Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: witsend on 10/06/2009 20:37:27
-
I have a non-classical magnetic field that proposes that the universe may be a 10 dimensional binary system. I am an amateur so must ask at the outset that any reader of this thread make allowances for my terminology. In some instances I have had to invent terms, and in others I have unfortunately used known classical terms incorrectly. The model is described in the attached blog. It's awfully difficult to read. I'm hoping that through discussion it may not be necessary to refer to it at all.
And, for Sophiecentaur, and any other hypercritical readers, I would stress that it is not presented as it should be. I am an amateur. It is simply the best I could do. You may criticise it - of course - but I'd thank you not to critise it on the grounds of my lack of conventional training. I have reason to believe that there are some contributers who may be interested.
The proposal is based on a single observation related to inductive laws. These laws state that changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. But no-one has proved the existence of an electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction. That got me started.
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
I have proposed that the magnetic fields comprises particles. I've called them tachyons,magnetic dipoles with the velocity of 2c. That's the first question. Is it classically considered possible that any particle can exceed the speed of light?
-
No. And if your proposal was correct then wouldn't magnetic fields propagate at 2c? Cause they don't.
-
Madidus_Scientia So glad you're the first contributer. How do you know they don't propogate at greater than light speed?
-
Because it's been measured to be c, not 2c.
-
be interested.
The proposal is based on a single observation related to inductive laws. These laws state that changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. But no-one has proved the existence of an electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction. That got me started.
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
I have proposed that the magnetic fields comprises particles. I've called them tachyons,magnetic dipoles with the velocity of 2c. That's the first question. Is it classically considered possible that any particle can exceed the speed of light?
The term classically indicates that which has been accepted as part of classical physics. Classical physics has always been limited to the speed of light.
The better question would be that:
Is it possible that any particle can exceed the speed of light?
Since I believe in a multi-lightspeed universe, particles from speed of near zero C to infinite C are indeed possible. Thus total universe contains photons which range from zero light speed to light speed infinity.
-
Because it's been measured to be c, not 2c.
Our instruments are based upon interactions with electrons. Electrons are made from light speed C matter. They do not have the ability to measure light speed 2C readily.
-
Thanks JerryGG38 - from all kinds of levels. [:X]
I agree, but I'm trying to get to any argument that categorically allows for greater than light speed? I first thought that I had it in E=mc^2. Because - a photon has NO MASS then E times anything at all would still be zero. So. My argument was this, if the photon itself has no energy then self-evidently something else is moving the photon.
Then I learned that actually that equation was modified so that its energy was then in its velocity. But if that's true, then by the same token we can attribute velocity to anything and at any value. The hard part would be to try and prove the existence of that 'faster than light' thing?
-
You know Jerry - I actually think that your dot-wave theory could so be like my own. I also need those dots. Did you read the model? It's way too obtuse. But there are definite similarities. My own dots fill a toroid in a series of really thin strings. But they always join. Very structured fields.
Jerry I'm exhausted. If you post tonight I'll check it tomorrow. I see Sophiecentaur is still posting on that thread.
-
You know Jerry - I actually think that your dot-wave theory could so be like my own. I also need those dots. Did you read the model? It's way too obtuse. But there are definite similarities. My own dots fill a toroid in a series of really thin strings. But they always join. Very structured fields.
I just read some of your work. It is interesting the way you piece together the magnetic field. To me the magnetic fields are definitely particle waves. The big difference is that my dot-waves do not have to be bipolar (north/south) devices. However they could form that way. An ordinary magnet has a north and a south. An electric field can have a positive or a negative. We have never built a device that is a singlular north pole.
However a moving positive dot wave is a singluar magnetic pole. A moving negative dot-wave is a opposite singular magnetic pole. Maxwells equations allow for a singular magnetic pole but no one has ever seen one.
Although you move up in light speed for your magnetic devices, there is no need for that. They would work just as well at light speed C. My dot-waves move at light speed C. However dot-waves from the light speed 2C universe move at twice our light speed.
Why do you feel you need to go to light speed 2C for your magnetic system to work?
As far as interactions are concerned, the universe is filled with dot-waves. When groups of dot-waves interact with groups of dot-waves all over the universe, there is no absolute requirement that the interaction is limited to light speed C. It is possible for the simultaneous explosion of the big bang all over the universe moving upward toward light speed infinity.
An event here can travel 10 billion light years in a split second. If we are limited to Einstein that is not possible. However for a multi-lightspeed universe we are only limited by light speed infinity.
Thus Einstein is wrong. For example a high speed u-meson going east at 0.99C and a high speed u-meson going west at 0.99C are traveling apart at
1.98C. According to Einstein they can only travel apart at C. Therefore we have to turn our minds inside out.
the problem is that we think at infinite light speed and are limited by our electrons moving at light speed C at most. Einstein was excellent in his work but they are less than perfect.
I guess I should post Dot-Wave Doppler Space Time as an alternative to Einsteins relativity.
In any event why do you need your little magnets to move at 2C?
-
Golly JerryGG38. Your ideas blow me away. I couldn't resist reading it through. But I'm finished. I need to walk the dogs and get to bed. I'll answer you tomorrow.
-
Thanks JerryGG38 - from all kinds of levels. [:X]
I agree, but I'm trying to get to any argument that categorically allows for greater than light speed? I first thought that I had it in E=mc^. Because - a photon has NO MASS then E times anything at all would still be zero. So. My argument was this, if the photon itself has no energy then self-evidently something else is moving the photon.
Then I learned that actually that equation was modified so that its energy was then in its velocity. But if that's true, then by the same token we can attribute velocity to anything and at any value. The hard part would be to try and prove the existence of that 'faster than light' thing?
I do not agree with classical physics that a photon has no mass. To me the photon is a spinning plane surface which has an electrical driving force perpendicular to the plane of motion. The force drives the photon to light speed because the mass in the direction of motion is zero. However the mass in the perpendicular direction (the spinning plane) is like a gyroscope. Therefore the photon has mass but the mass is spread over a large distance. A photon travels 186,000 miles per second and the little mass in one second occupiles this distance. However this mass will cause light to bend around the stars.
Of course that is not Einsteinian. However the net result is that there is Einsteins excellent equations for curved space time and alternate equations based upon the bending of a line of mass as it passes a star. Instead of a point mass it is a line of mass.
Einsteins methods are good because the gravitational field adjusts for light speed as the photons near the earth. Thus I do not agree that the speed of the photons are constant. The gravitational field moves and self-corrects the measurements.
-
Golly JerryGG38. Your ideas blow me away. I couldn't resist reading it through. But I'm finished. I need to walk the dogs and get to bed. I'll answer you tomorrow.
Have a good nights sleep. I am glad to discuss your ideas which are possible and interesting. I am also glad to forget that circuit.
-
JerryGG38 - I really need to understand that superluminal speed is valid. I love your point that two particles moving in opposite directions in the same field, would cover the distance at twice light speed. And your argument to proving our inabilities to measure beyond light speed is invincible - and concise and PERFECT. That's exactly what I meant. Would not have known how to explain it outside three or four pages of writing. Vern would have winced. We're doing good.
I take it that neither you nor Vern object to the concept. My own justification came from a really distinguished professor. He explained that E=mc^2 was modified to E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 where p = momentum. Here's my argument. If E=mc^2 and if, as classical physics tells us, the mass of the photon is zero - then the photon's energy would also be zero because 0 as a product of anything at all is still 0. So. If true then the photon has no innate energy to move at any speed at all. I needed this. I'll explain later.
But surely then, even using the second equation, if the measure of a particle's energy can also simply be a measure of its momentum - then by the same token anything can exceed light speed provided that it has negative mass? I know nothing of Lorenz equations Vern. I'm trying to find an ACTUAL scientific argument that allows for faster than light speed. Is this valid? Or even in terms of this equation is the velocity of a particle is still constrained to light speeed?
It's not critical. It's good that the preclusion to light speed is apparently NOT WRITTEN IN STONE. I was always given to understand that it was. That, also as I understood it, was the overriding flaw in my model. But it would be so nice to find something that refuted the constraint.
Anyway - glad to get answers to this. I'll press on.
Vern asked me why I need more than 4 dimensions. It's critical and it goes back to my analysis of the magnetic field. It occurred to me that a magnetic field may be a primary force. Certainly magnets interact with magnets without inducing an electric field. That there may be an electric field hidden within that interation is unarguable. But it is yet to be proven.
You see my proposal is that a magnetic field always manifests as a 'smooth' (I think that's the term) field. In other words it appears to orbit and to retain it's justification within the structure of a magnetic flux field. So, if it comprises particles - zipons - as I've proposed, then those particles must also be moving at some speed that light cannot detect - so superluminal. And they must be able, at its least, to defy Pauli's exclusion principle precisely because they do structure themselves into fields. Definitely not leptons. So if it has a neutral charge, and if each of these little dipoles simply attach to each other and orbit and if their overriding condition is to move towards a condition of zero negative charge - then why can't we find the particle? The only thing that would prevent it's detection would be light speed. As jerryGG38 pointed out. We cannot measure beyond light speed.
Now, if something is exceeding the velocity of our measuring instruments then, by my definition, it's operating in another dimension. That's all. I call it a boundary constraint. And this is the analogy. You have a machine that throws rocks. It operates in a vacuum so no extraneous forces, no variables. All it does is throws stones. And the smaller stones are thrown further than the big stones because it always throws with a constant force. But when the stones are too big - it can't lift the stone. And when it's too small - it can't detect the stone. That's it's boundary constraint. Too big or too small i'ts out of reach. And I have suggested that magnetic fields cannot 'reach' particles with greater or less mass than its own. So it effectively operates within a different dimension.
-
witsend
I know nothing of Lorenz equations Vern.
If you don't know about them then how can you possibly discuss the relativistic effects of high velocities? Science is not about arm waving.
Who 'gave you to understand' the limits of velocity? If they didn't include Lorenz then their qualifications may be in doubt. They would possibly have left out a lot of stuff which is relevant to what you are claiming.
-
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.
-
jerryGG38 - I need to answer your post.
I'm intrigued with magnetic monopoles. If you're proposing 2 opposites, would they not move together? Or are there more than 2. I only used 2 because that seems to correspond to the two known charges of particles. The neutral charge - to my thinking - would be a conjunction of these two opposites. I think what you're describing is a condition that is even more fundamental than my own.
I buy into multiple singularities. I also buy into limitless velocity. But that's only an idea. It needs justification. Do you justify these in equations or, like Vern said, equations simply describe the model?
Your meson analogy is brilliant. It could go some way to proving superluminal communication. But I'm not sure. The point is that in a particle pair, the one adjusts its spin in response to another, even when the one is artificially adjusted. Vern disputes that this is proven. I'm still looking for the proof of this. But it's published. Somwhere. I'll check.
I understood your Dot-Wave Doppler Space Time was published. So impressed. Does this specifically refer to superluminal speed?
My little magnets don't need to move at 2C. They just DO. I sort of found that when I did my composites. But I'll get to in, hopefully, through the thread.
EDIT - by the way - please check the earlier post where I reference my definition of dimensions. I need feedback.
-
Your meson analogy is brilliant. It could go some way to proving superluminal communication. But I'm not sure. The point is that in a particle pair, the one adjusts its spin in response to another, even when the one is artificially adjusted. Vern disputes that this is proven. I'm still looking for the proof of this. But it's published. Somewhere. I'll check.
I'm not sure I understand what it is that I dispute here. [:)] If it is superluminal communication, then yes; that has not been observed; it has been attempted a lot but never achieved.
-
Hi Vern. I only mentioned it because jerryGG38 proposed a condition that exceeds light speed. I thought it was neat. So glad you're there. Did you understand my description of boundary constraints?
EDIT Regarding superluminal communication - I'm sure you're right. But I've got it somewhere that not only proven but published. I'll check. May very well be wrong.
-
I'll search your text and see if I can find reference to boundary constraints. It is not something I remember seeing. You will find published articles that assert observations of faster than light and suggestions that communication might be possible. But so far, no successful experiments demonstrate this.
-
Now, if something is exceeding the velocity of our measuring instruments then, by my definition, it's operating in another dimension.
Maybe this is it. It makes sense; you can't measure it so it may be in another dimension. So, why not five dimensions? What is the significance of the additional five. String theorists seem to need ten or more dimensions, but this comes from their application of maths.
-
Witsend responded as W: My remarks are JGG. (Sorry I don’t know how to break apart long discussions without erasing them. Therefore I copy unto word and then response this way. Witsend in italics.
W: Vern asked me why I need more than 4 dimensions. It's critical and it goes back to my analysis of the magnetic field. It occurred to me that a magnetic field may be a primary force. Certainly magnets interact with magnets without inducing an electric field. That there may be an electric field hidden within that interaction is unarguable. But it is yet to be proven.
JG: I agree that a magnetic field is a primary force. To me the dot-wave when stationary at a point is part of an electric field. As the dot-wave moves it is a magnetic field. Therefore the dot-wave is both an electric and magnetic field. The dot-wave lives outside the Plank radius most of the time. However when it returns to the Plank radius, its properties depend upon which dimension it exists in.
W: I take it that neither you nor Vern object to the concept. My own justification came from a really distinguished professor. He explained that E=mc^2 was modified to E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 where p = momentum. Here's my argument. If E=mc^2 and if, as classical physics tells us, the mass of the photon is zero - then
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^4
Or
E^2 = P^2C^2
Now 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??
W: . Here's my argument. If E=mc^2 and if, as classical physics tells us, the mass of the photon is zero - then the photon's energy would also be zero because 0 as a product of anything at all is still 0. So. If true then the photon has no innate energy to move at any speed at all. I needed this. I'll explain later.
JG: This is an error on your part. Classical theory says a photon has no mass. I do not agree since I maintain that it has a small mass perpendicular to its motion. This mass is stretched out. Classical theory specifies that the photon has momentum.
I maintain that a photon, which slows below light speed, increases its mass. Thus the photon mass is:
3) Mp = (1-(V/C)^2 Mo
Equation 3 is somewhat of a justification of Einstein’s equation. As the photon slows it spends less and less time in the forward direction and more and more times in the orbital planar state. Therefore the mass of the photon perpendicular to the direction of motion increases.
The energy of the photon then become partially due to the mass increase and partially do to its motion at near light speed. Again this would justify Einstein’s Equation.
(Right now I am rethinking my objection to Einstein’s equation. I always thought it was less than perfect but as I discuss this with you I will have to study it more. My Equation 3 was written down implicitly over the years but perhaps I can connect it to Einstein’s.)
W: You see my proposal is that a magnetic field always manifests as a 'smooth' (I think that's the term) field. In other words it appears to orbit and to retain it's justification within the structure of a magnetic flux field. So, if it comprises particles - zipons - as I've proposed, then those particles must also be moving at some speed that light cannot detect - so superluminal. And they must be able, at its least, to defy Pauli's
You are assuming that only particles moving faster than light speed are not detectable. You can detect my high-energy dot-waves because they appear at AM radio frequency wavelengths. You can detect concentrations of dot waves that are light. You cannot readily detect dot-waves that make up the gravitational waves since the energy level is too low to be part of the hydrogen atom levels.
Therefore you cannot detect individual magnetic particles because their energy levels are too low to detect. You cannot detect the individual electric field particles because their energy levels are too low.
Concentrated magnetic and electrical dot-waves can be detected because their energy levels are sufficient to interact with the electrons.
We pick up the electric and magnetic fields because we are dealing with heavy concentrations of the dot-waves. We cannot pick up an individual dot wave subparticle.
Therefore we do not need over light speed particles to make out light speed C universe work.
W: defy Pauli's exclusion principle precisely because they do structure themselves into fields. Definitely not leptons. So if it has a neutral charge, and if each of these little dipoles simply attach to each other and orbit and if their overriding condition is to move towards a condition of zero negative charge - then why can't we find the particle? The only thing that would prevent it's detection would be light speed. As jerryGG38 pointed out. We cannot measure beyond light speed.
Any particles or subpartices beyond out light speed is very difficult to detect. However the problem we have here is energy levels. We cannot detect very small energy levels. That is why I cannot readily prove the existence of masses which are billions of billions of times less than the electrons or charges which are billions of billions times less than the charge of the electron. However the world is made from such things.
W: Now, if something is exceeding the velocity of our measuring instruments then, by my definition, it's operating in another dimension. That's all. I call it a boundary constraint. And this is the analogy. You have a machine that throws rocks. It operates in a vacuum so no extraneous forces, no variables. All it does is throws stones. And the smaller stones are thrown further than the big stones because it always throws with a constant force. But when the stones are too big - it can't lift the stone. And when it's too small - it can't detect the stone. That's it's boundary constraint. Too big or too small it’s out of reach. And I have suggested that magnetic fields cannot 'reach' particles with greater or less mass than its own. So it effectively operates within a different dimension.
I agree that the light speed dimension is a different dimension. If a space ship of light speed 1024C passed through your body, it would feel strange. It should not destroy you or harm the Earth. Thus we can coexist with different intelligent beings which can observe us and pass through us.
Bad enough we have bugs all over our bodies and within us that coexist with now. Now we have to worry that some other intelligence could enter our bodies and take over our minds. The higher light speed entities having greater ability to interact with our dimension while to us they are merely ghosts. We can put our hands through them but they can control us.
In any event I agree that the magnetic field operates in a different dimension than our mechanical world.
-
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.
What is good about your posts is that it provides alternate ideas in arease where there is much unknown. We are all struggling to find the answers. The greatest minds have not solved the most basis structure of the universe. Einstein and Lorentz produced great works but they are not perfect. Each has flaws.
Therefore the way you look at the universe may produce truths which others cannot see. One limitation of educated people is that they often discount and crush alternate ideas due to their training.
My own way of doing things is to assume that everything we have been taught is suspect. Our knowledge is tainted. We are taught less than perfect things.
Therefore do not take any poison. Your new ideas will cause all of us to think about your ideas and alternatives.
-
Vern and jerryGG38 - many thanks indeed, that you're both looking at this - so TOLERANTLY. Much appreciated. I just want to get that off. I have NEVER discussed this model of mine and I cannot tell you how frustrating it's been. I feel very privileged, to have the two of you look and to do it from this forum. I just want to get that on record.
Regarding Sophiecentaur's criticisms - he's right. As a rule a trained mind is simply bored with an untrained. Of necessity I plod.
Thanks guys. I just so want you to know how I appreciate this. My replies wont be too quick because I've got to plough through them. That agricultural simile is possibly getting overworked.
[:D]
-
Witsend responded as W: My remarks are JGG. (Sorry I don’t know how to break apart long discussions without erasing them. Therefore I copy unto word and then response this way. Witsend in italics.
W: quote author=witsend link=topic=23552.msg257394#msg257394 date=1244709707]
jerryGG38 - I need to answer your post.
I'm intrigued with magnetic monopoles. If you're proposing 2 opposites, would they not move together? Or are there more than 2. I only used 2 because that seems to correspond to the two known charges of particles. The neutral charge - to my thinking - would be a conjunction of these two opposites. I think what you're describing is a condition that is even more fundamental than my own.
JG: My plus dot lives in the positive universe . My minus dots live in the negative universe. These are two different electrical universes. We live in the bipolar universe. All universes are separated by the Plank time of 5.579E-44 seconds. The minus universe is below our time and the positive universe is above our time by this tiny amount. The amount is so small that the universe we live in looks like a simple three dimensional universe.
However the total light speed universe is a different story. That truly are different dimensions. In general the lower light speed universes are closer to the common center. We are 13 billion years from the common center. The higher light speed universes are further from the common center. Thus the 2C universe is 26 billion years from the common center.
Many universes self destruct at big bang. All lower universes expand rapidly at big bang from a shell. Thus our universe of light speed C at big bang was a shell. At big bang our radius was 1.098E-8 meters from the common center and our thickness was 2.27E-9 meters.
Thus the entire universe was less that one millionths of a meter at big bang. As we go up to the extreme light speeds, there is no necessity that they take part in the big bang. Thus some higher light speed universes are perpetual while we eventually will explode over and over again.
W: I buy into multiple singularities. I also buy into limitless velocity. But that's only an idea. It needs justification. Do you justify these in equations or, like Vern said, equations simply describe the model?
JG: I just produce rules for each universe. Thus the dot charge and dot mass for a light speed 2 universe is half our dot mass and dotcharge. The higher we go in light speed the less mass we achieve. At light speeds near infinity, the mass is basically zero. Therefore we have energy only universes as we go toward light speed infinity.
W: Your meson analogy is brilliant. It could go some way to proving superluminal communication. But I'm not sure. The point is that in a particle pair, the one adjusts its spin in response to another, even when the one is artificially adjusted. Vern disputes that this is proven. I'm still looking for the proof of this. But it's published. Somwhere. I'll check.
JG: I am not sure of that. I have limited physics knowledge. So adjustments of spin is not something I have studied or been taught 45 years ago. Just two physics course and some readings of late. I find some data on the Internet but the advantage I have is that I believe the universe is purely electrical and thus as an EE I see the universe that way. I have no mass in my latest variation of the dot-wave theory. Mass is merely a gyroscopic action of electrical waves.
I like Verns photon pictures. It is my theory that if you add three photons pointing at the plank radius, they will not move when the vector sum of their momentums equals zero. Therefore 3 photons can produce mass.
W: I understood your Dot-Wave Doppler Space Time was published. So impressed. Does this specifically refer to superluminal speed?
JG: Not so impressive. I am the publisher. I do all the work and have McNaughton & Gunn print it. Quality books does the library of congress data. They sell some. Others are sold on the Internet. I did 4 books. One I had printed in India. The others here.
It is not a money making venture. I gave most books away to libraries and charities. I tried regular publishers but they are only interested in big money. If you would like a copy of “Doppler Space Time” email me your address and I will send you one. No charge. I only have about 50 left.
The only way I make money is being a handyman.
W: My little magnets don't need to move at 2C. They just DO. I sort of found that when I did my composites. But I'll get to in, hopefully, through the thread.
JG: That is always a possibility. Look at the photon. It travels at C in the forward direction. However at what speed does it travel in the perpendicular direction? We could argue that the dots actually move faster than C because they are moving forward at C and at some other speed in the perpendicular direciton.
High energy photons would take less time spinning around. Therefore they would travel slightly faster in the forward direction.
Is C the forward light speed only? Perhaps the perpendicular speed is variable?? We do not fully know these answers.
-
So, why not five dimensions? What is the significance of the additional five. String theorists seem to need ten or more dimensions, but this comes from their application of maths. Vern
Apparently string theory math is postively exotic. But always remember, they've cracked the code. They just haven't found the particle.
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 to explain the 10 I also need to explain the composites. I'll try and be brief. And I'll post the composites in the next post as this one will otherwise get too big.
The magnetic fields are super orderly. Head to toe in really long strings that stretch around a really big toroid - the universe. They always join up in circles. They always orbit. And the outer strings are, of necessity, longer than the inner strings. But the correspondence is not only the length of the toroid, but also its width. So shoulder to shoulder sideways, and head to toe lengthways.
Very small. Wherever they're positioned they will experience 'like charge' at some position. This induces a movement. They nudge forwards, thereby inducing a complimentary movement of all the zipons in that string. Defined as a zipon moment is the time it takes one zipon to displace its position in a field of zipons. It causes a 'ripple' effect lengthwise, and sidewise. In effect these are simply orbiting magnetic flux fields. And all they're doing is trying to find a 'rest' condition. But it's impossible because of their juxtaposition in the field.
Their movement, notwithstanding, is still very orderly. In other words the whole field has a justification. It spins in the same direction. The only thing is this. Because it's a string that's formed a circle - then one half of its justification opposes the other. That's an important point to remember. I'll get back to it.
-
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^4
Or
E^2 = P^2C^2
Now 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??
The E = mc2 neglects momentum; this is known; I suspect the equation is correct. However, it is not Einstein's equation. Poincare used that in the 1800's.
To me the photon does not have mass because it is mass. Any time a photon is contained within a local system, it contributes to the mass of the system; a local system may be a mirrored box for example.
-
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.
Okay; I'll look for the reasoning for the 10 dimensions. [:)]
-
jerryGG38. I think I understand it.
T- and T+ with everything manifest inbetween. Also, as I understand it - some property in our own universe induces a repeatable singularity so we're perpetually being created - destroyed and re-created? Also, your model allows for a multiverse. Really complex images here. Have difficulty getting my mind around it.
Barring a full description of these things, have I at least got this much right?
Yes I'd like a copy of your book. Would I understand it though? Knowing you it'll be packed with equations and not enough description. If you'll clarify this, then I'll email you my address. But jerryGG38 - please only send this if there's an outside chance I'll understand it. I don't want you to go to the trouble otherwise. I have no idea how to get the money to you in America to pay for it - but will check with my bank. They'll arrange it.
The only way I make money is being a handyman.
I would love to find any way at all to make money. It'd be a really nice change.
When it comes to describing a photon in motion, jerryGG39 - you've lost me. But I'll press on.
EDIT - jerryGG39 - Just re-read the post. I've made you one year younger. If I keep this up I'll have found the answer to perpetual youth.
-
Vern, to continue from the big field. - that great big toroid. Next comes 'the singularity'. My proposal is that something changes. Some disturbance to that really structured field. Maybe one of jerryGG's magnetic monopoles break free. And - as I wrote in the paper, maybe God stirred it with a great big spoon. Whatever.
This is the next problem that I need you to wrap your mind around. If these little zippons are disturbed from their orderly existence inside that orderly field, then what would happen? What I've proposed is that they either lose momentum and gain mass, or the lose mass and gain momentum. Either way they manifest outside that structured field.
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, by the way, boundary constraints are simply the analogy I use to explain the different dimensions. You won't find it anywhere. It's how I describe the fact that we are, in effect, invisible to these magnetic fields. They just do not interact with anything that does not have an equal mass and velocity.
I'll describe how matter does interact but I'll do that later. I've got a really boring neighbourhood watch meeting to go to.
-
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.
Virtual particles are an invention of QM theory and arise out of the need to convey forces via particle transfer. Normal particles just don't behave exactly right to act alone.
I can visualize the zipon field, but I don't understand the need for more than four dimensions, the need for them to move at 2c, or the need to dispense with the normal electromagnetic field. At some point the zipons must create the fields that we know about and can measure.
-
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.
So, I take it that this means you are entitled to make any statements you like and not be challenged? I don't care what your qualifications are. It's what you write that is in question. Hiding behind ignorance doesn't justify errors in so-called Scientific assertions.
I wish you would give the well established work as generous a reception. When you feel like it, you just say "it doesn't make sense".
Is this a Science Forum or a Fantasy Forum?
Perhaps you should post on Just Chat, where no one expects Scientific rigour.
-
Virtual particles are an invention of QM theory and arise out of the need to convey forces via particle transfer. Normal particles just don't behave exactly right to act alone. Vern.
Hi Vern. I'm back.
