, these secondary fields are trapped inside that hot or molten structure and when that energy is entirely transferred it remains inside that cooling structure, thereby binding the structure into atomic abodes and resulting in the identifiable amalgam. Re-heating of these abodes, as a result of interactions with the applied magnetic vectors can alter that structure. Under extreme conditions the trapped magnetic fields can then ‘peel away’ as photons. This results in the fatigue of that structure that is evident over time.

In other words, gross amalgams of matter may be bound by magnetic fields that have disassociated from the Earth’s primary field. The proposal is that they separate atomic abodes and neutralise the amalgam. Their quantity, size and justification are precisely proportionate to the quantity, size and charge of atoms within that amalgam. And because magnetic fields move towards a state of zero net charge they would enable an arrangement of those atoms into their most balanced formation. This is proposed because gross amalgams of solid state ionised atoms cannot find a rest state unless their atoms are somehow separated so that the one will not experience the charge of another.

Symmetry in this analysis is everything. We know from our astrophysicists that whole suns are seen to be formed from nebulae. The early sun structures comprise hydrogen and other such atoms – gasses with valence conditions that may be inherently repulsive. The proposal is that one dimensional strings of zipons congregate from the nebulae to join these atomic structures together into identifiable three dimensional amalgams. Therefore, if these atoms are separated by these extraneous magnetic fields into some form of atomic abode then, equally, all structures of solid and liquid amalgams may have been congregated by these fields that arrange amalgams into their solid crystalline or loose gaseous structures. It would be seen as a field that is extraneous to the atom and that binds atoms into an amalgam. It is proposed that these fields are able to balance the charge of these amalgams as they can vary their own spin in sympathy with those atoms.

At the risk of repetition – but for better clarification. In terms of this model, therefore, magnetic particles, or zipons, are mono directional but the whole field is neutral – moving first forward and then back to itself. Our Earth’s magnetic field, conversely, is only mono directional. The second half of the orbit is contained within the Earth’s material structure which effectively breaks the symmetry of that orbit. This ‘single direction’ is experienced as ‘potential difference’. All amalgams are bound by these disassociated fields. These binding fields orbit. And that orbit may have a justification but just as all fields orbit one half of that orbit will oppose the other. Therefore in relation to the single ‘exposed’ spin of our earth’s magnetic field – one half of the binding fields will oppose the charge of the earth’s magnetic field and the other half will not. Again. One half of all the zipons holding three dimensional amalgams will conflict with the single justification of the earth’s magnetic field. The other half will not. This conflict of direction and charge, resolves itself in an interaction of these bi-directional magnetic fields and the Earth’s mono-directional magnetic field, to move the smaller of the two fields at 90 degrees to the Earth’s bigger containing mono directional magnetic field.

The resulting interaction is complex. Magnetic vectors or gravity, will move solids towards the centre of the magnetic field – being the surface of the Earth. If that solid amalgam comprised anti-matter then it would be moved to the outer boundaries of the magnetic field. This would put anti-matter, not at the surface of the Earth’s magnetic fields but at the outer boundaries of the final magnetic field in the universe. This magnetic field model proposes that our universe would be toroidal in shape and its outer boundaries would comprise vast collections of anti-matter.

All this would explain the downward push of matter towards the centre of the earth. But there is another property to gravity that relates to its weight. To get there I first need to describe the interactive property with the magnetic fields which, according to these proposals, are confined to the superficial binding fields that hold the amalgams together. In effect it is proposed that matter inside an atom is bound by energy levels which comprise zipons. And then the atoms themselves are bound by other zipons that hold those atoms in that amalgam in tact. The amalgam is shielded from penetration from the Earth’s magnetic fields by a combination of these two fields. Effectively the earth’s magnetic fields would bend around the amalgam. Therefore the ‘push’ or interaction with these greater magnetic fields of the Earth is confined to the surface of the material which then determines the direction of the movement of the amalgam towards the centre of the earth, being at an angle of 90 degrees to the line of those Earth fields. However, the mass of the object or amalgam relates to both it’s volume and its weight. Here’s the analogy.

Take two tennis balls and fill the one with stones and the other with just enough to prevent the ball from bouncing. Then drop both balls at a corresponding height at the same moment. All things being equal both will fall to the earth at the same time. However, the ball that is filled with stones will be harder to pull away from the earth than the ball with less stones. This relates to the mass that is introduced to both balls. Clearly the one with the greater number of stones will be the heavier. It is now proposed that a second property comes into play which is related to the Casimir effect. Essentially the proposal is that those fields that bind the material are essentially magnetic and, being magnetic they are attracted to the greater magnetic field. Their proximity to the greater field would add to that attraction. Essentially the material forming the body of the earth is held in a bound condition by these same fields which are also there holding the material of the earth in a comparative ‘rest state’. This attachment is very much akin to a loose and jumbled collection of magnets. In effect the binding fields in both tennis balls look to bond with that greater field of the earth. The more fields in the ball filled with stones would create a stronger bond than the ball with no stones. Therefore the tennis ball with the greater mass would resist a pull away from the Earth more strongly than the tennis ball with no stones and therefore less mass. So while the direction of the falling object is determined by surface volume which interacts with the greater field, the fallen object would then acquire a resistance to being moved from its rest state which would be experienced as weight.

