New superluminal electron model
Richard Gauthier
I would like to propose a new superluminal electron model. The model
is still in progress (there is a superluminal photon model also) but
has definite quantitative features. I would appreciate any comments
and criticisms. My article describing the models is not posted on the
web yet. But if you would like a graphic of the electron model, please
send me an e-mail with ELECTRON MODEL GRAPHIC in the subject line. If
I get too many requests :-) we will have to figure out a better way.
I would like to introduce the model(s) in steps, and hopefully get
comments and discussion along the way. One prediction of the electron
model is that there are two distinct varieties of the negative
electron (also for the positron), with the same spin and magnetic
moment but two different charge flows. Yes, I know that only one type
of electron is known now.
If this electron (and also photon) model already exists, please let me
know and give a reference. Thanks.
The electron model is composed of a closed sheet of negative charge
that moves in a closed toroidal form at superluminal velocities. The
electron model as a whole always moves at less than the speed of light
c. The toroidal form is self-intersecting and is defined by the
rotation of a closed helix around the z-axis.
Are you with me so far? Any questions?
Richard
EL
http://hemetis.freeyellow.com/Quantology.htm
http://hemetis.freeyellow.com/
Too old and almost obsolete.
I have developed the idea greatly now.
ric...@sfo.pl (Richard Gauthier) wrote in message news:<cfc8517.03011...@posting.google.com>...
Richard Gauthier
> http://hemetis.freeyellow.com/TKTODO.htm
> http://hemetis.freeyellow.com/Quantology.htm
> http://hemetis.freeyellow.com/
>
> Too old and almost obsolete.
> I have developed the idea greatly now.
Hello! I have seen your web site and your work is very beautiful. But
an electron model based on a helical/toroidal structure needs more
mathematical detail. Could you give more details of your electron
model?
So I proceed with my description. Please let me know your comments and
if you have the same model. Thanks.
The form of the electron model is a spindle torus. Some information on
the spindle torus, and a graphic that is similar to the form of the
electron model, is found at
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpindleTorus.html .
The x, y and z values of a closed helix that generates the electron
model's toroidal form is given by:
x = Ro (1 + sqrt(2) cos (theta/2) ) cos(theta)
y = Ro (1 + sqrt(2) cos (theta/2) ) sin(theta)
z = Ro sqrt(2) sin(theta)
where Ro = (1/4pi) h/mc = 1.9 * 10^-13 meters
(h is Planck's constant and m is the electron rest mass and c is the
speed of light) and theta goes from 0 degrees to 720 degrees (0 to
4pi). h/mc is called the Compton wavelength.
This closed helix can be plotted (leaving off Ro) using any good 3-d
math plotting program, for example the shareware program 3D Grapher
which can be downloaded from www.romanlab.com .
When this closed helix is revolved around the z-axis, a
self-intersecting torus (spindle torus) is formed which is the 3-d
form of the electron model.
The electron's charge -e is spread out over the surface of this
spindle torus, but not uniformly (although the surface charge density
is uniform in the theta direction of revolution around the z-axis.)
And every bit of charge is travelling along a closed helical path
(closing at theta = 720 degrees) at greater than the speed of light c
on the surface of this self-intersecting torus. As a result of this
closed helical movement of charge, the maximum velocity attained by a
bit of charge circulating along its closed helical path around this
self-intersecting torus is found to be v(max) = 2.797 c .
The time dependency of theta (in the formulas above) on time t for a
bit of circulating electric charge is given by theta = (c/Ro) t
A bit of charge does not however move with a constant speed along its
closed helical path. The speed of a bit of charge is largest when
theta = 0 and again at 720 degrees, etc., when its distance is
farthest -- i.e. when x = Ro (1 + sqrt(2)) -- from the z-axis. But
theta increases at a constant rate around the z-axis as given by the
above formula.
To generate the formulas for the above closed helix, there is a
circular generating axis, in the x-y plane, of radius Ro. A generating
point moves at constant speed c along this circular axis (hence the
formula theta = (c/Ro) t ). At a distance Ro sqrt(2) from this
moving generating point, a second point cycles around this generating
point as the generating point moves forward. This second point creates
a closed helix which joins its starting point at theta = 720 degrees,
i.e. after 2 turns around the generating circular axis. It is this
closed helix which is revolved around the z-axis to create the form of
the electron model.
Any questions so far? Is it clear? I wanted to give some basic
information about the model first.
Richard
EL
I apologize for "top-posting" but sometimes it is very convenient to
read the response without having to scroll all the way down. :)
Your modelling is fairly good as a starting point, but you definitely
have a very long way to go.
You are talking about the electron as if it was an antique in a
museum.
We have "free electrons" such as those bombarding a CRT phosphor
coating.
We have elemental atomic shells populated with a set of
"re-configure-able" electrons.
We have conduction electrons and intermolecular electrons.
Finally we have static charge surface electrons distributed as a
semi-free entity.
Then you have the QCD interpretation in which three quarks are at
work!
Then you have to account for the symmetrical -1/2 spins or the Up spin
and the down spin.
Then you have to explain the Zeeman effect that gives us a
quantitative formalization for the charge/mass ratio and the magnetic
moment of an electron through the spectral emissions in a magnetic
field.
You should not be discouraged by the facts I enumerated to you,
because scientific research was never an easy task and I am sure you
have prepared yourself with enough enthusiasm to continue your
research.
My almost obsolete model is based on the concept of dynamic orbits.
There is a complete mathematical philosophy standing in assistance to
my model (not just a bunch of equations).
******
When you have arrived to conclude that the electron under your
investigation is a "lemon" within an "apple" with charge distributed
on its surface, I could hardly see a solution that explains the origin
of charge or what is repulsion and attraction from a kinetic model
point of view.
Then a question comes to mind, such as why we can accumulate negative
charge that is supposed to repel from each other up to millions of
volts. Does it not appear to be a contradiction with Coulomb's law? I
mean, why can we do that, and how can we force electrons to decrease
the spatial intervals rather than increase it during accumulation?
Are you aware of electron diffraction and interference patterns?
How can your apple-lemon model interfere?
Did you consider the views of De Broglie where he can see an electron
as a wave?
Do you know the wave equations of some states of the electrons?
If you are working on reinforcing the billiard ball model then you are
literally committing a scientific crime. :(
Go to this link:
http://www.hs-niederrhein.de/~physik07/
Professor Manfred Geilhaupt has a website for his work on a torroidal
model, and he has many similar ideas like yours but much more
mathematics. In his model the torus does not cross over. He also
claims to be targeting the free electron only.
So go ahead and study all the publications and make an extensive
search before you reinvent the wheel (Just a suggestion). :)
Kind regards.
EL Hemetis
ric...@sfo.pl (Richard Gauthier) wrote in message news:<cfc8517.03011...@posting.google.com>...
Len Gaasenbeek
Dear Richard,
The energy of a given frequency helical particle wave depends on its
amplitude, similar to the loudness of a sound wave. Consequently
the helical angle of a helical particle wave depends on its energy. That is
to say, the more powerful it is, the greater its amplitude and the smaller
the angle of the particle helix will be.
This also applies to the electromagnetic (helical photon wave) spectrum.
For example an x-ray has a frequency, wavelength AND an amplitude which can
vary (for a given frequency).
Enjoy, Len.
.....................................................
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Gauthier" <ric...@sfo.pl>
To: <gaas...@rideau.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 6:02 PM
Subject: Your helical particle waves article
> Dear Len,
> Hello.
> I just found and went through your Helical Particle Waves
> article and liked it very much.
> I have a new theory of photons and electrons using open and
> closed helices respectively. In my model, involving
> circulating superluminal sheets of electric charge, I find
> that the helical angle of a photon helix is always 45
> degrees. Did you ever get this result? It follows that the
> radius of the photon helix is always L/2pi where L is the
> photon wavelength. I have a proof of this as it relates to
> my model. I've just opened a thread on my electron model but
> it will include discussion of my photon model and I hope you
> willl join it. It's on alt.sci.physics.new-theories with the
> title "New superluminal electron model".
> Best wishes,
> Richard
........................................................
"Richard Gauthier" <ric...@sfo.pl> wrote in message
news:cfc8517.03011...@posting.google.com...
.....................................................
Richard Gauthier
> Your modelling is fairly good as a starting point, but you definitely
> have a very long way to go.
I'm sure you're right.
> You are talking about the electron as if it was an antique in a
> museum.
A superluminal museum? ;-)
> We have "free electrons" such as those bombarding a CRT phosphor
> coating.
> We have elemental atomic shells populated with a set of
> "re-configure-able" electrons.
> We have conduction electrons and intermolecular electrons.
> Finally we have static charge surface electrons distributed as a
> semi-free entity.
I'm first of all concerned with free electrons, characterized by mass,
charge, spin and magnetic moment, and having a deBroglie wavelength
that depends on their momentum. My 2 proposed electron varieties
contain 2 charge flows that go beyond these. You can roughly compare
them to two closed circular solonoids wrapped for example with wire at
45 degrees, but one with clockwise and the other with counterclockwise
wrapping. When carrying the same current they would have the same
magnetic moments but their magnetic fields would be different.
>
> Then you have the QCD interpretation in which three quarks are at
> work!
> Then you have to account for the symmetrical -1/2 spins or the Up spin
> and the down spin.
> Then you have to explain the Zeeman effect that gives us a
> quantitative formalization for the charge/mass ratio and the magnetic
> moment of an electron through the spectral emissions in a magnetic
> field.
One has to walk before they can run. But my electron model is set to
have a g=2 magnetic moment, i.e. one Bohr Magneton.
>
> You should not be discouraged by the facts I enumerated to you,
> because scientific research was never an easy task and I am sure you
> have prepared yourself with enough enthusiasm to continue your
> research.
You're right.
>
> My almost obsolete model is based on the concept of dynamic orbits.
> There is a complete mathematical philosophy standing in assistance to
> my model (not just a bunch of equations).
Where can I learn about that?
> When you have arrived to conclude that the electron under your
> investigation is a "lemon" within an "apple" with charge distributed
> on its surface, I could hardly see a solution that explains the origin
> of charge or what is repulsion and attraction from a kinetic model
> point of view.
My electron model takes the electron's charge as a given. My photon
model contains two superluminal helically moving charged sheets of
opposite charge +e and -e, which become the electron and positron
during pair production.
> Then a question comes to mind, such as why we can accumulate negative
> charge that is supposed to repel from each other up to millions of
> volts. Does it not appear to be a contradiction with Coulomb's law?
Parallel moving negative charges (and the same with positive charges)
have an attracting magnetic force (and a normally larger repulsive
coulomb force). If the charge is superluminal (as in my models), the
magnetic attractive force may exceed the coulomb repulsive force,
creating a net attraction.
I
> mean, why can we do that, and how can we force electrons to decrease
>the spatial intervals rather than increase it during accumulation?
Decreasing interelectron distance requires work.
> Are you aware of electron diffraction and interference patterns?
yes
> How can your apple-lemon model interfere?
The apple-lemon electron model shows self-interference at the lemon,
to (apparently) produce the deBroglie wavelength by the interference
and relativistic doppler-shifting of wavelengths of the circulating
photon-like object composing the electron model, which has the Compton
wavelength L=h/mc . So if it can show self-interference it should be
possible for it to show general interference. Also the deBroglie
wavelength of the electron model would explain electron diffraction.
And the lemon is created by the sqrt(2) term in the closed helix
formulas. It is the sqrt(2) value that gives the electron model it's
g=2 magnetic moment of one Bohr magneton. Also the deBroglie
wavelength of the electron model would explain electron diffraction.
> Did you consider the views of De Broglie where he can see an electron
> as a wave?
See above
> Do you know the wave equations of some states of the electrons?
No. But I studied the Schrodinger equation as a grad student in
physics, and I've read about the Dirac equation (very generally). I
know that the Dirac electron description has 720 degree rotational
symmetry, which is in my model also.
> If you are working on reinforcing the billiard ball model then you are
> literally committing a scientific crime. :(
Don't worry I'm not.
> Go to this link:
> http://www.hs-niederrhein.de/~physik07/
> Professor Manfred Geilhaupt has a website for his work on a torroidal
> model, and he has many similar ideas like yours but much more
> mathematics. In his model the torus does not cross over. He also
> claims to be targeting the free electron only.
> So go ahead and study all the publications and make an extensive
> search before you reinvent the wheel (Just a suggestion). :)
I checked this link. His model is different from mine, but has some
things in common. He works with charged spinning toruses it seems.
Mine doesn't spin. It has a composite superluminal helical motion. But
I can learn from his approach. I'm trying to find out if this wheel
has already been invented, but so far it seems original. If you're
interested, I can e-mail my paper to you (in Word).
best wishes,
Richard
Richard Gauthier
> amplitude, similar to the loudness of a sound wave. Consequently
> the helical angle of a helical particle wave depends on its energy. That is
> to say, the more powerful it is, the greater its amplitude and the smaller
> the angle of the particle helix will be.