I'm trying to follow advice here and keep my points brief. [;D]
You get the idea of the field. Do you get the idea of what would happen if those fields were disturbed? I'm suggesting that they would leave the boundary constraints of the structured field and manifest as truants, in haphazard disorderly fields as evident in nebulae. All that has happened is that they have retained their neutral charge - and they have gained mass in inverse proportion to their loss in velocity. To the best of my knowledge this is not a 'regular' idea. I hope the idea is feasible. Because -
I've suggested as a first step after this disturbance - these little magnets do what all good magnets do. The simply try to reassemble that chaotic state back into the structured state of a magnetic field. They look to find a renewed structure. Some return to the structured field - that 'skeleton', so to speak, or backdrop behind all that is manifest - a primary field. Others, through a 'remarkable co-incidence of good timing' find a partner. But that partner is found, not in another, let's call it a manifest truant but in a non manifest truant. These are the zipons that left the field at an increased velocity and a loss in mass. If such a partner is found, then the truants become stable particles, able to withstand the 'force' of the field. In effect - the partner, I'll explain this in another post, stabilises or anchors the manfiest truant out of the field. That partner I've identified as a quark.
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.
-
Regarding Sophiecentaur's criticisms - he's right. As a rule a trained mind is simply bored with an untrained. Of necessity I plod.
Sophiecentaur. What must I say or do to stop your eternal attack. If you don't like me posting here then please check with the moderators. I'll get off this thread and this forum if it is required.
-
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.
So, we have virtual particles and quarks that are not the established type. [:)] Have you thought about how zipons react to create relativity phenomena when matter moves in space and time. Or do you keep Einstein's notion of warped space-time with no causality?
-
So, we have virtual particles and quarks that are not the established type. Have you thought about how zipons react to create relativity phenomena when matter moves in space and time. Or do you keep Einstein's notion of warped space-time with no causality. vern
I'm suggesting that stable particles are composites of manifest and non manifest truants. I'm suggesting that if they are not anchored they will return to the field. At this stage I have no idea if it conforms to conventional terms. I'm suggesting that the dissapearnce from view of all particles is when they decay back into the field. If they have an anchoring partner, then they do not 'slip back in' permenantly. They interact with the field but are able to retain their composite structure and remain outside of the field.
Here's my question. Do you get the concept? I am not, at this stage, asking for your agreement.
I'm keeping the threads short so I just don't want to clutter it with too much information in the hopes that as I move forward with the argument I at least know that it's understood or where it is that I may be losing you.
-
I can visualize the zipon field, but I don't understand the need for more than four dimensions, the need for them to move at 2c, or the need to dispense with the normal electromagnetic field. At some point the zipons must create the fields that we know about and can measure. Vern
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. But I can't do it in one fell swoop. I know my descriptions in the field model are badly explained. I don't want to make the mistake of running ahead with the argument if it is not clear - or, indeed, if you find something in it that's illogical.
-
Here's my question. Do you get the concept? I am not, at this stage, asking for your agreement.
I think I get the concept; but I don't see how everything ties together to give you such a compelling sense that it may represent reality.
-
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.
You would need more than reconciliation; you would need to show how your concept demands them. [:)] And, we need the relationship between zipons and relativity phenomena.
For example, if the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field, relativity phenomena results naturally. If the most elementary constituents of matter must always move at the invariant speed of light, matter must distort when it moves, and so we have relativity.
-
And, we need the relationship between zipons and relativity phenomena./b]
I hope to get there. But right now I'm going to have to marshall the resourses and take a break. jerryGG38's been quiet. I presume he's working. Thanks for the input thus far. I'll get back to you.
This is such fun - for me anyway. Thanks again. [:)]
-
The E = mc2 neglects momentum; this is known; I suspect the equation is correct. However, it is not Einstein's equation. Poincare used that in the 1800's.
To me the photon does not have mass because it is mass. Any time a photon is contained within a local system, it contributes to the mass of the system; a local system may be a mirrored box for example.
[/quote]
Yes confined photons within a particular volume are mass. The only problem I have with the equation is that if the mass is moving at light speed, then how can it have additional momentum? If the speed of light is the limit, then moving a mass with linear momentum must reduce the orbital speeds.
-
And, we need the relationship between zipons and relativity phenomena./b]
I hope to get there. But right now I'm going to have to marshall the resourses and take a break. jerryGG38's been quiet. I presume he's working. Thanks for the input thus far. I'll get back to you.
This is such fun - for me anyway. Thanks again. [:)]
No work today but they opened up a new Sams club. Then I had lunch and TV after lunch then fell asleep. I just looked at Verns answers. Some of this stuff is not what I have been thinking about. So Vern appear very knowledgeable in these areas.
-
Yes confined photons within a particular volume are mass. The only problem I have with the equation is that if the mass is moving at light speed, then how can it have additional momentum? If the speed of light is the limit, then moving a mass with linear momentum must reduce the orbital speeds.
There should be no problem. The photon does not have mass. I just say that it is mass. I suspect that mass is nothing more than electromagnetic change. The arithmetic works for that concept. Any time there is electric and magnetic amplitude change in a local area, you can compute the mass with established maths.
If the speed of light is the limit, then moving a mass with linear momentum must reduce the orbital speeds.
Yes; this is called time dilation. Mass made of light must experience time dilation when it moves.
-
Yes confined photons within a particular volume are mass. The only problem I have with the equation is that if the mass is moving at light speed, then how can it have additional momentum? If the speed of light is the limit, then moving a mass with linear momentum must reduce the orbital speeds.
There should be no problem. The photon does not have mass. I just say that it is mass. I suspect that mass is nothing more than electromagnetic change. The arithmetic works for that concept. Any time there is electric and magnetic amplitude change in a local area, you can compute the mass with established maths.
If the speed of light is the limit, then moving a mass with linear momentum must reduce the orbital speeds.
Yes; this is called time dilation. Mass made of light must experience time dilation when it moves.
Answer No. 1 sounds good to me. Mass to me isthe spinning of electromagnetic fields. Same as you.
Answer No.2 I never thought of. Is it your original idea or standard Einsteinian? At first though it would solve my problem. The rotation slows as the linear velocity increases. Yes. If we look at the light photon when stationary, it is moving fast in a circular pattern. As it moves at light speed, it travels a huge distance before completing a circle. Anyway I will have to think about answer 2 for awhile.
-
Answer No.2 I never thought of. Is it your original idea or standard Einsteinian?
Not Einstein; but I suspect Maxwell originated the concept and it was developed by Poincare, Fitzgerald, and Lorentz. The result was the Lorentz transformations. I came up with the concept independently, but before I could celebrate, I discovered that the idea was very old.
-
Answer No.2 I never thought of. Is it your original idea or standard Einsteinian?
Not Einstein; but I suspect Maxwell originated the concept and it was developed by Poincare, Fitzgerald, and Lorentz. The result was the Lorentz transformations. I came up with the concept independently, but before I could celebrate, I discovered that the idea was very old.
I am familar with the standard stuff but I never related it to a ball of energy traveling internally moving at light speed and then moving in the forward direction. Are you sure that the others specified this?
-
This is the first mention (http://photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein06.html#Ziegler) I found of the concept. It comes from one of Einstein's articles.
Development of Our Conception of the
Nature and Constitution of Radiation
H. Ziegler: If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter like states and electrodynamic phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted.
-
This is the first mention (http://photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein06.html#Ziegler) I found of the concept. It comes from one of Einstein's articles. Development of Our Conception of the
Nature and Constitution of Radiation
H. Ziegler: If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter like states and electrodynamic phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted.
Thanks
-
Regarding Sophiecentaur's criticisms - he's right. As a rule a trained mind is simply bored with an untrained. Of necessity I plod.
Sophiecentaur. What must I say or do to stop your eternal attack. If you don't like me posting here then please check with the moderators. I'll get off this thread and this forum if it is required.
My 'attacks' are on the content of what you have written. If you want it to be taken seriously then it really needs to have some consistency with reality.
You have still not answered my very reasonable challenge to justify your theory by applying it to the Hydrogen atom and obtaining the right values for the spectral lines.
If your theory can't do that then it has fallen at the first fence and has no credibility. That isn't an attack - it's a perfectly reasonable question. Answer it or admit that the theory doesn't have any substance.
Why am I not allowed to ask a perfectly reasonable question - just because it may be an embarrassing one?
-
This is the first mention (http://photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein06.html#Ziegler) I found of the concept. It comes from one of Einstein's articles.
Development of Our Conception of the
Nature and Constitution of Radiation
H. Ziegler: If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter like states and electrodynamic phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted.
Edit: As I look back at this I see that my post didn't take for some reason. Now I've forgotten what it was. I am sure it was some brilliant observation, but now it is lost forever, I'm afraid.[:)]
-
Vern, by the way, boundary constraints are simply the analogy I use to explain the different dimensions. You won't find it anywhere. It's how I describe the fact that we are, in effect, invisible to these magnetic fields. They just do not interact with anything that does not have an equal mass and velocity.- me.
Sorry Vern - before confusion abounds - I didn't read your post correctly. I indeed reference 'boundary constraints' in my blog paper. I had an idea you were trying to find justification in conventional physics. Boundary constraints are mentioned - not sure where - but I needed it to justify composites - so just after the magnetic field description?
Have been reading your posts with jerryGG38. I'm blown away by you guys, I am so out of my league here. I just wish I could understand your photonic theory Vern. You know what? I hope that you'll be able to describe my composites like you describe the photon. Who said 'an invisible shell'? That's SO good.
-
The photonic theory is really very simple. It simply states that the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. Then we are left to describing the electromagnetic field so that it can predict all observations that have been or will ever be made.
I do not know if it represents reality. I do know that there has never been an observation that can falsify the concept. I also know that there only needs to be one observation to crush it.
I like your thinking. Your zipons may be oscillating like string-theory strings, vibrating to form the different particles. I don't give it a lot of credence, but to me it is just as valid as string theory to which I don't give a lot of credence also. [:)]
Anyway it is fun to think along those lines.
-
Vern, I wrote this huge post - then discovered your post on my email. Had to read it and lost my post. Not a problem. It was way to long for you to read it. Am so glad you're AWAKE. You're obviously like me. I live on 'cat naps'. But I find these early hours just so lonely. It's our time 3.11 am. I'll get back to answering your post.
-
It is 8:23 in the evening here, so I watch TV for awhile then check the messages. I will probably fall asleep before long and awake about 1:00 AM. But I'll be around in the AM to see if I can contribute to anything.
-
Your zipons may be oscillating like string-theory strings, vibrating to form the different particles. Vern
No. That's not quite right. Actually it's not even close. This is why feedback is SO necessary. Let me try again. There is a disturbance to the field. I explained it as 'one of jerryGG38's magnetic monopoles broke loose. Whatever. God reached in and simply stirred that part of space. Then. Some of the zipons in the field - in that disturbance - break away from the field. They lose the zipon property of velocity and they gain mass. Then they become visible matter. They're seen as nebulae. I've seen pictures of these structures - huge - very beautiful. Then I described it - they do what all magnets do best. They try and reform into the structured state which is their natural state.
It's a complete break. jerrygg38 I think sees it as subtle nuances with an interplay between two time dimensions. I need that entire break. This makes the truant. I see you've posted again. Don't want to lose this so am posting and may need to modify.
EDIT OK Vern - I'll look for your reply tomorrow. Meanwhile I'll try and find another way to explain this. I can also see if I can wrap my mind around your thread on photonic theory.
-
Vern or jerryGG38 - I'm giving this another go. Here's the question. How do you express the following mathematically?
A theoretical neutral particle - made up of two opposite magnetic monopoles, travels at 2c - has a mass/size (I think I'm trying to describe volume here) of 0.5. That's its natural state in the field. This is not a wave. It's an actual infinitely stable particle. Two of jerrgyGG38's dots but probably smaller. That's the first part of the sum.
Now the theoretical particle lives in a theoretical universe that is shaped like a toroid. It only has these little particles. Nothing else. And each of these particles join up in strings that close up into a circle. One circle to one string. And these really LONGGGG strings circle the the whole of that universe. The strings are infinitessimally narrow. And the toroid is filled - chockablock with these strings. And each little zipon (as I've called the particle) lines up head to toe in that string. They also line up shoulder to shoulder with lateral strings. But they're stuck - in formation - BECAUSE - they can't shake free of the neighbouring strings - that shoulder to shoulder positioning - the lateral formation. One half of each zipon is attracted to its neighbour - so it shifts position to get close. But as it does so, it's other half is repelled by its neighbour. So it moves on. Forever. Just can't shake free and can't quite meet. Like a love hate relationship.
The charge distribution or balance in that field is breathtakingly perfect. You see, the shorter strings, to the middle - experience precisely as much charge as the outer strings. Where the former has more neighbouring strings the latter has a greater length in each string. Not only perfect charge distribution. But each zipon only ever moves forward. Never back. So, one half of the strings move in a diametrically opposite position to the other half. One justifcation - two directions.
And the time it takes to push forwards, forever, as it moves in that field, is one zipon moment. The time it takes for one zipon to displace another zipon in a field of zipons. That time frame is significant. I'll get back to it. In effect, its timeframe relates to its velocity of 2C. That's the velocity of the particle - so also, the velocity in that entire field.
ALSO - (this is edited) each zipon, courtesty the structure in the field, is indirectly linked or joined to evey other zipon in that entire theoretical universe. So that universe has a fixed energy quotient related to the number of these strings. The sum of each string, times the number of strings. That's got to be a big number.
Now to the second part of that sum. One of those strings splits apart and unravels. It's catastrophic. The formation is lost and all the zipons in that string - simply tumble together in a massive nebulus. But as they do so all that latent energy - that velocity of 2c is expressed in two ways. Some of the zipons accelerate and lose volume - something less than 0.5. Some of the zipons decelerate and gain volume - something more than 0.5. But deceleration and acceleration is precisely proportionate to decrease and increase in mass - respectively.
I'm hoping you guys can express this mathematically. That's what I'm describing.
I'll go on with the next phase in a separate post because, if there's an error here or if it doesn't make sense I can refer to it separately.
-
Then, to continue. The proposal is that the nebulus is a loose collection of these little dipoles that have simply lost their structure inside the field. They've clustered together because they're magnets. And it's a magnet's nature to cluster. The primary field - that great big magnetic toroid can no longer find these truants. They are outside the boundary constraints of the field. That primary field that makes up the toroid hardly notices a disturbance. It closed ranks and continued as ever. It now simply passes through the nubulus' flux fields. It cannot see the truants to interact with them. They are outside the boundary constraints of the field.
Are we still on the same page?
-
And then on to the truants - the zipons that are no longer part of the primary field. Remember there are two truants. The one type is too small and too fast to interact with the field. The other too big and too slow. They've effectively created two new dimensions, each with their own velocity and time. The one dimension is visible matter. The other is invisible matter. Between them is the field. And the only thing they share with the primary field is that common area in space - a relatively small area with its own demarcated dimensional boundary. But they do not see the primary field. The primary field does not see them. And the big slow truants are manifest because they're just a form of early matter. We share their dimensions of space and time. So that part of the nebulus is visible.
The truants are still only little magnets. They're magnetic dipoles that have lost their rank. No more one step, two step, forward march. They're lost in space with nowhere to go. They immediately try and 'reformulate' into orderly patterns because they need to balance their charge. That's what magnets do. In the field they joined up in long strings. But they're now out of the field. Chaos abounds. They can't quite get back that formation. So they try to do it in little steps.
-
Sophiecentaur, to your question on the hydrogen lines. It's dealt with in the blog, I've dealt with it in the thread re over unity - and I've specifically referred you to it. I think what you do is look at my posts, find some admission or evidence of mortal constraints, and then pounce on it and use it as proof positive that I'm either arm waving or not qualified to comment.
If you still read this thread, I promise you that I will try and explain it again. Clearly my explanations have been too obtuse, amateurish, un-professional, ill-advised, unscientific, inadquate, and generally unacceptable, for you to digest. I sincerely apologise for my inadequacies. I can only do my best.
But I have no intention of explaining the hydrogen lines in this thread until I know that my foundational concepts are half-way acceptable.
You know what? Logic is the only legitimate basis for a study and understanding of physics. I have a flair for logic. I'm just so sorry you can't see it. The only thing I can't do is express that logic mathematically. And while logic is very well expressed mathematically it can also be expressed in other ways - including, I might add, simple argument.
-
Now to the second part of that sum. One of those strings splits apart and unravels. It's catastrophic. The formation is lost and all the zipons in that string - simply tumble together in a massive nebulus. But as they do so all that latent energy - that velocity of 2c is expressed in two ways. Some of the zipons accelerate and lose volume - something less than 0.5. Some of the zipons decelerate and gain volume - something more than 0.5. But deceleration and acceleration is precisely proportionate to decrease and increase in mass - respectively.
You would need to define the system of units you would use and describe what unit is the .5 a part of.
-
Vern - can I define the 0.5 when I get to the reconciliation of the proton size/mass with the electron? In other words can I go on with the desciption without this? It's very back to front. I needed to find the mass/velocity of the zipon and simply started at 0.5. It fitted so I didn't need to go further. But my proof is only the in that proton/electron mass/size number.
-
Is it .5 inches per year? is it .5 pounds per foot? that is what I meant.
-
OK - sorry. I mean it's half the size of a photon. So - no idea how to express it. The photon has no mass.
-
We pretty well know that the proton is about 1836 times as massive as the electron. Photon size is related to the wave length which may be anything. How do you make a photon out of zipons?
-
I get there. I use it as proof of the composite nature of stable particles. It's in the blog - but no-one seesms to understand it. I'm hoping to make it clear.
EDIT But here's the thing? It's only used as a size ratio. Does that make it more understandable.
-
If we say the zipon is .5 the size of a photon, it does not convey much of an image. A photon can be any size, front to back.
-
Ok Vern. I explain the frequency of the phootn - still reconciled to C but with an interaction with the field. I'm not there yet. My question is - are we on the same page - bar 0.5 for the zippon mass? I don't think it's mass. I think it's volume. But I'm hoping you or jerryGG38 - will be able to explain what I mean.
-
Ok Vern. I explain the frequency of the phootn - still reconciled to C but with an interaction with the field. I'm not there yet. My question is - are we on the same page - bar 0.5 for the zippon mass?
I think I got lost in the zipon field. I'm still intertwined among the little magnets. [:)] I don't get a vision of electric and magnetic field interaction out of it.
-
Well - are we on the same page? Do you get it that this is an actual particle and that they actually combine to form other particles? Can I move on or is there ANYTHING that still needs to be explained. Such fun. [:X]
-
I understand what you're saying. We can move past this little bump. I get the feeling that the zipons may need to be flexable so that two of them might form a complete loop.
-
THEY DO. spot on. But - as mentioned. I plod. Give me a while I'll try and express the composites. Thanks Vern. You've given my life a new lease.
-
I think if we can bend the zipons into little loops we can make a universe out of them. We can put two of them together front to back and see that we have all the trappings of a photon. Then we can bend these two into a loop and show that the bending causes an electric field on the outside of the bend. Then we have an electron.
Put four such loops together in a sandwich and we can make a neutron [:)]
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fvern.gif&hash=c22996c1b3c68c693722af86eb9eafb9)
Edit: I removed the larger image.
-
No. Our numbers are different. Love the diagram. How did you DO that? I've just done it again. I lost my post to read yours. I'm making a habit of it. I'll start again.
You're definitely showing off. And yet again I've got to start over.
EDIT [>:(] [???] [:(!] [V]
EDIT THE EDIT [???] [:o] [:(!] [:o]
totally distracted. You'll have to wait now.
-
I think if we can bend the zipons into little loops we can make a universe out of them. We can put two of them together front to back and see that we have all the trappings of a photon. Then we can bend these two into a loop and show that the bending causes an electric field on the outside of the bend. Then we have an electron.
Put four such loops together in a sandwich and we can make a neutron [:)]
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fvern.gif&hash=c22996c1b3c68c693722af86eb9eafb9)
Glad to see you can turn some of Witsend's ideas into your concepts. I like that she has some very long strings. The wavelength of my longest dot-wave is 2 pi times the radius of the universe.
String theory has very tiny strings. The alternate possibility is that the strings are extremely long. Thus one solution is that the universe is comprized of very long strings.
the intersection of the very long strings is a point which is the dot.
There is a plus dot and a minus dot as the strings live in two different universes. However at the point of intersection, they form a bipolar dot.
It could also be argued that the strings are unchanged. The intersection of the dots jump from string to string as an object moves.
The strings contract prior to big bang and expand toward infinty after big bang. Therefore the entire universe is made from large expanding and contracting strings.
String theory is hard to buy because they have these tiny strings. How are they interconnected?
You could argue that the long strings are the magnetic field and the inteaction between the strings are the electric field.
In addition you could say that the strings themselves move at 2C. However why not 4C or 1024C? Perhaps infinity C.If they are moving in a closed loop it doesn't really matter how fast they are moving as long as they are moving faster than C. The interactions between the strings is at light speed C however.
Winsend, Some of your ideas seem pretty good. What they do is give Vern and me other ideas to add to our own theories.
-
jerryGG38 - glad to contribute. And glad you're with us again. I needed someone to introduce a modicum of seriousness to my proposal. I think Vern is in danger of becoming way too frivolous which is hardly appropriate to a science forum. Am in two minds as to whether he should be reported to BenV who would then have to penalise him. Somehow?
In any event, any attempt at descibing those interactions have flown with the giggles. I'm going to take my long suffering dog for a long walk and then tackle this again.
-
I think Vern is in danger of becoming way too frivolous which is hardly appropriate to a science forum.
Maybe so; I'll try to do better [:)]
-
Glad to see you can turn some of Witsend's ideas into your concepts. I like that she has some very long strings. The wavelength of my longest dot-wave is 2 pi times the radius of the universe.
It was just an attempt to fit the notion into the real world.
-
Glad to see you can turn some of Witsend's ideas into your concepts. I like that she has some very long strings. The wavelength of my longest dot-wave is 2 pi times the radius of the universe.
It was just an attempt to fit the notion into the real world.
I do not know why she is getting upset with you. You have been attempting to understand what she is saying. I cannot follow all the words. My brain just scans her stuff and looks for points that make sense to me. Her long strings is a definite possibility.
The alternative is that the dots in constant motion interact with other dots to produce a wavelength of 2 pi times the radius of the universe. In this case no strings are necessary. The interaction could be at very high light speeds.
-
OK - so to recap. I've proposed this background - described as the 'fabric behind the tapesty'. Just added that because I think it's a neat analogy. It is out of reach of our manifest dimensions. Can't see us and doesn't interact with us.
BUT the truants are still only magnets and do what all magnets do. They need to find something that they can attach to because they are looking to find a rest state. In effect they're out of the field but they still need to find an orderly structure. The nebulus flux - not orderly at all. So they do it in small steps.
Some of these truants find nothing. They decay back into the primary field as nuances or virtual particles. Some manifest truants could try and attach to other slow manifest truants - but I could'nt hold this one as it lacked symmetry. Eventually both would decay. But I found symmetry in the smaller faster truant - not manifest. That's the first stable particle. The photon. Through some miracle it finds a partner with a precise velocity and mass to compensate for its own lack of velocity and mass. They're both at either side of the primary field. They move together - matching like to unlike. But in that movement the Smaller faster truant becomes bigger and slower. And the slower bigger truant becomes smaller and faster. SO. At some stage both will reach a co-incident mass/velocity of the zipons in the field. That background structure is always there. But it can only interact with particles of like mass and velocity. That boundary constraint. And when they get there - then their combined charge conflicts with the primary field's charge or justification.
It inevitably repels. I have to explain this. At the point where the truants are the same size as the zipons, then at that point the two truants, (the photon) present two charges. The field only, in effect has one charge - or justification. A forward march. One truant's combined charge will be attractive. The other truant's combined charge would be repellent. So. The sum is to expell both truants. And the question is in what direction? Well the combined truants to one photon is neutral. The only neutral path in that field is along its radial arms. That would also be the only straight path through the curved field. The result being that the photon would radiate outwards from a point (EDIT) in a straight line. Which it does.
Is any of this clear?
-
JerryGG38 - am not at all upset. Greatly amused. I was teasing. I know Vern was also laughing.
EDIT - the point being that I kept starting posts and kept interrupting them to read Vern's message - and then lost my post. And it wasn't as if Vern had anything to say. He was showing off. Very distracting.
-
EDIT - the point being that I kept starting posts and kept interrupting them to read Vern's message - and then lost my post. And it wasn't as if Vern had anything to say. He was showing off. Very distracting.
You're right; I was just showing off. I thought the little swirly thing was neat.
-
But I found symmetry in the smaller faster truant - not manifest. That's the first stable particle. The photon. Through some miracle it finds a partner with a precise velocity and mass to compensate for its own lack of velocity and mass. They're both at either side of the primary field.
I glean from this that the photon consists of a minimum of two zipons that have become dislodged from the primary field. I can visualize little front to back magnets locked together. And if they are flexable, they could bend so that the front locks with the back to make a toroid. Is this the way you visualize it?
-
vern - I just don't know. I can only get them to reach across the primary field. You're way ahead of me. I can also get the frequency in a two step dance arrangement. I'll describe it in the next post. But the actual symmetrical arrangement of these two is just too difficult for me to imagine. That's where I need you to 'fill the gap'. Donovan, my co-author - has got illustrations of the photon. But I don't know how to get this loaded to the PDF file in the blog. Maybe next week?
In any event, that level of symmetry is and always will be beyond me. I would say a toroid would be good. But why not that 'invisible two dimensional sphere'. Just remember, the next step is the same thing at the next interaction. So there has to be an 'unfurling'.
Here's how I picture it the photon's interaction. They have a helical orbit on a shared axis. The one small twists bigger, the one big twists smaller. The meet at ground zero - the primary field - and they're then repelled into the neutral arms of the field at the junction of those two zipons - jerry's dots. But at that junction they swap lattices, the big to small and vice versa.
-
I thought the little swirly thing was neat. Vern
That swirly thing was neat. It was brilliant. I can't tell you how impressed. I need something like that to describe these interactions. I'm hoping against hope you'll oblige. Maybe one day. I guess I've still got to get you into these concepts.
EDIT - that's why it was so distracting. It's just so eloquent and elegant. I want this whole model described with fractal geometry. I've written it in my introduction and conclusion. I'm sure that a simple algorithm could describe the whole thing.
-
I made a software program that created the neutron model. It is very simple code.
Here is the source code. (http://photontheory.com/neutrons.cpp)
Here is the class library for the code. (http://photontheory.com/neutronlib.h)
I don't have the code for a fractal, but have had in the past. If you could find fractal software you might could play with the algorithms and get it to resemble the image you have in mind.
-
Here's how I picture it the photon's interaction. They have a helical orbit on a shared axis. The one small twists bigger, the one big twists smaller. The meet at ground zero - the primary field - and they're then repelled into the neutral arms of the field at the junction of those two zipons - jerry's dots. But at that junction they swap lattices, the big to small and vice versa.
I can visualize these dynamics, but can't figure what is the compelling reason for it to be so.
