[Vern]

I think the 30 engineers were certifying that their equipment was accurate, if I gleaned correctly from your paper. They made no claims about the functioning of the circuit. []

When I said we let you get away with it, I simply meant that we didn't call it to your attention. I'm just here learning all I can and helping others learn when I can. I wouldn't lock your thread even if I could. We're Ok as long as there is a possibility that someone might learn something. Most of us make mistakes, but most of us finally realize our mistakes.

Your ideas about the way nature works are interesting. But I think you have got it just a tad wrong.

[witsend]

'I think the 30 engineers were certifying that their equipment was accurate, if I gleaned correctly from your paper. They made no claims about the functioning of the circuit.'

Indeed, they specifically and in writing, allowed referece to their names as accreditors of the experiment. But I never listed them all - just the more prominent.  I think you're referring to Fluke who simply guaranteed the measurements.  Spescom applied to Fluke for this so that no-one could blame the results on faulty instruments.

I'm not sure if this is clear. We used Fluke 123 Dual Channel oscilloscopes for measuring power/waveforms et al.  Spescom - accreditors then got Fluke to guarantee their instrument.  That's why Fluke were referenced.

[rosy]

Quick answer to the question further up about locking posts-

The forum rules, to which you should have been directed on joining the forum, are here.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0

Posts are most often locked because either (1) they have become a slanging match between someone who is pushing a pet theory (or, often, religious viewpoint) and won't/can't engage in discourse but continues to post the same assertions over and over again or (2) the poster has started a large number of threads on the same topic rather than continuing discussion in the original thread- it may sometimes be appropriate to split discussion if it's going off topic, but if several threads all on the same topic are open simultaneously then all but one may be locked to make the discussion more tractable for people joining.

Also, you did speculate further up the thread as to why quite a limited number of people enter into the discussions in this (new theories) forum. It's mainly because we get an awful lot of very poorly thought out "I-have-reformulated-physics-now-give-me-a-nobel-prize" type posts. Some are clearly ludicrous (ignore well known experimental results inconsistent with their formulation), others might be interesting, but since the overwhelming probability is that they are bunk most of us don't bother to follow links/read papers/figure out where the flaw is, because there are only so many hours in the day.
Forums like this one are only made up of the sum of their contributors (give or take the effort and finance provided by the naked scientists and their funders to keep the ludicrously huge database up and accessible), so the people sufficiently interested to keep reading the New Theories section might reasonably be expected to have a slightly jaundiced outlook on the theories posted here (read some).

[witsend]

Rosy, thanks for the explanation.  I read through the rules.  Why I missed them when I joined I have no idea. Probably because I'm blind as a bat.  I had no idea that these posts were 'monitored'.  Does that apply to all forums?  Probably. I'm new to this.  My son has been at me for ages to join such.  My daughter-in-law found me this forum.  Am delighted to discover a media where I can 'air my views' such as they are. But I've yet to engage in any discussion on their merits or otherwise as I've been embroiled in this defense on 'perpetual motion'.

Hopefully I've not yet 'breached' any rules as I've not been given any warnings. 

I haven't found any challenging and new ideas on physics in the forum but, hopefully, they'll come.  My own contribution is way too amateurish to be of interest.  But it has the dubious merit of challenging known physical paradigms. I was so hoping to argue this.  Instead of which I've been hobbled at first base by defending the claim rather than speaking to the effects.

[Vern]

I am curious about how you came to suspect that the universe is made up of these little magnet things.  Also, I read your patent application. You were wise not to mention over-unity in it. []

[witsend]

Vern - why do you refer to 'these little magnet things?'  it's so derogatory.  Very much in line with your perpetual motion comments.  I've already explained why it's not the whole picture.  Did you read that post?  I find it offensive and patronising.  And I'm reasonably certain that you understand it better than this.  But to answer your question - I am challenged by symmetries.  I can't do math but I can certainly do patterns - which is difficult to explain.  It's a kind of logic.  But it will mean nothing to you or, in fact, to anyone. It's a kind of tool that I developed.  Has all the benefit of symbol and logic without the tedium and vagaries of words.  So, symmetry is the challenge and patterns are the tools.  And then I just keep asking questions.

