Quantum geometry, Kelvin Abraham and Tetryonics (the "real" Sacred Geometry?)

[ThePythonicCow]

I am just beginning to study this material, so can only provide the briefest of summaries.

However my initial intuition is that Kelvin Abraham is developing a profound reworking of the physics of mass and energy, using geometry. For example, he can explain, using the geometry of the quanta of aether, the ordering and constraints on Mendeleev's Periodic Table of Elements, in a substantially more satisfying way than I've seen before. The nature of fermions, bosons, photons, the Standard Model (of sub-atomic particles), gravity, electro-magnetic fields, and the structure of atoms, including their chemical bonding properties and beyond, are also nicely explained.

I post this here on the off chance that others might also wish to explore this work further.

Johan Oldenkamp did a Video Interview with Kelvin Abraham on Tetryonics (http://whollyscience.org/video-interview-with-kelvin-abraham-on-tetryonics/), a month ago, which is where I first encountered Kelvin's work. This might be as good an introduction as you'll find, though it is imperfect, and Kelvin is not an accomplished presenter in interviews.

For a more extended explanation, Kelvin has:

the website http://tetryonics.scienceoflife.nl/,
a book, which I have copied to Principia Scientifica (http://thepythoniccow.us/Principia_Scientifica_Kelvin_Abraham.pdf), and
a Youtube series, linked below.

Kelvin is a very visual, geometric oriented sort ... which is exercising some long under-used neurons in my brain <grin>.

Here are the first few of the videos in Kelvin's Youtube series, providing an introduction to the quantum geometry of Energy at the Planck Scale.


T101 The Equilateral geometry of Energy.wmv (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p_NyNfXd7k)
T102 Charged geometry of Matter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiP5syhHX4E)
T103 The Physical Constants & Electrodynamics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J2avFyP-OI)
T104 Spatial geometries & mEM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVXYwoNEkf8)
T105 Gravity & GEM fields (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRjvI3evHUw)
T106 Quantum Gravitation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puJls48Gsb8)
T107 ... I can't find
T108 Quantum Chemistry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_agPXXghlqo)
T109 Allotropes, Compounds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OghgWiGkW0)
T110 Radioactive decay and Nuclear Fission (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Pehqz6buA)

More of this video series, as well as an older video series, can be found at https://www.youtube.com/user/Tetryonics/videos.

I'm wondering if a variant of Paul LaViolette's Subquantum Kinetics ..., with the proper equilateral triangle geometry, might provide a suitable model for the Planck quanta that form the basis of Kelvin's work.

I am also wondering if I will be able to relate Kelvin's work with Robert Distinti's New Wave Theory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGmnqEXUTkQ) (a work very much in progress that I am following with delight) and/or Miles Mathis's critique of the conventional physics of our time (http://milesmathis.com/index.html).

Intriguing stuff ... for the few physics heads amongst us. Herein might lay the real meaning of "Sacred Geometry".

[letspaly]

this is a badass post!

[ThePythonicCow]

a book, which I have copied to Principia Scientifica (http://thepythoniccow.us/Principia_Scientifica_Kelvin_Abraham.pdf), and


That book will make no sense ... just a bunch of elaborately annotated drawings ... unless you listen to the T101+ video series. The book is just the slides from that video series. Kelvin's explanations, given in the video series, of the slides, are needed to make sense of this.

[Sunny-side-up]

WoW thx for the Brain pressure Paul.

That's a lot to try add into my reality, but I can see it is a true Reality addition!

Great Times for knowledge, the pattern of the universe is showing it's beauty in more and more ways.

[Sunny-side-up]

Brilliant!

Just adding:
Thank you for the links Paul :thumbsup:

[ThePythonicCow]

The utter flatness of Kelvin's Planck unit bothered me ... I suppose that these units are formed from a sub-quantum aether, in a manner such as Paul LaViolette studies in subquantum kinetics.

So perhaps these Planck units are not 2-D flat as Kelvin draws them (though that does make for convenient modeling):

http://tetryonictheory.com/Websites/nextexit/images/forallkind/Planck_Unit.gif
but rather they are perhaps more like the conventional molecular model for H2O (water):

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/538f9427eab8ea8137d5d4c4/image.gif
(where the boundaries are not sharply defined, but rather "fuzzy", from self-organizing, self-perpetuating sub-quantum aetheric clouds.)

Note also that I have in mind here two aethers, first the sub-quantum aether, ala LaViolette, which forms the Planck units that are the elements of a higher level quantum aether out of which fermions, bosons, photons and other such physically (with our instruments made of mass) detectable matter and energy are formed.

[ThePythonicCow]

Here's a decent introduction to Tetryonics, in a paper that Kelvin Abraham published in the International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications in May 2014: Introdction to Tetryonic Theory (http://thepythoniccow.us/Introduction_to_Tetryonic_Theory_May2014.pdf)

[Tetryonics101]

Awesome start to the thread.

I'm in support of Kelvin's work, and after 3 years of study, I have a long way to go. With that said, I do have a familiarity with the work and hope that I can contribute to moving the conversation forward. I'll try my best to be concise, however there is a lot of ground to cover. What follows is a good place to start.

The spinning triangle above represents a single Quantum quoin -- [hv = zero point energy = hf/2] -- and Tetryonics goes to great length to show how these are the building blocks of everything in our Universe.

Tetryonics starts with geometry, then derives the math. As a result, it's a simpler approach to finding a real intuition and mental image of what's really going on.

This is not to say that T-theory does away with mathematics, as much as it suggests that the equilateral geometry is the grammar that guides the math, and what the math should be following in order for it to be understood universally.

To date, mathematics is a powerful language capable of amazing feats, however the human interpretation of the equations has not always been correct. This is the case with mainstream quantum mechanics. The statistical maths of modern theory models the distribution precisely but interprets them incorrectly.

