Dark matter/energy

Imagine a positive going square wave with a 50% duty cycle. The y axis represents amplitude, and the x axis represents time and direction. Now diagonally cut the leading edge of square wave......into a sawtooth wave.

That sawtooth wave is how EM radiation propagates thru space. The sawtooth is emitted as a discreet chuck in an instant. It's 1/2 period long and takes 1/2 period to pass by. BUT takes zero time to emit.

When passing by, the disturbance starts out as zero, ramps up to a maximum, then ends at maximum value, of intensity. Then there is a 1/2 period of nothing, no emission.

As you can see with this dynamic, The length of the emission can not be changed due to emitter motion. For two reasons, the emission is instant and the emitted length is emitted as a chunk. That chunk length can not be varied with emitter motion.

The only thing that can change with emitter motion, is the dead space time of the duty cycle. Only the duty cycle of the emission, can change with emitter motion. It's an asymmetric change in duty cycle.

As a matter of fact, that duty cycle can imply the velocity of the emitter.

However, the length of the emission that is detected, CAN be change with the motion of the detector. This is because unlike emission, absorption and detection take time.

The motion of the detector will change both the propagated period, along with the non-period change, in equal proportion with detector motion. A symmetric change in duty cycle. But the emitter, cause a asymmetric duty cycle change with motion.

The detector is charged up for 1/2 period upon absorption, and while there is dead time during emission, the detector resets, or discharges, giving the apparent dynamic of oscillation. Absorption is like a class B amplifier. Intermittent pulses.....which rings a tank.

This dynamic explains all of our measurements and experience with light and radio........with absolute time and length.

By using duty cycle and the analysis of it, one should be able to accurately measure BOTH, the emitter and detector relative velocities.

Soon after local time is dis-proven, space-time will be dis-proven. And all of cosmology will change.

.

Please define "instant". Do you mean in no time,zero time? If so,does the entire universe stop moving for that "instant"? It would have to,in order to require zero time for anything to occur. All of our time measurements are based on relative motions.

I have never heard of that narrative......so an instant occurrence causes the universe to freeze? So all durations in the universe, affect all velocities of the universe?

99.9999% of sight light is a reflection. Reflection is an instant act. It only has a duration because the photon has length. The act itself is instant. An instant change in direction. We know this to be true, because the reflection duration, only changes with photon length.

The EM field before emission is in rotation like counter weights held with string. The rotational speed is c. When the string is cut, the weights change direction, but keep velocity. c. The weights take a little time to change direction because the weights have inertia. BUT EM fields have no inertia and change directions without delay. LIKE a reflection. Do you remember Automan tv show?

Imagine trying to navigate this world with a delayed reflection. The reflected object would NEVER be where you see it. Like stars. Only not because of distance, but because of reflection delay. But there is no delay in reflection. We see local objects in real time. At least, in real time, as real as it can be. With the slow speed of c.

There is no delay of rotation from one end of a shaft to the other end, another instant affair. Much faster than c going down the shaft.

All EM fields that collapse takes a duration because of reactance and impedance. But an emission is an ANTI collapse(expansion).......it collapses out into space, and there is no reactance or impedance......no delay......it's instant. Space can not oppose anything.

Emission has zero duration. Propagation has 1/2 period duration as it passes. Absorption takes one FULL period. 0, 1/2, 1, periods.

I believe that I can emit one photon from a dipole, and see and confirm this narrative.

Would you like to see for yourself? You will need radio experience and an electronic hobby bench.

A antenna, or an emission simulator can not be used.....because this demonstration disproves all these sims. And our narrative of light.

If you watch those sims, they have the antenna with the same dynamic as a speaker. A media wave has an emission period of 1 period, a propagation period of 1 period and an absorption period of 1 period. And it's a continuous stream. This is why "waves" can pile up and stretch. But EM radio is completely different.....no wave.....it's a duty cycle.

The Doppler effect for waves is reversible. The whistle on the train or the whistle at the station, has the same effect on the other end.

But the shift with light is not reversible. The effect is directional. Only the phase can change with emitter motion, and only the frequency can change with detector motion.

It's asymmetrical. It's not wave-like........it's a duty cycle.

We really do not see anything as it is,only as it was a fraction of time ago.It takes time for the light to travel from whatever you are seeing to reach your eyes,ignoring the processing time of your brain to interpret what you see.

