The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: the universe as a ten dimensional binary system  (Read 81791 times)

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #275 on: 18/06/2009 20:31:51 »
I think I may have lost you here.  The proposal is that fire is simply broken strings of extraneous fields of zipons that then manifest as truants.  Lost momentum - gained mass.  So.  When fire has burned out we are left with ashes or loosely bound carbon - or some such.  The extraneous magnetic fields or 'curly little numbers' have simply 'left the building' so to speak.  They've gone, and with their departure the remaining material that has been burned is a loose collection of unbound matter. (edit) Ash or smoke. The thing that previously held the structure together is no longer there. 

In the manufacture of iron - and in the same way - the flames that emanate from from the burning coal or coke or fuel (edit) causes the loss of the bound state of the coke/coal and moves these binding fields to the newly manufactured amalgam.

I've been saying this throughout.  Is this any clearer?
« Last Edit: 18/06/2009 20:37:39 by witsend »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #276 on: 18/06/2009 21:42:48 »
Well, I don't know; you seem to be proposing that combustion is something other than a chemical reaction. A familiar reaction is carbon + oxygen resulting in heat and carbon dioxide. Are you referring to the chemical kind of fire we know about? It kinda reminds me of the old earth, air, fire, and water scheme. :)
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #277 on: 19/06/2009 07:24:25 »
Well, I don't know; you seem to be proposing that combustion is something other than a chemical reaction.

Actually, what I'm trying to point to is this is the 'thing' that causes the chemical reaction.  The proposal being that covalent bonding is actually just the interaction of these extraneous zipons that unravelled from the fuel, and then found a new home. 

So.  That chemical reaction is proposed to be initiated by the unravelling and redistribution of zipons through space.  Here's how this is proposed to take place.  Just as broken strings of zipons from the primary fields of space unravel into nebulae, so broken strings of extraneous fields in gross amalgams can unravel to form flames.  Flames are, therefore the sum of zipons that have lost their momentum and gained mass to become manifest in our own time frame.  The strings are broken due to applied friction or some such.  This sets off a chain reaction.

Having manifested - they then need to find a 'new home'.  Therefore they move through space on an 'exploration trip' - so to speak.  Some of them find - say -  2 oxygen  atoms and some carbon from the smoke.  And they then form carbon dioxide.  Others can find - for instance - types of silicones and form the crystalline lattice of glass and such like.  Some of these zipons find partners and spin off as photons. Still others simply decay as virtual particles to slot into the strings that form the big magnetic field of the earth. 

But when they leave their 'previous abodes' so to speak, they leave behind them unbound atoms that were previously bound and shaped by them.  The waste product that results from this is ash - carbon dioxide - photons - whatever.

The model proposes that when coke, coal, fuel of any type burns - the actual 'flame' is the result of the redistribution of these binding fields into new forms of bound matter.  Any covalent condition is the fusion of atoms by these binding fields.

In the same way when these flames are exposed to a loose collection of iron atoms they are able to move as a flame, through space,  and recongregate among the atoms of that loose amalgam.  And then, in turn, they can reconstitute the condition of that loose amalgam into a solidly bound amalgam.  They have moved from the material of the fuel and simply transferred their binding abilities from the fuel to the material of the iron.  And some have moved out of the field to become photons.  And others have found a pair of conveniently placed oxygen atoms to form them into carbon dioxide. And so on.

In effect the zipons are the medium through which matter is constituted or manufactured.

So.  Again, the zipons in the field are cold, fast and small and when those fields unravel they become hot, slow and big in a precise but inverse ratio.  We see that hot, slow, big condition as fire.  So I am proposing that this is the actual property of fire.  We are looking at truants that have become manifest inside our dimensions.

When they 'find their new home' so to speak then they lose their properties of heat, slowness and mass to revert to their earlier condition of cold, fast and small to operate outside our measuring dimensions.  They become the 'curly little things' that orbit atoms inside amalgams.  They've found a new abode.  They're just there but no longer visible.  We cannot pick up a charge, because they're balanced.  We cannot find them because they're moving too fast and they're way too small.  But it is proposed that they are, nonetheless, the thing that shapes that amalgam into an identifiable object.

So in effect I'm proposing that this is the foundation for all chemical reactions that are caused by fire.  Fire is still a chemical reaction.  The model suggests that it may simply be a different expression of a zipon when it is reconstituting its position in space.  Moving on, so to speak.  To the best of my knowledge this also does not conflict with your 'final arbiter'.  It's a broad brushstroke of how the model proposes zipons form our observable universe - but as an invisible background structure.

And it also has the required balance.  Here it's the perfect conservation of energy which has simply changed matter from one form to another form.  This is excepting those zipons that decayed.  But as they would only return to the broader containing magnetic field from whence the probably originated, then, here too is a total conservation of mass, and charge.
   