Before concluding this exercise it is important to stress that this magnetic field model has determined that atoms – in a solid state comprise a predominance of matter particles to magnetic particles. Liquids have equal quantities. Gases have a predominance of zipons. Each of these states interacts with the Earth’s magnetic vectors differently. For example, it is proposed that ‘like’ gases have a consistent charge evident in the outer boundaries of their atomic structure. Their energy levels are externalised, so to speak. If many atoms from a single gas were, therefore, contained within an artificial environment, then all those fields – having a like charge or justification – would repel each other. This would account for the equal dispersion of these particles in space. Atoms in a liquid state would have equal quantities of zipons to their matter particles. Therefore, their interaction with each other would be neutral but the whole would still respond to a downward movement within a gravitational field. Atoms in a solid state would have a greater quantity of matter particles to zipons.

I must also give some brief reference to the fact that magnetic particles, or zipons, are plastic, being able to rearrange their strings to increase or decrease in number and in range of influence through space. Matter is contained by them but is largely invisible to them. In effect, it is the cloth behind the tapestry of our universe. And because of the elegance of the orbit, these fields remain neutral and therefore, undetectable except when artificially exposed through voltage imbalances.


The one thing that argues in favour of extraneous fields accounting for the binding of amalgams, is the event of combustion. In terms of this model, what is proposed is that some friction or force is applied to those zipons that bind atoms into gross amalgams. In other words, these fields are extraneous to the atom itself and were introduced to the amalgam at the point of manufacture. They then hold matter together, like a universal or cosmic glue. This applied force or friction would then induce a state of chaos to that binding structure by breaking the symmetry of their strings’ orbit. Then zipons from these broken strings, or atomically extraneous energy levels, would peel off, to transmute into really slow truants, or flames. Each truant would then be evident in our own measurable dimensions. Slower is bigger and being big it would be outside the boundary constraints of any adjacent surrounding flux fields. As virtual particles or truants, they momentarily lose their anchor, so to speak, from a magnetic field. Their frequency would slow to a point where the truant becomes relatively stationery. It is then joined by many more truants as it is still a fundamental, neutral particle. Being neutral, it can share a path in the same way that they shared a path in the field as a closed string. As the first string unravels, it imbalances other adjacent strings from juxtaposed atomic energy levels. Then more and more binding magnetic fields can unravel and the size and number of the conflagration would then increase.

But, like all nuances, these flames, or virtual particles would eventually expend the force of that earlier separation from the field, that state of imbalance. They may decay back into the greater primary or secondary magnetic fields. Or they may transmute into photons from the hot boundary of each flame. Or, indeed, they may do both in some ratio depending on the nature of the environment juxtaposed to that flame. But there’s a third possibility that needs to be discussed. It could be that they only move into space to find a new ‘abode’ so to speak in the amalgam of 2 or more atoms thereby creating molecules. Since balance is quintessentially required, it seems that if they degraded into juxtaposed fields or into photons then all material – all matter, would ultimately decay into photons or magnetic fields. It could be that – having disassociated from the nebula then these fields remain divorced and only retain their form as a kind of cosmic glue – always in need of matter for their essential state of balance.


But, the unravelling of these fields – in whichever form, would result in a degradation of the bound state of the amalgam while not effecting the integrity of the now liberated atom which would remain intact. As this is consistent with the fact, it argues in favour of these binding magnetic fields in amalgams, remaining extraneous to the atomic structure. They would then have emanated from the magnetic fields of the earth or from those fields transmuted into binding fields, from the source of the amalgam’s manufacture, in the first instance. If this is correct, it speaks to a remarkably exact level of the conservation of mass and energy. Yet in defiance of these same laws is the simple fact that a single spark can create a really big fire. Very little energy is required to produce that spark which, in turn can produce a disproportionately large conflagration in a chain reaction. Notwithstanding which there is a liberation of the stored energy resulting from the prior manufacture of that amalgam in the first instance.


The significance of this model may be far reaching. Regarding the strong nuclear force, it suggests that the only method to dismantle the proton structure would be to increase the velocity of a field of zipons in order to ‘shrink’ them to the same mass/velocity of the quarks. The point is that the field of zipons would need to be within the boundary constraints of each truant’s quark. This may enable an interaction, but I have no idea how one can increase the velocity and density of a magnetic field. Nor would I recommend it as it would possibly result in some considerable disruption to that primary binding magnetic fabric.


