[witsend (OP)]

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?

[Madidus_Scientia]

No. And if your proposal was correct then wouldn't magnetic fields propagate at 2c? Cause they don't.

[witsend (OP)]

Madidus_Scientia  So glad you're the first contributer.  How do you know they don't propogate at greater than light speed?

[Madidus_Scientia]

Because it's been measured to be c, not 2c.

[jerrygg38]

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.

[jerrygg38]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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?

[witsend (OP)]

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. 

[jerrygg38]

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?

[witsend (OP)]

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.

[jerrygg38]

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.

[jerrygg38]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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.

 

[lyner]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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.   
 

[witsend (OP)]

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.

[Vern]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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.

[Vern]

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.

[Vern]

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.