The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: the universe as a ten dimensional binary system  (Read 81889 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 #325 on: 01/07/2009 08:34:41 »
Did it never strike you that, if you continually use 'weight' in your 'calculations' you will get different answers wherever you are considering an event. What would be the point in that? Surely we are after a way of predicting what will happen anywhere. Sophiecentaur
Of course it bothered me.  Why do you think I raised the question? 

If you don't appreciate the meaning and significance of mass then you don't even start on Physics. Did the Equivalence principle escape your net when you were making up this alternative Science Salad
Yet again.  It did not escape my 'net' when making up this 'alternative science salad' using arcane language and waving my arms. Frantically.  With my mind pre-occupied as it is with dress sizes and concepts limited to headline news about pop stars - what can you expect?  Exactly which of these comments is not personal?

SophieC - I am beginning to appreciate you.  You are nothing if not predictable.  And I'm in too good a mood to be bothered.  Yet again, nothing turns me on more than a good answer.  [:X]

 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #326 on: 01/07/2009 09:13:22 »
So, if it hadn't escaped you, why have you been using the word 'weight' so freely?
« Last Edit: 01/07/2009 09:15:05 by sophiecentaur »
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #327 on: 01/07/2009 09:15:20 »
And what, exactly is "size"?
 

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 #328 on: 01/07/2009 09:21:29 »
So, if it hadn't escaped you, why have you been using the word 'weight' so freely?  And what, exactly is "size"? Sophiecentaur

I cannot remember ever using the term 'weight' other than in this thread.  Certainly I have had no reason, that I can recall, to ever referring to a particle's weight.    Regarding size - as it relates to the MASS / SIZE ratio of the proton to the electron - it's easy.  The electron is barely detectable.  The proton's SIZE is 1836 times BIGGER than the electron.  It is, therefore, more easily detected and measured.

EDIT I can't actually accuse you of being a 'generous' person, SophieC - but even you must admit that the problem regarding the nicety of weight-mass energy equivalence - is pretty jolly pertinent if it did, indeed, represent weight.  I just was not familiar with the representation of kg as it applied to particles. Nor did I realise that atomic density does not relate to weight.  But I had already guessed this as referenced in my thread on 'over unity'.  So feel free to scoff at my ignorance, but hand it to me that I at least addressed the question.  As you rightly point out.  It's critical to a measure of the energy of a particle. 
« Last Edit: 01/07/2009 09:35:06 by witsend »
 

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 #329 on: 01/07/2009 10:09:35 »
What IS a magnetic field, btw? Do you have another definition other than the one Maxwell uses? As you seem to have difficulty with mass and weight, I foresee a similar problem when discussing what a field actually is. Sophiecentaur

Thanks for asking this.  I've got the whole morning free and intend to try and answer this question.  Thereafter I'll try and get to your hydrogen lines. 

Before I get there I need to start out with a single observation.  It's to do with inductive laws.  Farraday established that changing magnetic fields induce electric fields.  And Maxwell balanced that by establishing that changing electric fields also induce magnetic fields.  What has never been established is the electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction.  This question has been addressed but never answered.  I've presumed to suggest that there is no such electric field.  The proposal is therefore based on the concept that a magnetic field may be a primary force and that the electromagnetic interaction may be a secondary phenomenon based on some interaction with this primary magnetic field.

In effect, my model 'lives or dies' by this observation.  So.  If there is a KNOWN electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction - then I am wrong at get go.  There's my first challenge Sophiecentaur.  Prove the existence of that electric field conclusively and I have no argument.

But I am reasonably certain of this premise - having gone into it at some considerable depth and with acknowledged experts in the field.  There has, apparently, been one experiment conducted.  The results were inconclusive.  Otherwise the question has been substantially mooted.  There has, however, been a consensus that there is an ASSUMPTION of an electric field within the material of the magnet.  But this has never been proven.

So.  If that premise is taken as a possibility - no need to insist on it at this stage - then that is the first foundational concept of the magnetic field model.  It is that a magnetic field is a primary force in the same way as gravity is seen as a primry force. 

I intend making 1 point per post - the easier to reference and argue - as required.

