| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate whi |
|
Page 4 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| a_plutonium |
 Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Giovanni Resta wrote:
[quote:ab312cee88]a_plutonium wrote:
Mostly because the language of physics is far
removed from the aphabet of a keyboard. So I think physics should
change into a system where the keyboard becomes our symbols and
eliminate the Greek alphabet and make calculus into the keyboard
symbols. Replace current symbols with something of the keyboard
symbols.
Almost every scientist uses LaTeX to write even very complicate
formulas with the normal keyboard and very little effort.
Where have you been in all the past years ??
g.
[/quote:ab312cee88]
No, I disagree. When are at a juncture in science and physics written
communication. A juncture because of computers. So that we should not
try to resurrect the old literature and symbols onto this new platform
of communication.
There should be some sort of symposium of scientists of every science
discipline wherein the objective and endgoal is that every science
symbol and math symbol is covered by the ten digits and the 26 letters
of the alphabet and including symbols such as !#%^&*(){}[]":;'
In other words, revamp the old. Get rid of all foreign made up symbols
such as infinity, such as the differential, the integral signs, partial
derivative, Greek letters, etc etc
Come up with a system wherein all science symbols can be had from the
alphabet and ten digits and the common symbols.
We waste too much time in science in getting the "symbols" correct,
when we should be devoting that time to doing actual science itself.
So do not devise a software, but revamp the entire way of symbolization
in science.
For example the integral sign maybe SS, and the derivative sign maybe
DD.
Find out what would be an easy system and then make it a universal
standardized system.
Have a symposium of scientists that revises the entire symbolism system
and makes it easy to type on every computer. And has plenty of room for
future symbols.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bob Kolker |
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:076aa355d3]
But when Eddington actually measured the deflection in 1919, he found a
figure of 1.75". And then everyone says how great this is and how great
a match this is, when in fact it is utterly off the mark.
[/quote:076aa355d3]
Eddington did fudge the numbers, but later measurement show GTR is right
on the mark. The light bends as predicted
All of the earlier tests of GTR have been done again and again with
better and better measurement technology. GTR is not yet falsified. It
very likely will be in extremely intense gravitational fields.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bob Kolker wrote:
[quote:9da3ea7f3c]a_plutonium wrote:
But when Eddington actually measured the deflection in 1919, he found a
figure of 1.75". And then everyone says how great this is and how great
a match this is, when in fact it is utterly off the mark.
Eddington did fudge the numbers, but later measurement show GTR is right
on the mark. The light bends as predicted
All of the earlier tests of GTR have been done again and again with
better and better measurement technology. GTR is not yet falsified. It
very likely will be in extremely intense gravitational fields.
Bob Kolker
[/quote:9da3ea7f3c]
I am not concerned with the experimental observations side of the
story. Even though some say Eddington was off by 70% with only 30%
accuracy.
What I want to know is how Einstein said his General Relativity
predicted 0.85" deflection and that how this theory was then bent
around and fudged around to later say it predicts 1.75" deflection. And
who did the fudging? Was it Einstein? When a theory makes a prediction,
that prediction is pretty well unalterable and not amenable to change.
So Einsteins GR predicted 0.85" in 1911 and after Eddington said it was
1.75" after 1919, it does not look good for Einstein and his GR to
thence say "GR predicts 1.75" when it predicts 0.85"". So what is the
fudging of GR that it doubled the number.
Is the fudging what Clifford Will says in his websites that the
deflection has a "straight-rod" factor which puts a 1/2 coefficient
into the equation? And if Einstein did not know of this factor, who put
the 1/2 into the equation?
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
[quote:34f01eff8f]
New Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism Integral B dot dA = q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
[/quote:34f01eff8f]
On page 45 of "Directions in Physics" book Dirac explains how and why a
monopole is derived. And I was off on the history for I thought it was
derived solely from the Maxwell theory, because it was an argument as
to why electric charge was conserved. That you conserve electric charge
throughout the cosmos if at least one monopole exists. But Dirac
derives the monopole from the Schrodinger Equation.
He also says that a monopole strength is huge of 137/2 (e) on page 46.
And indeed, in an Atom Totality the ocean of positrons that make up
Space is a huge monopole. As well as the total mass and matter that
exists is another monopole. And Dirac discusses monopole to monopole
annihilation.