The universe is not mathematical in nature, but geometric in expression. I see this work as an unexpected novelty that nobody in many academic circles anticipated. There are others that have hinted at this next phase of understanding and I'll be referring to some of them soon. Mathis being one of them:

Charge (Coulombs) is mass.seconds (kg.s) - not something you'll find in textbooks - other than Kelvin's Tetryonics and Mathis.

"Many scientists find it hard to believe that the investigators who constructed the currently accepted theories could have made so many mistakes. It should be emphasized, therefore, that the profusion of conflicts between present-day ideas and our findings does not indicate that the previous investigators have made a multitude of errors. What has happened is that they have made a few serious errors that have had a multitude of consequences." -- Tetryonics

"The new idea is that what is permanent in these ultimate particles or small aggregates is their shape and organization...They are, as it were, pure shape, nothing but shape." -- Erwin Schrödinger

“To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?” and "Some day a door will surely open and expose the glittering central mechanism of the world in its beauty and simplicity." -- John Archibald Wheel

[ThePythonicCow]

Awesome start to the thread.

I'm in support of Kelvin's work, and after 3 years of study, I have a long way to go. With that said, I do have a familiarity with the work and hope that I can contribute to moving the conversation forward. I'll try my best to be concise, however there is a lot of ground to cover. What follows is a good place to start
Welcome !

I've been thinking of how to put Tetryonics into the larger scheme of things. Here's my take so far ... but I'm new to this study, so I could be missing the mark by a wide margin.

===

Our understanding of how atoms behave and bind into larger chemical molecules has advanced a long way from the indivisible atoms of the Greek Democritus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus) some 2500 years ago, to the current high technology of chemical compounds taught in schools and forming the basis of major industries, with its ordering and constraints nicely captured in Mendeleev's Periodic Table of Elements, and in the spherical model of atoms as shells of electrons orbiting a nucleus, where the shells have specific two times N squared limits on their sizes, for N = 1, 2, ...

Our understanding at the sub-atomic level, of the elementary fermion and boson particles and how they form such things as the electrons, protons and neutrons of atoms, and how this relates to the photons of light, and the nature of gravity, electro-magnetic, strong and weak forces, is quite a bit younger, more descriptive. It's a more immature science.

Tetryonics provides a much improved foundation for this study of sub-atomic particles, with insights into fields, matter and structure on scales over a vast range of sizes.

With math, statistics and calculus, we could describe what we saw, using ad hoc choices of parameters and curves.

With the geometric basis of tetryonics, we can now begin to understand what can, and cannot, be constructed ... "how the pieces fit together", using only a single sub-sub-atomic entity, the tetryon (P.S. - error - I am using "tetryon" incorrectly here - see posts below), albeit a chiral (left and right handed variants) entity with charges, fields, three equilateral sides, and inductance along one side (a non-trivial entity.)

Just as "real atoms" may not turn out to have the actual geometry we see in the conventional model of electrons spinning around nuclei that chemists find so useful in studying how they form molecules, similarly "real tetryons" may not turn out to be planar flat equilateral triangles as pictured by Kelvin Abraham. But just as the conventional model of atoms has proven immensely useful in studying the possible behavior of atoms in molecular bonds, similarly the equilateral triangle tetryonic model is off to a promising start in studying the possible behavior of tetrons in forming the various sub-atomic particles described in the Standard Model and at the basis of the fields and matter of our physical universe.

In both cases, the chemistry of molecules formed from atoms, and the study of the fields and sub-atomic particles formed from tetryons, the introduction of a suitable geometric model is essential to understanding what can and cannot be built, to understanding both the limitations on what can be done and the potentials yet unrealized.

===

My intuition, not yet informed by any serious consideration or investigation, remains that Paul LaViolette's sub-quantum kinetics, with suitable adaptions, may lead us to the next layer downward ... how tetryons are themselves formed from an underlying aether.

I am currently presuming that the aether forms tetryons, in a manner such as LaViolette explored, and that then tetryons form the particles and fields, and that some of these particles, the ones tetryonics gives a tetrahedral shape to, form the matter, the sub-atomic particles, that make atoms. Atoms in turn, of course, form molecules, and in one of the more intriguing developments, certain molecules form genetic material - DNA.

===

Does the above make any sense to you ?

[ThePythonicCow]

(Aside - another area of such study that made major advances, once a suitable geometric model was recognized: DNA, and its double helix.)

[Tetryonics101]

I'll extrapolate out more of your comments when I have a bit more time, but right out of the gate, it's really important to realize that the Quantum of Matter is the Tetryon (Standing wave Tetrahedral Topology). The 2d mass-energy triangles are the quantum of energy, the discrete packets of Planck, but now a rigid geometry has been applied along the way. A single triangle, can also be called a boson, but any ODD number of these 2d triangles... 3, 5, 7, and so on are also bosons.

A detailed study of particle's momenta in collider experiments could reveal the Tetryon at some point. There is already sufficient data available should anyone at the CERN want to look for them. But then they would likely loose their funding by having to work a Tetryonic model from that point forward, so I'm not holding my breath. Anyway...

"The subtleties of the quantum world will remain ever elusive to those adding more and more energies to a system they don't understand. Their experiments only add an unnecessary layer of confusion upon an already confusing topic. Wasting billions while they're at it...

...Until modern physics learns to differentiate between 2d mass geometries & 3D Matter Topologies [and the role charge plays in QM] it will continue to 'pat itself on the back' on the experimental verification of data while drawing incorrect extrapolations from experimental results and the maths associated with those results. What is desperately needed is a new theory that explains the experimental results obtained, corrects the underlying maths and unites the separate fields of physics, chemistry, biology and cosmology into one unified theory." -- Tetryonics

[ThePythonicCow]

I'll extrapolate out more of your comments when I have a bit more time, but right out of the gate, it's really important to realize that the Quantum of Matter is the Tetryon (Standing wave Tetrahedral Topology). The 2d mass-energy triangles are the quantum of energy, the discrete packets of Planck, but now a rigid geometry has been applied along the way.
Ah - I called the 2d equilateral triangle the tetryon. Oops.