>
> This also applies to the electromagnetic (helical photon wave) spectrum.
> For example an x-ray has a frequency, wavelength AND an amplitude which can
> vary (for a given frequency).
Dear Len,
Hello. Thanks for your reply and explanation.
Let's take an example if you don't mind. What is the helical angle of a photon
with energy hf =hc/L = mc2 (m c squared) where m is the mass of the electron,
and f and L are the frequency and wavelength of the photon? Such a photon will
have a wavelength L=h/mc . My helical model of the photon predicts that the
radius of this photon helix is L/2pi or (1/2pi) h/mc and the forward helix angle
is 45 degrees. What does your model predict for the radius of this photon
helix, and its forward angle?
best wishes,
Richard
EL
> I checked this link. His model is different from mine, but has some
> things in common. He works with charged spinning toruses it seems.
> Mine doesn't spin. It has a composite superluminal helical motion. But
> I can learn from his approach. I'm trying to find out if this wheel
> has already been invented, but so far it seems original. If you're
> interested, I can e-mail my paper to you (in Word).
> best wishes,
> Richard
[EL]
Well, my model was never published officially due to many
considerations.
I am after a new scientific level of quantification.
So my goals are quite different than yours (no competition).
Nevertheless, you might find that your topology is somehow a midway
between that of Manfred and that of mine. My dynamic orbits do not
explain electrons only, but let us confine our discussion to free
electrons only then.
**
The first difference is that electrons' dynamic components move in the
spacetime continuum of light propagation and may not exceed the speed
of light as that speed is a property of the medium which I call
Primedium. Any supraliminal speeds must be relativistic rather than
Newtonian, if you get the drift.
Also in my model there is a topological orientability feature
justified by following the conical shape of vortexes.
Again in my model the dynamic orbits follow a helical path to scan two
co-centric conical shells and force a flux torus through the core,
which in tern forces the conical vortex double shells and ensures a
time stability figure of many years. Also my model may be mapped to
the 3 quarks interpretation of QCD. It justifies repulsion and
attraction kinetically through bonding and tensors standing behind the
embeddedness of the dynamic orbits.
Also electron-electron interference and entangling was taken care of
concurrently.
***
I may tell you immediately that you need to revise your concept of
symmetry regarding your model.
You do succeed in describing a polar structure with an axis but you do
not carefully check its orientability.
lemons and apples shall not be enough when you build the positron
electron pair.
Only a helical vortex model may assist you in creating two species of
each of the positrons and the electrons with obvious justification for
the stability of electrons versus the positrons.
Therefore I can summarise my points of objection as speed and
structure.
1- What is your justification of a superluminal speed, and is it
required?
2- What topological features in your model allows orientable
polarization to be up or down with axis alligned?
Please answer that bit to proceed.
Kind regards.
EL Hemetis
Len Gaasenbeek
In the first of my Selected Papers titled: Helical Particle Waves, which you
will find at my website at: http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek , formula [6]
shows that the kinetic energy of a helical wave particle is a function of:
its linear velocity, its h.w. amplitude, its h.w. frequency, its spin
frequency and its rest mass.
Now there is a relationship between the above parameters, i.e. a high
frequency relativistic particle spins around its axis more rapidly than the
same particle would at a lower (h.w.) frequency. This is the case because
the gyroscopic force generated by its precessing (gyrating) spin axis is the
force which keeps the h.w. particle from decaying into a linear particle,
i.e. it squeezes (contains) the helical particle wave so it won't fly apart.
However as far as I can see this does not mean that the helical wave angle
is always 45 degrees. Rather I think that a h.w. particle in a particle
accelerator can absorb more energy by increasing its amplitude, but only up
to a point, at which it turns into a h.w. particle of higher frequency but
lower amplitude.
In other words, the amplitude of a helical wave particle of given frequency
can only vary within set limits. Consequently, the higher its frequency the
more energetic a h.w. particle is.
Now this tends to be a quantum phenomenon. That is to say, a particle of
given mass tends to favour certain frequencies, which may support your
hypothesis but not as rigidly as you suggest.
It is interesting to contemplate how for example, an electron beam usually
consists of electrons of several different frequencies. This allows the
individual h.w. electrons to form a beam consisting of several concentric
helical electron waves that spiral around each other, alternatively clock
wise and counter clockwise, providing it is a homogeneous beam. That is to
say the highest frequency (and energy) h.w. electrons will be at the centre
of the beam. They will also be the most penetrating due to their small
amplitude.
To make the quantum leap from one frequency to the next higher one (which
turns in the opposite direction) the particle's spin axis flips over so it
spins in the opposite direction, while at the same time some of its
amplitude (helical wave speed) is converted into a higher spin frequency.
The ability of a body to increase its spin frequency by gyrating its spin
axis is forcefully demonstrated by the "Dyna-Flex" toy designed to exercise
one's wrist. You can order one of these marvellous gyrating ball exercisers
by phoning: 1-800-480-8084.
When the helical particle wave is polarized the particle's spin axis flips
over twice during each cycle, which causes the particle to follow a tightly
squashed figure eight path, as seen coming towards the observer.
So much for now.
Enjoy, Len.
....................................................
"Richard Gauthier" <ric...@sfo.pl> wrote in message
news:cfc8517.03011...@posting.google.com...
........................................................
Richard Gauthier
> structure.
> 1- What is your justification of a superluminal speed, and is it
> required?
> 2- What topological features in your model allows orientable
> polarization to be up or down with axis alligned?
>
> Please answer that bit to proceed.
Dear EL,
Hello and thanks for your comments and summary explanation of your
approach.
In reply to question 1:
1. My electron model is superluminal because it is based on my photon
model which is also superluminal (in its components, not it's net
forward velocity c). My photon model is based on electric charge
(positive and negative) travelling along helical paths of radius R and
helical pitch L (which is the photon model's wavelength). For
simplicity here, assume all its instantaneous momentum P along its
helical path is concentrated at a single point on the helical path.
(The photon model is more elaborate since it contains two helically
rotating sheets of charge rather than individual points of charge, but
the mathematical result here is the same.) This instantaneous momentum
P at this point is directed along its helical path, which always makes
a forward angle theta (this defines theta here) with the longitudinal
direction. So this simplified photon model's longitudinal component of
momentum is P cos(theta) = h/L , the longitudinal or linear momentum
of a photon. The momentum P's transverse component (which is also
perpendicular to the helical radius to this point object from the
helical axis) of momentum is P sin(theta) , so its angular momentum
or spin is S = R P sin(theta) = h/2pi , the spin of the photon.
Combining these two equations containing theta gives sin(theta)/
cos(theta) = tan(theta) = L/2piR (the values h and P cancel out--check
for yourself!) . Now look at the helical geometry here. As a point on
the helix advances a distance L (one wavelength) in the longitudinal
direction, the same point moves a transverse distance 2piR, i.e. once
around the circle defined by the helix. So you will see that from the
way theta is defined, tan(theta) equals the transverse distance
travelled in one wavelength divided by the longitudinal distance
travelled in one wavelength, or tan(theta) = 2piR/L . So we now have 2
equations for tan(theta). So tan(theta)= 2piR/L = L/2piR and this
will only be true if L=2piR , that is, R = L/2pi and theta = 45
degrees. This is true for any photon in this simple helical model, and
is also true in my charged sheets model of the photon. So when theta =
45 degrees, the velocity of the point object in this simple
superluminal helical photon model is c*sqrt(2), so that its forward
velocity is c and its transverse instantaneous velocity is also c.
Is a superluminal velocity required for an electron model? This was a
stumbling block for the first spinning charged sphere models of the
electron, which couldn't spin fast enough to get g=2 without being
superluminal at their outer rim. This is one reason why the point-like
electron was accepted and it was said that it couldn't be (and later
"shouldn't be") visualized. The g=2 first order value of the
electron's magnetic moment is in fact difficult to get with a
sub-luminal extended model of the electron that has spin h/4pi. The
charged spinning ring electron model (Bergman, D.L. and Wesley, J.P.,
"Spinning charged ring model of electron yielding anomalous magnetic
moment", Galilean Electrodynamics 1, 63-67,Sept./Oct.1990) (which
spins at velocity c so it is not sub-luminal) claims to have attained
this result, if you only count the charged ring's magnetostatic energy
contribution (50% of its total energy in this model) in calculating
the spin and not its electrostatic energy contribution. But its ring's
half width is found to be 10^-200 meters (sic). It is a purely
classical (non quantum) model. By now, other sub-luminal or luminal
electron models may have succeeded in getting both the spin and
magnetic moment right at least to first order (g=2). But do they
generate the deBroglie wavelength also? And there is a partly
superluminal electron model I know of: Siddharth, B.G., "Quantum
mechanical black holes: towards a unification of quantum mechanics and
general relativity", arXiv:quant-ph/9808020, 1, (12 August 1998)
(http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/9808020)
In reply to question 2:
In my electron model, the x,y,z coordinates of the closed helix that
generates the form of the electron model by rotation about the z-axis
was given in message 3 in this thread.
x = Ro (1 + sqrt(2) cos (theta/2) ) cos(theta)
y = Ro (1 + sqrt(2) cos (theta/2) ) sin(theta)
z = Ro sqrt(2) sin(theta/2)
PLEASE NOTE THIS IMPORTANT CORRECTION: THE ORIGINAL FORMULA FOR z IN
MESSAGE 3 CONTAINS sin(theta) AND IT SHOULD BE sin(theta/2) AS
IMMEDIATELY ABOVE. My apologies.
If the formula for z is set to be z = -Ro sqrt(2) sin(theta/2) instead
of z = Ro sqrt(2) sin(theta/2) , the figure generated is also a closed
helix but opposite in handedness to the first one (symmetrical by
reflection in the z direction). In the electron model, negative charge
flows along these helical paths contained in the surface of revolution
of the closed helix. So this electron model gives two possible charge
flows. Both of these varieties of the electron model have by
calculation the same magnitude (=h/4pi) and direction of spin and
also the same magnitude (=one Bohr magneton) and direction of their
magnetic moment (opposite to that of their spins' vector direction).
Both are composed of negative charge. To form positrons, the charge
sign and charge flows are reversed, creating 2 positron models
corresponding to the 2 negative electron models. These two negative
electron and two positron varieties can be either spin up or spin
down, in a quantized way.
Does this answer your questions?
Richard
Richard Gauthier
> is always 45 degrees. Rather I think that a h.w. particle in a particle
> accelerator can absorb more energy by increasing its amplitude, but only up
> to a point, at which it turns into a h.w. particle of higher frequency but
> lower amplitude.
Your particle waves that describe particles with rest mass are quite
complicated. This is not in itself a criticism, but I think that the
particle wave that describes a photon is simpler than one which
describes an electron for example.
For example, formula 3 in your "Helical Particle Waves" article on
your web site does not appear to be correct for a photon, though it
may be correct for an electron. The formula is (taking magnitudes
only):
(Vh/Vp) * Vl = c where Vh is the diagonal velocity along the photon
helix, Vp is the peripheral or transverse velocity, Vl is the
longitudinal velocity and c is the speed of light. If you cannot find
fault with my result that the photon helix is always 45 degrees (if
you can find fault with this result and its proof in my other e-mail
today to this thread, please tell me) then the result of this is that
for a photon of any energy, frequency and wavelength, Vh=c*sqrt(2) ,
Vp = c and Vl = c . So, substituting these values into your formula
3:
(c*sqrt(2)/c) * c = c
or sqrt(2) = 1 ???
But this is not correct of course, so it seems to me that either my 45
degree result is wrong or your formula 3 is wrong for a photon.
Please let me know if you think both of our results can be correct
or not.
best wishes,
Richard
EL
> Does this answer your questions?
> Richard
[EL]
It makes your position clear non the less.
Now I realise that you believe that a [photon] "contains" an electron
and a positron.
I made the same mistake twenty years ago. :)
How can I blame you? :)
I did not even make corrections to my website for two years.
I realised the error about a year and a half back, from now.
So let us discuss the background concepts on which your research is
standing.
It could prove very useful and if not corrective you shall gain
confidence.
**
Firstly, I do fully understand that the mainstream had been promoting
the corpuscular model over the wave model for the last hundred years
or so.
Now let us drop the loaded names and think in a pure scientific way.
We shall not use the word "Photon", we shall use the word energy
quantum to avoid any associated pictures.
Then we should begin by discussing the "Pair Production in a magnetic
field".
Firstly, we need to recall that a critical magnetic field H_cr is
needed to increase the probability of the pair production. Not only
that, but a term (H/H_cr) is a factor in the magnetic refractive index
of vacuum, where H is the external magnetic field, which is not much
smaller than H_cr but less. Yet another point for consideration is
that pair production cannot take place in a constant magnetic field
without some specific conditioning.
(O' Connell) formulated the relation as:
H = (4pi/alpha).H_cr
Now the minimum energy of a "quantum" that can produce the pair is an
energy interval that equals:
2.m_0.c^2.(1-(alpha/4pi).(H/H-cr)).