 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #330 on: 01/07/2009 10:29:38 »
"BIGGER" - I see you have to shout. But you haven't said what you mean - you have, again, repeated the word "size" without defining it. Do you mean radius? Does it have a hard edge? Is it fuzzy?
And you are still using the term weight-mass. Which is it? Weight or Mass? Can it possibly be both at the same time? Novel.

I am not "scoffing" at your ignorance, I am just pointing out that you have ignored a very important factor- many important factors, in fact. Despite having read and possibly acknowledged the shortcomings in your knowledge you  are still hanging on to your flawed model, instead of subjecting it to what you have just found out.

Advancing knowledge is based on dialogue. Since this thread has started, you appear not to have taken any of the objections on board but determined to defend what you wrote in, what you acknowledge, was a state of serious ignorance of the facts.
Quote
I just was not familiar with the representation of kg as it applied to particles. Nor did I realise that atomic density does not relate to weight.
I should have thought that would influence your hypothesis significantly.

You are more concerned with your emotional reaction to the objections than to the consequences of those objections to the validity of your ideas.

Quote
What has never been established is the electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction.  This question has been addressed but never answered.
Did you not know that there is an excellent explanation of the magnetic force between two current carrying wires, based on the Special Relativistic effect of the moving electrons and the perceived densities of negative and positive particles. The effect can be boiled down (If one chooses to - not 'what really happens') to a totally electrostatic one. The problem with this model, for you, may be that it hangs totally on detailed maths. The numbers actually add up and give the right answer for the force. You don't need Magnetism at all, if you look at things that way.
You should not make sweeping statements without ascertaining the facts!

Quote
Thanks for asking this.  I've got the whole morning free and intend to try and answer this question.
I can't help thinking that you would have been well advised to do more of that long before you announced your new ideas to the World.

 

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 #331 on: 01/07/2009 10:42:10 »
2 The next point is to do with the nature of a magnetic field.  I only referred to simple bar magnets because I could buy them and study them.  But the nature of the field is evident in all magnetic fields.  It appears to orbit, north to south and back to north.  In other words it has a single justification or direction.  It does not vary it's orbital direction but will move the entire body of the magnet to adjust to another field. However, in induced magnetic fields in electric circuits flux can change that orbital justification or  direction but only with a corresponding change in the applied voltage or potential difference.  In effect a orbit 'chases its tail' with a justified bias.  And the orbit describes a circle.

Also, there is no change to the weight of a magnet as a result of this movement of flux.  Therefore one may conclude that it's quantity may be constant.

I then developed what I refer to as a principle of correspondence - meaning that everything is substantially the sum of its parts.  This applies to everything visible.  A rock, for instance, comprises atoms and molecules that form that rock.  If we ground down the rock to it's finest parts we'd find a collection of atoms and molecules that form that rock.  In the same way I proposed that a magnetic flux field may also comprise particles.  And by using a principle of correspondence it should be possible to determine the nature of that particle.

Becuase the magnet has two poles, then the particle would be a magnetic dipole.  Because the amount of flux does not appear to vary - then the number of particles comprising the flux would be constant.  Because magnets align north to south, then these dipoles would align north to south.  In effect they would form strings.  Because the field appears to be smooth then the particles would have to be arranged in some smooth pattern of charge distribution - evenly dispersed thoughout the field.  

The question then is why are they not visible?  

By the way Sophiecentaur I need to post this or I'll lose it.  I'll answer your post next.  

  
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #332 on: 01/07/2009 11:03:26 »
Lovely salad!
Could you propose an experiment which could verify all that?
Is a "justification" the same as a "direction"?
Don't "orbits" go round and round? Do they also go up and down, now?
How do you define a "dipole"
 

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 #333 on: 01/07/2009 11:04:36 »
BIGGER" - I see you have to shout.
Sorry - I just mean to add emphasis.  The italics option provided is too obscure for my poor eyesight.  Not intended to SHOUT - but I'll desist from this if it annoys readers generally. 

SIZE - I get it.  Yes I mean that it has a hard edge - and no I do not mean that it has a corresponding weight.  What I'm trying to say is that I do not see a mass/weight correspondence in terms of Newtonian weight measures. 