 
« Last Edit: 19/06/2009 09:08:28 by witsend »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #278 on: 19/06/2009 12:29:03 »
I think I understand a little better. Your image starts with zipons in an invisible place and they become visible when they somehow are ejected from a structure of zipons moving at 2c. Flame is a different expression of a zipon, we could call it a state of zipons. We see this state as flame.

 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #279 on: 19/06/2009 13:26:09 »
I think I understand a little better. Your image starts with zipons in an invisible place and they become visible when they somehow are ejected from a structure of zipons moving at 2c. Flame is a different expression of a zipon, we could call it a state of zipons. We see this state as flame. Vern

Hi Vern.  SORT OF.  Flame is a truant.  Remember the photon.  Two truants meeting across the GREAT DIVIDE?  The vacuum of space?  That photon was made from 2 truants - one too big and one too small?

If you recall?  Then in the same way - we have an unravelled string - exactly the same thing, but much much smaller.  This string sits between atoms in wood? fuel, coke - whatever.  These are zipons.  Friction causes a break in the string. The zipons unravel, collapse into each other.  They become bigger slower or smaller faster.  We only see the bigger slower truants.  We see them literally as flame.

If you get this, then perhaps you could read the previous post again and see if it makes better sense.

Glad your there.

 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #280 on: 19/06/2009 15:31:41 »
The server is down a lot for me here, so when I finsih a reply, I may or may not be able to send it. But here goes again.

I am trying to find some reasoning that forces your conclusions. So far I see your guesses about nature, but I don't get the reasoning that forces nature to conform to your guesses. I'll spend some time on your previous posts.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #281 on: 19/06/2009 15:40:12 »
Sorry to hear the server's collapsing.  Have you got more tornedos?  NOT guessing.  There is perfect consistency.  But maybe really badly explained.  Shall I try again?
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #282 on: 19/06/2009 16:00:44 »
Vern - are you there?  Must I give this another go?  If I don't hear from you I take it you're off line.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #283 on: 19/06/2009 17:00:08 »
Its 100 degrees and sun shine out today, so that is not the problem.

No need to start over; I'll just wade through the posts and your web site until I get the picture. It is not going to fit the way I think nature works, but I want to understand it anyway.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #284 on: 19/06/2009 17:04:35 »
Ok Vern.  I'll hold back.  I think -somehow - things are better  explained in this thread.  I'm afraid I've gone out of sequence with the blog.  Fire only comes at the end of that exercise.

Thanks for trying to bend the mind.  I'm here if you want explanations.

 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #285 on: 20/06/2009 07:02:51 »
Vern.  How's it going?  I've been obsessing all night.  I think, by now, you possibly see that I am literally identifying a magnetic particle as the 'thing' that transfers energy.  I hope so anyway.  It's profoundly simplistic.  But by adding this particle into the 'soup', and by allowing for those extra dimensions, we still get a perfect reconciliation of observed phenomena - but with the dubious advantage of a conceptual frame to support it and explain it. 

The only real advantage to this is that - if it is true, and if 'boken symmetry' is the thing that actually accounts for all the forces, including gravity and the strong forces, then both gravity and the strong nuclear force can be better understood and, possibly defeated.  I am not sure that it would be wise to try and decouple the proton - as it may result in some serious unravelling of matter.  But the process of fusion would then be better understood and it's physical applications more readily achieved.

Gravity I've given two properties.  The one is related to the casimir effect.  That gives matter weight.  The other is the actual movement of matter through magnetic fields.  This latter should be defeated by the application of different magnetic fields.  Always remember that the only thing that can defeat one magnetic field is another magnetic field.  I believe we have a clue on this in the axial spin of our earth.  If my proposals are half way right, then the axial spin is the result of our earth being trapped between two alternate energy levels from the sun.  That spin is usable.  I don't mean using the earth's spin. I mean the alignment of magnets in fields to induce that axial spin.  And we all know what changing magnetic fields do (edit) when they move through time. 
« Last Edit: 20/06/2009 07:11:54 by witsend »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #286 on: 20/06/2009 15:19:45 »
I think I understand your concepts, but I can not reconcile them with the way I suspect nature behaves.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #287 on: 20/06/2009 15:22:31 »
The question is DO THEY CLASH with nature?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #288 on: 20/06/2009 16:25:15 »
We can't really know if your concept clashes with nature. You haven't adopted numerical relationships that can be tested.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #289 on: 20/06/2009 16:29:12 »
Have been giggling again.  Your argument sounds familiar.  I need YOU to establish the numerical thingamebobs.


 
« Last Edit: 20/06/2009 23:38:57 by witsend »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #290 on: 20/06/2009 17:52:21 »
I am pretty busy playing with my own toys. :)
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #291 on: 25/06/2009 17:31:10 »
Sophiecentaur, in fairness to Socratus I think it would be more appropriate to answer you on this thread.

I started by trying to write a synposis on the model - but the post became way too long.  So.  I must please ask you to read the blog.  I develop a model of the magnetic field.  Broadly I propose that the field may comprise a particle and, with this concept I then propose that this same particle may form composites that could then describe stable particles. 

