Symmetry
Try also this:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry115457 and the thread that follows.
Called Fractal formula for Alpha/local conservation of moment h.
That was the beginning of my musings about physics. The fact that it resulted in N avogadro (very close to it) when I had started from h stunned me so much that I considered it worth posting.
Ivars,
OK, I am plugging in the #'s into the mathematical program which is quite good but I had a much better system to run off of when working, it is all they would let me take home from work when I retired.
I just hope I am asking the right questions dealing with the equations that have been given to me.
BTW, what theories if any will not conflict with this new approach? I will be frank if it does not go with already verified results that have been tested to many decimals of accuracy, I hope that is agreed.
You know this is out there, but I am making the effort to see what comes of it.
Will check back ASAP will not post because I want to run the #'s first.
Later,
Symmetry
OK, I am plugging in the #'s into the mathematical program which is quite good but I had a much better system to run off of when working, it is all they would let me take home from work when I retired.
I just hope I am asking the right questions dealing with the equations that have been given to me.
BTW, what theories if any will not conflict with this new approach? I will be frank if it does not go with already verified results that have been tested to many decimals of accuracy, I hope that is agreed.
You know this is out there, but I am making the effort to see what comes of it.
Will check back ASAP will not post because I want to run the #'s first.
Later,
Symmetry
QUOTE (Ivars+Jan 4 2007, 03:15 PM)
...I hope he does not mind if I post the link:
Not at all. You all are welcome indeed. Please don't be to sharp towards this poor guy and his at least honest attempts.
I'll be absent week or so becuase of our orthodox Christmas days.
Best to all
Not at all. You all are welcome indeed. Please don't be to sharp towards this poor guy and his at least honest attempts.
I'll be absent week or so becuase of our orthodox Christmas days.
Best to all
QUOTE
BTW, what theories if any will not conflict with this new approach? I will be frank if it does not go with already verified results that have been tested to many decimals of accuracy, I hope that is agreed.
I do not know of any because:
a) I have graduated from physics 20 years ago but did not like the way it was built up so i stopped doing it so I do not know any of the fundamental existing theories, which is of big help, because my mind can work full speed, without checking all the time with some dogmas. i have no authorities in physics because Nature has not been explained, only approximated.
These new approaches are built up so they explain everything. they are not dogmatic, so if something is not explained, theory has to be modified so it works again.c) so far, it only becomes better, and its scope is also outside physics
d) so, it should be OK with all correctly interpreted physics experimental results; as to theoretic predictions of other theories, who cares. The fact they have explained correctly one part of reality does not mean that extrapolating them into other part is OK.
e) fractal and discrete part is critical. Without it , only by continuous equations of Einstein or AWT , it will not work, not to complete explanation of nature including life.
f) there is no chance in Nature. All happening resonances are in principle computable, the problem is that underlying invisible time and space scale is so small ( around 10-67 s, 10-58 or smaller m) that until we get from the cause-phase shift on this scale - into time/space scales we can detect, we have to calculate already at least 10^50 steps. So it looks like chance, but is not.
Ivars,
I ran into a dead end so I know I missed something. This is an example of one problem I am having.
If I read this correct and the numbers you gave I think it is very important when it comes to extrapolating the reality we live in.
If I read this correct and the numbers you gave I think it is very important when it comes to extrapolating the reality we live in.
f) there is no chance in Nature. All happening resonances are in principle computable, the problem is that underlying invisible time and space scale is so small ( around 10-67 s, 10-58 or smaller m) that until we get from the cause-phase shift on this scale - into time/space scales we can detect, we have to calculate already at least 10^50 steps. So it looks like chance, but is not.
I will not repeat the 10^n's you gave because I do not know of a program on this planet that could compute such a incomprehensible number or has even tried?
I am trying on this, but it seems a little difficult to pick and choose what will fit a model in physics if you are starting from the foundation.
String theory starts at the top and works down trying to fit the #'s in and that is why they have not come close to making any prediction.
Let me know where I have misunderstood <-- because even if it has be twenty years you know if you want just classical reality it must be commutative unless you are dealing with the quanta.
Symmetry
Moving like this?
Draw-i am very bad with it. take a garden hose, cut a piece, twist one end by e.g 180 degrees (mobius) , glue together in a circle, fill with water until it starts to move.
I have not been able yet to calculate parameters like pressure, diameter/length ratio as I have not found any simple enough place where to read about vortex breakdown set off criteria. Most articles are in those pay per view places which I do noy use in principle. May be you have some?
I may be very subtle onset region, easy to overlook if You do not know where to look.
Friction is ther but this device uses energy from Aether.
it is oscilating and HYSTERETIC- in each cycle more mass in form of Vortex breakdown structure shape is created than returned to Aether.
The difference delta mass*c^2 > than energy lost in friction.
It is like life, but, , it can go on for ever. May be not with real pipe surface, but if the helical pipe aroud it is also vortex breakdown structure of the same aether-definitely.
It is Omega.Serpent eating its tail.
1) It is no coincidence people keep tuning A to 443 Hz. although electronic devices tell them it is 440 Hz. 443 is prime, by the way.
They are feeling harmony with one of the fundamental frequencies of Universe, whihc repeats itself in many phenemena after having started at scale 10^67 1/s in the smallest Space scale
2) My intuitive, gut feeling in this case is that yes , such a structure would have "instabilities) which will lead to unidirectional net pumping of mass out of Aether (vacuum in Your language? I am not sure if garden hose will really work, but magnetic field of such a shape could;
3) Just imagine what possibilities will be if there would be such a aether mass pump available:
-it will produce ambrosium- mass straight from vacuum without the need to eat other organisms
-it will allow to circumwent law og Angular momentum of a system - add net momentum without changing (aging) the structure, the phase space of the system will grow as fast as time will go.
- this would lead to immortality
- this could be used to cure such self developing, closed deseases like cancer
There are also not so nice possibilities.
These were the only words I really understood.. But seeing how You read and react, in an open, polite way, I suppose these last words are true and were the most important.
I believe in collective mind as my own has terrible limitations when things come to practical details ; But when more than one mind is put together in the right phase, the same bloody vortex breakdown structure is created, just this time in intellectual /consciousness space- without matter, pure aether shape construction.
In real life, I would like to hear a word fractal and discrete from Your theories before starting to read the equations in detail. Matter can ot be described without this fractality, only fields can.
Also, I like the names YOu use for those important constants, alpha, omega. It is not a coincidence. They just sound RIGHT.
So when will simple explanation be available? I would also like to understand what we have constructed... In a plain intuitive language/picture.
I ran into a dead end so I know I missed something. This is an example of one problem I am having.
QUOTE
) so, it should be OK with all correctly interpreted physics experimental results; as to theoretic predictions of other theories, who cares. The fact they have explained correctly one part of reality does not mean that extrapolating them into other part is OK.
If I read this correct and the numbers you gave I think it is very important when it comes to extrapolating the reality we live in.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ) so, it should be OK with all correctly interpreted physics experimental results; as to theoretic predictions of other theories, who cares. The fact they have explained correctly one part of reality does not mean that extrapolating them into other part is OK. |
If I read this correct and the numbers you gave I think it is very important when it comes to extrapolating the reality we live in.
f) there is no chance in Nature. All happening resonances are in principle computable, the problem is that underlying invisible time and space scale is so small ( around 10-67 s, 10-58 or smaller m) that until we get from the cause-phase shift on this scale - into time/space scales we can detect, we have to calculate already at least 10^50 steps. So it looks like chance, but is not.
I will not repeat the 10^n's you gave because I do not know of a program on this planet that could compute such a incomprehensible number or has even tried?
I am trying on this, but it seems a little difficult to pick and choose what will fit a model in physics if you are starting from the foundation.
String theory starts at the top and works down trying to fit the #'s in and that is why they have not come close to making any prediction.
Let me know where I have misunderstood <-- because even if it has be twenty years you know if you want just classical reality it must be commutative unless you are dealing with the quanta.
Symmetry
What I meant is all existing successful theories are only approximations of on ONE true theory which fits all experimental data and can be extrapolated though it may be physically impossible to calculate.
There can not be more than 1 theory. and it has to include not only physical phenomena, gravity +quantum, but also chemical, biological, life, mind, religion, history, business etc. Everything should fit. That is what makes looking for such
One more thing to forbid Yourself to use in thinking is charge, electricity, magnetism. Only rotation is allowed to remain. Charge is approximation used for the fractal part of spin of rotating vortex breakdown bubbles. So, to understand charge, one have to think how this part operates, not explain it by using the concept of charge- it is wrong order again.
So, extrapolation of any theory beyond the scope where its approximation does not work is wrong by definition.
There is one computer which can calculate 10^50 steps easily - it is called intuition, and it is how human brain works. A good human computer, or, may be even linked by e.g. Internet or discussion many good human computers can calculate the outcome,eliminate chance, but can not provide printout for all steps in the middle.
If You think about e.g vortex breakdown structures and Falaco solitons in Aether, it is obvious that strings, branes, de broglie waves etc. are good approximations of Nature at some places, but they are much to simplified in essence to be correct outside their scope. What is needed, is The theory whose projections all existing and future approximations are. They can be used within their scope, but Can not be extrapolated to explain more than they can handle.
There can not be more than 1 theory. and it has to include not only physical phenomena, gravity +quantum, but also chemical, biological, life, mind, religion, history, business etc. Everything should fit. That is what makes looking for such
One more thing to forbid Yourself to use in thinking is charge, electricity, magnetism. Only rotation is allowed to remain. Charge is approximation used for the fractal part of spin of rotating vortex breakdown bubbles. So, to understand charge, one have to think how this part operates, not explain it by using the concept of charge- it is wrong order again.
So, extrapolation of any theory beyond the scope where its approximation does not work is wrong by definition.
There is one computer which can calculate 10^50 steps easily - it is called intuition, and it is how human brain works. A good human computer, or, may be even linked by e.g. Internet or discussion many good human computers can calculate the outcome,eliminate chance, but can not provide printout for all steps in the middle.
If You think about e.g vortex breakdown structures and Falaco solitons in Aether, it is obvious that strings, branes, de broglie waves etc. are good approximations of Nature at some places, but they are much to simplified in essence to be correct outside their scope. What is needed, is The theory whose projections all existing and future approximations are. They can be used within their scope, but Can not be extrapolated to explain more than they can handle.
QUOTE (Albers+Jan 4 2007, 04:10 PM)
Particles are a dynamical state of the background. Gravitation is also. I have just launched a discussion with Puthoff where I claim the vacuum need have no magnetic or vorticity characteristics to transmit magnetism. It is an illusion which may be analyzed by Lorentz-transforming each differential current element in the source. The vacuum need only be available dipole population, and maybe "electrons popping in and out" is not what's happening. I don't think their spin is needed to transmit magnetism.
In my opinion it is very concise but very important post.
You are right that the background of the Universe should contain the dipole space. But such dipoles must be built of some charges. They cannot be built of the electric charges because the electromagnetic field is not built of the moving and rotating electron-positron pairs. From the Kaluza-Klein equations results that the charges the dipoles of the electromagnetic field are built of should look, in approximation, as circles. It leads to following questions:
1. What is radius of the 'circle'?
2. What is the internal structure of the 'circle'? Why it behaves as miniature of the electric charge? Why it polarizes the background of the Universe? Has spin it?
3. What interactions lead to creation of the binary systems of the 'circles' i.e. to creation of the dipoles the dipole space is built of?
What results from my theory?
The dipoles they are the binary systems of neutrinos of different weak charges.
Neutrino looks as miniature of electron. Neutrino has shape of torus - it looks in approximation as circle. The external radius of torus is equal to 1.1166 . 10^-35 m. It is equal to about the Planck length.
It is obvious that neutrinos should have an internal structure because they have internal helicity (see the Wu experiment), spin, and other properties. The mainstream theories cannot explain the internal structure of neutrinos because there are particles smaller than the Planck length. There is needed NEW PHYSICS. It is in my theory -see www.cosmology-particles.pl
So you are right that to transmit magnetism are needed dipoles but the dipoles must be built from some particles. From my complete theory results that these particles have half-integral spin.
In my opinion it is very concise but very important post.
You are right that the background of the Universe should contain the dipole space. But such dipoles must be built of some charges. They cannot be built of the electric charges because the electromagnetic field is not built of the moving and rotating electron-positron pairs. From the Kaluza-Klein equations results that the charges the dipoles of the electromagnetic field are built of should look, in approximation, as circles. It leads to following questions:
1. What is radius of the 'circle'?
2. What is the internal structure of the 'circle'? Why it behaves as miniature of the electric charge? Why it polarizes the background of the Universe? Has spin it?
3. What interactions lead to creation of the binary systems of the 'circles' i.e. to creation of the dipoles the dipole space is built of?
What results from my theory?
The dipoles they are the binary systems of neutrinos of different weak charges.
Neutrino looks as miniature of electron. Neutrino has shape of torus - it looks in approximation as circle. The external radius of torus is equal to 1.1166 . 10^-35 m. It is equal to about the Planck length.
It is obvious that neutrinos should have an internal structure because they have internal helicity (see the Wu experiment), spin, and other properties. The mainstream theories cannot explain the internal structure of neutrinos because there are particles smaller than the Planck length. There is needed NEW PHYSICS. It is in my theory -see www.cosmology-particles.pl
So you are right that to transmit magnetism are needed dipoles but the dipoles must be built from some particles. From my complete theory results that these particles have half-integral spin.
Hmmn, interesting. Sounds like a mini-me version of an "electron" moebius bagel, only made out of gravity-tension fluctuation instead of charge-stress fluctuation. 
To explain what I mean by fractal alpha, fractal angular moment, fractal dimension,see the picture:
The whole spiral shell has rotation axis and surface and Volume. It has 3 dimensions in space.
If it rotates , it has angular moment in integer units .
Now, the other spiral vortexes, seen as smaller holes on top of the big shell, also have dimensions and angular moments relative to the big shell.
From the point of view of the big shell, they are fractals. How? The sum of all angular moments of these small vortexes is 0 in the coordinate system outside shell. On the shell, walking along it surface, these angular moments exist. they can not be charaterized by 0. They create extra fractal dimension of space. The use some mass to be built. That mass and angular moment is also fractal if measured in units of big shell.
These fractal masses and units , each of them take certain area, quanta. They add up until whole surface is filled. In this moment , it is not possible anymore add mass to the organism , to the shell IF there is no bifurcation to next , smaller fractal level in size. And so it goes until LIMIT is reached when there are no smaller units of this organism which can be created and added in quanta. At this moment , organism bifurcate to a new stage, one of them being death when no further growth occurs. Organism desynchronizes in some time.
As charge is linked to those fractal masses and angular moments in the Universe, alpha has fractal explanation and formulas to link alpha to h has Fractal dimensions of units.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...6lr%3D%26sa%3DG
The whole spiral shell has rotation axis and surface and Volume. It has 3 dimensions in space.
If it rotates , it has angular moment in integer units .
Now, the other spiral vortexes, seen as smaller holes on top of the big shell, also have dimensions and angular moments relative to the big shell.
From the point of view of the big shell, they are fractals. How? The sum of all angular moments of these small vortexes is 0 in the coordinate system outside shell. On the shell, walking along it surface, these angular moments exist. they can not be charaterized by 0. They create extra fractal dimension of space. The use some mass to be built. That mass and angular moment is also fractal if measured in units of big shell.
These fractal masses and units , each of them take certain area, quanta. They add up until whole surface is filled. In this moment , it is not possible anymore add mass to the organism , to the shell IF there is no bifurcation to next , smaller fractal level in size. And so it goes until LIMIT is reached when there are no smaller units of this organism which can be created and added in quanta. At this moment , organism bifurcate to a new stage, one of them being death when no further growth occurs. Organism desynchronizes in some time.
As charge is linked to those fractal masses and angular moments in the Universe, alpha has fractal explanation and formulas to link alpha to h has Fractal dimensions of units.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...6lr%3D%26sa%3DG
This is the picture:
For my electron model I assumed "some inhomogeneous manifestation" of charge density as r^1e^-r. This is the simplest possibility. I then assumed this is circulating at locally the speed of light, Assuming zero omega, or change, around the circle of azimuth, Maxwell's current equation yields an analytic result involving Euler's integral. The inhomogeneous field at the limit at the origin becomes the equal and opposite of r^-2 so there is no infinity of energy or angular momentum. If you make the further step of considering this whatever magical mystery monopole goop (it is simply having allowed a finite region of divergence and not positing it all to a point) to be an infinitesimal polarization field akin to a dielectric, then charge density may be equated to -divP. Aha, we have persuaded a bunch of dipoles (well, an infinitesimal population) to all stick inward. Actually it is a dynamic process. Consider the vacuum percolating up random possibilities of dipoles in the near field. When the "positron is closer than the electron", the unit is attracted inward because the + is closer. The unit is also experiencing separation force; think about it. Now picture the opposite; it will be repelled since the - is closer, but it will also be pulled together favoring annihilation. Transverse dipoles are rotated some. This is cool because the radial population is being always thinned favoring those that express the net field to the outside; also because there is a flux inward, a dipole rain. There is a strong magnetic z-field, and these ingoing pairs split sideways, contributing to the current which was assumed to exist. BRUCE HORNSBY, PLEASE: "LISTEN TO THE DIPOLE RAIN..." . . . . . Further: Puthoff et.al. have developed the isotropic GR solution to yield the exponential of inverse radius. So also has Doug Sweetser over on PhysicsForums. This is I suspect the sharpest analytically expressible singularity of the origin, and I shall investigate whether or not with my ideas I can produce it.
Close! You are getting quite warm. I say there can be no field phase variations around the circle. I investigated all the possible ways of wrapping this sort of literal photon around. You must go to nonzero A_r and A_theta, and they always yield alternating regions of infinite energy density. No, thank you. A_phi ONLY. There is no more photon here, but subtley maybe so. I have created a solution of omega=0. You can partly understand it by saying that in wrapping a wave of helical polarization in a circle you force it to precess, and the precession cancels the helicity. However, I do not allow any change. It is a new phase state. Think of it as frozen yogurt. You are certainly not intruding, friend.
Albers
I tried to do it this way in another post:http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=11376
The idea is based on the fact that a flexible pipe with water or other liquid which is rotated around its longitudinal axis at least by 180 degrees or more (so that it looks like Mobius strip with volume, its surface forming a spiral) and connected in a circle will exhibit externally measurable motion and angular momentum.
I think that at the right pressure/liquid/length/diameter ratios this construction should produce propagating according to right screw law pipe surface waves which also will include formation and disappearance of vortex breakdown bubbles and push mass inside pipe forward in quanta.
This will cause the pipe to rotate if placed on surface ; if hanging in the vacuum, away from gravitation, it will rotate due to reactive force of moving mass and produce spin perpendicular to the plane of the circle. The energy it will use to propagate mass will come from the elasticity of the pipe skin. That of course will wear down with time. If there would be a skin with renewable or relatively stable properties, it could be called Perpetum Mobile until it moves.
This device would resemble ancient symbol of a serpent eating its tail -permanent rotation, simplest organism which does not need food but is still alive. Of course, it does not do any work.
Would it be the same? it is Omega.
QUOTE
I have created a solution of omega=0. You can partly understand it by saying that in wrapping a wave of helical polarization in a circle you force it to precess, and the precession cancels the helicity. However, I do not allow any change. It is a new phase state.
I tried to do it this way in another post:http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=11376
The idea is based on the fact that a flexible pipe with water or other liquid which is rotated around its longitudinal axis at least by 180 degrees or more (so that it looks like Mobius strip with volume, its surface forming a spiral) and connected in a circle will exhibit externally measurable motion and angular momentum.
I think that at the right pressure/liquid/length/diameter ratios this construction should produce propagating according to right screw law pipe surface waves which also will include formation and disappearance of vortex breakdown bubbles and push mass inside pipe forward in quanta.
This will cause the pipe to rotate if placed on surface ; if hanging in the vacuum, away from gravitation, it will rotate due to reactive force of moving mass and produce spin perpendicular to the plane of the circle. The energy it will use to propagate mass will come from the elasticity of the pipe skin. That of course will wear down with time. If there would be a skin with renewable or relatively stable properties, it could be called Perpetum Mobile until it moves.
This device would resemble ancient symbol of a serpent eating its tail -permanent rotation, simplest organism which does not need food but is still alive. Of course, it does not do any work.
Would it be the same? it is Omega.
Very cool. I walked around saying, "Mobius doughnuts" for awhile, 2-3 years ago.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jan 5 2007, 06:36 PM)
Albers
I tried to do it this way in another post:http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=11376
The idea is based on the fact that a flexible pipe with water or other liquid which is rotated around its longitudinal axis at least by 180 degrees or more (so that it looks like Mobius strip with volume, its surface forming a spiral) and connected in a circle will exhibit externally measurable motion and angular momentum.