-
Vern. Yet again I have to go out. I just need to tell you this. The reason for all this is to take the energy quotient away from the particle and to put it in the field. Very necessary. Not only for symmetry but to explain other paradoxes. In other words, the electromagnetic interaction is actually an interaction between the manifest and the primary field. I SO want to explain this. But I first want to show the electron composite and the proton. You'll be falling asleep at all this, I'm sure. It's possibly already obvious. But bear with me. I'm a plodder of some considerable distinction when it comes to plod, plodding. I just need to take it in steps. Bear with me. We do not all have 2c intellects.
-
I'll be watching.
-
Hi Vern. Hope your still there. I'm back. We went out for a bite. I've just read through jerryGG38's post more carefully. Sorry my words lose you. Please try and understand them. Better still tell me where I've lost you. Glad to explain, if I possibly can. It's that eternal barrier between the trained and untrained. I hoped concepts bridge this. It seems to work for Vern.
Vern. Just to recap. The interaction between the 2 zippon composite and the field is proposed as the 'driving force' so to speak of the photon's path which would then radiate outwards in the neutral field of that curved framework of the primary magnetic field. In effect, all the photon's two composites would then do is systematically swap places with each other. No real expenditure of energy. Just a closed system. The actual electromagnetic interaction comes when it is moved, not courtesy it's own energy but courtesy the the energy from the field that then rejects one half of the photon's composite.
Now I'm not sure if this expains it - but here's the best I can do for a justification - outside of my patterns. The photon presents two charges on either side of the string. A plus say, on one side, and a minus say, on the other side. EDITED - The field only has one justification or charge, being, say a minus. The result is that the plus and minus cancel out leaving a minus. A single charge results in a single direction. And, I've already said that the the only path for the neutral composite of the whole photon would then be between the zipons. So it goes in a straight line through the neutral part of the primary field in a single direction and a straight path.
The problem is this. Back to the boundary constraints and that machine. If the field is moving the particle, and if the field has a constant velocity, as I've proposed, then this primary field can do something that that machine can't do. It can calculate the frequency of the photon and adjust the strength of it's throw so to speak, so that it invariably moves the photon at a constant speed regardless of it's frequency. This is patently absurd. The more so as the photon can move through an almost infinite range of frequencies. BTW is there an upper or lower limit?
What I've proposed is this. The time that it takes for the slow and fast truant to reach the zeniths of their orbit relates to the zipon's time frame. In other words, let's say the frequency of the photon is 50 zipon moments big. So. In relation to the time frame of the field, it would take 25 zipon moments for both truants to reach that zenith. Another 25 zipon moments to decay back into the field. And then another interaction and - off they go again. Then it doesn't matter what its frequency. Anything as small as a fraction of a zipon moment all the way up to a million million zipon moments, the photon will always then be constrained to light speed - exactly half the speed of the zipons in the field.
Is this interaction that much different to your's? In effect you're dealing with the manifest truant. There's nothing to preclude an invisible anchoring quark, as I've referred to it. And - to all intents and purposes the photon would always then move as, indeed they do. The difference being that it's frequency would be marked by a 'flicker' as it disappears from view when it decays and interacts with the field.
This post is way too long. I feel you wincing - right across the Atlantic.
EDIT - actually I've just looked at it. It's not too bad.
-
This is patently absurd. The more so as the photon can move through an almost infinite range of frequencies. BTW is there an upper or lower limit?
As far as anyone knows there is no low limit or high limit for the frequency of the electromagnetic field.
I read through your dynamic of zipons becoming photons a couple of times; I think I get the picture. To me the photon is the most elemental constituent of all physical reality. It doesn't matter to the concept how the photon is constructed; if it behaves like the photons we know about it fits within my concept.
I'm trying to fit together how you make a proton. The image in your Blog is neat. Is this your concept of a proton construct?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fprotonw2.png&hash=74826289219246587ca229992d151f40)
-
Yes. But look at the PDF file. It's at the end of the magnetic field blog. It's got more illustrations. Donovan drew the charge of each truant at the 'equator' so to speak. It may have been better balanced if the equator was along the north south axis. But it makes no difference. The proton - in my model has a constant interaction with all three truants - so charge and mass vary. becomes hugely complex with the neutron. interaction.
-
We're in the middle of a tornado watch; one is on the ground a few miles away; going the other direction. I may loose power any minute.
I'll search through the Blog.
-
WOW. You live in TORNEDO ALLEY? That's so amazing. I hope you're safe. Have you got a basement? GOSH. I've always been so intrigued with this. I keep vidoes of tornedo chasers.
Take care. If we lose touch I'll understand. Hope you're safe.
-
So far so good; two tornadoes came through; one was about 10 miles south, the other about 5 miles north. It seems to be calming down now; I hope it is not the calm before ... [:)]
I searched the Blog but the only graphics I found was the circuit.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fcircuit.png&hash=8c29141f1d0a9a2c8b6ee48e69aaed2b)
-
I've been giggling again. WHAT ARE YOU DOING??? THIS IS AN UNMENTIONABLE. Glad you're safe. Still giggling. It's there. I'm sure. I saw it myself some time back. AT THE END OF THE BLOG.
EDIT [:o] [:o] [:o] [:o] [8)] [:I] [;D]
-
When I click on the link at the bottom it wants me to sign up for an account. I don't think I want to join up.
-
You're impossible. I've had the best laugh I've had in ages. I just hope that trawlers wont get the wrong idea about me while they're stealing my brilliant ideas.
-
It looks like we survived the storm; the all clear just sounded. I'll see if I can paste a shot from my TV signal. Looks like I have to fix the date on my digital camera. It thinks it is 2006.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fallclear.jpg&hash=c970e64e3edd650f822be365db458756)
-
Couldn't make out the alley. Is it the red area - tornedos in lilac? Have you got a basement? How much warning do you get. And is your house wood or brick?
-
They depict tornados on this TV newscast with little yellowish curls; one is near England and one is near Cotton Plant. The one that came close is the one at Cotton Plant.
We live in a brick house and have a fraidy hole but we seldom use it. The TV news tracks them pretty good, but when you lose power you are in the dark; in more ways than one. [:)]
Fixed my camera date. Storm is heading toward Memphis now.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fallclear2.jpg&hash=7c8c23b54613b439dcb3282e29317053)
-
Golly Vern. Thanks for the info. Can't get over that I now know someone who lives in the dreaded alley. I love watching tornedos from the safe distance of Africa. We never get them here. A force of nature. I keep tapes on them made by storm chasers. Love the excitement - but they're massively destructive. I've seen pictures of whole towns blown away. Could never work out why people live in wooden houses when they're so vulnerable. Glad to hear you've got brick. But they can also lose the odd roof, wall windows - whatever.
If I lived there I'd build the main house below ground level. With a cement roof!! Glad all's well. I'll post again tomorrow. Hope you'll be around. It's definitely my bed time.
-
Tornadoes are not bad as long as you get out of their way.
This is a link about Cabot (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Cabot_Arkansas/id/1942506) We get our share of tornadoes. The last to actually hit our town was in 1976. My wife and I were both at work and came home to destruction. But our house was spared. Our six kids were in school. It missed the school by less than a block.
A devastating tornado hit downtown Cabot during the afternoon of March 29, 1976, killing five people and destroying multiple buildings. During the rebuilding of the city, it was decided to build a new city hall, municipal courtroom, library (since relocated), and police station on the site of the debris-filled dividing point between the east and west sections of Main Street, creating City Plaza. Arkansas Highway 89, which follows the same path as West Main Street in Cabot, was redirected around City Plaza along one block of Second Street, to continue its path along Pine Street just south of the Cabot High School campus.
-
Golly Vern. Thanks for the info. Can't get over that I now know someone who lives in the dreaded alley. I love watching tornedos from the safe distance of Africa. We never get them here. A force of nature. I keep tapes on them made by storm chasers. Love the excitement - but they're massively destructive. I've seen pictures of whole towns blown away. Could never work out why people live in wooden houses when they're so vulnerable. Glad to hear you've got brick. But they can also lose the odd roof, wall windows - whatever.
If I lived there I'd build the main house below ground level. With a cement roof!! Glad all's well. I'll post again tomorrow. Hope you'll be around. It's definitely my bed time.
I have to worry about tornados also. When I lived in New York it was hurracaines. In Virginia Beach one Hurricain stood over our house for over a day. It kept circuling.
Another one knocked down 15 trees. Now in Cary North Carolina I don't have to worry about hurricaines but we occassionally get some tornados.
If things get bad we can run into a little room under the stairs in the middle of the house. However it has been over 20 years since a bad tornado did any damage. A few weeks ago one touched down in Cary but did no damage. In general once the storms pass over the mountains, they are weak. The tornados seem to like the flat land best. I am at 500 foot elevation.
Once in Connecticut I was in the middle of a tornado. It was strange. I pulled into a parking lot and the tornado hit. My rental car was rocked up and down slightly. The water on the ground flowed upward into the air. It was over in a few minutes. My hotel had no lights when I got their. They said I could cancel the reservation. But where to go. So I found the room using my cigarette lighter.
All night long I slept fearing what would happen if the motel caught fire. How would I escape in the pitch dark. No exit lights were working and my lighter had little fuel.
Finally I woke up in the daylight. To my surprize there was an exit door in the room to the terrace. We were only a few feet off the ground. I could have walked right out the door to safety if the motel was on fire.
Anyway often up north and in Cary we get F1 tornado's. Some are even F 0.5 even though they usually just specify F1. So you can be in a tornado and have little damage. The house roof could blow off. Windows broken but no real danger to many people. Of course in Tornado alley, they get some pretty bad stuff. Houses should all be built with an internal safe room good for 200 miles per hour.
-
They depict tornados on this TV newscast with little yellowish curls
I think you are seeing the radar image of a hook echo.
-
Yeah; hook echoes show up, but the news cast enhances the reported sightings with the yellow graphic curly things. It is helpful. We can know where the knot of the storm is and follow its progress.
-
Vern. Just to recap. The interaction between the 2 zippon composite and the field is proposed as the 'driving force' so to speak of the photon's path which would then radiate outwards in the neutral field of that curved framework of the primary magnetic field. In effect, all the photon's two composites would then do is systematically swap places with each other. No real expenditure of energy. Just a closed system. The actual electromagnetic interaction comes when it is moved, not courtesy it's own energy but courtesy the the energy from the field that then rejects one half of the photon's composite.
I first thought that the 2c might be needed to alternate movement so that the composite movement comes out to c, but this does not seem to be so. Then that gets me back to wondering howcome 2c?
-
Hi Vern. Delighted to see you're there. I'm going to read through the thread and answer your last post. Glad to see that all survived your storms. I read up about Cabot's destruction - 30 odd years back? That's scarey. It must have crippled some re-insurers.
I've got the whole afternoon/evening free - bar some cooking. So I intend plodding on and hopefully you'll be around now and then to review. Need to catch up and will get back to you.
Edit - I see I'm a FULL MEMBER. How did that happen? It must be some kind of distinction. I think it means that contributors need to treat me with due courtesy and respect!! I am now a fully initiated and honory peer. Take heed those Sophiecentaurs of this strange universe of the forum!! [???]
And Paul, a new contributor? He makes you look like a beginner Vern. One more post at a total of 5000. I so regret joining this so late. I should have joined 10 years ago. Was the forum around then?
-
Then that gets me back to wondering howcome 2c?Vern
It's a ratio of the composite size of the zippon to the photon. 2c half the composite of the photon (same question is it volume/size/what??) twice the velocity. The photon 2 zippons, twice the (volume/size) therefore half the velocity.
I take it you get the interaction with the field - when the two truants also interact or 'swap lattices'? And I take it that you see that the zippon has no idea of the truants until they 'tresspass' on that boundary. The blog description of the 'frequency' interaction of the photon with the primary field is a one step, two step, turn around dance action. Bit repetitive.
Now. I could also find a stable interaction with the field in a composite of three zipons. I've proposed that this is an electron. The biggest truant is a bit like the photon. The second truant is same mass/size/velocity of the zipon in the field. But it's in antiphase with the field. The third anchoring truant or quark - same as the photon. Here the charge to the field is 3 from the truants and 1 from the field. The field and the 1 from the truant composite cancel and it leaves 2 charges. These give the composite 2 directions. So. A continual interaction with the field and an intermittant interaction while the two outer truants move towards the field to swap their lattices. This could also be OK because, in a bubble chamber an electron spirals - and if it were interacting with magnetic fields in that chamber - then it would definitely spiral.
Which means that the 'interactive moment' with the field would be much like a photon but would take a third longer to complete. It would simply flicker out of view, or vanish - for a little bit longer.
-
W:Apparently string theory math is postively exotic. But always remember, they've cracked the code. They just haven't found the particle.
JG: On Page 286 “The Trouble with physics” Lee Smolin, he says
“So I sympathize strongly with the plight of string theorists who want both to be good scientists and to have the approval of powerful people in their field. I understand the difficulty of thinking clearly and independently which acceptance in your community requires belief in a complicated set of ideas that you don’t know how to prove yourself. This is a trap it took me years to think my way out of.”
Sorry W, the String theorists have only made their own code. Their ideas are quite foolish. From a practical point of view their ideas are pure nonsense. They make pretty pictures but the universe is a more simple place. It is basically 3 dimensional except when we go to plank length. Then we only see tiny differences in time dimensions which are easy to understand.
W: 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.
JG: I agree with you on that. Except the plus magnetic field is in one time dimension and the minus magnetic field is across the barrier in the other time dimension. The time difference between the dimensions is Plank time
Delta time = 1E-44 seconds approximately.
-
Hi JerryGG38 - I know we've got something similar here. I think your's is more likely to be right. But I can't wrap my mind around the thought that those magnetic monopoles could stay apart. Just through the force of attraction. But, in any event. Let's suppose something. Let's say that your's is a more fundamental view. Mine a secondary event. Right or wrong - at this stage they're both ideas.
Delighted to see that you're around.
-
Edit - I see I'm a FULL MEMBER. How did that happen? It must be some kind of distinction. I think it means that contributors need to treat me with due courtesy and respect!! I am now a fully initiated and honory peer. Take heed those Sophiecentaurs of this strange universe of the forum!! Huh?
It is a little magical property of this forum. The more posts you have, the more rating you get. When your posts exceeded 100 you became a full member.
-
JerryGG38 - BTW - Your model also needs multi dimensions. Surely? I have no idea of string theorists, but Smolen aside, there are quite a few such theorists at every university and they swear they've reached that magical unification of all the forces. The problem is that no-one including themselves, seem to fully understand what they've found. And there are just so many different answers. Which doesn't help
-
I take it you get the interaction with the field - when the two truants also interact or 'swap lattices'? And I take it that you see that the zippon has no idea of the truants until they 'tresspass' on that boundary. The blog description of the 'frequency' interaction of the photon with the primary field is a one step, two step, turn around dance action. Bit repetitive.
I don't quite get the vision of the lattice. I know about lattices that flowering plants grow on, little boards arranged in a pattern; but I am sure that you have some other vision of it.
-
Hi Vern. I guessed as much when I saw the distinction of the sheer number of posts by different contributors. I intend to catch up quick. Did you read my composite electron?
-
Lattice - purely an imaginary line defined by the charges moving together through that axial spin. I had an idea it fitted with your description of the movement of the photon. For that matter, also with JerryGG38's.
-
Re lattices - Vern. I also think that the primary field would then form a kind of lattice. But the whole concept of lattice is wrong if it implies anything static. Perhaps I should use another term. Happy to take suggestions.
I'd love you to think of a way of showing this through your trick with those moving shapes.
-
I'd love you to think of a way of showing this through your trick with those moving shapes.
I haven't quite got the picture well enough established in my mind. I might could do it when I get the picture. I don't want to spend a lot of effort making something that is not your vision.
-
JerryGG38 - BTW - Your model also needs multi dimensions. Surely? I have no idea of string theorists, but Smolen aside, there are quite a few such theorists at every university and they swear they've reached that magical unification of all the forces. The problem is that no-one including themselves, seem to fully understand what they've found. And there are just so many different answers. Which doesn't help
Yes. I need three time dimensions. However the three time dimensions are very simple. Look at the hands of a clock. Right now we are at time zero. A split second ago we were at minus time. A split second into the future we will be at positive time. Therefore three time dimensions fit into differential equations quite readily.
The strange dimensions of string theory are beyond our ability to conceive of them. We really cannot discuss them because they do not relate to anything we can imagine.
My multi-lightspeed dimensions are merely things that travel and exist at higher or lower light speeds. This we can conceive as well. However we exist quite well independent of the other light speed dimensions.
For the universe to exist at all, it is my belief and the belief of many scientists that ultimately we must find a very simple solution to the basics of the universe. String theory is too outrageous to be possible.
-
JerryGG38 - BTW - Your model also needs multi dimensions. Surely? I have no idea of string theorists, but Smolen aside, there are quite a few such theorists at every university and they swear they've reached that magical unification of all the forces. The problem is that no-one including themselves, seem to fully understand what they've found. And there are just so many different answers. Which doesn't help
Yes. I need three time dimensions. However the three time dimensions are very simple. Look at the hands of a clock. Right now we are at time zero. A split second ago we were at minus time. A split second into the future we will be at positive time. Therefore three time dimensions fit into differential equations quite readily.
The strange dimensions of string theory are beyond our ability to conceive of them. We really cannot discuss them because they do not relate to anything we can imagine.
My multi-lightspeed dimensions are merely things that travel and exist at higher or lower light speeds. This we can conceive as well. However we exist quite well independent of the other light speed dimensions.
For the universe to exist at all, it is my belief and the belief of many scientists that ultimately we must find a very simple solution to the basics of the universe. String theory is too outrageous to be possible.
John Wheeler said Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise.
I suspect that simple principle is The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
-
This is the first mention (http://photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein06.html#Ziegler) I found of the concept. It comes from one of Einstein's articles. Development of Our Conception of the
Nature and Constitution of Radiation
H. Ziegler: If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter like states and electrodynamic phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted.
Vern - I had to find this again. Way back. This thread is already getting too big. Ziegler - 'invisible little spheres'
Let's start with that - with a north south - or plus minus demarction in those spheres. Then the big spins towards the small - presenting appropriate charge, and the small spins to the big - also presenting appropriate charge. The demarcation could also be a north/south axis so when they present they fit - north to south on both truants.
But let your designs wait. The picture is much more complex becasue both truants have two charges and if they also 'swap places' then there should also be a partial influence from the field. Quite complex really. Maybe better to get the whole picture and then apply that mind of yours to the details. As I wrote that level of definition is way, way beyond me. I've only got the skeleton. You guys can sort out the shape.
-
The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.Vern
I agree. I totally and wholeheartedly agree - BUT with one proviso - that the magnetic part of that electromagnetic interaction is not in our dimension. Except for this difference I ENTIRELY agree. [;D]
-
I suspect that simple principle is The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
Yes. Since I have eliminated the necessity for the independent property of mass, all we have left is pure electrical theory.
-
The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.Vern
I agree. I totally and wholeheartedly agree - BUT with one proviso - that the magnetic part of that electromagnetic interaction is not in our dimension. Except for this difference I ENTIRELY agree. [;D]
Verns statement does not specify what dimensions the fields occupy. It could be three , four, five , ten etc.
-
Yes. Since I have eliminated the necessity for the independent property of mass, all we have left is pure electrical theory.EDIT - sorry JerryGG38
What do you mean? I cannot understand how you can eliminate mass. It's tangibly evident - everywhere?
-
Yes. Since I have eliminated the necessity for the independent property of mass, all we have left is pure electrical theory.Vern
What do you mean? I cannot understand how you can eliminate mass. It's tangibly evident - everywhere?
Mass is electromagnetic change. [:)] Any time that change exists in a local area, it is mass. It is the only way the arithmetic works. This is standard stuff; not just my concept. It is just that we don't usually think of it that way.
BTW; the quote was from jerrygg38 not me but I agree with it.
-
Verns statement does not specify what dimensions the fields occupy. It could be three , four, five , ten etc.
It only works in the familiar 3 + 1 dimensions.
-
Vern - Jerrygg38 - Let's somehow get to the same page. JerryGG38 says that he has no need of mass in an electric field. You say that it is a required property in any electromagnetic interaction. Am I missing something. These two concepts seem diametrically opposite. I have no problem with mass. I have a problem in any universe at all without it.
What's actually being said here?
-
I agree. I totally and wholeheartedly agree - BUT with one proviso - that the magnetic part of that electromagnetic interaction is not in our dimension. Except for this difference I ENTIRELY agree.
I guess there could be other dimensions; I can make computer simulations of them, but I can't imagine that they could exist in real life.
-
These two concepts seem diametrically opposite. I have no problem with mass. I have a problem in any universe at all without it.
Mass exists; we are just considering its composition. The contention is that it consists of nothing other than electric and magnetic change trapped in local patterns.
-
Yes. Since I have eliminated the necessity for the independent property of mass, all we have left is pure electrical theory.EDIT - sorry JerryGG38
What do you mean? I cannot understand how you can eliminate mass. It's tangibly evident - everywhere?
If you look at my Sister transformation theory you will see that in my theory I propose that
MCC = QC = energy
Therefore a moving charge at light speed has the property of energy
Therefore
M = Q/C = coulombs seconds per meter
This eliminates the need for kilograms. Therefore mass is elimated and replaced by an electrical term.
Over the years I have had three different transformation solutions. I started with this one, then went to another sister solution, then I tried the mass equals charge solution. Finally I returned to my original equation of 1988.
You think mass exists? Why? You pick some heavy object up and it is hard to do. You push against a wall and think it is a hard object. Why?
If you take a three dimensional high speed gyroscope (3 axis) and try to lift it, you will find you cannot. It may weigh ten pounds but you cannot pick it up.
Mass is merely the electromagnetic field spinning on 3 axis. It is not an independent property of nature.
-
I agree. I totally and wholeheartedly agree - BUT with one proviso - that the magnetic part of that electromagnetic interaction is not in our dimension. Except for this difference I ENTIRELY agree.
I guess there could be other dimensions; I can make computer simulations of them, but I can't imagine that they could exist in real life.
Think about a magnetic hysteresis loop. You know that exists in real life. Then think about a light speed hysteresis loop. Finally think about a space time hysteresis loop. In this way the universe is a hysteresis loop of plus time, minus time and zero time.
It is not complex. It is just that the universe we live in is a composite of three time dimensions which are extremely close to each other.
-
This eliminates the need for kilograms. Therefore mass is elimated and replaced by an electrical term.JerryGG38
OK - we're on the same page. I'm with you. I entirely agree. The only difference between you me and Vern is this. Vern says all is sufficient in the electromagnetic description. You say is all sufficient in the Electric description. And I say that the magnetic is separate from the electric description but I need both.
How interesting is that.
-
Think about a magnetic hysteresis loop. You know that exists in real life. Then think about a light speed hysteresis loop. Finally think about a space time hysteresis loop. In this way the universe is a hysteresis loop of plus time, minus time and zero time.
I can imagine it; I just can't think of why it is needed.
-
This eliminates the need for kilograms. Therefore mass is elimated and replaced by an electrical term.JerryGG38
OK - we're on the same page. I'm with you. I entirely agree. The only difference between you me and Vern is this. Vern says all is sufficient in the electromagnetic description. You say is all sufficient in the Electric description. And I say that the magnetic is separate from the electric description but I need both.
How interesting is that.
The problem is a man named Maxwell. His excellent equations have formed the basis of much of electrical theory. You cannot separate the electric and magnetic fields. They are interconnected. One makes the other. To me the stationary dot-wave is the electric field while the moving dot-wave is the magnetic field. In general things move and stop, thus the electric field always turns into a magnetic field and visa versa.
If you try to build a universe where the two fields are not sister properties, then the foundation of electrical theory is in jepoardy.
On thing I saw you state previously is that two magnetic fields will not produce an electric field.
If you bring two bar magnets toward each other, Each bar magnet will induce electric currents in the next bar magnet. Therefore the moving magnetic fields will produce electric fields and visa veras. you cannot disconnect the electric and magnetic fields from each other.
-
And I say that the magnetic is separate from the electric description but I need both.
Some physicists suspect that the two fields might exist separate from each other and that a magnetic monopole might exist. So far this has not been observed. A changing magnetic creates an electric etc.
Edit: jerrygg38; our posts crossed [:)] We're on the same page.
-
Think about a magnetic hysteresis loop. You know that exists in real life. Then think about a light speed hysteresis loop. Finally think about a space time hysteresis loop. In this way the universe is a hysteresis loop of plus time, minus time and zero time.
I can imagine it; I just can't think of why it is needed.
From a mathematical viewpoint think about differential equations. It works based upon delta time. Thus the whole basis of our math is the present time verses the past time and verses future time. Therefore the whole basis of our universe is plus and minus differential time. Therefore in reality there is a memory of the past time.
A rock moves slowly in pure empty space. There is a memory of the rock a split second ago. There are forces between the rock in the here and now and a split second ago. So we always have a universe of today and a universe of a split second ago. Now we get Einsteinian.
The image of the rock's motion is ahead of the rock at the speed of light. Thus there is a fast forward component to the motion of the rock.
Now we have a t- universe, a t=0 universe and a t=+ universe.
If we did not have three time universes, then differential equations would be eliminated. Our universe would be eliminated as well.
-
Now we have a t- universe, a t=0 universe and a t=+ universe.
If we did not have three time universes, then differential equations would be eliminated. Our universe would be eliminated as well.
I just always thought of the + and - of time to be properties of the time dimension.
-
since we're discussing everything except my composites - let me say this.
There was a young lady of Bright,
Whose speed was much faster than light
She left one day in a relative way
And returned the previous night.
NOT sure of the relevance nor the composer for that matter.
-
If you bring two bar magnets toward each other, Each bar magnet will induce electric currents in the next bar magnet. Therefore the moving magnetic fields will produce electric fields and visa veras. you cannot disconnect the electric and magnetic fields from each other. JerryGG38
I have spoken to the following academics on this question. Professor Lyndsay, Professor Zingu, Professor Violie and Professor Claymans. I have also written and/or spoken to 2 other professors and have written to a whole host of professors including phsyicists at Yale and Harvard. Not one of them has claimed that there is an ELECTRIC FIELD in a magnet on magnet interaction. All have said that it is assumed but unproven. That was a decade ago. I then looked for proof. There's a guy who did some test to prove this and the proof was inconclusive. But it IS published. I cannot for the life of me find that paper. I agree that there may be an electric field (edit) in this magnet on magnet. But there is NO PROOF of an electric field, to the best of my knowledge.
-
And JerryGG38 - I'm not sure, but I think that the only thing that can shield one magnetic field is another magnetic field. Can one shield an electric field with another electric field? I actually don't know. I've just thought of it.
-
I guess there could be other dimensions; I can make computer simulations of them, but I can't imagine that they could exist in real life. Vern
If we can get back to this point maybe we can move on. It's understood that we cannot see a particle in the magnetic field. It could be that - if it did comprise particles and they moved at a velocity that exceeds light speed, then we would not easily be able to find that particle. Well. What if it is entirely impossible to find this particle becasue, not only does it exceed light speed but it, itself, moves light. Then, like the balloon being blown by the wind, we could mistakenly say that the balloon has energy. In the same way we could assume that light has energy to move it.
