The Unity Problem
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
arbitrarily.
Another might choose the centimeter.
Yet according to the real numbers the choice of unity is not arbitrary.
It is preordained and fixed in a universal way.
You might say that this is splitting a hair.
That is a fine position.
But what if there are consequences?
I have developed some consequences or rather in hindsight I can see it
this way.
Is this premise a valid conflict?
If there are indeed consequences then I believe that the answer will be
affirmative.
The intuitive validity of the real numbers is felt through our sense of
space.
Yet the universal unity distance is nonexistent.
The mathematicians will point his finger at the physicists. This has
already happened.
Will the physicist point his finger back at the mathematician?
I am curious how people feel about this minor discrepancy in our
mathematical model of space.
-Tim
Sam Wormley
> When one chooses a unit value of say an inch they have made that choice
> arbitrarily. Another might choose the centimeter. Yet according to the real
> numbers the choice of unity is not arbitrary.
>
Units are chosen for convenience.
David C. Ullrich
<tttp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>When one chooses a unit value of say an inch they have made that choice
>arbitrarily.
Yes,
>Another might choose the centimeter.
yes,
>Yet according to the real numbers the choice of unity is not arbitrary.
>It is preordained and fixed in a universal way.
huh?
>You might say that this is splitting a hair.
I'd be more likely to say it was nonsense.
If I have a measurement to make I can measure it in inches
or in centimeters. The real numbers do not have anything
to say about this.
I'm tempted to ask why you say what you do, but I'm going to
refrain.
>That is a fine position.
>But what if there are consequences?
>I have developed some consequences or rather in hindsight I can see it
>this way.
>Is this premise a valid conflict?
>If there are indeed consequences then I believe that the answer will be
>affirmative.
>The intuitive validity of the real numbers is felt through our sense of
>space.
>Yet the universal unity distance is nonexistent.
>
>The mathematicians will point his finger at the physicists. This has
>already happened.
>Will the physicist point his finger back at the mathematician?
>
>I am curious how people feel about this minor discrepancy in our
>mathematical model of space.
>
>-Tim
************************
David C. Ullrich
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
The Cartesian space that we use to represent reality uses the real
numbers as its basis.
It is admittedly a minor point, yet I have already been in the
discussion with mathematicians who will insist that unity on the real
line is not an arbitrary choice. Another mathematician simply says that
this is a problem for physics and shrugs it off. So I'm pointing out a
minor conflict and seeing what comes back. Thanks for your responses
Sam and David.
-Tim
David C. Ullrich
<tttp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hmm, maybe there's hope.
It's correct to say that "unity on the real line is not
an arbitrary choice", if by that we mean that we're not free
to choose which real number should be 1. There's only one real
number that equals 1, nothing arbitrary about it.
But this says nothing whatever about whether or not we can choose
our units arbitrarily when we make a measurement! The result
of a measurement is a _length_, and a length (assuming we're
talking about an actual physical measurement) is not just a real
number. A length consists of a real number _together with_ a
choice of units. That is, 1 is not a length, and 2.4 is not a
length. 1 inch is a length, and 37 cm is a length.
Deciding on units of measurement really says nothing at all about
whether the "1" in the real numbers is arbitrary. Deciding on
what units to use simply says what length shall correspond to
the number 1.
>-Tim
>
David C. Ullrich
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
In quantum physics they admit to a correspondence principal.
I interperet it to mean that whatever they come up with it must apply
to the real world, or that a new feature of their system cannot
conflict with observed reality, which essentailly takes on a classical
physics perspective as valid. No matter how weird their stuff is they
can't get too crazy. It's like going to therapy without checking in to
the mental hospital.
The argument here is like that except here the correspondence is
between mathematics and nature and the idea of it being perfectable.
In other words this correspondence has the possibility of being exact.
I am pointing out a small conflict.
This couples to other principles but I prefer to leave those out for
this discussion.
If there is a conflict here it may be able to stand alone and that is
preferable to complicating the argument.
You have countered by saying that unity is an arbitrary choice.
The natural numbers are not arbitrary choices and these are what the
traditional real line is built from.
I suppose we could put in a plug here for the metric system and admit
that a universal distance would make a lot of sense, but reality does
not afford us this as a natural feature.
If we reach within this context we might get to the speed of light as a
natural velocity. But by that time we have entered the physics realm
and that's probably too far for this concept. It is a very simple and
minor point; the type of point that a mathematician might trouble over.
"Reality" and "real number" are so named for no other reason. At this
point we'd have an easier time renaming reality than renaming the real
number to covey the subtle difference.
Something tighter might exist: a space continuum that has perfect
correspondence.
This is a fundamental argument on the bowels of mathematics.
-Tim
Sue...
> When one chooses a unit value of say an inch they have made that choice
> arbitrarily.
> Another might choose the centimeter.
> Yet according to the real numbers the choice of unity is not arbitrary.
> It is preordained and fixed in a universal way.
>
> You might say that this is splitting a hair.
> That is a fine position.
> But what if there are consequences?
> I have developed some consequences or rather in hindsight I can see it
> this way.
> Is this premise a valid conflict?
> If there are indeed consequences then I believe that the answer will be
> affirmative.
> The intuitive validity of the real numbers is felt through our sense of
> space.
<<Yet the universal unity distance is nonexistent. >>
<< Here we see the [atomic] artists' first use of color mapping.
Color is assigned to the surface not only by lights but by local
curvature of the surface. This helps to delineate the shape of the
object (which, for the curious, is a molecule that they assembled
from 8 cesium and 8 iodine atoms). >>
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/
If you say the distance between the atoms from the above
STM is equivalent to 80 'timmymeters', I have doubts that
nature could scale the universe up or down in any way that
would cause substantial change to the standard 'timmymeter'.
This is probably related to the long term stability of the fine
structure constant (FSC) , where a good bit of research is ongoing
to determine just how stable the FSC has been over time.
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I like the standing waves in the image. But this argument is pure math.
Everything else that we traditionally use in physics is built from it.
It seems clear to me the natural numbers have no place within the
construction of physical space. They simply are not under there in
reality. Instead they are very easily built on top of physical space
and that is how we do it:
a, a+a, a+a+a, ...
1, 2, 3, ...
The value unity has no specification in the value a.
It comes on top of it.
Just as we choose a meter and then duplicate it to get two meters.
The meter itself is arbitrary.
Unity is merely a natural factor that preserves the meter.
Perhaps I am nearing a new definition of magnitude.
Every concrete representation must present an arbitrary basis.
The smaller the better until we ultimately reach the differential.
It would seem that a unitless magnitude would have to conflict
somewhere, but since the geometric product is not a natural feature of
physical space it does not. This is merely more evidence of the real
numbers being an inaccurate representation of physical space. That the
simpler construction suffices validates the claim. Natural
correspondence is at the heart of this argument.
This really poses a larger problem for me of what is the product? Why
do we use it? How does it relate to geometry?
-Tim
Sue...
but all the atomic STMs make the point a well.
You wrote:
<<Yet the universal unity distance is nonexistent. >>
Atomic dimension appear related to the speed of light
and that most considier that a universal constant.
> But this argument is pure math.
> Everything else that we traditionally use in physics is built from it.
> It seems clear to me the natural numbers have no place within the
> construction of physical space. They simply are not under there in
> reality. Instead they are very easily built on top of physical space
> and that is how we do it:
> a, a+a, a+a+a, ...
> 1, 2, 3, ...
> The value unity has no specification in the value a.
Let's say it is one cycle of propagating light.
The sequence seems valid.
> It comes on top of it.
> Just as we choose a meter and then duplicate it to get two meters.
> The meter itself is arbitrary.
> Unity is merely a natural factor that preserves the meter.
> Perhaps I am nearing a new definition of magnitude.
> Every concrete representation must present an arbitrary basis.
> The smaller the better until we ultimately reach the differential.
>
> It would seem that a unitless magnitude would have to conflict
> somewhere, but since the geometric product is not a natural feature of
> physical space it does not. This is merely more evidence of the real
> numbers being an inaccurate representation of physical space. That the
> simpler construction suffices validates the claim. Natural
> correspondence is at the heart of this argument.
>
> This really poses a larger problem for me of what is the product? Why
> do we use it? How does it relate to geometry?
This is not a good argument for you polysigns.
Clearly, you have found out what they are drinking at
Stanford, and also found out where they are getting it. :o)
Sue...
>
> -Tim
David C. Ullrich
<tttp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Looks like I was wrong about that.
No, the conflict you think you're pointing out simply does not
exist - the apparent conflict you see is due to your misunderstanding.
Read what I wrote again for an explanation of exactly what it is
you're misunderstanding - I don't see any point to repeating it.
>This couples to other principles but I prefer to leave those out for
>this discussion.
>If there is a conflict here it may be able to stand alone and that is
>preferable to complicating the argument.
>
>You have countered by saying that unity is an arbitrary choice.
No, I didn't say that. You are very confused. If you like being
confused that's your right. If you think you're not confused you
might contemplate the fact that nobody else sees the problem
you do, _even though_ your explanation of the problem is very
simple. If on the other hand you'd like to know that actual
explanation for what's bothering you then read what I wrote again.
But you have to read it _much_ nore carefully than you did!
When you say that I said that unity is an arbitrary choice
it's clear you didn't read it nearly carefully enough.
>The natural numbers are not arbitrary choices and these are what the
>traditional real line is built from.
>I suppose we could put in a plug here for the metric system and admit
>that a universal distance would make a lot of sense, but reality does
>not afford us this as a natural feature.
>
>If we reach within this context we might get to the speed of light as a
>natural velocity. But by that time we have entered the physics realm
>and that's probably too far for this concept. It is a very simple and
>minor point; the type of point that a mathematician might trouble over.
>"Reality" and "real number" are so named for no other reason. At this
>point we'd have an easier time renaming reality than renaming the real
>number to covey the subtle difference.
>
>Something tighter might exist: a space continuum that has perfect
>correspondence.
>This is a fundamental argument on the bowels of mathematics.
>
>-Tim
************************
David C. Ullrich
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I agree with you that this is an argument against the polysign
arithmetic product. What you say is a bit cryptic. I see electron spin
as a geometric product artifact, particularly as an improper matrix
transform which can be viewed as an arithmetic P2 product.
The arithmetic product might be viewed abstractly as an integral but
the problem remains open. The signals in favor of a geometric product
are present but it does not seem to play on the same field as
superposition, though it can be done that way on the reals and polysign
numbers.
The devotion to the real numbers obfuscates the problem partly because
they presume a finite nature which we have transparently imposed onto
space. Under the new construction we are left with a void in this
finite department until we come upon a preexistent measure 'a' to work
with. At our human level this is an easy problem. We take a stick and
break it off cleanly at each end and call this the reference. We are
left with the puzzle of how to make shorter lengths. Is there a
shortest length? Would this impose an upper frequency limit on
electromagnetic radiation? Photon energy would top out. Under such a
blue-shift limit would a radiating particle accelerate backward from
the direction of radiation? More than an acceleration it would require
a velocity boost to do so. Such a particle radiating in more than one
direction could be quite a speedy little thing. Is this bracketing
effect going to be productive?
It is safe to assume a net energy density; we exist.
Under this prospect we are left with the possibility of a particle
firing off little deltas of width 'a' continuously and in order for the
particle to remain stationary it must in its simplest spatial mode fire
one left then one right. This would be the sort of stasis we seek. The
energy density would be huge but the signal at low frequency is
imperceptible. In firing off deltas we can still generate lower
frequencies. The conclusion of this may be thermodynamic. Presuming
that a particle is inherently radiant then its minimal spatial
composition will be that of rapid deltas of the pattern layed out. In
other words a cold particle still has a high radiance; it is just more
balanced. A cold object has constituent particles balanced and in
phase. This has some consequences that could make a verifiable theory.
-Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Are "units" and "unity" two different things?
You say:
"A length consists of a real number _together with_ a
choice of units."
The scalar product is creeping into the discussion overly complicating
the native spatial representation which the "real" numbers are an
attempt to model. The establishment of a raw length allows the
demarcation of unity along a line. Until that raw length is established
there is no such notion of unity as concept in the free space. To break
your construction down within the quotes you take a real which already
has a unity in its composition and mix it with another unity. So Are
there two unities? If there are then I will concede to have minced your
own words. But so long as these are the same concept I believe that
your construction is too heavy. It contains too much information and is
not apt to be physical space.
The attack here is not on the real numbers. It is on their application
to physical space. Is the correspondence exact? The continuum contains
no concept of unity until it is instantiated atop its own structure.
-Tim
Sue...
[...]
> >
> > This is not a good argument for you polysigns.
> > Clearly, you have found out what they are drinking at
> > Stanford, and also found out where they are getting it. :o)
> >
> > Sue...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > -Tim
>
> I agree with you that this is an argument against the polysign
> arithmetic product.
I tho't you arguments, nebulous as they were for the polysign
?formalism? were, had some merit but you kept sweeping
the positrons off the table. LOL
I didn't even realise this thread was argument against it.
> What you say is a bit cryptic. I see electron spin
> as a geometric product artifact, particularly as an improper matrix
> transform which can be viewed as an arithmetic P2 product.
I never got that far because the *physical* cornerstone of your
narrative fell out of place, straight away. I think you need to find
some serious flaw with alpaha:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
...to claim that physicists don't know how to build a meterstick.
Spin did you say? OK we still don't have your Coulombs and
Teslas unified so that you'll know what happened to them in the
quantum realm but you wouln't be the first to do quantum
statistics without that insight.
>
> The arithmetic product might be viewed abstractly as an integral but
> the problem remains open. The signals in favor of a geometric product
> are present but it does not seem to play on the same field as
> superposition, though it can be done that way on the reals and polysign
> numbers.
The superposition *can* be purely spatial. Quantum spin ?is? purely
temporal.
>
> The devotion to the real numbers obfuscates the problem partly because
> they presume a finite nature which we have transparently imposed onto
> space. Under the new construction we are left with a void in this
> finite department until we come upon a preexistent measure 'a' to work
> with. At our human level this is an easy problem. We take a stick and
> break it off cleanly at each end and call this the reference. We are
> left with the puzzle of how to make shorter lengths. Is there a
> shortest length? Would this impose an upper frequency limit on
> electromagnetic radiation? Photon energy would top out. Under such a
> blue-shift limit would a radiating particle accelerate backward from
> the direction of radiation? More than an acceleration it would require
> a velocity boost to do so. Such a particle radiating in more than one
> direction could be quite a speedy little thing. Is this bracketing
> effect going to be productive?
<< Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) measured
high energy (20 MeV to 30 GeV) gamma ray source positions to a
fraction of a degree and photon energy to within 15 percent...>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_Gamma_Ray_Observatory
>
> It is safe to assume a net energy density; we exist.
> Under this prospect we are left with the possibility of a particle
> firing off little deltas of width 'a' continuously and in order for the
> particle to remain stationary it must in its simplest spatial mode fire
> one left then one right. This would be the sort of stasis we seek. The
> energy density would be huge but the signal at low frequency is
> imperceptible. In firing off deltas we can still generate lower
> frequencies. The conclusion of this may be thermodynamic. Presuming
> that a particle is inherently radiant then its minimal spatial
> composition will be that of rapid deltas of the pattern layed out. In
> other words a cold particle still has a high radiance; it is just more
> balanced. A cold object has constituent particles balanced and in
> phase. This has some consequences that could make a verifiable theory.
Ahhhem... Nature doesn't do field equations nor statistics... we do.
It sounds like your letting the formalisms run off with your
sensibilities.
I don't recognise the puzzle-piece you have in your hand so I can't
offer any suggestions where to put it... well not while keep my
manners intact. >:-)
Sue...
>
> -Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
> Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > This is not a good argument for you polysigns.
> > > Clearly, you have found out what they are drinking at
> > > Stanford, and also found out where they are getting it. :o)
> > >
> > > Sue...
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -Tim
> >
> > I agree with you that this is an argument against the polysign
> > arithmetic product.
>
> I tho't you arguments, nebulous as they were for the polysign
> ?formalism? were, had some merit but you kept sweeping
> the positrons off the table. LOL
>
> I didn't even realise this thread was argument against it.
It's not against the polysign construction.
It's against the arithmetic product as a geometrical concept.
For instance we see the deep usage of complex numbers within physics
yet we don't see geometrical points obeying some sort of a point
multiplication in a plane. The geometric sense of the product lacks
natural correspondence as regards physical space.
And so another feature of the real numbers is unnessecary for our
representation of reality.
I think I need to take up differential geometry.
>
> > What you say is a bit cryptic. I see electron spin
> > as a geometric product artifact, particularly as an improper matrix
> > transform which can be viewed as an arithmetic P2 product.
>
> I never got that far because the *physical* cornerstone of your
> narrative fell out of place, straight away. I think you need to find
> some serious flaw with alpaha:
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
> ...to claim that physicists don't know how to build a meterstick.
I'd love to do that. Still, all of the math that gets up to there is
built on these lowly principles which especially include a real
numbered space representation in every matrix equation written.
>
> Spin did you say? OK we still don't have your Coulombs and
> Teslas unified so that you'll know what happened to them in the
> quantum realm but you wouln't be the first to do quantum
> statistics without that insight.
>
> >
> > The arithmetic product might be viewed abstractly as an integral but
> > the problem remains open. The signals in favor of a geometric product
> > are present but it does not seem to play on the same field as
> > superposition, though it can be done that way on the reals and polysign
> > numbers.
>
> The superposition *can* be purely spatial. Quantum spin ?is? purely
> temporal.
That's an interesting thought. Any links?
>
> >
> > The devotion to the real numbers obfuscates the problem partly because
> > they presume a finite nature which we have transparently imposed onto
> > space. Under the new construction we are left with a void in this
> > finite department until we come upon a preexistent measure 'a' to work
> > with. At our human level this is an easy problem. We take a stick and
> > break it off cleanly at each end and call this the reference. We are
> > left with the puzzle of how to make shorter lengths. Is there a
> > shortest length? Would this impose an upper frequency limit on
> > electromagnetic radiation? Photon energy would top out. Under such a
> > blue-shift limit would a radiating particle accelerate backward from
> > the direction of radiation? More than an acceleration it would require
> > a velocity boost to do so. Such a particle radiating in more than one
> > direction could be quite a speedy little thing. Is this bracketing
> > effect going to be productive?
>
> << Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) measured
> high energy (20 MeV to 30 GeV) gamma ray source positions to a
> fraction of a degree and photon energy to within 15 percent...>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_Gamma_Ray_Observatory
>
Alright, and they are down to 10^-15 meters.
When do we get to the bottom? I have always been fascinated with the
spectrum and its diversity out of a linear concept. It still is
tempting to try to break it.
There may be some way to break this theory with the collider stuff of
the tevatron too.
What type of radiation comes off of these particles?
It is a disgusting to think that at the very highest energy we could be
oscillating endlessly and that we just can't know it.
> >
> > It is safe to assume a net energy density; we exist.
> > Under this prospect we are left with the possibility of a particle
> > firing off little deltas of width 'a' continuously and in order for the
> > particle to remain stationary it must in its simplest spatial mode fire
> > one left then one right. This would be the sort of stasis we seek. The
> > energy density would be huge but the signal at low frequency is
> > imperceptible. In firing off deltas we can still generate lower
> > frequencies. The conclusion of this may be thermodynamic. Presuming
> > that a particle is inherently radiant then its minimal spatial
> > composition will be that of rapid deltas of the pattern layed out. In
> > other words a cold particle still has a high radiance; it is just more
> > balanced. A cold object has constituent particles balanced and in
> > phase. This has some consequences that could make a verifiable theory.
>
> Ahhhem... Nature doesn't do field equations nor statistics... we do.
> It sounds like your letting the formalisms run off with your
> sensibilities.
>
> I don't recognise the puzzle-piece you have in your hand so I can't
> offer any suggestions where to put it... well not while keep my
> manners intact. >:-)
>
> Sue...
Fire away. Nature does physics. Nature does spacetime, or at least what
we perceive to be spacetime. It would be sad to see you loose your fine
web manners. But you should attack the weakest points so that a
progression occurs(unless your just not interested which I can accept).
I'm not actually attached to this model. I'm just trying to expose the
notion that there may be consequences in such a subtle change. It is
exactly these places that need to be turned over.
-Tim
Bob Kolker
> When one chooses a unit value of say an inch they have made that choice
> arbitrarily.
> Another might choose the centimeter.
> Yet according to the real numbers the choice of unity is not arbitrary.
> It is preordained and fixed in a universal way.
Nonsense.