I believe that the model is logical and that the concept is developed clearly.  You do not need to read the abstract nor the introduction.  Just the magnetic field model itself.  If - having read this - you then wish to critise - not ME - but the model itself - I would be very glad to address those criticisms.

And, unless and until you actually address the points in that model you CANNOT accuse me of arm waving.  If however having read it and digested the points, and then you are still anxious to accuse me of arm waving - then I think your criticism would be valid.  But it would necessitate a reasonable grasp of the proposal.  I am not sure that you're up for it.

If you don't want to read the blog and can put up with my loosely described concepts - as Vern could manage them - then perhaps you'd like to read through this thread.  Of the two, it's possibly easier to read the blog.

I think that is fair. 
« Last Edit: 28/06/2009 20:54:44 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #292 on: 25/06/2009 19:00:36 »
I seem to remember asking for some Maths and some figures.
I found a small numerical section in which you arrive, by various combinations of rather arbitrary numbers at an  integer value the Proton rest mass in terms of the Electron mass. Amazing! you managed to find it an integer multiple.
The published value, 1836.1526724718(80) has been measured pretty accurately (the figure in brackets represents the possible uncertainty of the last two sig figs. I am not sure how you reconcile your value with that.

It is true to say (and Dan Brown will confirm) that you can take nearby integer numbers to most pairs of measurements and find a convincing set of integers which can be manipulated to produce an approximate relationship between the two measurements. (pi = about 22/7 is a popular approximation, for instance) The process is called Numerology and has been practiced by alternative Science enthusiasts for years. The fact is that there are very few whole numbers in Science, at all levels and that ratio is no exception.
You propose that a photon should have mass - of the same order asthe electron mass. That, again, is strange, bearing in mind for how many years they have been looking at  and measuring photons. With all that equipment, they have always found that photons go past and across each other without any gravitational effects. How could they have got it SO wrong? Perhaps they were trying to prove that there was no mass and only looked for confirming evidence. Someone missed a trick there then, didn't they?

The artihmetic (6X6X3= 108 and 24X24X3 = 1728 and the rest) is impeccable except that it does not tie in with measured evidence. I could not believe that was all you had to say on the matter. Is that really all your logical reasoning?

Look a bit harder and you could probably fit in the size of the Great Pyramid and the Five Regular Solids.

I give up. I was expecting a glimmer of sense. I should have known better.
I have had my differences with AKF (still do, as a matter of fact!) but he, at least, quotes serious scientific literature at me to support his ideas and uses it as more than just as a source of buzz words.
I'm sorry but I just can't take this stuff seriously.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #293 on: 25/06/2009 22:37:11 »
Hi SophieC.  I actually sent a copy of your last post together with some of your others to a couple of friends.  Both academics.  The one asked why was I  promoting the model on a forum???  Good question.  The other isn't entirely repeatable but suggested that archeologists would be interested in studying your copralites.

Me, I make allowances.  I know that concepts defeat you.   
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #294 on: 25/06/2009 23:33:52 »
But do you have an answer to the non integer reality?
If a concept is nonsense then I have a problem.
« Last Edit: 25/06/2009 23:36:52 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #295 on: 25/06/2009 23:38:34 »
The artihmetic (6X6X3= 108 and 24X24X3 = 1728 and the rest) is impeccable except that it does not tie in with measured evidence Sophiecentaur

If you cannot see the correspondence to the known features of the proton, neutron, photon and electron, then NO, I have no answer of any nature to give you.  As a physicist I would have thought you could see it for yourself.
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #296 on: 25/06/2009 23:41:52 »
The "known features" include the actual masses. Your ideas do not correspond to measured reality. How can my objection to that be wrong?
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #297 on: 25/06/2009 23:46:17 »
Remember, they 'nearly' managed to fit the planetary orbits to the five regular solids. But they got it wrong. Only they had an excuse in that the measurements were not very good in those days.You could at least try a theory that fits the measurements.
Do you not realise how much you are debasing the worth of the work that has gone before you when you dismiss  that so lightly? Are you really setting yourself above Pauli, Bohr, Rutherford.. . .?
All I am doing is questioning your admittedly amateur idea. You are rejecting all the rest in what you suggest.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #298 on: 25/06/2009 23:47:59 »
Your ideas do not correspond to measured reality. How can my objection to that be wrong? Sophiecentaur

They quite simply DO.  Perfectly.  In every possible respect.  Entirely and completely.  Do you know anything at all about particle physics??????
   
EDIT
You are rejecting all the rest in what you suggest. AND I REJECT NOTHING OF KNOWN PHYSICS.
« Last Edit: 26/06/2009 00:32:01 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #299 on: 25/06/2009 23:49:51 »
Do you?
How come the mass calculation comes out wrong then?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #299 on: 25/06/2009 23:49:51 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length