Unless I'm still confused, it's the formation of four of those 2d triangles into a 3d tetrahydron which Kelvin calls a tetryon, and which forms the basis of solid matter ... you're right. My mistake. Thanks.

I wish that 2d equilateral triangle, a chiral (left and right handed variants) entity with charges, fields, three equilateral sides, and inductance along one side, had a punchy name. There's more to that little triangle, both in attributes (charge, field, shape, inductance, chiralty, ...) and in fundamental importance to this theory, than the various descriptive phrases such as "a Planck quanta" convey.

Proper naming of the core components of a construct is vital in my view ... essential to the presentation of that construct to a wider audience :).

As it stands, tetryonics is not just the study of tetryons. Rather 3d tetryons are but one of the ways that the basic element (the fancy 2d triangle) can be put together, and tetryonics studies (if I understand) all the sorts of ways that these little triangles can interact and be assembled.

How about calling those triangles Tetryonic Quanta (TQ for short) ? (just brainstorming there ...).

Or if left to my own devices, I'd be tempted to call the 2d triangles "tetryons" and the 3d tetrahydrons some more derived name, perhaps suggestive of its 3d solid nature.

Or ... another brain storm (fart?) ... call the 2d triangles "trions," call this entire study "trionics" (instead of tetryonics) and continue to call the 3d tetrahydrons "tetryons".

My first google hit for "trions" came to a paper (http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v12/n3/full/nmat3505.html) with this sentence in the abstract: "Here we report the spectroscopic identification in a monolayer MoS2 field-effect transistor of tightly bound negative trions, a quasiparticle composed of two electrons and a hole. These quasiparticles, which can be optically created with valley and spin polarized holes, have no analogue in conventional semiconductors. ". Those quasiparticles aren't what we're talking about, but they have amusing similarities, and the word "trion" is not in such wide spread use that many would be confused by this.

Of course, I presume that the chances of interesting Kelvin in my brainstorming are minimal ... his wonderful brain works in quite different ways than mine.

[Tetryonics101]

Does the above make any sense to you ?

Yes, you are making perfect sense to me.

-=-=-=-=-
Aether theories in physics propose the existence of a medium, the aether, a space-filling substance or field, through to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

Bosons, Photons, and Matter are simply concentrations of EM energy in regions of Space.

Vast radiant energy fields exist throughout all of Space, save inside of Matter Topologies.

The vacuum energy field acts upon the internal 'null space' volumes of all Matter creating a gravitational pressure gradient.

-=-=-=-=-
In Tetryonics, electrons do not orbit a central nucleus. Electron positional measurements have proven to be historically difficult to accurately model due to the charged 12pi rotating geometries of leptons.

Computer generated plots of 'clouds' of electron probabilities are inaccurate mis-representations and should be abandoned in favor of realistic atomic models reflective of the charged geometry of each periodic element.

Every elemental atom can be viewed as a quantum carousel with a unique number of oscillating fans positioned around it. Each fan has 3 blades and a fixed speed n[1-8], related to it height above the ground level, AND the carousel is turning around on its axis.

Imagine trying to measure ( or model ) the motion of any 1 quantum scale blade while the carousel rotates.

-=-=-=-=-

Spheres are OUT, and I'll explain why using the simplest reasoning I can.

The "Euler" Formulation of platonic solids holds the mathematical key to understanding how Spheres and Tetrahedrons match mathematically, but NOT Geometrically. There is a 4pi gaussian surface curvature with both Spheres and Tetrahedrons. The two topologies share this mathematical property, yet it is obvious that spheres are not tetrahedrons.

Tetryons have a Z component, thus taking up a 3D volume -- not to be confused with the 2d mass-energy geometries. There is absolutely no energy inside of the Tetryons when they form. This null energy zone is how quantum 'gravity' is explained.

-=-=-=-=-

Gravity is the pure representation of the null energy space inside of each Tetryon. So Matter is the sum total of all the Tetrahedrons that comprise the body in question. NULL space, meaning absolutely no energy inside the Tetryons ( or a vacuum energy displacement by all Matter Topologies, to say it another way ). Energy seeks to equalize and Matter Topologies are then additive/attractive with respect to one another.

...but there's more going on...The word 'gravitational' is this notion of 'gravity' combined with the simultaneous forces of the KEM fields surrounding bodies of Matter in Motion. The KEM is a secondary field of force that must be considered. [KEM: Kinetic-Electro-Magnetic fields] And then we have the radiating field of the Sun itself which is all part of our orbital mechanics.

-=-=-=-=-

Think 'ideal inductive loops'. At the quantum level there is no resistance. We can call these triangles, ideal Inductive masses, and can then see from an electrical engineering perspective that inductive masses resist changes to their energy. This is related back to Inertial mass.

The low level EM fields permeating the space between Matter forms a background vacuum energy density.

Matter Topologies form perfect quantum Faraday cages, excluding all energies thus creating nullspace.

Vacuum Energy is EM energy that permeates and fills any spacetime geometry.

Photons do not require the aether to propagate, however the aether is permeated with 'weak' superposition EM fields.

[Tetryonics101]

I wish that 2d equilateral triangle, a chiral (left and right handed variants) entity with charges, fields, three equilateral sides, and inductance along one side, had a punchy name. There's more to that little triangle, both in attributes (charge, field, shape, inductance, chiralty, ...) and in fundamental importance to this theory, than the various descriptive phrases such as "a Planck quanta" convey.

Proper naming of the core components of a construct is vital in my view ... essential to the presentation of that construct to a wider audience :).



I know this can appear to be a non-linear process, and part of it is. You are right that an optimization of language in general is key. Kelvin could explain his reasoning for his naming conventions better than I.