Even if you are only mm from the mirror,the image is delayed.

Light is measured as a reflection,no one has found a way to measure one-way light speed,from the source to the receiver.It may move at 1/2 C in one direction,and +1 1/2Cin the other direction.

The ball on the string never changes direction,it is always moving in a straight line,as far as it can tell.It will not continue to curve if let go,it will travel in a straight line if the person moving the string is not moving.If the person holding the string is moving,the velocity will change,but the relative straight line will not,only to an outside observer with a different frame of reference will see an apparent curve.

"Matter is not relay solid,it is just electrical fields,with lots of spaces in between.The less space a certain mass occupies, the harder it is to accelerate,and lags further behind the accelerating force field dragging everything through time. The force field lines are stretched,being delayed by the circuitous route around the internal fields of the mass,and the less space a given mass occupies,the more it warps the force field because the internal fields are more concentrated,and require more energy(warping of spacetime to accelerate.)"

Sounds like you can corрelate this with Bernoulli's principle.

Very similar,but I imagine the energy field to be flexible,and to have a "grip" on matter.As the volume/mass ratio decreases,there are less "lines of force" to "support"the mass,therefor it lags further behind the energy field velocity;Similar to a tennis racket hitting a tennis ball,versus the same racket hitting a baseball:the web of the net deflects more.

A E said that it is impossible to distinguish acceleration from gravity.

Mass is a property of charge. It's a squared momentum. A perpendicular momentum. A spin within a spin. INERTIA. It's varied with the EM density by size, and the RPM. This is done by varying the inside to outside spin ratio.

A perpendicular superposition of angular momentum. Mass.

No, mass is not a property of charge. A proton and an electron have equivalent amounts of charge but of opposite polarities. The mass of a proton is more than 3 orders of magnitude greater than an electron. A neutron has no charge yet it has about the same mass as a proton.

You are just spouting gibberish.

A proton and an electron have the same squared RPM structure. The proton is much smaller and denser than the electron, due to the direction of the magnetic to the electric. Fundamental handedness. The proton momentum is contractile, and the electron momentum is expansive. Like springs.

A neutron is a proton inside and co-planar with the electron. A neutral charge has both polarities. Both fields are still there.

Two particles are the only matter entities in this universe.

I can retire if my comments are not welcome.

I doubt you mean Raised Pavement Marker or Revolutions Per Minute so you should define the acronym, RPM and how that relates to structure.

A proton is much bigger than an electron. You might also notice in that link that the neutron is actually made of two down quarks and a single up quark. A proton is made of two up quarks and a down quark. Quarks never exist by themselves.

There was a brief period when it was believed that Beta decay demonstrated that an electron and proton existed inside a neutron but this decay process has been found to be more complicated. The emitted electron never existed inside the neutron or the nucleus.

Here is a middle-school video to refresh your schooling on atomic structure.

Different opinions are always welcome.That is how new discoveries are made.All ideas are put on the table,and all guests are welcome to take what they please.Sometimes a radical idea leads to insight on a previously unresolved problem.Geniuses are often ridiculed by others... do not be tossed about by every wind.

Most, when talking of spin and angular momentum usually understand what RPM means, sorry about that.

A proton is much, much smaller than an electron. Density and RPM is what mass is.

Because of this density, if you physically break it, it fragments and the fragment will dissolve into EM eventually and quickly. It's meaningless. Same with a neutron.

An electron has a diameter of several hundred times the diameter of a proton. And leads some to infer that an electron orbits a proton, but they do not. When bonded, they sit side by side. One very big side and one tiny weeing little side. A dipole. Which would appear as a short sharp funnel at a distance.

A charge particle, a dipole, and a nucleus is a rotationally tuned charge circuit.

"A proton is much, much smaller than an electron"

Can you provide any links to sites which confirm this?

No I can't. No one has a physical narrative for mass and matter, other than a fuzz ball. This fuzz ball is one hundred years old. And it appears that no one is interested in a physical model. Showing the physical cause and dynamic for all property properties.

In other words.....actual physics. Math replaced physics 100 yrs ago. And has kept us stupid.

The model I propose is a physical model, not a math model. And it is not my idea. It's an updated model of Parsons Magneton(1915). This update was done by scientists, who using the standard model and QM, failed to control plasma in a doughnut. They needed a model that works. This model solved the problem, not by success with the doughnut, but by showing why dirty plasma can not be corralled in that manner. Handedness prevented the dynamic. And I am quite sure you have never heard this.