According to O' Connell, the absolute minimum |E_min| is non but the
lowest "orbit" with Landau quantum n = 0. Higher orbits with n>0 shall
demand more minimal energy.
The normal process includes the generation of a short-life pair that
soon annihilate, producing a lower energy quantum (red- shifting). The
highest probability of pair production involves orthogonality between
the light beam and the magnetic "wall".
Now what is the most obvious conclusion from the requirements of a
critical magnetic field and a minimum frequency of energy radiation
where a magnetic component is obviously undergoing interference?
An electromagnetic spherical wavefront practically is not an expanding
sphere, because if the source of that quantum was on the surface of
matter, then at least half of the sphere is partly absorbed and partly
reflected.
Therefore we are dealing with windows, aligned radially, through which
the spherical propagation proceeds.
From here we have to deal with tensors in fields.
Apart from the orthogonality of relations between the magnetic and the
electric components with respect to the direction of propagation, we
have the phenomenal frequency as a time variant component along the
radial direction of propagation. This clearly shows that the spacetime
interval of an energy quantum does not contain any pairs. They are
produced "Locally" at the location of interference. :)
The pair are literally "spun" out of the field.
Therefore I could hardly see a one on one relation between a proposed
structure of a free electron and an energy quantum. That is my main
objection against the justification of superluminal subcomponents of
an electron. In fact they are luminal. and may not be anything else
but luminal.
Any propagation of a force vector in vacuum is luminal by definition
of the medium.
If we agree on what I have presented we may proceed, but if you have
objections or unclear points let us discuss it now or never.
Kindest regards.
EL
Len Gaasenbeek
Dear Richard,
Gamma only applies to helical particle waves other than helical photon waves
because it would become infinite as v squared divided by c squared would be
one, in which case gamma would be infinite. In other words gamma does not
apply to helical photon waves.
I only wanted to show that, if anything, gamma does not apply to the
relativistic mass but rather to the velocity of a relativistic particle.
That is to say it is because its helical velocity is greater than c, that
the low energy relativistic particle keeps gaining energy when it continues
to be accelerated.
Next I go on to say that gamma at best only produces approximate results
since it doesn't take into account what actually happens when a higher
energy relativistic particle is generated.
For example at high relativistic speeds the frequency of the particle
increases while its amplitude DECREASES. This means that, its helical
velocity and its linear velocity vector tend to become one and the same, as
they approach c. However now the increased spin of the particle is
responsible for its increase in kinetic energy, even though its peripheral
speed approaches zero. Consequently formula [6] supplants formula [5].
By the way I don't follow when you quote me to say that the helical speed of
a relativistic particle is equal to the speed of light squared, because I
don't.
Enjoy, Len.
............................................................................
......
"Richard Gauthier" <ric...@sfo.pl> wrote in message
news:cfc8517.03011...@posting.google.com...
Richard Gauthier
> a relativistic particle is equal to the speed of light squared, because I
> don't.
Dear Len,
Only a short reply for now (I'm travelling). The helical speed in my
photon model is c times the square root of 2, or 1.414c , not c
squared.
best wishes,
Richard
Len Gaasenbeek
As I said before, I contend that the helical speed of a helical wave
particle can be more or less than the speed of light times the square root
of two, but within narrow limits. It seems to me that in nature most things
are rarely completely black or white but are usually a shade of grey. :-)
Enjoy, Len.
.........................................................
"Richard Gauthier" <ric...@sfo.pl> wrote in message
news:cfc8517.03011...@posting.google.com...
Len Gaasenbeek
Dear Richard,
I have given some more thought to the subject since I wrote the posting
below.
We all agree that the frequency of a helical wave particle does not increase
continuously (smoothly) as the particle accelerator continues to pump energy
into it. This means that a particle of given frequency can absorb more
energy before it jumps to the next higher frequency.
I contend that it does this by increasing its amplitude. However it can
only increase its amplitude by so much before it becomes unstable and it
suddenly converts some of its peripheral speed (amplitude) into a quantum
increase in its spin. The increase in the gyroscopic force that is produced
squeezes the beam's amplitude so it can now convert to the next higher
(helical wave) frequency.
In other words, it may well be that a helical wave particle of a given
frequency is most stable at an amplitude which corresponds to a 45 degree
helical wave angle. Once it increases its amplitude (energy) so the angle
increases to say 50 degrees, it becomes unstable and converts to the next
higher frequency. Similarly, if it loses energy its amplitude decreases so
its helical wave angle is reduced to say 40 degrees, at which point the
helical wave particle becomes unstable and converts (decays) to the next
lower quantum frequency.
When the linear velocity (kinetic energy) of the helical wave particle is
reduced to approximately 0.6 c, it decays into a spinning linear particle,
i.e. it ceases to be a helical wave (relativistic) particle. Alternatively
when a linear wave particle is accelerated to approximately 0.6 c it becomes
unstable and converts into a helical wave particle by converting some of its
spin into a peripheral speed.
One clear example of a helical wave electron (muon) converting into a linear
electron when it is slowed down is given in the last of my "Selected Papers"
titled: "Time Dilation, Fact or Fiction" which you will find at my website
at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
Under the subheading of "Time Dilation as Shown by Rossi and Hall"
the section concludes with the following paragraph:
"In summary, muons that travel through the atmosphere last longer than muons
that have been stopped in a detector, so that their decay times at rest can
be recorded, because muons are helical wave electrons which rapidly decay
into ordinary electrons when they are slowed down to the point where they no
longer travel at a relativistic speed. Consequently, fast moving particles
do not age at a slower rate than particles that are at rest as Rossi and
Hall would have us believe."
(You can't study how long a cat will live if you start out by killing it.
:-) )
In other words the moving h.w. particle has to have a way of storing its
increased energy before it jumps to the next higher frequency. It does so
by increasing its h.w. amplitude. So even though it may well be that a
helical particle wave which has a 45 degree wave angle is most stable, this
does not mean that it can't have a slightly greater or smaller wave angle,
depending on whether it is carrying the maximum or minimum amount or energy
it is capable of carrying at that frequency.
Enjoy, Len.
...................................................
"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message
news:v2o31bn...@corp.supernews.com...
Richard Gauthier
> electric components with respect to the direction of propagation, we
> have the phenomenal frequency as a time variant component along the
> radial direction of propagation. This clearly shows that the spacetime
> interval of an energy quantum does not contain any pairs. They are
> produced "Locally" at the location of interference. :)
> The pair are literally "spun" out of the field.
> Therefore I could hardly see a one on one relation between a proposed
> structure of a free electron and an energy quantum. That is my main
> objection against the justification of superluminal subcomponents of
> an electron. In fact they are luminal. and may not be anything else
> but luminal.
> Any propagation of a force vector in vacuum is luminal by definition
> of the medium.
> If we agree on what I have presented we may proceed, but if you have
> objections or unclear points let us discuss it now or never.
>
> Kindest regards.
>
> EL
Dear EL,
My complete paper "Superluminal Models for the Electron and Photon" is
now available on the internet at the following link. It will be useful
for more fully understanding the following.
http://www.home.zonnet.nl/microvita/articles/superluminal.pdf
I'm not familiar with the requirements for a magnetic field as you
described to increase the probability of pair production. I know that
the probability is increased in the presence of a magnetic field
because a magnetic field with a large enough energy density can supply
energy for pair production. I'd like to keep to the case where the
photon has sufficient energy to create an electron/positron pair, i.e.
2mcsquared. I did not say that the photon contains an
electron/positron pair. In my model, the photon contains a negative
and positive charge of value -e and +e respectively, each charge in
the form of a charged sheet of area Lsquared (where L is the
wavelength of the photon model--the pitch of the photon model's helix)
that moves helically at speed c*sqrt(2) since for my model I prove
that the angle of the helix along which the charge sheets move is 45
degrees. The forward movement of this photon model is c which is the
propagation velocity of light. c*sqrt(2) is not the propagation speed
of light, it is the propagation speed of the two charged sheets, which
therefore are superlumnal.
In pair production, I propose that the two charge sheets with
charge -e and +e are transformed into the produced electron and
positron. I show that the radius of the photon above that produces the
pair is (1/4pi)h/mc. The primary radius of the closed helix defining
the electron produced also has radius (1/4pi)h/mc. Coincidence? No, in
both cases it's the radius that gives the photon and electron their
experimentlly known spins. In the photon model the negative charge
sheet has angular momentum (1/4pi)h. The produced electron also has
angular momentum or spin (1/4pi)h. The photon model charge sheets
move in an open helix with the charge spread over an area Lsquared for
each charge. In the electron model the charge is spread over a
self-intersecting torus (a spindle torus), defined as the surface of
revolution of a closed helix of a particular radius, and whose
wavelength/pitch is h/mc (the Compton wavelength) . The charge density
of the electron model varies with position on the torus but is
comparable with the charge density e/Lsquared of the negative and the
positive charged sheets of the photon model that produced the
electron/positron pair.
It is true that this charged sheets model of the photon by itself
cannot account for the creation of more than 2 charged particles with
charge e, when the energy of the photon is large enough to form
multiple particles when interacting with a heavy nucleus. So in
general the additional charges must be "spun out" during the
photon/nucleus interaction. But the photon may provide the 'seed' or
matrix from which the extra charges are 'spun'. For example the two
opposite charges in the photon model are attached to each other. Their
attached borders could be the regions in which new electric charge is
created in equal and opposite amounts when extra charge is required
for making additional particles, similar to when two pieces of sticky
tape which are partly stuck together (neutral in the stuck area) are
pulled apart (creating additional negative and positive charged
sheets). It is similar when an electron and positron annihilate,
creating two photons. Before, there are 2 charges (1 each on the
electron and positron). After, there are 4 charges (2 opposite charges
on the charged sheets in each of the two photons created--if it is two
photons created; it may be three for example). So extra charges are
created in this reaction also.
best wishes,
Richard
Richard Gauthier
> continuously (smoothly) as the particle accelerator continues to pump energy
> into it. This means that a particle of given frequency can absorb more
> energy before it jumps to the next higher frequency.
Dear Len,
Hello. My complete article "Superluminal Helical Models of the
Electron and Photon" including graphics of the photon and electron
models, is now posted at
http://www.home.zonnet.nl/microvita/articles/superluminal.pdf
I understand that an accelerating electron would absorb energy quanta
one at a time from the electric field in an accelerator, so that the
electron's velocity and energy would increase in steps or jumps. But
wouldn't its average amplitude decrease rather than increase each time
while its average frequency increased? After all it is frequency which
is a measure of energy.
>
> I contend that it does this by increasing its amplitude. However it can
> only increase its amplitude by so much before it becomes unstable and it
> suddenly converts some of its peripheral speed (amplitude) into a quantum
> increase in its spin.
I think this stability/instability description may be unique to your
model. What would cause the instability of a uniformly accelerating
electron?
The increase in the gyroscopic force that is produced
> squeezes the beam's amplitude so it can now convert to the next higher
> (helical wave) frequency.
I think the electron's amplitude decreases with the decreasing
wavelength of the electron, no squeezing is involved.
>
> In other words, it may well be that a helical wave particle of a given
> frequency is most stable at an amplitude which corresponds to a 45 degree
> helical wave angle. Once it increases its amplitude (energy) so the angle
> increases to say 50 degrees, it becomes unstable and converts to the next
> higher frequency. Similarly, if it loses energy its amplitude decreases so
> its helical wave angle is reduced to say 40 degrees, at which point the
> helical wave particle becomes unstable and converts (decays) to the next
> lower quantum frequency.
I think it's simpler for the amplitude to decrease each time the
frequency of an accelerated helical particle increases when it absorbs
a quantum of energy from the electric field.
>
> When the linear velocity (kinetic energy) of the helical wave particle is
> reduced to approximately 0.6 c, it decays into a spinning linear particle,
> i.e. it ceases to be a helical wave (relativistic) particle. Alternatively
> when a linear wave particle is accelerated to approximately 0.6 c it becomes
> unstable and converts into a helical wave particle by converting some of its
> spin into a peripheral speed.
Is there such a nice dividing line between a relativistic and a
non-relativistic particle?
>
> One clear example of a helical wave electron (muon) converting into a linear
> electron when it is slowed down is given in the last of my "Selected Papers"
> titled: "Time Dilation, Fact or Fiction" which you will find at my website
> at:
> http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
Thanks. I'll check this.
So even though it may well be that a
> helical particle wave which has a 45 degree wave angle is most stable, this
> does not mean that it can't have a slightly greater or smaller wave angle,
> depending on whether it is carrying the maximum or minimum amount or energy
> it is capable of carrying at that frequency.
In my photon model the photon's open helix always has a 45 degree
angle for the motion of bits of charge composing the charged sheets.