I am not "scoffing" at your ignorance, I am just pointing out that you have ignored a very important factor- many important factors, in fact. Despite having read and possibly acknowledged the shortcomings in your knowledge you  are still hanging on to your flawed model, instead of subjecting it to what you have just found out.
The weight mass of a particle or an atom has never formed the basis of my magnetic field model.  I have never needed to refer to it.  It has no relevance in any of my arguments.  Therefore it was a point that was perfectly clarified - courtesy the wiki link and to your pointing it out.  But it is entirely irrelevant to the issue.

Advancing knowledge is based on dialogue. Since this thread has started, you appear not to have taken any of the objections on board but determined to defend what you wrote in, what you acknowledge, was a state of serious ignorance of the facts.
What objections for goodness sake?  Read through the thread.  There have been none other than personal criticisms of me and an ongoing challenge to answer your questions.  I am tying to do so.

I should have thought that would influence your hypothesis significantly.
No.  It doesn't.  I've referenced this.

You are more concerned with your emotional reaction to the objections than to the consequences of those objections to the validity of your ideas.
What are you talking about?  I need to understand your objections.  Thus far you've referenced the fact that I did not understand kg - a question that I brought up.  What other objections?  To imply that I do not understand physics is not an objection.  Prove that I do not understand physics and I'll attend to that objection.

Did you not know that there is an excellent explanation of the magnetic force between two current carrying wires, based on the Special Relativistic effect of the moving electrons and the perceived densities of negative and positive particles. The effect can be boiled down (If one chooses to - not 'what really happens') to a totally electrostatic one. The problem with this model, for you, may be that it hangs totally on detailed maths. The numbers actually add up and give the right answer for the force. You don't need Magnetism at all, if you look at things that way.
You should not make sweeping statements without ascertaining the facts!

This is just more of the same.  I have no intention of forgoing an interest in my field model simply because you say there is no need of it.  In fact I sincerely believe that there is every need of it.

Thanks for asking this.  I've got the whole morning free and intend to try and answer this question. me

can't help thinking that you would have been well advised to do more of that long before you announced your new ideas to the World. Sophiecentaur
You've entirely missed the point.  I have chosen this forum precisely to discuss the model before announcing it to the world.  
 

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 #334 on: 01/07/2009 11:09:48 »
Following quotes from Sophiecentaur

Lovely salad!
Glad you like it.

Could you propose an experiment which could verify all that?
Yes. 

Is a "justification" the same as a "direction"?
Yes.  I use the terms interchangeably.

Don't "orbits" go round and round? Do they also go up and down, now?
Yes.

How do you define a "dipole"
A particle that has a north and a south magnetic property.  Like a really really small bar magnet.
 

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 #335 on: 01/07/2009 11:36:13 »
3 The reason I propose that the particle in a magnetic field is not visible is because of a principle that I described as a boundary constraint.  In terms of this I drew an analogy to a machine that propels stones.  Assume that the machine is in a vacuum - no extraneous forces, and that the machine always propels stones with a constant force.  So.  The smaller the stone the further the throw and vice versa.  But if the stone is too small the machine can't detect it.  And likewise, too big and the machine can't throw it.  Those extreme limits are the machines boundary constraints.

In the same way I'm proposing that light can deflect off everything provided always that it's within light's boundary constraints.  We know that light cannot detect particles in a magnetic field.  So it may be because the particles in that field are too small to be detected.  And - because I'm into symmetry I also proposed that just perhaps, velocity and mass are inversely proportional, very much in the same way that the machine interacts with those rocks.  So.  If light speed is a measure of a photon's energy - which it is, then if something is smaller than the mass of a photon it may, correspondingly have a greater velocity.  And if such a magnetic particle is both smaller and faster than light itself, then it would be moving outside our measurable dimensions.  So.  Light is, in effect the limit to our measurable dimensions.

But having said that, it is clear that flux shares our own dimensions of space.  It may, however, precede our time frame simply because it's velocity may exceed light speed.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2009 13:10:04 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #336 on: 01/07/2009 11:54:47 »
Quote
Light is, in effect the limit to our measurable dimensions. Light is, in effect the limit to our measurable dimensions.
Can't we measure distances using radar? Can't we measure things in an electron microscope? They don't use light.