Bob Kolker
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> Sue... wrote:
> > Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > > >
> > > > This is not a good argument for you polysigns.
> > > > Clearly, you have found out what they are drinking at
> > > > Stanford, and also found out where they are getting it. :o)
> > > >
> > > > Sue...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Tim
> > >
> > > I agree with you that this is an argument against the polysign
> > > arithmetic product.
> >
> > I tho't you arguments, nebulous as they were for the polysign
> > ?formalism? were, had some merit but you kept sweeping
> > the positrons off the table. LOL
> >
> > I didn't even realise this thread was argument against it.
>
> It's not against the polysign construction.
> It's against the arithmetic product as a geometrical concept.
> For instance we see the deep usage of complex numbers within physics
> yet we don't see geometrical points obeying some sort of a point
> multiplication in a plane. The geometric sense of the product lacks
> natural correspondence as regards physical space.
> representation of reality.
> I think I need to take up differential geometry.
Wait 'till April when we get some GP-B analysis. ;-)
When I see lines on a weather or topographic map, I don't
expect to find some place where they are painted on the
ground. An isobaric or isothermic curve is a human construction.
We could as well invent the isolefty. A line drawn from one
left handed person to the next, to the next ...
AFAIK there aren't any physical laws that predict its shape.
Mathmatically I suppose we can say something about it but
not much.
>
> >
> > > What you say is a bit cryptic. I see electron spin
> > > as a geometric product artifact, particularly as an improper matrix
> > > transform which can be viewed as an arithmetic P2 product.
> >
> > I never got that far because the *physical* cornerstone of your
> > narrative fell out of place, straight away. I think you need to find
> > some serious flaw with alpaha:
> > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
> > ...to claim that physicists don't know how to build a meterstick.
>
> I'd love to do that. Still, all of the math that gets up to there is
> built on these lowly principles which especially include a real
> numbered space representation in every matrix equation written.
>
I'd love it if you didn't.
I get a dollar every time somebody click on this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem >:-)
>
> >
> > Spin did you say? OK we still don't have your Coulombs and
> > Teslas unified so that you'll know what happened to them in the
> > quantum realm but you wouln't be the first to do quantum
> > statistics without that insight.
> >
> > >
> > > The arithmetic product might be viewed abstractly as an integral but
> > > the problem remains open. The signals in favor of a geometric product
> > > are present but it does not seem to play on the same field as
> > > superposition, though it can be done that way on the reals and polysign
> > > numbers.
> >
> > The superposition *can* be purely spatial. Quantum spin ?is? purely
> > temporal.
>
> That's an interesting thought. Any links?
My ole' favorite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
Instead of moving *one* charge between A and B to modulate
the force on charge C. Put *two* charges at virtual positions
farther away from C and don't move them. No motion, No time.
Pure spatial. Ya might check me on that.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dipole.html#c2
...or just wait 'till Randy Poe opens up round number 7 of the debate.
;-)
Sooner or later we need to find an online applet or calculator and
settle our issues on this once and for all.
A quantum particle just has a spin number that you can't
equate to any spatial quantity. Ahhh ya want a link?
<< probability appears as a concept of a 'logic of temporal
propositions>>
"Probability and Quantum Mechanics"
http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/24/4/321.pdf
That isn't a free download. Just a Google exerpt.
>
> >
> > >
> > > The devotion to the real numbers obfuscates the problem partly because
> > > they presume a finite nature which we have transparently imposed onto
> > > space. Under the new construction we are left with a void in this
> > > finite department until we come upon a preexistent measure 'a' to work
> > > with. At our human level this is an easy problem. We take a stick and
> > > break it off cleanly at each end and call this the reference. We are
> > > left with the puzzle of how to make shorter lengths. Is there a
> > > shortest length? Would this impose an upper frequency limit on
> > > electromagnetic radiation? Photon energy would top out. Under such a
> > > blue-shift limit would a radiating particle accelerate backward from
> > > the direction of radiation? More than an acceleration it would require
> > > a velocity boost to do so. Such a particle radiating in more than one
> > > direction could be quite a speedy little thing. Is this bracketing
> > > effect going to be productive?
> >
> > << Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) measured
> > high energy (20 MeV to 30 GeV) gamma ray source positions to a
> > fraction of a degree and photon energy to within 15 percent...>>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_Gamma_Ray_Observatory
> >
>
> Alright, and they are down to 10^-15 meters.
> When do we get to the bottom? I have always been fascinated with the
> spectrum and its diversity out of a linear concept. It still is
> tempting to try to break it.
You make light by shaking a charge back and forth.
When the energy required to reverse the direction of
a charge is too much, I suppose you break it.
But you can always settle for less amplitude.
I suspect the limit is dictated by what you can detect.
>
> There may be some way to break this theory with the collider stuff of
> the tevatron too.
> What type of radiation comes off of these particles?
It looks like the same stuff Luke Skywalker was shooting
at Darth Vader to me.
Live collisions from CDF and DZero
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/live_events/cotview.html
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/live_events/index.html
<< It is a disgusting to think that at the very highest energy we could
be
oscillating endlessly and that we just can't know it. >>
You'd know it. Your teeth would rattle. :o)
>
> > >
> > > It is safe to assume a net energy density; we exist.
> > > Under this prospect we are left with the possibility of a particle
> > > firing off little deltas of width 'a' continuously and in order for the
> > > particle to remain stationary it must in its simplest spatial mode fire
> > > one left then one right. This would be the sort of stasis we seek. The
> > > energy density would be huge but the signal at low frequency is
> > > imperceptible. In firing off deltas we can still generate lower
> > > frequencies. The conclusion of this may be thermodynamic. Presuming
> > > that a particle is inherently radiant then its minimal spatial
> > > composition will be that of rapid deltas of the pattern layed out. In
> > > other words a cold particle still has a high radiance; it is just more
> > > balanced. A cold object has constituent particles balanced and in
> > > phase. This has some consequences that could make a verifiable theory.
> >
> > Ahhhem... Nature doesn't do field equations nor statistics... we do.
> > It sounds like your letting the formalisms run off with your
> > sensibilities.
> >
> > I don't recognise the puzzle-piece you have in your hand so I can't
> > offer any suggestions where to put it... well not while keep my
> > manners intact. >:-)
> >
> > Sue...
>
> Fire away. Nature does physics. Nature does spacetime, or at least what
> we perceive to be spacetime.
No! Magnets perceive it to be space-time.
We perceive space and time.
> It would be sad to see you loose your fine
> web manners. But you should attack the weakest points so that a
> progression occurs(unless your just not interested which I can accept).
> I'm not actually attached to this model.
<< I'm just trying to expose the
notion that there may be consequences in such a subtle change. It is
exactly these places that need to be turned over. >>
Toublemaker Eh? (just like the the rest of us)
If you could wrap some of your polysign's exponent scaling
around this:
<< We study the long-range attractive force between neutral
sodium clusters Nan (2n20) and the alkali atoms Li, Na, and
K. Absolute cross sections for the scattering of a beam of
clusters by atomic vapor are measured, and are shown to arise
from the van der Waals dispersive interaction V = -C6/r6. These
cross sections are extremely large (up to thousands of Å2 in the
center-of-mass frame). Their magnitudes are in good agreement
with predictions based on the London theory of dispersion forces;
the large strength of the interaction is a consequence of the high
cluster polarizabilities. In addition, we evaluate the contribution of
the higher-order potential term -C8/r8 to the scattering cross
section and show that it can become quite significant for collisions
involving large clusters (n ~ 102-103). >>
©1998 American Institute of Physics.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JCPSA6000108000016006660000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
...you would at least be on a path where it appears that the
incompleteness of the Lorenz gauge may be hiding something.
Tajmar/de Matos Experiment:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Janet Tate Anomaly:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v62/i8/p845_1
Sue...
>
> -Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Thanks for weighing in Bob.
Though your criticism is weak I completely sympathize with your
position.
The unity issue is merely one peg of a larger argument.
If there is a consequence it should be tracked.
There are numerous complications within the real numbers that need not
exist.
The invalid assumption is often at the heart of a conflict.
Some consequences are already exposed.
The variant construction proposed here takes the continuum first and
finds the natural numbers as a result. They go together nicely. There
are additional consequences.
-Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
What if math is a universal language and humans have boched it up?
What correspondence is there to an independent function in nature?
been there done that.
> Instead of moving *one* charge between A and B to modulate
> the force on charge C. Put *two* charges at virtual positions
> farther away from C and don't move them. No motion, No time.
> Pure spatial. Ya might check me on that.
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dipole.html#c2
> ...or just wait 'till Randy Poe opens up round number 7 of the debate.
> ;-)
Oh no. Not again.
I am trying to apply the oscillator concept via n-poles and their
variants.
I like the conservation / thermo concept I made here and it can go into
the higher signs nicely.
And this has geometrical correspondence whereas the plain flux model
was lacking the geometry.
Right. It seems to me that the deltas that I am describing are those
shakes, but if we were to apply two consecutively in the same
orientation we would get sort of rolloff as the particle kicked back
but not getting as much acceleration on the second kick. If we try to
get the lower frequencies from a universal high frequency delta we
would need some of these. The outgoing delta then also needs to be able
to kick another particle, unless they come in phase with each other.
This type of disruption would be conducive to the double kick occuring
with just two particles out of phase. The second of a double-kick would
come out at a lower frequency in the rest frame so there is plenty of
dynamics. The kicks are enforced to happen continuously but which pole
they exit from would make all of the difference.
>
> >
> > There may be some way to break this theory with the collider stuff of
> > the tevatron too.
> > What type of radiation comes off of these particles?
> It looks like the same stuff Luke Skywalker was shooting
> at Darth Vader to me.
> Live collisions from CDF and DZero
> http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/live_events/cotview.html
> http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/live_events/index.html
>
Very neat links. As I look at the live feed they are definitely
working.
> << It is a disgusting to think that at the very highest energy we could
> be
> oscillating endlessly and that we just can't know it. >>
>
> You'd know it. Your teeth would rattle. :o)
Well they are humming and the question of whether they continue to hum
at absolute zero is of interest. For a composite body the in phase
cancellation cannot be universal due to propagation delay. So this
would argue that a normal object cannot achieve absolute zero
temperature. Those objects which are harder to get in phase will be
warmer under this thermodynamic interpretation. As they attempt to come
into phase it looks as though they will throb. The modes that an object
would settle through might be detectable.
Matter does not halt and collapse at absolute zero.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > It is safe to assume a net energy density; we exist.
> > > > Under this prospect we are left with the possibility of a particle
> > > > firing off little deltas of width 'a' continuously and in order for the
> > > > particle to remain stationary it must in its simplest spatial mode fire
> > > > one left then one right. This would be the sort of stasis we seek. The
> > > > energy density would be huge but the signal at low frequency is
> > > > imperceptible. In firing off deltas we can still generate lower
> > > > frequencies. The conclusion of this may be thermodynamic. Presuming
> > > > that a particle is inherently radiant then its minimal spatial
> > > > composition will be that of rapid deltas of the pattern layed out. In
> > > > other words a cold particle still has a high radiance; it is just more
> > > > balanced. A cold object has constituent particles balanced and in
> > > > phase. This has some consequences that could make a verifiable theory.
> > >
> > > Ahhhem... Nature doesn't do field equations nor statistics... we do.
> > > It sounds like your letting the formalisms run off with your
> > > sensibilities.
> > >
> > > I don't recognise the puzzle-piece you have in your hand so I can't
> > > offer any suggestions where to put it... well not while keep my
> > > manners intact. >:-)
> > >
> > > Sue...
> >
> > Fire away. Nature does physics. Nature does spacetime, or at least what
> > we perceive to be spacetime.
>
> No! Magnets perceive it to be space-time.
> We perceive space and time.
Not any more. We perceive spacetime. Do you really feel that they are
two seperate entities?
This enters determinism and that concept of independent function too
perhaps.
So this is like shooting bullets into air and finding them taking
radical paths right?
Perhaps not that extreme though.
I think it would be relevant to look at the directions of photon
radiation form material. So for instance are there preferred
orientations? and do they vary with frequency? I guess I'll try to
study LEDs a bit in this vain.
-Tim
Sue...
Take the planar pieces out of a picture frame and give the frame
a little rough handling. Before long, the frame is non planar or four
sticks in your hand. Lorenz space (a human concotion) is like that.
Now do the same with a triangular shaped picture frame. Because
there are no excess degrees of freedom it, doesn't warp out shape.
Something about your polysigned figure impressed me as being
an analog to the triangle frame. Scaling from magnetic force to
London force, raises the order of the differentials. If the
1D, 2D, 3D, 6D mappings contribute some rigour to this scaling
then something less than Ewald sums might describe London forces
the same way Maxwell's equations describes magnetic forces
without resorting to Ewald sums.
You have to have a good overview of *both* the math and the
physics to say whether it is a valid application. I don't think
either of us has such a view.
Van der Pol oscillators?
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm
I assume 'deltas' are derivatives. That paragraph is a good place for
an equation. ;-) Seldom do I prefer maths to words. Post your
shipping address and you might get some free salad dressing. :o)
>
> >
> > >
> > > There may be some way to break this theory with the collider stuff of
> > > the tevatron too.
> > > What type of radiation comes off of these particles?
> > It looks like the same stuff Luke Skywalker was shooting
> > at Darth Vader to me.
> > Live collisions from CDF and DZero
> > http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/live_events/cotview.html
> > http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/live_events/index.html
> >
> Very neat links. As I look at the live feed they are definitely
> working.
>
> > << It is a disgusting to think that at the very highest energy we could
> > be
> > oscillating endlessly and that we just can't know it. >>
> >
> > You'd know it. Your teeth would rattle. :o)
>
> Well they are humming and the question of whether they continue to hum
> at absolute zero is of interest. For a composite body the in phase
> cancellation cannot be universal due to propagation delay. So this
> would argue that a normal object cannot achieve absolute zero
> temperature. Those objects which are harder to get in phase will be
> warmer under this thermodynamic interpretation. As they attempt to come
> into phase it looks as though they will throb. The modes that an object
> would settle through might be detectable.
> Matter does not halt and collapse at absolute zero.
There is plenty we need to study down at those temperatures.
Note that both the Tajamr and Tate experiments are pretty cold.
They are not entities at all. They are co-ordinatie systems.
If we perceived space-time our motions would curve like
electrons in magnetic fields.
It is more like an artillery team doing painstaking maths to
setup the piece, but missing the target consistantly by the same
amount.
> I think it would be relevant to look at the directions of photon
> radiation form material. So for instance are there preferred
> orientations? and do they vary with frequency? I guess I'll try to
> study LEDs a bit in this vain.
That is best done with big light where can you use geometry.
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
Sue...
>
> -Tim
David C. Ullrich
<tttp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course they're two different things! Unity is 1.
A choice of units is, for example, a decidion to
use cm instead of inches to measure distances.
> "A length consists of a real number _together with_ a
> choice of units."
>The scalar product is creeping into the discussion
Huh?
> overly complicating
>the native spatial representation which the "real" numbers are an
>attempt to model. The establishment of a raw length allows the
>demarcation of unity along a line. Until that raw length is established
>there is no such notion of unity as concept in the free space. To break
>your construction down within the quotes you take a real which already
>has a unity in its composition and mix it with another unity. So Are
>there two unities? If there are then I will concede to have minced your
>own words. But so long as these are the same concept I believe that
>your construction is too heavy. It contains too much information and is
>not apt to be physical space.
>
>The attack here is not on the real numbers. It is on their application
>to physical space. Is the correspondence exact? The continuum contains
>no concept of unity until it is instantiated atop its own structure.
>
>-Tim
************************
David C. Ullrich
Sue...
Tim seems to be grasping for the term *dimensionless*.
"Refining the fine-structure constant"
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/8/1/1
So there is hope that he has only lost half of his
marbles and not all of them. :o)
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Sue... wrote:
> David C. Ullrich wrote:
> > On 15 Nov 2006 06:14:32 -0800, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
> > <tttp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >David C. Ullrich wrote:
> > >> On 14 Nov 2006 12:54:41 -0800, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
> > >> <tttp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >David C. Ullrich wrote:
> > >> >> On 14 Nov 2006 10:17:27 -0800, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
> > >> >> <tttp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >David C. Ullrich wrote:
> > >> >> >> On 14 Nov 2006 04:32:55 -0800, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
> > >> >> >> <tttp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >When one choos
> > >> >> >>
David you have done a fine job upholding the establishment.
I concede that I minced your words.
Unit and unity are two different concepts to you and so I confused the
discussion because I thought that when you changed one you had
inherently changed the other.
I myself cannot revert back to this stage yet but I respect your right
to do so.
> >
> > > "A length consists of a real number _together with_ a
> > > choice of units."
> > >The scalar product is creeping into the discussion
> >
> > Huh?
When I say
three oranges
Have I immediately generated three oranges?
Or does this imply a scalar product of the orange?
And here we can even get more practical, for when you talk about one
meter you might pull out a tape measure to get it. But the "real" meter
is in some bunker somewhere. You have no access to the real meter yet
you use it regularly. This procedure of duplication is fine. I accept
it. But the next time you mark out your meter it might be a good idea
to remember this. These forms work beautifully due to the stability
which we exist within. Your meter varies slightly with temperature and
even velocity but all in all the tape measure is pretty darn good.
Could thermal expansion be relativistic? I'd better leave that one
alone.
>
> Tim seems to be grasping for the term *dimensionless*.
> "Refining the fine-structure constant"
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/8/1/1
>
> So there is hope that he has only lost half of his
> marbles and not all of them. :o)
>
> Sue...
>
Yes, I am losing some marbles. I have thrown them aside and found that
I can do with less.
In Mathematics and in physics this is done on principle.
Simplicity.
As I try to take this path and listen to the math instead of impose
some archaic structure onto it I keep seeing a wooden stick which here
on earth settles to the ground and remains stationary. But in free
space the stick is not so simple a reference for it will be capable of
translation and rotation. I do not understand the rotational frame so I
think I will keep looking at that.
Do you ever have the sense that we are all really tumbling about
rotationally? It is a strange feeling and may be entirely inaccurate
but I have had it repeatedly. It's nice because it upsets all.
Sometimes it's best to start with a blank slate and a few less marbles.
I also have a new marble that can turn itself inside out:
http://www.bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Deformation/AxisDualDeformStudy.gif
-Tim
Sue...
I won't quote Einstein on that. I am sure you know it.
Your response to David seems valid only in the context
of a changing alpha and maybe not even with that.
There is plenty in the popular press about that so I'll
save you yet another URL.
>
> As I try to take this path and listen to the math instead of impose
> some archaic structure onto it I keep seeing a wooden stick which here
> on earth settles to the ground and remains stationary. But in free
> space the stick is not so simple a reference for it will be capable of
> translation and rotation. I do not understand the rotational frame so I
> think I will keep looking at that.
Yes... Minefield ahead. There is considerable controvesry about
Einstein's use of rotating frames and plenty that will call it
outright absurd. (yours truly). Study Machs inertia[1]
a little bit before you swallow the rotating frame
models, hook, line and sinker.
>
<< Do you ever have the sense that we are all really tumbling
about rotationally? >>
No...Well not any more. I drink less and trust Einstein less
so the dizzy-spells are nearly all gone. :o)
> It is a strange feeling and may be entirely inaccurate
> but I have had it repeatedly. It's nice because it upsets all.
> Sometimes it's best to start with a blank slate and a few less marbles.
> I also have a new marble that can turn itself inside out:
>
> http://www.bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Deformation/AxisDualDeformStudy.gif
I saw a little of it and can't label anything. My link is really slow
today
so full motion view will have to wait.
Sue...
[1] Oddly, Einstein sought to embrace this but it didn't seem to be
well expressed. The Tajmar / de Matos experiment suggest he may have
let the baby disappear down the drain.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
> > > I get a dollar every time somebody click on this link:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem >:-)
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
> > >
> >
> > been there done that.
> >
> > > Instead of moving *one* charge between A and B to modulate
> > > the force on charge C. Put *two* charges at virtual positions
> > > farther away from C and don't move them. No motion, No time.
> > > Pure spatial. Ya might check me on that.
> > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dipole.html#c2
> > > ...or just wait 'till Randy Poe opens up round number 7 of the debate.
> > > ;-)
> >
> > Oh no. Not again.
> > I am trying to apply the oscillator concept via n-poles and their
> > variants.
>
> Van der Pol oscillators?
> http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
> http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
> http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm
This last link is great. Thanks.
Woodward discusses the conflicts of photon soup.
However the soup he supposes is inherent in vacuous spacetime.
The sort of soup that I am proposing is sourced from the particles of
that space.