I think that at the right pressure/liquid/length/diameter ratios this construction should produce propagating according to right screw law pipe surface waves which also will include formation and disappearance of vortex breakdown bubbles and push mass inside pipe forward in quanta.
This will cause the pipe to rotate if placed on surface ; if hanging in the vacuum, away from gravitation, it will rotate due to reactive force of moving mass and produce spin perpendicular to the plane of the circle. The energy it will use to propagate mass will come from the elasticity of the pipe skin. That of course will wear down with time. If there would be a skin with renewable or relatively stable properties, it could be called Perpetum Mobile until it moves.
This device would resemble ancient symbol of a serpent eating its tail -permanent rotation, simplest organism which does not need food but is still alive. Of course, it does not do any work.
Would it be the same? it is Omega.
Could you draw a diagram?
I tried to do it this way in another post:http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=11376
The idea is based on the fact that a flexible pipe with water or other liquid which is rotated around its longitudinal axis at least by 180 degrees or more (so that it looks like Mobius strip with volume, its surface forming a spiral) and connected in a circle will exhibit externally measurable motion and angular momentum.
I think that at the right pressure/liquid/length/diameter ratios this construction should produce propagating according to right screw law pipe surface waves which also will include formation and disappearance of vortex breakdown bubbles and push mass inside pipe forward in quanta.
This will cause the pipe to rotate if placed on surface ; if hanging in the vacuum, away from gravitation, it will rotate due to reactive force of moving mass and produce spin perpendicular to the plane of the circle. The energy it will use to propagate mass will come from the elasticity of the pipe skin. That of course will wear down with time. If there would be a skin with renewable or relatively stable properties, it could be called Perpetum Mobile until it moves.
This device would resemble ancient symbol of a serpent eating its tail -permanent rotation, simplest organism which does not need food but is still alive. Of course, it does not do any work.
Would it be the same? it is Omega.
Could you draw a diagram?
Moving like this?
Draw-i am very bad with it. take a garden hose, cut a piece, twist one end by e.g 180 degrees (mobius) , glue together in a circle, fill with water until it starts to move.
I have not been able yet to calculate parameters like pressure, diameter/length ratio as I have not found any simple enough place where to read about vortex breakdown set off criteria. Most articles are in those pay per view places which I do noy use in principle. May be you have some?
I may be very subtle onset region, easy to overlook if You do not know where to look.
Friction is ther but this device uses energy from Aether.
it is oscilating and HYSTERETIC- in each cycle more mass in form of Vortex breakdown structure shape is created than returned to Aether.
The difference delta mass*c^2 > than energy lost in friction.
It is like life, but, , it can go on for ever. May be not with real pipe surface, but if the helical pipe aroud it is also vortex breakdown structure of the same aether-definitely.
It is Omega.Serpent eating its tail.
Albers
but did Your doughnuts allowed for aether inside them, and creation of vortex breakdown structure inside the distinct surface of the doughnut at certain resonanse, set off values of parameters?
I have also found some helpful frequencies:
QUOTE
Whatever the theory of Universe , number 440 1/s should come out of combination of its fundamental constants.
Hmm. Found the answer myself.
frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s
Powers of 10 has no meaning as they are related to decimal sub harmonics and log scale. What matters is the number : this is very very fundamental frequency in Nature - Frequency of A:
4,43460044 1/s 443,46044 1/s etc. until 4.43460044 E+67 1/s.
Despite such confusion, A = 440 Hz is arguably the most common tuning used around the world. Orchestras in the United States and United Kingdom tend to adhere to this standard as concert pitch. In other countries, however, higher pitches have become the norm: A = 442 Hz is common in continental European orchestras, while A = 445 is heard in Germany, Austria, and China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(music)...n_Western_music
So this is the highest rotational frequency of FALACO soliton thread in our Universe.This should be related to viscosity of Aether , which is measured in m2/s. Have to think about it- which surface has to be used here - that of whole Universe or?
Once we know the viscosity of Aether , m2/s , and If Universe rotates with frequency OMEGA, First vortex bubble resonance conditions are reached when Reynolds number is 1000, and in place where angle of attack is 51.5 degrees.
I do not know how to calculate Reynolds numbers inside Spherical Rotating liquid ball. Any hints?
To be clarified soon.
but did Your doughnuts allowed for aether inside them, and creation of vortex breakdown structure inside the distinct surface of the doughnut at certain resonanse, set off values of parameters?
I have also found some helpful frequencies:
QUOTE
Whatever the theory of Universe , number 440 1/s should come out of combination of its fundamental constants.
Hmm. Found the answer myself.
frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s
Powers of 10 has no meaning as they are related to decimal sub harmonics and log scale. What matters is the number : this is very very fundamental frequency in Nature - Frequency of A:
4,43460044 1/s 443,46044 1/s etc. until 4.43460044 E+67 1/s.
Despite such confusion, A = 440 Hz is arguably the most common tuning used around the world. Orchestras in the United States and United Kingdom tend to adhere to this standard as concert pitch. In other countries, however, higher pitches have become the norm: A = 442 Hz is common in continental European orchestras, while A = 445 is heard in Germany, Austria, and China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(music)...n_Western_music
So this is the highest rotational frequency of FALACO soliton thread in our Universe.This should be related to viscosity of Aether , which is measured in m2/s. Have to think about it- which surface has to be used here - that of whole Universe or?
Once we know the viscosity of Aether , m2/s , and If Universe rotates with frequency OMEGA, First vortex bubble resonance conditions are reached when Reynolds number is 1000, and in place where angle of attack is 51.5 degrees.
I do not know how to calculate Reynolds numbers inside Spherical Rotating liquid ball. Any hints?
To be clarified soon.
I have tuned and rebuilt acoustic pianos for over thirty years, so you are messing with my mind! Are you saying literally that a water loop with a half twist has intrinsic instabilities? Flow will have drag which will make it want to rotate along with the pipe. This is self-consistent in a closed loop, but are you saying pressure waves or something, which are relatively rapid, get screwy?
QUOTE (Albers+)
Close! You are getting quite warm. I say there can be no field phase variations around the circle. I investigated all the possible ways of wrapping this sort of literal photon around. You must go to nonzero A_r and A_theta, and they always yield alternating regions of infinite energy density. No, thank you. A_phi ONLY. There is no more photon here, but subtley maybe so. I have created a solution of omega=0. You can partly understand it by saying that in wrapping a wave of helical polarization in a circle you force it to precess, and the precession cancels the helicity. However, I do not allow any change. It is a new phase state. Think of it as frozen yogurt. You are certainly not intruding, friend.
Frozen yogurt? I'll have to suck on that one Albers. Meanwhile there was this interesting thread a while back, I don't know if you spotted it or if it was specially relevant, I was going to look at it properly but got sidetracked:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6923&st=0&hl=
PS: We went to the bakers this morning for bread etc, and the wife bought a couple of doughnuts because our teenage son likes them. They had jam in the middle instead of a hole. I can't stand them myself, far too sweet and sugary. But I do like bagels with cheese, with my fresh-brewed morning coffee. Anyhow, that's why I like Moebius Bagels!
Frozen yogurt? I'll have to suck on that one Albers. Meanwhile there was this interesting thread a while back, I don't know if you spotted it or if it was specially relevant, I was going to look at it properly but got sidetracked:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6923&st=0&hl=
PS: We went to the bakers this morning for bread etc, and the wife bought a couple of doughnuts because our teenage son likes them. They had jam in the middle instead of a hole. I can't stand them myself, far too sweet and sugary. But I do like bagels with cheese, with my fresh-brewed morning coffee. Anyhow, that's why I like Moebius Bagels!
Albers, & Ivars,
I am wanting to reply on many sites and post as I can when asked a question, but I have a few myself.
My question is --> as I work out all that has been given to me in private mail and post I have read on this site.
Because of my background or field I have never had to deal with aether, eather, or ATW so with everyone bringing it up I need to have a better understanding of this medium - I cannot seem to find it.
Now I have read it is subtle or it has viscosity of Aether which by logic indicates mass - but I do not want to assume?
Of course I have heard of this concept long ago but have not have it addressed in many years.
Is it consider by everyone to be just a massless or field as we would look at the EM fields - photon or does it have some infinitesimal mass say near zero which is less than a electrons mass? Or you might just think of the e- as a wave it really does not matter at this point in time.
Just working all this out dealing with the models given to me. Now back to reading sites suggested which will take some time.
Symmetry
I am wanting to reply on many sites and post as I can when asked a question, but I have a few myself.
My question is --> as I work out all that has been given to me in private mail and post I have read on this site.
Because of my background or field I have never had to deal with aether, eather, or ATW so with everyone bringing it up I need to have a better understanding of this medium - I cannot seem to find it.
Now I have read it is subtle or it has viscosity of Aether which by logic indicates mass - but I do not want to assume?
Of course I have heard of this concept long ago but have not have it addressed in many years.
Is it consider by everyone to be just a massless or field as we would look at the EM fields - photon or does it have some infinitesimal mass say near zero which is less than a electrons mass? Or you might just think of the e- as a wave it really does not matter at this point in time.
Just working all this out dealing with the models given to me. Now back to reading sites suggested which will take some time.
Symmetry
[QUOTE=Farsight,Jan 6 2007, 06:45 PM] [quote=Farsight]
Frozen yogurt? I'll have to suck on that one Albers. Meanwhile there was this interesting thread a while back, I don't know if you spotted it or if it was specially relevant, I was going to look at it properly but got sidetracked:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6923&st=0&hl=
PS: We went to the bakers this morning for bread etc, and the wife bought a couple of doughnuts because our teenage son likes them. They had jam in the middle instead of a hole. I can't stand them myself, far too sweet and sugary. But I do like bagels with cheese, with my fresh-brewed morning coffee. Anyhow, that's why I like Moebius Bagels! [/QUOTE]
Can you get your baker to put the twist into the bagels? Maybe they will blow up with Ivars' instability (just kidding, mate). I'm not quite sure but it seems like in this post there are angular nodes, no? I model not a frozen pulsation, but the same field phase state projected, DC fashion, around phi. No omega, no azimuthal form. Most curiously, and I will work out and present this, the speed of light in my thickening field goes as r close in, so there is an implied omega as c/r shelves at a central value. You will not, however, sense it. . . . . .If we step back and consider old yquantum's opening, back when, the seeming disjointedness of our meanderings comes from not understanding or agreeing with the necessity of high-energy bosons to be creating our space. What can I say of QM for being unable to explain mass? Yes we need to explain symmetry breaking, and yes this is the limit of my understanding. I hope to get to QFT but I have an unshakable hunch that our constructions are unfinished. I am trying to approach necessary vacuum theory through my own several studies, and now I shall be reading quantum vacuum studies such as offered me by Puthoff.
Frozen yogurt? I'll have to suck on that one Albers. Meanwhile there was this interesting thread a while back, I don't know if you spotted it or if it was specially relevant, I was going to look at it properly but got sidetracked:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6923&st=0&hl=
PS: We went to the bakers this morning for bread etc, and the wife bought a couple of doughnuts because our teenage son likes them. They had jam in the middle instead of a hole. I can't stand them myself, far too sweet and sugary. But I do like bagels with cheese, with my fresh-brewed morning coffee. Anyhow, that's why I like Moebius Bagels! [/QUOTE]
Can you get your baker to put the twist into the bagels? Maybe they will blow up with Ivars' instability (just kidding, mate). I'm not quite sure but it seems like in this post there are angular nodes, no? I model not a frozen pulsation, but the same field phase state projected, DC fashion, around phi. No omega, no azimuthal form. Most curiously, and I will work out and present this, the speed of light in my thickening field goes as r close in, so there is an implied omega as c/r shelves at a central value. You will not, however, sense it. . . . . .If we step back and consider old yquantum's opening, back when, the seeming disjointedness of our meanderings comes from not understanding or agreeing with the necessity of high-energy bosons to be creating our space. What can I say of QM for being unable to explain mass? Yes we need to explain symmetry breaking, and yes this is the limit of my understanding. I hope to get to QFT but I have an unshakable hunch that our constructions are unfinished. I am trying to approach necessary vacuum theory through my own several studies, and now I shall be reading quantum vacuum studies such as offered me by Puthoff.
QUOTE
I have tuned and rebuilt acoustic pianos for over thirty years, so you are messing with my mind! Are you saying literally that a water loop with a half twist has intrinsic instabilities? Flow will have drag which will make it want to rotate along with the pipe. This is self-consistent in a closed loop, but are you saying pressure waves or something, which are relatively rapid, get screwy?
1) It is no coincidence people keep tuning A to 443 Hz. although electronic devices tell them it is 440 Hz. 443 is prime, by the way.
They are feeling harmony with one of the fundamental frequencies of Universe, whihc repeats itself in many phenemena after having started at scale 10^67 1/s in the smallest Space scale
2) My intuitive, gut feeling in this case is that yes , such a structure would have "instabilities) which will lead to unidirectional net pumping of mass out of Aether (vacuum in Your language? I am not sure if garden hose will really work, but magnetic field of such a shape could;
3) Just imagine what possibilities will be if there would be such a aether mass pump available:
-it will produce ambrosium- mass straight from vacuum without the need to eat other organisms
-it will allow to circumwent law og Angular momentum of a system - add net momentum without changing (aging) the structure, the phase space of the system will grow as fast as time will go.
- this would lead to immortality
- this could be used to cure such self developing, closed deseases like cancer
There are also not so nice possibilities.
Two of my fundamental lines of investigative work are: 1) the isomorphism at the junction of electrodynamics and quantum construction. After Fourier transforming (FT) everything in Maxwell's equations, we construct the linear combination called the "normal modes", alpha(k,t), a complex-valued 3-vector on the domain of k-space, and time. Dynamics yields a simple set of first order equations, alpha-dot + i(omega)alpha = i/(2eps_nought N)j_transverse., where j refers to any current present. AHA, the ficticious oscillator that I hope to slay. The LHS describes an oscillator, simply. My punchline joins two text conclusions: "It resembles the eq. of motion of the variable x + i(p/m.omega) of a ficticious harmonic oscillator with eigenfrequency omega, driven by a source term, due to the particles, proportional to j_trans. When j=0, [we have] the case of the free field." Some pages later, "this function is isomorphic with the wave function of the spin-1 particle... The coefficients [of spherical harmonics] in this expansion [for alpha], and their complex conjugates, become, after quantization, the destruction and creation operators for a photon..." Now, dear reader, I hope you will see why I intend to obsess here. I have offered an inhomogeneous contribution from the not-vacuum of a superconducting current, proportional to magnetic vector potential A and a real function of the transverse position (off-axis). We just constructed QM on the basis of free-field EM expressions. . . . . . . . .2) GR, Reissner-Nordstrom metric, and vacuum theory. . . . . .Ho, hum, things to do today.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jan 6 2007, 06:17 AM)
Draw-i am very bad with it. take a garden hose, cut a piece, twist one end by e.g 180 degrees (mobius) , glue together in a circle, fill with water until it starts to move.
I have not been able yet to calculate parameters like pressure, diameter/length ratio as I have not found any simple enough place where to read about vortex breakdown set off criteria. Most articles are in those pay per view places which I do noy use in principle. May be you have some?
I may be very subtle onset region, easy to overlook if You do not know where to look.
Friction is ther but this device uses energy from Aether.
it is oscilating and HYSTERETIC- in each cycle more mass in form of Vortex breakdown structure shape is created than returned to Aether.
The difference delta mass*c^2 > than energy lost in friction.
It is like life, but, , it can go on for ever. May be not with real pipe surface, but if the helical pipe aroud it is also vortex breakdown structure of the same aether-definitely.
It is Omega.Serpent eating its tail.
Perhaps something like in this link? where inside is never really inside and outside is never really outside..
The neck/s represents Black Hole/s where our local area is being compressed into, this is why we are perceiving an accelerating expansion to our universe the more we are compressed into the neck..
The denser the medium the slower Light is propagated through it, naturally this slows the compressed local area of space time, when compared to the greater universe which has not been compressed into the same neck or Black Hole which is really a vastly {Blue shifted area} in reality.
I have not been able yet to calculate parameters like pressure, diameter/length ratio as I have not found any simple enough place where to read about vortex breakdown set off criteria. Most articles are in those pay per view places which I do noy use in principle. May be you have some?
I may be very subtle onset region, easy to overlook if You do not know where to look.
Friction is ther but this device uses energy from Aether.
it is oscilating and HYSTERETIC- in each cycle more mass in form of Vortex breakdown structure shape is created than returned to Aether.
The difference delta mass*c^2 > than energy lost in friction.
It is like life, but, , it can go on for ever. May be not with real pipe surface, but if the helical pipe aroud it is also vortex breakdown structure of the same aether-definitely.
It is Omega.Serpent eating its tail.
Perhaps something like in this link? where inside is never really inside and outside is never really outside..
The neck/s represents Black Hole/s where our local area is being compressed into, this is why we are perceiving an accelerating expansion to our universe the more we are compressed into the neck..
The denser the medium the slower Light is propagated through it, naturally this slows the compressed local area of space time, when compared to the greater universe which has not been compressed into the same neck or Black Hole which is really a vastly {Blue shifted area} in reality.
QUOTE
We just constructed QM on the basis of free-field EM expressions. . . . . . . . .2) GR, Reissner-Nordstrom metric, and vacuum theory. . . . . .Ho, hum, things to do today.
These were the only words I really understood.. But seeing how You read and react, in an open, polite way, I suppose these last words are true and were the most important.
I believe in collective mind as my own has terrible limitations when things come to practical details ; But when more than one mind is put together in the right phase, the same bloody vortex breakdown structure is created, just this time in intellectual /consciousness space- without matter, pure aether shape construction.
In real life, I would like to hear a word fractal and discrete from Your theories before starting to read the equations in detail. Matter can ot be described without this fractality, only fields can.
Also, I like the names YOu use for those important constants, alpha, omega. It is not a coincidence. They just sound RIGHT.
So when will simple explanation be available? I would also like to understand what we have constructed... In a plain intuitive language/picture.
IVARS: This is why I am excited to be messing with the vacuum as medium of electric field. Everyone thinks only in terms of quantum theory. I have shown that any current/charge interaction can be transformed, locally, into a pure electric one, where only a vacuum dipole population is needed. There does not have to be any spin or vorticity in the vacuum fields for this. If I can show this holds up under transform, and I am not sure yet, it will be a surprising stroke supporting what I have proclaimed, namely that the vacuum fluctuations may be detailed without the intrinsic spin of the electron. Electrons are the stable forms of this field, but what are the chaotic forms of "wannabe" electrons? My photon sheaths may be arbitrary fractions of spin and energy units relative to omega.h-bar. Puthoff has offered that fields of spectrum omega^3, such as that of quantum fluctuations when you assume that all modes have equal probability, may be L-transformed invariant. Am I willing to live with this here? I have questioned this spectrum. Fun, now! I believe in your concept of collective mind, and at best this is what is going on here. YQ will weigh in when he can't stand it!
Hello,Albers,
The fields is only part of the answer; Vaccum ( aether) vortex structures, in 3 dimensions. The shapes of those field structures is the essence of mass. The combinations may be very, very complex, but still in 3 D.
Matter comes on top of that but is necessaary evil for structures to develop, become alive; When these fields start to interact with each other via Falaco soliton type strings, fractal dimension, visible matter appears.
At least that is what I think.
The fields is only part of the answer; Vaccum ( aether) vortex structures, in 3 dimensions. The shapes of those field structures is the essence of mass. The combinations may be very, very complex, but still in 3 D.
Matter comes on top of that but is necessaary evil for structures to develop, become alive; When these fields start to interact with each other via Falaco soliton type strings, fractal dimension, visible matter appears.
At least that is what I think.
QUOTE (Farsight+Jan 5 2007, 01:53 PM)
Hmmn, interesting. Sounds like a mini-me version of an "electron" moebius bagel, only made out of gravity-tension fluctuation instead of charge-stress fluctuation.
The paper titled “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?” by J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark is very interesting but in my opinion it contains a few wrong assumptions and many not solved problems. Very interesting is assumption that electron is built from particles the photon is, and that electron has toroidal topology.
What problems are not solved in above mentioned paper?