Do you have some sort of random phrase generator at your disposal?
 

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 #337 on: 01/07/2009 12:03:48 »
Can't we measure distances using radar? Can't we measure things in an electron microscope? They don't use light. Sophiecentaur
No.  Because both radar and electrons are constrained to light speed.

Do you have some sort of random phrase generator at your disposal?
No need.  I've a talent for inventing phrases and analogies.
 

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 #338 on: 01/07/2009 12:38:34 »
4  But all that's proposed at this stage is that the magnetic field may comprise a particle.  If it does, then that particle may exceed light speed, may have less mass than a photon and may move in fields substantially structured by those strings.  All of which is speculative and substantially irrelevant.  However, my object is to try prove that relevance both as it relates to the particle and as it relates to the field.

But to do so I first need to speculate on yet another possible condition. What if the entire universe comprises these magnetic fields as a backdrop to all that is manifest?  Perhaps the vacuum of space in fact comprises millions upon trillions upon uncountable little particles that form highly structured magnetic fields?  And these fields are entirely undetectable because their strings all join up through the vast distances of the universe and they all orbit - in lock step - with each other - carefully and continually adjusting their positions in space so that the one magnetic particle moves towards another to adjust the position of it's one dipole against that of it's neighbouring string's dipoles.  The net charge at any one point in space would be zero.  Yet these fields may indeed be extant - doing what magnetic fields do everywhere.  They orbit.  They appear to orbit at speed.  And they adjust their positions one to another - perfectly.

So here's the final 'what if'.  What if, for whatever reason, one of those strings broke?  Or if, through some singularity, a whole lot of strings broke?  Then, in terms of the model, those little particles would do one of two things.  Some would gain mass and lose velocity in proportion to the energy in that string.  And others would gain velocity and lose mass, also in proportion to the energy in that string.  And, by gaining mass - the proposal is then made that they become manifest in our measurable dimensions.  That, as I see it, forms the basis of the virtual particles.  Those particles that are manifest would then, possibly, slow down to the speed of light.  And when that energy is expended they would again lose mass and regain velocity to slip back into the field.  This was my proposal for the evident decay of virtual particles.  I call the manifest particle a truant and the magnetic particl a zipon.   

 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #339 on: 01/07/2009 13:34:42 »
Do you remember the Noddy Books? In one of them, Noddy wanted to build himself a house. He thought he could start with the roof.
You seem to have the same problem with your Science; no foundations.
 

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 #340 on: 01/07/2009 13:48:51 »
Hi SophieC.  Loved the analogy to Noddy. Don't know that it's so apt though.  What could be more foundational than an analysis of the maagnetic field - as the foundation to the entire universe.

I'll get back to posting later.  I'm whammed.  Sorry there's no math.  But I'm not sure that math would describe all this.  In any event.  You've been quite patient considering your irrascible nature.  I was expecting a far stronger series of objections.  This is such fun.  For me anyhow.  :)
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #341 on: 01/07/2009 15:11:59 »
Quote
What could be more foundational than an analysis of the magnetic field
You flatter it if you call that an analysis. If you want to see what an analysis is like then read the technical literature - even the New Scientist, for a start. You will see that analysis consists of strictly defining your terms followed by a logical progression of associations and evidence and, finally, a model.

The above is an objective observation based on how you have described a field. The very definition of what constitutes a field has escaped you. (This based, partly, on your failure to grasp the mass /weight relationship).

Rather than "fun", it's, actually tiresome responding to someone who is talking an entirely different,  made up, language yet who claims to be talking Science because the words being used are the same (words which have been commandeered, not appreciated).
I think I'll stop my contributions now as you won't acknowledge the importance of centuries of well founded knowledge.
Your foundations and walls are all missing but you insist that your roof supports itself. Cloud cooku land, I think.
I'd rather have a dialogue with someone about a shared interest.
Feel free to respond but I'd appreciate it if you didn't keep using my name in vain, in subsequent posts - in lieu of "the demon king".
I am sure you will soon find someone else to be your bète noir.
Beware of people who are too ready to agree with you; they may have no more idea about the subject than you do.
 