He concludes that a gravitational consequence that negates the theory,
yet perhaps with the source change I now have a gravitational theory as
well as a thermodynamic one.
>
>
> > I like the conservation / thermo concept I made here and it can go into
> > the higher signs nicely.
> > And this has geometrical correspondence whereas the plain flux model
> > was lacking the geometry.
> >
> > > Sooner or later we need to find an online applet or calculator and
> > > settle our issues on this once and for all.
> > >
> > > A quantum particle just has a spin number that you can't
> > > equate to any spatial quantity. Ahhh ya want a link?
> > > << probability appears as a concept of a 'logic of temporal
> > > propositions>>
> > > "Probability and Quantum Mechanics"
> > > http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/24/4/321.pdf
> > > That isn't a free download. Just a Google exerpt.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You make light by shaking a charge back and forth.
> > > When the energy required to reverse the direction of
> > > a charge is too much, I suppose you break it.
> > >
> > > But you can always settle for less amplitude.
> > > I suspect the limit is dictated by what you can detect.
> >
> > Right. It seems to me that the deltas that I am describing are those
> > shakes, but if we were to apply two consecutively in the same
> > orientation we would get sort of rolloff as the particle kicked back
> > but not getting as much acceleration on the second kick. If we try to
> > get the lower frequencies from a universal high frequency delta we
> > would need some of these. The outgoing delta then also needs to be able
> > to kick another particle, unless they come in phase with each other.
> > This type of disruption would be conducive to the double kick occuring
> > with just two particles out of phase. The second of a double-kick would
> > come out at a lower frequency in the rest frame so there is plenty of
> > dynamics. The kicks are enforced to happen continuously but which pole
> > they exit from would make all of the difference.
>
> I assume 'deltas' are derivatives. That paragraph is a good place for
> an equation. ;-) Seldom do I prefer maths to words. Post your
> shipping address and you might get some free salad dressing. :o)
The deltas are very nearly photons. I can only say nearly because they
would be a new construct. Photon type behaviors would result from these
deltas. I have left the notion of these deltas abstract. Do they need
to be net zero? In other words is the Dirac delta the proper choice or
is a Haar type of basis the proper choice? I tend to prefer the Dirac
delta.
Here it will actually take on a finite width, however that finite width
will be the lowest bound of the system and so the width could be
construed to be zero under some circumstances, such as imposing a zero
distance falsely onto the system.
Do these deltas radiate from the particle continuously or in a
instantaneous manner? Again here the zero distance paradigm applies.
Even in time we may impose the lowest bound distance. This could be
construed as an instantaneous phenomenon by someone who falsely imposes
zero on it. These particles are assumed to always radiate and therefor
always accelerate so the only way that conservation of momentum occurs
is that they radiate as geometrical oscillators. This is not a random
assortment of pulses that happen to cancel. This is an orderly
oscillatory structure. In the 1D case it is simply one pulse left then
one pulse right. So in the photonic sense the 1D mode should hold a
correspondence to radiation along a line.
In the plane the simplest mode would be the equilateral triangle that
you have mentioned elsewhere. The simplest modes in any dimension will
follow the simplex geometry.
For such a particle to hold its trajectory perfectly it must obey this
pattern. Does the particle itself travel an equilateral triangle? I
don't believe so. The triangle are force vectors of acceleration
resulting from radiation. I'll try to do get a graphic for this. Anyhow
this is the zero temperature particle in a space of zero energy. With
other particles around showering off their own deltas the disturbances
would corrupt unless they come into synchrony. I don't have a strong
argument on this. The radiation part looks easy, but the absorption
part may involve an inverted acceleration. It looks like we would
simply superpose these forces with complete ignorance of any
interdependence. This would be gravity.
The entire construction relies on a tiny pedestal; that a smallest
distance exists.
Here that distance is introduced as being like a photon. One could
argue that the particle should be obeying this distance as well. But as
I got here from considering c we have thus far only bracketed the
emissions of the particles. Should particles obey the minimum distance?
I think that this means that their sense of adjacency would
automatically ensue. And here again a false notion of zero distance
allows one to construe the two particles at zero distance. So an
exclusion principle might be argued out of thin air here.
I am not looking at this as an NKS grid, though that is nearby. These
deltas are not synchronous from one particle to the next. In time or in
space. These are merely resulting from studying a continuum, realizing
that any space continuum that is adressable has a unit distance and
imposing one, making that unit distance the lowest bound of the
continuum.
This is the smallest distance.
> >
> > >
> > > It looks like the same stuff Luke Skywalker was shooting
> > > at Darth Vader to me.
> > > Live collisions from CDF and DZero
> > > http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/live_events/cotview.html
> > > http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/live_events/index.html
> > >
> > Very neat links. As I look at the live feed they are definitely
> > working.
> >
> > > << It is a disgusting to think that at the very highest energy we could
> > > be
> > > oscillating endlessly and that we just can't know it. >>
> > >
> > > You'd know it. Your teeth would rattle. :o)
> >
> > Well they are humming and the question of whether they continue to hum
> > at absolute zero is of interest. For a composite body the in phase
> > cancellation cannot be universal due to propagation delay. So this
> > would argue that a normal object cannot achieve absolute zero
> > temperature. Those objects which are harder to get in phase will be
> > warmer under this thermodynamic interpretation. As they attempt to come
> > into phase it looks as though they will throb. The modes that an object
> > would settle through might be detectable.
> > Matter does not halt and collapse at absolute zero.
>
> There is plenty we need to study down at those temperatures.
> Note that both the Tajamr and Tate experiments are pretty cold.
Excellent.
> > > No! Magnets perceive it to be space-time.
> > > We perceive space and time.
> >
> > Not any more. We perceive spacetime. Do you really feel that they are
> > two seperate entities?
>
> They are not entities at all. They are co-ordinatie systems.
Hmmm.... Grumble....
>
> If we perceived space-time our motions would curve like
> electrons in magnetic fields.
Curves are beautiful things. Paths are too.
The micro and the macro;
balance and dynamic.
We know that we exist in a complex world of net energy abundance.
To grant something, anything at all, is a necessary part of a
construction.
The less you grant the more favorable.
The more consequences the more favorable.
Correspondence is the final test.
>
> > This enters determinism and that concept of independent function too
> > perhaps.
> >
> > >
> > >
L4 snips throughout.
Thanks for the antenna link. Good point.
You may be more on the road to discovering alpha than I am.
I'll try and keep an awareness.
Electromagnetism has yet to come into this continuum construct.
Delta is close. Can particle-wave duality be overcome?
The composition of traditional radiation from these deltas will tell.
Do you see a laser in the 1D mode?
-Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
On the one hand an attractive force can exist when one particle absorbs
another's radiation of delta, but if this is truly independent of
radiation then the double kick that I wanted earlier will not be
apparent. So the claim of ignorant independence may not be necessary.
The conflict is only in the claim of independence, not in the claim of
gravity. So now there is a puzzle of the particle interaction. How does
the absorber alter its own oscillatory behavior in response?
The fundamental oscillators are rotational. It seems reasonable to
assume an alignment tendency of the two rotationally as well as the
affinity. How that alignment works is open.
Does this match a natural cooling tendency?
-Tim
Sue...
[...]
> >
> > Van der Pol oscillators?
> > http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
> > http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
> > http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm
>
> This last link is great. Thanks.
> Woodward discusses the conflicts of photon soup.
Tajamr / de Matos graviphoton is like Planck's EM photon
...it exist only within the entity. It means nothing out in
freespace. You use classical EM for the propagation
and hydrogen gas for the medium. No soup required.
> However the soup he supposes is inherent in vacuous spacetime.
> The sort of soup that I am proposing is sourced from the particles of
> that space.
Yeah...Use the matter that is there before inventing new stuff.
> He concludes that a gravitational consequence that negates the theory,
> yet perhaps with the source change I now have a gravitational theory as
> well as a thermodynamic one.
Thermodynamic? Well OK... just so the charges are moving they
can radiate and couple by EM.
You seem to be describing Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
No objections. :-)
>
> For such a particle to hold its trajectory perfectly it must obey this
> pattern. Does the particle itself travel an equilateral triangle? I
> don't believe so. The triangle are force vectors of acceleration
> resulting from radiation. I'll try to do get a graphic for this. Anyhow
> this is the zero temperature particle in a space of zero energy. With
> other particles around showering off their own deltas the disturbances
> would corrupt unless they come into synchrony. I don't have a strong
> argument on this. The radiation part looks easy, but the absorption
> part may involve an inverted acceleration. It looks like we would
> simply superpose these forces with complete ignorance of any
> interdependence. This would be gravity.
You need something that penetrates the matter complely throught.
Induction mechanisms do that.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
Long range London forces are always attractive... just like gravity.
>
> The entire construction relies on a tiny pedestal; that a smallest
> distance exists.
I still don't get that part. I got this far without it.
> Here that distance is introduced as being like a photon.
I suspect that is the probem. Your photon flies and has
dimensions. My photon stays home and is dimensionless.
> One could
> argue that the particle should be obeying this distance as well. But as
> I got here from considering c we have thus far only bracketed the
> emissions of the particles. Should particles obey the minimum distance?
> I think that this means that their sense of adjacency would
> automatically ensue. And here again a false notion of zero distance
> allows one to construe the two particles at zero distance. So an
> exclusion principle might be argued out of thin air here.
>
> I am not looking at this as an NKS grid, though that is nearby. These
> deltas are not synchronous from one particle to the next. In time or in
> space. These are merely resulting from studying a continuum, realizing
> that any space continuum that is adressable has a unit distance and
> imposing one, making that unit distance the lowest bound of the
> continuum.
> This is the smallest distance.
Too many possums in your sack. You need a bit more EM propagation
theory so you want feel compelled to invent it with photons.
Photons are useless in free space...by definition.
[...]
> >
> > There is plenty we need to study down at those temperatures.
> > Note that both the Tajamr and Tate experiments are pretty cold.
>
> Excellent.
>
> > > > No! Magnets perceive it to be space-time.
> > > > We perceive space and time.
> > >
> > > Not any more. We perceive spacetime. Do you really feel that they are
> > > two seperate entities?
> >
> > They are not entities at all. They are co-ordinatie systems.
>
> Hmmm.... Grumble....
LOL
>
> >
> > If we perceived space-time our motions would curve like
> > electrons in magnetic fields.
>
> Curves are beautiful things. Paths are too.
> The micro and the macro;
> balance and dynamic.
> We know that we exist in a complex world of net energy abundance.
> To grant something, anything at all, is a necessary part of a
> construction.
> The less you grant the more favorable.
> The more consequences the more favorable.
> Correspondence is the final test.
You are challenging Ahmad for the poet lauret post ? :o)
>
> >
[...]
> >
> > That is best done with big light where can you use geometry.
> > http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
> >
> > Sue...
> >
> > >
> > > -Tim
>
> L4 snips throughout.
> Thanks for the antenna link. Good point.
> You may be more on the road to discovering alpha than I am.
> I'll try and keep an awareness.
<< Electromagnetism has yet to come into this continuum construct. >>
Ahhh yeah... I noticed.
I wish I had remembered it was a continuum
model so I could run the other way. :o)
<< Delta is close. Can particle-wave duality be overcome? >>
Sure! It is all waves but you assume particles when it simplifies the
maths.
> The composition of traditional radiation from these deltas will tell.
> Do you see a laser in the 1D mode?
Mine has a warning label so I have never looked at it. :o)
Since electron can be 2D, I think you mean this:
<< The next step is "state selection"-in order to get some
stimulated emission, it is necessary to create a population
inversion of the atoms. This is done in a way that is very similar
to the famous Stern-Gerlach experiment. After passing through
an aperture and a magnetic field, many of the atoms in the beam
are left in the upper energy level of the lasing transition.
>From this state, the atoms can decay to the lower state and
emit some microwave radiation. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser
Sue...
>
> -Tim
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> I've entered into a conflict above here.
> On the one hand an attractive force can exist when one particle absorbs
> another's radiation of delta, but if this is truly independent of
> radiation then the double kick that I wanted earlier will not be
> apparent. So the claim of ignorant independence may not be necessary.
> The conflict is only in the claim of independence, not in the claim of
> gravity. So now there is a puzzle of the particle interaction. How does
> the absorber alter its own oscillatory behavior in response?
>
> The fundamental oscillators are rotational. It seems reasonable to
> assume an alignment tendency of the two rotationally as well as the
> affinity. How that alignment works is open.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22induced+dipole%22+%22London+force%22&btnG=Google+Search
> Does this match a natural cooling tendency?
If all molecular motion stops then the attractive mechanism
has to stop working.
<< A remarkable transition occurs in the properties of liquid
helium at the temperature 2.17 K, called the "lambda point"
for helium. Part of the liquid becomes a "superfluid", a zero
viscosity fluid which will move rapidly through any pore in the
apparatus.
A vacuum container which seemed to be leak tight could
suddenly leak helium rapidly as the superfluid moved out
through a microscopic hole. A vertical tube could produce a
fountain effect as the superfluid moved up the walls and
out the top. >>
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/lhel.html#c3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/optmod/lascool.html
Sue...
>
> -Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
This whole model is premised on the physical space analysis that has
been going on here for me for some time.
I have already rejected the real numbers as lacking physical
correspondence.
>From this starting point (blank slate) we merely have a void as the
continuum.
We find that by instantiating a distance we recover most of the
properties of the old representation.
We observe the peculiar nature of this physical continuum.
We keep refining our reference distance down to a smaller and smaller
value.
Currently the meter is a discrete count of an atomic radiation pattern.
Observing this and seeing the necessity of a reference distance to
obtain a finite measure we make a suppositional leap: that a smallest
deistance exists in this continuum. This means that the concept of a
zero distance is nonexistent. When we take pieces of matter and move
them about we find that they will get no closer than 'a'. When we
radiate energy we find that that there is no wavelength less than 'a'.
When we look in time we find that there is no time less than 'a'. The
duration of a delta of length 'a' is 'a'. In effect we have created a
basis out of thin air from this suppositional 'a'.
Under this construction the notion of instantaneous is nonexistent. The
closest one can come to instantaneous is 'a'. The closest two particles
can get is 'a'. The shortest wavelength of radiation is 'a'.
This wavelength of radiation( going along the lines that delta is a
photon ) is the shortest possible and has the highest energy possible.
If a particle is to radiate such energy and maintain its linear
momentum we will have to balance this radiation. It will have to
balance perfectly.
So the radiational oscillator is born.
-Tim
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> Clean sweep. I preapologize.
>
> This whole model is premised on the physical space analysis that has
> been going on here for me for some time.
> I have already rejected the real numbers as lacking physical
> correspondence.
> >From this starting point (blank slate) we merely have a void as the
> continuum.
> We find that by instantiating a distance we recover most of the
> properties of the old representation.
<< We observe the peculiar nature of this physical continuum.>>
OK I see this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
> We keep refining our reference distance down to a smaller and smaller
> value.
No... we don't have that long. We can divide by 2 forever.
> Currently the meter is a discrete count of an atomic radiation pattern.
You lost me
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Sue... wrote:
> Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> > Clean sweep. I preapologize.
> >
> > This whole model is premised on the physical space analysis that has
> > been going on here for me for some time.
> > I have already rejected the real numbers as lacking physical
> > correspondence.
> > >From this starting point (blank slate) we merely have a void as the
> > continuum.
> > We find that by instantiating a distance we recover most of the
> > properties of the old representation.
>
> << We observe the peculiar nature of this physical continuum.>>
>
> OK I see this:
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
>
>
> > We keep refining our reference distance down to a smaller and smaller
> > value.
>
> No... we don't have that long. We can divide by 2 forever.
This is not a method that we practically use. Pricision becomes
problemmatic.
This theory makes a supposition. It is entirely based upon that
supposition.
Your suggestion of dividing by two breaks that supposition.
>
> > Currently the meter is a discrete count of an atomic radiation pattern.
>
> You lost me
"the eleventh CGPM defined the metre in the new SI system as equal to
1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the
electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum."
- from Wikepedia
Sorry, it's not quite discrete count, but awfully close. I guess I was
thinking cesium and the time base:
"This frequency is the natural resonance frequency of the cesium atom
(9,192,631,770 Hz), or the frequency used to define the second."
- from http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm
Why the two are not unified at this point? I suppose to preserve the
meter.
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I can see how it would appear to most that I have hardly any marbles
left at all.
As I try to take in this theory I believe in the moment that if it is
correct then we are attracted to the sun not by its mass but by its
radiance. This then poses a mass relation to the radiance if we keep
Newton's laws. And so this supports the absolute zero conjecture; that
a large object cannot achieve absolute zero; a large object may have
quite a large temperature, dynamics aside.
Is the traditional photon recoil considered repulsive to both sides?
That's where they went wrong if so. To the emitter it is repulsive but
to the receptor it is attractive.
There is tremendous detail to fill in but strong signals are present.
-Tim
Sue...
> Sue... wrote:
> > Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> > > Clean sweep. I preapologize.
> > >
> > > This whole model is premised on the physical space analysis that has
> > > been going on here for me for some time.
> > > I have already rejected the real numbers as lacking physical
> > > correspondence.
> > > >From this starting point (blank slate) we merely have a void as the
> > > continuum.
> > > We find that by instantiating a distance we recover most of the
> > > properties of the old representation.
> >
> > << We observe the peculiar nature of this physical continuum.>>
> >
> > OK I see this:
> >
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
> >
> >
> > > We keep refining our reference distance down to a smaller and smaller
> > > value.
> >
> > No... we don't have that long. We can divide by 2 forever.
>
> This is not a method that we practically use. Pricision becomes
> problemmatic.
> This theory makes a supposition. It is entirely based upon that
> supposition.
> Your suggestion of dividing by two breaks that supposition.
You didn't dispute that ISL is valid ~property~ of empty space.
But you didn't offer any other properties either.
Are you saying ISL is invalid because I can't measure it?
If so... it is 377 ohms for the space we live in.
>
> >
> > > Currently the meter is a discrete count of an atomic radiation pattern.
> >
> > You lost me
>
> "the eleventh CGPM defined the metre in the new SI system as equal to
> 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the
> electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum."
That is metrology, not physics.
Can you dispute ISL (1/r^2)
Can you dispute 377 ohms.
Can you think of any other properties of empty space?
Note: 377 ohms is based on the observation that EM
signals never come back to us. 1/2 of the matter we
need to launch an EM signal is not part of the emitter
but dispersed out in our universe.
I had to introduce some matter to say anything beyond
1/r^2 about empty space so it isn't really empty anymore.
I called it "space we live in" to make a distinction.
Free-space seems a popular term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
Again...Can you think of any other properties
of *empty* space other than istropic attenuation (1/r^2) ?
If not, a homogenous sea of e+e- particles seems the
minimum matter we can introduce to explain 377 ohms
The techniques of metrologists that employ composite particles
aren't adding anything to my view of the problem you perceive.
Sue...
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
[...]
>
> correct then we are attracted to the sun not by its mass but by its
> radiance.
If long range dipole induction is the mechanism, radiation
is fundamental to that mechanism. Considering the temperatures
of super-fluidity, our sun would have to get really-really cold
before our planet's orbit took any notice of it.
> This then poses a mass relation to the radiance if we keep
> Newton's laws.
I suggest you take a whole shaker of salt for laws 1 and 2.
> And so this supports the absolute zero conjecture; that
> a large object cannot achieve absolute zero; a large object may have
> quite a large temperature, dynamics aside.
The superfluid helium experiment suggest to me that a large
object might loose its cohesive forces and evavorate out
into space.
>
> Is the traditional photon recoil considered repulsive to both sides?
I'm not tellin' till you stop attributing real properties
to Max Planck's pseudo particle. The disturbance of the electron's
~orbit~ accounts for the recoil without breathing life into spooks. :o)
If Mossbauer spectometry had any remote connection to what you
are writing, I'd offer a URL to prove it.
> That's where they went wrong if so. To the emitter it is repulsive but
> to the receptor it is attractive.
> There is tremendous detail to fill in but strong signals are present.
Who went wrong? <rhetorical> The chemists and bioligists seem
to be making good progress with induction fields:
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
<< This interpretation governs the expectation
that accelerated bodies have concordant accelerating
action in the same sense on other bodies (acceleration
induction). This interpretation is even more plausible
according to general relativity which eliminates the
distinction between inertial and gravitational effects.
