[jerrygg38]

Witsend responded as W: My remarks are JGG. (Sorry I don’t know how to break apart long discussions without erasing them. Therefore I copy unto word and then response this way. Witsend in italics.

W:  Vern asked me why I need more than 4 dimensions. It's critical and it goes back to my analysis of the magnetic field. It occurred to me that a magnetic field may be a primary force. Certainly magnets interact with magnets without inducing an electric field. That there may be an electric field hidden within that interaction is unarguable. But it is yet to be proven.

JG: I agree that a magnetic field is a primary force. To me the dot-wave when stationary at a point is part of an electric field. As the dot-wave moves it is a magnetic field. Therefore the dot-wave is both an electric and magnetic field.  The dot-wave lives outside the Plank radius most of the time. However when it returns to the Plank radius, its properties depend upon which dimension it exists in.

W:  I take it that neither you nor Vern object to the concept. My own justification came from a really distinguished professor. He explained that E=mc^2 was modified to E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 where p = momentum. Here's my argument. If E=mc^2 and if, as classical physics tells us, the mass of the photon is zero - then

JG: I am trying to work out this equation. Let’s see:

  1) E = MC^2

 2)  P = MC

  E= PC

  E^2 = M^2C^4

Or

E^2 = P^2C^2

Now in the physics books, Einstein & Company combined both equations.

In all my work, I only use the first equation or the second. Was Einstein correct? I cannot justify that it is perfectly correct. The experimental data falls somewhere between one equation and the other. Therefore I cannot say that it is absolutely true or only partially true.

What do you think Vern??

W:  . Here's my argument. If E=mc^2 and if, as classical physics tells us, the mass of the photon is zero - then the photon's energy would also be zero because 0 as a product of anything at all is still 0. So. If true then the photon has no innate energy to move at any speed at all. I needed this. I'll explain later.

JG: This is an error on your part. Classical theory says a photon has no mass. I do not agree since I maintain that it has a small mass perpendicular to its motion. This mass is stretched out. Classical theory specifies that the photon has momentum.
   I maintain that a photon, which slows below light speed, increases its mass. Thus the photon mass is:

   3) Mp = (1-(V/C)^2  Mo

  Equation 3 is somewhat of a justification of Einstein’s equation. As the photon slows it spends less and less time in the forward direction and more and more times in the orbital planar state. Therefore the mass of the photon perpendicular to the direction of motion increases.

  The energy of the photon then become partially due to the mass increase and partially do to its motion at near light speed. Again this would justify Einstein’s Equation.

  (Right now I am rethinking my objection to Einstein’s equation. I always thought it was less than perfect but as I discuss this with you I will have to study it more. My Equation 3 was written down implicitly over the years but perhaps I can connect it to Einstein’s.)

W:  You see my proposal is that a magnetic field always manifests as a 'smooth' (I think that's the term) field. In other words it appears to orbit and to retain it's justification within the structure of a magnetic flux field. So, if it comprises particles - zipons - as I've proposed, then those particles must also be moving at some speed that light cannot detect - so superluminal. And they must be able, at its least, to defy Pauli's

  You are assuming that only particles moving faster than light speed are not detectable. You can detect my high-energy dot-waves because they appear at AM radio frequency wavelengths. You can detect concentrations of dot waves that are light. You cannot readily detect dot-waves that make up the gravitational waves since the energy level is too low to be part of the hydrogen atom levels.

  Therefore you cannot detect individual magnetic particles because their energy levels are too low to detect. You cannot detect the individual electric field particles because their energy levels are too low.

  Concentrated magnetic and electrical dot-waves can be detected because their energy levels are sufficient to interact with the electrons.

  We pick up the electric and magnetic fields because we are dealing with heavy concentrations of the dot-waves. We cannot pick up an individual dot wave subparticle.

  Therefore we do not need over light speed particles to make out light speed C universe work.


W:  defy Pauli's exclusion principle precisely because they do structure themselves into fields. Definitely not leptons. So if it has a neutral charge, and if each of these little dipoles simply attach to each other and orbit and if their overriding condition is to move towards a condition of zero negative charge - then why can't we find the particle? The only thing that would prevent it's detection would be light speed. As jerryGG38 pointed out. We cannot measure beyond light speed.

