[witsend (OP)]

"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. 

[witsend (OP)]

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]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

    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.   [] [] [] EDIT  [] [] [] [] [] [] []

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!!! []

[lyner]

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?

[witsend (OP)]

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]

So, if it hadn't escaped you, why have you been using the word 'weight' so freely?

[lyner]

And what, exactly is "size"?

[witsend (OP)]

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. 

[witsend (OP)]

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]

"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.

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.

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!

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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]

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"

[witsend (OP)]

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.  

[witsend (OP)]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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.

[lyner]

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?

[witsend (OP)]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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]

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.