The electron model's closed helix has a variable forward angle for the
motion of bits of charge, depending on the position of a bit of charge
moving around the closed helix. At the outer edge of the electron
model, a bit of charge is moving the fastest, with axial speed 2.414c
and z-component of speed 1.414 c, so the forward angle will be less
than 45 degrees, i.e. the angle whose tangent is 1.414/2.414 . At the
top of the electron model (at theta = 180 degrees, or theta/2 = 90
degrees, as theta is measured around the z-axis), the forward angle
will be 45 degrees, while near the 'dimple' of the electron model the
forward angle will be less than 45 degrees. In all cases the charge
composing the electron model will move at superluminal velocities,
even though the electron as a whole moves at less than c.
best wishes,
Richard
EL
*.
[R]
> I'm not familiar with the requirements for a magnetic field as you
> described to increase the probability of pair production.
Perhaps it is the right time for you to get familiar with such a
requirement.
If you did, you might have to change your whole theory.
I know it would be frustrating especially if you are limited by time
in an academic study.
But just think what could happen if your paper was rejected for not
studying the grounds on which you stand.
I know my advise is painful, but I am sure that the result is worth
the pain.
*.
[R]
>I know that
> the probability is increased in the presence of a magnetic field
> because a magnetic field with a large enough energy density can supply
> energy for pair production.
Energy!
Be very careful with such an expression in a seminar.
Remember that you are talking a bout a magnetic field that could be
static.
The field density (flux density) is not the same as an energy density.
*.
[R]
>I'd like to keep to the case where the
> photon has sufficient energy to create an electron/positron pair, i.e.
> 2mcsquared. I did not say that the photon contains an
> electron/positron pair. In my model, the photon contains a negative
> and positive charge of value -e and +e respectively,
That would be imagining how would the ancestors of electrons and
positrons look like.
You shall see later in my post that I realised that you made a
brilliant observation.
That brilliant observation shall tell you where you went wrong.
You discovered it, and I shall just point it out to you.
*.
[R]
> It is true that this charged sheets model of the photon by itself
> cannot account for the creation of more than 2 charged particles with
> charge e, when the energy of the photon is large enough to form
> multiple particles when interacting with a heavy nucleus. So in
> general the additional charges must be "spun out" during the
> photon/nucleus interaction.
Very good, but if you accept the possibility of "spinning" additional
pairs,
then what makes you resist the idea of spinning all pairs rather than
the additional only?
Would the energy of the photon "wait" until the hidden pair is broken
up and then begins spinning?
Yet I am really happy you noticed the avalanche effect at much greater
energies because it helps me help you.
Please remember that light waves do have a magnetic component that
alternates in magnitude orthogonal to the direction of propagation.
What is your expectations of a powerful magnetic field interfering
with another powerful magnetic field with one being radial in the
orthogonal plane and the other hashing through the first?
Remember that the model photon could be N(0.511MeV), i.e. (HEGR) and
that it *could* be polarized and monochromatic.
When the energy of a photon is more than a multiple of (0.511MeV) the
extra energy (fractional) is conserved as kinetic energy carried by
the created particles.
Did you research if polarised photons can generate a pair or not?
Did you know that internal pair creation is also possible on a nuclear
collision followed by deexcitation if the transition energy exceeds
the critical rest mass threshold of the electron?
What is the structure of a transition energy quantum?
*.
[R]
>But the photon may provide the 'seed' or
> matrix from which the extra charges are 'spun'.
[EL]
No, this too is not a requirement at all.
*.
[R]
>For example the two
> opposite charges in the photon model are attached to each other.
[EL]
There is no evidence whatsoever that photons *contain* any specific
charges even if you wish to assume that it is internally neutralised.
What is the charge contained inside a seven meters long radio wave and
where?
Now we are talking about electro-magnetic waves here.
So we do know that an "electric" attribute of the wave is changing
magnitude and polarity as well but that is over the time interval of a
complete cycle.
Therefore there is no one instance in which you could pinpoint both
the electron and the positron in the spacetime metric.
In more simple words, the charge particle is a function of time over
extended space and it is not a function of space over extended time.
Ask yourself this question.
What is the inverse phenomenon of velocity in physics?
Or given that the dimensions of velocity is L/T then what could we
call T/L?
I think that a charge is the time of curvature, what do you think?
*.
[R]
>Their
> attached borders could be the regions in which new electric charge is
> created in equal and opposite amounts when extra charge is required
> for making additional particles, similar to when two pieces of sticky
> tape which are partly stuck together (neutral in the stuck area) are
> pulled apart (creating additional negative and positive charged
> sheets). It is similar when an electron and positron annihilate,
> creating two photons. Before, there are 2 charges (1 each on the
> electron and positron). After, there are 4 charges (2 opposite charges
> on the charged sheets in each of the two photons created--if it is two
> photons created; it may be three for example). So extra charges are
> created in this reaction also.
> best wishes,
> Richard
[El]
Please realise that the corpuscular model of photons is only a
convenient model and has no structure defined.
But for the sake of the argument let us assume that a photon was a
bullet.
When you target a set of wooden layers a bullet could make holes in
them layer after layer.
Each layer demands a specific energy "quantum" for completing a hole.
The more the kinetic energy of the bullet the more holes we may get
through additional layers.
How can a hole represent a positive and a negative charge?
Now here is an alternative view.
Let the photon be a moving entity with two successive parts, one is a
convex curvature and the next is a concave curvature.
In place of the static layers let us place some dynamic layers moving
orthogonal to the direction of the photon.
If the energy of the photon could leave a convex impression in a layer
that moves fast enough, then another concave impression could be made
separately in spacetime.
By applying tensor analysis to the temporal structure of the photon
you can predict its interference with a magnetic field or an
electrostatic field.
If we identify a fact that all electrons must carry a charge -e we may
not conclude that everything with -e must be an electron.
A free electron is one thing and a wave coupled electron is another
thing and negative charges in atomic shells are not equal in all other
properties.
The helical vortex model of the free electron is tenable but that of
energy quanta is not.
A superluminal speed is required for a helical vortex free electron
propagating at c but they do not.
A photon propagates at c but a helical vortex structure is unlikely,
hence a superluminal speed of internal propagation is not tenable.
The deeper you dig, the more you shall know what I offer you as
information here.
You need to place all the jigsaw puzzle pieces in front of you before
you begin solving for a correct image.
Current regards.
EL
Richard Gauthier
> model, a bit of charge is moving the fastest, with axial speed 2.414c
> and z-component of speed 1.414 c, so the forward angle will be less
> than 45 degrees, i.e. the angle whose tangent is 1.414/2.414 . At the
> top of the electron model (at theta = 180 degrees, or theta/2 = 90
> degrees, as theta is measured around the z-axis), the forward angle
> will be 45 degrees, while near the 'dimple' of the electron model the
> forward angle will be less than 45 degrees. In all cases the charge
> composing the electron model will move at superluminal velocities,
> even though the electron as a whole moves at less than c.
Two corrections in the above (my apologies). At theta = 180 degrees,
at the top of the electron model, the forward angle of a bit of charge
is not 45 degrees. The axial speed here is c, while the radial speed
is c*sqrt(2)= 1.414 c. So the forward angle here is the angle whose
tangent is 1.414c/c = 1.414 . This angle is greater than 45 degrees.
Just at the dimple the forward angle of a bit of charge will be 90
degrees since here the axial speed is zero. The total speed here is
1.414 c, the minimum speed of a bit of charge in the electron model.
best wishes,
Richard
Manfred B.
Manfred
Richard Gauthier
Dear Mandred,
Hello and thanks very much for the link. I checked it and it's very
interesting. I came up with a very similar photon model as his just
before I developed my present one. But I was unable to make a good
electron model composed of point charges. When I developed the
superluminal charged sheet model for the electron, I then applied the
charged sheet concept to the photon model also and found that the 2
charged sheet models were quite compatible.
best wishes,
Richard
Manfred B.
Richard:
you're welcome. I was told by Victor Urbina, that all data of his
experimental setup is valid as shown. You can compare it to your
modeling, if you wish.
Kind regards
Manfred
Richard Gauthier
> > I'm not familiar with the requirements for a magnetic field as you
> > described to increase the probability of pair production.
> [EL]
> Perhaps it is the right time for you to get familiar with such a
> requirement.
I did a little checking and pair production in magnetic fields seems
more associated with astrophysical phenomena because of the very high
strength magnetic field that would be required for pair production.
I've asked a person much more knowledgeable than me about this.
but if you accept the possibility of "spinning" additional
> pairs,
> then what makes you resist the idea of spinning all pairs rather than
> the additional only?
> Would the energy of the photon "wait" until the hidden pair is broken
> up and then begins spinning?
A good point. The creation or spinning of new charges (if necessary)
would possibly be a parallel process, creating charges as necessary to
form all the charged particles (and/or 'neutral' particles)(according
to what the reaction is) for which there is sufficient energy. In my
photon and electron models there is momentum as well as energy
associated with the charge density of the charged sheets. So if there
is no charge (plus and minus) in the photon, what will carry the
photon's energy and momentum? If there is a charge +e and -e in the
photon model, then the charge densities, energy densities and momentum
densities of the photon correspond (when E(photon)= 2mcsquared ) to
that in my electron model.
Are you against any finite-size model for the electron and photon? Or
only superluminal models? If so (to the first question), then how do
you explain the appearance of pi (a geometric ratio) in the
"intrinsic" spin of the electron and photon??? And (to the second
question) doesn't a finite size photon model with spin h/2pi
(indicating internal transverse motion) imply superluminal velocity
within the photon model?
> What is your expectations of a powerful magnetic field interfering
> with another powerful magnetic field with one being radial in the
> orthogonal plane and the other hashing through the first?
Sorry, that calculation is presently beyond me.
> Did you research if polarised photons can generate a pair or not?
Apparently they can.
> Did you know that internal pair creation is also possible on a nuclear
> collision followed by deexcitation if the transition energy exceeds
> the critical rest mass threshold of the electron?
No.
> There is no evidence whatsoever that photons *contain* any specific
> charges even if you wish to assume that it is internally neutralised.
> What is the charge contained inside a seven meters long radio wave and
> where?
In my photon model the charge -e would be spread uniformly over a
rolled up (radius 7meters/2pi) parallelogram seven meters long at its
base and seven meters high (flat distance) with a parallelogram angle
45 degrees, so having a total area of 49 square meters, (see Figure 1
in my paper). The same for the connected charged sheet +e. The helical
speed of the sheets would be 1.414 c as the radio wave advanced at the
speed c.
> Now we are talking about electro-magnetic waves here.
> So we do know that an "electric" attribute of the wave is changing
> magnitude and polarity as well but that is over the time interval of a
> complete cycle.
> Therefore there is no one instance in which you could pinpoint both
> the electron and the positron in the spacetime metric.
The charge is not pinpointed in my photon model (nor in my electron
model), the negative charge -e is spread out over an area L squared,
and cycles at the frequency of the radio wave. The same for the
positive charge +e.
> In more simple words, the charge particle is a function of time over
> extended space and it is not a function of space over extended time.
But I think you are assuming a point charge and I am not.
> Ask yourself this question.
> What is the inverse phenomenon of velocity in physics?
> Or given that the dimensions of velocity is L/T then what could we
> call T/L?
> I think that a charge is the time of curvature, what do you think?
In my photon and electron models, the surface charge density (and
momentum density) is related to the curvature (which is inverse to
wavelength), i.e. the greater the charge density, the greater the
curvature of the charged sheet. I think there is something significant
here for understanding what charge is--charge density is proportional
to space curvature?
best regards,
Richard
Richard Gauthier
> experimental setup is valid as shown. You can compare it to your
> modeling, if you wish.
Thanks.I've written to him.
Richard
EL
[EL]
:)
Excellent, I think you are very close to some great discoveries.
"charge density is proportional to space curvature"
Recall the density of charge distribution on a conductive pin.
Now imagine a window through which "clipping" of a queue of spherical
shells is taking place.
You may imagine a train of an infinite number of parallel sheets
passing through that window.
Each sheet is like a square graph paper with E and H being
perpendicular and in the plane of the sheet.
Now if they were polarized, then all successive E "lines" should be
parallel and all H "lines" consequentially must be parallel. if the
wave was not polarized then we expect them to be in any other
direction, but there are some exceptional cases. If successive wave
planes are rotated by a constant angle periodically, they give the
impression that the wave exhibits some helical characteristics over an
extended interval of time.
Such an angular velocity of sheet rotation is not a length related
phenomenon and causes no superluminal consequences.
The rate at which the E and the H fields change magnitude is also a
length-non-related rate of change and consequently have no effect on
the velocity of propagation. Each radial ray of light within the wave
packet passing through that window is propagating in that direction at
"c" and the *spatial* wave geometry per ray is single dimensional,
along which the wavelength defines the energy quantum or the photon.
If that wave was orthogonally rotating in a periodical sense then you
still have no helix *spread in space* and all what you have is similar
to a string out of which many "straight wires" are sticking out and
changing angles with a step over time. That is why I disagree on the
superluminal component assumed.
***
Secondly, concerning the charge creation.