Of note:

mass is never capitalized, even at the beginning of sentences... ( mass-geometries = 2d planar )

Matter is always capitalized...Matter Topologies = 3D volume, with nullspace inside tetrahedrons )

This is to avoid confusion between the two and to continue on with the full differentiation between mass and Matter in physics. Einstein lumped both parties into the same Stress Energy Tensor. Thus failing to see yet a deeper distinction.

[ThePythonicCow]

I know this can appear to be a non-linear process, and part of it is.
Most interesting stuff is non-linear -- that's good :)

[Tetryonics101]

"If a new scientific principle is developed that better fits the observables, explains the existing mechanics while making testable predictions, then it should be understood, debated, tested and then accepted - even if centuries of dogma must fall in the process. That is science." -- Abraham

[Tetryonics101]

I want to take a moment and mention that all the Youtube videos are based on Version 1 materials. The 'Alpha' symbol was used for Quantized Angular Momenta in all the available vids. T107 is in fact not released and nowhere to be found. No need to search for it as it was never uploaded ( and most probably, for good reason ??).

Tetryonics Version 2, or 'Principia Mathematica' employs the use of 'OMEGA' as the symbol for QAM (Quantized Angular Momenta).

[Tetryonics101]

"Those that study Tetryonics to the point of familiarity with the theory will discover that SR is a mathematical description of the EM fields about material objects [and plasma environments around stars] and that GR is an extension of the same to include Newtonian gravity but fails to differentiate between mass & MAtter [using instead stress energy tensors] thus its failure to explain or formulate a field eqn for quantum gravity.

Tetryonics strength is in its ability to geometrically differentiate 2d mass-energy scalars [bosons/photons] from 3D Matter topologies [tetryons/fermions] and thus show the true mechanics underpinning Universal Gravitaion [Gravity + SR] on all energy levels. [string theory is thus relegated to the pages of history in the process]"

[StandingWave]

I'm finding this fascinating and intuitively 'right' though I can't follow much of the detailed exposition with the liberal, required use of jargon for which I have yet to create internal referants. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Paul. We live in an extremely exciting time of major paradigm shifts in so many disciplines! :dancing:

[ThePythonicCow]

I'm finding this fascinating and intuitively 'right' though I can't follow much of the detailed exposition with the liberal, required use of jargon for which I have yet to create internal referants.
Yes, that's another problem with, or limitation of, Kelvin Abraham's exposition. He presumes considerable familiarity with the vocabulary that quantum mechanics uses to describe the various sub-atomic particles, energies, forces and such, and that's just in his initial presentations. Few people have that. When I glanced ahead to his presentation of how atoms are formed using his model, he assumed familiarity with chemical properties, such as electron shell organization, that are manifest in the classic Periodic Table of Elements. I have such a table on my wall, next to where I sit, because I refer to it regularly, and I have been studying aspects of this table for half a century now. Most people can't say that.

I say "another", because I've already alluded to the problem (in my view) with naming:

not having a clear name for the most fundamental object in his entire theory, that equilateral triangle shaped, chiral, charged, inductive, quanta of mass-energy from which he forms all else, including photons and matter, and
naming his overall theory after one of the derived objects, the tetrahydron shaped formation of four of these triangles that forms the basis of all matter, rather than after that unclearly named fundamental triangle itself.

There is a third problem with Kelvin's exposition, a lack of putting things in the context of an overall "big picture". He doesn't tell you what he's going to tell you, in the context of material you might likely relate to, then tell you the details, then tell you what he told you. Rather he just starts describing the details, with frequent comparisons to conventional quantum mechanics as if you were already familiar with that.

He's almost an idiot savant, with an absolutely brilliant and original insight into something of profound importance that no one else that I know of had seen, wonderfully illustrated in a series of carefully annotated images ... but we may need to form a "translation team" to bring it to a wider audience.

First however I am going to have to read and understand what he's presented in his "native language", or else I would surely make gross errors in "translating" it.

[StandingWave]

Paul, I think your approach and understanding is going to allow just what you describe - bring this to a wider audience. Our understanding of the universe must be accesible to everyone in the simple, clear terms that relate to our direct, intuitive experience of reality. I look forward to being a spectator to the collaborative process you describe. Perhaps as I begin to 'see' the concepts and create an internal reference system to my own lived experience I will be able to contribute whatever insights arise. Mighty work - again: Thank You!

[Snoweagle]

I want to take a moment and mention that all the Youtube videos are based on Version 1 materials. The 'Alpha' symbol was used for Quantized Angular Momenta in all the available vids. T107 is in fact not released and nowhere to be found. No need to search for it as it was never uploaded ( and most probably, for good reason ??).

Tetryonics Version 2, or 'Principia Mathematica' employs the use of 'OMEGA' as the symbol for QAM (Quantized Angular Momenta).

It is difficult to form a critique at this point but am already extremely concerned at what appears to be missing. T107 is missing. There is also something of immense importance that also appears to be missing as well.

Could T107 be the study of Magnetism. Not the Electrical/Magnetic relationship but specifically magnetism?

It is very interesting T107 appeared before the Chemistry video where there does appear to be reference to magnetic properties which I would strongly expect, though without referring to Magnetism in any form of depth will be ignored by the student. This will drive the student into the "traditional" and "classic" methods of Mechanical Sciences over that of the Electrical. That is what troubles me.

Other than that at this time, I will review this material as interesting for the manner it portrays the "titchy" sciences as the presentaion is indeed novel and meritous.

Intuitively, I strongly believe that Kelvin Abraham was mentored directly with this message and he is not acting alone.

[Ahnung-quay]

I just watched the Johan Oldenkamp interview with Kelvin.

My impression is that Kelvin Abraham is an honest person. He presented his theory in a humble manner, going as far as trying to explain an understanding of why his theory is not being readily accepted by mainstream scientists.

