[witsend (OP)]

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]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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]

OK - but there's nothing to apologise for.
(My comments were aimed at the only thing which was available to read, afaik.)

[witsend (OP)]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

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.   

[witsend (OP)]

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.

[witsend (OP)]

6 TRUANTS, ANTITRUANTS AND VIRTUAL PARTICLES

The proposal is that a string from the field has broken.  Zipons have become disassociated from the field and they cluster in a visible amalgam seen as a nebulus in space.

I've proposed that a primary particle, the zipon, has now manifested as a truant.  For symmetry and for every manifest truant there must also therefore be an antitruant.  The truant is proposed as the zipon that has gained mass at a corresponding forfeiture of its velocity in the field.  They are visible precisely because they are within the boundary constraints of light speed and light, therefore can detect them.  Equally therefore, an equal number of those zipons would have gained velocity at the fofeiture of mass.  They, however, would be the antitruant and would not be evident within the boundary constraints of light speed.  So light would not be able to detect them.

Given that the disappearing truant is the truant's antiparticle then where, in space does that anti truant go?  The proposal is that in losing it's mass it actually moves towards a point in space that is precisely where it first decayed as a zipon.  In other words it does not occupy space in the sense that the truant occupies space.  In effect it has the properties of velocity at the entire forfeit of its mass.  The antitruant, therefore, does not share the same dimensions of volume in space.  In point of fact it only retains the properties of charge and velocity in the same but opposite way that truants only retain the properties of charge and mass.  Then, like the manifest truant, it will 'hang' in a fixed position in space, two different manifestations of the same zipon, but both outside of the magnetic field itself.  And the zipons in the field can find neither truant.  The one is too big and the other too small.  Therefore there is no interaction with the field.

The proposal is that some of the truants will decay back into the field.  These are virtual particles and, in effect, they will simply regain that velocity and lose mass and then, eventually, slot back into one of the strings in the field.

But the truants are only really very small magnets.  Magnets have the overriding requirement to structure themselves into orderly fields where their charge is most perfectly balanced. Over time, therefore, as the truants and the anti truants expend their energy from the force of the singularity, then they will again collect into some structure that expresses this magnetic requirement.  They eventually  move to structure themselves into fields and they do this in small steps.

[witsend (OP)]

Everyone - I've copied these 6 posts to the energetic forum.  Please go there if you're following this.  BenV - thanks very much for the space allowed by the Naked Scientists and for your indulgence in these posts.  Much appreciated.

[lyner]

witsend
I seem to remember you saying that your hypothesis stands or falls entirely on the fact that Magnetism is, somehow, fundamental.
Did you miss my post pointing out that the magnetic force can be accounted for completely as a combination of the Coulomb Force and Relativistic effects?

I wonder whether you will find this link interesting.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24017.0
You should look at the links within - showing that it's not just something I made up.
Will you dismiss it all as being too mathematical, too complicated, too boring or just an attack on your ideas?

[witsend (OP)]

Hi SophieCentaur

I dip in and out of this forum - and have just noted your comment here.  That the magnetic field is accounted for in terms of anything at all - does not refute my argument.  The argument is that there is no evident electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction.

[lyner]

But there is.
Did you not understand the link? Electrons moving around a circuit or electrons in the atoms of a 'magnet' are still doing the same thing.
It's just an alternative way of looking at it. Magnetism is no more fundamental than anything else. Moreover, the theory I quote from has a track record and agrees with measurement. I don't think yours does.

[witsend (OP)]

SC - I have found your contributions on this thread and elsewhere in this 'new theories' section of the forum to be so persistently discouraging that I simply do not want to post here any more.  My personal opinion is that you bully people into regretting that they share their thoughts or bare their souls as you ride over all such intellectual efforts with the sensitivity of bulldozer on full throttle, a dinosaur with an appetite, a troll on a mission. 

I do not want to know about your opinion on anything, personally.  Let me see how many other contributors you frighten away.  But I predict that all will eventually fall victim to your delight in discouraging innovative thought - thinly disguised as a scientist's preferred requirement for exactitude.

The truth is that you get your kicks in life by putting people down.  It's sad.  But it's a sad outlook for the Naked Scientists forum generally as your attentions only ever manage to diminish contributors while you vicariously or actively dictate what may or may not be considered for evaluation.  I wish BenV would wake up to the fact.  It is my humble opinion that you should be banned from the New Theories section - entirely, until such time as you show us whether you, yourself are capable of a unique thought or an innovative idea let alone sharing it.  It takes a certain amount of courage and a certain amount of vulnerability.  You have neither.

By the way - your motto - are you suggesting that to behave like a pig does not mean that you also are a pig?  I can't understand it.
 

[lyner]

If you think that it's putting you down when I disagree with you then that is up to you. If you want to have a Science based on fantasy, then that is fine. But you can't call it Science, I'm afraid.
The one thing about Science which applies over the whole field is that it aims at consistency wherever possible. If I point out an inconsistency, is that a 'put-down'?  Do you not have any comment on 'that' thread? The sources quoted in it were not aimed to 'put you down'; they were arrived at rigorously in an attempt to understand things a bit better. Try reading them. You may take offense at me but you can hardly take offense at them.

Many of the self-styled 'new theories' on this forum are not, in fact theories - they are hypotheses and many of them are clearly not consistent with the body of Scientific evidence. When I see that, I tend to point it out. Isn't this supposed to be a Science Forum? Let's conduct it that way, then.
You will notice that I very seldom comment in the 'Just Chat' section because the contributors to that have the sense to acknowledge that the contributions are exactly that. Good fun, very often and sometimes stimulating.