I am proud to assure you that I have NEVER read the patent.  Not that I'm not interested.  But the legalese and jargon are way over my head.  Surprised to hear that it has no 'over unity' claim in it.  Well.  I am given to understand that the patent puts the technology in the public domain.  This means that it's been published and no-one should be able to capitalise on the technology.  Which is not to say that it cannot be used, industrialised, whatever.  Just no-one will be able to call for royalties?  It's my own small contribution to our global energy crisis.  The trouble is that it appears to be somewhat underwhelming. 

[Vern]

I didn't intend to be derogatory. Sorry about that. I just wondered what was the path that brought you to the conclusions you came to.

[witsend]

Not a problem.  I'm way too prickly.  You know how inductive laws explain how a changing electric field can generate a magnetic field and vice versa?  Well it occurred to me that magnets interact without any evident electric field.  I asked about this and was told that the  electric field is 'inside the material of the magnet'.  Well - that was particularly delicious 'grist to the mill', so to speak.  An entire quantum electromagnetic field model with no explanation of a magnet on magnet interaction.

There also appeared to be no experimental evidence available to prove that electric field which meant that other scientists had actually also seen the problem.  One published paper - but with inconclusive results.  I then set about trying to find out how magnets interacted with each other.  It took me ages, about five months of some seriously obsessive 'patterns' - but when I presumed to think that I had found the answer, then everything seemed to fall into place.  And I really mean everything.  But the field model is really badly explained.  So far there have only been two physicists who actually understood it.  Both said that it was a 'self-consistent' argument.  But as a rule the paper just offends physicists with good reason.  I had to invent half the terms because my knowledge of conventional physics is largely bereft.

This might amuse you.  My family, who are not usually so rude, say that the number of people who understand my model is inversely proportional to the number of people who read it.

 

 

[Vern]

This might amuse you.  My family, who are not usually so rude, say that the number of people who understand my model is inversely proportional to the number of people who read it.

Yes; it amuses me. []

Your path to enlightenment began with a study of magnets. So you wondered about smaller and smaller magnetic structures until you came to your 2 times c objects. Some things that may seem obvious to you are not so obvious. Like why is it that objects moving at 2 times c are not detectable? Electrons moving faster than c in a medium give off a characteristic blue light. 

[witsend]

I had no idea that anything could exceed light speed.  Isn't that the final barrier?  Never to be breached. Needs infinite energy therefore also infinite mass?  I really do not understand this concept except in this very basic sense.  If you're referring to the electron's orbit in the nucleus - then again, in term of known classical theory I understood that 2C was outside the limit of it's velocity?  Have I missed something?

Regarding my model - I'll try and explain it again.  Imagine that you lived your life in a glass bubble.  You could see out.  But you had no idea of such a thing as wind.  Not much went past your window - outside.  Just light changes from night to day and a lot of sky.  But one day a balloon drifted past. Without knowing better it would be, 'Occam's razorish' a logical deduction to say that the balloon is something that has the property of energy which allows it to move at variable speeds and in varying directions. Fair comment.

What the model proposes is the same thing.  We've always assumed that light has its own innate energy that allows it to move at that those extraordinary velocities.  But what if it was simply interacting with an all pervasive medium - and that interaction propelled it through space at those extraordinary velocities?  My challenge was to find the 'shape' of that all pervasive medium and it was most logically answered in a magnetic field.  The only straight path through the orbiting field would be it's radial 'arms' so to speak.  And that, inded is how light disperses from a source.  And, co-incidentally that is also the only part of a magnetic field that would hold a neutral charge.  I needed both to justify the first principles.

 

[witsend]

By the way - I wouldn't refer to it as a 'path to enlightenment'.  I'm not enlightened at all.  There are many, many questions that need answers.  I systematically list them in my field model.  But I'm pointing - in the eternal hope that somebody better qualified can pick up on this.  I cannot stress this enough.  I am entirely underqualified to comment at all.  But I can certainly point at the general shape and hope that someone can get to the 'skeleton' so to speak.  I suspect that the general direction is right because it clarifies so much. 