I like the fact that he is still working on the theory and that he is willing to admit that. I also like the fact that he is giving his information away for free to anyone who would use the information to benefit humanity. Our mainstream science is so closed off and money driven!

Kelvin joins a list of people who are doing independent research such as Jeffrey with his cytocosmos/metabiology theory and Johan Oldenkamp; not only researching independently but sharing their work freely.

He states right from the start that beginning to work with tetryonics requires right brain involvement. I believe that his intuitive flashes of insight have come through his right brain thinking. He is applying those insights using left brain logic. Whole brain thinking is one of the things that has been lacking in main stream science. Even main stream scientists admit to flashes of insight that they can't explain logically.

I'm just getting started with researching his ideas. I find the chemistry portion very intriguing, although I'm having to filter it through memories of standard chemistry instruction from thirty years ago. The physics portion is hard to understand for me because I don't know the underlying mathematics. I do have a basic grasp of the concepts of physics and I will have to go from there. Flushing out explanations would be great especially for those of us with minimal scientific experience!

He feels that the universe is constructed like a big machine although he admits that there is a consciousness component to it. I have faith that there is a spiritual component as well.

I get the feeling that Kelvin Abraham is coming from his heart in a good way. It'll be interesting to see where his research goes. I hope that I can grasp it all!

[Tetryonics101]

Like any new language, a familiarity with the new terms does take some time. I find it much simpler now that I've gazed upon the materials for this long. You're points are all valid, yet as the theory developed over time, it was necessary to invent word descriptors filling in the gaps to current theory where no other valid explanation existed.

Geometry is king,
Math is okay,
English sucks...

The notion of a Planck "Quoin" can also be used to describe a single equilateral Planck Quanta of mass-energy momenta. Everyone will come to understand certain aspects of T-theory in their own way, however we caution newcomers to the theory to start with QM book 1 or Geometrics book 5. Delving into the more advanced sections before understanding the foundations will only serve to add confusion.

Once your brain adjusts with it all, and you become familiar with exactly how these shapes interact and how they look when they flip and rotate, you find that it becomes very quick.

It's like learning another language. Initially, when you are learning it, you are constantly thinking what you want to say in your original language, and then translating it before you speak. Once you have immersed yourself and learned the second language, you don't tend to do that. You just think and speak in the foreign language.

[Tetryonics101]

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s47/shixta/Tetryonics/Tetryonics0706-BosonsampFermions.jpg (http://s149.photobucket.com/user/shixta/media/Tetryonics/Tetryonics0706-BosonsampFermions.jpg.html)

[ThePythonicCow]

Tetryonics101,

Kelvin states that in past years, he has uploaded material to PirateBay (torrents). The first such torrent that I am trying now, randomly selected "Tetryonics [1] - Quantum Mechanics.f4v.torrent", has found no torrent servers in a day of looking.

Do you know of another way to get whatever it was that Kelvin uploaded into torrents?

Once I accumulate Kelvin's current material (there seems to be quite a bit of it), I might get around to indexing it and uploading it to my website, as it seems you have done with some (all?) of this material on your website http://tetryonictheory.com/.

[Tetryonics101]

The Google plus page should do, but also check out Kelvin's personal page. I haven't really followed the torrent trail. I'll see what I can find.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/101091059990562251330?cfem=1
(https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/101091059990562251330?cfem=1)

Here's a downloadable collection of 'all' version 2 materials to date.

http://holoversity.eu/cloud/

Click: Courses >> Kelvin Abraham >> Tetryonics and there you have it.

The work, I've put together on the tetryonictheory site is always a work in progress.

[ThePythonicCow]

The Google plus page should do, but also check out Kelvin's personal page. I haven't really followed the torrent trail. I'll see what I can find.

It may well be that Kelvin used torrents more a couple of years ago, and is using Google plus more now, and it may well be that there is nothing worth getting in the torrents that is not also on Google plus.

I tried the torrents first, because I'm an "old school" guy. I remember once upgrading from a 120 baud modem to a 300 baud modem, and being delighted with a connection speed that could almost keep up with my typing <grin>.

But looking at Kelvin's Google+ presence, he seems to use that quite a bit now:

https://plus.google.com/communities/101091059990562251330/
https://plus.google.com/111171209759618479199
https://plus.google.com/113934625762623381989
https://plus.google.com/106382670797602742554


So ... in short ... if you don't easily find something worth having that is a torrent, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[WhiteLove]

Y4btW7CeyRQ

[ThePythonicCow]

Ok - perhaps you can explain something to me, Tetryonics101.

I've been hoping that Kelvin Abraham's equating of (1) the speed of light in a vacuum squared, aka C squared, with (2) time would make sense to me after I listened to it being reasserted enough times. But it doesn't.

For example in the video T104 Spatial geometries & mEM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVXYwoNEkf8), starting at 2m04s, Kelvin says:

If you were to measure, map, the geometry formed by light radiating in any unit of time, it will form a spherical [Aside - surely he means circular?] geometry around the energy itself, as indicated here with seconds as a planar measure of C-squared, in this case per second. The two are in fact equivalent. C-squared is one second, and one second is C-squared, depending on whether you are using classical physics, or whether you are going to use the relativistic physics of Einstein and his General Relativity. In either case, the units must be defined and used appropriately. We can of course define Cartesian geometry using the same method of the propagation of energy in the X, Y, and Z directions, forming cubic C geometries, but more than likely, as we measure the propagation of light in horizontal and vertical directions, we measure it as a spherical volume of space created by two light circles, C-squared by C-squared, in which case we have a quadrature or a quaternion C geometry in which to measure the energy content within that region of space and that energy content can be either energy itself or it can be charge or it can be matter and in the case of Einstein's formulation of General Relativity, mass energy and matter are all lumped together and into the stress energy tensor and just all these words just reflect the density of the energy in its various forms.
I can't begin to describe how utterly mind numbingly opaque such statements are to me.

Can you explain the above?