It is obvious that the very well known physics has upper limit for the speed of particles. It is equal to ‘c’. The upper limit of speed is also connected with the lower limit of length i.e. with the Planck length, is also connected with the upper limit for the energy density. As I wrote in my prior post outside of these limits we must formulate NEW PHYSICS. Smallest particle moving with speed ‘c’ it is neutrino. Because all other known particles can be accelerated to only the speed ‘c’ then it suggests that the all known particles should be built of the neutrinos moving ALMOST independently i.e. it suggests also that the neutrinos not contact one another. It means that neutrinos can create larger structures if are moving in some space built of smaller particles than neutrino and that interaction of the neutrinos is connected with streams created in such space. It means that the interaction between the neutrinos should be connected with the Bernoulli’s theorem i.e. with the negative pressure created in the narrowing of the streams created in the space. In my opinion in the nature are created stable structures of neutrinos similar as the Ketterle surface for Fermi gas.
In the paper mentioned above is not described mechanism which transforms photon into the stable toroid. In my theory it is obvious because in my theory photons and electrons are built of neutrinos and there exists space built of particles smaller than the neutrinos. What more in my theory are relations tying the neutrinos with electrons, baryons, and structures before the big bangs.
Next problems are connected with structure of the electric charge and the electric field. It is not explained. Why the interaction of the electric charge is infinite and why the lines of electric forces are infinite and straight? Why the electric charge and spin cannot change their values the mass can for example when we accelerate the electron? Why the state of electron is defined by the wave function? What with the internal structure of electron when we accelerate it? And many other not solved problems. Answers to all these questions within coherent description you can find only in my theory presented on www.cosmology-particles.pl
The paper titled “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?” by J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark is very interesting but in my opinion it contains a few wrong assumptions and many not solved problems. Very interesting is assumption that electron is built from particles the photon is, and that electron has toroidal topology.
What problems are not solved in above mentioned paper?
It is obvious that the very well known physics has upper limit for the speed of particles. It is equal to ‘c’. The upper limit of speed is also connected with the lower limit of length i.e. with the Planck length, is also connected with the upper limit for the energy density. As I wrote in my prior post outside of these limits we must formulate NEW PHYSICS. Smallest particle moving with speed ‘c’ it is neutrino. Because all other known particles can be accelerated to only the speed ‘c’ then it suggests that the all known particles should be built of the neutrinos moving ALMOST independently i.e. it suggests also that the neutrinos not contact one another. It means that neutrinos can create larger structures if are moving in some space built of smaller particles than neutrino and that interaction of the neutrinos is connected with streams created in such space. It means that the interaction between the neutrinos should be connected with the Bernoulli’s theorem i.e. with the negative pressure created in the narrowing of the streams created in the space. In my opinion in the nature are created stable structures of neutrinos similar as the Ketterle surface for Fermi gas.
In the paper mentioned above is not described mechanism which transforms photon into the stable toroid. In my theory it is obvious because in my theory photons and electrons are built of neutrinos and there exists space built of particles smaller than the neutrinos. What more in my theory are relations tying the neutrinos with electrons, baryons, and structures before the big bangs.
Next problems are connected with structure of the electric charge and the electric field. It is not explained. Why the interaction of the electric charge is infinite and why the lines of electric forces are infinite and straight? Why the electric charge and spin cannot change their values the mass can for example when we accelerate the electron? Why the state of electron is defined by the wave function? What with the internal structure of electron when we accelerate it? And many other not solved problems. Answers to all these questions within coherent description you can find only in my theory presented on www.cosmology-particles.pl
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jan 7 2007, 04:04 PM)
In the paper mentioned above is not described mechanism which transforms photon into the stable toroid. In my theory it is obvious because in my theory photons and electrons are built of neutrinos and there exists space built of particles smaller than the neutrinos.
The problem is, the nested toroid particle model of yours doesn't explain it anyway. Here's no apparent mechanism, how to create the toroidal vortices from pin-point particles. The Newtonian dynamic doesn't create such systems from elementary spherical particles spontaneously.
Furthermore, I've already explained you, why your model of particles formed by neutrino is wrong. By your model, for example the neutron consist of a huge amount of neutrinos. Wheres during beta decay of neutron, which is followed by deep transmutation of neutron structure just a single neutrino is released.
This is somewhat strange behavior, don't you think? It's evident, the release of neutrino balances the energy/momentum equilibrium of this process, but the neutrino as such is not the atomic constituent of neutron. Such role should be assigned to some much more smaller particles, then the neutrino.
In your response, please omit the allusions to AWT, because my argument has nothing to do with AWT, being based on trivial conceptual logic only.
The problem is, the nested toroid particle model of yours doesn't explain it anyway. Here's no apparent mechanism, how to create the toroidal vortices from pin-point particles. The Newtonian dynamic doesn't create such systems from elementary spherical particles spontaneously.
Furthermore, I've already explained you, why your model of particles formed by neutrino is wrong. By your model, for example the neutron consist of a huge amount of neutrinos. Wheres during beta decay of neutron, which is followed by deep transmutation of neutron structure just a single neutrino is released.
This is somewhat strange behavior, don't you think? It's evident, the release of neutrino balances the energy/momentum equilibrium of this process, but the neutrino as such is not the atomic constituent of neutron. Such role should be assigned to some much more smaller particles, then the neutrino.
In your response, please omit the allusions to AWT, because my argument has nothing to do with AWT, being based on trivial conceptual logic only.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 7 2007, 01:17 PM)
The problem is, the nested toroid particle model of yours doesn't explain it anyway. Here's no apparent mechanism, how to create the toroidal vortices from pin-point particles. The Newtonian dynamic doesn't create such systems from elementary spherical particles spontaneously.
Furthermore, I've already explained you, why your model of particles formed by neutrino is wrong. By your model, for example the neutron consist of a huge amount of neutrinos. Wheres during beta decay of neutron, which is followed by deep transmutation of neutron structure just a single neutrino is released.
This is somewhat strange behavior, don't you think? It's evident, the release of neutrino balances the energy/momentum equilibrium of this process, but the neutrino as such is not the atomic constituent of neutron. Such role should be assigned to some much more smaller particles, then the neutrino.
In your response, please omit the allusions to AWT, because my argument has nothing to do with AWT, being based on trivial conceptual logic only.
Zephir, I explained it.
The neutrino torus is stable because of the Bernoulli's theorem - in the narrowing of streams created in the subspace to the neutrino space is created negative pressure.
The neutrino torus in nucleon is very stable. The neutrinos the torus is built of cannot appear in the beta decay because the weak interactions are too weak to destroy the stable torus. The observed single electron anti-neutrino it is neutrino the negative pion is built of. This pion is on 'orbit' d=1 defined by the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions.
But if you want you may believe in the fractional charges of quarks.
But if you want you may believe in the stronger interactions of TWO PARTICLES from bigger distances.
I say once more that in conditions predicted by the QCD the quarks are not in existence.
But please can you do not write that I did not explain the neutrino problems connected with baryons, mesons, fermions, and photons?
Can you explain following relation in different way? Or you will say that it is some coincidence?
From the experimental data we know that:
Mass of charged pion is 139.57 MeV
Mass of neutral pion is 134.98 MeV
Mass of muon is 105.66 MeV
We may calculate the mass of bare charged pion from formula:
m(bare charged pion)=m(charged pion)/(1+C)
where C=(e^2)c/(2.pi.h-bar.10^7)=0.00116141
Then m(bare charged pion)=139.41 MeV
Assume that the muon and neutrino which appear in the decay of the charged pion are created from the bare mass of charged pion.
If we subtract the one fourth of the mass of neutral pion (from my theory results that the simplest neutral pion is built of four neutrinos each of energy equal to 33.772 MeV) from the mass of bare charged pion we obtain the EXACT mass of muon!
m(muon)=m(bare charged pion)-m(neutral pion)/4
105.66=139.41-134.98/4
What it means?
It means that neutral pion is not built of the quarks but of the neutrinos!
Furthermore, I've already explained you, why your model of particles formed by neutrino is wrong. By your model, for example the neutron consist of a huge amount of neutrinos. Wheres during beta decay of neutron, which is followed by deep transmutation of neutron structure just a single neutrino is released.
This is somewhat strange behavior, don't you think? It's evident, the release of neutrino balances the energy/momentum equilibrium of this process, but the neutrino as such is not the atomic constituent of neutron. Such role should be assigned to some much more smaller particles, then the neutrino.
In your response, please omit the allusions to AWT, because my argument has nothing to do with AWT, being based on trivial conceptual logic only.
Zephir, I explained it.
The neutrino torus is stable because of the Bernoulli's theorem - in the narrowing of streams created in the subspace to the neutrino space is created negative pressure.
The neutrino torus in nucleon is very stable. The neutrinos the torus is built of cannot appear in the beta decay because the weak interactions are too weak to destroy the stable torus. The observed single electron anti-neutrino it is neutrino the negative pion is built of. This pion is on 'orbit' d=1 defined by the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions.
But if you want you may believe in the fractional charges of quarks.
But if you want you may believe in the stronger interactions of TWO PARTICLES from bigger distances.
I say once more that in conditions predicted by the QCD the quarks are not in existence.
But please can you do not write that I did not explain the neutrino problems connected with baryons, mesons, fermions, and photons?
Can you explain following relation in different way? Or you will say that it is some coincidence?
From the experimental data we know that:
Mass of charged pion is 139.57 MeV
Mass of neutral pion is 134.98 MeV
Mass of muon is 105.66 MeV
We may calculate the mass of bare charged pion from formula:
m(bare charged pion)=m(charged pion)/(1+C)
where C=(e^2)c/(2.pi.h-bar.10^7)=0.00116141
Then m(bare charged pion)=139.41 MeV
Assume that the muon and neutrino which appear in the decay of the charged pion are created from the bare mass of charged pion.
If we subtract the one fourth of the mass of neutral pion (from my theory results that the simplest neutral pion is built of four neutrinos each of energy equal to 33.772 MeV) from the mass of bare charged pion we obtain the EXACT mass of muon!
m(muon)=m(bare charged pion)-m(neutral pion)/4
105.66=139.41-134.98/4
What it means?
It means that neutral pion is not built of the quarks but of the neutrinos!
I don't understand why anyone who understands special relativity needs to talk about generating mass as if it is some distinct thing. "Wheresoever energy is gathered, there is the Rev. Norm's Unification Church".
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jan 7 2007, 05:53 PM)
It means that neutral pion is not built of the quarks but of the neutrinos!
Sorry, this is irrelevant in context of my previous objection: "if the neutron is formed by huge amount of neutrinos, how is it possible, during the beta decay of neutron is released the single (anti)neutrino"?
Can you explain this?
May be this is the frequency with which helical pipe inside electron which is pumping mass out of vacuum works? to produce quanta, it has to contract and release tension a little, twist and release , twist and release.Anharmonically? hysteretically? Pumping out more then letting back? Was that the vacuum field problem?
May be this is the frequency with which helical pipe inside electron which is pumping mass out of vacuum works? to produce quanta, it has to contract and release tension a little, twist and release , twist and release.Anharmonically? hysteretically? Pumping out more then letting back? Was that the vacuum field problem?
I want to know if the vacuum field has inharmonicity at the very high partials!!! . .
Sort of fundamental number?
Do you claim that other masses are built of many such quanta of mass?If yes then you also must claim that the binding energy of such quanta of mass is almost equal to the mass of this quantum of mass. It means that when is created for example the electron-positron pair there should be created very big energy i.e. the binding energy. From experimental data we know that such big binding energy is not emitted then model which assumes that a particle is built of particles having mass much bigger than the resultant particle or that interactions are carried by carriers having mass (or energy) much bigger than interacting particles in my opinion it is paranoia because the energy density of the background of the Universe in surroundings of some particle is not sufficient to create such particles.
This quanta of mass is just the MASS of INERTIAL MASS mode in our Universe which travels (opens up in vacuum) with speed c. It is the first mode, 1.
There are more modes, both with bigger masses, and smaller, integers and Fractions. Spiral modes of vortex breakdown structures inside Spheric rotating Aether with surface.
Spiral Modes of Our Universe with smaller masses ( Our Universe is important because number and periods of modes depend on size of our universe) open up , are created /travel with speeds > c. Looking Like Falaco soliton once they establish themselves at both ends. Between the ends they travel like helical pipe with open end, looking where to attach, sort of. Pushing itself forward in aether step by step, with each rotation, like a screw.
They could be creating the lattice for binding small particles You mention. In that case energy cam be much smaller.
There are also modes with mass > M =3.267 E+17 kg, such that have mass
2M, 3M, 4M, 5M ... so that it does not go over Universe mass, that total sum of all masses.
These travel/open up with speeds less than c, and bigger particles like earth, sun, quazars feed on them, hang on , so to say, and regenerate them at the same time. Principle of Metabolism.
But somehow they appear when there is another OUROBOROS nearby. Because they want to touch each other:)
You sure that's not 42?
Not if You know what the answer should be. It is just a matter of trying until ALL numbers fit. Then ALL equations are solved, no need to have analytics anymore, just few constants and few simple rules. And powerful computers.Including human and collective.
See, You will find the dipoles explanation of fields maybe, without fractals ( which are just as valid part of Nature as integers).
But You will not be able to explain life, human role in universe, aging, death and MYTH without fractals/chaos. No way.
With fractals it is possible.
Also, one day You will have to construct anharmonic oscillator which must fit . Then the discrete spiral vortex bubble model I am trying to find will come in handy.
By the way all I am writing here is a result of 1 year hobby. I do not know how it looks , but I feel I am learning not by day, but hour. But what I am learning is not in the books. It comes from my own thinking. I even do not understand half what You write. I would prefer if You could , after a glass of wine, explain what You are doing in plain words.
Albers, You can use words like Ouroboros to explain it , numbers, fractions, may be frequency, but no magnetic field, dipole , integral, energy etc. to explain. So that I understand.
When You can do it, I will say that there is theory which explains Nature. Otherwise, it is just polishing professional language to a higher level. Of course valid for engineering needs, but to understand and EXPLAIN nature- no. Imagine You have to cary on knowledge about todays science to next generations orally. Imagine it is not You but few relatively bright youngsters who does not know physics. Would You be able to explain? At least something about deepest knowledge of nature? So that they understand? I doubt.ancients could do it, otherwise we would not have Ouroboros, Phoenix, Pyramids, Aom et cetera.
I am not being abrasive, I deeply respect You from what I have seen and heard from You. Just trying to say both ways are needed to go forward.
Mission impossible now is to get to the end. Life has to be explained otherwise I do not feel the challenge. To explain life, everything has to be explained. Luckily , nature is enumerable, just numbers are big. So at least within our Universe I see no big problem except for own limitations on imagination and intuition.
Hope You did not mind:
You will find the HARMONY of the world. Tunable.
I must have made mistake with that one. It is not 1,157 , but 1.049907551.
Which is good; Although it destroys 90% of my numbers... It means that it is not so simple. I made that formula 6 months ago when I had even more vague ideas.
I still believe idea of fractal alpha is right, even more so after the finding of internal/external spiral modes.
So challenge is still out there
Are You joking?
If not, no, i am not sure of anything. It is so new that there can be any mistakes. Intuitively it feels right, but to say exactly...
Could be also 42, just have to thing whate we are missing:
We have internal inner mode, external outer mode, boundary.
why 42? Any myth behind it? Then we will find it.
42 modes mean 42 layers, including atmosphere.
Sorry, this is irrelevant in context of my previous objection: "if the neutron is formed by huge amount of neutrinos, how is it possible, during the beta decay of neutron is released the single (anti)neutrino"?
Can you explain this?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jan 7 2007, 05:53 PM)
But if you want you may believe in the fractional charges of quarks.
The quarks in Gell-Mann models are abstract particles and the AWT has no problem with explanation of the fractional charges of classical model of quarks. The animation bellow illustrates, how the proton and neutron are constituted from the uud-ddu quarks triplets of 2/3 charge.
The quarks in Gell-Mann models are abstract particles and the AWT has no problem with explanation of the fractional charges of classical model of quarks. The animation bellow illustrates, how the proton and neutron are constituted from the uud-ddu quarks triplets of 2/3 charge.
QUOTE (Albers+Jan 7 2007, 03:12 PM)
I don't understand why anyone who understands special relativity needs to talk about generating mass as if it is some distinct thing. "Wheresoever energy is gathered, there is the Rev. Norm's Unification Church".
Of course generating mass it is not some distinct thing. It is only one physical quantity which describes physical state of particle. If some theory concentrates only on masses then is incomplete and probably never will lead to the ultimate theory.
BTW, do you understand the SR? If yes then what is physical meaning of the 'c'? Why light has speed 'c' in each cosmic object (simultaneously)? In my opinion this interpretation is incorrect because the SR describes only some part of the nature. Of course mathematically this theory is correct.
Of course generating mass it is not some distinct thing. It is only one physical quantity which describes physical state of particle. If some theory concentrates only on masses then is incomplete and probably never will lead to the ultimate theory.
BTW, do you understand the SR? If yes then what is physical meaning of the 'c'? Why light has speed 'c' in each cosmic object (simultaneously)? In my opinion this interpretation is incorrect because the SR describes only some part of the nature. Of course mathematically this theory is correct.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jan 7 2007, 03:44 PM)
Of course generating mass it is not some distinct thing. It is only one physical quantity which describes physical state of particle. If some theory concentrates only on masses then is incomplete and probably never will lead to the ultimate theory.
BTW, do you understand the SR? If yes then what is physical meaning of the 'c'? Why light has speed 'c' in each cosmic object (simultaneously)? In my opinion this interpretation is incorrect because the SR describes only some part of the nature. Of course mathematically this theory is correct.
I feel things more and more deeply as I develop and work for understanding. Particles are fundamentally circulations of the energy which seems to be equally available in all unaccelerated frames of reference. Relative changes can now be understood at least to this level! ZEPHIR, Where did you get the geoemetry of your quark structure? I do intend to investigate <m=3> in the way I have electrons. Consider that one can form a three-vertex ring, where one has distinct properties from the other two, by combining <m=3>, <m=1>, and <m=0>. . . . . . . . .Meanwhile back at QM, I'm reading John Cramer on quantum nonlocality and like this quote: "No interpretation of quantum mechanics comes without conceptual baggage that some find unacceptable." We may feel comfortable in our discomfort.
BTW, do you understand the SR? If yes then what is physical meaning of the 'c'? Why light has speed 'c' in each cosmic object (simultaneously)? In my opinion this interpretation is incorrect because the SR describes only some part of the nature. Of course mathematically this theory is correct.
I feel things more and more deeply as I develop and work for understanding. Particles are fundamentally circulations of the energy which seems to be equally available in all unaccelerated frames of reference. Relative changes can now be understood at least to this level! ZEPHIR, Where did you get the geoemetry of your quark structure? I do intend to investigate <m=3> in the way I have electrons. Consider that one can form a three-vertex ring, where one has distinct properties from the other two, by combining <m=3>, <m=1>, and <m=0>. . . . . . . . .Meanwhile back at QM, I'm reading John Cramer on quantum nonlocality and like this quote: "No interpretation of quantum mechanics comes without conceptual baggage that some find unacceptable." We may feel comfortable in our discomfort.
QUOTE (Albers+Jan 7 2007, 06:59 PM)
Where did you get the geometry of your quark structure?
This is the geometry of torsion vibration on the surface of the particle formed by recursive foam, where two membranes are undulating in mutual perpendicular directions.
The problem of quark concept is, the mainstream physic has changed it significantly in recent time. So today you can read about model of many valence quarks surrounded by the cloud of virtual quarks formed by quark-anti-quark pairs in modern descriptions of the hadron interior. I have nothing against such model, because it's a much closer to the concept of particles, formed by the dense blobs of Aether foam, but such hadron models have nothing to do with the original fractional charge quark models of Gell-Mann. Therefore, such particles should be named differently to avoid confusion.
This is the geometry of torsion vibration on the surface of the particle formed by recursive foam, where two membranes are undulating in mutual perpendicular directions.
The problem of quark concept is, the mainstream physic has changed it significantly in recent time. So today you can read about model of many valence quarks surrounded by the cloud of virtual quarks formed by quark-anti-quark pairs in modern descriptions of the hadron interior. I have nothing against such model, because it's a much closer to the concept of particles, formed by the dense blobs of Aether foam, but such hadron models have nothing to do with the original fractional charge quark models of Gell-Mann. Therefore, such particles should be named differently to avoid confusion.
Puthoff told me that Lagrangians are used in quantum vacuum field theory, and I hope to get to that point, because you can then show such evolutions and find the stable forms. At the moment I have a profound block: to construct a Lagrangian you must express all energies in the problem in terms of a well-chosen variable (4-vector potential) and its first time derivative. I have dialed up a polarization field and one needs to add the energy density P.dot.E. I can directly express P as the time integral of A, and that doesn't wash. I have three orders. Hopefully I will get past this, though I do not expect to ever reach your level of graphics!