What is it that makes a High Energy photon propagating for millions of
light years suddenly change its mind and create a pair of charges?
better than that; in a laboratory and a couple of feet away between
source and target sensor, the same question can be asked. If the HEP
does not encounter a magnetic refractive transition, why should it
decide to create the pair? Naturally the pair production is observed
at close proximity from the nuclei of the target in the photoelectric
effect, such that we know that a high density magnetic field is very
probable to initiate the pair production.
Once you begin to accept the fact that a magnetic field is critically
required we may proceed in out discussion.
Kind regards.
EL
Richard Gauthier
> [EL]
> :)
Thanks for the :) . I know that in general relativity, space curvature
is proportional in some sense to mass density. So there could be a
similar relationship for charge. But charge density, if not infinite,
implies a finite sized electron.
> If that wave was orthogonally rotating in a periodical sense then you
> still have no helix *spread in space* and all what you have is similar
> to a string out of which many "straight wires" are sticking out and
> changing angles with a step over time. That is why I disagree on the
> superluminal component assumed.
I know the picture, it is the standard classical picture in explaining
an EM wave. But where are the photons (light quanta) in this picture?
I know that a circularly polarized photon is more 'fundamental' than a
linearly polarized one in QM--the wave function for a linearly
polarized photon is formed from the sum of the wave functions (with a
particular constant for normalization) of a left and a
right-circularly polarized photon. Each photon that is detected in
linearly polarized light is either a left or a right circularly
polarized photon. In circularly polarized light the E and B fields
rotate 360 degrees in one wavelength. And this classical picture
doesn't explain why a photon, if it just exists along or travels along
a straight line, can have spin h/2pi. "It just does" does not seem to
me to be a satisfactory answer. When the photon is modeled as having
helical motion in a geometric model, the relation between its spin and
its linear momentum comes out to be extremely simple, as I show in my
article, so that the helical angle of every photon is 45 degrees and
the radius of the photon model's helix is L/2pi where L is its
wavelength. Are these simple results just a cosmic coincidence? Have
you found any mistake in my proof of this result in my photon model?
> ***
> Secondly, concerning the charge creation.
> What is it that makes a High Energy photon propagating for millions of
> light years suddenly change its mind and create a pair of charges?
Now we're getting into philosophy. I support the idea that effects
have causes, and that there are no accidents, only incidents. In my
philosophy, photons are thoughts within a cosmic mind, which is using
these photons, and creating charge pairs with them, according to its
self-imposed mental laws which we call physical laws when they come in
the realm of physical observation.
> If the HEP
> does not encounter a magnetic refractive transition, why should it
> decide to create the pair? Naturally the pair production is observed
> at close proximity from the nuclei of the target in the photoelectric
> effect, such that we know that a high density magnetic field is very
> probable to initiate the pair production.
There is no pair production in the photoelectric effect as far as I
know. I understand that pair production occurs near a nucleus or other
heavy particle because the nucleus can absorb the forward momentum of
the photon (through an exchange of virtual photons?--sorry, my QED is
not up to par) during pair production, so that the reaction can
conserve energy, momentum and angular momentum.
> Once you begin to accept the fact that a magnetic field is critically
> required we may proceed in out discussion.
I'm waiting to hear from my contact about this. But assuming that it
is critically required, then what?
Best wishes,
Richard
EL
>
> > [EL]
> > :)
>
> Thanks for the :) . I know that in general relativity, space curvature
> is proportional in some sense to mass density. So there could be a
> similar relationship for charge. But charge density, if not infinite,
> implies a finite sized electron.
Yes indeed, mass and charge are both fundamental causes of force.
The former by Newton's and the later by Coulomb's, inverse square law,
respectively, manifest the cause of interaction.
Both primary effects follow the Gaussean geometrical calculus.
Mass and charge densities can be directly translated into
tensor-shell-densities as the time of curvature or simply Gaussean
curvature in spacetime.
>
>
> > If that wave was orthogonally rotating in a periodical sense then you
> > still have no helix *spread in space* and all what you have is similar
> > to a string out of which many "straight wires" are sticking out and
> > changing angles with a step over time. That is why I disagree on the
> > superluminal component assumed.
>
> I know the picture, it is the standard classical picture in explaining
> an EM wave. But where are the photons (light quanta) in this picture?
> I know that a circularly polarized photon is more 'fundamental' than a
> linearly polarized one in QM--the wave function for a linearly
> polarized photon is formed from the sum of the wave functions (with a
> particular constant for normalization) of a left and a
> right-circularly polarized photon. Each photon that is detected in
> linearly polarized light is either a left or a right circularly
> polarized photon. In circularly polarized light the E and B fields
> rotate 360 degrees in one wavelength. And this classical picture
> doesn't explain why a photon, if it just exists along or travels along
> a straight line, can have spin h/2pi.
But you never asked me. :)
The physical essence of h/2pi is that "h" is Planck's constant,
which is a quantum of action, which is angular momentum.
This is identical to distributing the momentum over a cycle expressed
as (Iw/2pi).
2pi here represents a cycle of time in the direction of propagation
between two successive peaks of the wave.
Omega is the angular velocity of course, therefore w/2pi is a time
period of one cycle in which we have a quantum of momentum known as
the spin number. That is why the photon is modelled as a point
particle moving along the line of propagation over time where the
amplitude of each of the fields is only a vector (tensor) in the
vector space of the particle.
Nothing changes as length except the velocity vector's length over
time, all other variables are electric and magnetic vectors, which are
E and H variations over time. This does not lead to any 3D helical
topologies. Consequently no superluminal speeds are required.
>"It just does" does not seem to
> me to be a satisfactory answer. When the photon is modeled as having
> helical motion in a geometric model, the relation between its spin and
> its linear momentum comes out to be extremely simple, as I show in my
> article, so that the helical angle of every photon is 45 degrees and
> the radius of the photon model's helix is L/2pi where L is its
> wavelength. Are these simple results just a cosmic coincidence? Have
> you found any mistake in my proof of this result in my photon model?
[EL]
If we agree on the fact that an unnecessary complication is an error
then I could possibly not point out an error within the error itself.
I need firstly to accept that we ever need such a model. Please
realise that a spatial helical model shall lead to restricted
limitations on light intensity and luminosity which does not exist.
How do you expect your model to tad along with LASER beams in terms of
intensity without a spatial upper bound?
>
> > ***
> > Secondly, concerning the charge creation.
> > What is it that makes a High Energy photon propagating for millions of
> > light years suddenly change its mind and create a pair of charges?
>
> Now we're getting into philosophy. I support the idea that effects
> have causes, and that there are no accidents, only incidents. In my
> philosophy, photons are thoughts within a cosmic mind, which is using
> these photons, and creating charge pairs with them, according to its
> self-imposed mental laws which we call physical laws when they come in
> the realm of physical observation.
[EL]
:)
Now we are getting into unfounded assumptions and hallucinations. :)
You are just evading the issue.
Face it bravely and answer.
When and where exactly shall the High Energy Photon begin producing
the pair?
Can't you see that hitting a magnetic- field- wall is most convincing?
>
>
> > If the HEP
> > does not encounter a magnetic refractive transition, why should it
> > decide to create the pair? Naturally the pair production is observed
> > at close proximity from the nuclei of the target in the photoelectric
> > effect, such that we know that a high density magnetic field is very
> > probable to initiate the pair production.
>
> There is no pair production in the photoelectric effect as far as I
> know.
[EL]
You are correct.
Knocking out an electron off its probability shell by accelerating it
is not the same as creating one of course.
But I was referring to the cross section of the effect.
When the energy exceeds the 2m_0c^2 threshold we begin to get less
electrons by the photoelectric effect due to pair production. :)
>I understand that pair production occurs near a nucleus or other
> heavy particle because the nucleus can absorb the forward momentum of
> the photon (through an exchange of virtual photons?--sorry, my QED is
> not up to par) during pair production, so that the reaction can
> conserve energy, momentum and angular momentum.
[EL]
That is correct in the sense of what happens not why it happens.
>
> > Once you begin to accept the fact that a magnetic field is critically
> > required we may proceed in out discussion.
>
> I'm waiting to hear from my contact about this.
> But assuming that it is critically required, then what?
>
> Best wishes,
> Richard
[EL]
That is a brilliant question, "then what?".
How may a magnetic field affect another magnetic field contained in a
composite electromagnetic field?
Does it strip it out and leave the charges "naked"?
Does it interfere constructively and destructively changing the
topology of the wave?
Come on Richard we are facing a "divine" deed of creating matter from
light.
We are solving the mystery of a phenomenon where light at "c" comes to
a relative halt.
We are witnessing the materialisation of a corpuscular charge from a
non material wave.
Bending the time axis into a local vortex needs much more work than a
couple of coffee evenings on a paper.
Kind regards.
EL Hemetis
hanson
news:7563cb80.03012...@posting.google.com...
> > if it just exists along or travels along
> > a straight line, can have spin h/2pi.
> [EL]
> which is a quantum of action, which is angular momentum.
> This is identical to distributing the momentum over a cycle expressed
> as (Iw/2pi).
> 2pi here represents a cycle of time in the direction of propagation
> between two successive peaks of the wave.
> Omega is the angular velocity of course, therefore w/2pi is a time
> period of one cycle in which we have a quantum of momentum known as
> the spin number. That is why the photon is modelled as a point
> particle moving along the line of propagation over time where the
> amplitude of each of the fields is only a vector (tensor) in the
> vector space of the particle.
> Nothing changes as length except the velocity vector's length over
> time, all other variables are electric and magnetic vectors, which are
> E and H variations over time. This does not lead to any 3D helical
> topologies. Consequently no superluminal speeds are required.
>
Cool ! Well stated, EL.
I remember reading somewhere that around ~1900 the physics
community had acerbic fights over whether h or h/2pi (hbar) was
more fundamental.
......and the beat goes on.........
hanson
EL
Thank you Hanson.
So what happened then around 1900?
I mean assuming that they found out which was more fundamental, so?
Does it make a better soup? :):)
Kind regards.
EheheL
hanson
Re: New Superluminal Electron Model in message
news:7563cb80.03012...@posting.google.com...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net>
> > > > And this classical picture doesn't explain why a photon,
> > > > if it just exists along or travels along
> > > > a straight line, can have spin h/2pi.
> > > [EL]
> > > The physical essence of h/2pi is that "h" is Planck's constant,
> > > which is a quantum of action, which is angular momentum.
> > > This is identical to distributing the momentum over a cycle expressed
> > > as (Iw/2pi).
> > > 2pi here represents a cycle of time in the direction of propagation
> > > between two successive peaks of the wave.
> > > Omega is the angular velocity of course, therefore w/2pi is a time
> > > period of one cycle in which we have a quantum of momentum known as
> > > the spin number. That is why the photon is modelled as a point
> > > particle moving along the line of propagation over time where the
> > > amplitude of each of the fields is only a vector (tensor) in the
> > > vector space of the particle.
> > > Nothing changes as length except the velocity vector's length over
> > > time, all other variables are electric and magnetic vectors, which are
> > > E and H variations over time. This does not lead to any 3D helical
> > > topologies. Consequently no superluminal speeds are required.
> >
> > Cool ! Well stated, EL.
> > I remember reading somewhere that around ~1900 the physics
> > community had acerbic fights over whether h or h/2pi (hbar) was
> > more fundamental.
> > ......and the beat goes on.........
> > hanson
> >
> [EL]
> So what happened then around 1900?
> I mean assuming that they found out which was more fundamental, so?
> Does it make a better soup? :):)
> Kind regards. EheheL
>
It's always good to meet you at this here cyber party and soup kitchen.
......On the h/hbar story. There's a lot of interesting stuff about it on
the web.
Of course, that fight ended up as usual. Everybody agreed to disagree.
Then they adopted quietly both h and hbar. Without fanfare.
So, this h/hbar thing is just one of the many stories which show to the
dispassionate that physics (and even math) is nothing but an anthropic
social enterprise. Now, the assertion I just made could be holy grounds for
some to re-ignite any new or old "war", for equally valid or invalid
reasons, to establish who "really" is right and who is wrong.
Hahahahaha..hahahah. But chances are slim to non existent that even the
"hardest" of sciences will ever move out of the reality of the social
environment and/or confines, with or without measurements or experiment.
......On the subject of the Pali/Isi disorder you posted yesterday you made
a very excellent point, showing that this is an ancient and ongoing tribal
blood-feud. I have a few remarks about your observation. During the period
of my firm's project in Sicily and Sardinia I often talked to the Old-timers
there about the Mafia and their blood feuds. Later, I heard the same
pathetic and impassioned reasoning of the feud between the Tamils and the
Hindus in then Ceylon. The reason why this is of interest to me is because
the latter ones have not been able to infect/inflame the US with their
cause, the Mafioso Italians infected a few cities with theirs, but SOME Jew
factions have been successful in dragging the US into it, wholesale. Whether
that will be good for the interest of the entire world Jewry, in the long
run, that is highly doubtful. Because 100's of millions of 18 year old Arabs
are coming on-stream. These are consumers and the US biz community is
looking at them with glee and anticipation for profits. -- Meanwhile
watching the hammer that is going to come down, ........let us hope that it
will at least jumpstart for the world economy again.