You seem to have your own way of being purposely offensive and it is aimed at a more personal level than anything I have ever written. Not really appropriate, I think.

[witsend (OP)]

Following quotes from SC
If you think that it's putting you down when I disagree with you then that is up to you.
Are you trying to usurp or confer a right for me to draw my own conclusions?  I can't work it out.  Either way it's grossly inappropriate and disgustingly arrogant, as it is not,in fact, your right to confer or usurp. As you are clearly conflicted here, let me remind you.  You are not God.

If you want to have a Science based on fantasy, then that is fine.
As you cannot understand the subtleties of inductive or deductive logic I would suggest you defer your opinion.  Fantasy is your brand of physics where subtleties of logic and concept entirely elude you.  To follow this reasoning one also requires a reasonably adequate intelligence quotient.

But you can't call it Science, I'm afraid.
I can call it whatever I like.  Who made you an arbiter of science and its definitions? 

The one thing about Science which applies over the whole field is that it aims at consistency wherever possible.
What nonsense is this?  Where is there consistency in science as an explanation of current flow from induced fields on a switching circuit.  I have never in my life seen such an absurd parade of 'scientific' explanations to account for the second phase of a switching cycle.  It will go down in history as being a real scar on the otherwise proud face of scientific history. It's logic progressively cascades into total absurdity.  My posts regarding this refer.

If I point out an inconsistency, is that a 'put-down'?
Indeed - the more so as there is no insconsistency.  Your attention and efforts would be better spent in pointing out the inconsistencies in known physics.  Pretend to an impartiality.  It would make your sad attacks more plausible.

Do you not have any comment on 'that' thread? The sources quoted in it were not aimed to 'put you down'; they were arrived at rigorously in an attempt to understand things a bit better. Try reading them. You may take offense at me but you can hardly take offense at them.
Somewhat cryptic here I'm afraid.  If you're referring to the thread that describes my circuit - then that is, indeed, another example of the paraded idiocies of egocentric opinionated armchair scientists - fighting their corner LOUDLY rather than reasonably.  I have read it.  Many times.  It's a scar on this forum and it's there for the record.
 
Many of the self-styled 'new theories' on this forum are not, in fact theories - they are hypotheses and many of them are clearly not consistent with the body of Scientific evidence.
How can conflicting evidence be considered if it is not allowed to be presented?  It may not come to the table?  What is that?  Science?

When I see that, I tend to point it out.
Indeed - you point it out with a repetitive and dreary monotony which is the inevitable consequence of a boring and dull witted mind.

Isn't this supposed to be a Science Forum?
Again.  Who made you the arbiter here?  God?  The global body of our learned and revered?  Let me assure you that the strength of our academies lies not with the bigot but with those who quest for the truth.  And there are many especially in the hallowed halls of our Ivy League institutions.  Michio Kaku is on record as recommending that the entire body of physics be upturned and ALL its text books rewritten.   

Let's conduct it that way, then.
What way?  Put on dark glasses the better not to see with?  Close your eyes to the evidence lest it conflicts with prejudice?  Block your ears because you cannot learn new physics? Mock new ideas lest they be proved right? 

You will notice that I very seldom comment in the 'Just Chat' section because the contributors to that have the sense to acknowledge that the contributions are exactly that. Good fun, very often and sometimes stimulating.
With respect.  Actually - in truth, without any shred of respect whatsoever - your comments in the 'just chat' would be much more appropriate than any contribution you could possibly make in the 'new ideas' - 'new science' 'new anything'.  To comment here you - at it's least - need intelligence. imagination, courage, sensitivity, concern, kindness, thoughfulness and the need to learn.

You seem to have your own way of being purposely offensive and it is aimed at a more personal level than anything I have ever written. Not really appropriate, I think.
How is it not appropriate - when you offend everything that is creative and sincere? 

And in the final analysis SC - let me point out to you that the concept of 'stored energy' being recirculated on a circuit from a switching cycle - offends every possible reach of logic.  Yet if this second cycle of a switching circuit is seen as regenerated energy - it then conforms to known science with all its pristine logic.  It is just that it also then confronts the constraints of second laws which require efficiencies at 1 or under. That is the point where the bigot actually needs to leave the room.

[BenV]

I'm sorry witsend, but I think you've mis-read sophie's intentions completely.

He would be delighted if a new theory, backed by the appropriate evidence, were to arise on this forum that could topple an accepted theory - that's one of the exciting bits of science.

However, he also knows what it takes to do this, and will put the hard questions to anyone arguing a new hypothesis.  If you feel that this is an attack on you, it's not - it's an attack on your hypothesis.  If any new hypothesis is strong enough to be accepted, it will be able to fend off these attacks with scientific answers.

Bear in mind that it's the science he's talking about - if you could answer his questions, your hypothesis would either be strenghtened or rejected - is this not a good thing?

I would also consider that you have been quite rude about him in the post below.  Try not to take anything personally, and concentrate on the science.

[witsend (OP)]

BenV - I hear you.  But know that any attempt at advancing the science is entirely defeated when I have to deal with SC's posts.  He will put his oar in with repetitive monotony always reminding me that I have no right to post or comment here or on this subject.

If, indeed, the entire process of accreditation and validation of my experiment were to go through rigorous questioning - I would not mind.  But when there is the implication that it does not even deserve attention and that the models I've advanced are 'fantasy' then, I'm afraid the subject is not being questioned.  It's being systematically slaughtered. And for all that it may be amateurish - its my hard won efforts over 10 years of my life.

But I hear you.  The post was possibly a little excessive.  Sorry.

I've taken out a couple of comments.  Hopefully that may make it better.  If you want me to delete it I will but then you must get SC to delete his as well.