I suspect that such fast moving magnetic fields may be the source of black holes in space. If so, then black holes can exponentially increase their influence through space, decaying the structures of matter as easily as unravelling a piece of knitting. These, black holes may be those areas in space where there were, initially, no magnetic fields whatsoever. If so then these would also be the only true vacuums in space. And it may then be that structured matter gradually unravels back into highly structured fields of zipons thereby filling the black hole, or that true vacuum, with newly arranged zipons. Again, this speaks to a remarkable level of conservation, not only of energy but of mass itself.


Regarding the electromagnetic force as this applies to the generation of electric current flow, this application has been described as the movement of potential difference through circuit components in order to change the justification of those zipons that bind and separate imbalanced atoms into abodes. Here there is a radical departure to conventional thinking as this relates to the transfer of energy. The proposal is that these fields return to their amalgam without forfeiture of their initial quantum. By moving from one terminal to another, they simply alter their spin to diminish the voltage imbalance. By removing the initial imbalance, the molecular state of the atoms at the source amalgam, may be varied. But the question remains as to whether these fields separate from atomic energy levels or from extraneous fields that bind atomic abodes.


Whichever way, the result suggests that the conservation of energy in an electromagnetic interaction is total albeit that, in the transfer of its fields through the circuitry, secondary interactions would enable kinetic or radiant energy to be dissipated from circuit components. As this test experiment was well within my budget it was both tested and proven. This too is useable energy. It also implies that electric energy can potentially, be a nearly closed system thereby becoming a clean energy source.


All this may obviate the need to search for that elusive magnetic monopole that has been the Holy Grail of research. This is the point. The broken symmetry of a magnetic field may have the same potential as a magnetic monopole as it always has the property of voltage imbalance or potential difference. Unless it is exposed to another ‘broken symmetry’ or voltage source, it will always find a rest state. Two such opposing, or even complementary charges, should result in an interaction that cannot find that rest state. An example of this may be evident in the relation to the spin of an energy level from the sun and the Earth’s axial spin. This interaction would then be a macrocosmic development of the same principle of magnetic fields in the atom’s energy levels, moving the electron. The orbiting magnetic fields around an energy level from the sun would have a single justification. If the earth was trapped between two such fields it would allow a continual interaction with the earth’s single exposed charge from its own exterior magnetic field, thereby resulting in both a smaller axial spin and a larger orbit. Correspondingly, planets that do not have an axial spin, such as our moon or mars, may have induced magnetic fields from various energy levels, that trap them in an orbit consistent with the macrocosmic energy levels, but without expressing that axial spin.


The broad principles of the magnetic field model and its applications are described in this exercise. The object is to explain that the source of energy, be it strong or weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic or gravitational, may all emanate from a single source being the magnetic field. While it may be possible to tease out their fundamental properties and use them through the manipulation of broken symmetry, as described, it is impossible to create or destroy the zipons that make them. This inclines me to think that the universe is a closed or steady state system as it is conventionally described. But this conclusion in no way conflicts with the Big Bang theory as the initial creation of matter that separated from these fields, may have been related to a singular event. The puzzle is that we can see the creation of stars from nebulae in space, and I wonder if those newly generated stars become star systems formulating their own singularity – which, again, suggests that singularities may manifest within other singularities.


This then suggests that the matter in our visible universe was somehow ‘first born’ and that many such singularities may follow.


This exercise presumes to resolve many outstanding questions in science, but has done so with the proposal of the existence of a tachyon that, by definition, remains outside our measurable dimensions and therefore, at best, is merely a theoretical probability. The object of this exercise was to show that by postulating its existence at all, and by equating its manifestations to physically measurable evidence, speaks to a correspondence that justifies the first postulates. In effect this model is merely based a pattern that has grown from the particulate to a multidimensional general field effect, sustaining a consistency that it is hoped, is logically coherent.

Of necessity the development of this field model required the input from an outsider as it is based on contentious proposals. Much of science is resolved by consensus. That consensus is usually indicative of the philosophical bias in the general mindset relating to the time of each new development in science. So it is, for instance, that early evidence of our earth’s orbit around the sun conflicted with the Church’s dictates that required man to be the object of all creation. Time and conflicting evidence gradually eroded this assumption. So it was that, when Darwinian proposals of evolution were first introduced they were immediately accepted, although only proven with a subsequent and growing science of genetics. It is hoped that, in some small but similar way, this exercise will appeal to a newly emergent mindset that seeks to preserve our fragile future within a growing movement towards non-pollutant uses of energy. This model concludes that energy can be expended with far greater efficiency. But in so doing, it challenges conventional understandings regarding, not only the transfer of energy but to the very structure of matter, describing, as mentioned, the fabric behind the tapestry, so to speak. Certainly it speaks to interconnectedness between all that is manifest that may encourage a renewed sense of accountability. But it is argued that there is a total conservation of all mass, which may also indicate that the universe itself operates as a closed system. This could possibly reawaken a sense of the eternal that is largely contradicted by the perceived fragility of matter.

Dancing Wu Li Masters Gary Zukov
Conceptual physics Dyson

Donovan Martin with his contribution to a first stage in a geometric presentation of the composite particle as a critical first stage to its preferred expression through the use of fractal geometry.

Ian Cattanach for his assistance in editing the text.

Riaan Theron for his assistance in graphic depiction of the field and the particle in the field

Evan Robinson for his ongoing efforts to point out any poor explanations in this exercise.

Friday, March 25, 2011

97 - the magnetic field model

Dear Reader,

I'm not sure how long any one post can be on these blogs. The following is simply to test this. The intention now is to post the magnetic field model here - just in case anyone's interested.

But it's likely to be a very long post and may need to be split up into more than one. We'll see.

Hopefully it should be finished later today.

Kind regards,

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

96 - the proof

Dear Reader

Finally - here's our video on the demonstration. Enjoy.

Kindest regards,

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

95 - still on the significance of that oscillation

Dear Reader,

This is the last post. Hopefully this will get to the gullet of the questions raised.

Kindest again

Hello Mark - and Infringer. It is a closed loop - already. But infringer, you're spot on. I see a single solar panel as desirable as it would supply a stored energy that could trickle charge to the batteries. I think that a high voltage source also needs to be stable at a given value notwithstanding the roller coaster voltage values when it gets into oscillation mode. We tested this on batteries with huge capacities. And it would be nice to know that we could use something a little more modest. I've not tried this on anything other than the batteries disclosed in the report.

Now. The next point - which may - I hope - bend your minds. I referenced this simple fact. During the period when the gate signal is negative - is the time that we induce this crazy oscillation. This much is evident. The current path is first anticlockwise - indicating that it comes from the circuit to the supply source. Then. The current path reverses and goes from the battery to the the circuit. How is it that there is no restriction to the flow of this current from the battery? I have not heard anyone ask this. The assumption is made that the flow from the supply can only happen when the gate is positive. Surely? What I'm hoping is that those that are more insightful here - will see what I'm referencing. Current may, indeed, have properties of charge.

I'll try this again. The applied signal at the gate is positive. It allows a kind of bridge to the applied voltage from the battery supply that the current can flow from the supply - through the circuit and back to the negative terminal. We all know that. Now we apply a negative signal at the same point. And this still allows the unrestricted flow of current from the battery supply through the circuit. Not only that but the flow of that current is really strong. That's the point - I think - where this circuit gets interesting. To my way of seeing this - if the current from the battery supply has a distinctly 'positive' charge - evidenced in a clockwise directional flow - then there is, self-evidently - nothing at the gate to prevent its flow when the gate signal reverses to negative. And this is the point where I suspect there may yet be some consessions to the concept of current having two distinct charge potentials. If so. Then - with apologies for all these 'ifs' - if current flow comprises electrons - then it could NEVER 'swap' directions and charges as an electron is a monopole. An electron would either be repelled or attracted at the 'gate'. Here we have a condition where the charge is not restricted - at all. On the contrary. Therefore is there the proposal that this may be proof that our current - whatever else it is - is NOT the flow of electrons. Wrap your minds around this possibility and I assure you that you'll then need to talk 'unkown energy supply sources' or 'aether energy' or dark energy. I do hope you'll see the point here.

You guys have been looking for the 'secret' to all that abundant energies. I think on a deep but subliminal level we all know it's out there. Compulsively interesting. But ever elusive. But I also think that you expect it to announce itself with some kind of definitive 'tan tan tara'. I'm reasonably satisfied that it has never been considered as the properties of that well known electromagnetic interaction. All have presumed that this is based on the flow or movement of electrons. Never proven - but always assumed. What is here suggested is that it's in the actual material of charge which has NOTHING to do with the atoms. It's a force field that operates outside the atom. And - if this is so, then all we need to do is use all that current potential way more efficiently. And the best way to do this is to let that current 'just do it's thing'.

So. It's rather prosaic in its fundamentals. Just the well known electromagnetic interaction. Yet it's strangely and entirely different - in its actual fundamental constructs. That, I hope, is what this oscillation proves. Please note, Infringer. That crazy oscillation only needs some small inductive value on the circuit materials - and a continually applied negative charge at the gate - and the indications are that we have - dare I say it - PERPETUAL current flow. That thing that is only, under known circumstances, enabled in REALLY cold conditions. And what's really interesting - is that this puts paid to the idea that current flow will COST anything at all.

Kindest regards,