......On the subject of the Primordium and the Aether issue. I think you and
Traveler, Louis Savain/Savian, are the 2 guys attending these august and
extravagantly intellectual sci.phys. cyber.parties here, who do have in MHO
the tune right for pushing the envelope of heuristic knowledge in physics.
Just refining SR/GR is like polishing and exploring the nooks and crannies
in a cul de sac. I like it that you guys break with that tradition and have
the guts to explore newland. I think you 2 guys ought to study each others
concept, blend and compliment each other. From neither of you I have heard
so far any quantitative boundary conditions wherein the new theory is going
to be operating in/at. I personally doubt that any suggestion so far made
will go beyond the **UNIVERSAL MLT ratio** a dimensionless number of equal
significance as is the dimensionless ratio forming the Finestructure
constant (a).
MLT = M_u/m_Pl = R_u/l_Pl = (1/H)/t_pl = 8.97...E+60.
This dimensionless MLT ratio of ~10^61 presents the domain range within
where heuristic physic stories and operas do play out their acts. It is the
ratio where all dimensions, Mass, Length and Time of the observable
universe, when compared with the tiniest measuring units, the Planck-units
produce the SAME ratio, labeled here MTL = 8.97*10^60, (regardless which
dimension it comes from)
I have not seen yet any even philosophical argument which will or has
transcended this MTL limit. In essence, we are still in the cosmic confines,
much like the dude wandering around with his flashlight in the dark
nite-fog, ---- being always in the exact center of his very own lit up
observable universe, no matter where he travels to in his vast "ocean" of
fog, but having no idea how vast the fog-sea is, and he knows equally little
about of what the fog is made up from and why it limits him to see the
entire picture.
Once the fundamental importance of discreetness and the self-similarity of
Nature is seriously recognized and take into consideration, only then there
might be a hope for escape into truly new pastures....yondern...
This self-similarity and discreteness of nature is easily recognized in the
dimensionless ratios of
tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
the atomic time unit being a mole (N_A) Plank-time units, similarly
r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
the H-Bohr radius being a mole (N_A) Plank-length units, etc.
m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) .. electron mass
the Planck mass being a mole (N_A) of electron mass units, etc.
(Avogadro's N_A, the Finestructure constant (a), pi and sqrt 3).
So, my friends, .... the beat goes on...
Take care, have fun and don't get uptight.........
hanson
Richard Gauthier
> I mean assuming that they found out which was more fundamental, so?
Dear Hanson,
Yes, I would also like to know which is considered more fundamental.
Either way, 2pi is part of the quantity of angular momentum and not
part of linear momentum of a photon or an electron so the presence of
the geometrical 2pi in angular momentum of the electron and photon is
unexplained by point models. I think the 2pi is an embarassment for
point-like models of particles, and that's why the term h-bar is used,
to cover this embarassment. In my superluminal photon and electron
models 2pi comes in in a natural way. Also my electron model needs to
be superluminal in its internal electric charge velocity in order to
get the g=2 magnetic moment of an electron, which with my electron
model is a photon-like object moving in a circle. Classical ways of
getting g=2 with luminal velocities of charge seem to me to be
unsatisfactory since they don't explain the deBroglie wavelength of an
electron.
best wishes,
Richard
Traveler
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>......On the subject of the Primordium and the Aether issue. I think you and
>Traveler, Louis Savain/Savian, are the 2 guys attending these august and
>extravagantly intellectual sci.phys. cyber.parties here, who do have in MHO
>the tune right for pushing the envelope of heuristic knowledge in physics.
>Just refining SR/GR is like polishing and exploring the nooks and crannies
>in a cul de sac. I like it that you guys break with that tradition and have
>the guts to explore newland. I think you 2 guys ought to study each others
>concept, blend and compliment each other. From neither of you I have heard
>so far any quantitative boundary conditions wherein the new theory is going
>to be operating in/at. I personally doubt that any suggestion so far made
>will go beyond the **UNIVERSAL MLT ratio** a dimensionless number of equal
>significance as is the dimensionless ratio forming the Finestructure
>constant (a).
Hanson, I don't think I want to form any sort of alliance with EL. EL
is a believer in continuity which I am convinced is pure crackpottery.
And I haven't seen anything from EL in as far as a fundamental theory
of motion is concerned. Unless a theory explains motion (and I don't
mean mathematically) at the fundamental physical level, it's just a
me-too theory a la Newton or Einstein.
As far as predictions are concerned, I think making predictions is
chicken shit. Predictions are like assholes: everybody has one. What's
gonna make the grade is a hard fucking unambiguous demo. The kind of
demo that will knock everybody's socks off, experts and laymen alike.
And if you are an aether proponent (like I am), there is only one demo
that will silence the old guard once and for all: a propellantless (no
visible means of propulsion) flying vehicle. Nothing else will do.
Farfetched or not, crank stuff or not, that's what I'm shooting for.
Louis Savain
-------------------------------------------------
Temporal Intelligence:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Temporal_Intelligence.htm
The Silver Bullet:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Reliability.htm
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/Crackpots/notorious.htm
hanson
> > So what happened then around 1900?
> > I mean assuming that they found out which was more fundamental, so?
>
> Dear Hanson,
> Yes, I would also like to know which is considered more fundamental.
>
Check in my previous post for some few more details & my views:
Re: ...of the cosmic TOE below and yondern , 28 Jan 2003
news:lEEZ9.1139$wd2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
[Gauthier]
> Either way, 2pi is part of the quantity of angular momentum and not
> part of linear momentum of a photon or an electron so the presence of
> the geometrical 2pi in angular momentum of the electron and photon is
> unexplained by point models. I think the 2pi is an embarassment for
> point-like models of particles, and that's why the term h-bar is used,
> to cover this embarassment.
[hanson]
This is quite possible. You might be quite right.
Google search:
How many different theories. 1,430,000 hits
How many physics theories. 422,000 hits.
How many theories in physics. 423,000 hits.
Theories in physics. 576,000 hits
Physics theories. 587,000 hits.
Each one of these has a different ax to grind.
See the # of axes at the wheel?
There's a milion others with other takes on it.
Kind a proof, AFAIAC, that physic is a social enterprise.
My take?......If it doesn't make me money, then it's gotta be
fun. These NGs are just entertainment for me. I said what
I had to say about the subject in this context and that's it.
So, I am kind the wrong dude to come to look for affirmation
approval or validation. Sorry, dude.
[Gauthier]
> In my superluminal photon and electron
> models 2pi comes in in a natural way. Also my electron model needs to
> be superluminal in its internal electric charge velocity in order to
> get the g=2 magnetic moment of an electron, which with my electron
> model is a photon-like object moving in a circle. Classical ways of
> getting g=2 with luminal velocities of charge seem to me to be
> unsatisfactory since they don't explain the deBroglie wavelength of an
> electron.
> best wishes, Richard
>
[hanson]
Again, from your pov you are quite right.
IIRC, Harold Aspden has a lot to say about the g / electron interaction.
Yesterday, a post from "inger..."something contains Aspden's url.
Check it out.
As far as FTL velocities my take is different than most others.
For what it's worth, Richard, I think a lot is going on at v > c,
but these are all "uncompleted processes" beyond the speed of c.
"Uncompleted processes" are events which do not allow 2 way
exchange of information = energy. "Uncompleted processes"
include the FEELER speed by which masses "feel" each others
presence, but do not "tell" the other ones about it. It's related
to Mach's principle and the gravitational feeler speed varies with
mass. The upper limit of this velocity calculates to 6*10^71 cm/s
There are a number of posts about it in my archive.
True of not? How the fuck would I know? I never flew faster then
Mach 2 in the Concorde. And that's a far cry from c, let alone > c.
best regards,
hanson :-))
hanson
news:vbre3v8sludltev8d...@4ax.com...
> In article <lEEZ9.1139$wd2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >......On the subject of the Primordium and the Aether issue.
> >to be operating in/at. I personally doubt that any suggestion so far made
> >will go beyond the **UNIVERSAL MLT ratio** a dimensionless number of
> >equal significance as is the dimensionless ratio forming the
Finestructure
> >constant (a).
>
> As far as predictions are concerned, I think making predictions is
> chicken shit. Predictions are like assholes: everybody has one. What's
> gonna make the grade is a hard fucking unambiguous demo. The kind of
> demo that will knock everybody's socks off, experts and laymen alike.
> And if you are an aether proponent (like I am), there is only one demo
> that will silence the old guard once and for all: a propellantless (no
> visible means of propulsion) flying vehicle. Nothing else will do.
> Farfetched or not, crank stuff or not, that's what I'm shooting for.
> Louis Savain
>
I did neither suggest nor ask anything about predictions.
Factiously I could say "a propellantless (no visible means of
propulsion) flying vehicle" I can show you any day by throwing a
brick from the roof of the building. So, give me a better example.
Hey listen, Louis, if your engineering is going to be as innovative as
your earlier thought about the re-explanation for radio-activity, you
may have something going.
OTOH, my legal department brought me hundreds of such "machines" for
examination over the years. Some proposals had "top secret" stamped on it.
I never saw a floating working example. I never got invited to see a demo.
Except once in 85, behind Boron at the Airforce test facility in the Mojave
desert. We were 12 miles away watching and taking pix. The test was
done at noontime when the fucking thing blew up. It was so bright that it
looked liked midnight for a few secs after the flash. It was some kind of
fireworks. Biggest light show I ever saw. 5 minutes later some MP's came and
politely confiscated all cameras. 1 week later, via UPS I got my camera back
sans film. They sent me the film and prints 7 years later, in 1992.
Cold war was over.
So, invite me, when you construct and assemble your machine, or at least let
me see its maiden flight. I also admire your spirit from another pov:
The US commissioner of patents said in 1902 that everything was already
invented and that one ought to shut down the PTO.
Every expert can and will tell you that it cannot and will not work
But it takes some very special "cranking" to make it work.
Keep at it dude, crank it up and let it rip, man. I wish you all the luck!!
.....the beat goes on....
hanson
Traveler
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:vbre3v8sludltev8d...@4ax.com...
>> In article <lEEZ9.1139$wd2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> >......On the subject of the Primordium and the Aether issue.
>> >.... quantitative boundary conditions wherein the new theory is going
>> >to be operating in/at. I personally doubt that any suggestion so far made
>> >will go beyond the **UNIVERSAL MLT ratio** a dimensionless number of
>> >equal significance as is the dimensionless ratio forming the
>> >Finestructure constant (a).
>>
>[Louis]
>> As far as predictions are concerned, I think making predictions is
>> chicken shit. Predictions are like assholes: everybody has one. What's
>> gonna make the grade is a hard fucking unambiguous demo. The kind of
>> demo that will knock everybody's socks off, experts and laymen alike.
>> And if you are an aether proponent (like I am), there is only one demo
>> that will silence the old guard once and for all: a propellantless (no
>> visible means of propulsion) flying vehicle. Nothing else will do.
>> Farfetched or not, crank stuff or not, that's what I'm shooting for.
>> Louis Savain
>>
>[hanson]
>I did neither suggest nor ask anything about predictions.
Right. I must have been thinking of some other post by Minor Crank or
something when I wrote that. I tend to agree with your suggestion re
the fine structure constant. Part of the secret is in there somewhere.
>Factiously I could say "a propellantless (no visible means of
>propulsion) flying vehicle" I can show you any day by throwing a
>brick from the roof of the building. So, give me a better example.
Funny. Kidding aside, that's an excellent example of a propellantless
flying vehicle, one which does indeed use the aether as fuel. But then
again, so are planetary bodies, stars or any moving body. But
unfortunately, that won't knock the socks off anybody. :-D I guess a
better example would be a propellantless heavier-than-air hovering
machine.
>Hey listen, Louis, if your engineering is going to be as innovative as
>your earlier thought about the re-explanation for radio-activity, you
>may have something going.
Personally I know I have something going and I don't think I am too
far from a breakthrough. I just need to keep at it.
>OTOH, my legal department brought me hundreds of such "machines" for
>examination over the years. Some proposals had "top secret" stamped on it.
>I never saw a floating working example. I never got invited to see a demo.
>Except once in 85, behind Boron at the Airforce test facility in the Mojave
>desert. We were 12 miles away watching and taking pix. The test was
>done at noontime when the fucking thing blew up. It was so bright that it
>looked liked midnight for a few secs after the flash. It was some kind of
>fireworks. Biggest light show I ever saw. 5 minutes later some MP's came and
>politely confiscated all cameras. 1 week later, via UPS I got my camera back
>sans film. They sent me the film and prints 7 years later, in 1992.
>Cold war was over.
This is funny. What the fuck was it?
>So, invite me, when you construct and assemble your machine, or at least let
>me see its maiden flight. I also admire your spirit from another pov:
>The US commissioner of patents said in 1902 that everything was already
>invented and that one ought to shut down the PTO.
>Every expert can and will tell you that it cannot and will not work
>But it takes some very special "cranking" to make it work.
>Keep at it dude, crank it up and let it rip, man. I wish you all the luck!!
>.....the beat goes on....
Thanks for the words of encouragement, although I suspect it was
tongue in cheek. IMO, when it is finally done, it will be so simple to
build and the principles so easy to understand that it may change the
world practically overnight. For better or for worse.
Louis Savain
eki
wrote:
>
>As far as predictions are concerned, I think making predictions is
>chicken shit. Predictions are like assholes: everybody has one. What's
>gonna make the grade is a hard fucking unambiguous demo. The kind of
>demo that will knock everybody's socks off, experts and laymen alike.
>And if you are an aether proponent (like I am), there is only one demo
>that will silence the old guard once and for all: a propellantless (no
>visible means of propulsion) flying vehicle.
How about (human) levitation (aakaasha-gamanam in Sanskrit)?
The word "aakaasha" is often translated as 'aether',
"aakaasha-gamanam" could IMO be translated as 'going
through aakaasha (aether, space). The root of "aakaasha"
seems to be "kaash", which means 'to shine', 'to be brilliant'.
Dale A Trynor
> "Traveler" <trav...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vbre3v8sludltev8d...@4ax.com...
> > In article <lEEZ9.1139$wd2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > >......On the subject of the Primordium and the Aether issue.
> > >.... quantitative boundary conditions wherein the new theory is going
> > >to be operating in/at. I personally doubt that any suggestion so far made
> > >will go beyond the **UNIVERSAL MLT ratio** a dimensionless number of
> > >equal significance as is the dimensionless ratio forming the
> Finestructure
> > >constant (a).
> >
> [Louis]
> > As far as predictions are concerned, I think making predictions is
> > chicken shit. Predictions are like assholes: everybody has one. What's
> > gonna make the grade is a hard fucking unambiguous demo. The kind of
> > demo that will knock everybody's socks off, experts and laymen alike.
Dale Trynor wrote:
The theory I promote is so easy to prove, hasn't been reasonably refuted yet, it
solves some of the biggest questions ever and still I am still the most ignored
crank on usenet.
>
> > And if you are an aether proponent (like I am), there is only one demo
> > that will silence the old guard once and for all: a propellantless (no
> > visible means of propulsion) flying vehicle. Nothing else will do.
> > Farfetched or not, crank stuff or not, that's what I'm shooting for.
> > Louis Savain
Sense Savain brought up the subject of a propelellantless propulsion I have my
own crank question that I haven't been able to answer. We all know that energy
adds weight and even winding up a spring should add some to its inertia as its
extra energy should cause this. While I really don't understand the details of
how that would work in something like a spring under tension, it just seams
reasonable that it should. Heating up a liquid is understandable in the extra
speeds of it molecules.
The big question on this for me was raised some time after I learned about the
Casimir effect sense one is now dealing with a way of turning positive energy
into some version of its negative form. What I mean is that can anyone show how
the energy used in separating the plates can add to the inertia somehow or dose
it take on the behavior as if the energy had disappeared when the negative
energy was created between the plates.
In theory if that were to in fact happen, then one could argue a hypothetical
propulsion where energy is converted to its negative when it reaches the back of
the craft so that it has no inertia when its moved forwards. Converting it to
positive energy again one could pull the craft forwards violating the
conservation of momentum. This question may provide a means of examining if
negative energy may in fact have any inertia or not.
If it dose in fact work how could anyone make sense of it and the best I could
come up with is the idea that one was in fact using the universe itself as a
mass for propulsion. It would however still remain confusing because of the
extreme differences in energies of different velocities and the fact that
everything in the universe is also traveling at different velocities. No system
that allows one to use the same amount of energy to gain the same amount of
extra speed makes much sense. Everyone knows that to reach twice the speed takes
more than twice the energy.
Everyone here that knows about the theory that I promote also knows about my
speculations of depleting the quantum vacuum. It would provide pockets of space
where not only dose the volume of matter increases but its time is also
increased along with its appearing to have less inertia, or at least from our
frame of reference it has less inertia. On board or rather within the bubble
itself, no changes would of course be observed, they would however see our
inertia as more along with our time dilated. This would be a rather useful thing
for sending probes to other solar systems sense the energy to accelerate such an
object should become much less.
>
> >
> [hanson]
> I did neither suggest nor ask anything about predictions.
> Factiously I could say "a propellantless (no visible means of
> propulsion) flying vehicle" I can show you any day by throwing a
> brick from the roof of the building. So, give me a better example.
Not really that that good of an example as it would of course use the earth
itself as the propellant and is not much different that a weight at two ends of
a spring pulling together. Momentum is conserved.
>
>
> Hey listen, Louis, if your engineering is going to be as innovative as
> your earlier thought about the re-explanation for radio-activity, you
> may have something going.
Sounds like something I should look into if you think its good. Its to be noted
that while I appear to have a provable theory in Cosmology I have not learnt
that much on the subject of quantum physics. The theory dose however allow one
to at least in one way, connect it with relativity in the sense of showing how
the volume of matter is totally depended on time and so is also intricacy tied
to the speed of light. When gravitational time dilation is involved, every
partical is contracted in volume equally. You don't have some particle x
retaining the same size when every other particle has contracted and so
preventing any preferred frames of reference. It takes no genius to see the
connection that quantum physics must have with relativity in this theory.
>
>
> OTOH, my legal department brought me hundreds of such "machines" for
> examination over the years. Some proposals had "top secret" stamped on it.
> I never saw a floating working example. I never got invited to see a demo.
> Except once in 85, behind Boron at the Airforce test facility in the Mojave
> desert. We were 12 miles away watching and taking pix. The test was
> done at noontime when the fucking thing blew up. It was so bright that it
> looked liked midnight for a few secs after the flash. It was some kind of
> fireworks. Biggest light show I ever saw. 5 minutes later some MP's came and
> politely confiscated all cameras. 1 week later, via UPS I got my camera back
> sans film. They sent me the film and prints 7 years later, in 1992.
> Cold war was over.
Sounds like you do some interesting work ? I would have asked for more on this
but it might imply I was a nosey or at worst a spy. It dose leave me so curious.
Robert Kolker
Traveler wrote:
>
> As far as predictions are concerned, I think making predictions is
> chicken shit. Predictions are like assholes: everybody has one.
If a theory does not make predictions, how do you test it. How do you
attempt to falsify it empirically. A theory that is not emprically
testable is not a scientific theory. It is gibberish.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
hanson wrote:
>
> [hanson]
> I did neither suggest nor ask anything about predictions.
> Factiously I could say "a propellantless (no visible means of
> propulsion) flying vehicle" I can show you any day by throwing a
> brick from the roof of the building. So, give me a better example.
The propellent was the metabolite that caused your muscles to contract.
Are you saying a rocket vehicle in free fall is without propulsion? How
did it get into free fall in the first place/
Bob Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen
It may be gibberish, but is it TRUE?
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Robert Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>
> It may be gibberish, but is it TRUE?
A theory has an infinite number of applications and instantiations.
There is no way to determine whether it is true for ALL of these. One
can only definitely falsify a theory. There is, in general, no effective
way to eliminate all other hypotheses which explain the same finite set
of facts.
This is scientific epistemology 101 and the above fact has been known
for nearly 100 years. That is why scientific theories are not a search
for truth, but a search for testable predictions leading to useful
applications (sooner or later). The utmost test for the goodness of a
theory is its usefulness. Does it translate into technologies,
industries and gadgets. If yes, the case if made. If no, then the matter
is in suspense. It took over 150 years for Reimann's Geometry to lead to
GPS by way of relativity and quantum theory.
Generally the theoretical type pursue their thing for the fascination
and the beauty. But in many cases that translates into useful stuff for
the rest of us.
Bob Kolker
hanson
news:3E37CE62...@nbnet.nb.ca...
> > > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> Dale Trynor wrote:
> The theory I promote is so easy to prove, hasn't been reasonably refuted
> yet, it solves some of the biggest questions ever and still I am still the
> most ignored crank on usenet.
>
Yo, Dale, que passo? Long time no talk.
You said something very important here:
"it solves some of the biggest questions ever".
If you truly believe it and if you are truly convinced, keep it as your
personal secret, treasure and cherish it. Don't throw your pearls before the
swine. In addition, Dale, look at the mileage and honors you already
received because of it. Not everybody can proudly announce and show his
prize of being "the most ignored crank on usenet".
Be grateful for that, man!.
> >
>
[hanson]
> > Hey listen, Louis, if your engineering is going to be as innovative as
> > your earlier thought about the re-explanation for radio-activity, you
> > may have something going.
>
> Sounds like something I should look into if you think its good.
>
Oh, for crying out loud, dude, DON'T use ME as the arbiter and judge.
I am just giving my opinion. I am not here as an advisor or retired
schoolteacher who can't let go, nor do I want to promote my worldview.
I am here for fun, and every now and then I pick up some interesting
tidbit or a new, different way to look at things. For that I am grateful.
I am here for fun, to play with some fanatics who get on my flypaper
and try by any and all means to shove their weltbild down my throat.
>
[[hanson]
> > OTOH, my legal department brought me hundreds of such "machines" for
> > examination over the years. Some proposals had "top secret" stamped on
> > it.
> > I never saw a floating working example. I never got invited to see a
> > demo. Except once in 85, behind Boron at the Airforce test facility
> > in the Mojave desert.
> > We were 12 miles away watching and taking pix. The test was done
> > looked liked midnight for a few secs after the flash. It was some kind
> > of fireworks. Biggest light show I ever saw. 5 minutes later some
> > MP's came and politely confiscated all cameras.
> > 1 week later, via UPS I got my camera back sans film.
> > They sent me the film and prints 7 years later, in 1992.
> > Cold war was over.
>
> Sounds like you do some interesting work ?
> I would have asked for more on this but it might imply I was a nosey
> or at worst a spy. It dose leave me so curious.
>
Yes, I do. But so do you too. I have always held that if work is not
interesting and fullfilling, then its not worth all the money in the world.
The more of a pain in the ass the more interesting it becomes. This seems,
at least to me to be the ordre-de-jour, but hey, I didn't make this world.
Take care,
hanson
hanson
> In article <R9LZ9.2104$wd2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> >Hey listen, Louis, if your engineering is going to be as innovative as
> >your earlier thought about the re-explanation for radio-activity, you
> >may have something going.
>
> Personally I know I have something going and I don't think I am too
> far from a breakthrough. I just need to keep at it.
>
Great !!!. Let me say it again. Keep at it dude, crank it up and let it rip.
Consider what you are after doesn't fall off a cart filled with turnips.
If it were so, Louis, somebody else would have picked it up long time ago.
You are dealing in your scheme with extraordinary subtle phenomena, which
you need to redirect and focus for the exploitation and use in your "Louis
Floater". If it were anything near what is known then these things would
already float all over the place, big and small, far and wide.
Hack, steal, thieve, connive, do anything to get your thing off the ground,
dude. Any start up is always a bitch, man. Mucho grief. Yours will be no
exception.
.....the beat goes on....
>
[hanson
> >OTOH, my legal department brought me hundreds of such "machines" for
> >examination over the years. Some proposals had "top secret" stamped on
> >it. I never saw a floating working example. I never got invited to see a
> >demo. Except once in 85, behind Boron at the Airforce test facility in
> >the Mojave desert.
> > We were 12 miles away watching and taking pix. The test was
> >done at noontime when the fucking thing blew up. It was so bright that it
> >looked liked midnight for a few secs after the flash. It was some kind of
> >fireworks. Biggest light show I ever saw. 5 minutes later some MP's came
> >and politely confiscated all cameras. 1 week later, via UPS I got my
> >camera back sans film.
> >They sent me the film and prints 7 years later, in 1992.
> >Cold war was over.
>
[Louis]
> This is funny. What the fuck was it?
>
[hanson]
There's still the "stamp" on it. I'll tell you in private e-mail with some
pix attached. I shall dig it out and send you some impressive scans.
Gimme time.
>
[hanson]
> >So, invite me, when you construct and assemble your machine, or at least
> >let me see its maiden flight. I also admire your spirit from another pov:
> >The US commissioner of patents said in 1902 that everything was already
> >invented and that one ought to shut down the PTO.
> >Every expert can and will tell you that it cannot and will not work
> >But it takes some very special "cranking" to make it work.
> >Keep at it dude, crank it up and let it rip, man. I wish you all the
> >luck!!
> >.....the beat goes on....
>
[Louis]
> Thanks for the words of encouragement, although I suspect it was
> tongue in cheek. IMO, when it is finally done, it will be so simple to
> build and the principles so easy to understand that it may change the
> world practically overnight. For better or for worse.
> Louis Savain
>
[hanson]
I am glad it struck you as funny, but no ridicule is/was intended. I have
done & been involved in many a harebrained projects. Most do/have fuck/ed
up. Every now and then, with far and few in between, one gets lucky.
When such a rare peak-moment arises, I always have the same reoccurring
thought:
"How, why and when does new knowledge come to mankind?"