[Tetryonics101]

If you were to measure, map, the geometry formed by light radiating in any unit of time, it will form a spherical [Aside - surely he means circular?]

Yes, surely he meant circular in this case, where describing a 2d planar measurement.

-=-=-=-

"c^2 is a spatial measurement of any planar region of space - used for measuring planar energies [bosons, photons EM fields] ie 2d mass-energies

c^4 is a volumetric spatial measurement of any volume of space - used for measuring 3D Matter topologies made of and containing 2d mass-energies.

https://plus.google.com/106525008644522085755/posts/Sec56myu5v9

c^2 can also be referred to as light seconds and c^4 as light seconds squared if you like.

https://plus.google.com/106525008644522085755/posts/ecEz3DK3QtR

Thus allowing Tetryonics to define mass as Energy per light second [m=E/c^2] and 3D Matter as Energy per light second squared [E/c^4]

Even modern physics can't explain the use of these terms and yet they use them all the time throughout physics..... constantly swapping mass for Matter and vice versa... and calling photons etc mass-less particles when in fact they are Matter-less or weightless fields." -- Tetryonics

[ThePythonicCow]

c^2 can also be referred to as light seconds and c^4 as light seconds squared if you like.

https://plus.google.com/106525008644522085755/posts/ecEz3DK3QtR

But 'c' is the speed of light in a vacuum, in units of length/time, as in meters/second, right? How can that be referred to as "light seconds", which is a unit of length (how far light travels in a second, in a vacuum).

So c^2 (c squared) is in units such as meters^2/seconds^2, right? How is that a measure of area? How can that be referred to as light seconds squared?

And shouldn't we use a cubic for volume? If c^2 is area, then shouldn't c^3, not c^4, be volume?

And how can one call c^4 (which would be in units such as meters^4/seconds^4) "light seconds squared" ?

And why does changing the 3D co-ordinate system from Cartesian to Spherical change the metric from 3rd power to 4th power? Shouldn't it still be 3 dimensional volume?

And in the image you link at https://plus.google.com/+SageABRAHAM/posts/ecEz3DK3QtR, shouldn't C^4 be 8.077608713e33 spherical meters per seconds to the fourth, not per second ?

And could you explain to me the meaning of his label "Riemannian curvilinear" in that slide, and his use of "quarternion" that he uses sometimes in the same context discussing this?

These terms, units and exponents are making no sense to me.

[ThePythonicCow]

Oh - and elsewhere, if I recall correctly (which I might well not be doing, as I don't get this yet), Kelvin refers to C^2 as a unit of time, in seconds. So, is C^2:

the speed of light squared (meters^2/seconds^2)
a unit of distance, light seconds (meters), or
a unit of time (seconds)

[Tetryonics101]

"Tetryonic spatial geometries - Defining and measuring spatial coordinate systems using the speed of light in a vacuum [c].

'c' forms a constant of proportionality for different spacio-Temporal co-ordinate systems used to measure mass-ENERGY-Matter.

c^1 = vector directions [for Force]
c^2 = planar geometries [for mass]
c^3 = Cartesian coordinates [for entropy]
c^4 = spherical coordinate systems [for Matter]

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

c^2 is for 2D planar energies - Bosons, Photons
c^4 is for 3D volumes with energy - Matter

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Ever wondered what the C squared in Einstein's E=mc^2 was all about?
Or perhaps the c^4 in his formula for gravitation?

It's simply the result of using 'c' as the basis for the chosen co-ordinate systems." - KCA

https://plus.google.com/+SageABRAHAM/posts/EYF7tLwxpPn

[Tetryonics101]

Energy propagating along various axises create SPACE-TIME co-ordinate systems [ie Light creates c^2 space-time co-ordinates [seconds] - & 2 orthogonal beams of light create c^4 space-time [s^2 =c^4] ]. We can equate c^2 to seconds & c^4 to seconds squared for Space-Time co-ordinate systems. This clearly shows the connection between TIME in seconds and SPACE in [c^n directions].

[ThePythonicCow]

"Tetryonic spatial geometries - Defining and measuring spatial coordinate systems using the speed of light in a vacuum [c].

'c' forms a constant of proportionality for different spacio-Temporal co-ordinate systems used to measure mass-ENERGY-Matter.
So could Kelvin have chosen any four constants k1, k2, k3 and k4 ?

Is it relevant that the four constants are the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th power of the same number?

Is it relevant that the four constants are the first four powers of the speed of light in a vacuum?

How do the units work out, m/s, m^2/s^2, m^3/s^3, and m^4/s^4 ... makes no sense to me.

What is the physical significance of these constants?

How would one know if one got one of the constants wrong ... are they "falsifiable" ?

[ThePythonicCow]

[ie Light creates c^2 space-time co-ordinates [seconds] ...This clearly shows the connection between TIME in seconds and SPACE in [c^n directions].

It's not clear to me ;).

How does light "create C squared space-time co-ordinates"?

[Tetryonics101]

The linear vector of divergent energy ( the pink arrows in the spacial co-ordinates image -- https://plus.google.com/+SageABRAHAM/posts/Sec56myu5v9 ) forms various co-ordinate systems based on its vector direction per unit of time.

We know the distance that the speed of light travels in one second, so 'c' is the particular constant in use.

As a constant of proportionality, we need to use the correct spacial co-ordinate system depending on what form of energy we happen to be measuring, per second.

To understand 'c^2', think about two beams of light radiating out from a source, and the leading edges of the beams define a circular boundary, which describes an area of square meters bounded by the 'light circle.'

Note: You can use c^3 to measure but it becomes far simpler to rationalize the equations using c^4 when we start working with Gravitational interactions.