QUOTE (Albers+Jan 7 2007, 08:15 PM)
to construct a Lagrangian you must express all energies in the problem in terms of a well-chosen variable
The Lagrangian approach is perfectly OK, but don't forget, the Lagrangian was developed for description of steady state dynamic of inertial systems. If you'll use the Lagrangian mechanic (not just variation principle formalism or something else), you should consider the inertial model of underlying field, too.
The problem of modern field theories (like the QED) is, they're using the Lagrange and/or Hamilton calculus extensively, but they don't want to accept the inertial environment concept, which stays hidden beneath these formalisms.
The Lagrangian approach is perfectly OK, but don't forget, the Lagrangian was developed for description of steady state dynamic of inertial systems. If you'll use the Lagrangian mechanic (not just variation principle formalism or something else), you should consider the inertial model of underlying field, too.
The problem of modern field theories (like the QED) is, they're using the Lagrange and/or Hamilton calculus extensively, but they don't want to accept the inertial environment concept, which stays hidden beneath these formalisms.
Albers
Is this the same formulation as my understanding that mass appears from aether at resonance and disappears when resonance is destroyed? That mass is the shape of the vortex breakdown structure in combination with its angular moment? And that Mobius Buggle field structure is the thing which pumps it out?
Why did You get stuck? Can You explain? I do not believe in continuous math equations being applied. You already chose to loose some solutions by applying those.
Can You do it more step by step, do not use efficient analytical methods of Newton mechanics. Do You know any less efficient methods? Least efficient? Use them.
Do not use expansions in power series,elimination of terms, sums
Do not use commutativity and associativity without checking if change of what happens in time and vs. rotation axis does not change the outcome.
Imagine, that Mass pumping mobius buggle, if that would have other rotation /helicity relations, it will not work as mass creator but will destroy mass. If it first rotates than creates vortex bubble or first there is bubble then it rotates is totally different thing.
I have a feeling that in many cases we take effects for causes, and vice versa.
For example, we say that melting of Arctic cap causes Earth angular moment to be redistributed; In fact, redistribution of Earth Angular moment causes Arctic Ice to melt as it tries to maintain previous distribution. The Angular moment of Earth changes because new mass is generated inside it from vacuum, as a result of resonance with some distant star. Or planet, or sun surface vortex.
QUOTE
I feel things more and more deeply as I develop and work for understanding. Particles are fundamentally circulations of the energy which seems to be equally available in all unaccelerated frames of reference.
Is this the same formulation as my understanding that mass appears from aether at resonance and disappears when resonance is destroyed? That mass is the shape of the vortex breakdown structure in combination with its angular moment? And that Mobius Buggle field structure is the thing which pumps it out?
Why did You get stuck? Can You explain? I do not believe in continuous math equations being applied. You already chose to loose some solutions by applying those.
Can You do it more step by step, do not use efficient analytical methods of Newton mechanics. Do You know any less efficient methods? Least efficient? Use them.
Do not use expansions in power series,elimination of terms, sums
Do not use commutativity and associativity without checking if change of what happens in time and vs. rotation axis does not change the outcome.
Imagine, that Mass pumping mobius buggle, if that would have other rotation /helicity relations, it will not work as mass creator but will destroy mass. If it first rotates than creates vortex bubble or first there is bubble then it rotates is totally different thing.
I have a feeling that in many cases we take effects for causes, and vice versa.
For example, we say that melting of Arctic cap causes Earth angular moment to be redistributed; In fact, redistribution of Earth Angular moment causes Arctic Ice to melt as it tries to maintain previous distribution. The Angular moment of Earth changes because new mass is generated inside it from vacuum, as a result of resonance with some distant star. Or planet, or sun surface vortex.
I am elucidating the clumping mechanism of the field, like why there are quanta, and when.
In my opinion, mass quanta naturally occur as vortex breakdown structures out of higher frequency vortexes. Where does that higher frequency comes from I have no idea yet but mass it can be calculated from fundamental constants quanta as:
frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s
As mass of electron is involved, I suppose this central vortex frequency does not allow any smaller mass to be generated in a form of vortex breakdown buble structure.
This frequency is happening along the rotation axis of electron. Electron is spiral twisted pipe field. SO , electron is the serpent eating his tail, the omega.
I guess we should look in fluid physics to find out what are the conditions of creating such spiral shaped structure out of vacuum. There must be central vortex with frequency from above and some boundaries which cause difference of rotation in both ends of the central vortex which is falaco soliton; I suspect strongly that in fact, this electron spiral will be placed inside rotating ball. The rotating ball will have spiral functions description its surface .The surface will consist of many layers, which will have each different number ( increasing towards surface) spiral paths on it, under different angles. It will also be a vortex breakdown structure.
I have a feeling that this ball and electron inside it will be all there is needed. They will feed each other forever.
frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s
As mass of electron is involved, I suppose this central vortex frequency does not allow any smaller mass to be generated in a form of vortex breakdown buble structure.
This frequency is happening along the rotation axis of electron. Electron is spiral twisted pipe field. SO , electron is the serpent eating his tail, the omega.
I guess we should look in fluid physics to find out what are the conditions of creating such spiral shaped structure out of vacuum. There must be central vortex with frequency from above and some boundaries which cause difference of rotation in both ends of the central vortex which is falaco soliton; I suspect strongly that in fact, this electron spiral will be placed inside rotating ball. The rotating ball will have spiral functions description its surface .The surface will consist of many layers, which will have each different number ( increasing towards surface) spiral paths on it, under different angles. It will also be a vortex breakdown structure.
I have a feeling that this ball and electron inside it will be all there is needed. They will feed each other forever.
Babe, my B.S. from Princeton is in Aero Engineering. Fluid flow, sure! With some refreshing I can talk Navier-Stokes. Please note my choices of words. First, from the start, my goal is to find the end of the usefulness of my hypothesis. On this I have been nothing but amazed. Now I was warned by a good friend that it is wonderful to grind a goodly lens, and then to discover Saturn! You must, however, deal with the fact that someone four hundred years ago did this. If I do nothing but reproduce quantum mechanics, I will congratulate myself, because I come from left field and was cursed by Xerxes the evil king of Advanced Physics Forums for using "hundred-year-old mathematics" but also "producing new physics". My investigations have allowed surprising questions to surface. Second, I pose basic questions about possible forms and say as little as necessary about the mathematics of Maxwell's equations with my right-hand side inhomogeous additions, which turn out to be conveniently supplied by QED. I'll de damned, have I just recreated QED? I have also realized questions about it! Four months ago I had no clue I might address gravitation in the large. I knew it was time to look at uniting my electron model near-field with the GR Reissner-Nordstrom metric (very much current project on the table). In two or three startling days I produced the paper you my read at my http, and indeed I am writing two more pages of further development. Dang, boy, where is the end of the usefulness of this hypothesis? Now listen carefully, I have tried to say only things like: the field must supply dipole availability upon excitation. I am slowly circling from the outside and working my way along my particular path to the understandings with which we are about to mature our theoretics. It is stunning how it all comes together and there is nowhere to hide. Gee, I was just curious about charge five years ago. So I really don't have much to say about higher energy particles and such, but oh my I can now ask just how does collapsing quark soup collapse? Yes I am over my head and working to keep focus even as I open myself to IT ALL. Today I work to see if I can say the virtual field, which I consider to BE epsilon-nought, needs no intrinsic spin. It's looking good, and this would be shocking. Do you understand?
I am glad to hear Your pursuits have led finally to new ideas.
Where can I read the paper? Will it be easy enough?
As to fluid physics, consider spiral modes of paths of a rotating sphere surface.
By mode i mean: if a particle started somewhere beneath South pole of sphere moves due North, and the sphere rotates with OMEGA. particle will be declined in the direction of rotation; If, however , it moves just with the right speed , it will still end up exactly in the north pole. The angled line observed from outside will be mode 1, and will involve 1 spiral oscillation.
So it will be like spiral standing wave with frequency 1 Hz if rotation frequency is 1 Hz. the speed along this mode would be the one with which particle went.
Now imagine if particle moves slower, at some speed it will again hit exactly north. Now the speed will be in some ratio of first mode, there would be 2 standing waves, frequency . And so on until speed will be as low as possible.
Each mode will have its own speed, frequency. Because of this, as the sphere is rotating, they will tend to stand in DIFFERENT distances from center, forming the thickness of the surface; Interesting thing will be that inner part of the surface will consist of low frequency, fast speed modes, external part- of highest frequency.
Most interestingly, these LAYERS of surface will have different self excitation frequencies, high on surface, lower inside, and will also create geometric patterns in each layer, related to the fractional number of modes; THIS is THE SOURCE of geometric figures , to put cause and consequences in proper order.
these spiral waves behave somewhat differently from ordinary waves, i guess
Where can I read the paper? Will it be easy enough?
As to fluid physics, consider spiral modes of paths of a rotating sphere surface.
By mode i mean: if a particle started somewhere beneath South pole of sphere moves due North, and the sphere rotates with OMEGA. particle will be declined in the direction of rotation; If, however , it moves just with the right speed , it will still end up exactly in the north pole. The angled line observed from outside will be mode 1, and will involve 1 spiral oscillation.
So it will be like spiral standing wave with frequency 1 Hz if rotation frequency is 1 Hz. the speed along this mode would be the one with which particle went.
Now imagine if particle moves slower, at some speed it will again hit exactly north. Now the speed will be in some ratio of first mode, there would be 2 standing waves, frequency . And so on until speed will be as low as possible.
Each mode will have its own speed, frequency. Because of this, as the sphere is rotating, they will tend to stand in DIFFERENT distances from center, forming the thickness of the surface; Interesting thing will be that inner part of the surface will consist of low frequency, fast speed modes, external part- of highest frequency.
Most interestingly, these LAYERS of surface will have different self excitation frequencies, high on surface, lower inside, and will also create geometric patterns in each layer, related to the fractional number of modes; THIS is THE SOURCE of geometric figures , to put cause and consequences in proper order.
these spiral waves behave somewhat differently from ordinary waves, i guess
AlberT:)
Thanks!
For some reason I could not answer directly. I am not good with electronic computers . You could provide e-mail, mine is posted here, I guess.
An interesting place You work in! Silently, patiently placing ''patent" applications in boxes...
You could involve people dealing with Earthquakes; The new model Your are getting at will have enormous impact on Earhquake understanding and prediction. The structure of Earth is basically the same as I have outlined in previous post, though i made a mistake as usual- if a particle reaches north pole faster than 1 rotation, or slower than in 1 , it is still a mode. Key thing is to have integers as fraction numbers.
As to series , all these spiral modes would be a good basis for expansion, OF ANYTHING but in my opinion product, not sum.
One of the obvious things to be expanded in such products is sphere; it would lead finally to understanding that surface is fundamentally different from vulume, and there is something INSIDE. Electron. On any scale. Black hole, if You wish.
One strange thing is that it will not give perfect sphere; there will be an input vortex ( south pole) where aether vortex starts to break up, and somewht flatted north.
Also, this sphere will be able to get flatter or more round depending on small periodic forcing applied to its poles so that difference between their rotation frequencies is not constant.
Ivars
Thanks!
For some reason I could not answer directly. I am not good with electronic computers . You could provide e-mail, mine is posted here, I guess.
An interesting place You work in! Silently, patiently placing ''patent" applications in boxes...
You could involve people dealing with Earthquakes; The new model Your are getting at will have enormous impact on Earhquake understanding and prediction. The structure of Earth is basically the same as I have outlined in previous post, though i made a mistake as usual- if a particle reaches north pole faster than 1 rotation, or slower than in 1 , it is still a mode. Key thing is to have integers as fraction numbers.
As to series , all these spiral modes would be a good basis for expansion, OF ANYTHING but in my opinion product, not sum.
One of the obvious things to be expanded in such products is sphere; it would lead finally to understanding that surface is fundamentally different from vulume, and there is something INSIDE. Electron. On any scale. Black hole, if You wish.
One strange thing is that it will not give perfect sphere; there will be an input vortex ( south pole) where aether vortex starts to break up, and somewht flatted north.
Also, this sphere will be able to get flatter or more round depending on small periodic forcing applied to its poles so that difference between their rotation frequencies is not constant.
Ivars
Not quite though I am very proud of my brother, Steve Albers, who works at NOAA modelling mesoscale weather: twister formation for the Midwest. He is an expert on climatology and warming; Google him. He simply offered me an impressive sounding cache! I tune and rebuild pianos, so I have thirty years of applied wave mechanics experience. I want to know if the vacuum field has inharmonicity at the very high partials!!! . . . . . . When I created my electron study, it took a lot of work "behind the scene" because I did not yet know what I was talking about, namely, what to guess for the current expression. There are more logical answers, but you cannot get a nice analytic solution. So Steve crunched the other two or three fields (he's expert here) and we showed they all diverged. Cool, 'cause they had to be numerically analyzed. It sure is handy to have a Cray or whatever it is now. I'll never forget sitting in the large entrance to NOAA in Boulder, CO, and the 3-4 year-old Cray had been moved to the lobby on its way out, having been replaced. Part of it was like a 10-12 foot circular bench so we sat on it.
OK.I was serious about Earthquakes. May be Your brother can pass these ideas on?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 7 2007, 05:29 PM)
The Lagrangian approach is perfectly OK, but don't forget, the Lagrangian was developed for description of steady state dynamic of inertial systems. If you'll use the Lagrangian mechanic (not just variation principle formalism or something else), you should consider the inertial model of underlying field, too.
The problem of modern field theories (like the QED) is, they're using the Lagrange and/or Hamilton calculus extensively, but they don't want to accept the inertial environment concept, which stays hidden beneath these formalisms.
Now wait a minute, what'n'ell is a "steady-state dynamic"? Applying the variational principle of least action one gets the favored path of dynamics.
The problem of modern field theories (like the QED) is, they're using the Lagrange and/or Hamilton calculus extensively, but they don't want to accept the inertial environment concept, which stays hidden beneath these formalisms.
Now wait a minute, what'n'ell is a "steady-state dynamic"? Applying the variational principle of least action one gets the favored path of dynamics.
QUOTE (Albers+Jan 8 2007, 12:22 AM)
Now wait a minute, what'n'ell is a "steady-state dynamic"? Applying the variational principle of least action one gets the favored path of dynamics.
The Laplacian mechanic is used for finding of the steady state solution in wave mechanic (the resonance conditions, for example). This is especially useful in quantum field theory, which doesn't care about momentary state of the dynamic system by its very definition due the probabilistic character of wave mechanic, based on the Heissenberg uncertainty principle).
This is why, whole the formalism of quantum field theories is based on the Laplace (the steady state of mass spreading) and Hamilton (the steady state of energy spreading) formalism.
The Laplacian mechanic is used for finding of the steady state solution in wave mechanic (the resonance conditions, for example). This is especially useful in quantum field theory, which doesn't care about momentary state of the dynamic system by its very definition due the probabilistic character of wave mechanic, based on the Heissenberg uncertainty principle).
This is why, whole the formalism of quantum field theories is based on the Laplace (the steady state of mass spreading) and Hamilton (the steady state of energy spreading) formalism.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jan 7 2007, 06:58 PM)
In my opinion, mass quanta naturally occur as vortex breakdown structures out of higher frequency vortexes. Where does that higher frequency comes from I have no idea yet but mass it can be calculated from fundamental constants quanta as:
frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s
As mass of electron is involved, I suppose this central vortex frequency does not allow any smaller mass to be generated in a form of vortex breakdown buble structure.
This frequency is happening along the rotation axis of electron. Electron is spiral twisted pipe field. SO , electron is the serpent eating his tail, the omega.
I guess we should look in fluid physics to find out what are the conditions of creating such spiral shaped structure out of vacuum. There must be central vortex with frequency from above and some boundaries which cause difference of rotation in both ends of the central vortex which is falaco soliton; I suspect strongly that in fact, this electron spiral will be placed inside rotating ball. The rotating ball will have spiral functions description its surface .The surface will consist of many layers, which will have each different number ( increasing towards surface) spiral paths on it, under different angles. It will also be a vortex breakdown structure.
I have a feeling that this ball and electron inside it will be all there is needed. They will feed each other forever.
The higher frequency comes from Hyannis Port
frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s
As mass of electron is involved, I suppose this central vortex frequency does not allow any smaller mass to be generated in a form of vortex breakdown buble structure.
This frequency is happening along the rotation axis of electron. Electron is spiral twisted pipe field. SO , electron is the serpent eating his tail, the omega.
I guess we should look in fluid physics to find out what are the conditions of creating such spiral shaped structure out of vacuum. There must be central vortex with frequency from above and some boundaries which cause difference of rotation in both ends of the central vortex which is falaco soliton; I suspect strongly that in fact, this electron spiral will be placed inside rotating ball. The rotating ball will have spiral functions description its surface .The surface will consist of many layers, which will have each different number ( increasing towards surface) spiral paths on it, under different angles. It will also be a vortex breakdown structure.
I have a feeling that this ball and electron inside it will be all there is needed. They will feed each other forever.
The higher frequency comes from Hyannis Port
Albers
I have a rural house as well.
Think about the Earth as sphere to be expressed in spiral harmonics:
Imagine there are parts of vortex entering earth South pole at speed c. They are not blown up into vortex breakdown as they are too fast for rotation of Earth to blow them up. So they have straight path along the rotational axis of Earth to Reach Norht pole. It takes them time:
126700 km/ 3*10^8 m = 4,2 * 10-2 sec.
angular omega of Earth is 7,292 * 10-5 rad/s. During the time vortex with speed c reaches North pole, Earth turns by
7,292 *10-5 rad/s/ 4,2*10-2 s = 1/576 rad = 2*pi/576
So the first possible mode of Earth is 1/576. Next mode, moving at speed c/2 would go slightly of center, having been blown a little bit by rotation of Earth. All other fractional modes will go inside Earth, with speed going down further from rotational axis:
It will be mode with number 1/288 - speed c/2
1/192 - c/3
1/144 - c/4
c/5 - 576/5= 115,2
1/96- c/6
c/7- 576/7=82.28
1/72 - c/8
1/64-c/9
1/48-c/12
c/13 - 576/13 = 443,076923!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - c/13
1/36 -c/16 !!!!
1/32-c/18
1/24 -c/24
1/18- c/32
1/16 - c/36
1/12 - c/48
1/8 --c/72
1/6-c/96
1/4 - c/144
1/3 - c/192
1/2-c/288
1/1 - c/576 = 52030 m/s
There are borders between all regions. also fractal, which are visible in EArth structure.
Next border (2) happens at mode 10 where spead is c/ 10*576 = c/5760=5203 m/s
this is close to speed of sound waves in granite. So the border is probably between upper mantle and crust.
Next (3) at mode 100 where speed is c/100*576 = 520 m/s
This 3rd border is the underside of Earth Crust ( or actually, underside of Earth crust goes along it.)
4th border happens at mode 1000 where speed is c/1000*576 = 52 m/s
and so on?
For electron, during the time r el/c =2.81 *10-15 m/ 3*10 8 = 9.36 *10-23 sec electron turns how many times???
I assume once. From here we shoul find the radius of what is electron?
Good night.
I have a rural house as well.
Think about the Earth as sphere to be expressed in spiral harmonics:
Imagine there are parts of vortex entering earth South pole at speed c. They are not blown up into vortex breakdown as they are too fast for rotation of Earth to blow them up. So they have straight path along the rotational axis of Earth to Reach Norht pole. It takes them time:
126700 km/ 3*10^8 m = 4,2 * 10-2 sec.
angular omega of Earth is 7,292 * 10-5 rad/s. During the time vortex with speed c reaches North pole, Earth turns by
7,292 *10-5 rad/s/ 4,2*10-2 s = 1/576 rad = 2*pi/576
So the first possible mode of Earth is 1/576. Next mode, moving at speed c/2 would go slightly of center, having been blown a little bit by rotation of Earth. All other fractional modes will go inside Earth, with speed going down further from rotational axis:
It will be mode with number 1/288 - speed c/2
1/192 - c/3
1/144 - c/4
c/5 - 576/5= 115,2
1/96- c/6
c/7- 576/7=82.28
1/72 - c/8
1/64-c/9
1/48-c/12
c/13 - 576/13 = 443,076923!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - c/13
1/36 -c/16 !!!!
1/32-c/18
1/24 -c/24
1/18- c/32
1/16 - c/36
1/12 - c/48
1/8 --c/72
1/6-c/96
1/4 - c/144
1/3 - c/192
1/2-c/288
1/1 - c/576 = 52030 m/s
There are borders between all regions. also fractal, which are visible in EArth structure.
Next border (2) happens at mode 10 where spead is c/ 10*576 = c/5760=5203 m/s
this is close to speed of sound waves in granite. So the border is probably between upper mantle and crust.