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 #342 on: 01/07/2009 15:27:27 »
Sophiecentaur, I sincerely apologise if I have offended you.  Not intended.  That you no longer want to discuss this is fair comment.  But I don't think it's fair to criticise a synopsis -  not read the analysis - yet still insist that I have no idea of what I am talking about. 

It is not a professional analysis - but I nor have I pretended that it is.

In any event - yet again, apologies.
 

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #343 on: 01/07/2009 15:50:19 »
OK - but there's nothing to apologise for.
(My comments were aimed at the only thing which was available to read, afaik.)
 

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 #344 on: 02/07/2009 08:34:11 »
When I set out on a description of the field model as intended in this thread, I promised myself that I would not allow ill considered or spiteful feedback to get me down.  That I predicted a barrage of such from one particular member was inevitable.  The relief in knowing that he will no longer follow this thread has left me somewhat speechless with relief.  I feel that I have somehow won the struggle to continue with this thread.

But by the same token, knowing that he will no longer interrupt the general flow of the argument has also left me with a concern.  What if he is the only reader on this thread?  And what if the points that I try and address are indeed elusive or obscure or badly substantiated?  And then the final question is one I can barely turn my mind to which is 'what if' - in truth - these concepts need mathematical proof for a kind of final accreditation?  In other words, what if the entire exercise remains irrelevant to the general interests and concerns related to the study of physics?  Disqualified - because I don't understand the eloquence of a simple, let alone a complex equation?

In my defense I can only point to those questions that remain outstanding in both quantum and classical physics.  While all the forces are measured and used no-one can ascribe an actual property to gravity, electromagnetic forces, or to the nuclear forces.  I believe that I can do this by proposing a particle in a magnetic field and suggesting that composites of this particle may indeed form the basis of all that is manifest.  It is relevant because, if it is correct - then energy itself is fully described.  And that's got to be a good thing, the more so as it also indicates a means of using this with far greater efficiency than classical or quantum physics allow.

The reasoning that led me to this rather presumptuous conclusion is, unfortunately, promoted through the use of concepts rather than math.  But I have argued that concepts form the basis of math itself.  So, concept, symmetry and deductive logic was all I could use.  I sincerely propose that with these tools  physics itself can be better understood.  And, far more importantly - energy can be better understood and better applied. 

After a decade in developing this model and the few tentative reaches at describing it - I am aware of the offensive nature of such preposterous claims.  I must therefore ask that the merits of the argument be considered and not whereof it comes.  That I am somewhat underqualified to comment is a problem that I have to deal with on a continual basis.  If the argument has merit, as I propose it does, then it is precisely because I deal with concepts.  In a way I am trying to rescue the art of concept to physics very much as the expressionists did in a revolutionary art movement at the turn of the century. This will put it back with the lay public where, at present, it is the exclusive property of the trained physicist.  Without concept and analogy he is not able to share his knowledge easily.

So.  This is my apologia, so to speak.  I am baring the soul, as is recommended by the title of this forum.  My intention, BenV allowing - is to make a point by point post to give a synopsis of the field model that is more fully described in my blog.  I will gladly answer any questions if there are such.
 

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 #345 on: 02/07/2009 10:14:06 »
1 A MAGNETIC FIELD MAY BE A PRIMARY FORCE

Farraday established that changing magnetic fields induce electric fields.  And Maxwell balanced that by establishing that changing electric fields also induce magnetic fields.  What has never been established is the electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction.  This question has been addressed but never answered.  I've presumed to suggest that there is no such electric field.  The proposal is therefore based on the concept that a magnetic field may be a primary force and that the electromagnetic interaction may be a secondary phenomenon based on some interaction with this primary magnetic field.

In effect, my model 'lives or dies' by this observation.  So.  If there is a KNOWN electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction - then I am wrong at get go.  If anyone can prove a hidden electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction then the existence of that electric field will conclusively defy this entire field model.

I am however, reasonably certain of this premise - having gone into it at some considerable depth and with acknowledged experts in the field.  There has, apparently, been one experiment conducted.  The results were inconclusive.  Otherwise the question has been substantially mooted.  There is, however consensus that there is an ASSUMPTION of an electric field within the material of the magnet.  But this has yet to be proved.