Now - that scenario - those nested 'ifs' present the theoretical potential that a particle in a magnetic field may be extant and may be forever invisible. IF so, then it would be operating in a different time dimension to our own.
Does that satisfy you guys?
-
Now - that scenario - those nested 'ifs' present the theoretical potential that a particle in a magnetic field may be extant and may be forever invisible. IF so, then it would be operating in a different time dimension to our own.
I don't understand why that would need to be that way. But it is possible I guess.
-
Vern - I know the concepts are different. More than likely wrong. But there's a kind of logic. I've decided not go through the composites. It's obviously boring you both. Should we rather discuss some other aspect. Gravity? Something? Anything? You choose. Clearly I can't seem to explain the relevance of (EDIT) magnetic fields in this context?
EDIT Actually it wont work. I've just tried it. Without some concensus this arguement's going nowhere. It'll just get back to Vern asking the signifcance and JerryGG38 arguing the correspondence to his model. I'll maybe try this again tomorrow.
-
Therefore the whole basis of our universe is plus and minus differential time. Therefore in reality there is a memory of the past time.jerryGG38
I've heard it argued that time is only backward flowing. Based on the observation that we can see the past but not the future.
-
This eliminates the need for kilograms. Therefore mass is elimated and replaced by an electrical term.JerryGG38
OK - we're on the same page. I'm with you. I entirely agree. The only difference between you me and Vern is this. Vern says all is sufficient in the electromagnetic description. You say is all sufficient in the Electric description. And I say that the magnetic is separate from the electric description but I need both.
How interesting is that.
I agree with Vern. AS an EE, sometime I may say the electric universe. To me the electromagnetic field is the same as the electric field. so both terms mean the same to me.
However since you want to separate the magnetic field from the electric field, I will have to watch what I say.
You want to make the magnetic field primary and the electric field secondary instead of both interconnected. Therefore to you the electric field is a product of the magnetic field. The magnetic field could exist without the electric field.
That is what I understand you to mean. However why stop there?
We could have a system where the motion of some other force such as a spin (radians per second) is the primary force. The force produces the magnetic field. The interaction of the primary force with the magnetic field produces the electric field. Therefore both fields are the product of a more fundamental field.
It is always a possibility that something we canno envision is the main driving force of the universe. Yet it is very difficult to go beyond what we have encountered. We know the magnetic field and the electric field. We know Maxwells equations. We know from experiments that electrical theory adequately defines most interactions in the universe.
One solution for my Sister equations is that coulombs = radians per second. What does that mean? I think it might be correct but it says that the entire universe is the result of a spin of a wave.
An alternative to the plus and minus universe is a magnetic/ electric universe. This splits the universe into 3 dimensions of neutral, 3 dimensions of magnetic plus, 3 dimensions of magnetic minus, 3 dimensions of electric plus, and 3 dimensions of electric minus. Therefore 15 dimensions all separated by the tiny plank distance.
I have no problem with a sandwich of 15 dimensions as long as the separation is basically zero time and zero distance. However that is just to understand what is happening. We still must adhere to Maxwells equations.
-
Now - that scenario - those nested 'ifs' present the theoretical potential that a particle in a magnetic field may be extant and may be forever invisible. IF so, then it would be operating in a different time dimension to our own.
I don't understand why that would need to be that way. But it is possible I guess.
As I just posted, it is possible that the electric and magnetic fields are the product of some higher force which we cannot see or measure. However we reach a limit to our ability to understand. And even if we can sligtly undestand such things, it surely is basically impossible for us to discuss it with others.
Vern, Witsend is attempting to go beyond the gound of our being and find the ultimate driving force of the universe. I try this as well. However in the end the greatest minds of man throughout the ages have produced concepts which are difficult to destroy. I can split the electric and magnetic field into different dimensions. That is okay with me. I cannot split the interactions between the fields because we have not seen such occurrences.
The only thing that is lacking in modern theory is that the gravitational field is a bipolar electromagnetic field. The Earth spinning around the sun produces gravitational eddy currents in the sun and the produces the same in us. Thus the bipolar field acts the same as the unipolar electromagnetic field.
-
Therefore the whole basis of our universe is plus and minus differential time. Therefore in reality there is a memory of the past time.jerryGG38
I've heard it argued that time is only backward flowing. Based on the observation that we can see the past but not the future.
That is why I have a fast forward law.
"The image of an object appears before the object at the speed of light"
This law enables the Doppler mass. The Doppler mass is larger in the front of an object than behind it.
This is all part of the gravitational field. The moving gravitional field of an object occurs before the object appears.
Physics has not accounted for the Doppler mass. Yet years ago in the Sperry Library were several studies of the Doppler Mass. The data appears to validate the Doppler mass but the change is so small that it is hard to prove completely. It is part of my space time equations.
-
JerryGG38 - are we comparing our different models and trying to prove the one right the other wrong? Or are we actually trying to understand each other?
It takes way too much time and is way too boring to try and compete. I couldn't anyway. I don't know your language. Did you even read my posts? If you didn't and only glanced at them - I can understand. It's words. Not math. I think sophiecentaur's right. I don't belong on this forum.
-
JerryGG38 - are we comparing our different models and trying to prove the one right the other wrong? Or are we actually trying to understand each other?
My goal is simply to understand; I probably won't suspect that the concept represents reality. I may point out things that are similar to my own views or to other concepts that I know about.
-
This law enables the Doppler mass. The Doppler mass is larger in the front of an object than behind it.
This is all part of the gravitational field. The moving gravitional field of an object occurs before the object appears.
I haven't heard of Doppler mass. I'll do some research.
-
This law enables the Doppler mass. The Doppler mass is larger in the front of an object than behind it.
This is all part of the gravitational field. The moving gravitional field of an object occurs before the object appears.
I haven't heard of Doppler mass. I'll do some research.
Hope you can find something printed in regular papers. The Sperry Library was confidential and secret. However that was many years ago. The study was by MIT and other Universities. Why it was locked up is a mystery. Hard to understand why an important scientific concept should have been labeled secret or confidential 30 years ago. I cannot see any military value that a tiny amount of mass difference should have any significance. For theoretical science, the tiny mass difference is important. It means that the gravitational field in the forward direction is stronger than the rearward direction. This means that the gravitational field is no different than the photonic field.
It is an important point. It is in my Doppler Space Time book and other papers. They used more complex equations. I only use a more simplified set of equations as I posted herein under Doppler Space Time.
It would be nice if you could find something after all these years.
-
JerryGG38 - are we comparing our different models and trying to prove the one right the other wrong? Or are we actually trying to understand each other?
It takes way too much time and is way too boring to try and compete. I couldn't anyway. I don't know your language. Did you even read my posts? If you didn't and only glanced at them - I can understand. It's words. Not math. I think sophiecentaur's right. I don't belong on this forum.
I think you are doing a good job. You are presenting alternate ideas which causes Vern and Myself to rethink our ideas verses your alternate ideas. Therefore I find your ideas useful.
-
And I say that the magnetic is separate from the electric description but I need both.
Some physicists suspect that the two fields might exist separate from each other and that a magnetic monopole might exist. So far this has not been observed. A changing magnetic creates an electric etc.
Edit: jerrygg38; our posts crossed [:)] We're on the same page.
My moving + dot is a plus magnetic monopole. The same is true of my minus dot. In a magnet which is the product of a spinning electron, you cannot get a singular pole. However the magnetic monopole dot is interesting.
Plus dots spinning in the same direction as minus dots produce a zero net magnetic field. Plus dots spinning in the opposite direction from negative dots produce a magnetic field twice as strong.
If you look at a bar magnet and look inside the field, you will have plus dots spinning one way and minus dots the other way. You cannot see the individual dots but the iron filings react to the dots.
-
Now we have a t- universe, a t=0 universe and a t=+ universe.
If we did not have three time universes, then differential equations would be eliminated. Our universe would be eliminated as well.
I just always thought of the + and - of time to be properties of the time dimension.
Ok but that is three dimensions and not one dimension. In the here and now, a second ago does not exist but a split second does. Of course a billion years ago still exists in the flow of photons from far away.Thus the reaction of the past still exists at light speed. Yet in the here and now what happened three seconds ago is gone. Our minds remember it because we store it as static memory. The dynamic memory went away at the speed of light.
-
In the same light we could also argue that the distance X of a second ago no longer exists. It is only differential X which exists as everything is relative to a split second ago.
Now we are bordering on Einsteins relativity. In this case the universe of a split second ago no longer exists. (Very philosophical)
-
Hope you can find something printed in regular papers. The Sperry Library was confidential and secret. However that was many years ago. The study was by MIT and other Universities. Why it was locked up is a mystery. Hard to understand why an important scientific concept should have been labeled secret or confidential 30 years ago.
It makes sense that there might be a Doppler effect in the gravitational field of a moving mass, and all mass is moving relative to something. But I couldn't find anything on it in my searches today. Google just links to your thread here, and the word mass pulls up thousands of links to Massachusetts.
Well, I guess you could call different times different dimensions. I just never thought of it that way.
-
all mass is moving relative to something. But I couldn't find anything on it in my searches today. Google just links to your thread here, and the word mass pulls up thousands of links to Massachusetts.
Well, I guess you could call different times different dimensions. I just never thought of it that way.
Sadly the reports were paid for by the government. They got locked away in filing cabinets. The delta masses were so small that it could be argued that it was not proven conclusively. However the authors felt they were correct.
To me the moving gravitational field is an electrical bipolar field. As such it behaves just like a moving magnetic field. Everything has a Doppler component.
-
PS: Different times is an easy way to look at different dimensions. In the same light we have a -X, -y, -z, universe and a X,Y,Z universe and a +X, +Y, +z universe. Then we only need to use ordinary time. Thus we always live in a simple 9 +1 dimension universe. No fancy math needed. No fancy curled up space time necessary. Just a simple differential universe.
However this simple differential universe enables +dots and -dots to exist in the + and minus universe and bipolar dots to live in the neutral universe.
Therefore my ten dimensional universe is our ordinary universe. No fancy equations necessary. No strange curved up space time necessary as with string theory. Just a simple nuts and bolts engineering type universe.
-
Did it ever strike you guys that there may be some numerical issues with these ideas which may not be consistent with measured reality. Or would that be being a spoilsport?
-
Did it ever strike you guys that there may be some numerical issues with these ideas which may not be consistent with measured reality. Or would that be being a spoilsport?
No, not a spoilsport at all. Please indicate what you think is wrong with these concepts! Glad to hear your views.
-
Measured reality is the final arbiter. I hope I don't deviate from that.
-
OK, guys, I'm trying this from an entirely new tangent. Dark matter is proven. It accounts for approximately 90% of the mass of all galaxies. It has been proven and revealed through gravitational lensing. It's authority is pretty absolute - being Michio Kaku, Sean Carroll, and somebody? Ellis and an experimentalist - from Fermilab - Bauer. I think he's Don Bauer? In any event. Easily googled. It was first seen in the 1920's and again measured in the 60's by some woman. Sorry forget her name too. It can only be accounted for by the identification of some particle that emits no light. Gravitational lensing was the final measured proof. This was done with the advent of Hubble telescopes.
It definitely creates a gravitational field so it has mass. But it has no properties consistent with any known particles. It may, however, be a wimp - weakly interacting massive particle, or a MACHO which is more like an imploded star and can be seen as dark spaces in some galaxies. It causes effects that fly in the face of classical physics. It is the thing that holds galaxies together where the outer boundaries, the outskirts, so to speak, have a constant velocity in defiance of classical requirement. In other words the entire galaxy spins at a constant velocity - unlike the Newtonian, or Einsteinian requirement for slower velocities from Pluto - on the outskirts of our solar system, compared to Mercury - at its centre?
This specifically does not fit in within a classical framework. I could go into this with a bit of research - I've got a lot on it. But would this be enough of an exception for you guys to consider that the electromagnetic force does not explain all?
EDIT Measured reality the final arbiter - Vern? This is measured.
-
Measured reality is the final arbiter. I hope I don't deviate from that.
The energy level of the dot-waves is too low to be measured. Therefore in this instance we cannot use measurements alone to define reality.
-
OK, guys, I'm trying this from an entirely new tangent. Dark matter is proven. It accounts for approximately 90% of the mass of all galaxies. It has been proven and revealed through gravitational lensing. It's authority is pretty absolute - being Michio Kaku, Sean Carroll, and somebody? Ellis and an experimentalist - from Fermilab - Bauer. I think he's Don Bauer? In any event. Easily googled. It was first seen in the 1920's and again measured in the 60's by some woman. Sorry forget her name too. It can only be accounted for by the identification of some particle that emits no light. Gravitational lensing was the final measured proof. This was done with the advent of Hubble telescopes.
It definitely creates a gravitational field so it has mass. But it has no properties consistent with any known particles. It may, however, be a wimp - weakly interacting massive particle, or a MACHO which is more like an imploded star and can be seen as dark spaces in some galaxies. It causes effects that fly in the face of classical physics. It is the thing that holds galaxies together where the outer boundaries, the outskirts, so to speak, have a constant velocity in defiance of classical requirement. In other words the entire galaxy spins at a constant velocity - unlike the Newtonian, or Einsteinian requirement for slower velocities from Pluto - on the outskirts of our solar system, compared to Mercury - at its centre?
This specifically does not fit in within a classical framework. I could go into this with a bit of research - I've got a lot on it. But would this be enough of an exception for you guys to consider that the electromagnetic force does not explain all?
EDIT Measured reality the final arbiter - Vern. This is measured.
What time is it where you are? I thought you packed it in for the night.
In any event the universe is full of my dot-waves. Therefore it is full of huge amounts of mass. I have no problem with the dark matter measurements. They indicate huge amounts of mass due to subparticles which have energy levels too small to be readily detected.
-
It's 2.24 am. by the computer clock. I'm a cat napper and a chronic insomniac. I usually spend my late nights chatting to a whole lot of science friends in the States. Sometimes I chat to guys in Australia. This intercontinental link has filled my nights for the last 10 years. It's only now that I've found a forum.
Jerry - your dot waves are too general. They do anything and everything to fit in everywhere. It's like saying - wind is a dot wave and so is that mountain. It does not explain how the wind may have structured the mountain. Edit. And nor does it fit in with your requirement for Maxwell explaining all that is manifest.
-
It's 2.24 am. by the computer clock. I'm a cat napper and a chronic insomniac. I usually spend my late nights chatting to a whole lot of science friends in the States. Sometimes I chat to guys in Australia. This intercontinental link has filled my nights for the last 10 years. It's only now that I've found a forum.
Jerry - your dot waves are too general. They do anything and everything to fit in everywhere. It's like saying - wind is a dot wave and so is that mountain. It does not explain how the wind may have structured the mountain. Edit. And nor does it fit in with your requirement for Maxwell explaining all that is manifest.
Yes. They fit in everywhere because the entire universe is composed of dot-waves. They fit maxwells equations. They fit the dark matter. They fit gravity.
-
Sorry Jerrygg3 - I did'nt explain what I meant. Firstly regarding your dot waves. I have no trouble with the concepts. I like it. As I understand it there is a separation of the two monopoles into different time dimensions with matter structured as an interplay between the two. There's nothing wrong with this. It's a really elegant conception. It suits you ideally, because it satisfies your mathematical skills and it ALSO describes an infinite potential. But then. Come that interplay, matter seems to follow nature's rules, as you and Vern point out. And both you and Vern, also as I understand it, state that Maxwell's Laws now kick in to explain that interaction. In other words, presumeably, the interaction between these dimensions is described by the electromagnetic dynamic. NO PROBLEMS with this, conceptually. And no quarrel with the electromagnetic dynamic. Nor can I argue your equations. So I can't comment on the feasibility of your dot waves except to say that it's a stunning concept.
But where I can comment is this. How does the interplay between those two time dimensions also encourage the interplay, in whatever time dimension, to produce the strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and the electromagnetic force. If the background is structured with dots, but Maxwell explains everything needed in this dimension - why bother with the dots? EDIT - Except to be loosely applied when Maxwell's theory doesn't explain all. They do not have relevance outside of that construct of a dualistic universe.
My object, which is hugely presumptuous given my lack of training, is to propose that LINK. And my universal background is not divided between plus and minus. It is cohesive - smooth. Really, really smooth. Again, the difference is that I'm actually trying to point to an interplay between this background and the manifest so that I can account for the strong and weak forces et al.
EDIT - I've just seen that I've now changed your birthdate year to 1903. I'm doing good. I've made you Father Time itself. Sorry Jerry. I didn't change it because I thought you'd be amused. Did you see the previous post? I made it 1939. I didn't change that either, and suggested I could keep it up with each consecutive post until I'd given back your youth. [;D]
-
I can split the electric and magnetic field into different dimensions. That is okay with me. I cannot split the interactions between the fields because we have not seen such occurrences.Jerrygg38
If you can split the electric and magnetic field into different dimensions, then why can't I? That's exactly what I'm trying to point to. Here's the concept - yet again.
First is the primary magnetic field. Magnetic dipoles, 2c. Zipons. It shapes the known universe into a toroid. Lots and lots of really thin strings. Very smooth field - perfect distribution of charge so balance is absolute. A neutral particle making a perfectly neutral field. In fact the zipon's velocity is 2c and the field's velocity is 2c. It just seems to be unmoving smooth empty space. The flexible lattice structure behind the manifest universe. Then. A singularity. One of the strings break. The string unravels and collapses onto itself. It forms a nebulus. It seems to appear out of nowhere. The nebulus still comprises these dipoles. But they've changed. They've either become TOO BIG - because their energy/momentum is changed into mass. Or they've become TOO SMALL - because their mass is changed into energy/momentum.
That part of the nebulus flux that is now evident - we can photograph it - belongs to our dimensions of visible matter. Definitely within our own measurable dimensions. BUT the primary magnetic field cannot even see it. It goes back to the BOUNDARY CONSTRAINT. The primary magnetic field just closes ranks and IGNORES the nebulus. The nebulus and the primary field operate in different dimensions. They only share the same space dimensions.
But. The particles in that nebulus' flux, are actually just BIG zipons. I've called them truants. They're magnets and cluster like all magnets do. But magnets always move to find a REST STATE. Some condition of balance. The whole of the structure in that first string is lost. So they move in small steps to try and get back some structure.
Here's what happens. Some truants can't find anything to attach to. When the energy that was introduced when the string was broken, is finally expended, then the truant simply loses mass, regains velocity until it is the same mass/size as the zipons in the field. It slots in. Lost forever. A nuance - that has disappeared from our own measureable dimensions.
Some truants are lucky enough to find a partner in the smaller faster truant. They move together. But while the one gains velocity and loses mass, the other gains mass and loses velocity. They meet. But they meet when they're in the boundary constraints of the field. They have an opposing charge to the field. The field repels them. The one truant again becomes big, the other again becomes small and they move forward again, at half the speed of the field, being the speed of light. This accommodates an infinite variety of frequencies but ensures that photons then only ever move at precisely light speed. We still see it doing what you, Vern, Maxwell, and everybody knows it to be doing. It still conforms to measured evidence. The ultimate arbiter. BUT. This model proposes that the actual propulsion of the photon is due to an interaction with the field. The actual energy between the two truants only allow for an orbit with each other. Lots of energy in the former. Not much in the latter.
Please, please, please, Jerrygg38. Try and read this. It's almost the entire foundational basis of the field model.
-
I try to avoid multiple dimensions, virtual anything, and periods in which the laws of nature did not hold. I suspect those are just crutches used by advocates to avoid otherwise falsifying situations. If I have a premise and find that it can not possibly fit in this dimension, I could either accept the fact as falsification; or I could invent another dimension to save the day.
Then if I have a premise about particles as the medium of force conveyance and find impossible situations for that scenario, I can invent virtual particles to save the day.
Then if I have a premise about the birth of the universe and find that it can not work within the present laws of nature, I can invent a period of time in which the laws of nature did not hold and save the day.
Edit: And if you become adept at saving the day like this you may even be awarded the Nobel prize, as happened in the cases cited [:)] Second edit: I don't know about multiple dimensions; I don't recall a Nobel for that.
-
Hi Vern, I missed this. Actually it's not been posted long. Speak your mind. Do you think that the introduction of more dimensions is simply nonsense - some sort of unncessary pomposity? It actually IS critical. I'm very aware of your positings throughout - even in discussion with Jerrygg38 - where you express your objections. But it is necessay. I thought the way I described it made it too simple for anyone to accuse it of some form of exotic abstractions. I CANNOT work out your objection to it.
-
I can split the electric and magnetic field into different dimensions. That is okay with me. I cannot split the interactions between the fields because we have not seen such occurrences.Jerrygg38
If you can split the electric and magnetic field into different dimensions, then why can't I? That's exactly what I'm trying to point to. Here's the concept - yet again.
Please, please, please, Jerrygg38. Try and read this. It's almost the entire foundational basis of the field model.
Yes I read it. You can certainly say that your theory drives the universe. Many others can say that their theory drives the universe. The actual driving force of the universe can be so complex that no-one can really think of it.
Once in a dream I saw a very unusual multi-dimensional shape. My mind could see it. It was the most beautiful thing I ever saw. In my dream I was able to grasp something unusual. When I awoke I tried to make a sculpture of the multi-dimensional sculpture. I could not. My mind could see more than three dimensions but my hands could not produce it. It was impossible to sculpture.
That tells me that we are really multi-dimensional creatures. However except by math we cannot visualize such things. Therefore we are limited by our minds and our senses.
What you propose is beyond our ability to visualize. You produce a theory of possibilities. One thing I have found over 28 years is that I can always find multiple possibilities for anything I write.
Thus I must rely upon the experimental data. For example the magnetic moment of the proton and neutron has been measured. No one has been able to calculate it. Therefore in my theory I calculate it. The theory could be wrong but at least I have a tangeable result.
Your struggle to understand beyond our abilities does not relate to anything we can measure. It does not explain the physical world any different than what is already known. You have embarked upon a difficult task.
I do not attempt to produce any multi-dim3ensional analysis. I merely state that there are differential dimensions. It is the same dimensions but merely back slightly in time or forward in time. I do not try to go beyond that simple concept.
My multi light speed universe merely coexists with our universe. In general the further out you go the higher the light speed.
However that could also be explained by a density of dot-waves. The higher the density, the slower the light speed. The lower the density the faster the reaction travels between dots.
Thus I do not attempt an actual multi-dimensional analysis as do the string theorists. They have produced fancy math but to what avail?
The problem with your theory is:
What practical application do you have for your theory?
It is my hope for my theory that we will undersand the proton better and produce a proton energy source.
-
I try to avoid multiple dimensions, virtual anything, and periods in which the laws of nature did not hold. I suspect those are just crutches used by advocates to avoid otherwise falsifying situations. If I have a premise and find that it can not possibly fit in this dimension, I could either accept the fact as falsification; or I could invent another dimension to save the day.
Then if I have a premise about particles as the medium of force conveyance and find impossible situations for that scenario, I can invent virtual particles to save the day.
Then if I have a premise about the birth of the universe and find that it can not work within the present laws of nature, I can invent a period of time in which the laws of nature did not hold and save the day.
Yes Vern, the practical engineer is showing in you. It is an advantage since we are used to buiding things which work.
-
Vern. Where do you think nebulae came from - if not from the 'void'? Do you see it as exploded galaxies, or something like that. Do you know that they have actually seen star systems move out of them - the birth of suns. I have never understood the big bang and never seen the need for it. But there's got to be a 'start' to matter. Or do you see it as forever recombining into different forms from a set amount of matter? Like different recipes using the same ingredients?
I am so INTRIGUED. I cannot think how anyone can imagine that everything we see always was. Like a good book I need a beginning, middle and end. But my universe needs boundaries because I CANNOT imagine infinity.
EDIT BTW - Did you read the post of dark matter? Is this what you're referring to? What do you do with actual physical measurement that defies known laws? Please answer this. I'm just so interested in your answer.
[::)] [:o] [;D]
-
No need to imagine infinity, it is just that we exist in a spacial area that we can observe. Outside this observable area, we can only guess, but we can suspect that it is much like what we can observe.
My notion of how the universe works is simple. Galaxies churn matter into pure energy, some by star action, some by a massive gravitational action at galactic centres. The energy spews out from galaxies and combines into matter in the deep reaches of space. The newly combined matter congregates into giant nebula and begins the process anew.
It is a continuous process of destruction and rebirth.
-
W: But where I can comment is this. How does the interplay between those two time dimensions also encourage the interplay, in whatever time dimension, to produce the strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and the electromagnetic force. If the background is structured with dots, but Maxwell explains everything needed in this dimension - why bother with the dots? EDIT - Except to be loosely applied when Maxwell's theory doesn't explain all. They do not have relevance outside of that construct of a dualistic universe.
JG: My dimensions are no different that our usual three dimensions and time. I merely point out that our three dimensions are dynamic. The universe today will be gone in a split second. It will be rewired and reproduced a split second from now. Yesterday does not exist except in photonic waves traveling through space time. Thus the dynamic memory of yesterday exists but yesterday is long gone.
This differential time allows a differential distance. It allows a positive universe and a negative universe as well. I do not have separate dimensions. I cannot travel in another dimension and do amazing things. All my dimensions are part of the same sandwich. Therefore when Vern denies that other dimensions are necessary, I agree with him. I have not fancy other dimensions. The disagreement is a space time hysteresis loop. The universe we live in is not a single universe but a sandwich.
W: My object, which is hugely presumptuous given my lack of training, is to propose that LINK. And my universal background is not divided between plus and minus. It is cohesive - smooth. Really, really smooth. Again, the difference is that I'm actually trying to point to an interplay between this background and the manifest so that I can account for the strong and weak forces et al.JG: My strong forces is merely gravity at the Plank radius. I do not have all the answers. I call it a dot-wave because the dot by itself will not work. The minute I make it a dot-wave it is a more complex entity. I do not really visualize it very well. It is just a word which enables my dots to oscillate and spin. I look at Vern pictures and they look pretty good to me.
The actual structure of the universe is most likely beyond my ability to grasp it. My dot-waves gives me a little concept by which I can add them and produce electric and magnetic fields in my mind to a degree. It is very tough.
My ability to visualize things is not very good
The universe could be like an oscillating bowl of jello. The dot-waves are points of maximum vibration which is similar to Vern concepts.
W:EDIT - I've just seen that I've now changed your birthdate year to 1903. I'm doing good. I've made you Father Time itself. Sorry Jerry. I didn't change it because I thought you'd be amused. Did you see the previous post? I made it 1939. I didn't change that either, and suggested I could keep it up with each consecutive post until I'd given back your youth.
JG: Born 12/24/38.
-
Vern. Sorry I'm answering you here. Posts come in so quick. It's great But I see the need to identify the post. sorry for the omission.
The newly combined matter congregates into giant nebula and begins the process anew.Vern
OK I sort of agree with that. Do you see the reconstituded mass - the nebulae coming out of a worm hole? something like that - from black holes? Why should matter cluster together. Why not scattered evenly throughout space?