I haven't found an answer to that yet. I haven't even a clue what
conditions, events and processes it takes to generate desired true novelty.
I get mostly the feeling the guy has wandering around in the nite fog with
his flashlight. ---- A truly new thought comes very seldom, said Driscoll.
He is right.
Take care and keep at it, AND do NOT change your MO, Louis,
hanson
Traveler
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:11:52 -0800, Traveler <trav...@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>As far as predictions are concerned, I think making predictions is
>>chicken shit. Predictions are like assholes: everybody has one. What's
>>gonna make the grade is a hard fucking unambiguous demo. The kind of
>>demo that will knock everybody's socks off, experts and laymen alike.
>>And if you are an aether proponent (like I am), there is only one demo
>>that will silence the old guard once and for all: a propellantless (no
>>visible means of propulsion) flying vehicle.
>
>How about (human) levitation (aakaasha-gamanam in Sanskrit)?
>The word "aakaasha" is often translated as 'aether',
It's strange that you should mention the "aakaasha" in this thread. I
have always been fascinated by it primarily because it is said that
everything is recorded in it. It turns out that my investigation of
the aether leads me to conclude that it is an immense 4-D structure
and that the history of the entire universe is continually being
imprinted in it. This is because normal matter is moving at c in one
of the dimensions and interacts with the aether, knocking aether
particles from their original positions in the aether.
Levitation is definitely possible IMO, if one understands the true
composition of the aether and the intrinsic nature of its particles.
It will only be a matter of setting up the right interactions. IMO, it
will be a very simple thing to accomplish once the principles are
known.
>"aakaasha-gamanam" could IMO be translated as 'going
>through aakaasha (aether, space). The root of "aakaasha"
>seems to be "kaash", which means 'to shine', 'to be brilliant'.
Which makes sense from my perspective. In my model, the aether is
composed of four types of photons which are pure energy particles. It
is instructive to note that the Hebrew scriptures and the book of
Revelation speak of a crystal-like "expanse" filed with symbolic
creatures called the "seraphim". Seraphim can be translated as the
"burning ones" or the "fiery ones" which is suggestive of energy.
Something to think about.
Traveler
My point (which you carefully snipped) was that predictions will not
silence the senile old fucks who have taken over physics. Only a good
fucking demo will do. You can count yourself among the senile old
fucks. :-D
Robert Kolker
Traveler wrote:
> My point (which you carefully snipped) was that predictions will not
> silence the senile old fucks who have taken over physics. Only a good
> fucking demo will do. You can count yourself among the senile old
> fucks. :-D
>
Predictions are requisitions for experiment. In the last analysis,
experiment (or if you prefer over demonstration) carries the day,
particularly for falsifying a theory.
If an experiment does not match the prediction then
1. There was a condition not understood or stated that has to be taken
into account.
2. The experiment is flawed
3. The theory is wrong.
Example of 1 above occurred when Neptunes motion was not according to
Newtonian predictions. What was the problem? Answer, another planet that
nobody had recognized as a planet. That is how Uranus was discovered. It
looked like the theory was wrong, but an explanation for the descrepancy
was given when not only explained the anomalies but was a further
confirmation of the theory.
The same trick was tried to explain the anomolous precession of
Mercury's perihelion. An unseen planet was postulated, but was never
found. Finally a better theory of gravitation (Einstein's) explained the
glitch. In this case Newton's theory was broken.
You need predictions to test with experiments. That is how you gain
confidence in theories, or failing that how theories are modified or
discarded.
How was the theory of caloric broken. It was shown that a canon being
bored kept getting hotter. But where was the caloric coming from?
Nowhere, it was the friction of the boring tool setting the molecules of
the canon in motion that accounted for the heat. That is one of the ways
molecular and atomic theory gained credibility.
Predictions are not random spews (of which you know a great deal more
than I). They are -deductions from the theory + auxillary conditions and
hypotheses. If a theory does not produce testable predictions then it
is worthless as a scientific theory.
Bob Kolker
Traveler
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:mg1f3v88unv0lv9ah...@4ax.com...
>> In article <R9LZ9.2104$wd2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> >Hey listen, Louis, if your engineering is going to be as innovative as
>> >your earlier thought about the re-explanation for radio-activity, you
>> >may have something going.
>>
>[Louis]
>> Personally I know I have something going and I don't think I am too
>> far from a breakthrough. I just need to keep at it.
>>
>[hanson]
>Great !!!. Let me say it again. Keep at it dude, crank it up and let it rip.
>Consider what you are after doesn't fall off a cart filled with turnips.
>If it were so, Louis, somebody else would have picked it up long time ago.
>You are dealing in your scheme with extraordinary subtle phenomena, which
>you need to redirect and focus for the exploitation and use in your "Louis
>Floater". If it were anything near what is known then these things would
>already float all over the place, big and small, far and wide.
No doubt about it. It requires a perspective on things which is not
found in the physics community. As Nicholas Negroponte wrote recently
in MIT Technology Review, "perspective is much more important than
IQ." He's right. Equally important is dogged persistence in the face
of ridicule. In fact, ridicule from the old guard is my barometer of
success. :-D
>Hack, steal, thieve, connive, do anything to get your thing off the ground,
>dude. Any start up is always a bitch, man. Mucho grief. Yours will be no
>exception.
>.....the beat goes on....
Yep. And nothing can stop it.
>[hanson
>> >OTOH, my legal department brought me hundreds of such "machines" for
>> >examination over the years. Some proposals had "top secret" stamped on
>> >it. I never saw a floating working example. I never got invited to see a
>> >demo. Except once in 85, behind Boron at the Airforce test facility in
>> >the Mojave desert.
>> > We were 12 miles away watching and taking pix. The test was
>> >done at noontime when the fucking thing blew up. It was so bright that it
>> >looked liked midnight for a few secs after the flash. It was some kind of
>> >fireworks. Biggest light show I ever saw. 5 minutes later some MP's came
>> >and politely confiscated all cameras. 1 week later, via UPS I got my
>> >camera back sans film.
>> >They sent me the film and prints 7 years later, in 1992.
>> >Cold war was over.
>>
>[Louis]
>> This is funny. What the fuck was it?
>>
>[hanson]
>There's still the "stamp" on it. I'll tell you in private e-mail with some
>pix attached. I shall dig it out and send you some impressive scans.
>Gimme time.
Some gutless anonymous asshole complained to Hotmail and had my email
account revoked. I now have a new Yahoo! address which is on my
physics web page. You can also use the address on my "Temporal
Intelligence" page if you wish.
[...]
>[hanson]
>I am glad it struck you as funny, but no ridicule is/was intended. I have
>done & been involved in many a harebrained projects. Most do/have fuck/ed
>up. Every now and then, with far and few in between, one gets lucky.
>When such a rare peak-moment arises, I always have the same reoccurring
>thought:
>"How, why and when does new knowledge come to mankind?"
Check out this article on innovation at MIT Technology Review:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/negroponte0203.asp
>I haven't found an answer to that yet. I haven't even a clue what
>conditions, events and processes it takes to generate desired true novelty.
>I get mostly the feeling the guy has wandering around in the nite fog with
>his flashlight. ---- A truly new thought comes very seldom, said Driscoll.
>He is right.
IMO, it's a random process. Plain luck. Remember though, perspective
is much more important than IQ. Problem is, perspective is usually
destroyed by the education process.
Louis Savain
TomB
What kind of vehicle was it? What kind of propulsion? Can you post any
of the photos?
Richard Gauthier
> time, all other variables are electric and magnetic vectors, which are
> E and H variations over time. This does not lead to any 3D helical
> topologies. Consequently no superluminal speeds are required.
Well, I can't logically prove that superluminal velocities are
required either in photon or electron models. But I wouldn't rule them
out prematurely also, since no mass is reaching the speed of light in
my models, although the electric charge is going faster than light.
> Please
> realise that a spatial helical model shall lead to restricted
> limitations on light intensity and luminosity which does not exist.
The photon concept in general doesn't put limitations on light
intensity or luminousity--just add more photons. So my photon model
doesn't restrict intensities also. My photons can linearly superimpose
so there's no space problem that I can see.
> How do you expect your model to tad along with LASER beams in terms of
> intensity without a spatial upper bound?
see above
best wishes,
Richard
Inger Astri Kobbevik Stephens
Viktor Shauberger
EL
[EL]
I tend to confirm, excluding me at least, that the mainstream of
science participants is the evolution of wizardry.
Saving a spear for a moment of danger is the path of a warier.
Similarly, saving information for a moment of boredom or ignorance is
the path of the storyteller and the teacher.
The art of entertainment knowledge is either educative or inspiring.
Education is in the preservation of successful methods while
entertainment is in the creation of new hopes.
Saving a method for a moment of need is the path of the craftsman.
Saving hopes for a moment of depression is the path of the clown.
The act of exploring new successful methods for the craftsmen is in
the path of the researcher.
The act of inventing new hopes, ideas and dreams is in the path of
illusionists and magicians.
Methods of crafts demands a layout for construction, which demands an
estimation and a measurement.
Hopes and dreams of entertainment are loaded with predictions.
Exploration and Estimation is the path of the scientist craftsman.
Prediction and paradoxical amazement is in the path of the wizard
clown.
Recording the explored results of all tested possibilities creates a
foundation for science.
Accumulating a hype of predictions that stand on hopes or yet some
other predictions that has no roots creates a foundation for tripe
that is supposed to induce a state of wonder and amusement in the
beholder.
To let someone read your palm and predict your future is a
psychological gamble in which, depending on your faith, you could
inspire your motivated acts or damage your charisma.
To consult a craftsman for a need you pay for what you get ON THE
SPOT.
Searching for a proof for predictions is the most laughable
entertainment that pseudo-scientists came up with in the 20th century.
The rules of that game is to keep the door open for falsification
while it is logically impossible to disprove what cannot be proved.
This was never science, IS not science and shall never be science.
Science is in the applicable methods record being handed over from
generation to generation while exploring the possibility of perfecting
them and expanding them. No prediction is allowed into the science
pool until a useful method could be applied to fill a need of humans.
By then it is no more a prediction but a non falsifiable and well
tested method.
Those who care for the human achievements and prosperity should rise
and revolt to clean the scientific community from the politicians and
priests who wear the science mask.
EL Hemetis.
Traveler
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Predictions are requisitions for experiment. In the last analysis,
>experiment (or if you prefer over demonstration) carries the day,
>particularly for falsifying a theory.
I'll keep my predictions to myself for the time being. When my demo is
ready, I'll let you know it's time to pack a dozen crows up your ass.
Traveler
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
Shut the fuck up, you stupid old geezer. The crap you were taught in
school notwithstanding, so-called non-accelerated motion is powered
motion. Now I realize you will never understand this and cannot break
your conditioning. So I have one more thing to say to you: Fuck you,
and the fucking manatee you sleep with. :-D
Louis Savain
Robert Kolker
Traveler wrote:
> motion. Now I realize you will never understand this and cannot break
> your conditioning.
Powered by what? A miracle. Or something that makes sense?
Either a force is acting on a body and it is accelerated, or a force has
acted on a body and now is not acting so the body is no longer
accelerated. In a flat space, a body following a straight line with
uniforme velocity has no (net) force acting on it.
Are you seriously telling us you are going back to Aristotle and his
busted up no-good theory of motion?
Bob Kolker
Traveler
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Are you seriously telling us you are going back to Aristotle
Absolutely.
And the fact that, several millennia ago, Aristotle was right about
the necessity for causal motion, shows all the more how stupid and
ridiculously out of touch you are. So fuck you and the ugly cow you
sleep with. :-D
>and his busted up no-good theory of motion?
It's busted to you because it is beyond the ability of your calcified
gnat brain to grasp. :-D
Robert Kolker
Traveler wrote:
>
> It's busted to you because it is beyond the ability of your calcified
> gnat brain to grasp. :-D
I grasped his theory with both hands while you were still shitting in
your diapers. I grasped it and heaved it as far away as I could. Simple
experiments show how wrong Aristotle was.
Bob Kolker
Traveler
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Traveler wrote:
>>
>> It's busted to you because it is beyond the ability of your calcified
>> gnat brain to grasp. :-D
>
>I grasped his theory with both hands while you were still shitting in
>your diapers.
You were playing with yourself and you mistook that for thinking.
> I grasped it and heaved it as far away as I could. Simple
>experiments show how wrong Aristotle was.
Funny but I have never seen these simple experiments that prove that
motion is acausal. You are talking out of your ass again, you old
senile fuck. Go eat your oatmeal.
Richard Gauthier
> has anyone in this discussion heard of the Austrian naturalist/inventor
> Viktor Shauberger
Dear Lucas,
Hello!
I have, but why do you ask?
You are an artist? Did you see my model of a superluminal electron at
http://www.home.zonnet.nl/microvita/articles/superluminal.pdf ?
Viktor was very interested in energy from implosion and vortices. My
electron model looks like a vortex--maybe that's what holds it
together.
best wishes,
Richard