[witsend]

Sorry Vern - I think I missed the point of your question.  This is it.  If light is the fastest thing that we have - to measure with, and if something moved faster than the speed of light (the theoretical potential of a tachyon) then how would we ever find it?  And if the something that 'moved the light' - which is an absurdly simplistic description, but bear with me - then we would never know of that something.  It would, forever move outside the range of our measuring abilities, constrained as it is to the speed of light.  An invisible force. 

Does that answer it.  And general apologies to any readers, for cluttering the thread with three consecutive posts.

[Vern]

I had no idea that anything could exceed light speed.  Isn't that the final barrier?  Never to be breached. Needs infinite energy therefore also infinite mass?  I really do not understand this concept except in this very basic sense.  If you're referring to the electron's orbit in the nucleus - then again, in term of known classical theory I understood that 2C was outside the limit of it's velocity?  Have I missed something?

In media, such as water, electrons generated by neutron decay exceed the speed of light in that media. It is still slightly slower than light in a vacuum.

This Wiki link explains it.

Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or Čerenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. The characteristic "blue glow" of nuclear reactors is due to Cherenkov radiation. It is named after Russian scientist Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov, the 1958 Nobel Prize winner who was the first to characterise it rigorously.

[witsend]

I've just looked up the Chernekov radiation effect.  It's interesting.  But it's still, at best, within light speed.  I wonder if this would explain it better.  The model points out that everything has a boundary constraint.  So. If we had a machine that threw rocks - it could do so, provided always that it could lift the rock or detect the rock. Assuming then that it operated in a vacuum - so no extraneous forces to introduce variables,  and assuming it always 'threw' with a constant force, then the smaller rock would be thrown to a greater distance than the bigger rock.  But if it were too big or too small it could either not detect it or it could not lift it.  So, too big or too small and it couldn't interact. That would be its boundary constraint.

Well, what is proposed is that at that 'singularity' or any such, the zipons are 'expelled' from that highly structured, all pervasive magnetic field.  They become truants either slowing down and gaining mass, or speeding up and losing mass.  Either way they are outside the boundary constraints of the magnetic field.  They are too big or too small to interact with the zipons in the field.

In point of fact the model proposes that all stable particles are composites of these zipons.  And both states are required. If the composite were a photon then it would comprise two truants.  The one would be too big and the other too small to interact with the field.  If it were an electron it would comprise three truants, the one being too big the other too small and the third - like Golidlock's porridge, would be just right.  It would interact with the field continually.  And the final more complex composite would be the proton - a fusion of three electrons.

The truants would need to interact with each other.  This is based on the general principle of the zipons need to attach and orbit to express a zero net charge state - hence the structured magnetic field.  In the same way truants would need to attach and orbit to express a zero net charge state. Otherwise they would simply decay back into the field.  The composite truants anchor each other out of the field.  But they still orbit each other.  But it's a helical orbit on a shared and imagninary axis.  In other words they swap places, the one becoming bigger and the other becoming smaller.  Then they reverse positions - and so on.  A really boring dance step. 

But during that orbit - that systematic progression from big to small, they both inevitably also progress towards the velocity and mass of the field which is constant.  If the bigger truant gets smaller and the smaller truant gets bigger - then at some stage they'll get to the coincident mass/velocity of the zipon in the field.  Then, at that point, their composite charge will be influenced by the field and the field and the particle will interact.  At that point the field would move the particle in some direction precisely because it is then within the boundary constraint of the field of zipons - that broad all-encompassing field.

The electron's composite is such that one truant would always be the same velocity/mass of the zipon.  Therefore it moves in spiral which is a bi-directional path.  A photon would move in one direction as it has a neutral charge.  The proton would also continually interact with the field but it is proposed that the proton's field is a closed system effectively generating its own magnetic field or system.

Is that any clearer? 

     

[witsend]

By the way - the proposal is that the truant is manifest.  But when it interacts with its partner/partners - those composites - it actually partially decays back to the field's coincident mass/size - so to speak.  At that point it disappears from our measurable dimensions.  It 'flickers' out of view.  so the need for symmetry also requires that the 'non-manifest' part of each particle is always there as an anchor.  I've proposed that this is a quark.  While this is co-incident with observation - it certainly is not in line with conventional science. But nor does it entirely contradict known evidence.

So, in effect, we can never see or measure anything outside our own dimensions.  Light speed a kind of final frontier.