Like our media, science never makes a retraction. Or if they do, it's on the back page.

However, the narrative of EM emission, propagation, absorption, the neutron, the location and purpose of a neutron, anti matter, the fallacy of constant c, and gravity.......are mine. And it all comes from the structure and dynamic of charge.

But physical dynamics are not used any longer for instruction. For instance, do you know the physical cause of inductive reactance? Not the math relationship......the actual physical motion that causes what we call inductance. Inductance happens when the current is diverted from a axial direction into the radial direction(by a changing magnetic field, by a changing current). The current spins. This gives the current a longer path than the voltage path. So, the peek current follows the peek voltage. It has a longer path. AC current develops current springs. A coil can convert ALL of the axial current into radial current. A charged coil. The proper way to look at current is NOT the flow of it, it's the alignment of charge that is the true discernment of electricity. If you play with ferrofluids you can see this dynamic.

The only modern example for the proton/electron asymmetry would be the "electronic structure" from the standard model.

99.9999999% of mass in this universe is protons. But 99.999999% percent of energy transfer comes from the electron. It's the electrons that change energy levels in an atom, not the protons. A severe environment or acceleration is needed to change a proton level. Protons are very stubborn. They are dense and spin fast and do not like to be disturbed. If you could stand beside a charge, every RPM would be one e of charge movement(current) relative to your position. An electron spin would have about 20 amps. A proton spin would have about 30,000 amps, And a proton can go much higher. 100s of k-amps. Ampere was correct, a particle is a current loop, BUT is has a helical circumference. By changing the number of turns, the circumference(RPM) can change, but keep the same length(e).

And of course we have e. e is very mis-understood. e can not be added too or subtracted from. The only thing that can be varied is the density of e. And we all know how size vs density works.

Think of a solenoid coil. The density can be change by stretching and contracting, but keeping the same length conductor. The length is e. Dense or rarefied.

How would you reason the density difference of two equal quantities?

Discernment is all I can offer.

The structure and the dynamic of the proton and an electron is the same. The quantum steps is the same for both. But the result of this structure and dynamic between the proton and electron is very different because of handedness.

A magnetic dipole is the area and/or length, of converged magnetic flux. I am talking about the M dipole, not the M field, dipole only. The direction of M flux flow thru the dipole is from the S pole, which is convergence(fountaining in).....to the N pole, which is divergence(fountaining out).

If you take a left handed coil with current, you will see that one end is N and the other end is S. A left hand coil will project a S pole in the direction of the charge motion. This means the M flow is opposite of change flow. The momentum of charge(electric) flux and M flux is in opposite directions. One momentum cancels the other. It would measure as hardly any momentum(or mass) at all. It would appear to be very light.

Now reverse the handedness of the coil. Now the N pole follows the charge flow, the two fluxes are in the same direction. Lot's of momentum. Very heavy.

The parallel fluxes are contractive, and keep the energy they have. A proton is an energy pig. The anti parallel fluxes are expansive and try to stay in an empty state. A feather.

An electron can be charged(anti-proton) to the proton levels, and a proton can be discharged(positron) to the electron levels. They can be inverted. This inverted state will not last long......because of the natural handedness. The proton will absorb environment energy and re-contract(very small) very quickly and the electron will emit and go for ground level(very large), it's natural state.

Normally a proton and an electron can not physical touch, because of the size difference. One would pass thru the other. BUT when they are the same size, they can touch. L and R rotations are opposite. When they physically touch, they unwind each other into propagated EM fields. matter-anti-matter reaction. The only worthwhile future energy source.

The attractive force between L and R particles....is limited in range because of un-equal field densities. They only attract to the point of equal density and no farther. If they try to get closer, they will repel, because of inverted density. This lets the length of a dipole to be adjusted by the electron,s energy level.........and can give us a state change(dipole length) in matter.

The circumference of a charge is helical and inside that helix is a completely enclosed M dipole flux with momentum(like a toroid coil)...........and the L flux flows opposite of charge(RPM)(no mass, large size) and the R flux flows with the charge(RPM)(much mass, small size).

All this universe from inducing and relaxing turns on a helical circumference.

Elegantly simple.