It amounts to stipulating that, apart from the arbitrariness
governed by the free choice of coordinates, the gm v -field
shall be completely determined by the matter. Mach's
stipulation is favoured in general relativity by the circumstance
that acceleration induction in accordance with the gravitational
field equations really exists, although of such slight
intensity that direct detection by mechanical experiments
is out of the question.>>
--Albert Einstein
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
Attractive entities with neutral electral charges are not
something new.
You feel you need to re-invent them? ;-)
Sue...
>
> -Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I don't think this breaks /r/r (ISL) behavior.
I am trying to consider general dimension continuum as well.
Let's not forget there is no electromagnetism even yet in this
construction.
Just delta's which are so far very small drab things.
They are like photons but more primitive.
It's true that we can't measure the fundamental frequency, at least not
yet and not directly.
Only when it coalesces into lower frequency phenomena do we see it as
light.
These things happen naturally because of the thermodynamic effect of
these particles trying to achieve coherency. This gets complicated if
you consider rotational frames.
There is polarization to worry about also. This has to be accounted
for. Can deltas be little bars of legnth 'a' hurling and rotating?
That's a lot of geometry from a primitive. I can't fill all of this out
right now. Just have to take it as it comes. Skepticism requires that
we break this model efficiently. The energy scenario is the worst part.
Still, others have already stepped on this threshhold. This theory is
almost perfectly in line with
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm
Woodward's perspective is almost exactly what I am talking about here.
The concern over radiation I have regenerated under a new principle.
Inertia may be called a side-effect of this system.
> If so... it is 377 ohms for the space we live in.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Currently the meter is a discrete count of an atomic radiation pattern.
> > >
> > > You lost me
> >
> > "the eleventh CGPM defined the metre in the new SI system as equal to
> > 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the
> > electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum."
>
> That is metrology, not physics.
>
> Can you dispute ISL (1/r^2)
> Can you dispute 377 ohms.
> Can you think of any other properties of empty space?
>
> Note: 377 ohms is based on the observation that EM
> signals never come back to us. 1/2 of the matter we
> need to launch an EM signal is not part of the emitter
> but dispersed out in our universe.
>
> I had to introduce some matter to say anything beyond
> 1/r^2 about empty space so it isn't really empty anymore.
> I called it "space we live in" to make a distinction.
> Free-space seems a popular term.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
>
> Again...Can you think of any other properties
> of *empty* space other than istropic attenuation (1/r^2) ?
I'm not seeing it right now. I am considering these oscillators to go
into higher dimensions though. That could corrupt a simplistic 3D
model. Your antiparticles below might be useful. So far the particle is
Just a delta source and so completely generic.
combining this model with an n-pole seems the obvious thing to do.
If n-poles are the right mix then the light electron may still be a
1-pole; it has no receptors.
This junction will need some work. It doesn't immediately look clean.
Simply calling electrons 0D makes more sense, then photons 1D, then
protons 2D. I'm not settled on this portion. There is plenty of room to
adapt the new principle of radiation to many contexts. Physical
correspondence will be the test.
-Tim
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> >
> > You didn't dispute that ISL is valid ~property~ of empty space.
> > But you didn't offer any other properties either.
> > Are you saying ISL is invalid because I can't measure it?
>
> I don't think this breaks /r/r (ISL) behavior.
> I am trying to consider general dimension continuum as well.
> Let's not forget there is no electromagnetism even yet in this
> construction.
OK... I probably got too far ahead.
But we are on the same page with 1/r^2 as a ~property~
of empty space.
> Just delta's which are so far very small drab things.
> They are like photons but more primitive.
What photons ? Now you are getting ahead.
> It's true that we can't measure the fundamental frequency, at least not
> yet and not directly.
> Only when it coalesces into lower frequency phenomena do we see it as
> light.
> These things happen naturally because of the thermodynamic effect of
> these particles trying to achieve coherency. This gets complicated if
> you consider rotational frames.
> There is polarization to worry about also. This has to be accounted
> for. Can deltas be little bars of legnth 'a' hurling and rotating?
> That's a lot of geometry from a primitive. I can't fill all of this out
> right now. Just have to take it as it comes. Skepticism requires that
> we break this model efficiently. The energy scenario is the worst part.
> Still, others have already stepped on this threshhold. This theory is
> almost perfectly in line with
> http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm
I dunno if that is so good. It is several toy models with some
musing to separate them as I recall. I'll wait 'till there is a little
more flesh on it I draw any parallels
I am not sure chaos theory needs to enter into those
toy models. But that is how they wanted to view it.
Ewald sums seem to work as well... and faster too.
(for nature not the computer modeling nature)
> Woodward's perspective is almost exactly what I am talking about here.
> The concern over radiation I have regenerated under a new principle.
> Inertia may be called a side-effect of this system.
Well, the motion of our moon seems to indicate it knows
of our earths presence, and vice versa. Radiation is usually
the culprit when stumble on that kind of conspiracy.
>
> > If so... it is 377 ohms for the space we live in.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Currently the meter is a discrete count of an atomic radiation pattern.
> > > >
> > > > You lost me
> > >
> > > "the eleventh CGPM defined the metre in the new SI system as equal to
> > > 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of the orange-red emission line in the
> > > electromagnetic spectrum of the krypton-86 atom in a vacuum."
> >
> > That is metrology, not physics.
> >
> > Can you dispute ISL (1/r^2)
> > Can you dispute 377 ohms.
> > Can you think of any other properties of empty space?
> >
> > Note: 377 ohms is based on the observation that EM
> > signals never come back to us. 1/2 of the matter we
> > need to launch an EM signal is not part of the emitter
> > but dispersed out in our universe.
> >
> > I had to introduce some matter to say anything beyond
> > 1/r^2 about empty space so it isn't really empty anymore.
> > I called it "space we live in" to make a distinction.
> > Free-space seems a popular term.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
> >
> > Again...Can you think of any other properties
> > of *empty* space other than istropic attenuation (1/r^2) ?
>
> I'm not seeing it right now.
Gawd! What a lame imagination. I tho't you'd fill volumes
with the properties of *empty space*. :o)
So between the two of us we come up with only one
property? Attenuation by 1/r^2.
> I am considering these oscillators to go
> into higher dimensions though. That could corrupt a simplistic 3D
> model. Your antiparticles below might be useful.
Try not to think of the positrions as antiparticles.
Think of them as the other half of an electon.
QED is the most quantitativly sucessful theory ever,
and that is the ~sea~ it assumes.
Sue...
Jeff…Relf
Reality is always something different... more or less.
Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual.
Time is truly spatial, static and immutable... Time is pseudo-directional.
All entities are virtual, with a finite Duration/Volume.
Real choices don't exist; all are imprisoned in a virtual casino,
and the house always wins in the end.
Further, in conversation where the word " God " is brough up,
my mind automatically replaces it with the phrase " My Fate ";
thus enabling me to understand their intent.
Phineas T Puddleduck
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Your mind replaces a lot of things. For a start, you seem convinced that
the more you spout your useless babble the more people will believe it.
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
unsettled
> In article <Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET>,
> JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Timothy_Golden, All numbers are virtual...
>>Reality is always something different... more or less.
>>
>>Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual.
>>Time is truly spatial, static and immutable... Time is pseudo-directional.
>>
>>All entities are virtual, with a finite Duration/Volume.
>>Real choices don't exist; all are imprisoned in a virtual casino,
>>and the house always wins in the end.
>>
>>Further, in conversation where the word " God " is brough up,
>>my mind automatically replaces it with the phrase " My Fate ";
>>thus enabling me to understand their intent.
>
>
> Your mind replaces a lot of things. For a start, you seem convinced that
> the more you spout your useless babble the more people will believe it.
You've got it wrong.
He's busy convincing himself and his mirror is broken.
Bob Kolker
> Hi Timothy_Golden, All numbers are virtual...
> Reality is always something different... more or less.
>
> Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual.
> Time is truly spatial, static and immutable... Time is pseudo-directional.
Really? I suppose you have empirical evidence to back up your claims.
Please do share the empircal corroberation with us.
Bob Kolker
Sue...
> When one chooses a unit value of say an inch they have made that choice
> arbitrarily.
>
> You might say that this is splitting a hair.
> But what if there are consequences?
> I have developed some consequences or rather in hindsight I can see it
> this way.
> Is this premise a valid conflict?
> If there are indeed consequences then I believe that the answer will be
> affirmative.
> The intuitive validity of the real numbers is felt through our sense of
> space.
> Yet the universal unity distance is nonexistent.
>
> The mathematicians will point his finger at the physicists. This has
> already happened.
> Will the physicist point his finger back at the mathematician?
>
<< I am curious how people feel about this minor discrepancy in our
mathematical model of space. >>
Since it doesn't add any ~properties~ of space beyond the
inverse square law, I think it doesn't get you past what seems
to be a brick wall (or is it a full description ?) in formulating a
description of empty space.
Einstein has already made the mistake of assuming light in empty
space so there is no point repeating it.[1] Light results from the
relative motion of electric charges and just one pair of those
disqualifies your space as *empty*.
If you need to put matter in the space to advance your description of
it, the simplest matter would seem the best choice to minimise the
complexity of the model. So you just need a description of the
simplest matter.
It can't possibly take too long to turn over 596,000 stones.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=electron+positron+structure&btnG=Google+Search
"You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron".
--Albert Einstein.
;-) Sue...
[1] Not to diminish the value of sourceless wave equations.
>
> -Tim
Jeff…Relf
yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
naught but a product of ignorance.
Physical process determine absolutely everything...
that's called " Physicalism "... and how could it be any other way ?
But don't take my word for it...
read ( and understand ) the following links and quotes...
In the following quotes from Einstein,
he argues that time is pseudo-directional
( i.e. he argues that time is spatial )
because, just as a dice toss is known to be pseudorandom
( i.e. just as it's known to be causal ), all randomness is pseudorandom.
But the scientist is possessed by
the sense of universal causation.
The future, to him, is
every whit as necessary and determined as the past.
EinsteinAndReligion.COM/sciencereligious.html
and:
People like us, who believe in physics, know that
the distinction between past, present, and future is
only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
SpeakingOfFaith.PublicRadio.ORG/programs/einsteinsgod/unheardcuts.shtml
See also:
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_time
Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/
Title: Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View ?
Urgrue.ORG/lib/mysterious-flow.html
Title: That Mysterious Flow
Journal: Scientific American, Sep 2002
Plato.Stanford.EDU/entries/time/#8
Title: 4D View of Time
Consequently, Einstein felt
physical processes determined absolutely everything, including man's desires.
For example, he said:
I do not believe in freedom of the will.
Schopenhauer's words:
“ Man can do what he wants,
but he cannot will what he wills ”
accompany me in all situations throughout my life and
reconcile me with the actions of others
even if they are rather painful to me.
This awareness of the lack of freedom of will
preserves me from taking too seriously myself and
my fellow men as acting and deciding individuals and
from losing my temper.
EinsteinAndReligion.COM/credo.html
See also: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Physicalism
Einstein thought good theorists should be Logical Positivists,
pushing the border between physics and metaphysics:
I believe that every true theorist is
a kind of tamed metaphysicist,
no matter how pure a " positivist " he may fancy himself.
Leiwen.Tripod.COM/eingra.htm
While Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation was intentionally mute
on metaphysical issues, Einstein thought today's theories and technologies are
not the last word, i.e., if the past is any indicator,
theories and technologies will improve.
Einstein's ability to find once hidden causalities
decades before they were empirically proven exemplified his Logical positivism.
For example, decades before it could be empirically verified
his General Relativity explained exactly how
a clock with 10 ^ -16 second accuracy ticks faster
with a minute increase in altitude. See:
PhysicsToday.ORG/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
Phineas T Puddleduck
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
> Hi Bob_Kolker, Time and time again, over all of recorded history,
> yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
> naught but a product of ignorance.
Your einstein nonsense is laughable. Run off Wiki and forced to repeat
it here.
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
> Hi Timothy_Golden, All numbers are virtual...
> Reality is always something different... more or less.
>
> Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual.
> Time is truly spatial, static and immutable... Time is pseudo-directional.
Your gibberish has reached a new depth of nonsense. Well done.
> All entities are virtual, with a finite Duration/Volume.
> Real choices don't exist; all are imprisoned in a virtual casino,
> and the house always wins in the end.
>
> Further, in conversation where the word " God " is brough up,
> my mind automatically replaces it with the phrase " My Fate ";
> thus enabling me to understand their intent.
Nonsense.
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
> yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
> naught but a product of ignorance.
>
You seem to have misread Bob Kolker's post.
He said:
>Really? I suppose you have empirical evidence to back up your claims.
>Please do share the empircal corroberation with us.
Please, share _your_ evidence for _your_ claims.
Hero
> When one chooses a unit value of say an inch they have made that choice
> arbitrarily. Another might choose the centimeter.
> Yet according to the real numbers the choice of unity is not arbitrary.
> It is preordained and fixed in a universal way.
>
David answered:
> > Of course they're two different things! Unity is 1.
> > A choice of units is, for example, a decidion to
> > use cm instead of inches to measure distances.
Tim agreed to this.
Some time later he wrote:
> Do you ever have the sense that we are all really tumbling about
> rotationally? It is a strange feeling and may be entirely inaccurate
> but I have had it repeatedly. It's nice because it upsets all.
Enjoy a merry-go-round on a fair or rock in a disco and choose Your
head as the frame of reference - that gives an ego-centric view. All
frames of reference are on the same footing? So Saturn is rotating
around the sun, and the sun is rotating around the merry-go-round and
this one around Your head.
Is there a natural frame of reference, which is universal too, with a
natural center? Is there a natural universal unity distance?
Tim wrote:
> Sometimes it's best to start with a blank slate and a few less marbles.
Agreed. In the uni-verse there are differences, not everything is the
same, You can differ Yourself from the rest, Tim =|= ( universe minus
Tim). So You split the unity of universe into two units, different
ones. Before counting ( up to two), here we did dividing/differencing.
A One is one, in that it is in a multitude. And a One is a one, in that
it is uniting the parts, which it is divided into. And when You measure
magnitude, You need a yardstick, different from what You measure - so
the yard-stick gives one, when measured with the length of itself.
Yet the universal unity is nonexistent.
With friendly greetings
Hero
NB is magnitude more fundamental than numbers with a positive or
negative sign? It's different, a pregnant woman can count the moons
gone by since the beginning of her pregnancy, but she can also predict
by counting how many more moons it will last. You might be 3 cm taller
than Your father, so he is 3cm shorter - by stating just the
difference, You do not tell, which one of You two is taller.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> > Further, in conversation where the word " God " is brough up,
> > my mind automatically replaces it with the phrase " My Fate ";
> > thus enabling me to understand their intent.
>
> Nonsense.
Strangely enough. I have a similar response. Whenever, on USENET where
the word "Jeff Relf" is brought up, my mind automatically replaces it
with the phrase "drooling idiot". I find it enables me to understand his
posts.
--
Thermodynamics claims another crown!
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/heacon.html
unsettled
> In article <ZpSdnYWXN_I...@pipex.net>,
> "T Wake" <usenet...@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Further, in conversation where the word " God " is brough up,
>>>my mind automatically replaces it with the phrase " My Fate ";
>>>thus enabling me to understand their intent.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>
>
> Strangely enough. I have a similar response. Whenever, on USENET where
> the word "Jeff Relf" is brought up, my mind automatically replaces it
> with the phrase "drooling idiot". I find it enables me to understand his
> posts.
Relf was in a class by himself for a while.
Now he is joined by others, including Wake.
Hero
The Unity Problem
back to this thread.
Hero
Jeff…Relf
Time and time again, over all of recorded history,
yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
naught but a product of ignorance.
And you replied:
< snip droning > You seem to have misread Bob Kolker's post. He said:
Really ? I suppose you have empirical evidence to back up your claims.
Please do share the empircal corroberation with us.
Please, share _your_ evidence for _your_ claims.
I did show the " empirical evidence ".
Netwon once thought the Biblical God maintained the orbits,
according to His _Whim_... guess what ? he was wrong.
Why is it that you can predict the weather better when you have more data ?
Because there are physical causes behind it... behind everything, always.
How do you know the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is
the same everywhere, all the time ?
Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light.
Phineas T Puddleduck
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
> How do you know the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is
> the same everywhere, all the time ?
> Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light.
You have a SHED load of reading up on cosmology to do.
Start with the cosmological principle and work up.
Eric Gisse
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> In article <Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET>,
> JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
>
> > How do you know the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is
> > the same everywhere, all the time ?
> > Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light.
>
> You have a SHED load of reading up on cosmology to do.
>
> Start with the cosmological principle and work up.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way for people with negative intelligence.
The more Relf reads, the dumber he gets.
Phineas T Puddleduck
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, it doesn't work that way for people with negative intelligence.
> The more Relf reads, the dumber he gets.
He has an imaginary IQ ;-)
Hero
Hero schrieb:
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
>
> Time and time again, over all of recorded history,
> yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
> naught but a product of ignorance.
>
> And you replied:
>
> < snip droning > You seem to have misread Bob Kolker's post. He said:
>
> Really ? I suppose you have empirical evidence to back up your claims.
> Please do share the empircal corroberation with us.
>
> Please, share _your_ evidence for _your_ claims.
>
> I did show the " empirical evidence ".
Nope. You posted a load of droning nonsense which, largely, highlighted your
ignorance.
> Netwon once thought the Biblical God maintained the orbits,
> according to His _Whim_... guess what ? he was wrong.
Well done.
> Why is it that you can predict the weather better when you have more data
> ?
> Because there are physical causes behind it... behind everything, always.
You make an illogical leap here.
> How do you know the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is
> the same everywhere, all the time ?
Wow. Show me a time it isnt and I will take your comments on board. Until
then, the bedrock principles of physics remain intact.
> Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light.
Gibberish.
Hero
Hero schrieb:
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Thanks Hero for your thoughts above here. I am finding little bits of
room to build within by removing the stricture of the traditional real
representation. What one believes physical space to be has become a
more confusing thing to me now. There is some hope that a natural basis
may exist that better matches reality. That there is still room to
explore new structures and new ways of looking at physical space is not
only an optimistic stance, it is the best chance that we have of
resolving the conflicts in existing theory. Perhaps physics and
mathematics will not have such a wide divide in the future.
-Tim
Jeff…Relf
Time is truly spatial, static and immutable... Time is pseudo-directional.
yesterday's apparent randomness has proven to be
naught but a product of ignorance.
And you replied:
Wow. Show me a time it isn't and I'll take your comments on board.
Until then, the bedrock principles of physics remain intact.
Finally ! you've got it.
Phineas T Puddleduck
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
> Wow. Show me a time it isn't and I'll take your comments on board.
> Until then, the bedrock principles of physics remain intact.
>
> Finally ! you've got it.
No - I think you will find its you who hasn't got it. Your hardon for
Einstein is embarassing, and it got you run off Wiki.
Bob Kolker
>
> How do you know the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is
> the same everywhere, all the time ?
> Spatial time is a harder fact than the speed of light.
We don't know that. But everytime the speed of light is measured in a
vacuum it comes out the same. The supposition that the speed of light is
constant regardless of the motion of the source has led to correct
predictions and has not yet been falsified. There is no way of -knowing-
if a physical law or a hypothesis holds everywhere and everywhen. That
is assumed for the sake of making testable predictions.
Bob Kolker
Sue...
Tim
The jungle drummers caught up on their traffic and your full motion
animation came in.
http://www.bandtechnology.com/PolySigned\Deformation\AxisDualDeformStudy.gif
Titanium (22) ?
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PETROLGY/WhatElmsLookLike.HTM
Quarkian ?
We observe 3 spatial dimentions
the temporal is a phantom, almost on equal footing at atomic scales?
If the animation is driven off your 4 pronged unit-urchin :o) some
deep study of nuclear structure might help you make a connection.
I haven't had much interest in nuclear structure since I found out
the chances of finding a charming tan up quark are only once
every blue moon. :o)
Sue...
>
> -Tim
David Marcus
> Bob Kolker wrote:
> > Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> > > When one chooses a unit value of say an inch they have made that choice
> > > arbitrarily.
> > > Another might choose the centimeter.
> > > Yet according to the real numbers the choice of unity is not arbitrary.
> > > It is preordained and fixed in a universal way.
> >
>
> Thanks for weighing in Bob.
> Though your criticism is weak I completely sympathize with your
> position.
> The unity issue is merely one peg of a larger argument.
> If there is a consequence it should be tracked.
> There are numerous complications within the real numbers that need not
> exist.
> The invalid assumption is often at the heart of a conflict.
> Some consequences are already exposed.
> The variant construction proposed here takes the continuum first and
> finds the natural numbers as a result. They go together nicely. There
> are additional consequences.
More nonsense.