Next (3) at mode 100 where speed is c/100*576 = 520 m/s
This 3rd border is the underside of Earth Crust ( or actually, underside of Earth crust goes along it.)
4th border happens at mode 1000 where speed is c/1000*576 = 52 m/s
and so on?
For electron, during the time r el/c =2.81 *10-15 m/ 3*10 8 = 9.36 *10-23 sec electron turns how many times???
I assume once. From here we shoul find the radius of what is electron?
Good night.
QUOTE
In my opinion, mass quanta naturally occur as vortex breakdown structures out of higher frequency vortexes. Where does that higher frequency comes from I have no idea yet but mass it can be calculated from fundamental constants quanta as:
frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s
frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s
May be this is the frequency with which helical pipe inside electron which is pumping mass out of vacuum works? to produce quanta, it has to contract and release tension a little, twist and release , twist and release.Anharmonically? hysteretically? Pumping out more then letting back? Was that the vacuum field problem?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In my opinion, mass quanta naturally occur as vortex breakdown structures out of higher frequency vortexes. Where does that higher frequency comes from I have no idea yet but mass it can be calculated from fundamental constants quanta as: frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s |
May be this is the frequency with which helical pipe inside electron which is pumping mass out of vacuum works? to produce quanta, it has to contract and release tension a little, twist and release , twist and release.Anharmonically? hysteretically? Pumping out more then letting back? Was that the vacuum field problem?
I want to know if the vacuum field has inharmonicity at the very high partials!!! . .
Sort of fundamental number?
QUITE SERIOUSLY the QM vacuum is equally accessible to all high-frequency modes to "some high frequency cutoff" clearly dictated by the Planck length. I argue with this assumption. How about trying to combine this with a Boltzmann statistical exponent?
And Iam quite seriosly saying that Planck length as we know it is not the smallest lenght and ,though related to cut off frequency, is not the identical to it.
Plank length is connected with moment of electron, so it would be the RADIUS of the inner Mobius Buggle.
about 1,6 * 10-35 m.
The other length I have in my post
frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s
r= 6.76030371E-58m is the radius of the helical pipe inside electron which is twisting with frequency 4.43460044 E+67 1/s anharmonically.
So there are 2 frequencies- that of rotation of bugle with r= l Planck as a whole and that of twisting of the self eating serpent inside buggle with r= 6.76 E-58m.
Self eating serpent inside electron ( and may be also fields of bigger size) is perpetum mobile, the only true source of motion.
The same r is also the radius of vortex along rotation axis of this Buggle which is produced by pumping mass in quanta out of Vacuum. Look at black hole with rotation axis visible- was it called quasar? -it operates exactly the same way, though on bigger scale.
Black holes and electrons have the same structure, but on different scales , and do the same job- create shape out of vacuum, and produce vortexes- axis of rotation. They may also disintegrate shape.
about 1,6 * 10-35 m.
The other length I have in my post
frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s
r= 6.76030371E-58m is the radius of the helical pipe inside electron which is twisting with frequency 4.43460044 E+67 1/s anharmonically.
So there are 2 frequencies- that of rotation of bugle with r= l Planck as a whole and that of twisting of the self eating serpent inside buggle with r= 6.76 E-58m.
Self eating serpent inside electron ( and may be also fields of bigger size) is perpetum mobile, the only true source of motion.
The same r is also the radius of vortex along rotation axis of this Buggle which is produced by pumping mass in quanta out of Vacuum. Look at black hole with rotation axis visible- was it called quasar? -it operates exactly the same way, though on bigger scale.
Black holes and electrons have the same structure, but on different scales , and do the same job- create shape out of vacuum, and produce vortexes- axis of rotation. They may also disintegrate shape.
We may assume that there will be some energy associated with this frequency
frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s
such as
h*frequency = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s* 4.43460044 E+67 1/s =
= 2.938396406 E+34 m2 kg/s2
This could be the energy needed to produce 1 mass quanta from vacuum. Than
the mass of this quanta would be :
m= energy/c^2 = 2.938396406 E+34 m2 kg/s2/c^2 = 3.267 E+17 kg.
Turanjanin has also reached this mass value from gravitomagnetism equations.
http://www.geocities.com/turanyanin/index1.html
This mass is pure vortex,thread mass, it does not have matter on it. It is the mass of the the first spiral Mode of the Universe.
Other modes which has speeds < c will have more mass in them:
m mode= energy/ (c/(mode Nr)) ^ 2 = 3.267 E+17kg * mode Nr
Modes which have speeds > c will have less mass in them. The numbers of these modes are fractions, <1.
The smallest mass in universe therefore will define the highest fractional mode number present. The total number of modes will be equal 2* fraction as on both sides , both integer and fractional number of modes must be equal.
The smallest mass of mode might be M Planck as it is related to h. Interestingly , these small modes of aether vortices move very fast, > c , many many times >c.
Fast light modes move near the center of universe, slow heavy- on the outside. Universe as a whole is like onion, with borders between modes.
The rest is mathematics. This kind of closes the circle. Via these spiral modes, h will be EXACTLY linked with the size of Universe.
Universe as such is just a product of these vortices. Here we still speak only about fields, perfect mathematics. Matter when added will destroy the harmony of the picture somewhat.
frequency = c/r = c^3/G*me = 2.99792458E+8 / 6.76030371E-58m = 4.43460044 E+67 1/s
such as
h*frequency = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s* 4.43460044 E+67 1/s =
= 2.938396406 E+34 m2 kg/s2
This could be the energy needed to produce 1 mass quanta from vacuum. Than
the mass of this quanta would be :
m= energy/c^2 = 2.938396406 E+34 m2 kg/s2/c^2 = 3.267 E+17 kg.
Turanjanin has also reached this mass value from gravitomagnetism equations.
http://www.geocities.com/turanyanin/index1.html
This mass is pure vortex,thread mass, it does not have matter on it. It is the mass of the the first spiral Mode of the Universe.
Other modes which has speeds < c will have more mass in them:
m mode= energy/ (c/(mode Nr)) ^ 2 = 3.267 E+17kg * mode Nr
Modes which have speeds > c will have less mass in them. The numbers of these modes are fractions, <1.
The smallest mass in universe therefore will define the highest fractional mode number present. The total number of modes will be equal 2* fraction as on both sides , both integer and fractional number of modes must be equal.
The smallest mass of mode might be M Planck as it is related to h. Interestingly , these small modes of aether vortices move very fast, > c , many many times >c.
Fast light modes move near the center of universe, slow heavy- on the outside. Universe as a whole is like onion, with borders between modes.
The rest is mathematics. This kind of closes the circle. Via these spiral modes, h will be EXACTLY linked with the size of Universe.
Universe as such is just a product of these vortices. Here we still speak only about fields, perfect mathematics. Matter when added will destroy the harmony of the picture somewhat.
To ensure stability, each of the aether vortex spiral modes I mentioned in previous post, rotate in opposite directions, layer by layer.
Each of the main spiral field , aether modes may grow fractional new modes when they interact with other field structures via Falaco solitons, on directions perpendicular to their surface. These perpendicular modes are matter. matter occupies therefore fractional dimension of space, which is created together with it.
alpha describes the fractality of our universe, its deviation form ideal Planck charge if universe were just a combination of spiral fields.
If the source of fields, the spiral modes is the vortex created by oscillating Mobius buggle, perpendicular to rotation of this bugle, then matter is created by non-linear twisting oscillations of this buggle pipe itself. in direction perpendicular, Ortogonal to the fields. in a Circle.
Earth, Universe, eye, hydrogen atom - everything is built like that, from spiral and fractional modes in different ENUMERABLE combiantions.
Each of the main spiral field , aether modes may grow fractional new modes when they interact with other field structures via Falaco solitons, on directions perpendicular to their surface. These perpendicular modes are matter. matter occupies therefore fractional dimension of space, which is created together with it.
alpha describes the fractality of our universe, its deviation form ideal Planck charge if universe were just a combination of spiral fields.
If the source of fields, the spiral modes is the vortex created by oscillating Mobius buggle, perpendicular to rotation of this bugle, then matter is created by non-linear twisting oscillations of this buggle pipe itself. in direction perpendicular, Ortogonal to the fields. in a Circle.
Earth, Universe, eye, hydrogen atom - everything is built like that, from spiral and fractional modes in different ENUMERABLE combiantions.
We can continue:
Planck Angular Frequency = 1.85487 × E+43 1/s .
Planck Frequency: 2.952118 x E+42 1/s
Ratio Planck Frequency/bugle twist frequency =
2.952118 x E+42 1/s/ 4.43460044 E+67 1/s = 6, 657 * E-24
How do these frequencies synchronize? Can their interaction produce vortex breakdown? What is Aether viscosity? What is viscosity? m2/s is the spead of space, surface creation. It is linked to spiral modes and the surfaces they create, and the speed of the modes.
Planck Angular Frequency = 1.85487 × E+43 1/s .
Planck Frequency: 2.952118 x E+42 1/s
Ratio Planck Frequency/bugle twist frequency =
2.952118 x E+42 1/s/ 4.43460044 E+67 1/s = 6, 657 * E-24
How do these frequencies synchronize? Can their interaction produce vortex breakdown? What is Aether viscosity? What is viscosity? m2/s is the spead of space, surface creation. It is linked to spiral modes and the surfaces they create, and the speed of the modes.
QUOTE (Ivars+Jan 8 2007, 09:03 AM)
This could be the energy needed to produce 1 mass quanta from vacuum. Than the mass of this quanta would be :
m= energy/c^2 = 2.938396406 E+34 m2 kg/s2/c^2 = 3.267 E+17 kg.
Turanjanin has also reached this mass value from gravitomagnetism equations.
Do you claim that other masses are built of many such quanta of mass?
If yes then you also must claim that the binding energy of such quanta of mass is almost equal to the mass of this quantum of mass. It means that when is created for example the electron-positron pair there should be created very big energy i.e. the binding energy. From experimental data we know that such big binding energy is not emitted then model which assumes that a particle is built of particles having mass much bigger than the resultant particle or that interactions are carried by carriers having mass (or energy) much bigger than interacting particles in my opinion it is paranoia because the energy density of the background of the Universe in surroundings of some particle is not sufficient to create such particles.
I claim that the more and more fundamental subspaces contain particles having smaller and smaller masses. The very well known physics starts from the neutrino space. From my theory results that there are two more fundamental spaces responsible for the physical properties of the neutrinos. They create the gravitational field, the lines of forces of the weak charge, the spin, and the internal helicity.
Why assumption that there are three families of neutrinos is incorrect? Neutrinos differ by the internal helicity (left and right) and by the sign of the weak charge (it is some analog to the electric charge - I wrote that in approximation the neutrino it is miniature of the electron). It means that there are in existence four different neutrinos i.e. two types of neutrinos and their antiparticles. I claim that the tau-neutrino is not in existence. When we will assume that the neutrinos differ also by the mass then we obtain that there should be 8 different neutrinos. NEVER THE 6!!!!
So the Standard Model is based on 4 funny assumptions:
-fractional electric charges
-greater attraction from bigger distance
-the 6 different neutrinos
-carriers of interactions have masses (or energies) bigger than the interacting particles
For physicist who has intuition in physics it is obvious that particles which differ only because of the internal helicity and the sign of charge should have the same mass. It is for electron and positron, it is for proton and antiproton, and so on. Then I claim that the masses of the 4 different neutrinos are the same. I also claim that the oscillations of neutrinos which lead to the different masses of neutrinos are the science fiction. As I wrote in some prior post there are other explanations for the experiments connected with the neutrino oscillations.
m= energy/c^2 = 2.938396406 E+34 m2 kg/s2/c^2 = 3.267 E+17 kg.
Turanjanin has also reached this mass value from gravitomagnetism equations.
Do you claim that other masses are built of many such quanta of mass?
If yes then you also must claim that the binding energy of such quanta of mass is almost equal to the mass of this quantum of mass. It means that when is created for example the electron-positron pair there should be created very big energy i.e. the binding energy. From experimental data we know that such big binding energy is not emitted then model which assumes that a particle is built of particles having mass much bigger than the resultant particle or that interactions are carried by carriers having mass (or energy) much bigger than interacting particles in my opinion it is paranoia because the energy density of the background of the Universe in surroundings of some particle is not sufficient to create such particles.
I claim that the more and more fundamental subspaces contain particles having smaller and smaller masses. The very well known physics starts from the neutrino space. From my theory results that there are two more fundamental spaces responsible for the physical properties of the neutrinos. They create the gravitational field, the lines of forces of the weak charge, the spin, and the internal helicity.
Why assumption that there are three families of neutrinos is incorrect? Neutrinos differ by the internal helicity (left and right) and by the sign of the weak charge (it is some analog to the electric charge - I wrote that in approximation the neutrino it is miniature of the electron). It means that there are in existence four different neutrinos i.e. two types of neutrinos and their antiparticles. I claim that the tau-neutrino is not in existence. When we will assume that the neutrinos differ also by the mass then we obtain that there should be 8 different neutrinos. NEVER THE 6!!!!
So the Standard Model is based on 4 funny assumptions:
-fractional electric charges
-greater attraction from bigger distance
-the 6 different neutrinos
-carriers of interactions have masses (or energies) bigger than the interacting particles
For physicist who has intuition in physics it is obvious that particles which differ only because of the internal helicity and the sign of charge should have the same mass. It is for electron and positron, it is for proton and antiproton, and so on. Then I claim that the masses of the 4 different neutrinos are the same. I also claim that the oscillations of neutrinos which lead to the different masses of neutrinos are the science fiction. As I wrote in some prior post there are other explanations for the experiments connected with the neutrino oscillations.
QUOTE
This could be the energy needed to produce 1 mass quanta from vacuum. Than the mass of this quanta would be :m= energy/c^2 = 2.938396406 E+34 m2 kg/s2/c^2 = 3.267 E+17 kg.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This could be the energy needed to produce 1 mass quanta from vacuum. Than the mass of this quanta would be :m= energy/c^2 = 2.938396406 E+34 m2 kg/s2/c^2 = 3.267 E+17 kg. |
Do you claim that other masses are built of many such quanta of mass?If yes then you also must claim that the binding energy of such quanta of mass is almost equal to the mass of this quantum of mass. It means that when is created for example the electron-positron pair there should be created very big energy i.e. the binding energy. From experimental data we know that such big binding energy is not emitted then model which assumes that a particle is built of particles having mass much bigger than the resultant particle or that interactions are carried by carriers having mass (or energy) much bigger than interacting particles in my opinion it is paranoia because the energy density of the background of the Universe in surroundings of some particle is not sufficient to create such particles.
This quanta of mass is just the MASS of INERTIAL MASS mode in our Universe which travels (opens up in vacuum) with speed c. It is the first mode, 1.
There are more modes, both with bigger masses, and smaller, integers and Fractions. Spiral modes of vortex breakdown structures inside Spheric rotating Aether with surface.
Spiral Modes of Our Universe with smaller masses ( Our Universe is important because number and periods of modes depend on size of our universe) open up , are created /travel with speeds > c. Looking Like Falaco soliton once they establish themselves at both ends. Between the ends they travel like helical pipe with open end, looking where to attach, sort of. Pushing itself forward in aether step by step, with each rotation, like a screw.
They could be creating the lattice for binding small particles You mention. In that case energy cam be much smaller.
There are also modes with mass > M =3.267 E+17 kg, such that have mass
2M, 3M, 4M, 5M ... so that it does not go over Universe mass, that total sum of all masses.
These travel/open up with speeds less than c, and bigger particles like earth, sun, quazars feed on them, hang on , so to say, and regenerate them at the same time. Principle of Metabolism.
In the electron model I discuss (http below) there is actually implied a frequency at the center. Permittivity blows up as r^-2, so speed-of-light divided by r shelves at a constant. I'll figure out the units and get back to you. My current thinking is to write another section superceeding this, however. This relationship evaporates if you assume that magnetic permeability changes along with permittivity. Then this implied freq. goes to zero. Mind you there are no indications of phase change. HERE THE OUROBOROS HAS NO HANDS OR FEET.
QUOTE
HERE THE OUROBOROS HAS NO HANDS OR FEET.
But somehow they appear when there is another OUROBOROS nearby. Because they want to touch each other:)
Or run away from Each other.
what is this:
JZ=3.27 ( from Your article)
what is this:
JZ=3.27 ( from Your article)
I am working to put units on these geometric calculations. In this sort of model you start with some physical magnitude, like h-bar, and see if the other quantities fall inline.
I have figured the fine structure constant I get and it is about 4% off. This is to me quite nice as I had to add weird things like ln(2), so actually I could be closer on it, and need to do a higher accuracy calc. What is really strange is that had my number 3.27 come out as pi, that would be exact. I don't see analytically how I can get that with the residues in integrating that I mention in the paper. That I get so close astounds me, really. I need to collect the several terms and see if the analytically odd stuff cancels and I really do have pi. . . . .TIME PASSES. . . . After reading the paper by Albers I see that I have no wiggle room. I'm stuck with Euler's constant and ln2, so like I said it is not exact but is certainly good jazz. Maybe I will find the way to e^1/r fields. Later I will describe my methodology but I am busy writing it. I put in scale by saying the variable r I use is replaced by R/lambda, and potential has a U_0 in front.
I have a deeply held belief that the Ouroboros mythology was not just a primitive means for describing the Universe, but a primitive interpretation of a more advanced knowledge that had been lost.
The basic shape of the Ouroboros mythology was all that remained.
I've since done a preliminary analysis of a 4D Reimann Hypersphere in regards to this topology.
I'm not surprised to discover that someone else may be looking into interesting questions raised by the appearance of a relation between such a myth and the natural sciences.
The basic shape of the Ouroboros mythology was all that remained.
I've since done a preliminary analysis of a 4D Reimann Hypersphere in regards to this topology.
I'm not surprised to discover that someone else may be looking into interesting questions raised by the appearance of a relation between such a myth and the natural sciences.
Numerology. That is the way.
Short summary, correction of errors and ne ideas - Aether spiral modes.
Earth as a sample (but applicable to ALL spheres (including universe and Electron, any vortex breakdown bubble) , just careful with TIME as each rotating sphere has its own time unit. Only Earth has seconds and minutes as time unit):
Take Falaco soliton and modify slightly (turn around one end):
v v North pole
l l
l -> l
l l
^ v South pole
This is mode which has speed c. While this mode reaches South originating from North, Earth turns by 1/576 of 1 turn.
Now we can define internal spiral modes of Earth. Internal modes Originate in North, End in South pole:
1.Mode 1/576, speed c,frequency 1 Hz, radius R/576= 11 km km
2.Mode 1/288 speed c/2=1,5 E+8 m/s, frequency 2 Hz radius R/288 = 22 km
3.Mode 1/192 speed c/3= 1E+8, frequency 3 Hz radius R/192 = 33 km
4.Mode 1/144 speed c/4 = 0.75E+8, frequency 4 Hz radius R/144= 44 km
5.Mode 1/96 speed c/6 = 0.5 E+8, frequency 6 Hz, radius R/96= 66 km
6. Mode 1/72 speed c/8 = 0.375E+8, frequency 8 Hz, radius R/72= 88 km
7. Mode 1/64 speed c/9= 0.333E+8, frequency 9 Hz, radius R/64= 99 km
9. Mode 1/48 speed c/12 = 25000 km /s , frequency 12 Hz, radius R/48=132 km
10. Mode 1/36 speed c/16= 18750 km/s, frequency 16 Hz, radius R/36= 176 km
11. Mode 1/32 speed c/18= 16666 km/s, frequency 18 Hz, radius R/32= 198 km
12. Mode 1/24 speed c/24= 12500 km/s, frequency 24 Hz, radius R/24= 264 km
13. Mode 1/18 speed c/32 =9375 km/s, frequency 32 Hz, radius R/18= 352 km
14. Mode 1/16 speed c/36= 8333 km/s , frequency 36 Hz, radius R/16= 396 km
15. Mode 1/12 speed c/48= 6250 km/s frequency 48 Hz, radius R/12= 528 km
16. Mode 1/8 speed c/72 = 4166 km/s, frequency 72 Hz, radius R/8 = 792 km
17. Mode 1/6 speed c/96 =3125 km/s frequency 96 Hz, radius R/6= 1056 km
18. Mode 1/4 speed c/144=2083 km/s frequency 144 Hz, radius R/4=1584 km
19. Mode 1/3 speed c/192 =1562 km/s frequency 192 Hz radius R/3=2112 km
20. Mode 1/2 speed c/288 = 1041 km/s frequency 288 Hz radius R/2=3168 km
Internal modes has numbers < 1
Surface or boundary mode has number 1/1=1. It is sinusoidal , divides Earth surface in 576 * 576 = 331776 standing wave areas.
21. Mode 1, speed c/576= 520.833 km/s, frequency 576 Hz, radius - 6336 km
after that , we can define external modes.External modes has mode numbers > 1. External modes originate in South, end in North
External and internal modes have opposite rotation. Internal aether modes tend to increase their radius with time , External - reduce. Internal create repulsion, external- attraction
Last external mode is :
Mode Mode speed c, frequency 1 Hz, radius 47700 km. time for Falaco soliton to travel in circle = 0,159 sec= 1/2*pi sec.
GOT STUCCK...
totally Earth is a product of 41? spiral mode including boundary mode.
These modes are esentially 2 dimensional. Matter grows around these modes in a perpendicular direction creating fractal 3rd spatial dimension and new 2 d spiral modes on a smaller scale, matter again, and so on, filling the thickness of each mode. These modes ARE INERTIAL MASS.
I wish I would be able to draw this, would be much clearer, also to myself.
To be continued, not ready yet. Mistakes still.
Short summary, correction of errors and ne ideas - Aether spiral modes.
Earth as a sample (but applicable to ALL spheres (including universe and Electron, any vortex breakdown bubble) , just careful with TIME as each rotating sphere has its own time unit. Only Earth has seconds and minutes as time unit):
Take Falaco soliton and modify slightly (turn around one end):
v v North pole
l l
l -> l
l l
^ v South pole
This is mode which has speed c. While this mode reaches South originating from North, Earth turns by 1/576 of 1 turn.
Now we can define internal spiral modes of Earth. Internal modes Originate in North, End in South pole:
1.Mode 1/576, speed c,frequency 1 Hz, radius R/576= 11 km km
2.Mode 1/288 speed c/2=1,5 E+8 m/s, frequency 2 Hz radius R/288 = 22 km
3.Mode 1/192 speed c/3= 1E+8, frequency 3 Hz radius R/192 = 33 km
4.Mode 1/144 speed c/4 = 0.75E+8, frequency 4 Hz radius R/144= 44 km
5.Mode 1/96 speed c/6 = 0.5 E+8, frequency 6 Hz, radius R/96= 66 km
6. Mode 1/72 speed c/8 = 0.375E+8, frequency 8 Hz, radius R/72= 88 km
7. Mode 1/64 speed c/9= 0.333E+8, frequency 9 Hz, radius R/64= 99 km
9. Mode 1/48 speed c/12 = 25000 km /s , frequency 12 Hz, radius R/48=132 km
10. Mode 1/36 speed c/16= 18750 km/s, frequency 16 Hz, radius R/36= 176 km
11. Mode 1/32 speed c/18= 16666 km/s, frequency 18 Hz, radius R/32= 198 km
12. Mode 1/24 speed c/24= 12500 km/s, frequency 24 Hz, radius R/24= 264 km
13. Mode 1/18 speed c/32 =9375 km/s, frequency 32 Hz, radius R/18= 352 km
14. Mode 1/16 speed c/36= 8333 km/s , frequency 36 Hz, radius R/16= 396 km
15. Mode 1/12 speed c/48= 6250 km/s frequency 48 Hz, radius R/12= 528 km
16. Mode 1/8 speed c/72 = 4166 km/s, frequency 72 Hz, radius R/8 = 792 km
17. Mode 1/6 speed c/96 =3125 km/s frequency 96 Hz, radius R/6= 1056 km
18. Mode 1/4 speed c/144=2083 km/s frequency 144 Hz, radius R/4=1584 km
19. Mode 1/3 speed c/192 =1562 km/s frequency 192 Hz radius R/3=2112 km
20. Mode 1/2 speed c/288 = 1041 km/s frequency 288 Hz radius R/2=3168 km
Internal modes has numbers < 1
Surface or boundary mode has number 1/1=1. It is sinusoidal , divides Earth surface in 576 * 576 = 331776 standing wave areas.
21. Mode 1, speed c/576= 520.833 km/s, frequency 576 Hz, radius - 6336 km
after that , we can define external modes.External modes has mode numbers > 1. External modes originate in South, end in North
External and internal modes have opposite rotation. Internal aether modes tend to increase their radius with time , External - reduce. Internal create repulsion, external- attraction
Last external mode is :
Mode Mode speed c, frequency 1 Hz, radius 47700 km. time for Falaco soliton to travel in circle = 0,159 sec= 1/2*pi sec.
GOT STUCCK...
totally Earth is a product of 41? spiral mode including boundary mode.
These modes are esentially 2 dimensional. Matter grows around these modes in a perpendicular direction creating fractal 3rd spatial dimension and new 2 d spiral modes on a smaller scale, matter again, and so on, filling the thickness of each mode. These modes ARE INERTIAL MASS.
I wish I would be able to draw this, would be much clearer, also to myself.
To be continued, not ready yet. Mistakes still.
QUOTE
GOT STUCCK...
totally Earth is a product of 41? spiral mode including boundary mode.
These modes are esentially 2 dimensional. Matter grows around these modes in a perpendicular direction creating fractal 3rd spatial dimension and new 2 d spiral modes on a smaller scale, matter again, and so on, filling the thickness of each mode. These modes ARE INERTIAL MASS.
totally Earth is a product of 41? spiral mode including boundary mode.
These modes are esentially 2 dimensional. Matter grows around these modes in a perpendicular direction creating fractal 3rd spatial dimension and new 2 d spiral modes on a smaller scale, matter again, and so on, filling the thickness of each mode. These modes ARE INERTIAL MASS.
You sure that's not 42?
Numbers can make you stupid, also. The point I am trying to make to you, Ivars, is that maybe the vacuum is a fractal field of hyper velocity or something. Many people are investigating such ideas. See, I am not much committed. Just give me Lorentz-transformable "dipole availability" and a good red wine. Beyond that????
Myth as any oral tradition which has withstood thousands of years of abuse are:
a) Much more exact than written because universal intuitive character of knowledge they transfer; it is not a chance that n generations have memorized something. On the contrary , writing is totally inacurate, full of noise.
Very selective, priotitizing only the most important things
So to disregard them is just foolish. I check every result I think of in a way - does it help to explain some myth? If not, it is not worth continuing.
c) as to looking into OUROBOROS, I have a feeling, this time we will nail it. With all the legs and hands. But it will not be easy.How for a starter a FALACO soliton with spiral quanta pumping thread but not like this >---< but like this >----> and then twisted and both ends connected? A directional one.
To achieve it, we have to construct several (2?) perpetum mobiles flowing into each other by some quanta.
By the way ,Early Greek philosophers also did not do much writing. They met, discussed until things were clear and went to party. What is there to write if everything is clear to everyone?
a) Much more exact than written because universal intuitive character of knowledge they transfer; it is not a chance that n generations have memorized something. On the contrary , writing is totally inacurate, full of noise.
Very selective, priotitizing only the most important thingsSo to disregard them is just foolish. I check every result I think of in a way - does it help to explain some myth? If not, it is not worth continuing.
c) as to looking into OUROBOROS, I have a feeling, this time we will nail it. With all the legs and hands. But it will not be easy.How for a starter a FALACO soliton with spiral quanta pumping thread but not like this >---< but like this >----> and then twisted and both ends connected? A directional one.
To achieve it, we have to construct several (2?) perpetum mobiles flowing into each other by some quanta.
By the way ,Early Greek philosophers also did not do much writing. They met, discussed until things were clear and went to party. What is there to write if everything is clear to everyone?
QUOTE
Numbers can make you stupid, also.
Not if You know what the answer should be. It is just a matter of trying until ALL numbers fit. Then ALL equations are solved, no need to have analytics anymore, just few constants and few simple rules. And powerful computers.Including human and collective.
QUOTE
Numbers can make you stupid, also. The point I am trying to make to you, Ivars, is that maybe the vacuum is a fractal field of hyper velocity or something. Many people are investigating such ideas. See, I am not much committed. Just give me Lorentz-transformable "dipole availability" and a good red wine. Beyond that????
See, You will find the dipoles explanation of fields maybe, without fractals ( which are just as valid part of Nature as integers).
But You will not be able to explain life, human role in universe, aging, death and MYTH without fractals/chaos. No way.
With fractals it is possible.
Also, one day You will have to construct anharmonic oscillator which must fit . Then the discrete spiral vortex bubble model I am trying to find will come in handy.
By the way all I am writing here is a result of 1 year hobby. I do not know how it looks , but I feel I am learning not by day, but hour. But what I am learning is not in the books. It comes from my own thinking. I even do not understand half what You write. I would prefer if You could , after a glass of wine, explain what You are doing in plain words.
Albers, You can use words like Ouroboros to explain it , numbers, fractions, may be frequency, but no magnetic field, dipole , integral, energy etc. to explain. So that I understand.
When You can do it, I will say that there is theory which explains Nature. Otherwise, it is just polishing professional language to a higher level. Of course valid for engineering needs, but to understand and EXPLAIN nature- no. Imagine You have to cary on knowledge about todays science to next generations orally. Imagine it is not You but few relatively bright youngsters who does not know physics. Would You be able to explain? At least something about deepest knowledge of nature? So that they understand? I doubt.ancients could do it, otherwise we would not have Ouroboros, Phoenix, Pyramids, Aom et cetera.
I am not being abrasive, I deeply respect You from what I have seen and heard from You. Just trying to say both ways are needed to go forward.
Mission impossible now is to get to the end. Life has to be explained otherwise I do not feel the challenge. To explain life, everything has to be explained. Luckily , nature is enumerable, just numbers are big. So at least within our Universe I see no big problem except for own limitations on imagination and intuition.
Hope You did not mind:
That is an interesting statement, my friend. My brother told me to try to write papers at a slightly lower level to appeal to more readers. I don't feel this is how I care to spend time now. I could be rewriting and resubmitting to JMP. In fact I am moving rapidly forward, and am talking with the established physicist I most needed to. I can write to the level I choose and will do so at the appropriate time. You will soon see major additions to my electron and gravitation papers in the cache.
Good Morning, Albers.
Knowledge is responsibility. I knew Iwill disappoint You by not being a professional. But I prefer truth in most cases. At least I have graduated from Physics, 20 years ago, and worked for a few years as well.
But back to work:
It seems You are getting close, but something is amiss. ln 2 may come from 2 dimensions, or may be it is artificial.
From Your equations You should have ended with alpha math = 1/ 118, 4344047
The coefficient between alpha math /alpha phys is k(h) = 1,157062422; Its formula:
k( h) = ((ln 1/h)/ ln (1/2*pi*h)))^2 = 1,157062422
4th root of this is 1,037144 or approx 4%. k(h) This coefficient links fractal , real alpha with mathematical, field, ideal alpha. h is of course changing as Universe grows. 1,16 is the limit if h->0, most likely.
(from Fractal formula of alpha) :
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry115487
On other hand, instead of J= pi it must be J= 2 * pi ; 2 pi is exactly the universal circular spiral mode, ouroborous, the external outermost mode for previous scale and the internal innermost for next scale. Connection RING between scales. Present in both.
Well, visible matter is also only 4% of all. Fractals again.
Can You give Your email to my ivars.fabriciuss@gmail.com? I will send You my fractal formulas in word, much easier to read, less mistakes.
Would be good if You can pull this off. Probably You are the only one who can do it. I am hopeless in differential equations.
Then we would have both ends covered- field and matter. Formulas for alpha wil will be ok; The only thing left would be the explanation- Crystal ball- with internal and external spiral modes .
As to JMP. Do as You wish, I do not like journals that are not freely available.They suffocate development of ideas. Is that enough of a challenge for You to get a paper in there?
If You have a good paper, it would be exactly good to publish it only on line.freely available. If it will be good, clear, important, people will find it.
Knowledge is responsibility. I knew Iwill disappoint You by not being a professional. But I prefer truth in most cases. At least I have graduated from Physics, 20 years ago, and worked for a few years as well.
But back to work:
QUOTE
I have figured the fine structure constant I get and it is about 4% off
It seems You are getting close, but something is amiss. ln 2 may come from 2 dimensions, or may be it is artificial.
From Your equations You should have ended with alpha math = 1/ 118, 4344047
The coefficient between alpha math /alpha phys is k(h) = 1,157062422; Its formula:
k( h) = ((ln 1/h)/ ln (1/2*pi*h)))^2 = 1,157062422
4th root of this is 1,037144 or approx 4%. k(h) This coefficient links fractal , real alpha with mathematical, field, ideal alpha. h is of course changing as Universe grows. 1,16 is the limit if h->0, most likely.
(from Fractal formula of alpha) :
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry115487
On other hand, instead of J= pi it must be J= 2 * pi ; 2 pi is exactly the universal circular spiral mode, ouroborous, the external outermost mode for previous scale and the internal innermost for next scale. Connection RING between scales. Present in both.
Well, visible matter is also only 4% of all. Fractals again.
Can You give Your email to my ivars.fabriciuss@gmail.com? I will send You my fractal formulas in word, much easier to read, less mistakes.
Would be good if You can pull this off. Probably You are the only one who can do it. I am hopeless in differential equations.
Then we would have both ends covered- field and matter. Formulas for alpha wil will be ok; The only thing left would be the explanation- Crystal ball- with internal and external spiral modes .
As to JMP. Do as You wish, I do not like journals that are not freely available.They suffocate development of ideas. Is that enough of a challenge for You to get a paper in there?
If You have a good paper, it would be exactly good to publish it only on line.freely available. If it will be good, clear, important, people will find it.
QUOTE
See, I am not much committed. Just give me Lorentz-transformable "dipole availability" and a good red wine. Beyond that????
You will find the HARMONY of the world. Tunable.
QUOTE
From Your equations You should have ended with alpha math = 1/ 118, 4344047
The coefficient between alpha math /alpha phys is k(h) = 1,157062422; Its formula:
k( h) = ((ln 1/h)/ ln (1/2*pi*h)))^2 = 1,157062422
The coefficient between alpha math /alpha phys is k(h) = 1,157062422; Its formula:
k( h) = ((ln 1/h)/ ln (1/2*pi*h)))^2 = 1,157062422
I must have made mistake with that one. It is not 1,157 , but 1.049907551.
Which is good; Although it destroys 90% of my numbers... It means that it is not so simple. I made that formula 6 months ago when I had even more vague ideas.
I still believe idea of fractal alpha is right, even more so after the finding of internal/external spiral modes.
So challenge is still out there
QUOTE
QUOTE
totally Earth is a product of 41? spiral mode including boundary mode.
You sure that's not 42?
totally Earth is a product of 41? spiral mode including boundary mode.
You sure that's not 42?
Are You joking?
If not, no, i am not sure of anything. It is so new that there can be any mistakes. Intuitively it feels right, but to say exactly...
Could be also 42, just have to thing whate we are missing:
We have internal inner mode, external outer mode, boundary.
why 42? Any myth behind it? Then we will find it.
42 modes mean 42 layers, including atmosphere.
QUOTE (symmetry @ Jan 6 2007, 10:47 PM)
I think in Aether viscosity means speed of creation of shape m2/s. By a vortex breakdown. When speed of rotation is in the right phase with fundamental Aether frequency .
This mass works via angular moment.
Shape in aether is like when it is teared apart. When it can not catch itself due to too fast rotation.
Inertial mass = shape can be created at resonance and disappear when proper resonance conditions disappear, or are destroyed. There fore mass tunneling is in principle possible over what ever distances given that resonance conditions are synchronized correctly.
Inertial mass in Aether is shape. integers . Matter is something different. It is fractional shape - fractals and rational numbers. Irrational numbers are? Transcendental numbers are?
QUOTE
I have read it is subtle or it has viscosity of Aether which by logic indicates mass - but I do not want to assume?
I think in Aether viscosity means speed of creation of shape m2/s. By a vortex breakdown. When speed of rotation is in the right phase with fundamental Aether frequency .
This mass works via angular moment.
Shape in aether is like when it is teared apart. When it can not catch itself due to too fast rotation.
Inertial mass = shape can be created at resonance and disappear when proper resonance conditions disappear, or are destroyed. There fore mass tunneling is in principle possible over what ever distances given that resonance conditions are synchronized correctly.
Inertial mass in Aether is shape. integers . Matter is something different. It is fractional shape - fractals and rational numbers. Irrational numbers are? Transcendental numbers are?
QUOTE (Zephir+)
My opinion is, you concept is quite OK, but you're mixing the neutrino with some more elementary (and lightweight) particles, like the Higgsons or gravitons. If you replace the word neutrino by the graviton, everything appears OK.
It is my exposé describing problems connected with the quantum gravity.
Many peoples claim that the main obstacle to create the good working quantum gravity is the equivalence of the inertial and gravitational mass and because the gravitons which carry the gravitational interactions interact each with others. The first statement it is artificial problem because we measure the inertial force and gravitational weight. It is obvious that these two quantities are connected with the same structure so they must have the same value. But from this equivalence results one very important conclusion that from the particles the gravitational field is built of cannot be create particle-antiparticle pairs similarly as in the electromagnetic, weak, and strong fields. It means that properties of the gravitational field are specific. From my theory results that the gravitational field can create the particle-antiparticle pairs if energy density of the gravitational field is about 10^58 kg/m^3. Such densities are not observed in our Universe, also in the observed black holes. It means that gravity is connected with rotational energy (I will explain it), not with creations of the particle-antiparticle pairs. The interactions of gravitons with massless and having mass particles leads to the infinities. It suggests that particles the gravitational field is built of have mass (understood as amount of substance) but have not weight i.e. cannot emit and absorb other particles or create some particle-antiparticle pairs. Because also photons are built of some amount of substance then they have mass. Problem is not whether photons have or not have the mass. Problem is as follows: How big is rest mass of photon? From my theory results that photons can have rest mass from about 10^-66 kg to about 10^-47 kg. These values cannot be measured today.
Recapitulation: The particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless and cannot create some particle-antiparticle pairs. Gravity is connected with the rotational energy.
Because the particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless then the spin of these particles is not important because such particles interact one with another only when they collide! So it is not important whether the spin is half-integral or equal to the 2. From my theory results that such particles have half-integral spin but because they are weightless then this spin cannot be measured.
Because the particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless then such particles are the components of the fundamental space – there is not in existence more fundamental space. The weightless fundamental particles I call the eterions and the fundamental space I call the eterion space.
Such weightless particles (i.e. the eterions), when energy density is about 10^58 kg/m^3 can create vortices (left- or right-handed) because of the dynamic viscosity. It means that the vortices are stable because the centrifugal force is smaller than the resisting force resulting from the dynamic viscosity – you know that it is very difficult to move some sheet of glass laid on some another sheet of glass. Such stable left- or right-handed vortices (I call them the higgsons) create divergent field built of the weightless particles because these vortices curve trajectories of the weightless particles also because of the dynamic viscosity.
It is not important that the weightless particles the divergent field is built of blow some bodies in such way that they create the repulsive force because there are many other weightless particles not connected with the divergent field which also blow the bodies and all directions and senses are possible. From my theory results that the weightless particles are moving with speed about the 8 . 10^88 times higher than the ‘c’. It causes that the range of the gravitational force is infinite. So the attractive gravitational force is connected with the divergent field and with the Bernoulli’s theorem. In places where the divergent weightless particles are close one to another there is more negative pressure. It means that the gravitational force is always attractive.
Recapitulation: We have to not build a quantum gravity to explain why we do not observe the points with infinite density what results from the Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. We must build the ultimate theory of the structures. From such theory must result that the Nature has its internal defensive mechanism which prevents the creation of singularities of infinite mass density. Because the weightless particles are moving with the speed 8 . 10^88c then before such singularity is created there arise the left- or right-handed vortices! There are not in existence the singularities which eat the fundamental space!!!!!!!
See my theory on www.cosmology-particles.pl
A propos: Charges behave in different way. There are created the streams in the space. The attractive ELECTROSTATIC force is connected with the parallel streams in the space. The repulsive ELECTROSTATIC force is connected with the antiparallel streams. These forces have also the infinite ranges. Electromagnetic forces are connected with the dipole space – see my prior posts.
It is my exposé describing problems connected with the quantum gravity.
