0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sophiecentaur. I outlined the 'conditions' of this proposed discussion at the opening post. I specifically asked that you do not criticise the content on the basis of my lack of qualifications. At this point I am developing the argument with the dialectic. It is a valid tool. And I am well qualified in its use.If you do not like my contributions can you not simply ignore them? But, if you continually dominate this thread with constant reminders as to my lack of scientific qualfication - as you did in the previous - then this thread is doomed. If BenV or any moderators object to my contribution then please advise me. I am specifically asking. Am I allowed to post here - notwithstanding my lack of conventional scientific training? If not - then I will stop posting. If I am, then may I ask why you keep reading my threads? They cannot possibly be of any interest to you because, as you say, I am 'arm waving'. Just look elsewhere for heaven's sake. And let me try and get some answers to these questions.
JG: I am trying to work out this equation. Let’s see: 1) E = MC^2 2) P = MC E= PC E^2 = M^2C^4OrE^2 = P^2C^2Now in the physics books, Einstein & Company combined both equations.In all my work, I only use the first equation or the second. Was Einstein correct? I cannot justify that it is perfectly correct. The experimental data falls somewhere between one equation and the other. Therefore I cannot say that it is absolutely true or only partially true.What do you think Vern??
I actually need 10. It's because the magnetic fields have three dimensions of space (share ours) but operate in a different time dimension. We've sort of defined that? I think so.
But. If they lose momentum and gain mass then they would, in effect, act in the same way that we know virtual particles behave. They would manifest, briefly in some form related to the force that separted them from the field. Then, when that energy is expended, rememeber, they're just little magnets - they'd regain velocity - lose that mass and simply slot back into the bigger containing magnetic field. And vice versa for those zipons that lost mass and gained velocity.
Vern, quark, in this description may not be quark in conventional descriptions. In the same way virtual particles may not be virtual particles in conventional descriptions. But, I have referred to both ONLY in the context of the model's definition. It's going to tax your patience. But bear with me. []And, quickly, these then are the 10 dimensions - again only in terms of my description. I've referenced them as 'realities' but I'm sure there's better ways to describe it. The first reality, are our 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. The second is the primary magnetic field's reality. They share our space dimensions but precede our timeframe - also 4 dimensions. The third reality belongs to these quarks (my definition of the term) that only have 2 dimensions as they have no mass - only velocity and they share the first reality's time dimensions. So 4 to the first, 4 to the second and 2 to the third - makes 10 dimensions.
Here's my question. Do you get the concept? I am not, at this stage, asking for your agreement.
I cannot dispense with the normal electromagnetic field. Nor with the strong and weak nuclear force. Nor with gravity. I'm hoping to show you how these are reconcilable.