--
David Marcus
Jeff…Relf
Had you spent any time reading Einstein and the links I gave you,
Your reply would've been:
The supposition that " Nothing is truly random, so all changes are virtual. "
has led to correct predictions and has not yet been falsified.
There is no way of -knowing- if a physical law or a hypothesis
holds everywhere and everywhen.
That is assumed for the sake of making testable predictions.
Amen... I couldn't have said it better myself.
Phineas T Puddleduck
JeffŠRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Still pushing your "interpretations".
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Sue... wrote:
> Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> > Hero wrote:
> > > With this we get the title
> > > The Unity Problem
> > > back to this thread.
> > > Hero
> >
> > Thanks Hero for your thoughts above here. I am finding little bits of
> > room to build within by removing the stricture of the traditional real
> > representation. What one believes physical space to be has become a
> > more confusing thing to me now. There is some hope that a natural basis
> > may exist that better matches reality. That there is still room to
> > explore new structures and new ways of looking at physical space is not
> > only an optimistic stance, it is the best chance that we have of
> > resolving the conflicts in existing theory. Perhaps physics and
> > mathematics will not have such a wide divide in the future.
>
> Tim
> The jungle drummers caught up on their traffic and your full motion
> animation came in.
It's your old urchin friend. Marble is a nicer nick don't you think?
The gif is over 2 MB so on a dialup line that could take some time.
Also slow computers have a hard time processing these animations.
I don't know why that is. The Firefox browser on a 1GHz machine
struggles if I just pull up two windows of my P4 product study page at
once. That's six animated gifs running in parallel.
Sorry. I do not mean to make this accessible only to high power users.
The tedium of UI work is a distraction that I limit my energy upon.
> http://www.bandtechnology.com/PolySigned\Deformation\AxisDualDeformStudy.gif
> Titanium (22) ?
> http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PETROLGY/WhatElmsLookLike.HTM
>
> Quarkian ?
> We observe 3 spatial dimentions
> the temporal is a phantom, almost on equal footing at atomic scales?
>
> If the animation is driven off your 4 pronged unit-urchin :o) some
> deep study of nuclear structure might help you make a connection.
>
> I haven't had much interest in nuclear structure since I found out
> the chances of finding a charming tan up quark are only once
> every blue moon. :o)
>
> Sue...
>
> >
> > -Tim
We have to look at the absorber/radiator paradigm here and square it
with or against tradition.
I seem to remember blackbox radiation being treated as a bullet type of
transfer, where when a particle p1 radiates to the right it is
accelerated to the left. A p2 absorbs this radiation and is then
accelerated to the right. I'd like to verify the accuracy of this but
have not found any material addressing it in a straightforward manner.
This new delta model says that p2 will accelerate to the left instead.
I'm hoping you can come to the rescue on this Sue.
I'm hunting on the simplest of terms and getting nothing but high level
discussions. Do they skip over this argument because it is so simple?
It leaves me unable to verify their assumption. I'll keep hunting but
probably whatever I find will pale in comparison to what you find.
This morning I am taking seriously the notion that the rotating delta
is the photon.
Under this paradigm a slowly rotating delta is a low frequency and a
rapidly rotating delta is a high frequency. If we simply consider this
delta to be a rod then it's polarization is validated with ordinary
geometry. This nicely matches the behavior of diffraction gratings.
What then the underlying delta is becomes a query. An immediate answer
is graviton yet that term is overly simplistic since the carrier delta
has taken on larger consequences. The energy burden of the model is
alleviated under this rotating carrier. We have simply superposed
energy onto the back of the lowly delta.
I want to stress that this model is not a gridded basis. This is a
continuum model of space that imposes a minimum distance. If we could
control particle positions we would observe that as we moved one
particle closer to another they would not come closer than 'a'. At
distances larger than 'a' we allow any continuous position. How
particles become adjacent and how many can conglomerate are strange new
issues. If two particles are engaged in lockstep aligned radiation they
will maintain this distance especially when neither absorbs the others
radiation. This balance would be easily upset by an incoming delta from
outside. Further the issue of what happens when these particles absorb
each others radiation is of great interest.
How many particles can enjoy this friendly state of coherent motion
without upsetting the balance? A maximum density is inherent though if
higher dimensions were permitted the freedom would rise. If p1 radiates
directly into p2 in this adjacent state what is the outcome?
In a 1D mode aren't we free to build a membrane layer of coherent
particles in 3D space?
This model is too open to complexity. Are there restrictions that we
can place on it even at this early stage? There is just a kernel here
whose application can be taken many ways.
There are likely contradictions already in this thread. Particularly
before The photon was hopefully going to be a composition of deltas.
Now they are a delta behavior. The thermodynamic interpretation still
holds I think but without a full understanding of the cohenert state
and its stability mechanism the absolute zero defying conglomerate is a
weak conjecture. How and whether to apply relativistic behavior is not
even established. The delta has gone from being light to being light's
horse. The particle is a mere radiator with no other quality. Yet still
If from so little thermodynamic, gravitational, and photonic behaviors
are present I will have to keep at it. This model needs limitations.
The constraints are so mild that the consequent system is a wilderness.
-Tim
Hero
> > I haven't had much interest in nuclear structure since I found out
> > the chances of finding a charming tan up quark are only once
> > every blue moon. :o)
> This new delta model ......
> I'm hoping you can come to the rescue on this Sue.
> I'm hunting on the simplest of terms ..
> Further the issue of what happens when these particles absorb
> each others radiation is of great interest.
>
to all of us : )
Sorry, i couldn't resist
Hero
Sue...
I doubt I can come to the rescue but you are seeing the problem
better. In real-world, long-range paths emission is a Coulomb
interaction with the emitter and all the remaing matter in space.
Absorbtion is an interaction with the absorber and the remaining
matter in the universe. It works fine for wave equations because
we have something to wave.
For a particle model, we have to trick up sourceless wave equatons,
invent monopoles etc etc to substitute for the matter we decided to
ignore.
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#unified_equation
> I'm hunting on the simplest of terms and getting nothing but high level
> discussions. Do they skip over this argument because it is so simple?
> It leaves me unable to verify their assumption. I'll keep hunting but
> probably whatever I find will pale in comparison to what you find.
>
Gee thanks... nice to know I am considered among the
*low level* dis-cussers. I't take it as a compliment whether
it was on not. (I get few enough) >:-)
Yep... This looks pretty hi-brow so I'll have to consider myself
a failure.
"Aspects of the Structure of the QCD Radiation Field"
http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0102025
> This morning I am taking seriously the notion that the rotating delta
> is the photon.
I still don't understand what you mean by delta and I can't attach
much meaning to a photon, outside of an atomic oscillator.
Inside, it is just a standing wave of some sort.
> Under this paradigm a slowly rotating delta is a low frequency and a
> rapidly rotating delta is a high frequency. If we simply consider this
> delta to be a rod then it's polarization is validated with ordinary
> geometry. This nicely matches the behavior of diffraction gratings.
> What then the underlying delta is becomes a query. An immediate answer
> is graviton yet that term is overly simplistic since the carrier delta
> has taken on larger consequences. The energy burden of the model is
> alleviated under this rotating carrier. We have simply superposed
> energy onto the back of the lowly delta.
Hmmm.... delta ? A change in somthing ?
>
> I want to stress that this model is not a gridded basis. This is a
> continuum model of space that imposes a minimum distance. If we could
> control particle positions we would observe that as we moved one
> particle closer to another they would not come closer than 'a'. At
> distances larger than 'a' we allow any continuous position. How
> particles become adjacent and how many can conglomerate are strange new
> issues. If two particles are engaged in lockstep aligned radiation they
> will maintain this distance especially when neither absorbs the others
> radiation. This balance would be easily upset by an incoming delta from
> outside. Further the issue of what happens when these particles absorb
> each others radiation is of great interest.
Again you allude to alpha (FSC).
>
> How many particles can enjoy this friendly state of coherent motion
> without upsetting the balance? A maximum density is inherent though if
> higher dimensions were permitted the freedom would rise. If p1 radiates
> directly into p2 in this adjacent state what is the outcome?
Here you allude to Pauli exclusion, Quark chemisty or macro atomic
chemistry... but not free-space radiation.
>
> In a 1D mode aren't we free to build a membrane layer of coherent
> particles in 3D space?
> This model is too open to complexity. Are there restrictions that we
> can place on it even at this early stage? There is just a kernel here
> whose application can be taken many ways.
Empty space was the simplest.
A sea of e+e- seems the next step up in complexity.
>
> There are likely contradictions already in this thread. Particularly
> before The photon was hopefully going to be a composition of deltas.
> Now they are a delta behavior. The thermodynamic interpretation still
> holds I think but without a full understanding of the cohenert state
> and its stability mechanism the absolute zero defying conglomerate is a
> weak conjecture. How and whether to apply relativistic behavior is not
> even established. The delta has gone from being light to being light's
> horse. The particle is a mere radiator with no other quality. Yet still
> If from so little thermodynamic, gravitational, and photonic behaviors
> are present I will have to keep at it. This model needs limitations.
> The constraints are so mild that the consequent system is a wilderness.
Sigh... there isn't any *photonic behavior*. It lives for an instant.
(in a theorist mind no less) An instant is infinitely small. Not
enough to behave or misbehave so it has no behavior. ;-)
Ya want a good deal on a lorry load of one legged pants?
There is a huge market for them in countries where the
average family has 2.5 children. ;-)
Sue...
>
> -Tim
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
Ok, so you admit that the bedrock principles remain intact then? Thank you.
Now please go away and find some actual evidence for your claims - not just
the nonsense you post showing how little you understand.
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
Poor Jeff. You are unable to produce a counter argument so you re-write
other peoples posts to make it look like they agree with you.
Well, is this an admission that you have no idea what you are talking about?
T Wake
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:phineaspuddleduck-B...@free.teranews.com...
> In article <Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET>,
> JeffSRelf <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
>
>> Hi Bob_Kolker,
>> Had you spent any time reading Einstein and the links I gave you,
>> Your reply would've been:
>>
>> The supposition that " Nothing is truly random, so all changes are
>> virtual.
>> "
>> has led to correct predictions and has not yet been falsified.
>> There is no way of -knowing- if a physical law or a hypothesis
>> holds everywhere and everywhen.
>> That is assumed for the sake of making testable predictions.
>>
>> Amen... I couldn't have said it better myself.
>
>
> Still pushing your "interpretations".
>
It just shows how badly Jeff interprets the things he reads. No wonder he
has less than a clue about anything to do with physics.
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I understand your viewpoint. It is difficult to remain in the abstract.
But here the souce of this theory is highly abastracted. The delta is
an abstract entity that is directly related to the nature of physical
space built from a premise of the non-zero minimum distance. We simply
consider tham to be radiated from a particle and impart acceleration on
that particle. Now for the particle to obey conservation of momentum we
have to balance this radiation. By balancing it in time we wind up with
a geometrical oscillation. Imposing continuous radiation imposes
constant acceleration. I've already been playing around with such
things for awhile so to me this is a natural step whereas for you it is
a leap. Regardless, we are each free to play these games as we see fit.
The only real concern is the consequences. Here the open problem has
been closed in such a way that dynamics abound. The types of constraint
that you suggest are fairly high-level and I am not able to do that
just yet. For instance you are getting to electrical charge whereas
this model has none yet. Let's see if we can advance an instance in
this system that will get you an antiparticle type of behavior.
Allow a 3D physical space and a particle in that space oscillating in
both a 1D mode and a 2D mode. Its radiation takes on the following
pattern:
1D 2D
- -
+ +
- *
+ -
- +
+ *
- -
...
Now we can visualize this particle's modes orthogonal to each other.
A line crossed with a plane. Radiation emitting to one side of the line
than the other side and in the plane a triangular emmission pattern.
Now we look at another particle next to this one and get them
synchronous in the 1D orientation. They don't really need to be next to
each other even. we're just looking at their patterns without any
interaction. We are free to simply flip the second particle around in a
symmetric way that shows us that the two particles are identical yet
one may exhibit clockwise behavior in the plane while the other
exhibits counterclockwise behavior. Are the two particles identical?
Yes, I would say so. We now grab them and rotate them so that their 1D
axes are identical. As we bring them together we find that their 1D
components are synchronous at some distance. Now as we observe their
planar components we see that one might go one way and the other
another way. Or they might go the same way. These symmetries are merely
arbitrary artifacts. Yet already we can see a principle of spin here.
The freedom of these oscillators to be rotated about in space is up for
grabs. Do they maintain a gyroscopic effect? Probably yes. Do these
effects cancel each other? Not exactly. It looks as though they will
absorb half of each others radiation in the 1D orientation but that in
the 2D orientation they will yield the same amount, just cancelling any
net rotational observation when summed together. Under this
construction we should see that two coupled particles of this sort are
a bit lighter in mass. Whereas seperately they had a mass factor of 10
they would now have a mass factor of just 8. The symmetries of this
construction are free. So long as we don't enter into a contradiction
somewhere we can build what we like in this system and try it out. We
want to mimic nature so we should find automatic principles. I can't
impose an e-/e+ pair directly, but I can build something like it in the
new context. Is this what you are looking for? We just did it.
-Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
particle/antiparticle, but I hope you go the idea.
Also the mass factors may be wrong.
It may be more like 3/4 ratio.
-Tim
Sue...
[...]
> >
> > Sue...
> >
> > >
> > > -Tim
>
> I understand your viewpoint. It is difficult to remain in the abstract.
> But here the souce of this theory is highly abastracted. The delta is
> an abstract entity that is directly related to the nature of physical
> space built from a premise of the non-zero minimum distance.
Ok is a pseudo particle to represent the limits of metrology.
IMHO, "melta" or "down melta" is a bettah name.
I could support the "uncharmed melta as well. :o)
>
> We simply
> consider tham to be radiated from a particle and impart acceleration on
> that particle. Now for the particle to obey conservation of momentum we
> have to balance this radiation. By balancing it in time we wind up with
> a geometrical oscillation.
This is akin to *retarded potential* in field equations.
> Imposing continuous radiation imposes
> constant acceleration. I've already been playing around with such
> things for awhile so to me this is a natural step whereas for you it is
> a leap.
It is simply something experiment has rejected on a macroatomic
scale. I haven't dismissed it at subatomic scale. The term photon
has a macroscale interpretation, so you can't use it without
without slamming the door on a broader interpreation. A photon
can be defined as anything.... and Max Planck did! Before you
were even born. :o)
> Regardless, we are each free to play these games as we see fit.
Physicists aren't that free. Pretty cheap... but not free. :o)
OUCH! I just got seven cricks in my neck. Probably they don't maintain
a gyroscopic effect but all rest sounded like resonable music to play
inside of a atom. People have varied taste in music so rest assured
I applied mathmatical rigour, at lest on par with that of music
critics.
Sue...
>
> -Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I haven't found anything here that will annihilate its anti-self.
So far so bad in that department.
There are quite a quantity of variations on this theme and to which
your music analogy applies.
I won't bore you with more open theories. That would be like crying
wolf. I might have cried wolf once or twice here, and it may be true,
but it has scampered away. Wolves are very good at that.
I have reviewed your links further up and gone over to gluons and an
interesting tri-jet on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_jet_event
This reeks of simplex geometry.
The complexity of this gluon layer is far greater than the delta
concept. And it is just one layer of a collage that forms modern
physics. I'm going to hold out for minimalism, but it may be some time
yet before it comes together. I like the possibilities that I see and
have broadcast them as fodder. It seems to be old ideas in a new
context.
So if you want to melt a delta in the smelter you are most welcome to.
Physicists are pretty free-wheeling with their constructions and it
wouldn't surprise me if beneath all of the complexity lies a simple
elegant structured stricture that is nature. It would be like writing
out a very large equation and cancelling out terms. Right now the terms
don't cancel out, but under some new paradigm they will. Whether that
is belief, faith, or truth I don't know. When one goes fishing one
never really knows what you will catch or when you will catch it, but
giving up you won't ever catch anything. Humans have caught most of the
fish-stocks in the sea, but the Big Kahuna is still lurking...
-Tim
Sue...
[...]
> > critics.
> >
> >
> > Sue...
> >
> > >
> > > -Tim
>
<< I haven't found anything here that will annihilate its anti-self. >>
That, we can watch nature do. AFAIK we can't revesre it,
absent some nuclear matter. So you are doing only
slighly worse than the experimenters.
> So far so bad in that department.
> There are quite a quantity of variations on this theme and to which
> your music analogy applies.
> I won't bore you with more open theories. That would be like crying
> wolf. I might have cried wolf once or twice here, and it may be true,
> but it has scampered away. Wolves are very good at that.
>
> I have reviewed your links further up and gone over to gluons and an
> interesting tri-jet on wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_jet_event
> This reeks of simplex geometry.
Tow lines are straight and billard cues are straight so
unless you are someone who slaps a cue ball and
pushes things with a rope those appear some useful
forms for exerting a force at other than 0 and 180 degrees.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Simplex.html
> The complexity of this gluon layer is far greater than the delta
> concept. And it is just one layer of a collage that forms modern
> physics. I'm going to hold out for minimalism, but it may be some time
> yet before it comes together. I like the possibilities that I see and
> have broadcast them as fodder. It seems to be old ideas in a new
> context.
>
> So if you want to melt a delta in the smelter you are most welcome to.
> Physicists are pretty free-wheeling with their constructions and it
> wouldn't surprise me if beneath all of the complexity lies a simple
> elegant structured stricture that is nature. It would be like writing
> out a very large equation and cancelling out terms. Right now the terms
> don't cancel out, but under some new paradigm they will. Whether that
> is belief, faith, or truth I don't know. When one goes fishing one
> never really knows what you will catch or when you will catch it, but
> giving up you won't ever catch anything. Humans have caught most of the
> fish-stocks in the sea, but the Big Kahuna is still lurking...
Imagine the cave mathematician that dicovers Pythagoras relation.
If the cave physicist doesn't understand it and neither can imagine
how to apply to the real world a potentially broad vista remains a
small
peep-hole to the universe. Certain magic squares may be like that
and we haven't yet found where they fit. Others are just reflections
of our own conctions.
This one looks like a safe bet:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
...but does it really hold within an atomic structure where we
know Maxwell near-field effects are at work and the higher
order derivative may even be erroneously ignored at the
present, in preference to the elusive catch-all Higgs?
If your unit-urchin has useful properties, I am becoming more
convinced they won't be found outside the atom. Classical
electomagnetism with London extensions, wraps that up fairly
well in spite of what the invariant Lorenz high-priests insist about
the value of their invariance.
<< Einstein could have included terms in the equations involving
four spacetime derivatives, or six spacetime derivatives, or any
even number of spacetime derivatives, but he limited himself to
second-order differential equations. >>
"Einstein's Mistakes"
--Steven Weinberg
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Where your polysign demands units, I feel it may be a reflection
of our own conctions. Would logarithms be a way to test
the unit-urchin's properties without giving it units to work with?
We can build a slide-rule to any scale we choose and it
returns the same answers.
Sue...
>
> -Tim
Sue...
Ahhem! Such jokes in young Timmy's presence.
You should be ashamed. :o)
Sue...
> Hero
Gib Bogle
might like your stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Text
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I refute your accusation.
I am not a hoaxer.
I am an explorer.
I am not afraid to make a mistake.
I am happy to admit one if it is cleanly exposed.
Usually I am the one that exposes my own errors.
Are you willing to admit that humans can go astray en masse?
There are plenty of instances.
That mathematics could be astray is troubling, but blind faith takes
math as religion.
One must be open to error.
A skeptical approach is valuable.
The unity problem is trivial on the one hand yet profound on the other.
That such a subtle shift could have consequences makes it well worth
exploring.
Empty criticism seems to be par for the course in these newsgroups.
Where is the critical analysis?
I want someone to critique these ideas.
Yet usually the naysayers just say their nay without ever saying why.
Ulrich above here has done a good job of addressing my concern and I
believe that his defense is about as good as can be done. I also
believe it to be weak in not conceding that there is only need for one
concept of unity, not two.
-Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I don't get it.
I thought he was being sincere.
Hero?
David Marcus
Why do you start each sentence on a new line?
--
David Marcus
Hero
Timothy wrote:
> I don't get it.
> I thought he was being sincere.
> Hero?
I am ashamed.
Sorry.
Hero
Sue...
It's not your fault. You didn't know that we mark
young Timmy's age on a number line that indexes to
concepts. He is wrestling with aethers and nothingness
as Einstein did so his age is about minus 75. Clearly
too young to vote, consume alcohol or be exposed to off color
jokes. :o)
Sue...