Many peoples claim that the main obstacle to create the good working quantum gravity is the equivalence of the inertial and gravitational mass and because the gravitons which carry the gravitational interactions interact each with others. The first statement it is artificial problem because we measure the inertial force and gravitational weight. It is obvious that these two quantities are connected with the same structure so they must have the same value. But from this equivalence results one very important conclusion that from the particles the gravitational field is built of cannot be create particle-antiparticle pairs similarly as in the electromagnetic, weak, and strong fields. It means that properties of the gravitational field are specific. From my theory results that the gravitational field can create the particle-antiparticle pairs if energy density of the gravitational field is about 10^58 kg/m^3. Such densities are not observed in our Universe, also in the observed black holes. It means that gravity is connected with rotational energy (I will explain it), not with creations of the particle-antiparticle pairs. The interactions of gravitons with massless and having mass particles leads to the infinities. It suggests that particles the gravitational field is built of have mass (understood as amount of substance) but have not weight i.e. cannot emit and absorb other particles or create some particle-antiparticle pairs. Because also photons are built of some amount of substance then they have mass. Problem is not whether photons have or not have the mass. Problem is as follows: How big is rest mass of photon? From my theory results that photons can have rest mass from about 10^-66 kg to about 10^-47 kg. These values cannot be measured today.
Recapitulation: The particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless and cannot create some particle-antiparticle pairs. Gravity is connected with the rotational energy.
Because the particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless then the spin of these particles is not important because such particles interact one with another only when they collide! So it is not important whether the spin is half-integral or equal to the 2. From my theory results that such particles have half-integral spin but because they are weightless then this spin cannot be measured.
Because the particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless then such particles are the components of the fundamental space – there is not in existence more fundamental space. The weightless fundamental particles I call the eterions and the fundamental space I call the eterion space.
Such weightless particles (i.e. the eterions), when energy density is about 10^58 kg/m^3 can create vortices (left- or right-handed) because of the dynamic viscosity. It means that the vortices are stable because the centrifugal force is smaller than the resisting force resulting from the dynamic viscosity – you know that it is very difficult to move some sheet of glass laid on some another sheet of glass. Such stable left- or right-handed vortices (I call them the higgsons) create divergent field built of the weightless particles because these vortices curve trajectories of the weightless particles also because of the dynamic viscosity.
It is not important that the weightless particles the divergent field is built of blow some bodies in such way that they create the repulsive force because there are many other weightless particles not connected with the divergent field which also blow the bodies and all directions and senses are possible. From my theory results that the weightless particles are moving with speed about the 8 . 10^88 times higher than the ‘c’. It causes that the range of the gravitational force is infinite. So the attractive gravitational force is connected with the divergent field and with the Bernoulli’s theorem. In places where the divergent weightless particles are close one to another there is more negative pressure. It means that the gravitational force is always attractive.
Recapitulation: We have to not build a quantum gravity to explain why we do not observe the points with infinite density what results from the Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. We must build the ultimate theory of the structures. From such theory must result that the Nature has its internal defensive mechanism which prevents the creation of singularities of infinite mass density. Because the weightless particles are moving with the speed 8 . 10^88c then before such singularity is created there arise the left- or right-handed vortices! There are not in existence the singularities which eat the fundamental space!!!!!!!
See my theory on www.cosmology-particles.pl
A propos: Charges behave in different way. There are created the streams in the space. The attractive ELECTROSTATIC force is connected with the parallel streams in the space. The repulsive ELECTROSTATIC force is connected with the antiparallel streams. These forces have also the infinite ranges. Electromagnetic forces are connected with the dipole space – see my prior posts.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jan 10 2007, 11:12 AM)
QUOTE (Zephir+)
My opinion is, you concept is quite OK, but you're mixing the neutrino with some more elementary (and lightweight) particles, like the Higgsons or gravitons. If you replace the word neutrino by the graviton, everything appears OK.
It is my exposé describing problems connected with the quantum gravity.
Many peoples claim that the main obstacle to create the good working quantum gravity is the equivalence of the inertial and gravitational mass and because the gravitons which carry the gravitational interactions interact each with others. The first statement it is artificial problem because we measure the inertial force and gravitational weight. It is obvious that these two quantities are connected with the same structure so they must have the same value. But from this equivalence results one very important conclusion that from the particles the gravitational field is built of cannot be create particle-antiparticle pairs similarly as in the electromagnetic, weak, and strong fields. It means that properties of the gravitational field are specific. From my theory results that the gravitational field can create the particle-antiparticle pairs if energy density of the gravitational field is about 10^58 kg/m^3. Such densities are not observed in our Universe, also in the observed black holes. It means that gravity is connected with rotational energy (I will explain it), not with creations of the particle-antiparticle pairs. The interactions of gravitons with massless and having mass particles leads to the infinities. It suggests that particles the gravitational field is built of have mass (understood as amount of substance) but have not weight i.e. cannot emit and absorb other particles or create some particle-antiparticle pairs. Because also photons are built of some amount of substance then they have mass. Problem is not whether photons have or not have the mass. Problem is as follows: How big is rest mass of photon? From my theory results that photons can have rest mass from about 10^-66 kg to about 10^-47 kg. These values cannot be measured today.
Recapitulation: The particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless and cannot create some particle-antiparticle pairs. Gravity is connected with the rotational energy.
Because the particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless then the spin of these particles is not important because such particles interact one with another only when they collide! So it is not important whether the spin is half-integral or equal to the 2. From my theory results that such particles have half-integral spin but because they are weightless then this spin cannot be measured.
Because the particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless then such particles are the components of the fundamental space – there is not in existence more fundamental space. The weightless fundamental particles I call the eterions and the fundamental space I call the eterion space.
Such weightless particles (i.e. the eterions), when energy density is about 10^58 kg/m^3 can create vortices (left- or right-handed) because of the dynamic viscosity. It means that the vortices are stable because the centrifugal force is smaller than the resisting force resulting from the dynamic viscosity – you know that it is very difficult to move some sheet of glass laid on some another sheet of glass. Such stable left- or right-handed vortices (I call them the higgsons) create divergent field built of the weightless particles because these vortices curve trajectories of the weightless particles also because of the dynamic viscosity.
It is not important that the weightless particles the divergent field is built of blow some bodies in such way that they create the repulsive force because there are many other weightless particles not connected with the divergent field which also blow the bodies and all directions and senses are possible. From my theory results that the weightless particles are moving with speed about the 8 . 10^88 times higher than the ‘c’. It causes that the range of the gravitational force is infinite. So the attractive gravitational force is connected with the divergent field and with the Bernoulli’s theorem. In places where the divergent weightless particles are close one to another there is more negative pressure. It means that the gravitational force is always attractive.
Recapitulation: We have to not build a quantum gravity to explain why we do not observe the points with infinite density what results from the Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. We must build the ultimate theory of the structures. From such theory must result that the Nature has its internal defensive mechanism which prevents the creation of singularities of infinite mass density. Because the weightless particles are moving with the speed 8 . 10^88c then before such singularity is created there arise the left- or right-handed vortices! There are not in existence the singularities which eat the fundamental space!!!!!!!
See my theory on www.cosmology-particles.pl
A propos: Charges behave in different way. There are created the streams in the space. The attractive ELECTROSTATIC force is connected with the parallel streams in the space. The repulsive ELECTROSTATIC force is connected with the antiparallel streams. These forces have also the infinite ranges. Electromagnetic forces are connected with the dipole space – see my prior posts.
From one quantum gravitomagnetic estimation follows that the lower limit for gravyphoton mass should be ~ E-69 kg.
Also, as you are probably guessing, photon and graviton are the same in my view.
It is one and only GEM "transversal wave", or should I say a double helicoidal beam.
Regards
It is my exposé describing problems connected with the quantum gravity.
Many peoples claim that the main obstacle to create the good working quantum gravity is the equivalence of the inertial and gravitational mass and because the gravitons which carry the gravitational interactions interact each with others. The first statement it is artificial problem because we measure the inertial force and gravitational weight. It is obvious that these two quantities are connected with the same structure so they must have the same value. But from this equivalence results one very important conclusion that from the particles the gravitational field is built of cannot be create particle-antiparticle pairs similarly as in the electromagnetic, weak, and strong fields. It means that properties of the gravitational field are specific. From my theory results that the gravitational field can create the particle-antiparticle pairs if energy density of the gravitational field is about 10^58 kg/m^3. Such densities are not observed in our Universe, also in the observed black holes. It means that gravity is connected with rotational energy (I will explain it), not with creations of the particle-antiparticle pairs. The interactions of gravitons with massless and having mass particles leads to the infinities. It suggests that particles the gravitational field is built of have mass (understood as amount of substance) but have not weight i.e. cannot emit and absorb other particles or create some particle-antiparticle pairs. Because also photons are built of some amount of substance then they have mass. Problem is not whether photons have or not have the mass. Problem is as follows: How big is rest mass of photon? From my theory results that photons can have rest mass from about 10^-66 kg to about 10^-47 kg. These values cannot be measured today.
Recapitulation: The particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless and cannot create some particle-antiparticle pairs. Gravity is connected with the rotational energy.
Because the particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless then the spin of these particles is not important because such particles interact one with another only when they collide! So it is not important whether the spin is half-integral or equal to the 2. From my theory results that such particles have half-integral spin but because they are weightless then this spin cannot be measured.
Because the particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless then such particles are the components of the fundamental space – there is not in existence more fundamental space. The weightless fundamental particles I call the eterions and the fundamental space I call the eterion space.
Such weightless particles (i.e. the eterions), when energy density is about 10^58 kg/m^3 can create vortices (left- or right-handed) because of the dynamic viscosity. It means that the vortices are stable because the centrifugal force is smaller than the resisting force resulting from the dynamic viscosity – you know that it is very difficult to move some sheet of glass laid on some another sheet of glass. Such stable left- or right-handed vortices (I call them the higgsons) create divergent field built of the weightless particles because these vortices curve trajectories of the weightless particles also because of the dynamic viscosity.
It is not important that the weightless particles the divergent field is built of blow some bodies in such way that they create the repulsive force because there are many other weightless particles not connected with the divergent field which also blow the bodies and all directions and senses are possible. From my theory results that the weightless particles are moving with speed about the 8 . 10^88 times higher than the ‘c’. It causes that the range of the gravitational force is infinite. So the attractive gravitational force is connected with the divergent field and with the Bernoulli’s theorem. In places where the divergent weightless particles are close one to another there is more negative pressure. It means that the gravitational force is always attractive.
Recapitulation: We have to not build a quantum gravity to explain why we do not observe the points with infinite density what results from the Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. We must build the ultimate theory of the structures. From such theory must result that the Nature has its internal defensive mechanism which prevents the creation of singularities of infinite mass density. Because the weightless particles are moving with the speed 8 . 10^88c then before such singularity is created there arise the left- or right-handed vortices! There are not in existence the singularities which eat the fundamental space!!!!!!!
See my theory on www.cosmology-particles.pl
A propos: Charges behave in different way. There are created the streams in the space. The attractive ELECTROSTATIC force is connected with the parallel streams in the space. The repulsive ELECTROSTATIC force is connected with the antiparallel streams. These forces have also the infinite ranges. Electromagnetic forces are connected with the dipole space – see my prior posts.
From one quantum gravitomagnetic estimation follows that the lower limit for gravyphoton mass should be ~ E-69 kg.
Also, as you are probably guessing, photon and graviton are the same in my view.
It is one and only GEM "transversal wave", or should I say a double helicoidal beam.
Regards
QUOTE (Turanyanin+Jan 13 2007, 03:32 PM)
as you are probably guessing, photon and graviton are the same in my view
By AWT the photons are energy density blobs (wave packets) resulting from interference of light wave with the graviton waves of Planck length.
It means, the size of photons is much larger, then the graviton size and it depends on the wavelegth of light.
By AWT the photons are energy density blobs (wave packets) resulting from interference of light wave with the graviton waves of Planck length.
It means, the size of photons is much larger, then the graviton size and it depends on the wavelegth of light.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jan 10 2007, 02:12 PM)
Because the particles the gravitational field is built of are weightless then the spin of these particles is not important because such particles interact one with another only when they collide!
I'd like to believe you, but the weightless particles cannot collide anyway...
I'd like to believe you, but the weightless particles cannot collide anyway...
QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 13 2007, 01:40 PM)
By AWT the photons are energy density blobs (wave packets) resulting from interference of light wave with the graviton waves of Planck length.
It means, the size of photons is much larger, then the graviton size and it depends on the wavelegth of light.
This picture of the light distribution in the gravitational field seems very realistic.
This distribution will depend on this gravitational background.
It means, the size of photons is much larger, then the graviton size and it depends on the wavelegth of light.
This picture of the light distribution in the gravitational field seems very realistic.
This distribution will depend on this gravitational background.
QUOTE (czeslaw+Jan 13 2007, 05:54 PM)
This picture of the light distribution in the gravitational field seems very realistic. This distribution will depend on this gravitational background.
Thnx, but the above animation doesn't illustrate the distribution of light in gravitational field, but it explains instead, why the dipole wave changes it's character to stream of photon particles. Without it we should to solve the problem, whether the light radiated by dipole antennae spreads the energy in spherical waves (as Maxwell's theory predicts) or particle stream of energy quanta (as the quantum mechanic expects) and how. I'm afraid, the contemporary science has no simple relevant answer to such dilemma. Of course, you can try to find & propose some alternative explanation.
Thnx, but the above animation doesn't illustrate the distribution of light in gravitational field, but it explains instead, why the dipole wave changes it's character to stream of photon particles. Without it we should to solve the problem, whether the light radiated by dipole antennae spreads the energy in spherical waves (as Maxwell's theory predicts) or particle stream of energy quanta (as the quantum mechanic expects) and how. I'm afraid, the contemporary science has no simple relevant answer to such dilemma. Of course, you can try to find & propose some alternative explanation.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 13 2007, 03:08 PM)
Thnx, but the animation above doesn't illustrates the distribution of light in gravitational field, but it explains, why the dipole wave changes it's character to stream of photon particles. Without it we should to solve the problem, whether the light radiated by dipole antennae spreads the energy in spherical waves (as Maxwell's theory predicts) or particle stream of energy quanta (as the quantum mechanic expects) and how. I'm afraid, the contemporary science has no simple relevant answer to such dilemma. Of course, you can try to find & propose some alternative explanation.
Yes, there has to be something that gravitational field is modeling (distorting).
Yes, there has to be something that gravitational field is modeling (distorting).
Turanyanin mentioned points of infinite density, referring to singularities in GR. I figure the theory takes us as far as further physics will sustain. It shows possible geometries if it is so that spacetime changes differentially between regions. If you interpret the metrics in the Schwarzschild soln. as permittivity changes in the vacuum polarization, you get a horizon of infinite permittivity with a polarizability, relative to epsilon-nought, of 3. The more challenging physics is inside, where the transverse polarizability, which affects radial waves, blows up at r=4/3. Radial polarizability goes through zero at r=m. Do I have physical interpretation yet to offer? Nope, but look at the graphs of these things and you will giggle along with me at the challenge here.
QUOTE (czeslaw+Jan 13 2007, 06:15 PM)
Yes, there has to be something that gravitational field is modeling (distorting).
For example, we can bring up the following simple experiment: we have some source of X-ray or gamma radiation surrounded by the spherical phosphor screen and we'll generate the single photon of EM radiation at the center. What will happen?
A] The light will spread in spherical wave and the whole surface of screen will flash.
B] The light is spreading in particles and the surface of screen will flash in few distincts points (so called scintillation)
C] The screen will always flash in single point.
What will happen, if we'll increase/decrease the energy/wavelength of EM radiation in this experiment?
For example, we can bring up the following simple experiment: we have some source of X-ray or gamma radiation surrounded by the spherical phosphor screen and we'll generate the single photon of EM radiation at the center. What will happen?
A] The light will spread in spherical wave and the whole surface of screen will flash.
B] The light is spreading in particles and the surface of screen will flash in few distincts points (so called scintillation)
C] The screen will always flash in single point.
What will happen, if we'll increase/decrease the energy/wavelength of EM radiation in this experiment?
Albers (and all, along this exciting thread I’ve read carefully),
Excellent Yquantum’s theme is from the core (one of my interests nevertheless). Thanks for reading and accepting the last paper of mine, if I’m right. It seems You really cached its main point (I’d say a discovery) of one non-linear wave stereodynamics when applied to the strong, now really “quantum” G-limit especially. Also, after reading of Your inspiring three papers, it is quite clear that You, along with S. Kornowski, mostly goes into the structure of so-called elementary particles (especially Your electron charge model distribution ro = r^-1*exp(-r) ). That must be an exciting journey indeed. It seems to me that e.g. Ph. Kanarev, besides Wiliamson, Shpenkov & Kreidik etc., also has very interesting semi-classical electron and photon models in his realization. I also share with him the h angular momentum paradigm.
Direct Ivars’ insights also are more then valuable and constantly intriguing, for me at least. We’ve reached, starting from different viewpoints, some identical numbers in ranges of cosmic space mass values. Not accidentally at all, I believe.
On the other hand, and in contrast/complementary to the structure pole of reality, I share to some extent Czeslaw’s “energetic space fluid” and Zephyr’s “recursive foam” wave dynamics approach. Problem I have with Zephyr’s one I already explained to him – besides not enough justified using of E = mc^2, sort of almost total lack of quantitative explanations. In final, although being a very comprehensive and interesting approach, it is hard to deal with such totally qualitative picture.
Little clarification about my gravyphoton idea: I think those both are S-1 particles representing its transversal wave nature (I cannot see any direct, even Tesla kind, proof of longitudinal EM-G wave existence at all) and all that only as linear vector electrogravity domain of the stereodynamics mentioned above. A crucial physical role there plays the constant named as H = G/c^2. So, G and c are not particular “constants” at all! But crucial mathematical role there takes one hyper-gamma scale factor which directly leads towards a natural superluminal dynamics. No kinematical limits at all.
Regards
Excellent Yquantum’s theme is from the core (one of my interests nevertheless). Thanks for reading and accepting the last paper of mine, if I’m right. It seems You really cached its main point (I’d say a discovery) of one non-linear wave stereodynamics when applied to the strong, now really “quantum” G-limit especially. Also, after reading of Your inspiring three papers, it is quite clear that You, along with S. Kornowski, mostly goes into the structure of so-called elementary particles (especially Your electron charge model distribution ro = r^-1*exp(-r) ). That must be an exciting journey indeed. It seems to me that e.g. Ph. Kanarev, besides Wiliamson, Shpenkov & Kreidik etc., also has very interesting semi-classical electron and photon models in his realization. I also share with him the h angular momentum paradigm.
Direct Ivars’ insights also are more then valuable and constantly intriguing, for me at least. We’ve reached, starting from different viewpoints, some identical numbers in ranges of cosmic space mass values. Not accidentally at all, I believe.
On the other hand, and in contrast/complementary to the structure pole of reality, I share to some extent Czeslaw’s “energetic space fluid” and Zephyr’s “recursive foam” wave dynamics approach. Problem I have with Zephyr’s one I already explained to him – besides not enough justified using of E = mc^2, sort of almost total lack of quantitative explanations. In final, although being a very comprehensive and interesting approach, it is hard to deal with such totally qualitative picture.
Little clarification about my gravyphoton idea: I think those both are S-1 particles representing its transversal wave nature (I cannot see any direct, even Tesla kind, proof of longitudinal EM-G wave existence at all) and all that only as linear vector electrogravity domain of the stereodynamics mentioned above. A crucial physical role there plays the constant named as H = G/c^2. So, G and c are not particular “constants” at all! But crucial mathematical role there takes one hyper-gamma scale factor which directly leads towards a natural superluminal dynamics. No kinematical limits at all.
Regards
QUOTE (Albers+Jan 13 2007, 03:36 PM)
Turanyanin mentioned points of infinite density, referring to singularities in GR. I figure the theory takes us as far as further physics will sustain. It shows possible geometries if it is so that space-time changes differentially between regions. If you interpret the metrics in the Schwarzschild soln. as permittivity changes in the vacuum polarization, you get a horizon of infinite permittivity with a Polarize~ability, relative to epsilon-nought, of 3. The more challenging physics is inside, where the transverse Polarize~ability, which affects radial waves, blows up at r=4/3. Radial Polarize~ability goes through zero at r=m. Do I have physical interpretation yet to offer? Nope, but look at the graphs of these things and you will giggle along with me at the challenge here.
Lets never over look Newtons Laws and with it, how a wave functions so that condensed areas are produced by complex standing waves {postulated particles} via velocities over lapping another velocity from another direction that results in a pereceived momentum
I have a question to ensure Polarize~ability refers to our perception that a direction of a fields velocity can be enabled?
Have I got that right?
Lets never over look Newtons Laws and with it, how a wave functions so that condensed areas are produced by complex standing waves {postulated particles} via velocities over lapping another velocity from another direction that results in a pereceived momentum
I have a question to ensure Polarize~ability refers to our perception that a direction of a fields velocity can be enabled?
Have I got that right?