So.  If that premise is taken as a possibility - no need to insist on it at this stage - then that is the first foundational concept of the magnetic field model.  It is that a magnetic field is a primary force in the same way as gravity is seen as a primry force.


 

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 #346 on: 02/07/2009 10:25:49 »
2 THE NATURE OF THE FIELD AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPOSED PARTICLE IN THE FIELD

The next point is to do with the nature of a magnetic field.  I only refer to simple bar magnets because I could buy them and study them.  But the nature of the field is evident in all magnetic fields.  It appears to orbit, north to south and back to north.  In other words it has a single justification or direction.  It does not vary it's orbital direction but will move the entire body of the magnet to adjust to another field. However, in induced magnetic fields, such as in electric circuits, flux can change that orbital justification or  direction but only with a corresponding change in the applied voltage or potential difference.  In effect an orbit 'chases its tail' with a justified bias.  And the orbit describes a circle.

Also, as there is no change to the weight of a magnet as a result of this movement of flux then one may conclude that the actual quantity of that flux may be constant.  In other words it orbits the body of a magnet - neither increasing or decreasing in quantity nor range of influence.

I then developed what I refer to as a principle of correspondence - meaning that everything is substantially the sum of its parts.  This applies to everything visible.  A rock, for instance, comprises atoms and molecules that form that rock.  If we ground the rock down to it's finest parts we'd find a collection of atoms and molecules that form that rock.  In the same way I proposed that a magnetic flux field may also comprise particles being the smallest part of the whole field.  And by using a principle of correspondence it may then be possible to determine the nature of that particle as it relates to the field.

Becuase the magnet has two poles, then the particle would be a magnetic dipole.  Because the amount of flux does not appear to vary - then the number of particles comprising the flux would be constant.  Because magnets align north to south, then these dipoles would align north to south.  In effect they would form strings.  Because the field appears to be smooth then the particles would have to be arranged in some smooth pattern of charge distribution - evenly dispersed thoughout the field. 

In effect the actual shape of the flux is toroidal and the correspondence of the particles within those strings would be precisely aligned to balance that charge.   The net result would be that that all parts of the field would have a perfectly balanced charge - the one part being entirely indistinguishable from the other.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2009 15:20:18 by witsend »
 

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 #347 on: 02/07/2009 10:41:35 »
3 BOUNDARY CONSTRAINTS LIMIT INTERACTIONS AND POINT TO THE POTENTIAL OF DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS

The reason I propose that the particle in a magnetic field is not visible is because of a principle that I described as a boundary constraint.  In terms of this I drew an analogy to a machine that propels stones.  Assume that the machine is in a vacuum - no extraneous forces, and that the machine always propels stones with a constant force.  So.  The smaller the stone the further the throw and vice versa.  But if the stone is too small the machine can't detect it.  And likewise, too big and the machine can't throw it.  Those interactions of the stone with the field point to an inverse proportional relation to the distance and force at which stones can be thrown.  And, those extreme limits are proposed as the machine's boundary constraints.

In the same way I'm proposing that light can deflect off everything provided always that it's within light's boundary constraints.  We know that light cannot detect particles in a magnetic field because we have never found a particle even with the use of light which is the fastest thing with which we can measure speed.  If it exceeds light speed it may be because the particles in that field are too small to be detected.  And - to satisfy the symmetries proposed by the concept of momentum as this relates to velocity and mass - it is also proposed that just perhaps, velocity and mass are inversely proportional.

So.  If light speed is a measure of a photon's energy - which it is, then if something is smaller than the mass of a photon it may, correspondingly have a greater velocity.  And if such a magnetic particle is both smaller and faster than light itself, then it would be moving outside our measurable dimensions. In effect it would precede the timeframe of light itself.  Light is, in effect the limit to our measurable dimensions.

But having said that, it is clear that flux shares our own dimensions of space.  It may, however, precede our time frame simply because it's velocity may exceed light speed.  In effect our own three dimensions of space are shared with magnetic flux but the actual time frame of that flux may exceed our own.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2009 11:30:07 by witsend »
 

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 #348 on: 02/07/2009 10:48:35 »
4  THE EFFECT OF SOME SINGULARITY THAT RESULTS IN THE EJECTION OF THE PARTICLE OUT OF THE FIELD

But all that's proposed at this stage is that the magnetic field may comprise a particle.  If it does, then that particle may exceed light speed, may have less mass than a photon and may move in fields substantially structured by those strings.  All of which is speculative and possibly irrelevant.  However, my object is to try prove that relevance both as it relates to the particle and as it relates to the field.