Sue...
He may have been sincere but I keep half my mind in the gutter
so I can participate in sci.physics.relativity discussions. :o)
Is *this* the *delta* that you've propagating
around your space?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_susceptibility
If so... That seems the right tool. I didn't make
the connection with your use of *delta* until
just now. It doesn't seem to clarify whether
the electron charge and mass makes the
function or the function makes electron
charge and mass. Eggs think that chickens
are a good way to get a copy of themselves so
in that vein it may not matter. (pun inended)
Sue...
> Hero?
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
The dirac delta is an impulse function of true zero duration which is
very calculus oriented.
Here I'm proposing a delta of limited constant duration. In terms of
electric susceptibility I would hope that this delta concept is more
fundamental in a structured hierarchy. Perhaps they could be parallel;
for instance n-poles radiating deltas would put them parallel.
I've come up with some criticism of the gravity claim:
If a piece of matter were to absorb most of its delta radiation that
piece of matter would be less massive gravitationally. Yet such matter
would also maintain its sense of momentum.
Perhaps a dark matter theory is here, but the argument is inverted.
An object simply shadowed by another would find a decrease in gravity
so for instance when the moon takes an ecliptic path the gravity on it
would be diminished. This is not necessarily a stopper but the effect
would have to be considered.
How much absorption occurs? At an absorption rate of 1% we'd find an
effect of 0.01% change due to 100% shadowing, so the sensetivity to
this effect could be small. A more radical fixup would be to allow
these deltas to never actually be absorbed and to just impart momentum
and carry on imparting momentum. That seems like a fairy tale but is
that what gravity does? I suppose to get serious with gravity one has
to adopt curved space. How would the oscillating particle do this at a
microscale? That would look pretty dynamic I think.
-Tim
> If so... That seems the right tool. I didn't make
> the connection with your use of *delta* until
> just now. It doesn't seem to clarify whether
> the electron charge and mass makes the
> function or the function makes electron
> charge and mass. Eggs think that chickens
> are a good way to get a copy of themselves so
> in that vein it may not matter. (pun inended)
>
> Sue...
>
> > Hero?
I'd like to see charge from this model but it isn't apparent to me.
Good analogy with the chicken and the egg. In a well controlled system
effects are bi-directional. Independence is an invalid context. A
listener reacts based upon what he heard. The reaction may be an
influential action, but the word 'control' is somewhat misused. To what
degree did Pavlov's dogs cause the famous experiment to happen in the
first place?
How we get around the independent function is puzzling. It's fairly
apparent that the context is physically false. Animate humans do seem
to walk freely about so within a dependent structure freedoms must
arise, but to call this independence is false. Influence is probably
more apt.
My flat sense of humor still fails to understand the joke you seem to
have running but by all means feel free to have as much fun as possible
but do some critical thinking too.
-Tim
Sue...
Hmmm.... 2 poles works for a photon (pseudo-particle).
A 6 pole psuedo-particle might be useful to uncripple
the Maxwell/Lorenz limitations.
>
> I've come up with some criticism of the gravity claim:
>
> If a piece of matter were to absorb most of its delta radiation that
> piece of matter would be less massive gravitationally. Yet such matter
> would also maintain its sense of momentum.
> Perhaps a dark matter theory is here, but the argument is inverted.
Gravity seems to be an induction force conserving the system's
energy the same as magentism does. So energy is *exchanged*
between interacting bodies. No gain and no loss unless something
moves.
>
> An object simply shadowed by another would find a decrease in gravity
> so for instance when the moon takes an ecliptic path the gravity on it
> would be diminished. This is not necessarily a stopper but the effect
> would have to be considered.
Compare aluminum foil with paper to separate your refrigerator magnets
from the door. Induction forces don't shield well.
>
<< How much absorption occurs? >>
None, it is continuously *exchanged*.
> At an absorption rate of 1% we'd find an
> effect of 0.01% change due to 100% shadowing, so the sensetivity to
> this effect could be small. A more radical fixup would be to allow
> these deltas to never actually be absorbed and to just impart momentum
> and carry on imparting momentum. That seems like a fairy tale but is
> that what gravity does?
No...
> I suppose to get serious with gravity one has
<< to adopt curved space[ time?]. How would the oscillating particle do
this at a >>
> microscale? That would look pretty dynamic I think.
Curved space-time seems a very inelegant way to deal with the
difference between Maxwell equations and Ewald sums.
Too much abstraction where brute force computers can
do better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
You might want to temper your concepts about gravitation and
mass with some familarity with
~gravity as a Coulomb derived force~.
Some Gravity Probe B data, expected about May 2007 might
offer some support for what Tajamr and de Matos appear to
be measuring. I hate to sound like a "grassy knoll fanatic"
but am a bit troubled that the embargo policy for the raw data
didn't seem to be part of the plan *until* the data was in hand
and some new analysis techniques were quickly developed
...to boot. IMHO the proponents of GR, close to the project,
would be screaming from the rooftops by now if there was
some support for Einstein's GR and some justification for
a real expensive experiment based on some really abstract
mathematics.
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Sue... wrote:
> Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> > Sue... wrote:
> >
> > The dirac delta is an impulse function of true zero duration which is
> > very calculus oriented.
> > Here I'm proposing a delta of limited constant duration. In terms of
> > electric susceptibility I would hope that this delta concept is more
> > fundamental in a structured hierarchy. Perhaps they could be parallel;
> > for instance n-poles radiating deltas would put them parallel.
>
> Hmmm.... 2 poles works for a photon (pseudo-particle).
> A 6 pole psuedo-particle might be useful to uncripple
> the Maxwell/Lorenz limitations.
OK. I'm trying to grasp a zero-dimensional delta concept now. It's
tough to go here and it's just part of a tatrix form. I don't want to
contaminate the path too much but as we've admitted variations may be
productive. As I try to wrestle this into a
0D 1D 2D ...
topology the delta may have to take on this topology. So here a
six-pole particle could couple to a delta in a highly structured way.
This could get us quite close to an electromagnetic interpretation. In
effect we would take our harmonic oscillator that we've already
investigated a bit and place it into a tatrix so that we would see
things like:
1
0 1
0 0 1
1
1 0
1 0 0
1
0 1
0 1 0
...
This may be productive by taking the topology up to the 3D level.
This is a place that I was willing to go a long time ago but haven't
been to recently. In effect the polysign argument that derives
spacetime takes a breakpoint at P3/P4. To choose to accept the break as
including P4 complicates the structure with an additional level. Yet if
the math works out would still claim a clean breakpoint. At P4 some
other interesting oscillations are possible.
When we talk about having an option of a 1D mode or a 2D mode or both
we are really allowing for a stationary state which is consistent with
a polysign type of sign product. So for instance if we wanted just a 2D
mode we would allow the 1D to still be an oscillator, but it would be a
+^n which just yields a constant 1D state:
+ + + + + ...
I suppose we might also have
- - - - - ...
This latter state implies that the symmetry of the simplex is purely
geometrical and that this is an isotropic form. So again variations of
a theme are present with no direct reason to choose one over the other.
Simplicity argues with generality here.
When we take this concept up to P4 we will be exposed to a third form
which skips states:
+ # + # + # + # ...
and
- * - * - * - * ...
Again here the latter is an option that might not be necessary.
The stationary states and these new doublets are troubling because they
will apparently not conserve momentum. With a rotational moment we
could still argue these states to do a net conservation of inertia with
large self-orbital paths. We still have the upper bound c to rely on if
necessary without the rotational moment. This makes me want to look
at alpha particle velocities and I see a low figure of 2MEv. Can they
go slower than this? As helium they've slowed, but orbitally their
velocity could still be large in both cases. It's one of the materials
that does come down cold nicely too.
This delta form is complicated and to bridge this with spacetime might
require stepping down into the topology as substrate again. The delta
has this structure and to radiate such a thing in spacetime doesn't
seem legitimate. Where would it go? It exists in the topology and so
stays in the topology with spacetime as a resultant. This is a
difficult place to go since the intuitive model gets squashed.
>
>
> >
> > I've come up with some criticism of the gravity claim:
> >
> > If a piece of matter were to absorb most of its delta radiation that
> > piece of matter would be less massive gravitationally. Yet such matter
> > would also maintain its sense of momentum.
> > Perhaps a dark matter theory is here, but the argument is inverted.
>
> Gravity seems to be an induction force conserving the system's
> energy the same as magentism does. So energy is *exchanged*
> between interacting bodies. No gain and no loss unless something
> moves.
>
>
> >
> > An object simply shadowed by another would find a decrease in gravity
> > so for instance when the moon takes an ecliptic path the gravity on it
> > would be diminished. This is not necessarily a stopper but the effect
> > would have to be considered.
>
> Compare aluminum foil with paper to separate your refrigerator magnets
> from the door. Induction forces don't shield well.
>
> >
>
> << How much absorption occurs? >>
>
> None, it is continuously *exchanged*.
>
> > At an absorption rate of 1% we'd find an
> > effect of 0.01% change due to 100% shadowing, so the sensetivity to
> > this effect could be small. A more radical fixup would be to allow
> > these deltas to never actually be absorbed and to just impart momentum
> > and carry on imparting momentum. That seems like a fairy tale but is
> > that what gravity does?
>
> No...
But here if you answer no then you seem to support gravitational
shadows.
I understand you are not liking a radiation model at all. It seems
really lame that I don't have these facts down on gravity. It's like
I'm supporting astrologers by even admitting the problem. They get all
worked up when the planets align, maximizing the shadow. Under this
absorber theory the conservation that you suggest as exchange is not a
valid principle. This theory relies upon perpetual radiation via
oscillation and the chance absorption by a reactive body. That the
source body did move inertially and radiate delta is independent of any
absorption. I'm chucking conservation here. If the radiation is never
absorbed the radiator makes no fuss about it. Isn't this gravity? If
you force an exchange conservation won't you have a field that takes on
a magnetic behavior? Isn't that a cube relation? Would we suffer
gravitational stealing of a worse kind?
If an objects state could be maintained that absorbed all of its own
radiation that body would experience an attraction to a radiator
without altering the radiator's state. This balance would probably not
maintain itself very well since the momentum imparted on the object
would disturb it and cause it to then start radiating. Anyhow, such an
object would probably have to be a small composite to maintain such
order. If it takes the radiation on and then settles back to a stable
self absorbed state again it would be quite a piece of dark matter. It
would not contribute gravity but would be an inertial mass subject to
it. As I read the wiki on dark matter it doesn't quite jibe but this
seems to be an area of active interpretation.
>
> > I suppose to get serious with gravity one has
> << to adopt curved space[ time?]. How would the oscillating particle do
> this at a >>
> > microscale? That would look pretty dynamic I think.
>
> Curved space-time seems a very inelegant way to deal with the
> difference between Maxwell equations and Ewald sums.
> Too much abstraction where brute force computers can
> do better.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
> http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
>
> You might want to temper your concepts about gravitation and
> mass with some familarity with
> ~gravity as a Coulomb derived force~.
I like that you keep pushing the electrostatic perspective. It's where
the clean quanta are at. I'm perfectly comfortable with a one-signed
charge mass model but I suppose you are talking about something more
complicated. Anyhow the asymmetry between electron and proton masses
relieve us of any burden of pushing this analogy too far. Attachment to
traditional coulomb charge is a harmful mentality. The numerous fixups
that result to make protons stick together and yet allow electrons
their freedom put a clean break between the symmetry of the charges.
And yet those charge quantities are obeyed and so there is something to
it, but that something is not the pure classical charge model we were
tought to believe in right? Somewhere along the way we have to get to
weird things like FQHE which you have been so good to point me toward.
In this cold state materials are obeying more idyllic tendencies and
there I believe are the true natural behaviors with our ambient world a
noisy version of them.
Sorry... this is too much in one post.
-Tim
Sue...
[...]
to follow your 'thinking out loud' about it but I appreciate your
tryin to offer a glimpse.
The core of the earth doesn't keep the north pole from communicating
with the south pole magnetically. What you are considering a shield,
actually ends up a participant in completing an induction path.
> I understand you are not liking a radiation model at all. It seems
> really lame that I don't have these facts down on gravity.
Einstein didn't write much about induction mechanisms so
few make any study of it.
> It's like
> I'm supporting astrologers by even admitting the problem. They get all
> worked up when the planets align, maximizing the shadow.
ArrrrrggggHHH! :o)
There is no shadow. Just participants.
> Under this
> absorber theory the conservation that you suggest as exchange is not a
> valid principle. This theory relies upon perpetual radiation via
> oscillation and the chance absorption by a reactive body.
You are confusing radiation with induction.
> That the
> source body did move inertially and radiate delta is independent of any
> absorption.
Einstein refered to it as induction.
> I'm chucking conservation here. If the radiation is never
> absorbed the radiator makes no fuss about it. Isn't this gravity?
Does it work better if the radiation is absorbed but returned in
kind? Remember, this is not atomic radiation as Planck defined.
More like radio structures that move loosly bound charges.
> If
> you force an exchange conservation won't you have a field that takes on
> a magnetic behavior? Isn't that a cube relation? Would we suffer
> gravitational stealing of a worse kind?
Good point. I'll repeat this because I think you'll see more in it
now.
Coulomb 1/r^2 isotropic Radiative
Magnetism 1/r^3 dipolar Conservative
Van der Waals 1/r^4/5 ~isotropic~ Conservative
London 1/r^6 isotropic Conservative
Gravity 1/r^2 isotropic Both (orbits are conservative)
>
> If an objects state could be maintained that absorbed all of its own
> radiation that body would experience an attraction to a radiator
> without altering the radiator's state. This balance would probably not
> maintain itself very well since the momentum imparted on the object
> would disturb it and cause it to then start radiating. Anyhow, such an
> object would probably have to be a small composite to maintain such
> order. If it takes the radiation on and then settles back to a stable
> self absorbed state again it would be quite a piece of dark matter. It
> would not contribute gravity but would be an inertial mass subject to
> it. As I read the wiki on dark matter it doesn't quite jibe but this
> seems to be an area of active interpretation.
Particles only radiate because there is something out in space
to absorb their energy. You can as well say a bump in the universe
sucks the light out of and atom and makes it wobbly for an instant.
>
> >
> > > I suppose to get serious with gravity one has
> > << to adopt curved space[ time?]. How would the oscillating particle do
> > this at a >>
> > > microscale? That would look pretty dynamic I think.
> >
> > Curved space-time seems a very inelegant way to deal with the
> > difference between Maxwell equations and Ewald sums.
> > Too much abstraction where brute force computers can
> > do better.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
> > http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
> >
> > You might want to temper your concepts about gravitation and
> > mass with some familarity with
> > ~gravity as a Coulomb derived force~.
>
> I like that you keep pushing the electrostatic perspective. It's where
> the clean quanta are at. I'm perfectly comfortable with a one-signed
> charge mass model but I suppose you are talking about something more
> complicated.
No more complicated than magnetism. It just lacks an axis of
symetery that simpifies Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's eququations
are simple ? >:-)
Simpler than Ewald sums anyway.
> Anyhow the asymmetry between electron and proton masses
> relieve us of any burden of pushing this analogy too far. Attachment to
> traditional coulomb charge is a harmful mentality. The numerous fixups
> that result to make protons stick together and yet allow electrons
> their freedom put a clean break between the symmetry of the charges.
> And yet those charge quantities are obeyed and so there is something to
> it, but that something is not the pure classical charge model we were
> tought to believe in right? Somewhere along the way we have to get to
> weird things like FQHE which you have been so good to point me toward.
> In this cold state materials are obeying more idyllic tendencies and
> there I believe are the true natural behaviors with our ambient world a
> noisy version of them.
I don't know what the 'traditional Coulomb charge' is but in free
space
it doen't matter whether the proton moves, the electrons moves or
you substitute with virtual e+e- pairs that can't really exist long
anyway. 377 ohms and 300Mm/sec falls out as long as the
EM radiation never comes back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
>
> Sorry... this is too much in one post.
I absorbed some of the thinking out loud.
Don't wear out you keyboard assuming I understand much of it
tho. <:-)
Sue...
Sue...
[...]
Some of the coherent matter models I have read
(or maybe I just dreamed it)
suggest that long path lengths and low ~conductivity~ [1]
might result in an attenuation greater
than 1/r^2 for gravity.[2]
IOW the *exchange* of dipole orientation
information/force might prefer short paths due to
the finite speed of light.
It is a possible explanation for
accelerating cosmological expansion. If the path to
high-redshift objects is sparsely populated, it lends a bit
of support for the notion.
Sue...
[1] Magnetically we consider a ferrite cylinder more conductive
than a cylinder of air 'tho neither is electrically conductive.
We could expect an isotropic ~magnetism~ to behave
similarly.
[2] Sizable clumps of coherent matter on the path might act
like a repeaters regenerating or tranlating dipole orientations.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm
[...]
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I've checked out most of these links. chaos.fullerton.edu must be an
old 386 box in the basement- I always have trouble connecting to it.
I'll save his work the next time I can reach it.
Gravitational attenuation related to red shift. Neat concept. I don't
see it but I'll try to consider it more.
This delta theory has gotten complicated. I'm left looking at
generalities and that 's not good. So far there is no proven stability,
just supposed stability. It's just a shell of an argument for
inherently accelerated particles that could yield thermodynamics and
gravity. It's like sitting down to dinner with your fork and knife and
plate and napkin but there is no food but a little crumb called a
particle. Particles do not apparently transmute themselves from
electron to proton and so forth. The generic here is problematic. We do
have some notion of electrons having special planar (brane?) behaviors
in existing theory. If protons were up a notch they'd be 3D I suppose.
We see a density increase for protons. This fits a dimensional raise in
terms of adjacent spatial positions increasing.
Do we accept that static electric fields can exist devoid of magnetism?
But not the other way around?
We get stuck because we see the electric field being caused by
electrons which have their spin polarity and orbital component.
I'm trying to consider a T1, T2, T3, T4 type of tatric construction.
Hero, that's tatric, not tantric. The T2 looks like a 1D form of
electric field. Looks like doesn't mean is but then that would depend
on what the definition of is is. Equivalence, homogeneous,
homomorphic... the mathematicians get a bit carried away with this
stuff. If it is constructable then it is a theory. I'm not saying it's
a good theory, just a theory. These things chain along but preferably
would not chain to a level of artificiality. I should not bore you with
a variation unless it may spark something for you. But here is a
topology on a topology that would possibly allow the proton to take the
properties of an electron and then something new and different as well
on top. The T4 is just a T3 + P4. In simplest terms
Tn = P1 + P2 + P3 ... + Pn .
I can see T3 as electron-like but now would be left with the puzzle of
what T2 would be, and so the thought of a 1D electric field (2-pole)
type. This then seems to come back to some of your thoughts with dipole
gravity models and so forth. Sorry this is so abstract. But you see
this T2 concept is ignorant of a magnetic effect; until we get to T3 we
do not see the rotational plane. So your dipole interpretations Sue may
fit here. Whether it would be gravity or not I can't say. It is weird
to mix these various topologies together like this and claim that they
will superpose with one another. We should expect a mixture to stand
out and in terms of electrons and protons we do see such a disparity.
-Tim
Sue...
Yes... I caught 'em sleeping too. It worked about 2 weeks ago.
It rambles anyway. the bluewin page is more focused and
conveys more about coherent matter.
>
> Gravitational attenuation related to red shift. Neat concept. I don't
> see it but I'll try to consider it more.
>
> This delta theory has gotten complicated. I'm left looking at
> generalities and that 's not good. So far there is no proven stability,
> just supposed stability. It's just a shell of an argument for
> inherently accelerated particles that could yield thermodynamics and
> gravity. It's like sitting down to dinner with your fork and knife and
> plate and napkin but there is no food but a little crumb called a
> particle. Particles do not apparently transmute themselves from
> electron to proton and so forth. The generic here is problematic. We do
> have some notion of electrons having special planar (brane?) behaviors
> in existing theory. If protons were up a notch they'd be 3D I suppose.
> We see a density increase for protons. This fits a dimensional raise in
> terms of adjacent spatial positions increasing.
Why do protons need to be 'up a notch' to qualify for 3D. They are
composite particles?
You're doing like Mendalev and Gel-Mann but filling a different
kind of table.
>
> Do we accept that static electric fields can exist devoid of magnetism?
> But not the other way around?
<< In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are
generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental
difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets
and those generated by currents flowing around conventional
electric circuits. In the former case the currents which generate
the fields circulate on the atomic scale whereas, in the latter
case the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale
(i.e., the scale of the circuit). >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node62.html
> We get stuck because we see the electric field being caused by
> electrons which have their spin polarity and orbital component.