I LOVE this subject.
[:o] [;D] [::)] [:X]
-
Hi Vern, I missed this. Actually it's not been posted long. Speak your mind. Do you think that the introduction of more dimensions is simply nonsense - some sort of unncessary pomposity? It actually IS critical. I'm very aware of your positings throughout - even in discussion with Jerrygg38 - where you express your objections. But it is necessay. I thought the way I described it made it too simple for anyone to accuse it of some form of exotic abstractions. I CANNOT work out your objection to it.
I don't object to the notion of multiple dimensions; I just don't see the necessity for them in the real world. I have no problem at all about speculation along those lines.
-
OK I sort of agree with that. Do you see the reconstituded mass - the nebulae coming out of a worm hole? something like that - from black holes? Why should matter cluster together. Why not scattered evenly throughout space?
The matter clusters together because of gravity. Everything that exists exudes and responds to gravity. So everything naturally tries to get in the same place.
Edit: I suspect that worm holes, black holes, and white holes do not exist. There may be a not-yet-discovered natural mechanism that prevents matter from compressing to a singularity. For example; if gravity is affected by gravity as is light, that would limit the compression and prevent the singularity.
And in my speculation, (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html) gravity is made of light, so no black holes; no big bang. [:)]
-
Yes Vern, the practical engineer is showing in you. It is an advantage since we are used to buiding things which work.
Exactly ! We build using the tried and true; we keep our speculation out of our building process. [:)]
-
Jerrygg38, I really am not questioning your right to see your universe in any way you want. I've said it and say it again, I think that your solutions are really, really amazing. They're elegant and poetic and really quite beautiful. A gyroscopic action in three dimensions. It's geometrically truly fascinating. And I LOVE patterns. Especially moving patterns. What's not to like? I am ABSOLUTELY not in a position to criticise it. On the contrary. I think the concepts are wonderful.
My only hope was that you could follow my own concepts. Not because they're important - but because I'd like to explain how I sort of try to piece the forces together. Like I say. It's not that only one of us can be right. Let me assure you - there is very little chance that I can even be half way right. But I do have a compelling explanation for how I see the forces reconciled. But you don't have to read it or understand it. It would be just be so nice if you did.
And we are DEFINITELY not in competition. I can't compete. It's like marathan runner competing with child. It just would not be fair. I need a handicap allowance.
-
There may be a not-yet-discovered natural mechanism that prevents matter from compressing to a singularity. Vern
Could that no-yet-discovered natural mechanism be dark matter and - the fact that galaxies move apart - dark energy? Given a few more years, and wider acceptance, would this concept not then become a NATURAL MECHANISM? They've got the math and the proof. They're just looking for a particle?
-
Could that no-yet-discovered natural mechanism be dark matter and - the fact that galaxies move apart - dark energy? Given a few more years, and wider acceptance, would this concept not then become a NATURAL MECHANISM? They've got the math and the proof. They're just looking for a particle?
I'm not sure they have the proof. They have the measurements. Then they have speculation about what could cause the conditions they measure. It is entirely possible that stable, electrically-neutral, particles might exist.
I suspect that it is not likely that dark energy exists. Maybe the universe is not expanding. Maybe light gives up energy as it ages.
-
Jerrygg38, I really am not questioning your right to see your universe in any way you want. I've said it and say it again, I think that your solutions are really, really amazing. They're elegant and poetic and really quite beautiful. A gyroscopic action in three dimensions. It's geometrically truly fascinating. And I LOVE patterns. Especially moving patterns. What's not to like? I am ABSOLUTELY not in a position to criticise it. On the contrary. I think the concepts are wonderful.
My only hope was that you could follow my own concepts. Not because they're important - but because I'd like to explain how I sort of try to piece the forces together. Like I say. It's not that only one of us can be right. Let me assure you - there is very little chance that I can even be half way right. But I do have a compelling explanation for how I see the forces reconciled. But you don't have to read it or understand it. It would be just be so nice if you did.
And we are DEFINITELY not in competition. I can't compete. It's like marathan runner competing with child. It just would not be fair. I need a handicap allowance.
It is not easy for me to pump additional information into my brain. For 27 years I tried not to read or learn anyone elses ideas as I worked on my theory. Some people have the brain capacity to carry a million different ideas. To me I just get confused. Too much data destroys my ability to think clearly. I have a hard enough time with my bipolar brain. If I flood it, it just spins rapidly. so I only scan data.
Sorry I cannot be much help. Vern is very good in grabbing some of your ideas. I am not.
-
There really is proof. Since 1920 they found discrepancy with mass ratios and then it was conclusively proven with Hubble telescopes. They see it in gravitational lensing. Look up Michio Kaku - Davis, Ellis and Bauer. They can be googled - maybe under Caltech? Otherwise just dark energy dark matter. But I see what you mean.
I suspect that it is not likely that dark energy exists. Maybe the universe is not expanding. Maybe light gives up energy as it ages. Vern
And then again maybe not.
-
Could that no-yet-discovered natural mechanism be dark matter and - the fact that galaxies move apart - dark energy? Given a few more years, and wider acceptance, would this concept not then become a NATURAL MECHANISM? They've got the math and the proof. They're just looking for a particle?
I'm not sure they have the proof. They have the measurements. Then they have speculation about what could cause the conditions they measure. It is entirely possible that stable, electrically-neutral, particles might exist.
I suspect that it is not likely that dark energy exists. Maybe the universe is not expanding. Maybe light gives up energy as it ages.
If you are right, there goes my gravity since as the universe expands it produces counter gravitational forces which push matter together. A contracting universe tends to produce anti-gravity.
In effect, the expansion of the electromagnetic field induces gravitational eddy currents which squeeze matter.
-
There really is proof. Since 1920 they found discrepancy with mass ratios and then it was conclusively proven with Hubble telescopes.
Yes; these are the measurements. Stars move too fast in galaxies. This would happen if there were invisible mass that makes gravity stronger. But if gravity affects gravity the way gravity affects light, that would also explain why there seems to be too much gravity in the galactic plane.
And then; galaxies spew out ions and atoms and light of all frequencies. They all do that from the time of their earliest existence. All this spewed out stuff contributes to the gravity of the system. Yet; it is not considered in the calculations.
-
Jerrygg38 I can't speak for Vern, but I KNOW that there is a really growing number of people who believe that the universe is expanding. This is another thing that's been measured. I personally don't agree with it. Not sure about Vern. But you're definitely in the general stream in expecting expansion. Really it's interesting that you required it because it's generally considered to be a fact.
-
Jerrygg38 I can't speak for Vern, but I KNOW that there is a really growing number of people who believe that the universe is expanding.
My wife accuses me of not even believing the road in front of the house goes to the same place today as it did yesterday. I suspect a lot; I believe very little.
-
All this spewed out stuff contributes to the gravity of the system. Yet; it is not considered in the calculations. Vern
I thought that if mass is ejected from a system then it would reduce the mass and thereby the gravity? Is that wrong?
[???]
-
Jerrygg38 I can't speak for Vern, but I KNOW that there is a really growing number of people who believe that the universe is expanding.
My wife accuses me of not even believing the road in front of the house goes to the same place today as it did yesterday. I suspect a lot; I believe very little.
I live close to a road that goes in a complete circle. You can get on the road and keep going until you run out of gas. It only goes where it wants to go.
-
All this spewed out stuff contributes to the gravity of the system. Yet; it is not considered in the calculations. Vern
I thought that if mass is ejected from a system then it would reduce the mass and thereby the gravity? Is that wrong?
[???]
Consider the size of the system. Galaxies are on the order of a hundred thousand light years in diameter; spewed out stuff must then remain in the system for at least that amount of time.
Edit: I'm guessing the noticeable effect would span double the radius.
-
Jerrygg38 I can't speak for Vern, but I KNOW that there is a really growing number of people who believe that the universe is expanding. This is another thing that's been measured. I personally don't agree with it. Not sure about Vern. But you're definitely in the general stream in expecting expansion. Really it's interesting that you required it because it's generally considered to be a fact.
I don't agree with Vern on this issue. The evidence for a big bang and an expanding universe convinces me. I studied many alternatives over the years but in the end I believe it is true. I do not believe that the universe is expanding faster today than years ago.
To me the red shift is part expansion and part loss of photonic energy as the universe expands. Thus I take a dual position in that the red shift has several explanations. I will post my red shift explanation soon.
-
Jerrygg38 - I actually think that Vern is arguing for the sake of arguing!! I agree with his wife. He's a hopeless sceptical conservative. In the general scheme of things and given a few hundred years back he would be a FLAT EARTHER!! I, on the other hand, and open minded and curious. IGNORE HIM!!!
Yet again Vern. I've got my finger dangerously near that 'report to moderator' button!!!!!! [???] [???] [???]
EDIT I do hope that nobody actually is taking this post seriously.
-
Galaxies are on the order of a hundred thousand light years in diameter; spewed out stuff must then remain in the system for at least that amount of time.
You've missed the point. They cannot get enough mass to account for the fact that the outer boundaries of the galaxies spin at the same rate as the inner. Unlike Newton/Einstein, who need the inner Mercury, for instance, to spin faster than Pluto because Mercury is nearer to the Sun's mass.
It was first considered 'missing matter'. It then became known as dark matter. The only thing that can account for this is a WIMP and they have looked for 10 years and not yet found one.
-
You've missed the point. They cannot get enough mass to account for the fact that the outer boundaries of the galaxies spin at the same rate as the inner.
How is this different than saying the stars are moving too fast? I get the point. There needs to be more gravity to account for the extra speed. I was speculating about things other than dark matter that might account for the needed gravity.
If gravity affects gravity the way gravity affects light; that would account for the anomaly.
A hundred thousand years worth of ejected matter will account for at least some of the extra gravity.
-
Yet again Vern. I've got my finger dangerously near that 'report to moderator' button!!!!!! [???] [???] [???]
I guess you could report that I was speculating in the speculation section. [;D] [;D] [;D]
-
A hundred thousand years worth of ejected matter will account for at least some of the extra gravity. Vern.
I still don't see it. Are you suggesting that the ejected matter is somehow near enough to increase the gravity? Sort of within reach, but not visible? I can't comment. I would have thought that they'd have found it? But can't comment. I don't know. Michio Kaku refers to a 'halo effect' where the mass of invisible matter is clustered in chunks around the boundaries of the galaxies.
What I think is this. If they need a truly unique - previously unconsidered - particle, then maybe it's a magnetic particle, moves at 2c and interacts with matter in a second 'time' dimension. This would defintely give that consistent velocity at all parts of the cluster.
-
You know what? I'm stuck on the thought that a photon can expend energy? What an interesting thought. But that's definitely not classical physics. My objection to photons ever clustering anywhere is that they always move - ever onwards and outwards. I believe they respond to a gravitational field but do not create them. Can't see it. In any event it's now getting so off the point. But something intrigues me. What makes ball lightning? That's a cluster of photons doing exactly what photons should not do. They mass together. And it must be photons because when the ball decays it emits photons.
-
Michio Kaku refers to a 'halo effect' where the mass of invisible matter is clustered in chunks around the boundaries of the galaxies.
I saw the work; that started me thinking about the ejected matter; it would be a halo effect around the galaxy.
It is standard established theory that photons do both produce and respond to gravity. It breaks the math it that is not so. I suspect photons lose energy as they travel through space by reacting with electrons in space.
Lyndon Ashmore worked out the maths for (http://www.lyndonashmore.com/) photons reaction with electrons in space.
Tired Light is an alternative theory to that of the expanding Universe. This theory explains the experimental evidence without resorting to the 'cosmological constants' or 'vacuum energy' that are essential to the theory of the expanding Universe.
Experiment tells us that photons of light from distant galaxies have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. Since red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, we say that they have been 'redshifted'. The Theory of the Expanding Universe explains this as space expanding and stretching the photons as it does so. In Tired Light we say that the photons lost energy during their journey to us by bumping into electrons on the way.
-
I'm going to take a break. The mind is reeling. Please Vern, find out about Ball lightening. Is it acknowledged as a scientific phenomena or is it crank reporting. I'll check the post later. I'm exhausted. What is it if it's real?
-
Here is a Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning) about Ball Lightning. We don't know exactly what it is but we generally accept it as real these days.
Natural ball lightning appears infrequently and unpredictably, and is therefore rarely (if ever truly) photographed. However, several purported photos and videos exist. Perhaps the most famous story of ball lightning unfolded when 18th-century physicist Georg Wilhelm Richmann installed a lightning rod in his home and was struck in the head - and killed - by a "pale blue ball of fire."[3]
I suspect it is a swirl of ionized air molecules, but I don't know where its powering energy comes from. It would be a soliton of ionized air (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton) But there seems to be a lot of electric current traversing the soliton.
-
Hi Vern. Many thanks for that Ball lightning thing. How interesting is that? I'm signing off. Whammed. I'll post tomorow - depending on trading. I need to get back on track with the model. You'll have to be super tolerant because I think Jerrygg38's given up on me.
Take care, and thanks very much for all the help.
-
Hi Vern. Here's my ask. Did you read Robert Murray's opening thread on gravity? Am not sure because your first post objected to its length. Well I, personally give him 10 out of 10 for that summation. It was just SO lucid. So. I sort of understand Jerrygg38's dot wave theory. It's got some amazing correspodences to actual measured phenomena - 'the final arbiter'. And he justifies it mathematically - which is pretty jolly good. More than I could ever do with mine. The point being that I can definitely wrap the head around those concepts.
Well. I want to understand your photon theory as well. I get it that it resolves the 'missing' requirement in QM to resolve those yet unresolved gravitational issues. Somehow photons themselves create gravitational fields. You say this is classically accepted precisely because they have mass, and mass attracts mass. I can't argue this.
So back to my really big ask from you. Could you PLEASE explain your photonic theory with concepts. Take more space if need be. It would probably be better to put it in your thread on photonic theory. I want to understand it. It's actually a HUGE favour - but you must remember that good physics is also clear physics. Even Pauli - the arch critic of the concept - required clarity to the level of a high school student.
Then - when I discuss my own model I will know the conceptual framework of your own and will be able to better qualify my references. I'm struggling with some distinction that you've drawn in this. I just can't find it. And it's not from want of trying.
-
I read Robert Murray's concept closely until I realized it was another 'push gravity' concept. Then I just scanned through the rest for something different from the original. I do want to understand your notions about the universe and also to understand why it is that you suspect that the universe might be like that.
-
Hi Vern. I'm knee deep for the next hour. I'll get back to you.
-
I read Robert Merreys concept closely until I realized it was another 'push gravity' concept. Then I just scanned through the rest for something different from the original. I do want to understand your notions about the universe and also to understand why it is that you suspect that the universe might be like that.
We cannot permit push gravity. I though your idea of finind the high intensity point to be a push as well. Last night I awoke at 3 AM. (I do most of my intense thinking when I am asleep) Evidently reading your illustrations must have clicked in my brain. I will post
"Gravitational Force Vector" Today.
-
We cannot permit push gravity.
The original had a lot of following; the maths were worked out in detail. But it never was plausible in my mind.
-
We cannot permit push gravity.
The original had a lot of following; the maths were worked out in detail. But it never was plausible in my mind.
I just posted the Gravitational force vector. It meets your requirements for a photonic field. It meets mine in the conservation of spherical plus angular plus linear momentum.
-
OK Vern, I think you're letting me through the door first. I'm going to try and give an overview - with the understanding that the symmetries are there. As yet unexplained except in the field model. I believe I've got total justification. But only with my patterns. I need those patterns illustrated in fractals - because I also believe its the only way to conceptualise particles and atoms. So. I'll sort of work backwards.
You get the nebulus concept as broken strings, unravelled from a primary field. The field closes ranks and just 'continues as ever' because it can no longer interact with the truants in that nebulus flux field. Just for symmetry - half the zipons from the string lose momentum and gain mass. Another half lose mass and gain momentum. Energy in both instances transferred from the latent energy in the string before it broke. Those truants - that are visible - through a 'remarkable coincidence of good timing' (I've plagiarised the phrase from a joke I know) find their partner or their opposite - in the invisible truant on the other side, so to speak, of that field. They join up and - thereafter - they simply orbit each other. But the orbit requires that the one moves towards our dimensions gaining mass - losing velocity - and vice versa. Then they reverse and lose mass and gain velocity and vice versa. But during that movement towards each other they meet at the same mass/velocity of the field. The field has one charge. The two truants have a combined two charge composite. The field's 1 charge cancels the one charge in the photon. Therefore 1 direction. And the field then moves the composite away at 90 degrees. The direction it moves the photon (composite of 2 truants) is in a straight line through the into the radial arms of the field because that's the only point where it has a neutral charge.
All this fits my patterns.
The same with the electron but the electron has an extra composite. Therefore 3 truants = 1 electron. The difference is their composite charge. There's the same big visible truant - then a second truant co-incident with the velocity and size of the field and a third truant is the anchoring truant that is too small and fast to be measured/seen in our dimensions. Three charges to the composite electron, one to the field - and two cancel out leaving the electron moving in 2 directions. This means - there's a continual interaction with the field and there's a second interaction away from the field. The result is that the electron is caught in the same field as the zippons. But they move in antiphase, at something under light speed. Still matches the observed behavious of electrons. Except that if you COULD photograph the electron it will flicker out of view for a longer period of time than the photon. Both the electron and photon will disappear at some moment from our own measurable dimensions when they interact with the field.
Then the real miracle. Three electrons join and form a proton. I'll get back to the 'fusion' process, but I can get it to work very PRECISELY in the field model - as described in the blog. Here the fusion of the electrons also 'dislodges' some of the zipons in the field (the background structure) which caught the electrons in the first instance. They dislodge from the primary field and then form a closed system. The process described in the blog. BUT THIS IS THE POINT At that point when the hydrogen atom is formed it is separated from the field and becomes a closed system. The thing that now anchors it away from the primary field is a field of zipons. When the electrons couple they also keep some of the zipons in the string that they were attached to. These zipons now form the hydrogen atoms energy levels. Just a whole lot of zipons. I think their number also corresponds to 1836. But I'm not sure. What I am sure about is that I can get the mass size of that proton structure to exactly match the known size/mass at 1836. The electron - expelled when the three electrons meet - is now caught in the orbit of those magnetic fields.
So this is the first time that the magnetic fields, actual zipons, form outside the primary field, in a structured, balanced system. And they then form the energy leves of the hydrogen atom. All this fits with my patterns.
I'll wait for questions. I think that's enough to get on with.
-
Then the real miracle. Three electrons join and form a proton. I'll get back to the 'fusion' process, but I can get it to work very PRECISELY in the field model - as described in the blog.
How do you get from the .51099905 MeV each for the mass of the electrons to the 938.27231 MeV mass of the proton? These values are pretty well checked out in the physics community.
I may be away a lot because this site goes down for me. I have only been able to connect a few times this AM.
-
Then the real miracle. Three electrons join and form a proton. I'll get back to the 'fusion' process, but I can get it to work very PRECISELY in the field model - as described in the blog.
How do you get from the .51099905 MeV each for the mass of the electrons to the 938.27231 MeV mass of the proton? These values are pretty well checked out in the physics community.
I may be away a lot because this site goes down for me. I have only been able to connect a few times this AM.
If you go back in time to just after the big bang, the mass of the proton was much higher and the mass of the electron was equal to the mass of the proton.
If you take 2 positrons and one electron and crush them together, you can get a super high energy proton. The electric force between the electron and the positron produces the bipolar energy levels.
As time goes by the high energy protons radiates energy and the electron also radiates energy.
Today you cannot do that. If you take a positron and an electron you will only get two high energy photons.
-
I'm also struggling, not with connectivity but with work. I'm knee deep in trading. I'll try and concentrate better later this pm. In about 3 hours from now. Sorry it's so intermittent. But I have to keep the pot boilig.
-
If you take 2 positrons and one electron and crush them together, you can get a super high energy proton. The electric force between the electron and the positron produces the bipolar energy levels.
If we keep the rules of nature that we have discovered, the extra energy must come from somewhere.
-
I'm also struggling, not with connectivity but with work. I'm knee deep in trading. I'll try and concentrate better later this pm. In about 3 hours from now. Sorry it's so intermittent. But I have to keep the pot boilig.
Good luck in your trading!
-
If you take 2 positrons and one electron and crush them together, you can get a super high energy proton. The electric force between the electron and the positron produces the bipolar energy levels.
If we keep the rules of nature that we have discovered, the extra energy must come from somewhere.
Yes the crushing of space-time. Thus at the big bang, all the energy of the universe was concentrated. After the big bang much of it radiated into space. Some of it became protons and electrons. In general I believe that at the beginning the electron had the same mass as the proton. (I just added them for Witsend because it is a possibility but not very probable.)
The electrons got the outside and most of the electron energy radiated away over the years. Thus long ago the original hydrogen atom had a much more massive electron.
-
Jerrygg38 - I saw something you'd written on a dream? Where is it? I've been through the whole thread and nothing? Did I see it in another thread. If so, please tell me where?
Vern. I'm back. Bourses closed so I can take my mind of things. It was an OK day. Thanks for the good wishes. But I'm a 'bottom feeder'. Don't take much risk. Just plod, plod like my physics.
I'm going to check your questions and answer. Where would we be without you? [:X]
-
Yes the crushing of space-time. Thus at the big bang, all the energy of the universe was concentrated. After the big bang much of it radiated into space. Some of it became protons and electrons. In general I believe that at the beginning the electron had the same mass as the proton. (I just added them for Witsend because it is a possibility but not very probable.)
Is there a reason for the electron to be so massive in the beginning? That seems to make things more complicated. I like better to make things more simple.
-
How do you get from the .51099905 MeV each for the mass of the electrons to the 938.27231 MeV mass of the proton? These values are pretty well checked out in the physics community.Vern
I've got a full description in the magnetic field model. I couldn't find any stable composites between 4-8 inclusive. In conjunction with the field they'd simply subdivide back into 1 - 2 or three or some combination thereof. But 9 stuck - and only as 3 electrons. Then I had to work out how they'd combine and could only find anything plausible at the point where the truant moved in antiphase to the field. That was also the point that bound the truant to the field. The constitution of their separate masses was easy. The difficult part was accounting for energy levels. Eventually I got it as the charge of the proton attracting the truants from both sides of the divide in that nebulus flux. The idea is that the number that attach to the closed system of the proton exactly matches the charge of the proton. That way, I've got zipons supporting the gluon, pion and quark (or anchor as I define it) and exactly the same amount of zipons circling the structure as energy levels.
The atomic model is based on this concept. From the flux field the only atoms that can be manufactured - is the hydrogen atom or maybe deuterium and tritium. They come with their respective 'quantities' of the zippons from the field. In the process of accretion - yet more truants are extracted, also in this sublime ratio - but nothing to do with the energy levels. They present an opposite charge to the energy levels in the atom. They then bind the atoms into their accreted form - slowly developing the whole of that star. After this 'genesis' the more complex atoms are manufactured. Not sure how. But their protons, electrons, neutrons - are all the result of fusion from these zipons in the energy levels. These fields that make the energy level of the atoms. This results in more complex atoms. The non linear development of more complex atoms in the periodic table proposed as being the result of the three basic 'start' types of hydrogen.
I'm reasonably certain that this is as clear as mud. What I'm trying to suggest is that the zipons in the energy levels of atoms recombine to form the particles of more complex atoms. And the non linear relationship of the periodic table is actually explained in the fact that all atoms first progress from these 3 hydrogen type atoms.
-
I can visualize the concept, but I don't understand why the zipon combination is better than Quantum Electrodynamics or Quantum Field Theory. I notice that you retain the idea of quarks, pions, and gluons.
Those are parts of Quantum Theory, but you don't retain any of the dynamics of Quantum Theory.
-
Hi Vern. If you're still with me there's still hope. I'll write the next part and you'll see the point.
-
Here's the thing. Those little fields that actually detach from the flux to bind the atoms in their early accretion stage. That's the thing that QM does not accommodate. That's all. Just the fact that the binding of all amalgams is actually done by a field of 'little curly things' as you once described it. If you add this to an atomic structure - extraneous to the energy levels, then you can account for the way that atoms retain their structure in amalgams. And a whole lot besides. I'll list it after this post.
And by having zipons comprise energy levels, one can then see how they hold electrons that are ejected at the fusion of every new proton. They trap them in an orbit because the electron always follows the path of these magnetic fields. Their middle truant is 'hooked' into an antiphase spin with the magnetic fields, or energy levels - that do what all magnetic fields do. They orbit. So the electron orbits with the field.
Allow for this in all amalgams and you still get a correspondence with known measurements. And the particles and atoms still do what we know they do. They've just got the added property of magnetic fields to explain a whole lot of things.
-
Vern. So here's some of the effects of having extraneous binding magnetic fields. The casimir effect is proven. It's shown in the bonding of metals on a really small scale. These extraneous atomic fields, if indeed they exist as proposed, are simply really small magnets. They'd be inclined to find a bonding condition provided that they can find a sympathetic alignment. On small scale it's feasible. And it's been proven.
But on the general effect of gravity. Here's the thing. Take two solid balls of anything. Let's take one glass marble and one steel marble - both exactly the same size. Drop them and they land at the same time. But the steel weighs more than the marble. My proposal is that the steel has more of these extraneous fields. Therefore there's more to be attracted to the the mass of the earth. And that mass, our earth is made up of exactly the same sort of bound amalgams all linked by these extraneous magnetic fields. It could therefore be that the 'weight' kicks in because the more fields, the less inclined is the object to give up its rest or bonded state determined by its proximity to that great big amalgam.
Please ask me questions if any of this isn't clear.
-
Yes; I understand the concept. However, I don't see that the zipon universe explains more about nature than does established theory. [:)]
-
I'll get there. I'm just too tired again. I'm going to get some supper. If I'm up for it will post later. Else I'll post in the morning. Thanks Vern. Glad you're still there. You've no idea how this exercise exhausts me. It's not the explaining. It's that its SO important.
-
I'll get there. I'm just too tired again. I'm going to get some supper. If I'm up for it will post later. Else I'll post in the morning. Thanks Vern. Glad you're still there. You've no idea how this exercise exhausts me. It's not the explaining. It's that its SO important.
I'll be watching for the important stuff. [:)]
-
I'll be watching for the important stuff.Vern
Good. Glad to see you're giving these ideas of mine due and proper consideration. [;D]
Ok. So let me see if I can WOW you. Yet again you've got to follow some patterns.
You know how the earth has a magnetic field. North South, say. But the magnetic field actually orbits. Only one half of the orbit is hidden inside the material of the earth itself. That's what I refer to as 'broken symmetry'. In other words, all those 'zipons' are simply moving in one direction - same distribution of charge still moving in strings - still head to toe, still with lateral correspondence between the strings. BUT. The other half of that orbit is shielded by the material of the earth itself. That means that EVERYTHING on the surface of the earth only experiences one half of the 'charge' or 'justification' of the Earth's actual magnetic orbit.
So having one justification it's charge or justification is say, South. By comparison, I've proposed that all the atoms in all the amalgams that make up the surface material of the earth, are bound by atomically extraneous magnetic fields. These little 'curly things' express a full orbit. Its charge is neutral precisely because these little fields are precisely balanced. Zero charge. But it's actual justification or charge is north/south. Because it orbits. You get the picture? It's a full orbit so it has two inherently different justifications. If draw a circle and put an arrow going north south, then the other side will be south north. Same justification - but alternate charge.
So, let's say that a stone is dropped from the top of the Empire State building. Then it will be dropped through the Earth's magnetic fields. And one half of the quantum of all its 'curly little things' at the surface of the stone, will conflict with the justification of the earth's magnetic fields. It will always present a north/south justification. So. 2 charges from the surface of the stone to 1 charge from the earth's magnetic field. One half of the 'curlies' cancel out with 1 charge from the Earth's fields, leaving 1 charge or justification. This - like the photon - would result in a repulsion or propulsion of the stone away from the greater field, the Earth's magnetic field, at an angle of 90 degrees. Which means it would be propelled to the surface of the earth.
Now - if its charge was 1 and was the same as the earth's 1 then it would move in the same direction as the earth's fields and - given the right size - it would enter the south pole, fly through the centre of the earth and then extrude again at the north and repeat the cycle. If its charge was 1 but in antiphase to the earth - then it would do the same thing but enter the North pole and exit the South. And if it were antimatter it would move at 90 degrees but away from the surface of the earth.
Which means that this model proposes that magnetic fields are responsible for the effect of gravity. And they only interact with those magnetic fields that are on the surface of amalgams. This means that in a curious way the 'volume' of the stone is the only thing that interacts with these fields. Nothing to do with its weigth. In other words the magnetic fields determine the direction of the motion of that falling stone.
However, as mentioned in the previous post, what kicks in as the stone gets ever nearer the surface of the earth is it's experience of the attraction of those curly little things with the earth's curly little things. Magnets attract. And once it's grounded, then the attraction is strong. And as mentioned, this 'pull' imparts the property of weight to the object.
EDIT - that's the significance re gravity. Still has all the evident properties of gravitational force - but with an entirely different explanation.
-
You involve the earth's magnetic field with its gravity production; that can be consistent; but, what about planets that have no magnetic field? Mars and Venus don't have magnetic fields around them.
-
but, what about planets that have no magnetic field? Vern.
No such thing. You need to get back to the picture of the star genesis from the nebulus. That star accreted - courtesy of the zipons that bonded the atoms together. Now. Just as the hydrogen atom forms with energy levels made up of zipons - so, for perfect symmetry, the accreted star also has energy levels also from truants from the nebulus.
Here's the thing. Those energy levels are simply closed system magnetic fields that hold the planets in their energy levels in exactly the same way as the electron is held in its energy level. In other words, the energy levels of our sun are partially reflected by the orbits of its planets. All such will have an induced magnetic field. If, however, it also has its own magnetic field - then it may generate an axial spin as well as an orbit. And it may then also support its own moons. Either way, these planetary bodies are bound in an orbit - not by an attraction to the sun, but by these undetectable smooth fields of zipons.
-
Are you suggesting that we are mistaken about Mars and Venus not having a magnetic field; or is it that the planetary magnetic fields in the zipon universe are not detected by our measurements?
-
No. No at all. What I'm proposing is that there is an induced magnetic field - from the energy levels. In other words, this smooth, neutral field of zipons have one overriding property. Unless they have 'broken symmetries' - I'll give you more examples later, then they are entirely undetectable. They simply interact with the superficial 'curly little things' at the surface of all the planets. Very much like our own magnetic fields interact with matter on the earth. We can't find those extraneous fields because they're pefectly neutral and very small. In the same way the neutrality of the field of orbiting zipons from an energy level is absolute. It is balanced in every which way and from every direction. It simply forever moves - and moves in the background.
EDIT the reason we know our earth has a magnetic field is because it's got broken symmetry. We only know of one charge. If there were two we'd never know it had a magnetic field.
-
Okay; I can get that vision. [:)]
-
Vern. I need you to fit this in to known science. But I don't think there's anything proposed, thus far, that conflicts with observed realities. I need the zipon when I get to current flow, superluminal communication (I can see you wince) [???] and the the electromagnetic interaction. But I just want to point out the thing about fire. I'm assuming you haven't read it in my blog.
Here's the idea. If these little zipons bind matter, and if their symmetries get broken by friction or some such then they'll also unravel. Exactly as that great string in the cosmos unravels to form a nebulus. But the difference is that these truants would lose velocity - gain mass - become visible. They're neutral and follow each other's path. The flame would grow. And. As the fields unravel they cluster into that flame - like a mini nebulus. But when that flame has expended its energy as a manifest truant - it will lose mass, regain velocity and slip back into the greater field. In this instance it would be the Earth's magnetic fields. And since they probably came from the earth's field at the time of manufacture, then they simply go home, so to speak.
This means that the bound condition of the amalgam will be compromised by the loss of these binding fields. And you'd be left with nothing but the atom. Still consistent with observed and measured reality.
I think that's it. I'm going to try and get some sleep. My dogs need to be taken out first. We're blasted by arctic gales. We live in Cape Town. It's beautiful most of the time. But come winter it's beauty is hidden by pretty consistent mist, fog rain. But I love it - except for those times I have to take the dogs out. And its my chore - because I'm the only one who cares for them. If I died, I think they would die from neglect.
-
Vern. I need you to fit this in to known science.
There is very little chance of fitting your concepts into known science. Established theories at present are Quantum Mechanical. Quantum Electrodynamics enjoyed great success, now I think Quantum Field Theory is becoming more popular. From all I can understand of your concepts, they are far removed from those. [:)] I discount string theory; I don't see it going anywhere.
I like alternative ideas. They are fun to think about. But when we get down to making aeroplanes and ships and bridges and even weapons of war, we need to use established rules that we know work.
-
Couldn't resist reading and answering your last post. You're looking for simple solutions. I know this. I read all your posts. What could be simpler than mine? And I think it may have some modest applications including cheap energy!!!
Any way, Good night Vern. And, yet again, many thanks for all your help. I see the amazing work you do through this forum. Does anyone ever acknowledge it?
[:)]
-
Couldn't resist reading and answering your last post. You're looking for simple solutions. I know this. I read all your posts. What could be simpler than mine? And I think it may have some modest applications including cheap energy!!!
Any way, Good night Vern. And, yet again, many thanks for all your help. I see the amazing work you do through this forum. Does anyone ever acknowledge it?
[:)]
I appreciate the effort Vern makes.
-
Vern. I need you to fit this in to known science.
There is very little chance of fitting your concepts into known science. Established theories at present are Quantum Mechanical. Quantum Electrodynamics enjoyed great success, now I think Quantum Field Theory is becoming more popular. From all I can understand of your concepts, they are far removed from those. [:)] I discount string theory; I don't see it going anywhere.
I like alternative ideas. They are fun to think about. But when we get down to making aeroplanes and ships and bridges and even weapons of war, we need to use established rules that we know work.
You have over one million physicists in the world today. You have the brightest minds, the best memories, the greatest team efforts. Who could compete with that?
The only reason I attempt to compete with the greatest minds is due to an encounter in 1981. Was it true? Was it pure insanity? The only thing I could do was study the limited data I got and true to determine if it is wrong.
After 28 years I cannot say that the data is wrong. The big problem is that there are so many variations and possibilities.
So the question is why does W believe that she can contribute something to this very complex field filled with the most brilliant of people? My reason is an encounter with an intelligence field. What could hers be??????????????????
-
You have over one million physicists in the world today. You have the brightest minds, the best memories, the greatest team efforts. Who could compete with that?Jerrygg38
I can. And I don't have brains. I just have an edge. So does everyone who tries to work out problems for themselves. If you only hear one side of an argument there's no discussion. The trained scientist has only heard one side of an argument supported, he believes by empirical proof. Well. I of all people know how anxious the scientific community are to test their hypotheses Laws, and general paradigms. I have seen how happy they are to look at empirical proof in experimental data. I have a really, really simple electric circuit that repeatedly delivers energy efficiencies that boggle the mind and blow the unity barrier into the dark ages. If empirical proof is everything - THEN GO TEST IT.
Read through the thread again on that circuit. Where did all that critical arrogance come from? I only asked people to check some numbers out. And the sad part is - THAT reaction is typical. Par for the course. It seems that one can question anything in this world today. We've finally enjoyed a sort of inalienable, international, constitutional right to speak our minds. We can question the existence of God. We can question the wisdom of our leaders. And we can even question justice. These are really subtle things that call for really subtle concepts and absurdly abstract qualifications. And very often they reach into the actual soul structure of a person, they matter so much. So it also tests ones tolerance. But DO NOT DARE QUESTION A SCIENTIST. Then objectivity flies out the window and you get a display of testosterone more typically confined to bulls in a rutting season.
Fortunately there are also those out there who still like to look at alternative ideas. I just wish they'd also look at alternative experiments.
-
So the question is why does W believe that she can contribute something to this very complex field filled with the most brilliant of people? My reason is an encounter with an intelligence field. What could hers be??????????????????Jerrygg38
Nothing quite so exotic. The only exotic thing I do believe in is superluminal communication - because I have personal experience of it. I sort of knew the moment when my husband was killed. That was many, many years ago. I want to hear more about this experience of yours. But I think that BenV and - more to the point Sophiecentaur will object to any such discussion in a science forum. Can you please tell us about it - and then point out where the thread is? I think it's allowed in the Chat section, or some such.
I also want to know about that dream of 5 dimensions. It sounds amazing. Where did you post that thread? EDIT Sorry. I should have said which thread did you post that in? EDIT In fact, for any language purists, I should have said 'in which thread did you post it'?
EDIT
Sorry Jerrygg38 - back to that question. Are you actually implying that I have no RIGHT to question scientific paradigms as I am neither trained nor brilliant? Surly not. If I have a mission in life it is to explore my own logical faculties, - clusmy as they are. And let these faculties take me where they will. I sincerely believe that I must find my own answers. And better still my own questions. And if ever stop exploiting this God given property of curiosity and the challenging logic that it confronts, then what am I? I may not be equal to the task. But I'm up for the challenge. I think my human condition makes me better than a plant, with due respect to the entire botanical universe. Plants seem to keep thinking to a minimum? Ants do a sort of collective number? People - on the other hand - can argue and question and test. Quite apart from which - it's such an exciting journey.
And, since I'm so free with my opinion I can only hope that it amuses readers or that they find it interesting. Either way. I'm happy. I'm only sorry when it offends them.
-
Couldn't resist reading and answering your last post. You're looking for simple solutions. I know this. I read all your posts. What could be simpler than mine? And I think it may have some modest applications including cheap energy!!!
Any way, Good night Vern. And, yet again, many thanks for all your help. I see the amazing work you do through this forum. Does anyone ever acknowledge it?
[:)]
I am really just playing here; and it is fun; no need for acknowledgement. I think I already mentioned it, but using a tuned circuit for air conditioner motors has saved many billions already. We went a lot of years without that tuned capacitor in the circuit. Now days, the wrong size capacitor will cause the motor to overheat.
So, it is possible you may have some efficiency gain by coupling inductive kick back into the battery powering a circuit. In my experience it will always be less energy than it took to charge the inductor.
-
So, it is possible you may have some efficiency gain by coupling inductive kick back into the battery powering a circuit. In my experience it will always be less energy than it took to charge the inductor. Vern
I sort of tried to highlight those phrases and words that might not be entirely commendable scientifically. Surely it is in the interests of good science to test ALL foundational concepts. And, equally, surely nothing is better than a really good question? Here's mine. Why NOT build the circuit? And why NOT test it?
Anyway. I'm not really that phased. I'm just so, so sorry that your pre-determined opinion on the matter may forever prevent you from finding the answer. Just really glad that you're around to argue my curly little things.
There's a really bright Professor - I don't think I should give out his name. He mentions this 'EFFECT' in a publication on electronics. It's a sort of bible on the subject. In any event. He himself, knew of the effect - but did not know of the benefit. He simply ignored the effect because it was easily stabilised by applying pressure - any sort - to the wire.
But - I only mention this as it's an enduring regret. I intend coming back to this subject when I get onto current flow. Whenever that is.
-
I sort of tried to highlight those phrases and words that might not be entirely commendable scientifically. Surely it is in the interests of good science to test ALL foundational concepts. And, equally, surely nothing is better than a really good question? Here's mine. Why NOT build the circuit? And why NOT test it?
All the foundational concepts involved in this circuit have been tested over and over again many thousands of times. No one has ever noticed anything unusual about them. [:)] We can't get into the particulars of it because you claim ignorance of the concepts. You can not be convinced that it does not work and we can not be convinced that there is any chance that it can work.
-
EIDIT We can't get into the particulars of it because you claim ignorance of the concepts. Vern
(Sorry. I used the wrong quote)
Fair comment. I have never been able to understand conventional current flow. Vern. You know what amuses me? Whenever I see that smiley little 'happy face' I know your about to stick a knife into the argument. I don't want to argue. I want ENTIRE CONSENSUS for my exotic logic. [;D] [;D]
-
I don't want to argue. I want ENTIRE CONSENSUS for my exotic logic.
The logic is okay; if the little gadget were real I would expect that you would have them all around your house as battery chargers. You would use only rechargeable batteries and soon power the whole household with them. Growing out of that you might install power inverters and supply power to the power grid.
But I didn't notice any of that going on. [:)] The little smiley just means that I am not offended and do not intend to offend.
-
if the little gadget were real I would expect that you would have them all around your house as battery chargers. You would use only rechargeable batteries and soon power the whole household with them. Growing out of that you might install power inverters and supply power to the power grid. Vern
THAT's the truth. There are many engineers who have seen this and - to the best of my knowledge - none of them is exploiting it. And I certainly can't. I don't know how to. One fellow did - some 10 years ago. He also held a demo for a whole lot of people, to show it. Bernard Bulak. Sadly he isn't with us any more. But Brian Buckley built my circuit And the circuit for ABB. He's demonstrated it ad nauseum - and again. To the best of my knowledge he is also not using it. There's an academic on another forum who claims he is using it. But I can't comment as I haven't seen it in operation.
So. That's really the Achilles Heel to my argument. I'm hoping I can convince you on the field. If there's merit in the model then I sort of take it that you're reasonable enough to test it. Maybe? And if there's no merit in the model - you're quite right. Why bother? No-one else has.
I actually think even I'd be tempted if they could manufacture a really whopping great MOSFET. That way I'd apply it to my geyser. It guzzles electricity and I love a hot bath.
By the way. Donovan is really into alternate energy systems and has just wired up a house somewhere here in Cape Town that apparently does use my system for some period of recharge. But I'm not sure of the device or where it's applied. I REALLY have no interest in the circuit. I wish I did. I'd probably then do a better job of promoting it. But I'm only interested in the effect as it relates to my model.
In any event. This discussion belongs to the previous thread. It's pointless to argue the pros and cons. I can't convince you. And, it appears nor can I convince anyone else. I'm hopeless optimistic and keep thinking that ONE DAY I'll wake up to find that lots of people are using the circuit. But that's just a ridiculous dream at this stage. And I really don't want a return from it. I personally think that it's a force of nature that's finally being uncovered. But that's just me.
-
but using a tuned circuit for air conditioner motors has saved many billions already. We went a lot of years without that tuned capacitor in the circuit. Now days, the wrong size capacitor will cause the motor to overheat.
So, it is possible you may have some efficiency gain by coupling inductive kick back into the battery powering a circuit. In my experience it will always be less energy than it took to charge the inductor.
The capacitor helps with reducing the starting current. It produces more torque on starting. It reducing the line current. Therefore the power lost on the lines is less.
I have not tought about it at all. Are you implying that the capacitor lowers the kilowatt hours? The watthour meter only measures the in phase component. Therefore the capacitor will not help reduce the in phase component. Therefore the capacitor helps with starting only. What is your opinion?
-
I sort of tried to highlight those phrases and words that might not be entirely commendable scientifically. Surely it is in the interests of good science to test ALL foundational concepts. And, equally, surely nothing is better than a really good question? Here's mine. Why NOT build the circuit? And why NOT test it?
All the foundational concepts involved in this circuit have been tested over and over again many thousands of times. No one has ever noticed anything unusual about them. [:)] We can't get into the particulars of it because you claim ignorance of the concepts. You can not be convinced that it does not work and we can not be convinced that there is any chance that it can work.
I am afraid it is a talking coconut argument. She says the coconut talks to her. In fact she says some of her friends and associates have heard the coconut talk to them as well.
-
I have not tought about it at all. Are you implying that the capacitor lowers the kilowatt hours? The watthour meter only measures the in phase component. Therefore the capacitor will not help reduce the in phase component. Therefore the capacitor helps with starting only. What is your opinion?
It actually reduces the KWH. The capacitor is selected so that it is in resonance with the motor coil when the motor is producing its rated output. I had never looked into this until we installed a new air conditioner for the house a few years ago. The capacitor was bad so the installer used another capacitor. The motor then ran hot. I kept a water hose trickling on it until the correct capacitor was finally installed. Then all was well.
The motor started Okay with the wrong capacitor; it just ran hot. When not cooled the thermal cut out shut it down within five minutes.
-
if the little gadget were real I would expect that you would have them all around your house as battery chargers. You would use only rechargeable batteries and soon power the whole household with them. Growing out of that you might install power inverters and supply power to the power grid. Vern
THAT's the truth. There are many engineers who have seen this and - to the best of my knowledge - none of them is exploiting it. And I certainly can't. I don't know how to. One fellow did - some 10 years ago. He also held a demo for a whole lot of people, to show it. Bernard Bulak. Sadly he isn't with us any more. But Brian Buckley built my circuit And the circuit for ABB. He's demonstrated it ad nauseum - and again. To the best of my knowledge he is also not using it. There's an academic on another forum who claims he is using it. But I can't comment as I haven't seen it in operation.
That settles it. We now know the whole story. It is a Bernie Madoff con game. The people who you are involved with got the ideas from con men. It is all about money. It is all about making sukers out of investors.
It has nothing to do with science or Engineering. It is a pure con game.
-
That settles it. We now know the whole story. It is a Bernie Madoff con game. The people who you are involved with got the ideas from con men. It is all about money. It is all about making sukers out of investors.It has nothing to do with science or Engineering. It is a pure con game.Jerrygg38
I'd agree with you if any of us actually tried to make money out of this. It at least would then have a real justified application.
-
I have not tought about it at all. Are you implying that the capacitor lowers the kilowatt hours? The watthour meter only measures the in phase component. Therefore the capacitor will not help reduce the in phase component. Therefore the capacitor helps with starting only. What is your opinion?
It actually reduces the KWH. The capacitor is selected so that it is in resonance with the motor coil when the motor is producing its rated output. I had never looked into this until we installed a new air conditioner for the house a few years ago. The capacitor was bad so the installer used another capacitor. The motor then ran hot. I kept a water hose trickling on it until the correct capacitor was finally installed. Then all was well.
The motor started Okay with the wrong capacitor; it just ran hot. When not cooled the thermal cut out shut it down within five minutes.
What brand air conditioner. I have the carrier. I had to replace the motor electronics recently. It is very expensive.
Carrier has a variable speed motor which constantly changes speed. If you have a carrier AC then it is a special motor. In general most of the window AC have simple motors.
Therefore the results you had may be due to the expensive special motors and not to the general AC motors.
-
That settles it. We now know the whole story. It is a Bernie Madoff con game. The people who you are involved with got the ideas from con men. It is all about money. It is all about making sukers out of investors.It has nothing to do with science or Engineering. It is a pure con game.Jerrygg38
I'd agree with you if any of us actually tried to make money out of this. It at least would then have a real justified application.
Once you said that BB demonstrated this to a large group of people, that to me means Con Game. the originator was trying to make money. You are just an innocent victim of this con game.
-
Once you said that BB demonstrated this to a large group of people, that to me means Con Game. the originator was trying to make money. You are just an innocent victim of this con game. Jerrygg38
I AM the originator. The demonstrations were FOR FREE. NOBODY has tried to make money. IF I am a vicitm - then it is certainly not from being DUPED into paying money to anyone. Nor have I charged anything to anyone. MONEY DOES NOT COME INTO THE EQUATION AT ALL. I am sublimely indifferent to money - except in as much as it enables my lifestyle and my interests. For that I have enough money. And there have been many more than ONE demonstration. There have been MANY.
May I ask you to excercise some restraint in your extraordinary presumptions. Alternatively could you exercise some restraint in their expressions. It hardly reflects badly on the people associated with this experiment if that is your object. They simply are anxious to get the effect explored at an academic forum. And your rather liberal unfounded accusations only prove that you have not studied the context of their involvement. To suggest that their qualifications are sub-standard is actionable. I would sooner recommend you find out the facts before you parade your opinions on this.
Me you are welcome to criticise. I believe I can almost hold my own. But when it comes to attempting to disgrace the calibre of the engineers associated with this accreditation you are stepping on really thin ice.
-
What brand air conditioner. I have the carrier. I had to replace the motor electronics recently. It is very expensive.
Carrier has a variable speed motor which constantly changes speed. If you have a carrier AC then it is a special motor. In general most of the window AC have simple motors.
Therefore the results you had may be due to the expensive special motors and not to the general AC motors.
Here's a web site that (http://dnr.louisiana.gov/sec/execdiv/techasmt/ecep/hvac/d/d.htm) explains the run capacitor a little bit. I think it misses the point that the capacitor size must make a tuned circuit of the motor-capacitor under load.
Two basic types are used in electric motor:
1) Run capacitors are rated in a range of 3-70 microfarad (mfd). Run capacitors are also rated by voltage classification. The voltage classifications are 370V and 440V. Capacitors with ratings above 70 microfarad (mfd) are starting capacitors. Run capacitors are designed for continuous duty, and are energized the entire time the motor is running. Single phase electric motors need a capacitor to energize a second phase winding. This is why sizing is so critical. If the wrong run capacitor is installed, the motor will not have an even magnetic field. This will cause the rotor to hesitate at those spots that are uneven. This hesitation will cause the motor to become noisy, increase energy consumption, cause performance to drop, and cause the motor to overheat.
2) Starting capacitors are housed in a black plastic case and have a mfd range as opposed to a specific mfd rating on run capacitors. Start capacitors (ratings of 70 microfared or higher) have three voltage classifications: 125V, 250V, and 330V. Examples would be a 35 mfd at 370V run capacitor and an 88-108 mfd at 250V start capacitor. Start capacitors increase motor starting torque and allow a motor to be cycled on and off rapidly. Start capacitors are designed for momentary use. Start capacitors stay energized long enough to rapidly bring the motor to 3/4 of full speed and are then taken out of the circuit.
-
So the question is why does W believe that she can contribute something to this very complex field filled with the most brilliant of people? My reason is an encounter with an intelligence field. What could hers be??????????????????Jerrygg38
I want to hear more about this experience of yours. But I think that BenV and - more to the point Sophiecentaur will object to any such discussion in a science forum. Can you please tell us about it - and then point out where the thread is? I think it's allowed in the Chat section, or some such.
I also want to know about that dream of 5 dimensions. It sounds amazing. Where did you post that thread? EDIT Sorry. I should have said which thread did you post that in? EDIT In fact, for any language purists, I should have said 'in which thread did you post it'?
I used to discuss such things on various religious and philosophical groups. If you want a copy of my "Aliens within Us" just email me your address and I will send you a copy. You could also buy it from Amazon. It is down to $1 per copy plus postage. I gave all of them away. My Doppler Space Time sold pretty good but my Aliens only sold very few. Most I sent to Libraries for free and they ended up at Amazon.com or the grabage can.
The problem with religion and philosophy is that it is based upon the experiences of people thousands of years ago. Thus ignorance and superstition became religious dogma. In general I believe in a spiritual force. This is my God. However I am not convinced that this spiritual force has anything to do with the religions of man. All I can say is that God is the God of all religions. God is the creative force of the Universe.
The big problem with religious discussions is that the interaction evidence is extremely subjective. How can one tell if one is speaking to God or to ones own inner mind? Thousands of years ago people heard voices and believed it to be God. Now we know that the voices we hear come from our own minds.
So all the religious leaders of the past experienced periods of insanity in which they believed they were communicating with God. I have experienced such things as well.
The only question I have is the possibility that various people pick up spiritual energy or data and then convert this data into words or visions. The data could be true or false. That is the problem.
I pick up data and then I study it. Therefore I study my own hallucinations. The religious data is always suspect because it depends upon the individuals upbringing and history. Some data may be passed on our genes or within the womb. Such data may make some people happy but it is tainted data.
Since I cannot correlate my data with any scientific experimental data, in the end I must cease attempting to understand such things.
Therefore at 70 years old, I must say that I do not know what lies ahead. And finally I no longer care. Since I continually fail in my scientific theories and must continually revise them, how could I possibly succeed in philosophy and religion?
-
What brand air conditioner. I have the carrier. I had to replace the motor electronics recently. It is very expensive.
Carrier has a variable speed motor which constantly changes speed. If you have a carrier AC then it is a special motor. In general most of the window AC have simple motors.
Therefore the results you had may be due to the expensive special motors and not to the general AC motors.
Here's a web site that (http://dnr.louisiana.gov/sec/execdiv/techasmt/ecep/hvac/d/d.htm) explains the run capacitor a little bit. I think it misses the point that the capacitor size must make a tuned circuit of the motor-capacitor under load.
I assume you mean a parallel tuned circuit. A series tuned circuit would be a short circuit.
I guess we can return to the theory that the inductive current will resonant with the capacitor and reduce the total current draw. this may reduce the motor current. Therefore it reduces the coil heat somewhat.
The problem is that a fairly large capacitor is necessary.
So I guess what happends is that the efficiency of the motor goes up because some of the inductive energy flows into the capacitor and returns to the motor. In all the small room AC I have bought, they only have a tiny capacitor.
-
Once you said that BB demonstrated this to a large group of people, that to me means Con Game. the originator was trying to make money. You are just an innocent victim of this con game. Jerrygg38
I AM the originator.
I am sorry. All your associates are incompetant or ignorant or both. There is no other explanation. Alternatively you are the talking coconut person reincarnated. You just want to talk for the sake of talking. Sorry but if they cannot be blamed then it is your fault. Perhaps they do not exist. Both your first person had BB initials and the last person BB initials. Perhaps you made them both up.
-
I assume you mean a parallel tuned circuit. A series tuned circuit would be a short circuit.
I guess we can return to the theory that the inductive current will resonant with the capacitor and reduce the total current draw. this may reduce the motor current. Therefore it reduces the coil heat somewhat.
The problem is that a fairly large capacitor is necessary.
Yes; the capacitor is parallel with the motor winding. The starter capacitor is a different lead on the same capacitor. It is a big capacitor; about a third the size of the motor.
I only brought up the electric-motor capacitor because there are lots of folks who think they can get over-unity out of tuning the motor circuit. I am not one of them[:)]
-
I assume you mean a parallel tuned circuit. A series tuned circuit would be a short circuit.
I guess we can return to the theory that the inductive current will resonant with the capacitor and reduce the total current draw. this may reduce the motor current. Therefore it reduces the coil heat somewhat.
The problem is that a fairly large capacitor is necessary.
Yes; the capacitor is parallel with the motor winding. The starter capacitor is a different lead on the same capacitor. It is a big capacitor; about a third the size of the motor.
I only brought up the electric-motor capacitor because there are lots of folks who think they can get over-unity out of tuning the motor circuit. I am not one of them[:)]
That is a big capacitor.
-
Hay; [:)] you managed to get your reply outside the quotes that time.
-
Once you said that BB demonstrated this to a large group of people, that to me means Con Game. the originator was trying to make money. You are just an innocent victim of this con game. Jerrygg38
I AM the originator.
I am sorry. All your associates are incompetant or ignorant or both. There is no other explanation. Alternatively you are the talking coconut person reincarnated. You just want to talk for the sake of talking. Sorry but if they cannot be blamed then it is your fault. Perhaps they do not exist. Both your first person had BB initials and the last person BB initials. Perhaps you made them both up.
Like I say. Me you're entirely free to criticise. If I cared about your opinion on this I might even put up a defense.
-
Once you said that BB demonstrated this to a large group of people, that to me means Con Game. the originator was trying to make money. You are just an innocent victim of this con game. Jerrygg38
I AM the originator.
I am sorry. All your associates are incompetant or ignorant or both. There is no other explanation. Alternatively you are the talking coconut person reincarnated. You just want to talk for the sake of talking. Sorry but if they cannot be blamed then it is your fault. Perhaps they do not exist. Both your first person had BB initials and the last person BB initials. Perhaps you made them both up.
Like I say. Me you're entirely free to criticise. If I cared about your opinion on this I might even put up a defense.
I just looked on the internet for JLN labs. Stepfan Harmann, JL Nardin, and Dieter Bauer plus Jean louis Naudin were listed. Are these your associates? Are you Jean Naudin???
In any event I see they used an AC scope and warned not to ground anything for the test. This is cheating and quite a hoax.
I do not know why the hoax. If it was not for money, was it only to have something to talk about?
I am sorry to be rough but someone deliberately produced a hoax.
-
Hay; [:)] you managed to get your reply outside the quotes that time.
The trouble is that I type 350 words per minute (some of the time) Perhaps the first letter!
-
Ok. Vern. To continue through this interminable plod. I hope it doesn't put you to sleep. I'm so sorry I have to describe this with words. It's all I have.
Presumably thus far the model sort of conforms to measured reality - the final arbiter? And yet I've introduced to our natural phenomena a heretofore never considered little zipon in a magnetic field that's also proposed as a primary force. I've tried to draw correspondence to the shape and structure and behaviour of natural phenomena conforming to some correspondence with the magnetic field including the fact that the atomic energy levels could be similar to the structure of our solar system. But included in this bigger picture are also bigger energy levels that behave in similar ways. A gross manifestation of the first smaller atomic field.
I also tried to draw a correspondence to the event of 'fire' as a similar event to a broken string of zipons in the greater vacuum of space unravelling to produce those extraordinary nebulae.
There are a whole lot of gaps. One is the path of the orbit of planets - not fully justified. And the other is the fact that nuclear fire appears to have different properties to flame. Also not fully justified. I hope to get back to these.
What I'd like to start moving towards is my definition of broken symmetry. And before I do that I should try and explain the little curly things, the magnetic fields that are extraneous to atoms and yet bind these atoms.
If the atom is negatively ionised, then, for symmetry I propose that these extraneous binding fields are postively ionised - or that they spin in an opposite direction. And vice versa. This means that if any amalgam, such as battery acid comprises molecules or atoms or both, that are predominantly and inherently repulsive then they will compensate for this by finding an opposite spin. The proposal is that - at the point of manufacture - these amalgams were bound by these extraneous fields. They still reflect the imbalance of the atoms - but have reversed their justification to compensate.
This does nothing to change the potential of that imbalanced amalgam. The fields are neutral. It's just that the fields spin in the same direction as each other. They have the same charge or justification. So, inherently, all those fields actually repel each other. Forever trying to move away. It's closest analogy would be to a single magnetic monopole - but obviously - its actually only a single justification. So these fields always reflect the valence condition of the atoms that they 'hold together'. They're still not detectable because they are essentially neutral. And, in any event, they are operating outside our measurable dimensions.
The proposal is that magnetic fields always move towards a condition of balance or, I think you engineers refer to it as zero net charge. In other words, in order to establish that balance they first need to change the justification of their spin so that one half of them spin in one direction and the other half spins in the other direction. That's just because these little zipons need to do what all magnets do. They want to balance.
If you look at the way permanent magnets move - if they want to change their justification they have to move the entire body of the magnet before they attach. They can't just 'reverse' their magnetic fields. In the same way I'm proposing that the only way these little magnetic fields can change their direction is by moving through a full orbit in order to present an alternate charge or justification back to that imbalanced amalgam.
Please let me know if this is clear - and then, I'll plod on.
-
You seem to be self consistent so far; I guess that is all we should require of new ideas about how nature works. I can get the vision you are imagining, - explaining.
-
That was really quick. Thanks. It'll take a while to get to the next step. But I'll get there.
-
I usually read posts twice before I respond; sometimes this helps me avoid dumb responses; sometimes not. [:)]
-
OK. We've established that these amalgams may comprise magnetic fields that bind different materials. In a resistive load I'm proposing that the imbalance in the atomic structure of iron or it's alloys also reflects this state. The atoms are intrinsically imbalanced. The magnetic fields are holding the atoms of the amalgam together, but they've arranged the atoms in a random pattern in order to minimise the 'charge imbalance' of the atoms in that amalgam. The fact that the metal in a resistor is hard, in comparison to copper, for instance, is precisely because of this need to separate like atoms that have an inherently imbalanced condition. And like the atoms in the liquid battery acid amalgam, these fields are still unipolar - or monodirectional. They all share the same justification. And, as in the battery amalgam, the actual charge or spin of the fields are opposing each other.
The copper wire is different. Here the binding fields again reflect the valence condition of the copper atoms. But copper does not have an imbalanced valence state. It has I think it is 2 electrons in its outer energy level. For symmetry their spin would balance out. So all those extraneous fields have two justifications. This is virtually a rest state or balanced state. And it allows for a more coherent crystalline structure. And because there isn't any inherent repulsion, there is not the same degree of stiffness in the material of the copper itself. It's more malleable.
That covers the most of the circuit components that allow for current conduction.
-
I can visualize the concept.
-
This is how the model proposes that current actually flows.
The zipons, being magnetic fields can only interact with other magnetic fields because they are the only particle within the boundary constraint of the other zipons. Else there can't be an interaction.
In order to change their spin they orbit from the one terminal to the other through the medium of the magnetic fields of the circuit components. To start with they interact with the magnetic fields in the copper wire. This is a relatively easy passage. If their justification or charge is say, North, then they can interact, relatively easily, with the the copper's south zipons. They interact by presenting say, their own north, thereby forcing the north of the binding fields to extrude from the material of the wire. These supplanted fields then do what all magnetic fields do. They orbit the structure of the wire. They can't resist the force of the current flow because the potential difference at the source is far greater than any force they have. These extruded fields are measured as a magnetic field. And the force of the current is a direct measure of the force of that extruded field.
But when the come to the magnetic fields in the resistive wire they hit a problem. These fields only have 1 spin. In order to interact here, or to 'hitch a ride' so to speak, they can only interact with a field that essentially only has one justification.
Still the current is the stronger force. It is able to force the required number of extruded fields in the resistor to adjust its spin to the required south. The balance of the fields in that resistor move to compensate for this altered state. Simultaneously the atoms, that were previously held apart are now exposed to each other's like charge. The ensuing chaos is such that some of these extruded fields peel off as photons. Others stay closer to the resistor's material to manifest as truants (as in the fire description). And the only coherent field then becomes an extruded north field that is precisely a measure of the current flowing through the structure of that resistor. This, over time, results in a weakening of the bound state of the resistor itself.
Then the current reaches the second terminal. It has an altered spin - which was the thing that induced the circuit orbit in the first instance. It presents an alternate charge to the battery amalgam. And the spin is then able to adjust the positioning of the atoms and molecules in that amalgam exactly as these atomically extruded magnetic fields adjusted the positioning of the atoms in the resitor material.
EDIT So the current flow - in terms of the model is simply the movement of these magnetic fields to alter their justification. They come from a source and go back to that source without losing any of those little zipons. The only zipons that are lost to the structure are the the resistor's zipons. These systematically decay as photons or truants and they then weaken the bound state of the resistor.
And if this is right, then if a circuit is designed to return some of these fields back to the terminal without changing their spin - then charge is conserved and the battery should - at its least - exceed its watt hour rating.
SECOND EDIT. You do not have to agree with me. Just let me know if the reasoning is still consistent.
-
Vern, I'm so wide awake. It's been a holiday here in SA. Youth day. And our country takes its holidays very seriously. So I've had about 6 hours interrupted to work on this thread. EDIT What I'm trying to say is that on and off I've managed about 6 hours of writing. And a glorious day. Surprise break in the weather. God's in His universe and all's well with the world - and so on.
The only blemish was the unfettered insults from sundry contributors. Such malice. I wish I knew what I could possibly have done to deserve that. But I'm getting used to the extraordinary passions of the scientific mind.
Regarding your post in the OTHER THREAD for want of more specific reference - I realise that questioning is a critical part of the progress of science. But questions are always a pleasure. I welcome it. Critical input is the best of all things. I'm waiting for yours. And I'm still not through the model. But I think I've cracked the most of it.
Hope I entertained that lighning fast mind of yours. I'll post tomorrow. I'm going to see if I can relax for a bit. I'll never sleep unless I do.
-
I don't get the reasoning where you feel you can get more zipons back out of the restive inductor than you put into it. The inductive circuits I am familiar with will give a kick back of much higher voltage than the source voltage but voltage times current is a little less than the charging voltage times current. The kick back can happen in less time than the charging.
You seem to still be consistent.
-
I haven't really dealt yet with the inductive element in the cycle. I see now this is the next plod. But I'll definitely leave it until the moring - or I'm in for another night of - what my family call - buzzing. I start and then don't seem to know how to stop.
Glad to hear it hasn't offended the logic.
I've been keeping my dogs quiet by feeding them marrow bones. The floor looks like an archeological dig. I must try and tidy up.
Thank you Vern - for your input - the more so as it hasn't been destructive.
-
I don't get the reasoning where you feel you can get more zipons back out of the restive inductor than you put into it. Vern.
These concepts are confusing because I'm forever describing the same thing at different values and levels. For ease of reference I propose to draw some distinctions. Let's say that the zippons from the battery acid amalgam can be the source zipon. So current flow will relate to these zipons only. In the same way the zipons in the copper wire are carrier zipons because they just open out to allow a path for that flow of current. And the zipons in the resistor are the target zipons because that's where the work is done.
The target zipons, as in all solid amalgams, were introduced to that amalgam when the resistor was manufactured. The proposal is that heat was transferred to a loose but unbound refined amount of iron and sundry alloys. In terms of this model all heat is the result of extraneous fields of zipons in material, such as coal, coke, whatever, that have had their strings broken through applied friction. This sets off a chain reaction where the strings of zipons unravel to manifest as truants. The truants have lost momentum but gained mass. They then manifest as flames. These flames or truants, in turn, now transfer their mass into the molten material. They do this because it's their nature to form in fields and its their nature to extend their magnetic influence wherever they can in order to find a balance. But when that material cools, all that happens is that the truants lose their mass, regain their momentum and they are then retained in that molten material of that iron alloy which is no longer loose but bound.
In effect, the zippons that first bound the fuel, have simply found a way to disperse through space into a new medium and they now bind the iron alloy amalgam in the same way that they previously bound the carbon atoms or somesuch, in the first instance. It's a transfer of energy and a physical transfer of the actual magnetic fields from one amalgam to another.
But the bound condition of the iron alloy is not a loose arrangement. The iron atoms in that amalgam, have an imbalanced charge because their outer energy levels have an imbalanced electron. It means that every iron atom repels every other iron atom. So. During the process of cooling, those extraneous binding target zipons also have a sympathetic orbit to these atoms - but in anti phase to the atom. But that also means that each extraneous orbit conflicts with every other orbit. And therefore, during the process of cooling these fields arrange the atoms into some arrangement that minimises their own conflicting charge. The crystalline structure of the iron amalgam is random to allow for this arrangement. But it also means, that on a quantum level the arrangement is such that the extraneous target zipons have managed to position themselves, and their spins in such a way that they do entirely conflict. They have a like spin or justification, but they have managed to adjust their positions to avoid a - head on confrontation, so to speak with juxtaposed extraneous target zipons. The net result is that they have balanced their own charges and, in so doing neutralised that amalgam.
Sorry Vern. I'll have to complete this in another post. I think this is enough. Please let me know when you've read this. I'll press on in any event.
-
I read the last post a couple of times so far; I can't understand it well enough to even determine if it is consistent. I'll have to go through it a few more times.
-
I'm just so glad you're there. I felt I was talking into a big black hole.
I'm only describing the known random positioning of atoms in an iron amalgam. No coherent crystalline structure. Also tried to describe the transfer of zipons from one amalgam to another through the process of applied heat.
But read on. I'm still working on your actual question. The eternal difficulties of a dedicated plodder.
-
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?
-
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. [:)]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Vern - are you there? Must I give this another go? If I don't hear from you I take it you're off line.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think I understand your concepts, but I can not reconcile them with the way I suspect nature behaves.
-
The question is DO THEY CLASH with nature?
-
We can't really know if your concept clashes with nature. You haven't adopted numerical relationships that can be tested.
-
Have been giggling again. Your argument sounds familiar. I need YOU to establish the numerical thingamebobs.
-
I am pretty busy playing with my own toys. [:)]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
But do you have an answer to the non integer reality?
If a concept is nonsense then I have a problem.
-
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.
-
The "known features" include the actual masses. Your ideas do not correspond to measured reality. How can my objection to that be wrong?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Do you?
How come the mass calculation comes out wrong then?
-
The mass calculation DOES NOT COME OUT WRONG. If you took the trouble to read the field model then I would not be answering these fatuous objections.
-
Those simple sums are the only ones you quote. Can you blame me for taking them as what you actually mean? Or is there some special arm waving factor that I failed to spot?
-
The truth, Sophiecentaur, is that you have not read the model. And the sad part is that if you did read it you would not understand it. It's not my fault that you don't understand it. It happens to be a concept that cannot be expressed in mathematics. Its proof requires mathematics. Fortunately I do not have to do that because the experts have already done the math. I cannot improve on it. It's all there in KNOWN PHYSICS. I contradict nothing. I only add a concept to the mathematical abstraction that, in this case, preceded the concept. And with that CONCEPT I can 'flesh out' certain properties that ENTIRELY conform to know particle physics.
But my CONCEPT has the added advantage of explaining certain questions in KNOWN PHYSICS as well as being able to simplify the concept of CURRENT FLOW et al. Please understand something. If this is what you call ARM WAVING - then, with respect, you are the original ARM WAVER. You argue without understanding whereof you argue. To me that is the quintessential definition of an arm waver.
-
You are entitled to make up any 'concepts' you like. You can only call them Science if they coincide rigorously with reality. The only numerically testable example of your concept that you have given fails the test. If you cannot explain the inconsistency then the concept doesn't work. If you want recognition of an idea it has to work.
All the'greats', who invented the concepts that you treat so lightly, only got there by attention to detail and meticulous accuracy. The 'physics' you are in love with is not the Physics with which Millican discovered the charge [edit- sorry pardon, not emr] of the electron. It would not reveal anything new just because it can produce pleasing patterns. I
I would say that anyone who reckons they have sorted as many phenomena as your blog claims to have done has probably over stretched themselves.
[Edit - spelling- my ipod's fault]
-
You can only call them Science if they coincide rigorously with reality. Sophiecentaur
Therefore do I call my work science.
-
You can call it what you like.
Are you surprised that you work hasn't been taken on board if you are so closed to criticism of it?
Yet again, I point out a flaw- the numerical inconsistency and all you do is get upset. A 'proper' Scientist would go away and construct a 'proper' argument against my crit. Instead, you have just been hurling abuse about me. What does that solve? It certainly won't make your hypothesis any more acceptable.
-
Are you surprised that you work hasn't been taken on board if you are so closed to criticism of it? Sophiecentaur
Who says my work has not been 'taken on board'? Certainly not me. There are some, admittedly few, who do approve my work. That you don't - is to argue in its favour rather than otherwise.
But I'll settle for a few at a time. I think new ideas are like little sparks that slowly become flames. Who cares where the spark started. Just as long as there's enough wind to keep the spark alight. The difficulty is protecting that spark from a deluge which comes in the form of inappropriate attack.
-
Are you surprised that you work hasn't been taken on board if you are so closed to criticism of it? Sophiecentaur
Who says my work has not been 'taken on board'? Certainly not me. There are some, admittedly few, who do approve my work.
So has it been accepted for publication? Please tell me where.
Do you think, it could possibly not have been accepted because it doesn't have enough substance rather than because "they're" ganging up against you?
New ideas come and go. They are two a penny. It is only those which pass the acid test that get anywhere.
Talking of concepts; could you 'conceive' that your ideas are misguided? I have been only too happy to be proved wrong in the past. Technical conflict has always served to stimulate and educate me. The day I take offense when someone tells me I'm talking rubbish will be when they carry me out feet first. (Can't be too soon for you, no doubt!)
Even at this stage, you have still not justified or explained that (trivial? if so, then explain) numerical error. Just why should I or anyone else should give it credence if you refuse a dialogue on a specific and well defined issue? If you don't want it to be an argument, then treat it as helpful clarification of something I couldn't understand. Don't just refer me to your blog, though. I should hope that you could contribute more than just what is printed there.
Wind and Sparks are nice metaphors but are only really justified when a successful Scientist is being assessed retrospectively.
-
Sophiecentaur, exactly which of us is being personal? You know perfectly well that the magnetic field model has not been accepted for publication. Nor has it been submitted for publication. My hope, through these threads is precisely, one day, to find that person to help me develop the model for publication. What I'm really hoping is that there's someone who can do fractal geometry as that would be the quickest and easiest reconciliation and best display the proposed composites.
I'm not sure if this is the 'hanging question' or the fact that my number correspondence to the known mass of a proton is out by 0.0081%. That question is not easily resolved. Pi - in general - applies to a circular measurement where there is a known diameter. I have a possible spherical shape in two dimensions. I do not know the applicable qualification for that shape. I have mentioned it at the end of the sum.
What I do propose is the constant interaction between all three truants (as I define them) both along their radial axes and and between the three gluons - laterally. This means that there is no actual REST MASS (edit: to establish that )ratio because it changes from moment to moment. But the correspondence is approximate and that, I think, is proof that the concept may be right albeit that the numbers may need to be marginally adjusted to allow for those shapes.
But the actual apparent particulate nature of the proton is proposed as a sphere - not because of its composite state - but because the entire particle is held in a field of zipons that form its energy levels. The actual increase in the (edit: apparent) volume of the proton may be as a result of this.
-
Let's not get personal, shall we? It's not the best way to get on with people - or to impress the crowd and win their sympathy. Sophiecentaur from the 'nutrino thread'.
My object has never been to impress the crowd or to win their sympathy. I do not underestimate people's intelligence. They are well able to make up their own minds.
Do you think, it could possibly not have been accepted because it doesn't have enough substance rather than because "they're" ganging up against you?
This comment is is meaningless. The experiment HAS been accepted, by EXPERTS. My model has never been evaluated by experts. And I have never thought anyone was 'ganging up' against me. How absurd.
New ideas come and go. They are two a penny. It is only those which pass the acid test that get anywhere.
My magnetic field model has been in the public domain for a couple of months now. Let's see if it stands the test of time.
Talking of concepts; could you 'conceive' that your ideas are misguided?
They've been put out there to find this out. Saying that I'm arm waving or that I'm misguided does not constitute an argument. Give me an argument and I could be persuaded. Thus far I've only heard some irrelevant criticisms about me and my general lack of qualification. And some nit picking on the mass/size ratio of the electron to the proton. Argue my concepts - then I can believe that your opinion might matter.
-
A bit of smoke and mirrors here, concerning pi and about a three dimensional figure in two dimensions.
Also concerning the mass idea. If the electron behaves like a Newtonian object under many documented situations - at speeds of a few mm/s then we can't really say it doesn't have mass. You may choose to invent a totally brand new 'concept' of what you mean by mass but you then need to supply a totally new framework for everything else and formally define all of your variables.
It is, of course, interesting to speculate what you would do about all the other 'concepts' which you bandy about so liberally but which were developed by a lot of very clever people who spend their lives "nitpicking" in order to produce the evidence and models on which you so readily base your supposedly fresh ideas. As you cannot trust nitpicking, I suggest you start from scratch.
You might acknowledge that, without the nitpicking of a few astronomers a few centuries ago, we'd still be working with Earth at the centre of the Universe.
(I think that was as apersonal as I could make it)
-
Thank you Sophiecentaur. That was decidedly fair comment. I must now try and find an answer that'll hopefully keep your interest in the model.
-
A bit of smoke and mirrors here, concerning pi and about a three dimensional figure in two dimensions.
I actually first wrote that pi determined the volume of sphere. Fortunately a kind friend alerted me to my mistake. But you're right. I cannot describe a 2 dimensional sphere let alone measure it. I just know that it's 2 dimensional because it doesn't occupy any space for any extended period of time. What I mean is that in terms of my model it is only ever manifest for one third of every phase cycle. So to compensate for this I took off 1 dimension. If you need me to clarify this I will do so gladly.
Also concerning the mass idea. If the electron behaves like a Newtonian object under many documented situations - at speeds of a few mm/s then we can't really say it doesn't have mass.
Not sure what you mean. I thought the electron definitely has mass but that the 1836 determines the size ratio between it and the proton. Again, in terms of the model I definitely have a particle and not a wave regardless of the electron's velocity in the atom.
You may choose to invent a totally brand new 'concept' of what you mean by mass but you then need to supply a totally new framework for everything else and formally define all of your variables.
No need to change known terms. But personally, I object to the concept of an electron, or for that matter a proton, being given a weight mass. This is only because it's weight mass would only be applicable in a gravitational field, and change the level or amount of gravity you'd also have to adjust that mass. So its weight mass is only applicable on earth. Not a constant?
It is, of course, interesting to speculate what you would do about all the other 'concepts' which you bandy about so liberally but which were developed by a lot of very clever people who spend their lives "nitpicking" in order to produce the evidence and models on which you so readily base your supposedly fresh ideas.
I think I may defend the fact that the ideas are 'fresh'. They certainly have not been plagiarised.
As you cannot trust nitpicking, I suggest you start from scratch.
Every confidence in nitpickers.
And, in conclusion, I have no quarrel with conventional physics except that I fondly believe that an understanding of it need not be restricted to abstract mathematical formulae.
How am I doing Sophiecentaur? You will note that in the spirit of a true scientist I am not taking offense at any dismissive comments such as 'bandy about liberally' and 'smoke and mirrors' and that I am trying to explain my terms. If you need any more clarification I'll gladly oblige. In fact there is nothing I'd like to do more than convince you that I am not an arm waver.
-
I should imagine you would want to clarify the bit about the dimensions. What's it supposed to mean?
Do you not know of Newtons laws and the equivalence of acceleration and gravity? How do you imagine the electron 'moving about in' the atom with a "velocity"?
What is "weight mass" please? It is a term with which I (and, I suspect, any Physicist reading this) am not familiar. Whoever suggested that this has anything to do with what happens on Earth, in particular? This is an example of what I refer to with the expression "bandying words around"- they actually have no meaning in this or any other context when used together in that way.
"Smoke and mirrors" is a very apt way to describe the dimensions sentence. As for "Pi" being involved, I cannot see that the "size" of any of the particles involved is particularly of interest to anyone. Once in a bound state, Heisenberg really forbids the knowledge of position or size to any great accuracy because the energy is so well defined.
It all boils down to the fact that you have to choose between nitpicking and armwaving. Pick a few nits out you your model and you may not need to wave your arms or get so cross when the inadequacies are pointed out.
It amazes me that you still do not (/do not choose) to see the relevance of my Hydrogen line question. By refusing to discuss it you are publicly demonstrating that you don't understand what it's about. If it's a theory of everything - seeming to cover all the posh Science names you can lay your hands on in less than a paragraph each in your blog, then it should be able to handle a simple thing like an alternative to the solution to the Schroedinger wave equation.
You can't have it both ways. Either you are going to be strict with your use of terms and justify each step in detail (not just referring to your wave theory blog which is far too abbreviated to mean anything to anyone) OR you just have to treat your ideas as an informal bit of chat.
[edit - punctuation]
-
I never realised that an arm waver is someone who gets angry - quickly? I assumed it applied to someone whose words had no substance and therefore the arms were waved to give those empty expressions some emphasis and meaning. In any event. If it means the former - then I may very well be guilty as charged. If the latter then I certainly am not.
Edit - SophieC - I never saw your reply last night. I wish I had as I would have answered you. I'll try and do so during the day - otherwise I'll post tonight.
-
What is "weight mass" please? It is a term with which I (and, I suspect, any Physicist reading this) am not familiar. Whoever suggested that this has anything to do with what happens on Earth, in particular? This is an example of what I refer to with the expression "bandying words around"- they actually have no meaning in this or any other context when used together in that way. Sophiecentaur
Wiki gives the mass of an electron as 9.10938215(45)×10−31 kg. Please advise me. I assume that kg represents kilograms? In which case this is the actual weight of an electron. So, my question is this. What is the weight of an electron on Mars? Jupiter? the sun? and so on? I know that 1 kg of butter on earth will not weigh 1kg on the moon. So, how can the weight mass of an electron have any real relevance other than here, on earth. That's what I mean by it not having a weight mass - or it may have - but it's not a constant - in the way that the speed of light is a constant.
Please advise me. Is this a relevant observation - or have I missed something?
Edit I grant you that an electron in a rest state has a half spin, that it belongs to the fermion family and is a lepton. I agree with all other descriptions of the electron. I just cannot understand it's mass - if this, as it seems, relates to a measure of its weight.
I actually tried to answer your other questions - but can't. Or I can, but I first need to understand this one. Please oblige SophieC. I'm sincerely unable to understand weight mass - if that is what it means.
-
If I were you, I would make sure that I knew what mass is and what weight is and also the units used for each.
I do not see myself as your personal Science Coach so you may have to make a bit of an effort to learn some basics before it is worth persueing the advanced stuff with which you seem to think you are familiar.
-
That's a cop out Sophiecentaur. Just give me a clue. What does kg stand for if not weight?