'c' = the linear distance light travels per second = 299,792,458 m/s

'c^2' = the radial or circular square meters mapped out by light when radiating out in two directions from a point source per second = 8.987551787e+16 m^2/s^2

'c^3' = Cartesian co-ordinates, x, y, and z - thus mapping the cubic volume in meters, that light travels per light second = 2.694400242e+25 m^3 / s^3

'c^4' = The spherical meters mapped out by two radiating orthogonal beams of light per light second. = 8.077608713e+33 m^4 / s^4

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The circles around Planck triangles are the region of space mapped out by light per unit of time [ie in 1 sec light radiates in 2 directions at c to form a circle with a radius of c, a circumference of pi [2c] and an area of pi[c^2].

You'll find lots of units like c^2, c^3 and c^4 within the maths of physics - only Tetryonic theory reveals what these terms really are [spatial coordinate systems based on the speed of light].

These c^2 [Euclidean], c^3 [Cartesian] and c^4 [Spherical] coordinate systems based on the speed of light are used to geometrically differentiate planar ENERGIES from 2d mass and from 3D Matter in physics, clearing up much of the confusion of the existing mathematics.

ENERGY quanta is a Planck triangle without a circular spatial coordinate surrounding is [E].

2d mass is Energy per light second [E/c^2], a triangle with a circle, and shows us an algebraic rearranging of the terms familiar to us in the E=mc^2 formulation.

So ( mass= Energy/c^2 )...or Inertial mass is equal to the energy content per light second (c^2).

3D MATTER is shown as a tetrahedral form of Energy per light second squared [E/c^4].

[ThePythonicCow]

We know the distance that the speed of light travels in one second, so 'c' is the particular constant in use.
You're kidding me :) ?

The constant 'c' is not a distance in common usage in such topics. It is a velocity, the speed of light in a vacuum. It has units such as meters/second or miles/second, not meters or miles.

If someone chooses to use 'c' in a different way, say as a distance, then they owe it to the reader to spell that out in a BIG BOLD CAVEAT, and to further be pedantic as to when they are using 'c' as a distance, and when they are referring to more common uses where 'c' is a velocity. It would be far better not to introduce such a confusion in the first place.

Kelvin's apparent lack of discipline in handling various units of length, time, velocity, that this seems to exemplify, is disappointing, is a significant obstacle to his successfully communicating his insights, and casts a shadow of doubt across his work.

There may well be fundamental kernels of truth in his work ... but such left-brained sloppiness risks burying such kernels in a pile of confusion.

[ThePythonicCow]

If I am a new hire on a crew of carpenters, and I observe them pounding in screws with a hammer, while leaving a perfectly fine screwdriver in their tool chest, I do NOT arrogantly proclaim to them that I have some fine new insight, that this (picking up the screwdriver) is a true hammer, not the thing in their hands.

Rather I suggest they use their screwdriver instead of their hammer, respecting their existing names so long as they are suitable, and respectfully introducing new terminology for new things, if they lack common names.

If, as happens occasionally, I most rework the terminology more substantially, then I respectfully and patiently explain what I am doing and why that is necessary. I don't just proclaim that they were wrong and I have new insights, and then proceed to use my new terminology as something obviously true, woe be to anyone not sufficiently aware to realize the superiority of my terms and concepts.

[Tetryonics101]

'c' is obviously a velocity with units of m/s, but specifically describing the natural velocity of energy. Velocity is defined as the rate of change of position with respect to time. A measurement of velocity 'c' requires knowledge of the linear meters traveled per second. That's what I was saying with..."We know the distance that the speed of light travels in one second, so 'c' is the particular constant in use." I guess I'm not sure where the confusion is there?

Would it have helped if I stated?...We know the linear meters (299,792,458 meters - which is a distance) that light travels per unit of time (seconds).

Then we are able to define 'c' as a velocity with units of m/s.

"Care needs to be taken where mass (E/c^2) and seconds appear in the same equation, because c^2 is a radial spatial measure of 'light seconds' as Tetryonics terms it and can be equivalent to each other depending on the equation and units used.

Ie inertial mass is a measure of Energy per light second (E/c^2)"

I'm happy to patiently explain things ( the best I can - as a student of the work ), but what I find, more often than not, is a reporting of these methods is often misunderstood as being arrogant. Not the intention I assure you. The intention is to share, and hopefully find a pathway to helping others approach the teaching. I'm not the master, the expert or the genius here, but a student just like yourself. Where a roadblock presents itself, I strive to find a more accurate way to see the fullest picture available via T-theory insight.

So where did I go wrong again?

[ThePythonicCow]

'c' is obviously a velocity with units of m/s, but specifically describing the natural velocity of energy. Velocity is defined as the rate of change of position with respect to time. A measurement of velocity 'c' requires knowledge of the linear meters traveled per second. That's what I was saying with..."We know the distance that the speed of light travels in one second, so 'c' is the particular constant in use." I guess I'm not sure where the confusion is there?

Would it have helped if I stated?...We know the linear meters (299,792,458 meters - which is a distance) that light travels per unit of time (seconds).

Then we are able to define 'c' as a velocity with units of m/s.

"Care needs to be taken where mass (E/c^2) and seconds appear in the same equation, because c^2 is a radial spatial measure of 'light seconds' as Tetryonics terms it and can be equivalent to each other depending on the equation and units used.

Ie inertial mass is a measure of Energy per light second (E/c^2)"

I'm happy to patiently explain things ( the best I can - as a student of the work ), but what I find, more often than not, is a reporting of these methods is often misunderstood as being arrogant. Not the intention I assure you. The intention is to share, and hopefully find a pathway to helping others approach the teaching. I'm not the master, the expert or the genius here, but a student just like yourself. Where a roadblock presents itself, I strive to find a more accurate way to see the fullest picture available via T-theory insight.

So where did I go wrong again?

The arrogance that annoyed me was that of Kelvin Abraham, after I once again gave up listening to one of his many youtube videos. Nothing to do with yourself. My apologies for the confusion.