Particle *spin* doesn't seem to manifest itself spatially in
the same way we can identify the direction of current flow
it a wire. It looks like a career into itself with spin flippers
ESR, Stern-Gerlach and Zeeman effects. All very confusing.
I would offer some rules of thumb... but they might turn
out to be right and I'd have to admit to deriving them
with a Ouija board. :o)
>
> I'm trying to consider a T1, T2, T3, T4 type of tatric construction.
-->Hero,
> that's tatric, not tantric. The T2 looks like a 1D form of
> electric field. Looks like doesn't mean is but then that would depend
> on what the definition of is is. Equivalence, homogeneous,
> homomorphic... the mathematicians get a bit carried away with this
> stuff. If it is constructable then it is a theory. I'm not saying it's
> a good theory, just a theory. These things chain along but preferably
> would not chain to a level of artificiality. I should not bore you with
> a variation unless it may spark something for you. But here is a
> topology on a topology that would possibly allow the proton to take the
> properties of an electron and then something new and different as well
> on top. The T4 is just a T3 + P4. In simplest terms
> Tn = P1 + P2 + P3 ... + Pn .
> I can see T3 as electron-like but now would be left with the puzzle of
> what T2 would be, and so the thought of a 1D electric field (2-pole)
> type. This then seems to come back to some of your thoughts with dipole
> gravity models and so forth. Sorry this is so abstract. But you see
> this T2 concept is ignorant of a magnetic effect; until we get to T3 we
> do not see the rotational plane. So your dipole interpretations Sue may
> fit here. Whether it would be gravity or not I can't say. It is weird
> to mix these various topologies together like this and claim that they
> will superpose with one another. We should expect a mixture to stand
> out and in terms of electrons and protons we do see such a disparity.
Particle physicists have generally ignored gravity except to derive
mass values. Janet Tate's mass anomaly may vindicate their failure
to intergrate it into the subatomic model if the coherent matter/
London moment model gets a little more experimental support.
I suppose they could just juggle some mass values slightly and
go on their merry way but I don't really know.
Sue...
>
> -Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
This would be an attempt at pushing this model further with less by
reusing its own framework onto itself. At T4 a proton would actually be
6D, though the structure of that 6D says alot about it informationally.
If we step up to this level then the T3 level has quite a diminished
relationship, though identical in many ways. It is about the
relationship of proton to electron. They are far from identical
opposites. If they are natural they can be approached as a progressive
form. The challenge is to get out correspondence whatever the
construction.
We could even attempt this type of model down a notch and that would
alleviate the question of what T2 is, but I don't see T2 as complex
enough to be an electron. All of this is at some level a curve-fitter's
or pattern matcher's approach, but it stays within a framework of
simplex oscillation modes. Four is a stability number for the nucleus.
This is a match with P4 so there is a correspondence here. Here again
though this argument can be turned toward P3, where one position has
three adjacents and so four in all. The hollow P4 looks more appetizing
since a coherent oscillation would always leave the central location
available to the next taker. That is a gridded analogy and might not be
the real mode.
How much attention needs to be paid to the traditional charge
affinities? Under FQHE aren't these traditions false? The simplest
mental model should be the cold one. The ambient one would hopefully
follow out of the cold one, not the other way around.
>
> You're doing like Mendalev and Gel-Mann but filling a different
> kind of table.
>
>
> >
> > Do we accept that static electric fields can exist devoid of magnetism?
> > But not the other way around?
> << In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are
> generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental
> difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets
> and those generated by currents flowing around conventional
> electric circuits. In the former case the currents which generate
> the fields circulate on the atomic scale whereas, in the latter
> case the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale
> (i.e., the scale of the circuit). >>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node62.html
>
> > We get stuck because we see the electric field being caused by
> > electrons which have their spin polarity and orbital component.
>
> Particle *spin* doesn't seem to manifest itself spatially in
> the same way we can identify the direction of current flow
> it a wire. It looks like a career into itself with spin flippers
> ESR, Stern-Gerlach and Zeeman effects. All very confusing.
> I would offer some rules of thumb... but they might turn
> out to be right and I'd have to admit to deriving them
> with a Ouija board. :o)
The chicken and the egg... I don't want to get stuck on choosing either
one.
It's the geometry that matters. It's like we need a T3 P4 interface-
the only place where such a thing can happen conservationally.
Conversationally it's outlandish, but then all of this is. Reality is
the most outlandish thing of all.
Truth is not merely correspondence. It should be exact and simplistic.
The multiple forward paths and the clarity of hindsight may be
statements on determinism; if we admit the existence of what we seek
then we suppose a path to it. All that is necessary to achieve what is
sought are random motions. Hindsight is the only validator of this
process. This is the human hunter state; the evolutionary state too.
Accidental learning is a promissory premise.
There is an option to grant the simplex harmonic oscillators a random
component that would in some regards declare the space they inhabit to
be isotropic. P2 does not apparently have this ability whereas P3 and
P4 have it and they have it to differing extents. So another variation
opens up. I was exhausted already but an opening for random behavior
cannot be passed up. The option of an interaction with no cost opens as
well.
-Tim
Sue...
A lone electron seems like a 2D object (unreal) to me. When you
consder
its other half, the positiron, then it has some 3D existance.
>
> We could even attempt this type of model down a notch and that would
> alleviate the question of what T2 is, but I don't see T2 as complex
> enough to be an electron. All of this is at some level a curve-fitter's
> or pattern matcher's approach, but it stays within a framework of
> simplex oscillation modes. Four is a stability number for the nucleus.
> This is a match with P4 so there is a correspondence here. Here again
> though this argument can be turned toward P3, where one position has
> three adjacents and so four in all. The hollow P4 looks more appetizing
> since a coherent oscillation would always leave the central location
> available to the next taker. That is a gridded analogy and might not be
> the real mode.
>
> How much attention needs to be paid to the traditional charge
> affinities? Under FQHE aren't these traditions false? The simplest
> mental model should be the cold one. The ambient one would hopefully
> follow out of the cold one, not the other way around.
The "traditional charge" probably ignores its other half so
I wouldn't loose sleep over it.
Nature just sums. What could be simpler?
> The multiple forward paths and the clarity of hindsight may be
> statements on determinism; if we admit the existence of what we seek
> then we suppose a path to it. All that is necessary to achieve what is
> sought are random motions. Hindsight is the only validator of this
> process. This is the human hunter state; the evolutionary state too.
> Accidental learning is a promissory premise.
>
I'll try to pass that on in my next post about philosophy. :o)
>
> There is an option to grant the simplex harmonic oscillators a random
> component that would in some regards declare the space they inhabit to
> be isotropic. P2 does not apparently have this ability whereas P3 and
> P4 have it and they have it to differing extents. So another variation
> opens up. I was exhausted already but an opening for random behavior
> cannot be passed up. The option of an interaction with no cost opens as
> well.
Thinking out loud again?
Oh well... at least you think out loud, quietly. :-)
Sue...
BTW the ramblings I've included about gravity and inertia are not
to complicate your thoughts but rather to support the approach
that particle physicists have taken all along... ignore them.
The Coulomb force is about 10^42 times more important.
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
I still like Woodward over Kouropoulos.
I don't understand the zero-point energy quagmire too well, but anyhow
I doubt that it matters for the system that I've laid out above here.
I can't claim to have studied Kouropoulos closely enough to make a
strong criticism, but it looks as if he is relying on a universal
red-shift. Isn't the red-shift merely on average? For instance there
are still blue-shifted stars out there that are therefore coming toward
us right?
He says in his conclusion:
"In this framework, gravitation is an emergent phenomenon that is
induced by the coherent Zitterbewegung of charges and its coupling to
that of distant matter through the dilated and red-shifted components
of their radiative field."
He spends a lot of time on phase which is good because I have a hard
time seeing this coherence work isotropically, but I couldn't follow it
all. It might be better if it didn't work out isotropically, then we
could have pancake systems without the rotational inertia claims. The
awareness of red-shift and expansion I don't really have a grasp on
under the delta radiator concept. Doesn't dark matter play into this?
-Tim
Good point. If deltas are the carrier of electromagnetic radiation then
the effect of their rotation should be a huge component relative to the
inertial influence of a delta absorption.
I'm still not seeing electrostatics from the delta concept so you have
my ear.
-Tim
Sue...
You can still get the text from Google's cache:
Those squiggles that are missing just add confusion anyway. :o)
nslookup chaos.fullerton.edu
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: chaos.fullerton.edu
Address: 137.151.45.54
jay# ping 137.151.45.54
PING 137.151.45.54 (137.151.45.54): 56 data bytes
36 bytes from dc-csufullerton-egm--tus-dc1.cenic.net
(137.164.40.50): Communicat ion prohibited by filter
This still works:
http://hss.fullerton.edu/liberal/faculty/Woodward.htm
> I don't understand the zero-point energy quagmire too well, but anyhow
Neither do I. Einstein fudged Mach's celestial bodies into a
GR's pseudo-space. That is probably all it is tho I have actually
thrashed it out.
> I doubt that it matters for the system that I've laid out above here.
> I can't claim to have studied Kouropoulos closely enough to make a
> strong criticism, but it looks as if he is relying on a universal
> red-shift. Isn't the red-shift merely on average? For instance there
> are still blue-shifted stars out there that are therefore coming toward
> us right?
Binary systems will move toward us for part of the orbital
cycle. Overall, Edwin Hubble seems to have made a good
case that most of the stuff move away from us. Maybe
earthlings have B.O. and need better deodorant. :o)
> He says in his conclusion:
> "In this framework, gravitation is an emergent phenomenon that is
> induced by the coherent Zitterbewegung of charges and its coupling to
> that of distant matter through the dilated and red-shifted components
> of their radiative field."
I don't buy that. The word coherent appears nowhere in that paper
and his induction occurs in empty space where there in nothing
to induce.
Kouropoulos has a plausible mechanism that harmonizes
well with Mach, Einstein and Tajma/de Matos.
> He spends a lot of time on phase which is good because I have a hard
> time seeing this coherence work isotropically, but I couldn't follow it
> all.
coherence? I can't find that word either in Woodward's "inertia".
> It might be better if it didn't work out isotropically, then we
> could have pancake systems without the rotational inertia claims. The
> awareness of red-shift and expansion I don't really have a grasp on
> under the delta radiator concept. Doesn't dark matter play into this?
I haven't studied that closely. Orbital anomalies in galaxies
seem the reason to propose its existance.
>
> -Tim
[snip]
> >
> > Thinking out loud again?
> > Oh well... at least you think out loud, quietly. :-)
> >
> > Sue...
> > BTW the ramblings I've included about gravity and inertia are not
> > to complicate your thoughts but rather to support the approach
> > that particle physicists have taken all along... ignore them.
> > The Coulomb force is about 10^42 times more important.
>
> Good point. If deltas are the carrier of electromagnetic radiation then
> the effect of their rotation should be a huge component relative to the
> inertial influence of a delta absorption.
> I'm still not seeing electrostatics from the delta concept so you have
> my ear.
Electrons (and positrons) are not quite matter and not quite space.
They are not quite particles and not quite waves. So we just
have to do some equation guessing and see if any equations we
apply to conventional matter also fit behavior of these fundamental
particles. Expressions that deal in terms of density seem to be
the best fit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
The density of "what" you ask? We don't know.
Just make up a pseudo particle and make it as small
as you like. Where necessary, the elecron models as
is the spray from and isotropic sprinkler head. 1/r^2
Only the SPRAY... not the head.
Sue...
>
> -Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Sue... wrote:
> Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> > Sue... wrote:
> > > Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
>
> > I still like Woodward over Kouropoulos.
>
> You can still get the text from Google's cache:
>
> http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ul0KfE_z22oJ:chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm+site:chaos.fullerton.edu+fullerton+woodward+inertia&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7
Good idea.
I'm using your own link:
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
The quote is in his conclusion. The word coherent is all over the place
in this presentation.
I'm open to being a poor interpreter, but this quote that I've given is
valid. It's a copy and paste. Perhaps we've confused references.
>
> Kouropoulos has a plausible mechanism that harmonizes
> well with Mach, Einstein and Tajma/de Matos.
>
> > He spends a lot of time on phase which is good because I have a hard
> > time seeing this coherence work isotropically, but I couldn't follow it
> > all.
>
> coherence? I can't find that word either in Woodward's "inertia".
>
> > It might be better if it didn't work out isotropically, then we
> > could have pancake systems without the rotational inertia claims. The
> > awareness of red-shift and expansion I don't really have a grasp on
> > under the delta radiator concept. Doesn't dark matter play into this?
>
> I haven't studied that closely. Orbital anomalies in galaxies
> seem the reason to propose its existance.
Well, if these things are all related and concerns over the treatment
of angular momentum in physics are valid we may see a form of energy
conversion emerge here. Perhaps it is like a thermodynamic attempt at
coherence of a large body. Perhaps by rotating the 1D modes can align
normal to the plane and the 2D modes find a macro thermodynamic
equilibrium (coherence) by rotating. This is very loose language but
would be an alternative to explain the net rotational energy of large
systems. You can say that a rotational solar system is the result of an
explosion of a spinning body, but we still have to get the spinning
body. The relation of this to dark matter claims and universal
expansion is pretty clear. What is the current explanation for the
angular momentum of a galaxy? Under this energy conversion concept the
planar coherence of a large system would be a result of its age I
think. But again all of this is just loose reasoning. There sure is
alot to learn. We've covered so much ground that to get down to
tendrils on all of it would be an accomplishment. I haven't spent much
time on cosmology so I am even more naive in this area.
Hmmm....
The gravitation to Coulomb strength ratio is awfully large. Worst of
all we're supposed to get repulsion as well. The delta model has the
spray. We would like the forces to be united.
The only way out that I can see is to accept the gravitational
shadowing argument and so the force of gravity is in fact much larger
if one could absorb it all, but since the absorption rate is very low
neither the gravitational shadow nor gravitation itself is felt
strongly, yet it can still operate over very large distance as a
result. Acceptance of this argument provides us a real behavioral
conjecture- that when the moon passes behind the earth it gets a small
decrease in gravitational pull from the sun. Is this universal
expansion? I'm not comfortable claiming that, but it signals that. The
exact physical behavior is not really that clear to me. It seems that
the elliptical path of the moon about the sun would be altered. This is
a three body problem. The effect could be tiny but it would be
gravitational shadowing. In a planar galaxy the net shadowing would be
larger.
This opens a science fiction of a directional gravitational absorber
that will happily pull one about the universe simply by absorbing all
of the delta radiation from a given direction across its surface,
casting a complete delta shadow. Instead of a magic carpet it might be
more like a magic umbrella. Hold on tight!
Still no electrostatics.
-Tim
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> Sue... wrote:
> > Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> > > Sue... wrote:
> > > > Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> >
> > > I still like Woodward over Kouropoulos.
> >
> > You can still get the text from Google's cache:
> >
> The quote is in his conclusion. The word coherent is all over the place
> in this presentation.
> I'm open to being a poor interpreter, but this quote that I've given is
> valid. It's a copy and paste. Perhaps we've confused references.
Indeed we have. I suspected that in my last response.
<:-P <:-b
>
> >
> > Kouropoulos has a plausible mechanism that harmonizes
> > well with Mach, Einstein and Tajma/de Matos.
> >
> > > He spends a lot of time on phase which is good because I have a hard
> > > time seeing this coherence work isotropically, but I couldn't follow it
> > > all.
> >
> > coherence? I can't find that word either in Woodward's "inertia".
> >
> > > It might be better if it didn't work out isotropically, then we
> > > could have pancake systems without the rotational inertia claims. The
> > > awareness of red-shift and expansion I don't really have a grasp on
> > > under the delta radiator concept. Doesn't dark matter play into this?
> >
> > I haven't studied that closely. Orbital anomalies in galaxies
> > seem the reason to propose its existance.
>
> Well, if these things are all related and concerns over the treatment
> of angular momentum in physics are valid we may see a form of energy
> conversion emerge here.
Indeed we do. When an e+ e- pair is created then we have an
electircally neutral dipole that can couple attractivly
to other electrically electrically neutral dipoles.
The dipoles try to orient each other.
> Perhaps it is like a thermodynamic attempt at
> coherence of a large body. Perhaps by rotating the 1D modes can align
> normal to the plane and the 2D modes find a macro thermodynamic
> equilibrium (coherence) by rotating. This is very loose language but
> would be an alternative to explain the net rotational energy of large
> systems. You can say that a rotational solar system is the result of an
> explosion of a spinning body, but we still have to get the spinning
> body. The relation of this to dark matter claims and universal
> expansion is pretty clear.
I like the notion that magnetism shapes solar systems and
galaxies into sombrero shapes... wild speculation on my part tho.
I haven't researched it a bit.
> What is the current explanation for the
> angular momentum of a galaxy? Under this energy conversion concept the
> planar coherence of a large system would be a result of its age I
> think. But again all of this is just loose reasoning. There sure is
> alot to learn. We've covered so much ground that to get down to
> tendrils on all of it would be an accomplishment. I haven't spent much
> time on cosmology so I am even more naive in this area.
AFAIK orbital paths are unstable and just seeking a trajectory
that minimizes energy exchange with the rest of the universe.
No... not if the Coulomb force is more fundamental than gravity.
Can you prove that an electron will fall off the table and
hit the floor? I can't.
We can weigh an industrial cylinder of hydrogen.
I don't think we can weigh a cylinder of electrons.
> The delta model has the
> spray. We would like the forces to be united.
> The only way out that I can see is to accept the gravitational
> shadowing argument and so the force of gravity is in fact much larger
> if one could absorb it all, but since the absorption rate is very low
> neither the gravitational shadow nor gravitation itself is felt
> strongly, yet it can still operate over very large distance as a
> result. Acceptance of this argument provides us a real behavioral
> conjecture- that when the moon passes behind the earth it gets a small
> decrease in gravitational pull from the sun. Is this universal
> expansion? I'm not comfortable claiming that, but it signals that. The
> exact physical behavior is not really that clear to me. It seems that
> the elliptical path of the moon about the sun would be altered. This is
> a three body problem. The effect could be tiny but it would be
> gravitational shadowing. In a planar galaxy the net shadowing would be
> larger.
Shadowing ?
What "shadows" your refrigerator magnets better?
A sheet of paper or aluminum ?
(both sheets equal thickness)
>
> This opens a science fiction of a directional gravitational absorber
> that will happily pull one about the universe simply by absorbing all
> of the delta radiation from a given direction across its surface,
> casting a complete delta shadow. Instead of a magic carpet it might be
> more like a magic umbrella. Hold on tight!
Massive bodies don't shadow, they participate in completeing
a path, just as steel bars do on a table scattered with magnets.
You are confusing radiative and inductive mechanisms.
Note in the Tajmar / de Matos experiment there is extensive
dicussion about the electric processes at the surface.
On our planet the attenuation changes from 1/r^2 to r at the surface.
The coupling mechanism is changing from radiative to inductive.
>
> Still no electrostatics.
e+ plus e- ---> gamma radiation
Is there more than that? :o)
Sue...
>
> -Tim
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
OK. As I look around Woodward is cited many times. He comes up as a
historian, but he's a bit more than that. He is an analyst. I wonder if
he's related to Bob Woodward. They'd be truth-out brothers.
>
> <:-P <:-b
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Kouropoulos has a plausible mechanism that harmonizes
> > > well with Mach, Einstein and Tajma/de Matos.
This is what my criticism is applied to- Kouropoulos's bluewin link.
> > >
> > > > He spends a lot of time on phase which is good because I have a hard
> > > > time seeing this coherence work isotropically, but I couldn't follow it
> > > > all.
> > >
> > > coherence? I can't find that word either in Woodward's "inertia".
> > >
> > > > It might be better if it didn't work out isotropically, then we
> > > > could have pancake systems without the rotational inertia claims. The
> > > > awareness of red-shift and expansion I don't really have a grasp on
> > > > under the delta radiator concept. Doesn't dark matter play into this?
> > >
> > > I haven't studied that closely. Orbital anomalies in galaxies
> > > seem the reason to propose its existance.
> >
> > Well, if these things are all related and concerns over the treatment
> > of angular momentum in physics are valid we may see a form of energy
> > conversion emerge here.
>
> Indeed we do. When an e+ e- pair is created then we have an
> electircally neutral dipole that can couple attractivly
> to other electrically electrically neutral dipoles.
>
> The dipoles try to orient each other.
>
I understand the temptation to play with such things. Look out though.