But to do so I first need to speculate on yet another possible condition. What if the entire universe comprises these magnetic fields as a backdrop to all that is manifest?  Perhaps the vacuum of space in fact comprises millions upon trillions upon uncountable little particles that form highly structured magnetic fields?  And these fields are entirely undetectable because their strings all join up through the vast distances of the universe and they all orbit - in lock step - with each other - carefully and continually adjusting their positions in space so that the one magnetic particle moves towards another to adjust the position of it's one dipole against that of it's neighbouring string's dipoles.  The net charge at any one point in space would be zero.  Yet these fields may indeed be extant - doing what magnetic fields do everywhere.  They orbit.  They appear to orbit at speed.  And they adjust their positions one to another - perfectly.

So here's the final 'what if'.  What if, for whatever reason, one of those strings broke?  Or if, through some singularity, a whole lot of strings broke?  Then, in terms of the model, those little particles would do one of two things.  Some would gain mass and lose velocity in proportion to the energy in that string.  And others would gain velocity and lose mass, also in proportion to the energy in that string.  And, by gaining mass - the proposal is then made that they become manifest in our measurable dimensions.  That, as I see it, forms the basis of the virtual particles.  Those particles that are manifest would then, possibly, slow down to the speed of light.  And when that energy is expended they would again lose mass and regain velocity to slip back into the field.  This was my proposal for the evident decay of virtual particles.  I call the manifest particle a truant and the magnetic particle a zipon.   
 

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 #349 on: 02/07/2009 12:01:12 »
5 THE VISIBLE EFFECT OF A BROKEN STRING

I need to point to nebulae generally because it becomes a relatively easy mental reference in describing the difference between the particle and the field and its proposed manifest truants. Else the frame of reference tends to become confusing.  And since it is also proposed that these nebulae are the source of all matter then it is also apt as a primary reference.

I propose that the magnetic fields that form the universe comprise really, really long strings of zipons that align, head to toe, so to speak.  And I've proposed that all magnetic fields are toroidal.  This toroidal shape is not exactly evident in a bar magnet because the path of the flux through the body of a bar magnet is both hidden and constricted to the shape of the magnet.  However, if one follows the line of the orbit, then the south/north, so to speak, passage through the body of the magnet simply completes the journey of the flux back to the second phase of the flux cycle, north/south, outside the body of the magnet.  In effect the flux is toroidal but the shape not so clearly evident in your average bar magnet.  Therefore, as it is proposed that a magnetic flux field is toroidal then it is also proposed that the universe itself may be toroidal.  The strings of zipons, in turn, join - in long lines throughout the entire universe.  Which, in turn, makes for some really, really long strings.

But the outer strings of that toroid would be longer than the inner strings.  So there would be an intrinsic difference to the actual energy in each string.  However, the shorter inner strings are supported by neighbouring strings which gives them a lateral strength, or force, or energy that would be equal to the longer outer strings.  In effect, what I am trying to describe is that the proportion of balance and charge throughout the toroid would be precisely and evenly distributed in each of its parts - each part being precisely the same as every other part.  In effect no part of the field could be distinguishable from another.  No variation.  A smooth structured balanced field with all parts moving in precise synchonicity with the next, shoulder to shoulder and head to toe.

In the event that one of those string broke loose, for whatever reason then the proposal is that the zipons in the string would lose their velocity determined by their orbit in the field, or they would increase their velocity.  Both possibilities are probable, and in either event they would lose their structure as a string and collapse into a field of dissassociated particles, half of which would be manifest as truants.  This is proposed as the advent of nebulae that appear in space.  Just broken strings that have collapsed together as a result of a break in the earlier and orderly distribution of the zipons in the field and the string itself.

« Last Edit: 02/07/2009 12:03:59 by witsend »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #349 on: 02/07/2009 12:01:12 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums