[jerrygg38]

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

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

[/quote]

Yes confined photons within a particular volume are mass. The only problem I have with the equation is that if the mass is moving at light speed, then how can it have additional momentum? If the speed of light is the limit, then moving a mass with linear momentum must reduce the orbital speeds.

[jerrygg38]

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

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

No work today but they opened up a new Sams club. Then I had lunch and TV after lunch then fell asleep. I just looked at Verns answers. Some of this stuff is not what I have been thinking about. So Vern appear very knowledgeable in these areas.

[Vern]

Yes confined photons within a particular volume are mass. The only problem I have with the equation is that if the mass is moving at light speed, then how can it have additional momentum? If the speed of light is the limit, then moving a mass with linear momentum must reduce the orbital speeds.

There should be no problem. The photon does not have mass. I just say that it is mass. I suspect that mass is nothing more than electromagnetic change. The arithmetic works for that concept. Any time there is electric and magnetic amplitude change in a local area, you can compute the mass with established maths.

If the speed of light is the limit, then moving a mass with linear momentum must reduce the orbital speeds.

Yes; this is called time dilation. Mass made of light must experience time dilation when it moves. 

[jerrygg38]

Yes confined photons within a particular volume are mass. The only problem I have with the equation is that if the mass is moving at light speed, then how can it have additional momentum? If the speed of light is the limit, then moving a mass with linear momentum must reduce the orbital speeds.

There should be no problem. The photon does not have mass. I just say that it is mass. I suspect that mass is nothing more than electromagnetic change. The arithmetic works for that concept. Any time there is electric and magnetic amplitude change in a local area, you can compute the mass with established maths.

If the speed of light is the limit, then moving a mass with linear momentum must reduce the orbital speeds.

Yes; this is called time dilation. Mass made of light must experience time dilation when it moves. 

Answer No. 1 sounds good to me. Mass to me isthe spinning of electromagnetic fields. Same as you.

Answer No.2 I never thought of. Is it your original idea or standard Einsteinian?  At first though it would solve my problem. The rotation slows as the linear velocity increases. Yes. If we look at the light photon when stationary, it is moving fast in a circular pattern. As it moves at light speed, it travels a huge distance before completing a circle. Anyway I will have to think about answer 2 for awhile.

[Vern]

Answer No.2 I never thought of. Is it your original idea or standard Einsteinian?

Not Einstein; but I suspect Maxwell originated the concept and it was developed by Poincare, Fitzgerald, and Lorentz. The result was the Lorentz transformations. I came up with the concept independently, but before I could celebrate, I discovered that the idea was very old.

[jerrygg38]

Answer No.2 I never thought of. Is it your original idea or standard Einsteinian?

Not Einstein; but I suspect Maxwell originated the concept and it was developed by Poincare, Fitzgerald, and Lorentz. The result was the Lorentz transformations. I came up with the concept independently, but before I could celebrate, I discovered that the idea was very old.

I am familar with the standard stuff but I never related it to a ball of energy traveling internally moving at light speed and then moving in the forward direction. Are you sure that the others specified this?

[Vern]

This is the first mention I found of the concept. It comes from one of Einstein's articles.

Development of Our Conception of the
Nature and Constitution of Radiation

H. Ziegler: If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter like states and electrodynamic phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted.

[jerrygg38]

This is the first mention I found of the concept. It comes from one of Einstein's articles. Development of Our Conception of the
Nature and Constitution of Radiation

H. Ziegler: If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter like states and electrodynamic phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted.

Thanks

[lyner]

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



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

My 'attacks' are on the content of what you have written. If you want it to be taken seriously then it really needs to have some consistency with reality.

You have still not answered my very reasonable challenge to justify your theory by applying it to the Hydrogen atom and obtaining the right values for the spectral lines.

If your theory can't do that then it has fallen at the first fence and has no credibility. That isn't an attack - it's a perfectly reasonable question. Answer it or admit that the theory doesn't have any substance.

Why am I not allowed to ask a perfectly reasonable question - just because it may be an embarrassing one?

[Vern]

This is the first mention I found of the concept. It comes from one of Einstein's articles.
Development of Our Conception of the
Nature and Constitution of Radiation

H. Ziegler: If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter like states and electrodynamic phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted.

Edit: As I look back at this I see that my post didn't take for some reason. Now I've forgotten what it was. I am sure it was some brilliant observation, but now it is lost forever, I'm afraid.[]

[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.- me.

Sorry  Vern - before confusion abounds - I didn't read your post correctly.  I indeed reference 'boundary constraints' in my blog paper.  I had an idea you were trying to find justification in conventional physics.  Boundary constraints are mentioned - not sure where - but I needed it to justify composites - so just after the magnetic field description? 

Have been reading your posts with jerryGG38.  I'm blown away by you guys, I am so out of my league here.  I just wish I could understand your photonic theory Vern.  You know what?  I hope that you'll be able to describe my composites like you describe the photon.  Who said 'an invisible shell'?  That's SO good.       

[Vern]

The photonic theory is really very simple. It simply states that the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. Then we are left to describing the electromagnetic field so that it can predict all observations that have been or will ever be made.

I do not know if it represents reality. I do know that there has never been an observation that can falsify the concept. I also know that there only needs to be one observation to crush it.

I like your thinking. Your zipons may be oscillating like string-theory strings, vibrating to form the different particles. I don't give it a lot of credence, but to me it is just as valid as string theory to which I don't give a lot of credence also. []

Anyway it is fun to think along those lines.

[witsend (OP)]

Vern, I wrote this huge post - then discovered your post on my email.  Had to read it and lost my post.  Not a problem.  It was way to long for you to read it.  Am so glad you're AWAKE.  You're obviously like me.  I live on 'cat naps'. But I find these early hours just so lonely.  It's our time 3.11 am.  I'll get back to answering your post.

[Vern]

It is 8:23 in the evening here, so I watch TV for awhile then check the messages. I will probably fall asleep before long and awake about 1:00 AM. But I'll be around in the AM to see if I can contribute to anything.

[witsend (OP)]

Your zipons may be oscillating like string-theory strings, vibrating to form the different particles. Vern

No.  That's not quite right.  Actually it's not even close.  This is why feedback is SO necessary.  Let me try again.  There is a disturbance to the field.  I explained it as 'one of jerryGG38's magnetic monopoles broke loose.  Whatever. God reached in and simply stirred that part of space.  Then.  Some of the zipons in the field - in that disturbance - break away from the field.  They lose the zipon property of velocity and they gain mass.  Then they become visible matter. They're seen as nebulae.  I've seen pictures of these structures - huge - very beautiful.  Then I described it - they do what all magnets do best.  They try and reform into the structured state which is their natural state.  

It's a complete break.  jerrygg38 I think sees it as subtle nuances with an interplay between two time dimensions.  I need that entire break.  This makes the truant. I see you've posted again.  Don't want to lose this so am posting and may need to modify.

EDIT OK Vern - I'll look for your reply tomorrow. Meanwhile I'll try and find another way to explain this.  I can also see if I can wrap my mind around your thread on photonic theory. 

[witsend (OP)]

Vern or jerryGG38 - I'm giving this another go.  Here's the question.  How do you express the following mathematically?

A theoretical neutral particle - made up of two opposite magnetic monopoles, travels at 2c - has a mass/size (I think I'm trying to describe volume here) of 0.5. That's its natural state in the field.  This is not a wave.  It's an actual infinitely stable particle. Two of jerrgyGG38's dots but probably smaller. That's the first part of the sum.

Now the theoretical particle lives in a theoretical universe that is shaped like a toroid.  It only has these little particles.  Nothing else.  And each of these particles join up in strings that close up into a circle.  One circle to one string.  And these really LONGGGG strings circle the the whole of that universe.  The strings are infinitessimally narrow.  And the toroid is filled - chockablock with these strings. And each little zipon (as I've called the particle) lines up head to toe in that string.  They also line up shoulder to shoulder with lateral strings.  But they're stuck - in formation - BECAUSE - they can't shake free of the neighbouring strings - that shoulder to shoulder positioning - the lateral formation.  One half of each zipon is attracted to its neighbour - so it shifts position to get close.  But as it does so, it's other half is repelled by its neighbour.  So it moves on.  Forever.  Just can't shake free and can't quite meet.  Like a love hate relationship.  

The charge distribution or balance in that field is breathtakingly perfect.  You see, the shorter strings, to the middle - experience precisely as much charge as the outer strings.  Where the former has more neighbouring strings the latter has a greater length in each string.  Not only perfect charge distribution.  But each zipon only ever moves forward.  Never back.  So, one half of the strings move in a diametrically opposite position to the other half.  One justifcation - two directions.

And the time it takes to push forwards, forever, as it moves in that field, is one zipon moment.  The time it takes for one zipon to displace another zipon in a field of zipons.  That time frame is significant.  I'll get back to it.  In effect, its timeframe relates to its velocity of 2C.  That's the velocity of the particle - so also, the velocity in that entire field.

ALSO - (this is edited) each zipon, courtesty the structure in the field,  is indirectly linked or joined to evey other zipon in that entire theoretical universe.  So that universe has a fixed energy quotient related to the number of these strings. The sum of each string, times the number of strings.  That's got to be a big number.

Now to the second part of that sum. One of those strings splits apart and unravels.  It's catastrophic.  The formation is lost and all the zipons in that string - simply tumble together in a massive nebulus.  But as they do so all that latent energy - that velocity of 2c is expressed in two ways.  Some of the zipons accelerate and lose volume - something less than 0.5.  Some of the zipons decelerate and gain volume - something more than 0.5.  But deceleration and acceleration is precisely proportionate to decrease and increase in mass - respectively.

I'm hoping you guys can express this mathematically.  That's what I'm describing.

I'll go on with the next phase in a separate post because, if there's an error here or if it doesn't make sense I can refer to it separately.

[witsend (OP)]

Then, to continue.  The proposal is that the nebulus is a loose collection of these little dipoles that have simply lost their structure inside the field.  They've clustered together because they're magnets.  And it's a magnet's nature to cluster.  The primary field - that great big magnetic toroid can no longer find these truants.  They are outside the boundary constraints of the field.  That primary field that makes up the toroid hardly notices a disturbance.  It closed ranks and continued as ever.  It now simply passes through the nubulus' flux fields.  It cannot see the truants to interact with them. They are outside the boundary constraints of the field.

Are we still on the same page?

[witsend (OP)]

And then on to the truants - the zipons that are no longer part of the primary field.  Remember there are two truants.  The one type is too small and too fast to interact with the field.  The other too big and too slow.  They've effectively created two new dimensions, each with their own velocity and time.  The one dimension is visible matter.  The other is invisible matter.  Between them is the field.  And the only thing they share with the primary field is that common area in space - a relatively small area with its own demarcated dimensional boundary.  But they do not see the primary field.  The primary field does not see them.  And the big slow truants are manifest because they're just a form of early matter.  We share their dimensions of space and time.  So that part of the nebulus is visible.

The truants are still only little magnets.  They're magnetic dipoles that have lost their rank.  No more one step, two step, forward march. They're lost in space with nowhere to go. They immediately try and 'reformulate' into orderly patterns because they need to balance their charge.  That's what magnets do.  In the field they joined up in long strings.  But they're now out of the field.  Chaos abounds.  They can't quite get back that formation.  So they try to do it in little steps. 

[witsend (OP)]

Sophiecentaur, to your question on the hydrogen lines.  It's dealt with in the blog, I've dealt with it in the thread re over unity - and I've specifically referred  you to it.  I think what you do is look at my posts, find some admission or evidence of mortal constraints, and then pounce on it and use it as proof positive that I'm either arm waving or not qualified to comment.

If you still read this thread, I promise you that I will try and explain it again.  Clearly my explanations have been too obtuse, amateurish, un-professional, ill-advised, unscientific, inadquate, and generally unacceptable, for you to digest.  I sincerely apologise for my inadequacies.  I can only do my best. 

But I have no intention of explaining the hydrogen lines in this thread until I know that my foundational concepts are half-way acceptable.

You know what?  Logic is the only legitimate basis for a study and understanding of physics.  I have a flair for logic.  I'm just so sorry you can't see it.  The only thing I can't do is express that logic mathematically.  And while logic is very well expressed mathematically it can also be expressed in other ways - including, I might add, simple argument.

[Vern]

Now to the second part of that sum. One of those strings splits apart and unravels.  It's catastrophic.  The formation is lost and all the zipons in that string - simply tumble together in a massive nebulus.  But as they do so all that latent energy - that velocity of 2c is expressed in two ways.  Some of the zipons accelerate and lose volume - something less than 0.5.  Some of the zipons decelerate and gain volume - something more than 0.5.  But deceleration and acceleration is precisely proportionate to decrease and increase in mass - respectively.

You would need to define the system of units you would use and describe what unit is the .5 a part of.