-
If you don't know I can assure you that anyone on this forum (or any academic) who you want to convince will be even less likely to take you seriously. I give you the usual answer which is given on TNS to students who want their homework done for them. "Find Out for Yourself"
-
I've spent the last 2 hours trying to find the answer to this question. The only thing I've found is that the constant used by particle physicists is the electron volt eV, used to represent its mass. So energy is expressed in various forms of this basic unit. It's mass, therefore is not seen in terms of its weight at all. The mass-energy equivalence is always expressed in its voltage potential which, presumably is constant.
But my point holds. Why reference the weight of the these particles when it is clearly of no intrinsic value to a description of a particle outside our Earth's magnetic fields?
-
"Smoke and mirrors" is a very apt way to describe the dimensions sentence. As for "Pi" being involved, I cannot see that the "size" of any of the particles involved is particularly of interest to anyone. Once in a bound state, Heisenberg really forbids the knowledge of position or size to any great accuracy because the energy is so well defined. Sophiecentaur
As I understand it, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Princle can give the position of a particle or its momentum. The more it reveals about the one the less it reveals about the other. Size doesn't come into it. I get it that you're largely indifferent to the reconciliation of this size/mass ratio that I discovered between the electron and the proton. It's hugely important to me as I use this as justification for the composite state of particles. In other words - because I was bang on (with the exception of 0.0082%) - then the composite nature of stable particles may also be correct. But in the broader scheme of things I guess you're right. It's not that important. Except to me it's everything.
-
Do you not know of Newtons laws and the equivalence of acceleration and gravity? How do you imagine the electron 'moving about in' the atom with a "velocity"? Sophiecentaur
Isn't it moving with momentum - velocity and charge? I'm not sure of your question. Are you suggesting that I should understand that it's a wave function when it's in the atom? As opposed to it's rest state? Or are you asking me how it interacts with the energy levels, which I've proposed are magnetic fields?
-
I've spent the last 2 hours trying to find the answer to this question.
Strange, it's discussed very well in the very first google hit when you search on "unit of weight".
Probably a bit too mundane for you, I expect- too well defined and difficult to shimmy round.
I loved the bit about "because I was bang on (with the exception of 0.0082%)".
That's the difference between a serious Scientist and someone who's playing with it. It's either the same or it's not the same. If you do sums with integers then the sums must be about integer values. If not then you have not reason to use integers.
Quantum numbers, Atomic Numbers and House Numbers are integers. Other quantities, like mass, weight, volume, radius are not integers. (And size - for God's sake what is that? I suppose dress sizes come in whole numbers)
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.
-
γ is the specific weight of the material (weight per unit volume, typically N/m3 units)
ρ is the density of the material (mass per unit volume, typically kg/m3)
g is acceleration due to gravity (rate of change of velocity, given in m/s2)
[edit] wiki
How neat is that. [;D] [;D] [;D] EDIT [;D] [;D] [:o] [::)] [;D] [;D] [;D]
I kept looking up atomic mass - proton mass - electron mass - and on and on and on. Thank you SophieC. I forgive you your excessively scornful post because - after this long while - you actually pointed me at the right link. And I've now got an answer to the question that has irritated me since day dot. I was mentally referring to specific weight!!! [???]
-
Not scornfull but realistic. Yet again, you take it personally rather than addressing the technical issue.
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.
How do we observe what is going on in deep space? We look at the EM waves arriving here. How could we come to any conclusions about what we saw if we needed to know what the gravitational fields were like everywhere in that direction?
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?
-
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]
-
So, if it hadn't escaped you, why have you been using the word 'weight' so freely?
-
And what, exactly is "size"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
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.
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!
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.
-
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.
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. [:)]
-
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.
-
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.
-
OK - but there's nothing to apologise for.
(My comments were aimed at the only thing which was available to read, afaik.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
6 TRUANTS, ANTITRUANTS AND VIRTUAL PARTICLES
The proposal is that a string from the field has broken. Zipons have become disassociated from the field and they cluster in a visible amalgam seen as a nebulus in space.
I've proposed that a primary particle, the zipon, has now manifested as a truant. For symmetry and for every manifest truant there must also therefore be an antitruant. The truant is proposed as the zipon that has gained mass at a corresponding forfeiture of its velocity in the field. They are visible precisely because they are within the boundary constraints of light speed and light, therefore can detect them. Equally therefore, an equal number of those zipons would have gained velocity at the fofeiture of mass. They, however, would be the antitruant and would not be evident within the boundary constraints of light speed. So light would not be able to detect them.
Given that the disappearing truant is the truant's antiparticle then where, in space does that anti truant go? The proposal is that in losing it's mass it actually moves towards a point in space that is precisely where it first decayed as a zipon. In other words it does not occupy space in the sense that the truant occupies space. In effect it has the properties of velocity at the entire forfeit of its mass. The antitruant, therefore, does not share the same dimensions of volume in space. In point of fact it only retains the properties of charge and velocity in the same but opposite way that truants only retain the properties of charge and mass. Then, like the manifest truant, it will 'hang' in a fixed position in space, two different manifestations of the same zipon, but both outside of the magnetic field itself. And the zipons in the field can find neither truant. The one is too big and the other too small. Therefore there is no interaction with the field.
The proposal is that some of the truants will decay back into the field. These are virtual particles and, in effect, they will simply regain that velocity and lose mass and then, eventually, slot back into one of the strings in the field.
But the truants are only really very small magnets. Magnets have the overriding requirement to structure themselves into orderly fields where their charge is most perfectly balanced. Over time, therefore, as the truants and the anti truants expend their energy from the force of the singularity, then they will again collect into some structure that expresses this magnetic requirement. They eventually move to structure themselves into fields and they do this in small steps.
-
Everyone - I've copied these 6 posts to the energetic forum. Please go there if you're following this. BenV - thanks very much for the space allowed by the Naked Scientists and for your indulgence in these posts. Much appreciated.
-
witsend
I seem to remember you saying that your hypothesis stands or falls entirely on the fact that Magnetism is, somehow, fundamental.
Did you miss my post pointing out that the magnetic force can be accounted for completely as a combination of the Coulomb Force and Relativistic effects?
I wonder whether you will find this link interesting.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24017.0 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24017.0)
You should look at the links within - showing that it's not just something I made up.
Will you dismiss it all as being too mathematical, too complicated, too boring or just an attack on your ideas?
-
Hi SophieCentaur
I dip in and out of this forum - and have just noted your comment here. That the magnetic field is accounted for in terms of anything at all - does not refute my argument. The argument is that there is no evident electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction.
-
But there is.
Did you not understand the link? Electrons moving around a circuit or electrons in the atoms of a 'magnet' are still doing the same thing.
It's just an alternative way of looking at it. Magnetism is no more fundamental than anything else. Moreover, the theory I quote from has a track record and agrees with measurement. I don't think yours does.
-
SC - I have found your contributions on this thread and elsewhere in this 'new theories' section of the forum to be so persistently discouraging that I simply do not want to post here any more. My personal opinion is that you bully people into regretting that they share their thoughts or bare their souls as you ride over all such intellectual efforts with the sensitivity of bulldozer on full throttle, a dinosaur with an appetite, a troll on a mission.
I do not want to know about your opinion on anything, personally. Let me see how many other contributors you frighten away. But I predict that all will eventually fall victim to your delight in discouraging innovative thought - thinly disguised as a scientist's preferred requirement for exactitude.
The truth is that you get your kicks in life by putting people down. It's sad. But it's a sad outlook for the Naked Scientists forum generally as your attentions only ever manage to diminish contributors while you vicariously or actively dictate what may or may not be considered for evaluation. I wish BenV would wake up to the fact. It is my humble opinion that you should be banned from the New Theories section - entirely, until such time as you show us whether you, yourself are capable of a unique thought or an innovative idea let alone sharing it. It takes a certain amount of courage and a certain amount of vulnerability. You have neither.
By the way - your motto - are you suggesting that to behave like a pig does not mean that you also are a pig? I can't understand it.
-
If you think that it's putting you down when I disagree with you then that is up to you. If you want to have a Science based on fantasy, then that is fine. But you can't call it Science, I'm afraid.
The one thing about Science which applies over the whole field is that it aims at consistency wherever possible. If I point out an inconsistency, is that a 'put-down'? Do you not have any comment on 'that' thread? The sources quoted in it were not aimed to 'put you down'; they were arrived at rigorously in an attempt to understand things a bit better. Try reading them. You may take offense at me but you can hardly take offense at them.
Many of the self-styled 'new theories' on this forum are not, in fact theories - they are hypotheses and many of them are clearly not consistent with the body of Scientific evidence. When I see that, I tend to point it out. Isn't this supposed to be a Science Forum? Let's conduct it that way, then.
You will notice that I very seldom comment in the 'Just Chat' section because the contributors to that have the sense to acknowledge that the contributions are exactly that. Good fun, very often and sometimes stimulating.
You seem to have your own way of being purposely offensive and it is aimed at a more personal level than anything I have ever written. Not really appropriate, I think.
-
Following quotes from SC
If you think that it's putting you down when I disagree with you then that is up to you.
Are you trying to usurp or confer a right for me to draw my own conclusions? I can't work it out. Either way it's grossly inappropriate and disgustingly arrogant, as it is not,in fact, your right to confer or usurp. As you are clearly conflicted here, let me remind you. You are not God.
If you want to have a Science based on fantasy, then that is fine.
As you cannot understand the subtleties of inductive or deductive logic I would suggest you defer your opinion. Fantasy is your brand of physics where subtleties of logic and concept entirely elude you. To follow this reasoning one also requires a reasonably adequate intelligence quotient.
But you can't call it Science, I'm afraid.
I can call it whatever I like. Who made you an arbiter of science and its definitions?
The one thing about Science which applies over the whole field is that it aims at consistency wherever possible.
What nonsense is this? Where is there consistency in science as an explanation of current flow from induced fields on a switching circuit. I have never in my life seen such an absurd parade of 'scientific' explanations to account for the second phase of a switching cycle. It will go down in history as being a real scar on the otherwise proud face of scientific history. It's logic progressively cascades into total absurdity. My posts regarding this refer.
If I point out an inconsistency, is that a 'put-down'?
Indeed - the more so as there is no insconsistency. Your attention and efforts would be better spent in pointing out the inconsistencies in known physics. Pretend to an impartiality. It would make your sad attacks more plausible.
Do you not have any comment on 'that' thread? The sources quoted in it were not aimed to 'put you down'; they were arrived at rigorously in an attempt to understand things a bit better. Try reading them. You may take offense at me but you can hardly take offense at them.
Somewhat cryptic here I'm afraid. If you're referring to the thread that describes my circuit - then that is, indeed, another example of the paraded idiocies of egocentric opinionated armchair scientists - fighting their corner LOUDLY rather than reasonably. I have read it. Many times. It's a scar on this forum and it's there for the record.
Many of the self-styled 'new theories' on this forum are not, in fact theories - they are hypotheses and many of them are clearly not consistent with the body of Scientific evidence.
How can conflicting evidence be considered if it is not allowed to be presented? It may not come to the table? What is that? Science?
When I see that, I tend to point it out.
Indeed - you point it out with a repetitive and dreary monotony which is the inevitable consequence of a boring and dull witted mind.
Isn't this supposed to be a Science Forum?
Again. Who made you the arbiter here? God? The global body of our learned and revered? Let me assure you that the strength of our academies lies not with the bigot but with those who quest for the truth. And there are many especially in the hallowed halls of our Ivy League institutions. Michio Kaku is on record as recommending that the entire body of physics be upturned and ALL its text books rewritten.
Let's conduct it that way, then.
What way? Put on dark glasses the better not to see with? Close your eyes to the evidence lest it conflicts with prejudice? Block your ears because you cannot learn new physics? Mock new ideas lest they be proved right?
You will notice that I very seldom comment in the 'Just Chat' section because the contributors to that have the sense to acknowledge that the contributions are exactly that. Good fun, very often and sometimes stimulating.
With respect. Actually - in truth, without any shred of respect whatsoever - your comments in the 'just chat' would be much more appropriate than any contribution you could possibly make in the 'new ideas' - 'new science' 'new anything'. To comment here you - at it's least - need intelligence. imagination, courage, sensitivity, concern, kindness, thoughfulness and the need to learn.
You seem to have your own way of being purposely offensive and it is aimed at a more personal level than anything I have ever written. Not really appropriate, I think.
How is it not appropriate - when you offend everything that is creative and sincere?
And in the final analysis SC - let me point out to you that the concept of 'stored energy' being recirculated on a circuit from a switching cycle - offends every possible reach of logic. Yet if this second cycle of a switching circuit is seen as regenerated energy - it then conforms to known science with all its pristine logic. It is just that it also then confronts the constraints of second laws which require efficiencies at 1 or under. That is the point where the bigot actually needs to leave the room.
-
I'm sorry witsend, but I think you've mis-read sophie's intentions completely.
He would be delighted if a new theory, backed by the appropriate evidence, were to arise on this forum that could topple an accepted theory - that's one of the exciting bits of science.
However, he also knows what it takes to do this, and will put the hard questions to anyone arguing a new hypothesis. If you feel that this is an attack on you, it's not - it's an attack on your hypothesis. If any new hypothesis is strong enough to be accepted, it will be able to fend off these attacks with scientific answers.
Bear in mind that it's the science he's talking about - if you could answer his questions, your hypothesis would either be strenghtened or rejected - is this not a good thing?
I would also consider that you have been quite rude about him in the post below. Try not to take anything personally, and concentrate on the science.
-
BenV - I hear you. But know that any attempt at advancing the science is entirely defeated when I have to deal with SC's posts. He will put his oar in with repetitive monotony always reminding me that I have no right to post or comment here or on this subject.
If, indeed, the entire process of accreditation and validation of my experiment were to go through rigorous questioning - I would not mind. But when there is the implication that it does not even deserve attention and that the models I've advanced are 'fantasy' then, I'm afraid the subject is not being questioned. It's being systematically slaughtered. And for all that it may be amateurish - its my hard won efforts over 10 years of my life.
But I hear you. The post was possibly a little excessive. Sorry.
I've taken out a couple of comments. Hopefully that may make it better. If you want me to delete it I will but then you must get SC to delete his as well.
-
Witsend
The link to which I referred was the last link mentioned. It was the link with which I re entered the thread. I will give it again
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24017.0 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24017.0)
You might find it interesting as an example of some Science which is consistent with evidence in as far as it agrees with measurement. The numbers are all available elsewhere and so are the formulae if you can just do the substitutions.
The content ( mine and others) cannot be construed as a put-down of anyone.
Edit - repair of link
-
SC - I strongly recommend that you do not advance examples of your impartiality as I can counter this with scchedules, whole rafts of insults and slights, some of them personal some of them general all of them dismissive and all of them proving a want of objectivity.
-
Witsend - from now on, please ignore anything you feel is a personal slight, and instead concentrate on tackling any questions about the science that people (including sophie) put forward.
If the perceived 'personal' nature of his comments is what offends you, it might also benefit you to refrain from making personal comments yourself
This, for example:
Here you go, SophieCentaur. There's more than enough math here to satisfy the purist. Where's your input?
Was an uncalled for attack in an entirely unconnected thread.
-
But it's a sad outlook for the Naked Scientists forum generally as your attentions only ever manage to diminish contributors while you vicariously or actively dictate what may or may not be considered for evaluation. I wish BenV would wake up to the fact. It is my humble opinion that you should be banned from the New Theories section - entirely, until such time as you show us whether you, yourself are capable of a unique thought or an innovative idea let alone sharing it. It takes a certain amount of courage and a certain amount of vulnerability. You have neither.
The main point of this forum is to be educational. Sometimes, this can mean helping people to develop new ideas, or pointing out the faults in a hypothesis. Getting a new theory accepted is difficult - and rightly so - so if people on this forum challenge new hypotheses with scientific questions, doesn't everyone benefit?
As you know, I won't comment on the validity of your ideas because they're out of my field of expertise, so the following comment is a general one about the kinds of new hypotheses we see on this forum...
What would be the advantage to allowing people to not just believe, but publicise, a hypothesis that doesn't stand up? Should people be able to visit the Naked Scientists forum and read about a new, possibly flawed, hypothesis without any critisism? If the hypothesis is strong enough, it will stand up to any and all critical comments on this forum.
This especially stands when it comes to issues of health and medicine - it would be simply irresponsible if we were not to allow people to challenge comments that could lead people to make the wrong decisions.
-
Sorry BenV. Sincerely. I get it.
EDIT - how do you propose that I counter SC's repeated advice that I do not post here. He's recommended the 'just chat'. Do I comply with this?
-
What I think he's asking is that you tackle his science questions specifically - if you were to do that then no-one would be able to complain about you posting here.
Might I suggest that you have a look through the thread and see if there's any outstanding questions you can answer, or would like some clarification of? Knowing Sophie and others on this forum, if you ask for help in answering these questions (such as where to start with the maths etc), they usually oblige!
-
But there is.
Did you not understand the link? Electrons moving around a circuit or electrons in the atoms of a 'magnet' are still doing the same thing.
It's just an alternative way of looking at it. Magnetism is no more fundamental than anything else. Moreover, the theory I quote from has a track record and agrees with measurement. I don't think yours does.
Here's a case in point. I'm arguing that electrons cannot comprise current flow. It's never been addressed. Not only is it not addressed but I am now told that electrons are 'free floating' somehow - somewhere - inside a magnet - never been seen, never been proven - but nonetheless there because popular opinion requires it? And this masquerades as science? Not only that but preferred science? It confounds every reasonable or logical faculty that I possess and I am advised that this is a fact. In truth SC this is an hypothesis - NEVER has it been proven.
And I might add - that with the simple and consistent extension of my argument I am able to show a reconciliation between the mass/size of a proton to an electron which you refute for want of a 0.08% difference in measurement - already acknowledged and accounted for in the volume and shape of the particles involved. Why was this not answered?
-
witsend
I'm arguing that electrons cannot comprise current flow.
Are you really not aware of any of the evidence which supports all this?
-
What evidence? You mean classical theory? It's nonsense. Please do not point to consensus opionion - or general approved theory. Just address the question - what happens when your average battery is recharged. What exactly happens? And then. What happens when it discharges? Nothing else. Just the bare bones.
The evidence in support of this is amply proven in the paper which was not forwarded for review.
More evidence is en route soon in a replicated test. If you wish to keep up you must log into energeticforum.com
-
It's not "classical theory" it is the result of countless measurements, backed up by analysis, involving ACTUAL MEASURED QUANTITIES.
You have clearly not understood the existing theories deeply enough to be in a position to reject them so you just cannot be taken seriously. Science is far, far deeper than you care to acknowledge. Until you know your enemy a lot better than you do, you are in no position to hold any valid opinions one way or another.
You are pedling non scientific froth.
-
OK - SC - yet again you've ignored my question. It's there on the table when you want to pick it up. And tell me, BenV - how I can confuse SC's intentions here? He does not answer my questions and claims that I'm peddling scientific froth? I have my experiment on the table, my field model on the table, all.
I actually find this kind of comment fruitless - counter productive and unmannerly. I'm off.
-
There is no way to deal with your argument, witsend. I don't need to deal with your question about evidence for the 'classical' ideas. (I think you are actually referring to QM and not classical). You refuse to take on board the huge body of Science on the grounds that you can't get hold of books, that you can't be bothered with Maths (it doesn't "make sense" to you, you say).
AND YET you expect the world to accept you ideas on the basis of one piece of writing with one section containing (integer) numbers, which is the 'Maths' to justify it all. Your evidence is based on a single, barely undertood experiment in which you mis interpret the results.
You still say I'm being unreasonable?
Until you can demonstrate some appreciation of what QM and the rest are actually saying, you can't assume any authority to reject it. If you were to do that, your ideas might have some substance.
-
SC I'm in no hurry. The question's still on the table. In fact - here's a variation.
'How can my accredited results on the experiment described in the paper submitted to the IET be explained in terms of classical concepts of electric current flow and the transfer of energy principles understood by mainstream science?
If you want to argue the results then argue it with my accreditors. That's not open as an option. Just the current flow and transfer of energy? For once - put your beloved classical argument on the table. I've got results that disprove it. Now tell me how classical thinking can possibly be right.
-
The problem is that you have not 'disproved' any aspect of the conventional view of conduction. You have not even demonstrated that you understand the theory. You make pointless demands that I must explain a few results which you claim are not explained by conventional Science.
Which actual parts of conventional Science are you actually objecting to? You use all the conventional terms - like proton, electron and field. Why do you deign to use such terms if you object so strongly to the Science which introduced them, describes their behaviour so accurately (measurably)? Which bits do you accept and which bits do you reject? Which Science rules do you know and understand (without the use of textbooks or any formal learning, you say)? Are you OK with Newton, Faraday, Rutherford? Where do your definitions of their terms start to differ from theirs? How do you think 'your electron' would have been detected and characterised if its inherent properties were so different from the electron that JJ Thomson discovered? Do you not accept that 'cathode rays' are, in fact, electrons? Do you not know that the current through a CRT can be measured and that the number of electrons passing through can, in effect, be measured by the deposition of chemicals in an electrolytic cell? Or is all that stuff just irrelevant?
Your ideas hang on some very limited evidence and you claim approval from a few 'professionals' but none of your supposed supporters is visible on these threads. What about your co-author? No sign of opinions from him. I should have expected to see some input from there in defence. Is there actually any evidence that you have any support?
As for the results which you claim to be accredited: where is the accreditation, btw? You have just challenged me / someone to point out what is wrong with your experiment. If you care to read the posts on the thread about your experiment you will find ample valid objections to how you conducted your measurements and a perfectly good analysis of the (incredibly common and well studied) circuit. You did nothing but brush aside the objections on the grounds that they involved Maths and knowledge of Capacitors.
I have already used the expression "word salad" and it still is nothing more.
This paper to the IET; it has been submitted but has it been accepted / published? Until it has been, it is irrelevant to imply support from that quarter.
Edited to repair what I did on my ipod - should have done all this on a proper keyboard.
-
You keep pointing to everyone else's explanation of physics. I'm still waiting for yours. Yes. I want you to imagine this scenario. I have not been sued by some heavyweights in industry - notwithstanding my inclusion of their name in a paper that is now very much available for public consumption. Imagnine therefore that I have not misrepresented the facts. Let's take a really big leap of faith here and assume that I am not actually a liar.
Now - I have a set of results that defy classical prediction. I don't care if you want to reference classical or quantum physics here. How does 'stored energy' which is allowed by mainstream science - account for these results. And - for that matter - how does 'stored' energy 'flow' on your standard switching circuit.
You see SC - you scoff at my interpretation, which - in any event you do not understand. But have you investigated your own theory? I would be glad to see a 'step by step' explanation of this. Unfortunately it cannot be described mathematically. You'll need to deal with concepts here.
And as mentioned - I'm in no hurry here. I just want to get this shoe on the other foot.
-
Which part of Physics did you want me to give you? I am quite prepared to deal with one issue at a time but, unlike you, I wouldn't presume to rewrite the whole thing 'according to me'. That, as you have demonstrated, is fraught.
The shoe will not ever be on the other foot because this thread is dealing with your ideas.
If you had read the past comments you would see that there is a very reasonable explanation of your 'novel' results. They don't "defy" classical explanation at all. A number of contributors pointed out possible errors in your measurement technique but you have ignored the comments. You would not be the first experimenter to think they had found something new. Most Scientists are prepared to scrutinise their model, though. You have actually refused to subject the method to scrutiny - Criticism is "stifling original thought" or "putting you down".
There is, actually, no point in engaging with you in technical discussion about your circuit if you are not even going to discuss the role of capacity in the circuit. Resonance is based on energy flowing back and forth so your "returned energy" is nothing new, at all. Your figures, because they are so sketchy (where it matters) that there is nothing to discuss.
Why do I stick so tightly to conventional Science? Unlike you, I have had a long experience that experimental results pretty much always go along with existing theory. The departures are always (these days) in the last few significant figures of measurement. When the experiment is very 'far out', there is usually a good classical reason for it. Your only figures are short integers, which makes them instantly suspect.
I do 'armchair Science' nowadays but I have done more experiments than you have had 'hot dinners' in the past. Many of my predictions / calculations have been realised in working systems, subsequently.
I am not even hinting that you are a liar. I am just saying that you cannot claim any support for your ideas unless you can show it. What you may interpret as support may not be as concrete as your interpretation of it.
-
Why should you think that classical Science does not 'consider' the energy involved with collapsing magnetic fields? It's all 'known art'. I did some of it at A level, even. The induced emf will be proportional to the rate of change of flux and is in a sense which 'resists' the change - that is to maintain the current flow (Lenz's law). The 'catching diode' is included in circuits to protect the switching device from over voltage or, sometimes, to suppress arcing. The emf will cause a current to flow through the diode and through the coil (just the circuit loop containint the two components - nowhere else), dissipating energy in the resistance of the wire. If there is a capacitor in parallel (indeed, the self capacity of the coil is always there) then some resonance will occur - producing a damped / decaying string of oscillations - ringing - at the resonant frequency. The oscillation is due to energy 'sloshing' between the components and gradually dissipating. I don't know by what path you suppose the charge will return to the battery if Kirchoff's laws are to be obeyed. What path could it take and how would it flow?
Every such circuit does it to some extent.
The problem is that you suggest an anomaly of several hundred percent in the behaviour of your circuit. If this situation really occurred then no one could possibly design a circuit and rely on it working properly. The reality is that circuit design has worked to a high degree of accuracy for the best part of a hundred years. It is possible to calculate (or use computer simulation) the behaviour of all circuit configurations containing linear and non linear components and then build a circuit which does exactly what was predicted. (Within fractions of a percent of agreement, at the sort of low frequencies that you were using.)
But all of the above has already been spelled out to you in the past and you have ignored it. There is nothing more to say about it. You have decided that you have found something brand new. I, and others, have pointed out that it isn't new. You claim the theory doesn't consider it - read any text book to see that it does. Can you really believe that everyone is out of step but you?
You have chosen the 'battlefield' in which to test your overall hypothesis to be in the field of elementary circuit design. It happens to be an extremely well studied field with millions and millions (literally) of examples of supporting evidence. A good choice, in some ways, because the measurements are convenient and low tech - but a bad choice for supporting your ideas, I'm afraid.
If you are not prepared to look more deeply into elementary circuit theory then you have no valid argument to support your ideas. I can guarantee that, if you do the sums, you will get the conventional answer. The same sums which have put men on the Moon and make your computer work!
-
Witsend
What's the "slamming" and "apologising" all about?
We are dealing with non-personal issues, here.
When the whole of Science is turned upside down by someone who can justify it, I will be a pleased as the next person. However, your attempt fails to achieve that.
And you still haven't actually shown me anyone who explicitly agrees with you, yet. That is a major issue, surely.
I think you may not be emotionally suited to Science because it can't always be expected to go the way you want it to. You might just take some notice of the messages you are getting and try to learn something about Science rather than just getting upset. Total strangers (which we all are, you realise) don't have time for that stuff.
-
BenV - this is for you. The guys in America have duplicated the experiment in our paper. They're waiting for some more sophisticated measuring instruments and will then post the results. But they've exceeded my claim by more than I've ever managed. It is really good news. It's on another forum. May I post that thread link in this and the previou thread I started?