the universe as a ten dimensional binary system

  • 378 Replies
  • 82736 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #300 on: 25/06/2009 23:55:08 »
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.

*

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #301 on: 26/06/2009 00:04:59 »
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?

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #302 on: 26/06/2009 00:19:30 »
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.
« Last Edit: 26/06/2009 07:07:07 by witsend »

*

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #303 on: 26/06/2009 09:44:41 »
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]
« Last Edit: 26/06/2009 12:08:15 by sophiecentaur »

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #304 on: 26/06/2009 13:02:10 »
You can only call them Science if they coincide rigorously with reality. Sophiecentaur

Therefore do I call my work science. 

*

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #305 on: 26/06/2009 13:41:31 »
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.

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #306 on: 26/06/2009 14:42:52 »
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.

   

*

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #307 on: 26/06/2009 15:43:49 »
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.

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #308 on: 28/06/2009 11:27:33 »
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.

     

 
« Last Edit: 28/06/2009 21:31:16 by witsend »

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #309 on: 28/06/2009 11:56:33 »
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.
« Last Edit: 28/06/2009 21:02:20 by witsend »

*

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #310 on: 29/06/2009 17:50:01 »
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)

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #311 on: 29/06/2009 17:56:07 »
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.

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #312 on: 29/06/2009 19:21:12 »
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.

*

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #313 on: 29/06/2009 22:59:58 »
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]
« Last Edit: 29/06/2009 23:26:19 by sophiecentaur »

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #314 on: 30/06/2009 06:25:28 »
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. 
« Last Edit: 30/06/2009 07:10:03 by witsend »

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #315 on: 30/06/2009 15:52:24 »
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.
« Last Edit: 30/06/2009 22:52:29 by witsend »

*

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #316 on: 30/06/2009 19:18:17 »
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.

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #317 on: 30/06/2009 19:20:25 »
That's a cop out Sophiecentaur.  Just give me a clue.  What does kg stand for if not weight?

*

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #318 on: 30/06/2009 21:26:31 »
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"

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #319 on: 30/06/2009 22:19:27 »
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?


« Last Edit: 30/06/2009 22:22:07 by witsend »

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #320 on: 30/06/2009 22:39:33 »
"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. 


*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #321 on: 30/06/2009 22:44:38 »
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? 

*

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #322 on: 30/06/2009 23:45:22 »
Quote
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.


*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #323 on: 01/07/2009 06:37:19 »
    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!!! [???]
« Last Edit: 01/07/2009 07:13:08 by witsend »

*

lyner

  • Guest
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #324 on: 01/07/2009 08:17:30 »
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?

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #325 on: 01/07/2009 08:34:41 »
Did it never strike you that, if you continually use 'weight' in your 'calculations' you will get different answers wherever you are considering an event. What would be the point in that? Surely we are after a way of predicting what will happen anywhere. Sophiecentaur
Of course it bothered me.  Why do you think I raised the question? 

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

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


*

lyner

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

*

lyner

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #328 on: 01/07/2009 09:21:29 »
So, if it hadn't escaped you, why have you been using the word 'weight' so freely?  And what, exactly is "size"? Sophiecentaur

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

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #329 on: 01/07/2009 10:09:35 »
What IS a magnetic field, btw? Do you have another definition other than the one Maxwell uses? As you seem to have difficulty with mass and weight, I foresee a similar problem when discussing what a field actually is. Sophiecentaur

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

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

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

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

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

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


*

lyner

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

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

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

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

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

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


*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #331 on: 01/07/2009 10:42:10 »
2 The next point is to do with the nature of a magnetic field.  I only referred to simple bar magnets because I could buy them and study them.  But the nature of the field is evident in all magnetic fields.  It appears to orbit, north to south and back to north.  In other words it has a single justification or direction.  It does not vary it's orbital direction but will move the entire body of the magnet to adjust to another field. However, in induced magnetic fields in electric circuits flux can change that orbital justification or  direction but only with a corresponding change in the applied voltage or potential difference.  In effect a orbit 'chases its tail' with a justified bias.  And the orbit describes a circle.

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

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

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

The question then is why are they not visible?  

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

  

*

lyner

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #333 on: 01/07/2009 11:04:36 »
BIGGER" - I see you have to shout.
Sorry - I just mean to add emphasis.  The italics option provided is too obscure for my poor eyesight.  Not intended to SHOUT - but I'll desist from this if it annoys readers generally. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #334 on: 01/07/2009 11:09:48 »
Following quotes from Sophiecentaur

Lovely salad!
Glad you like it.

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

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

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

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #335 on: 01/07/2009 11:36:13 »
3 The reason I propose that the particle in a magnetic field is not visible is because of a principle that I described as a boundary constraint.  In terms of this I drew an analogy to a machine that propels stones.  Assume that the machine is in a vacuum - no extraneous forces, and that the machine always propels stones with a constant force.  So.  The smaller the stone the further the throw and vice versa.  But if the stone is too small the machine can't detect it.  And likewise, too big and the machine can't throw it.  Those extreme limits are the machines boundary constraints.

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

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

*

lyner

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

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #337 on: 01/07/2009 12:03:48 »
Can't we measure distances using radar? Can't we measure things in an electron microscope? They don't use light. Sophiecentaur
No.  Because both radar and electrons are constrained to light speed.

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #338 on: 01/07/2009 12:38:34 »
4  But all that's proposed at this stage is that the magnetic field may comprise a particle.  If it does, then that particle may exceed light speed, may have less mass than a photon and may move in fields substantially structured by those strings.  All of which is speculative and substantially irrelevant.  However, my object is to try prove that relevance both as it relates to the particle and as it relates to the field.

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

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


*

lyner

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #340 on: 01/07/2009 13:48:51 »
Hi SophieC.  Loved the analogy to Noddy. Don't know that it's so apt though.  What could be more foundational than an analysis of the maagnetic field - as the foundation to the entire universe.

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

*

lyner

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

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

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #342 on: 01/07/2009 15:27:27 »
Sophiecentaur, I sincerely apologise if I have offended you.  Not intended.  That you no longer want to discuss this is fair comment.  But I don't think it's fair to criticise a synopsis -  not read the analysis - yet still insist that I have no idea of what I am talking about. 

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

In any event - yet again, apologies.

*

lyner

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #344 on: 02/07/2009 08:34:11 »
When I set out on a description of the field model as intended in this thread, I promised myself that I would not allow ill considered or spiteful feedback to get me down.  That I predicted a barrage of such from one particular member was inevitable.  The relief in knowing that he will no longer follow this thread has left me somewhat speechless with relief.  I feel that I have somehow won the struggle to continue with this thread.

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #345 on: 02/07/2009 10:14:06 »
1 A MAGNETIC FIELD MAY BE A PRIMARY FORCE

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

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

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

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



*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #346 on: 02/07/2009 10:25:49 »
2 THE NATURE OF THE FIELD AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPOSED PARTICLE IN THE FIELD

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #347 on: 02/07/2009 10:41:35 »
3 BOUNDARY CONSTRAINTS LIMIT INTERACTIONS AND POINT TO THE POTENTIAL OF DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS

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

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

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

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #348 on: 02/07/2009 10:48:35 »
4  THE EFFECT OF SOME SINGULARITY THAT RESULTS IN THE EJECTION OF THE PARTICLE OUT OF THE FIELD

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

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

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
the universe as a ten dimensional binary system
« Reply #349 on: 02/07/2009 12:01:12 »
5 THE VISIBLE EFFECT OF A BROKEN STRING

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

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

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

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

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