Above you have claimed neutrality which is only true in the limit as
their seperation aproaches zero. How isotropic (3D) gravity would arise
coherently is a big challenge don't you think? Still it's a nice model
that you work with. What if you use the minimal distance conjecture?
Then these anti-selfs can pop into existence at distance 'a' and
perhaps even remain glued at distance 'a' until some threshold or
conversion happens. They make a nice photon but don't they need more to
get to gravity?
I think my own try at getting a delta to be a photon carrier via
rotation has some lame aspects. If the absorption rate of deltas is to
be small then their ability to carry photons through a material has to
be considered. Can photons be stripped off without catching the delta
itself? That might be a bit much and I might be a bitch's mut. I'd
rather keep looking. To get low absorption we could have lots of deltas
shooting out like little spears from a particle. But is that even
valid? The very definition of these deltas are that they obey a minimum
distance 'a'. So to claim that one is skinnier in one of its dimensions
might be bogus. The deltas would have to be more blob-like following
this analysis. At the point of getting to point particles and blob
deltas I can't feel to good about this theory. Just the same the
relationship of gravity to thermodynamics looks good, but the radiation
will have to involve a photon like entity that meets more squarely.
> > Perhaps it is like a thermodynamic attempt at
> > coherence of a large body. Perhaps by rotating the 1D modes can align
> > normal to the plane and the 2D modes find a macro thermodynamic
> > equilibrium (coherence) by rotating. This is very loose language but
> > would be an alternative to explain the net rotational energy of large
> > systems. You can say that a rotational solar system is the result of an
> > explosion of a spinning body, but we still have to get the spinning
> > body. The relation of this to dark matter claims and universal
> > expansion is pretty clear.
>
> I like the notion that magnetism shapes solar systems and
> galaxies into sombrero shapes... wild speculation on my part tho.
> I haven't researched it a bit.
There is some analysis about warped galaxies that I was reading last
night. They may not be quite sombrero shapes but they do include
attention to a central bulge.
OK. This is a nice line of thought. Electrons also do not interact with
photons in their free state. For example an electron beam will not
absorb a laser beam passing through it will it? These sorts of
contradictions on the fundamental relationships are pretty nice. In
some ways this points us to taking the atomic level as the fundamental
rather than the electron,proton,photon trio. Then when we break an atom
apart we hopefully would have these bits.
>
> > The delta model has the
> > spray. We would like the forces to be united.
> > The only way out that I can see is to accept the gravitational
> > shadowing argument and so the force of gravity is in fact much larger
> > if one could absorb it all, but since the absorption rate is very low
> > neither the gravitational shadow nor gravitation itself is felt
> > strongly, yet it can still operate over very large distance as a
> > result. Acceptance of this argument provides us a real behavioral
> > conjecture- that when the moon passes behind the earth it gets a small
> > decrease in gravitational pull from the sun. Is this universal
> > expansion? I'm not comfortable claiming that, but it signals that. The
> > exact physical behavior is not really that clear to me. It seems that
> > the elliptical path of the moon about the sun would be altered. This is
> > a three body problem. The effect could be tiny but it would be
> > gravitational shadowing. In a planar galaxy the net shadowing would be
> > larger.
>
> Shadowing ?
> What "shadows" your refrigerator magnets better?
> A sheet of paper or aluminum ?
> (both sheets equal thickness)
This is taking us around in a circle. The magnetic model presents a
worse kind of field stealing.
I don't mind going back to it again, but we need a variation. Two
magnets placed next to each other can cancel each other out
substantially in the far field. A one-signed analogy is good, but is
divergent from magnetism. It's closer to your electric dipole but the
question of non quantized mass has to surface. We have to go
unidirectional.
>
> >
> > This opens a science fiction of a directional gravitational absorber
> > that will happily pull one about the universe simply by absorbing all
> > of the delta radiation from a given direction across its surface,
> > casting a complete delta shadow. Instead of a magic carpet it might be
> > more like a magic umbrella. Hold on tight!
>
> Massive bodies don't shadow, they participate in completeing
> a path, just as steel bars do on a table scattered with magnets.
>
> You are confusing radiative and inductive mechanisms.
> Note in the Tajmar / de Matos experiment there is extensive
> dicussion about the electric processes at the surface.
>
> On our planet the attenuation changes from 1/r^2 to r at the surface.
> The coupling mechanism is changing from radiative to inductive.
How will you get around gravitational stealing? Upon two bodies
coupling have they consumed that field? How then does their
conglomerate present even more net field on their exterior?
Let's see if we can get a variation. Even a broken one is fine.
-Tim
Sue...
[...]
> > > >
LOL
>
> >
> > <:-P <:-b
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Kouropoulos has a plausible mechanism that harmonizes
> > > > well with Mach, Einstein and Tajma/de Matos.
>
> This is what my criticism is applied to- Kouropoulos's bluewin link.
I have some problems with Kouropoulos's paper too where he
puts too much mechanism into free space and not enough
in the interacting bodies. Some of the stuff about redshifts
doesn't add up. Maybe it is a case of using too much
GR where Einstein fudged Mach's celestial bodies into a
GR's pseudo-space. Still he offer a coupling mechanism
on par with what atomic ~orbits~ do for magnetism.
>
> > > >
> > > > > He spends a lot of time on phase which is good because I have a hard
> > > > > time seeing this coherence work isotropically, but I couldn't follow it
> > > > > all.
> > > >
> > > > coherence? I can't find that word either in Woodward's "inertia".
> > > >
> > > > > It might be better if it didn't work out isotropically, then we
> > > > > could have pancake systems without the rotational inertia claims. The
> > > > > awareness of red-shift and expansion I don't really have a grasp on
> > > > > under the delta radiator concept. Doesn't dark matter play into this?
> > > >
> > > > I haven't studied that closely. Orbital anomalies in galaxies
> > > > seem the reason to propose its existance.
> > >
> > > Well, if these things are all related and concerns over the treatment
> > > of angular momentum in physics are valid we may see a form of energy
> > > conversion emerge here.
> >
> > Indeed we do. When an e+ e- pair is created then we have an
> > electircally neutral dipole that can couple attractivly
> > to other electrically electrically neutral dipoles.
> >
> > The dipoles try to orient each other.
> >
>
> I understand the temptation to play with such things. Look out though.
> Above you have claimed neutrality which is only true in the limit as
> their seperation aproaches zero. How isotropic (3D) gravity would arise
> coherently is a big challenge don't you think?
No... It works just fine for Van der Waals and London forces.
That is the standard model for them.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
<< for separations large compared with the characteristic
wavelengths associated with transitions within the molecules
the London force is modified considerably. In the case of two
molecules in the ground state this modification was first found
by Casimir & Polder. If one of the molecules is in an excited
state new effects appear at these large distances. The energy
of interaction depends on the orientation of the transition
moment in the excited molecule with respect to the vector
displacement between the two systems. >>
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965RSPSA.286..573M
> Still it's a nice model
> that you work with. What if you use the minimal distance conjecture?
> Then these anti-selfs can pop into existence at distance 'a' and
> perhaps even remain glued at distance 'a' until some threshold or
> conversion happens. They make a nice photon but don't they need more to
> get to gravity?
Net electrical charge, neutral?
Always attractive in the farfield?
Attenuation ~ 1/r^2 ?
What else do you want gravity to do ?
=======
Macroatomic field hat off, sub atomic particle hat on :o)
=======
>
> I think my own try at getting a delta to be a photon carrier via
> rotation has some lame aspects. If the absorption rate of deltas is to
> be small then their ability to carry photons through a material has to
> be considered. Can photons be stripped off without catching the delta
> itself?
Photons are pseudo-particles. They do what we say they do.
If you want to be kind, you define them the same way
Max Planck did. Feynman gives them watches and magnetic
monopoles. Big maths when you use those.
> That might be a bit much and I might be a bitch's mut. I'd
> rather keep looking. To get low absorption we could have lots of deltas
> shooting out like little spears from a particle. But is that even
> valid? The very definition of these deltas are that they obey a minimum
> distance 'a'. So to claim that one is skinnier in one of its dimensions
> might be bogus. The deltas would have to be more blob-like following
> this analysis. At the point of getting to point particles and blob
> deltas I can't feel to good about this theory. Just the same the
> relationship of gravity to thermodynamics looks good, but the radiation
> will have to involve a photon like entity that meets more squarely.
The gravitational "penetrating" mechanism appears no different than
magnetism. Magnets are much easier to bring through the
laboratory dood than planets. :o)
>
> > > Perhaps it is like a thermodynamic attempt at
> > > coherence of a large body. Perhaps by rotating the 1D modes can align
> > > normal to the plane and the 2D modes find a macro thermodynamic
> > > equilibrium (coherence) by rotating. This is very loose language but
> > > would be an alternative to explain the net rotational energy of large
> > > systems. You can say that a rotational solar system is the result of an
> > > explosion of a spinning body, but we still have to get the spinning
> > > body. The relation of this to dark matter claims and universal
> > > expansion is pretty clear.
> >
> > I like the notion that magnetism shapes solar systems and
> > galaxies into sombrero shapes... wild speculation on my part tho.
> > I haven't researched it a bit.
>
> There is some analysis about warped galaxies that I was reading last
> night. They may not be quite sombrero shapes but they do include
> attention to a central bulge.
My sloppy. I should have said two hats, one inverted.
Matter lasers are a really interesing subject. I forgot all
about them. There are some experiments where the
coherent beam makes the matter bunch... or something
like that? Don't take my word for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_laser
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22free+atom+laser%22&btnG=Search
> These sorts of
> contradictions on the fundamental relationships are pretty nice. In
> some ways this points us to taking the atomic level as the fundamental
> rather than the electron,proton,photon trio. Then when we break an atom
> apart we hopefully would have these bits.
Right! Shoot a few watches out of cannon into a wall and
draw us a watch schematic from the debris. :o)
>
> >
> > > The delta model has the
> > > spray. We would like the forces to be united.
> > > The only way out that I can see is to accept the gravitational
> > > shadowing argument and so the force of gravity is in fact much larger
> > > if one could absorb it all, but since the absorption rate is very low
> > > neither the gravitational shadow nor gravitation itself is felt
> > > strongly, yet it can still operate over very large distance as a
> > > result. Acceptance of this argument provides us a real behavioral
> > > conjecture- that when the moon passes behind the earth it gets a small
> > > decrease in gravitational pull from the sun. Is this universal
> > > expansion? I'm not comfortable claiming that, but it signals that. The
> > > exact physical behavior is not really that clear to me. It seems that
> > > the elliptical path of the moon about the sun would be altered. This is
> > > a three body problem. The effect could be tiny but it would be
> > > gravitational shadowing. In a planar galaxy the net shadowing would be
> > > larger.
=======
Sub atomic particle hat off, macroatomic field hat on :o)
=======
> >
> > Shadowing ?
> > What "shadows" your refrigerator magnets better?
> > A sheet of paper or aluminum ?
> > (both sheets equal thickness)
>
> This is taking us around in a circle. The magnetic model presents a
> worse kind of field stealing.
That is an A or B question.
Try it and let us know how sucessful you are at
"stealing" the field.
> I don't mind going back to it again, but we need a variation. Two
> magnets placed next to each other can cancel each other out
> substantially in the far field. A one-signed analogy is good, but is
> divergent from magnetism. It's closer to your electric dipole but the
> question of non quantized mass has to surface. We have to go
> unidirectional.
Omnidirectional. No matter which way you push a mass,
it will push back. Think Mach, not Newton.
>
> >
> > >
> > > This opens a science fiction of a directional gravitational absorber
> > > that will happily pull one about the universe simply by absorbing all
> > > of the delta radiation from a given direction across its surface,
> > > casting a complete delta shadow. Instead of a magic carpet it might be
> > > more like a magic umbrella. Hold on tight!
> >
> > Massive bodies don't shadow, they participate in completeing
> > a path, just as steel bars do on a table scattered with magnets.
> >
> > You are confusing radiative and inductive mechanisms.
> > Note in the Tajmar / de Matos experiment there is extensive
> > dicussion about the electric processes at the surface.
> >
> > On our planet the attenuation changes from 1/r^2 to r at the surface.
> > The coupling mechanism is changing from radiative to inductive.
>
> How will you get around gravitational stealing? Upon two bodies
> coupling have they consumed that field? How then does their
> conglomerate present even more net field on their exterior?
> Let's see if we can get a variation. Even a broken one is fine.
Put two magnets 100mm apart.
NS----100mm----NS
^==70==^
Put a 70mm steel rod between
them. Does the rod increase or decrease
the attractive force between the magnets?
Put Jupiter (or something that fits) between our
planet and our moon. Does the foreign planet
increase or decrease the attractive force
between earth and moon?
Participation is not stealing.
(I think I heard that from a politician. :o) )
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Sue... wrote:
> Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > historian, but he's a bit more than that. He is an analyst. I wonder if
> > he's related to Bob Woodward. They'd be truth-out brothers.
>
> LOL
>
> >
> >
>
> I have some problems with Kouropoulos's paper too where he
> puts too much mechanism into free space and not enough
> in the interacting bodies. Some of the stuff about redshifts
> doesn't add up. Maybe it is a case of using too much
> GR where Einstein fudged Mach's celestial bodies into a
> GR's pseudo-space. Still he offer a coupling mechanism
> on par with what atomic ~orbits~ do for magnetism.
>
> >
> >
> > night. They may not be quite sombrero shapes but they do include
> > attention to a central bulge.
>
> My sloppy. I should have said two hats, one inverted.
>
> >
> >
> > photons in their free state. For example an electron beam will not
> > absorb a laser beam passing through it will it?
>
>
> Matter lasers are a really interesing subject. I forgot all
> about them. There are some experiments where the
> coherent beam makes the matter bunch... or something
> like that? Don't take my word for it:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_laser
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22free+atom+laser%22&btnG=Search
>
> > These sorts of
> > contradictions on the fundamental relationships are pretty nice. In
> > some ways this points us to taking the atomic level as the fundamental
> > rather than the electron,proton,photon trio. Then when we break an atom
> > apart we hopefully would have these bits.
>
> Right! Shoot a few watches out of cannon into a wall and
> draw us a watch schematic from the debris. :o)
>
> Sub atomic particle hat off, macroatomic field hat on :o)
> =======
>
> >
> > worse kind of field stealing.
>
> That is an A or B question.
> Try it and let us know how sucessful you are at
> "stealing" the field.
>
>
> > I don't mind going back to it again, but we need a variation. Two
> > magnets placed next to each other can cancel each other out
> > substantially in the far field. A one-signed analogy is good, but is
> > divergent from magnetism. It's closer to your electric dipole but the
> > question of non quantized mass has to surface. We have to go
> > unidirectional.
>
> Omnidirectional. No matter which way you push a mass,
> it will push back. Think Mach, not Newton.
>
> >
> >
> > coupling have they consumed that field? How then does their
> > conglomerate present even more net field on their exterior?
> > Let's see if we can get a variation. Even a broken one is fine.
>
> Put two magnets 100mm apart.
> NS----100mm----NS
> ^==70==^
>
> Put a 70mm steel rod between
> them. Does the rod increase or decrease
> the attractive force between the magnets?
L3+ snips throughout.
Your analogy has grown weak here.
I have to get some solid answers from you since you have now proposed
two forms of matter as congruent to a gravity model. We do not
apparently have these two types.
Furthermore the construction is lacking stability. A small perturbation
will allow these magnets to couple to each other and weaken their far
field. It's a direct breakage of the model. This is the sort of
thinking that I wish you would apply to the delta model. Direct
breakage is best for progress. Even if the criticism is strong in one
context it may be weak in another context and so I am open to a strong
defense from you. Perhaps in your defence you will find the new
paradigm.
Why are there two types of matter in your construction?
What is the analogous system?
Upon settling to a stable state is the gravitational model diminished
in the far field?
-Tim
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
[big snip]
I just tried it. When my magnets are 70mm apart
surface friction keeps them apart. Introducing
just 10mm of steel into the path causes the
magnets to move together. Ouch!
Lessons learned: Use tweezers next time. :o)
> I have to get some solid answers from you since you have now proposed
> two forms of matter as congruent to a gravity model. We do not
> apparently have these two types.
Any matter with electric dipoles can orient those dipoles
to participate in an induction path.
>
> Furthermore the construction is lacking stability. A small perturbation
> will allow these magnets to couple to each other and weaken their far
> field.
Technically, magnets don't have a farfield because that is one
of the ways we recognise a near field. It is a semantically
squishy term. 1/r^2 is farfield. Magnetism diminishes
by 1.r^3.
> It's a direct breakage of the model.
Boo hoo... :-(. Can we glue the spines back on?
> This is the sort of
> thinking that I wish you would apply to the delta model.
I would have to graduate from sprinkler heads to Dirac delta
functions to do that. I am sure they are fascinating but
chasing down the maths for this piece:
<< If one of the molecules is in an excited state new effects
appear at these large distances. The energy of interaction
depends on the orientation of the transition moment in the
excited molecule with respect to the vector displacement
between the two systems. In both transverse and longitudinal
orientations the potential law is considerably stronger than the
R^-7 of the ground state-ground state interaction. For transverse
orientations there is an unmodulated R^-2 energy dependence
which though very weak individually could give rise to considerable
effects when the excited molecule is in a macroscopic
environment. >>
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965RSPSA.286..573M
...is more than an amateur needs on her plate.
> Direct
> breakage is best for progress. Even if the criticism is strong in one
> context it may be weak in another context and so I am open to a strong
> defense from you. Perhaps in your defence you will find the new
> paradigm.
I don't know enough to attact it or defend it. I can only offer
a few phenomena where you might see useful application.
>
> Why are there two types of matter in your construction?
> What is the analogous system?
> Upon settling to a stable state is the gravitational model diminished
> in the far field?
Oh! Planets and magnets are the two types of matter?
They are both induction mechanisms but the magnetic
material exerts are much stronger forces because it
can express macro scale dipoles.
I didn't think you wanted planets on your kitchen table
so I suggested magnets.
See if this helps to bridge the concepts of dipolar induction
and isotropic induction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
http://www.physics.upenn.edu/courses/gladney/phys151/lectures/lecture_mar_17_2003.shtml
Sue...
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
As many times as I've read about the Van der Walls force concept I get
very little from it. Perhaps that is because of my education. Physics
pretty strongly dodges this stuff. Do they point point their finger to
the chemist? The chemist then admits the complexity as a lacking of the
physicist and goes on with the repeatable results that are motivated
but not purely defined. The void in the middle goes unaddressed through
standard education. Chemistry takes a sidetrack into acids and bases
where good behaviors take place. Physics discusses rigid bodies as an
assumption without concern for their makeup. They don't want to discuss
what they don't understand with undergraduates. Perhaps it is this void
that leaves me with a void when I read about Van der Waals and London
type effects. It is good that you go there and push us to go there. The
complexity is daunting. How they are able to do so much in an
electrical context without concern for the magnetic is puzzling. The
net magnetic moments are tiny right? Does gravity ever enter in? It's
tiny too, I know 10^40 or some such figure. This makes a gravitational
paradox doesn't it? If it is /r/r force then we should easily observe
it at short distances. Yet even a neutron has a magnetic moment so the
hope of ever doing so is paradoxically diminished.
Chicken and egg...
Have you ever considered a cold atom sitting on the surface of the
earth like a beachball with a baseball tethered to its center via
elastic bands? The nucleus is necessarily out of center particularly if
the rigidity of the beach ball is maintained. So an inherent electrical
dipole exists at the earths surface. This assumes that the nuclear
atomic model is correct. It's just protons attracting protons. At the
center of the earth these protons are in balance. Travelling outward
the temperature and pressure varies providing a gradient of forms. The
gas state is highly balanced since they are free of contact for the
most part. There is a figure of electrical field at the earth's surface
listed in the front of Halliday & Resnick's first year physics book. I
have forgotten whether that figure is attributed to this phenomenon.
That was a long time ago that I spent time with this. I've never really
liked the nuclear model. Rutherford was supposedly the first indication
that a shell model was false. But here we have gotten into all things
from cosmology downward so why not go here too? That one would measure
a center of mass at the center of an atom is a tautology. The ability
to accurately perform measurements at this level is nonexistent and so
all observational information is indirect. That a semi-parallel shell
model could exist consistent with the mainstream model is feasable. The
most important distinction will be the rotational moment of the atom,
an area which I have pursued in the past that is not easily dismissed.
The lack of information in this context was apparent. Particularly
issues of transition temperatures should be well modelled by rotational
moments. The traditional model would predict lower energy transitions
whereas a shell model will require much larger energy conversion to
perform a transition.
-Tim