The unit confusion I find in many places, including both Kelvin's work, and above when you posted:

'c' = the linear distance light travels per second = 299,792,458 m/s

'c^2' = the radial or circular square meters mapped out by light when radiating out in two directions from a point source per second = 8.987551787e+16 m^2/s^2

'c^3' = Cartesian co-ordinates, x, y, and z - thus mapping the cubic volume in meters, that light travels per light second = 2.694400242e+25 m^3 / s^3

'c^4' = The spherical meters mapped out by two radiating orthogonal beams of light per light second. = 8.077608713e+33 m^4 / s^4

You have c as a distance, c^2 as square meters (area), c^3 as a cubic volume, and c^4 as spherical meters.

C is not the distance light travels in a second, but the velocity at which it travels that, or any other, distance, in a vacuum.

Similarly for area and volume.

The C^4 has a further problem ... volume is cubic (c^3), whether of a cube or a sphere. Attaching the label "quaternion" to C^4, as Kelvin does, doesn't help me. In my limited awareness, quaternions are used to express rotations of a three dimensional object about a point, not to express positions in or volumes of three dimensional space.

[ThePythonicCow]

I am listening again to Wallace Thornhill's The Long Path to Understanding Gravity (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?84565-Wallace-Thornhill-The-Long-Path-to-Understanding-Gravity), which I posted a few months ago.

I am finding Thornhill's explanation of gravity, as the result of the repulsions and attractions of dipoles formed by the distortions of the negative electrons and positive protons in atoms, in the presence of strong magnetic fields, to be quite a bit more compelling explanation than Kelvin Abraham's explanation of gravity as (what seems to me to be characterized as) a "black hole" in the middle of the tetrahedrons that form his basic unit of Matter.

I will confess that my initial enthusiasm for tetryonics has now diminished to about zero.

[ThePythonicCow]

Those interested in pursuing Tetryonics further might find this thread from June 2013 on open-source-energy.org to be interesting: Tetryonic Theory - The Charged Quantum Geometry of mass-ENERGY-Matter (http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=1233.0)

[ThePythonicCow]

.
Here's some other material, from a different researcher, Dan Davidson, presents the relation between shapes, such as triangles and tetrahedrons, and the elemental forces generated by the aether.

mEBtBTUsQ3E
Here's the text from the above Youtube video:

==========


Shape Power as Universal Resonance by Dan A. Davidson

Tesla Tech, Inc 2004 - Speech by Dan A. Davidson

Mr. Davidson has been doing research in gravitational physics, free energy systems, and electronic medicine for over 35 years. He has concentrated his research efforts in understanding the nature of energy and how it relates to the forces of gravity, electricity and magnetism. Over the years of research he has witnessed and collected many fascinating stories of well documented bizarre incidents that point to a new understanding of science. He believes that the scientific community is in the process of developing a new paradigm in our understanding of nature which will radically change the physical sciences. His degrees in mathematics and electrical engineering have provided a basis to relate orthodox science concepts to advanced experimental research. Mr. Davidson is a strong advocate of experimentation and always backs up his theory with actual working experiments and publishes experimentally verified information.

This presentation will briefly summarize the Shape Power phenomenon whereby physical shapes convert the ether to other forces as discovered by Mr. Davidson, followed by research findings of a universal resonance principal where shape, mass, frequency, and other quantities fit into a natural, universal order of creation.

Preliminary analysis shows that there is a basic pattern to creation that exists from the sub-atomic level to the higher levels of the physical universe. This discovery leads to a cohesive understanding of how the ether manifests on various levels and opens the door to a new understanding of how free energy and gravity control is possible.

A presentation at the Tesla Technology conference in 2004.
==========

Here's Dan Davidson's primary eBook, released in 1997, on the topic: Shape Power (pdf) (http://thepythoniccow.us/Dan_A_Davidson_Shape_Power.pdf): A treatise on how form converts universal aether into electromagnetic and gavitic forces and related discoveries in gravitational physics.

==========

The references that Davidson provides during his presentation in the above Youtube video and in his Shape Power eBook provide good starting points for further searches on this topic.

[ThePythonicCow]

==========

Here's Dan Davidson's primary eBook, released in 1997, on the topic: Shape Power (pdf) (http://thepythoniccow.us/Dan_A_Davidson_Shape_Power.pdf): A treatise on how form converts universal aether into electromagnetic and gavitic forces and related discoveries in gravitational physics.

==========
Ah - Dan Davidson apparently is still selling this book, as a paperback, for $19.95, at http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/books/590005.htm (or you can get a used copy of that paperback on Amazon, for a few hundred dollars, if your personal wealth is burdening you excessively.)

I found Dan Davidson's work on Johan Oldenkamp's website, in his new post: Shape-based Aether Dynamics (http://whollyscience.org/shape-based-aether-dynamics/)

[ThePythonicCow]

Kelvin Abraham has released a new Youtube video series, explaining Tetryonics:

Tetryonic Uni 0001 - An introduction to Tetryonics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMa2zkHU6b0)
Tetryonic Uni 0002 - Common terms and their use in Tetryonics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3fkbWY_mTU)
Tetryonic Uni 0003 - Tetryonic mass-energy templates (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXEcCMZxa1I)
Tetryonic Uni 0004 - SQUARED numbers from EQUILATERAL geometries (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYRw7fdIMnQ)
Tetryonic Uni 0005 - Spatial coordinate systems (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXnyikDSYi0)
Tetryonic Uni 0006 - The quantum geometrics of physics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_TqJ6O8p0I)
Tetryonic Uni 0007 - Scalar EM mass-energy quantisation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zGqRQnNagc)
Tetryonic Uni 0008 - charged ZPFs & mass-ENERGY-Matter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WG-mHu-8T8)

I've only listened to snippets of these videos.

[Tetryonics101]

I recommend anyone interested in these concepts to check the Tetryonic University videos out. It's great starting point as well as a refresher course.

[Tetryonics101]

http://TeslaTech.TetryonicTheory.com