Any particles or subpartices beyond out light speed is very difficult to detect. However the problem we have here is energy levels. We cannot detect very small energy levels. That is why I cannot readily prove the existence of masses which are billions of billions of times less than the electrons or charges which are billions of billions times less than the charge of the electron. However the world is made from such things.

W:  Now, if something is exceeding the velocity of our measuring instruments then, by my definition, it's operating in another dimension. That's all. I call it a boundary constraint. And this is the analogy. You have a machine that throws rocks. It operates in a vacuum so no extraneous forces, no variables. All it does is throws stones. And the smaller stones are thrown further than the big stones because it always throws with a constant force. But when the stones are too big - it can't lift the stone. And when it's too small - it can't detect the stone. That's it's boundary constraint. Too big or too small it’s out of reach. And I have suggested that magnetic fields cannot 'reach' particles with greater or less mass than its own. So it effectively operates within a different dimension.

I agree that the light speed dimension is a different dimension. If a space ship of light speed 1024C passed through your body, it would feel strange. It should not destroy you or harm the Earth. Thus we can coexist with different intelligent beings which can observe us and pass through us.

Bad enough we have bugs all over our bodies and within us that coexist with now. Now we have to worry that some other intelligence could enter our bodies and take over our minds. The higher light speed entities having greater ability to interact with our dimension while to us they are merely ghosts. We can put our hands through them but they can control us.

In any event I agree that the magnetic field operates in a different dimension than our mechanical world.

[jerrygg38]

Sophiecentaur. I outlined the 'conditions' of this proposed discussion at the opening post.  I specifically asked that you do not criticise the content on the basis of my lack of qualifications.  At this point I am developing the argument with the dialectic.  It is a valid tool.  And I am well qualified in its use.

If you do not like my contributions can you not simply ignore them?  But, if you continually dominate this thread with constant reminders as to my lack of scientific qualfication - as you did in the previous - then this thread is doomed.

If BenV or any moderators object to my contribution then please advise me.  I am specifically asking.  Am I allowed to post here - notwithstanding my lack of conventional scientific training?  If not - then I will stop posting.  If I am, then may I ask why you keep reading my threads?  They cannot possibly be of any interest to you because, as you say, I am 'arm waving'. Just look elsewhere for heaven's sake.  And let me try and get some answers to these questions.  
 

  What is good about your posts is that it provides alternate ideas in arease where there is much unknown. We are all struggling to find the answers. The greatest minds have not solved the most basis structure of the universe. Einstein and Lorentz produced great works but they are not perfect. Each has flaws.
  Therefore the way you look at the universe may produce truths which others cannot see. One limitation of educated people is that they often discount and crush alternate ideas due to their training.
  My own way of doing things is to assume that everything we have been taught is suspect. Our knowledge is tainted. We are taught less than perfect things.
  Therefore do not take any poison. Your new ideas will cause all of us to think about your ideas and alternatives.

[witsend (OP)]

Vern and jerryGG38 - many thanks indeed, that you're both looking at this - so TOLERANTLY.  Much appreciated. I just want to get that off.  I have NEVER discussed this model of mine and I cannot tell you how frustrating it's been.  I feel very privileged, to have the two of you look and to do it from this forum.  I just want to get that on record.

Regarding Sophiecentaur's criticisms - he's right.  As a rule a trained mind is simply bored with an untrained.  Of necessity I plod.

Thanks guys.  I just so want you to know how I appreciate this.  My replies wont be too quick because I've got to plough through them.  That agricultural simile is possibly getting overworked.

 []

[jerrygg38]

Witsend responded as W: My remarks are JGG. (Sorry I don’t know how to break apart long discussions without erasing them. Therefore I copy unto word and then response this way. Witsend in italics.


W: quote author=witsend link=topic=23552.msg257394#msg257394 date=1244709707]
jerryGG38 - I need to answer your post.

I'm intrigued with magnetic monopoles.  If you're proposing 2 opposites, would they not move together? Or are there more than 2.  I only used 2 because that seems to correspond to the two known charges of particles.  The neutral charge - to my thinking - would be a conjunction of these two opposites.  I think what you're describing is a condition that is even more fundamental than my own.

JG: My plus dot lives in the positive universe . My minus dots live in the negative universe. These are two different electrical universes. We live in the bipolar universe. All universes are separated by the Plank time of  5.579E-44 seconds. The minus universe is below our time and the positive universe is above our time by this tiny amount. The amount is so small that the universe we live in looks like a simple three dimensional universe.

   However the total light speed universe is a different story. That truly are different dimensions. In general the lower light speed universes are closer to the common center. We are 13 billion years from the common center. The higher light speed universes are further from the common center. Thus the 2C universe is 26 billion years from the common center.

   Many universes self destruct at big bang. All lower universes expand rapidly at big bang from a shell. Thus our universe of light speed C at big bang was a shell. At big bang our radius was 1.098E-8 meters from the common center and our thickness was 2.27E-9 meters.

  Thus the entire universe was less that one millionths of a meter at big bang. As we go up to the extreme light speeds, there is no necessity that they take part in the big bang. Thus some higher light speed universes are perpetual while we eventually will explode over and over again.
 
W: I buy into multiple singularities.  I also buy into limitless velocity.  But that's only an idea.  It needs justification.  Do you justify these in equations or, like Vern said, equations simply describe the model?

JG: I just produce rules for each universe. Thus the dot charge and dot mass for a light speed 2 universe is half our dot mass and dotcharge. The higher we go in light speed the less mass we achieve. At light speeds near infinity, the mass is basically zero. Therefore we have energy only universes as we go toward light speed infinity.

W: Your meson analogy is brilliant.  It could go some way to proving superluminal communication.  But I'm not sure.  The point is that in a particle pair, the one adjusts its spin in response to another, even when the one is artificially adjusted. Vern disputes that this is proven.  I'm still looking for the proof of this.  But it's published. Somwhere.  I'll check.

JG: I am not sure of that. I have limited physics knowledge. So adjustments of spin is not something I have studied or been taught 45 years ago. Just two physics course and some readings of late. I find some data on the Internet but the advantage I have is that I believe the universe is purely electrical and thus as an EE I see the universe that way. I have no mass in my latest variation of the dot-wave theory. Mass is merely a gyroscopic action of electrical waves.
I like Verns photon pictures. It is my theory that if you add three photons pointing at the plank radius, they will not move when the vector sum of their momentums equals zero. Therefore 3 photons can produce mass.

W: I understood your Dot-Wave Doppler Space Time was published.  So impressed.  Does this specifically refer to superluminal speed?

JG: Not so impressive. I am the publisher. I do all the work and have McNaughton & Gunn print it. Quality books does the library of congress data. They sell some. Others are sold on the Internet. I did 4 books. One I had printed in India. The others here.

   It is not a money making venture. I gave most books away to libraries and charities. I tried regular publishers but they are only interested in big money. If you would like a copy of “Doppler Space Time” email me your address and I will send you one. No charge. I only have about 50 left.

   The only way I make money is being a handyman.

W: My little magnets don't need to move at 2C.  They just DO.  I sort of found that when I did my composites.  But I'll get to in, hopefully, through the thread.

JG: That is always a possibility.  Look at the photon. It travels at C in the forward direction. However at what speed does it travel in the perpendicular direction? We could argue that the dots actually move faster than C because they are moving forward at C and at some other speed in the perpendicular direciton.

  High energy photons would take less time spinning around. Therefore they would travel slightly faster in the forward direction.
   Is C the forward light speed only? Perhaps the perpendicular speed is variable?? We do not fully know these answers.
 

[witsend (OP)]

So, why not five dimensions? What is the significance of the additional five. String theorists seem to need ten or more dimensions, but this comes from their application of maths. Vern

Apparently string theory math is postively exotic.  But always remember, they've cracked the code.  They just haven't found the particle.

I actually need 10.  It's because the magnetic fields have three dimensions of space (share ours) but operate in a different time dimension.  We've sort of defined that?  I think so.

But to explain the 10 I also need to explain the composites.  I'll try and be brief. And I'll post the composites in the next post as this one will otherwise get too big.

The magnetic fields are super orderly.  Head to toe in really long strings that stretch around a really big toroid - the universe.  They always join up in circles.  They always orbit.  And the outer strings are, of necessity, longer than the inner strings.  But the correspondence is not only the length of the toroid, but also its width.  So shoulder to shoulder sideways, and head to toe lengthways.

Very small. Wherever they're positioned they will experience 'like charge' at some position.  This induces a movement.  They nudge forwards, thereby inducing a complimentary movement of all the zipons in that string.  Defined as a zipon moment is the time it takes one zipon to displace its position in a field of zipons.  It causes a 'ripple' effect lengthwise, and sidewise. In effect these are simply orbiting magnetic flux fields.  And all they're doing is trying to find a 'rest' condition.  But it's impossible because of their juxtaposition in the field.

Their movement, notwithstanding, is still very orderly.  In other words the whole field has a justification.  It spins in the same direction.  The only thing is this.  Because it's a string that's formed a circle - then one half of its justification opposes the other.  That's an important point to remember.  I'll get back to it.

[Vern]

JG: I am trying to work out this equation. Let’s see:

  1) E = MC^2

 2)  P = MC

  E= PC

  E^2 = M^2C^4

Or

E^2 = P^2C^2

Now in the physics books, Einstein & Company combined both equations.

In all my work, I only use the first equation or the second. Was Einstein correct? I cannot justify that it is perfectly correct. The experimental data falls somewhere between one equation and the other. Therefore I cannot say that it is absolutely true or only partially true.

What do you think Vern??

The E = mc² neglects momentum; this is known; I suspect the equation is correct. However, it is not Einstein's equation. Poincare used that in the 1800's.

To me the photon does not have mass because it is mass. Any time a photon is contained within a local system, it contributes to the mass of the system; a local system may be a mirrored box for example.

[Vern]

I actually need 10.  It's because the magnetic fields have three dimensions of space (share ours) but operate in a different time dimension.  We've sort of defined that?  I think so.

Okay; I'll look for the reasoning for the 10 dimensions. []

[witsend (OP)]

jerryGG38.  I think I understand it.

T- and T+ with everything manifest inbetween.  Also, as I understand it - some property in our own universe induces a repeatable singularity so we're perpetually being created - destroyed and re-created?  Also, your model allows for a multiverse.  Really complex images here.  Have difficulty getting my mind around it.

Barring a full description of these things, have I at least got this much right?

Yes I'd like a copy of your book.  Would I understand it though?  Knowing you it'll be packed with equations and not enough description.  If you'll clarify this, then I'll email you my address.  But jerryGG38 - please only send this if there's an outside chance I'll understand it.  I don't want you to go to the trouble otherwise.  I have no idea how to get the money to you in America to pay for it - but will check with my bank.  They'll arrange it.

The only way I make money is being a handyman.
I would love to find any way at all to make money. It'd be a really nice change.

When it comes to describing a photon in motion, jerryGG39 - you've lost me.  But I'll press on.

EDIT - jerryGG39 - Just re-read the post.  I've made you one year younger.  If I keep this up I'll have found the answer to perpetual youth.

[witsend (OP)]

Vern, to continue from the big field.  - that great big toroid.  Next comes 'the singularity'.  My proposal is that something changes.  Some disturbance to that really structured field.  Maybe one of jerryGG's magnetic monopoles break free.  And - as I wrote in the paper, maybe God stirred it with a great big spoon.  Whatever.

This is the next problem that I need you to wrap your mind around. If these little zippons are disturbed from their orderly existence inside that orderly field, then what would happen?  What I've proposed is that they either lose momentum and gain mass, or the lose mass and gain momentum.  Either way they manifest outside that structured field. 

But.  If they lose momentum and gain mass then they would, in effect, act in the same way that we know virtual particles behave.  They would manifest, briefly in some form related to the force that separted them from the field.  Then, when that energy is expended, rememeber, they're just little magnets - they'd regain velocity - lose that mass and simply slot back into the bigger containing magnetic field.  And vice versa for those zipons that lost mass and gained velocity.   

[witsend (OP)]

Vern, by the way, boundary constraints are simply the analogy I use to explain the different dimensions.  You won't find it anywhere.  It's how I describe the fact that we are, in effect, invisible to these magnetic fields.  They just do not interact with anything that does not have an equal mass and velocity. 

I'll describe how matter does interact but I'll do that later.  I've got a really boring neighbourhood watch meeting to go to.

[Vern]

But.  If they lose momentum and gain mass then they would, in effect, act in the same way that we know virtual particles behave.  They would manifest, briefly in some form related to the force that separted them from the field.  Then, when that energy is expended, rememeber, they're just little magnets - they'd regain velocity - lose that mass and simply slot back into the bigger containing magnetic field.  And vice versa for those zipons that lost mass and gained velocity.

Virtual particles are an invention of QM theory and arise out of the need to convey forces via particle transfer. Normal particles just don't behave exactly right to act alone.

I can visualize the zipon field, but I don't understand the need for more than four dimensions, the need for them to move at 2c, or the need to dispense with the normal electromagnetic field. At some point the zipons must create the fields that we know about and can measure.

[lyner]

Sophiecentaur. I outlined the 'conditions' of this proposed discussion at the opening post.  I specifically asked that you do not criticise the content on the basis of my lack of qualifications.  At this point I am developing the argument with the dialectic.  It is a valid tool.  And I am well qualified in its use.

If you do not like my contributions can you not simply ignore them?  But, if you continually dominate this thread with constant reminders as to my lack of scientific qualfication - as you did in the previous - then this thread is doomed.

If BenV or any moderators object to my contribution then please advise me.  I am specifically asking.  Am I allowed to post here - notwithstanding my lack of conventional scientific training?  If not - then I will stop posting.  If I am, then may I ask why you keep reading my threads?  They cannot possibly be of any interest to you because, as you say, I am 'arm waving'. Just look elsewhere for heaven's sake.  And let me try and get some answers to these questions.   
 

So, I take it that this means you are entitled to make any statements you like and not be challenged? I don't care what your qualifications are. It's what you write that is in question. Hiding behind ignorance doesn't justify errors in so-called Scientific assertions.

I wish you would give the well established work as generous a reception. When you feel like it, you just say "it doesn't make sense".
Is this a Science Forum or a Fantasy Forum?

Perhaps you should post on Just Chat, where no one expects Scientific rigour.

[witsend (OP)]

Virtual particles are an invention of QM theory and arise out of the need to convey forces via particle transfer. Normal particles just don't behave exactly right to act alone. Vern.

Hi Vern.  I'm back.

I'm trying to follow advice here and keep my points brief.  []

You get the idea of the field.  Do you get the idea of what would happen if those fields were disturbed?  I'm suggesting that they would leave the boundary constraints of the structured field and manifest as truants, in haphazard disorderly fields as evident in nebulae.  All that has happened is that they have retained their neutral charge - and they have gained mass in inverse proportion to their loss in velocity.  To the best of my knowledge this is not a 'regular' idea.  I hope the idea is feasible.  Because -

I've suggested as a first step after this disturbance - these little magnets do what all good magnets do.  The simply try to reassemble that chaotic state back into the structured state of a magnetic field.  They look to find a renewed structure.  Some return to the structured field - that 'skeleton', so to speak, or backdrop behind all that is manifest - a primary field.  Others, through a 'remarkable co-incidence of good timing' find a partner.  But that partner is found, not in another, let's call it a manifest truant but in a non manifest truant.  These are the zipons that left the field at an increased velocity and a loss in mass.  If such a partner is found, then the truants become stable particles, able to withstand the 'force' of the field.  In effect - the partner, I'll explain this in another post, stabilises or anchors the manfiest truant out of the field.  That partner I've identified as a quark.

Vern, quark, in this description may not be quark in conventional descriptions.  In the same way virtual particles may not be virtual particles in conventional descriptions.  But, I have referred to both ONLY in the context of the model's definition.  It's going to tax your patience.  But bear with me. []

And, quickly, these then are the 10 dimensions - again only in terms of my description.  I've referenced them as 'realities' but I'm sure there's better ways to describe it.  The first reality, are our 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time.  The second is the primary magnetic field's reality.  They share our space dimensions but precede our timeframe - also 4 dimensions.  The third reality belongs to these quarks (my definition of the term) that only have 2 dimensions as they have no mass - only velocity and they share the first reality's time dimensions.  So 4 to the first, 4 to the second and 2 to the third - makes 10 dimensions.

[witsend (OP)]

Regarding Sophiecentaur's criticisms - he's right.  As a rule a trained mind is simply bored with an untrained.  Of necessity I plod.



Sophiecentaur.  What must I say or do to stop your eternal attack.  If you don't like me posting here then please check with the moderators.  I'll get off this thread and this forum if it is required.

[Vern]

Vern, quark, in this description may not be quark in conventional descriptions.  In the same way virtual particles may not be virtual particles in conventional descriptions.  But, I have referred to both ONLY in the context of the model's definition.  It's going to tax your patience.  But bear with me. []

And, quickly, these then are the 10 dimensions - again only in terms of my description.  I've referenced them as 'realities' but I'm sure there's better ways to describe it.  The first reality, are our 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time.  The second is the primary magnetic field's reality.  They share our space dimensions but precede our timeframe - also 4 dimensions.  The third reality belongs to these quarks (my definition of the term) that only have 2 dimensions as they have no mass - only velocity and they share the first reality's time dimensions.  So 4 to the first, 4 to the second and 2 to the third - makes 10 dimensions.

So, we have virtual particles and quarks that are not the established type. [] Have you thought about how zipons react to create relativity phenomena when matter moves in space and time. Or do you keep Einstein's notion of warped space-time with no causality?

[witsend (OP)]

So, we have virtual particles and quarks that are not the established type. Have you thought about how zipons react to create relativity phenomena when matter moves in space and time. Or do you keep Einstein's notion of warped space-time with no causality. vern

I'm suggesting that stable particles are composites of manifest and non manifest truants.  I'm suggesting that if they are not anchored they will return to the field.  At this stage I have no idea if it conforms to conventional terms.  I'm suggesting that the dissapearnce from view of all particles is when they decay back into the field.  If they have an anchoring partner, then they do not 'slip back in' permenantly.  They interact with the field but are able to retain their composite structure and remain outside of the field.

Here's my question.  Do you get the concept?  I am not, at this stage, asking for your agreement.

I'm keeping the threads short so I just don't want to clutter it with too much information in the hopes that as I move forward with the argument I at least know that it's understood or where it is that I may be losing you.

[witsend (OP)]

I can visualize the zipon field, but I don't understand the need for more than four dimensions, the need for them to move at 2c, or the need to dispense with the normal electromagnetic field. At some point the zipons must create the fields that we know about and can measure. Vern

I cannot dispense with the normal electromagnetic field.  Nor with the strong and weak nuclear force.  Nor with gravity.  I'm hoping to show you how these are reconcilable.  But I can't do it in one fell swoop.  I know my descriptions in the field model are badly explained.  I don't want to make the mistake of running ahead with the argument if it is not clear - or, indeed, if you find something in it that's illogical.

[Vern]

Here's my question.  Do you get the concept?  I am not, at this stage, asking for your agreement.

I think I get the concept; but I don't see how everything ties together to give you such a compelling sense that it may represent reality.

[Vern]

I cannot dispense with the normal electromagnetic field.  Nor with the strong and weak nuclear force.  Nor with gravity.  I'm hoping to show you how these are reconcilable.

You would need more than reconciliation; you would need to show how your concept demands them. [] And, we need the relationship between zipons and relativity phenomena.

For example, if the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field, relativity phenomena results naturally. If the most elementary constituents of matter must always move at the invariant speed of light, matter must distort when it moves, and so we have relativity.

[witsend (OP)]

And, we need the relationship between zipons and relativity phenomena./b]
I hope to get there.  But right now I'm going to have to marshall the resourses and take a break.  jerryGG38's been quiet.  I presume he's working.  Thanks for the input thus far.  I'll get back to you.

This is such fun - for me anyway.  Thanks again.  []