QUOTE (Turanyanin+Jan 13 2007, 09:36 PM)
Albers (and all, along this exciting thread I’ve read carefully),
Excellent Yquantum’s theme is from the core (one of my interests nevertheless). Thanks for reading and accepting the last paper of mine, if I’m right. It seems You really cached its main point (I’d say a discovery) of one non-linear wave stereodynamics when applied to the strong, now really “quantum” G-limit especially. Also, after reading of Your inspiring three papers, it is quite clear that You, along with S. Kornowski, mostly goes into the structure of so-called elementary particles (especially Your electron charge model distribution ro = r^-1*exp(-r) ). That must be an exciting journey indeed. It seems to me that e.g. Ph. Kanarev, besides Wiliamson, Shpenkov & Kreidik etc., also has very interesting semi-classical electron and photon models in his realization. I also share with him the h angular momentum paradigm.
Direct Ivars’ insights also are more then valuable and constantly intriguing, for me at least. We’ve reached, starting from different viewpoints, some identical numbers in ranges of cosmic space mass values. Not accidentally at all, I believe.
On the other hand, and in contrast/complementary to the structure pole of reality, I share to some extent Czeslaw’s “energetic space fluid” and Zephyr’s “recursive foam” wave dynamics approach. Problem I have with Zephyr’s one I already explained to him – besides not enough justified using of E = mc^2, sort of almost total lack of quantitative explanations. In final, although being a very comprehensive and interesting approach, it is hard to deal with such totally qualitative picture.
Little clarification about my gravyphoton idea: I think those both are S-1 particles representing its transversal wave nature (I cannot see any direct, even Tesla kind, proof of longitudinal EM-G wave existence at all) and all that only as linear vector electrogravity domain of the stereodynamics mentioned above. A crucial physical role there plays the constant named as H = G/c^2. So, G and c are not particular “constants” at all! But crucial mathematical role there takes one hyper-gamma scale factor which directly leads towards a natural superluminal dynamics. No kinematical limits at all.
Regards
But?! But!? but!? what about "c"? The original velocity from some catastrophe..
Excellent Yquantum’s theme is from the core (one of my interests nevertheless). Thanks for reading and accepting the last paper of mine, if I’m right. It seems You really cached its main point (I’d say a discovery) of one non-linear wave stereodynamics when applied to the strong, now really “quantum” G-limit especially. Also, after reading of Your inspiring three papers, it is quite clear that You, along with S. Kornowski, mostly goes into the structure of so-called elementary particles (especially Your electron charge model distribution ro = r^-1*exp(-r) ). That must be an exciting journey indeed. It seems to me that e.g. Ph. Kanarev, besides Wiliamson, Shpenkov & Kreidik etc., also has very interesting semi-classical electron and photon models in his realization. I also share with him the h angular momentum paradigm.
Direct Ivars’ insights also are more then valuable and constantly intriguing, for me at least. We’ve reached, starting from different viewpoints, some identical numbers in ranges of cosmic space mass values. Not accidentally at all, I believe.
On the other hand, and in contrast/complementary to the structure pole of reality, I share to some extent Czeslaw’s “energetic space fluid” and Zephyr’s “recursive foam” wave dynamics approach. Problem I have with Zephyr’s one I already explained to him – besides not enough justified using of E = mc^2, sort of almost total lack of quantitative explanations. In final, although being a very comprehensive and interesting approach, it is hard to deal with such totally qualitative picture.
Little clarification about my gravyphoton idea: I think those both are S-1 particles representing its transversal wave nature (I cannot see any direct, even Tesla kind, proof of longitudinal EM-G wave existence at all) and all that only as linear vector electrogravity domain of the stereodynamics mentioned above. A crucial physical role there plays the constant named as H = G/c^2. So, G and c are not particular “constants” at all! But crucial mathematical role there takes one hyper-gamma scale factor which directly leads towards a natural superluminal dynamics. No kinematical limits at all.
Regards
QUOTE
No kinematic limits at all.
But?! But!? but!? what about "c"? The original velocity from some catastrophe..
QUOTE (Turanyanin+Jan 13 2007, 12:32 PM)
From one quantum gravitomagnetic estimation follows that the lower limit for gravyphoton mass should be ~ E-69 kg.
Also, as you are probably guessing, photon and graviton are the same in my view.
It is one and only GEM "transversal wave", or should I say a double helicoidal beam.
Regards
It is obvious that each object has internal structure and is built of some particles.
From what particles your photons are built of?
What is difference between the electric and magnetic photons (see the theory of photons in the QM)?
Is in your model some fundamental photon?
What is mechanism which leads to the rest mass of your photons?
Is in your model upper limit for the rest mass of photons? - If yes then what phenomena define this upper limit?
Are in background of the Universe also other spaces except the photon/dipole space? - If yes then what are relations between such spaces? In my opinion the Newtonian gravity needs two different spaces i.e. needs two particles which have different properties. The Einstein's gravitational corrections to the Newtonian gravity need, in my opinion, one additional space i.e. one additional particle which should have different properties than the particles connected with the Newtonian gravity.
Where is the energy about 10^120 times greater than observed? - This energy should be connected with some particles.
What are answers in your model to these fundamental questions connected with the theory of photons with non-zero rest mass?
The same basic questions I address to Zephir. What your AWT says about these fundamental questions? You know you must describe the properties and internal structure of the all needed particles in gravity.
Also, as you are probably guessing, photon and graviton are the same in my view.
It is one and only GEM "transversal wave", or should I say a double helicoidal beam.
Regards
It is obvious that each object has internal structure and is built of some particles.
From what particles your photons are built of?
What is difference between the electric and magnetic photons (see the theory of photons in the QM)?
Is in your model some fundamental photon?
What is mechanism which leads to the rest mass of your photons?
Is in your model upper limit for the rest mass of photons? - If yes then what phenomena define this upper limit?
Are in background of the Universe also other spaces except the photon/dipole space? - If yes then what are relations between such spaces? In my opinion the Newtonian gravity needs two different spaces i.e. needs two particles which have different properties. The Einstein's gravitational corrections to the Newtonian gravity need, in my opinion, one additional space i.e. one additional particle which should have different properties than the particles connected with the Newtonian gravity.
Where is the energy about 10^120 times greater than observed? - This energy should be connected with some particles.
What are answers in your model to these fundamental questions connected with the theory of photons with non-zero rest mass?
The same basic questions I address to Zephir. What your AWT says about these fundamental questions? You know you must describe the properties and internal structure of the all needed particles in gravity.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 13 2007, 01:44 PM)
I'd like to believe you, but the weightless particles cannot collide anyway...
It is obvious untrue. Why you claim that they cannot collide? In my opinion each moving amounts of substance can collide, also these not absorbing and emitting other particles (i.e. weightless). We may only say about the cross-sections for such scattering but the values always are not equal to zero.
It is obvious untrue. Why you claim that they cannot collide? In my opinion each moving amounts of substance can collide, also these not absorbing and emitting other particles (i.e. weightless). We may only say about the cross-sections for such scattering but the values always are not equal to zero.
QUOTE (Laidback+Jan 13 2007, 09:57 PM)
But?! But!? but!? what about "c"? The original velocity from some catastrophe..
In my opinion the speed ‘c’ of elementary photons the photons (i.e. the wave packet) are built of is connected with the background of the Universe. This background behaves similarly as the molecules in the Earth atmosphere - i.e. the molecules having greater mass are moving slower. The 'c' it is natural speed of elementary photons in the background. Because in my opinion the elementary photons have the rest mass (about 10^-66 kg) then in the background should be particles moving with speeds higher than the 'c' - the Aspect's experiment suggests that such particles exist!
Why from the Einstein's special relativity results that the photons have speed 'c' in each cosmic object? Each particle having weight emits and absorbs other particles but these particles are borrowed from the background of the Universe! It means that some part of the background (I call this part the polarized part of background) is connected with the particle which emits and absorbs other particles. It is obvious that photon emitted by such particle with polarized background has speed 'c' in relation to the polarized background connected with particle which creates the polarized background. What about the speed of absorbed photon by some object emitted by particle moving in relation to this object? I must emphasize that photon moves with speed 'c' in relation to the object the photon was interacting with for the last and sometimes it are measuring apparatus in other objects. Such is correct interpretation of the 'c' in the special relativity.
In my opinion the speed ‘c’ of elementary photons the photons (i.e. the wave packet) are built of is connected with the background of the Universe. This background behaves similarly as the molecules in the Earth atmosphere - i.e. the molecules having greater mass are moving slower. The 'c' it is natural speed of elementary photons in the background. Because in my opinion the elementary photons have the rest mass (about 10^-66 kg) then in the background should be particles moving with speeds higher than the 'c' - the Aspect's experiment suggests that such particles exist!
Why from the Einstein's special relativity results that the photons have speed 'c' in each cosmic object? Each particle having weight emits and absorbs other particles but these particles are borrowed from the background of the Universe! It means that some part of the background (I call this part the polarized part of background) is connected with the particle which emits and absorbs other particles. It is obvious that photon emitted by such particle with polarized background has speed 'c' in relation to the polarized background connected with particle which creates the polarized background. What about the speed of absorbed photon by some object emitted by particle moving in relation to this object? I must emphasize that photon moves with speed 'c' in relation to the object the photon was interacting with for the last and sometimes it are measuring apparatus in other objects. Such is correct interpretation of the 'c' in the special relativity.
Duplicated post. Sorry.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jan 14 2007, 01:54 PM)
...we may only say about the cross-sections for such scattering but the values always are not equal to zero...
Learn some physics at first. You cannot adjust the reality to your ideas. The massless particles (like the solitons at the water surface) cannot collide mutually, just because they're have no mass.
Learn some physics at first. You cannot adjust the reality to your ideas. The massless particles (like the solitons at the water surface) cannot collide mutually, just because they're have no mass.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jan 14 2007, 01:54 PM)
...What your AWT says about these fundamental questions? You know you must describe the properties and internal structure of the all needed particles in gravity....
Not necessarily. For example, the Heim's theory hasn't developed any specific structure of some real particle at all. Whereas it's able to compute the particle properties perfectly. Of course. it's necessary do develop such structures in the future. The theory of yours can be considered as the first serious step in this direction.
Despite of this, I don't think, the particles are of trivial toroid/doughnut shape in general. The AWT describes the particles as the dense blobs/droplets of Aether foam. The torsion deformations manifest itself at the surfaces of such droplets, by such way, the particle spin is distributed over whole surface of such particle (i.e. delocalized).
Not necessarily. For example, the Heim's theory hasn't developed any specific structure of some real particle at all. Whereas it's able to compute the particle properties perfectly. Of course. it's necessary do develop such structures in the future. The theory of yours can be considered as the first serious step in this direction.
Despite of this, I don't think, the particles are of trivial toroid/doughnut shape in general. The AWT describes the particles as the dense blobs/droplets of Aether foam. The torsion deformations manifest itself at the surfaces of such droplets, by such way, the particle spin is distributed over whole surface of such particle (i.e. delocalized).
QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 14 2007, 11:55 AM)
Learn some physics at first. You cannot adjust the reality to your ideas.
Zephir, it is your next post without scientific arguments.
Where you see some adjustment? I see that when you have not some scientific arguments you lie. I think that your AWT is full of holes as cheese. There are my questions to you. What are your scientific arguments connected with the fundamental questions about the gravity, electromagnetism, about the weak and strong interactions? Your AWT explains nothing more than the incomplete mainstream theories. You probably see that in my posts are coherent explanations of all not solved problems in other theories. Do you become flustered about impotence of your AWT? I suggest that you should be more objective.
Zephir, it is your next post without scientific arguments.
Where you see some adjustment? I see that when you have not some scientific arguments you lie. I think that your AWT is full of holes as cheese. There are my questions to you. What are your scientific arguments connected with the fundamental questions about the gravity, electromagnetism, about the weak and strong interactions? Your AWT explains nothing more than the incomplete mainstream theories. You probably see that in my posts are coherent explanations of all not solved problems in other theories. Do you become flustered about impotence of your AWT? I suggest that you should be more objective.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 14 2007, 11:55 AM)
Not necessarily. For example, the Heim's theory hasn't developed any specific structure of some real particle at all. Whereas it's able to compute the particle properties perfectly. Of course. it's necessary do develop such structures in the future. The theory of yours can be considered as the first serious step in this direction.
Despite of this, I don't think, the particles are of trivial toroid/doughnut shape in general. The AWT describes the particles as the dense blobs/droplets of Aether foam. The torsion deformations manifest itself at the surfaces of such droplets, by such way, the particle spin is distributed over whole surface of such particle (i.e. delocalized).
Each theory which cannot explain the internal structure of the needed particles to explain the properties of the fundamental forces AND THE CAUSE OF THE BIG BANG ARE INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT. Can you understand this simple rule?! It means that the Heim's theory and your AWT are incomplete or incorrect - in my opinion are incorrect.
You say that the torus with the spherical mass in centre it is not the basic shape of particles. But inside basic particles are very high energy densities. It suggests that shape of them should be similar as in the very dense cosmic objects. See structure of the quasars and the Seyfert galaxies! There is toroid with the central mass!!!!!!! I wrote many times that when inside toroid is very high density then on the surface (it is torus) we should observe the phase transition which leads to the Ketterle surface for Fermi gas composed of fermions. Only such structure can explain the structure of CHARGES and the mechanism of the attraction and repulsion between the weak and electric charges.
Why in your opinion the dipoles the photons are built of are not built of the same weak charges? In my theory such explanation is simple - within your AWT you cannot explain it because the AWT is incomplete.
You claim that the half-integral spin is distributed over whole surface. Then why the smallest orbital moment of electron in atoms is not half-integral as it is on the surface of your particle. And do not say about the de Broglie waves because it explains nothing when we assume that your model is correct.
Despite of this, I don't think, the particles are of trivial toroid/doughnut shape in general. The AWT describes the particles as the dense blobs/droplets of Aether foam. The torsion deformations manifest itself at the surfaces of such droplets, by such way, the particle spin is distributed over whole surface of such particle (i.e. delocalized).
Each theory which cannot explain the internal structure of the needed particles to explain the properties of the fundamental forces AND THE CAUSE OF THE BIG BANG ARE INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT. Can you understand this simple rule?! It means that the Heim's theory and your AWT are incomplete or incorrect - in my opinion are incorrect.
You say that the torus with the spherical mass in centre it is not the basic shape of particles. But inside basic particles are very high energy densities. It suggests that shape of them should be similar as in the very dense cosmic objects. See structure of the quasars and the Seyfert galaxies! There is toroid with the central mass!!!!!!! I wrote many times that when inside toroid is very high density then on the surface (it is torus) we should observe the phase transition which leads to the Ketterle surface for Fermi gas composed of fermions. Only such structure can explain the structure of CHARGES and the mechanism of the attraction and repulsion between the weak and electric charges.
Why in your opinion the dipoles the photons are built of are not built of the same weak charges? In my theory such explanation is simple - within your AWT you cannot explain it because the AWT is incomplete.
You claim that the half-integral spin is distributed over whole surface. Then why the smallest orbital moment of electron in atoms is not half-integral as it is on the surface of your particle. And do not say about the de Broglie waves because it explains nothing when we assume that your model is correct.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jan 14 2007, 03:31 PM)
...it is your next post without scientific arguments.... I think that your AWT is full of holes as cheese. ...
Yes, this is just because the AWT is based on foam model.... It's just you, who's claiming here, the massless particle can collide mutually and the cross-sections for such scattering are nonzero - so the reasoning is on your side.
Without some evidence I can simply claim, this is BS without proof, fabricated artificially for the support of your hypothesis. It's typical reaction of yours: you'll never supply such reasoning, instead you'll start to attack the AWT. But the AWT caveats cannot replace the arguments of yours. I'm not required to have some theory at all to be able to criticize your theory successfully, face it.
So don't expect my response, until you'll explain, how the massless particles can collide mutually. If you want a scientific discussion, you should learn to discuss like scientist at first.
Yes, this is just because the AWT is based on foam model....
It's just you, who's claiming here, the massless particle can collide mutually and the cross-sections for such scattering are nonzero - so the reasoning is on your side.Without some evidence I can simply claim, this is BS without proof, fabricated artificially for the support of your hypothesis. It's typical reaction of yours: you'll never supply such reasoning, instead you'll start to attack the AWT. But the AWT caveats cannot replace the arguments of yours. I'm not required to have some theory at all to be able to criticize your theory successfully, face it.
So don't expect my response, until you'll explain, how the massless particles can collide mutually. If you want a scientific discussion, you should learn to discuss like scientist at first.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 13 2007, 01:40 PM)
By AWT the photons are energy density blobs (wave packets) resulting from interference of light wave with the graviton waves of Planck length.
It means, the size of photons is much larger, then the graviton size and it depends on the wavelegth of light.
You have a way of explaining things that makes big concepts seem simple.
It means, the size of photons is much larger, then the graviton size and it depends on the wavelegth of light.
You have a way of explaining things that makes big concepts seem simple.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jan 14 2007, 11:37 AM)
I must emphasize that photon moves with speed 'c' in relation to the object the photon was interacting with for the last and sometimes it are measuring apparatus in other objects. Such is correct interpretation of the 'c' in the special relativity.
Lets take a closer look and see if I have this correct?
I will begin from the onset of an electromagnetic wave about to leave an antenna, and lets say its a frequency just below visible Light {radio wave or electromagnetic transmission}.
This means we are postulating how theoretical Electron charge morphs to the theoretical Photon at some angstrom level where we are postulating the involved velocities and or what directions are feasible in practice..
we should note basically this means that an electron charge which basically is an Electromagnetic field is leaving a solid and entering a gas. keeping in mind we are dealing with mass at the angstrom level {velocities responsible for our postulated particles and electromagnetic fields definitions}
we should note that in a solid medium {compressed and or much denser} - the speed of an electromagnetic wave is much slower than in a gaseous or near vacuum medium because each particle is spread out and with less density {Uncompressed as per E=MC^2 calculus suggests} also note as to why "c" is used to explain the relationship of energy to mass. also note that mass is only possible via given or postulated velocities, which is an expression of kinetic energy..
Any way getting back to the solid where we are postulating that an increased internal velocity of one denser proton is now spearing into a gaseous protons internal velocities {nitrogen's Proton?} and where the protons internal velocities meet {theoretical electrons velocities} they are repelled, repulsed, bounced, and or recoiled as per Newtons Laws, to where these recoiled velocities then spear into other neighboring protons, so on and so on in a wave like formation...
Note how as a protons velocity spears into another proton, it compresses it somewhat so that before it was speared E=1xC^2 to when being compressed E=1.1xC^2..
So the reality is the Electron/Photon is not with a velocity but rather its our postulated particles internal velocities that are at "c" in a near vacuum and or when it comes to a solid medium consisting of much denser Particles, the theoretical electron also is NOT with a velocity, but rather its two protons internal velocities that exchanges kinetic energy or mass - from one to another via the velocities defined as negative charge and or as our theoretical electron..
Hows that so far? Does that make sense and have I got the gist of it?
Lets take a closer look and see if I have this correct?
I will begin from the onset of an electromagnetic wave about to leave an antenna, and lets say its a frequency just below visible Light {radio wave or electromagnetic transmission}.
This means we are postulating how theoretical Electron charge morphs to the theoretical Photon at some angstrom level where we are postulating the involved velocities and or what directions are feasible in practice..
we should note basically this means that an electron charge which basically is an Electromagnetic field is leaving a solid and entering a gas. keeping in mind we are dealing with mass at the angstrom level {velocities responsible for our postulated particles and electromagnetic fields definitions}
we should note that in a solid medium {compressed and or much denser} - the speed of an electromagnetic wave is much slower than in a gaseous or near vacuum medium because each particle is spread out and with less density {Uncompressed as per E=MC^2 calculus suggests} also note as to why "c" is used to explain the relationship of energy to mass. also note that mass is only possible via given or postulated velocities, which is an expression of kinetic energy..
Any way getting back to the solid where we are postulating that an increased internal velocity of one denser proton is now spearing into a gaseous protons internal velocities {nitrogen's Proton?} and where the protons internal velocities meet {theoretical electrons velocities} they are repelled, repulsed, bounced, and or recoiled as per Newtons Laws, to where these recoiled velocities then spear into other neighboring protons, so on and so on in a wave like formation...
Note how as a protons velocity spears into another proton, it compresses it somewhat so that before it was speared E=1xC^2 to when being compressed E=1.1xC^2..
So the reality is the Electron/Photon is not with a velocity but rather its our postulated particles internal velocities that are at "c" in a near vacuum and or when it comes to a solid medium consisting of much denser Particles, the theoretical electron also is NOT with a velocity, but rather its two protons internal velocities that exchanges kinetic energy or mass - from one to another via the velocities defined as negative charge and or as our theoretical electron..
Hows that so far? Does that make sense and have I got the gist of it?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.