You know, what I've been writing about is really very contentious.  I'm surprised that I haven't needed to defend it.  I know from experience that the older generation of trained physicists are positively antagonised.  But younger ones not so much.  Maybe it's because they're just more tolerant of new ideas.  Whatever.  I feel 'spared' and am glad of it.  But I would welcome critical input.  I'm a rank amateur - as mentioned.  Or is it like Puali's complaint to some absurd theory proposed - that it's so preposterous it cannot even be proved false? 

[Vern]

By the way - the proposal is that the truant is manifest.  But when it interacts with its partner/partners - those composites - it actually partially decays back to the field's coincident mass/size - so to speak.  At that point it disappears from our measurable dimensions.  It 'flickers' out of view.  so the need for symmetry also requires that the 'non-manifest' part of each particle is always there as an anchor.  I've proposed that this is a quark.  While this is co-incident with observation - it certainly is not in line with conventional science. But nor does it entirely contradict known evidence.

I had gleaned from your posts that the truant was manifest and zipons were not. And I see that the difference is that zipons always move at twice light speed. You have thought about the composition of electrons, protons, and even quarks.

You must have learned enough about established theory to disagree with it. What is it about established theory that led you to conjure up an alternative?

[witsend]

What is it about established theory that led you to conjure up an alternative?
Vern

Just a whole lot of questions.  With the utmost respect to Heisenberg and Bohr - I could not see why we were not allowed to 'conceptualise' the atom or its particles.  It was as much to say that the human intellect was somehow 'flawed'.  This elitist preclusion to 'finding answers' also somehow barred us from trying to resolve the EPR paradox and others.  I fully sympathised with Einstein, the Giant - as I also believe that 'God does not play dice with the universe.'  But Einstein lost that argument as superluminal communication has been proven.  My own take is that God would not have given us logic without intending us to apply it. And I think that the final expression of particle interactions is actually in fractal geometry.

So - in a way I side with Einstein - the difference being that 'he knew better whereof he spoke'. I'm a rank amateur.  But, if I'm half way to some answers then that should be very encouraging to others.  It shows what the average layman can come up with.  I think we give up a lot of our 'rights' when we let one group of specialists tell us what or how to think.  If we've got any right at all it's to find our own answers.  The difference between us is just in the questions that we ask.

[Vern]

But Einstein lost that argument as superluminal communication has been proven.

I think you will find that superluninal communication has not happened. In the case of tunnelling light pulses, the output pulse is always shorter than the input and is completely contained within the time envelope of the input pulse. In the case of entangled particles, there is a big puzzle about how the partner particle seems to instantly reflect the state of the other particle. But there has as yet been no mechanism for communication.

So it was the philosophically unsound principles of Quantum theory that led you to contemplate an alternative. I have studied alternative theories a lot. A lot of the advocates cite QM's philosophical flaw as a reason. I share your view that elitist preclusion should play no part in scientific study. But I see no evidence that there is a tendency among the scientific elite to preclude such study. We are in fact doing alternative study right here, right now.

[witsend]

In the case of entangled particles, there is a big puzzle about how the partner particle seems to instantly reflect the state of the other particle. But there has as yet been no mechanism for communication.

Are entangled particles the same as paired particles?  I must look this up.

But I see no evidence that there is a tendency among the scientific elite to preclude such study.

I'm referring to Bohr's insistence that the particles and atoms could never be conceptualised outside of mathematics. 

[witsend]

Entangled not quite the same.  They apparently 'average out' - no predictable spin pattern.  But paired particles do have predictable spin.  Influence the one and the other responds simultaneously.  I understood that this has been proven at separation distances as great as eleven k's?  Why this distance I have no idea - presumably tested at Cern or some such?  Can't remember where I read this.  So I'm not speaking with authority.  I've just read wiki on this and it seems that there is some considerable effort spent in disproving the non-local effect. 

Here's the thing.  Assume a great big toroid.  Link each part of it with rows and rows of black and white dots so that they connect in really structured strings.  Call those dots magnetic dipolar taychons, with a velocity of 2c.  Call those strings energy levels.  As energy levels it is reasonable to assume they'll influence both particles.  At 2c it will appear to be instantaneous.