But what I am looking for is somewhere in Dirac's writing if he ever
played around with making Faraday law symmetrical to Ampere-Maxwell
law.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Golden BandTech |
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:839b3570b6]I am going to post this to sci.math only for sometimes mathematicians
have a better answer than physicists as to symmetry issues and negative
signs are often a tricky problem.
a_plutonium wrote:
old Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = 0
Faraday's Law-- Integral E dot ds= -dB/dt
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
Now, with Space being Dirac's ocean of Positrons we iron out all the
asymmetry of the old Maxwell Equations and they become the new Maxwell
Equations with another displacement current in the Faraday law:
New Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism Integral B dot dA = q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
The above is how I wrote it some weeks and months ago. I recognized
that I did not have it ironed out in my mind as to the "negative signs"
in the old and new equations. There is a negative sign in the Faraday
Law to accomodate Lenz's Law where direction of magnetic induction is
opposite. It involves conservation of energy in Lenz's Law.
But on a deeper level, I wonder if the fact that Space is Positrons has
some role in why Faraday's Law is negative sign yet Ampere Law remained
positive sign.
Weeks and months ago when I wrote the above, I just put in the new
terms to make symmetrical and eliminate the asymmetry of the old
Maxwell Equations, however, I need to be sure the negative signs yield
"perfect symmetry" with the new fact of Space = positrons with the base
foundation theory of the Atom Totality.
So, does the new term of a Displacement Current in the Faraday Law also
be negative sign? And does the new term of a nonzero Gauss magnetism
law (no magnetic monopole) be negative?
At the moment I am reasoning that they are negative terms, but these
things are tricky. And as a algebraic sum the 4 equations should
algebraically add to zero in the Atom Totality.
Tentatively the revised Maxwell Equations should look like this:
Gauss Law for electricity Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism Integral B dot dA = (-)q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) (-)dB/dt + (-)u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
The two existing monopoles of the Gauss law would be Space itself is
one gigantic monopole since it is a conglomerate of positrons and +
charged and the other monopole is all the mass/matter observed in the
cosmos because the conglomerate of all mass and matter are electrons of
the Atom Totality and overall it is - charged.
So the revised Gauss Law of magnetism is negative q/e whereas the Gauss
Law of electricity is positive q/e. And when algebraically added they
are zero.
And the Gauss law of magnetism is most often equal to zero, because
mass matter presents itself in experiments as bipolar, and the only
monopoles are the two cosmic monopoles of all space, and all mass.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
[/quote:839b3570b6]
There is a charge conservation issue here isn't there?
When these positrons become absorbed by an atom the electrons will be
deleted right?
When they are radiated from the sun they will charge the sun up
negatively right?
It seems you will need some sort of a circulatory current or lightning
bolts, or without these effects as the charge builds the effect will
diminish itself.
I still like your thinking and particularly the atomic fundamental.
-Tim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:6e486e3c94]a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
New Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism Integral B dot dA = q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i
On page 45 of "Directions in Physics" book Dirac explains how and why a
monopole is derived. And I was off on the history for I thought it was
derived solely from the Maxwell theory, because it was an argument as
to why electric charge was conserved. That you conserve electric charge
throughout the cosmos if at least one monopole exists. But Dirac
derives the monopole from the Schrodinger Equation.
He also says that a monopole strength is huge of 137/2 (e) on page 46.
And indeed, in an Atom Totality the ocean of positrons that make up
Space is a huge monopole. As well as the total mass and matter that
exists is another monopole. And Dirac discusses monopole to monopole
annihilation.
But what I am looking for is somewhere in Dirac's writing if he ever
played around with making Faraday law symmetrical to Ampere-Maxwell
law.
[/quote:6e486e3c94]
As to the question of whether the new revised law of Faraday should
have a negative sign for the displacement current, I am still looking
and thinking. Negative or positive signs are often tricky.
So should it be:
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) (-)dB/dt + u i
or should it be:
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) (-)dB/dt +(-) u i
It is a question of mathematical consistency and preserving all the
other laws such as Lenz Law etc etc.
Perhaps the Faraday Law can be run through the Schrodinger Equation
just as the Gauss law was run through by Dirac and the outcome may
reveal whether the negative sign is required.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
[quote:4c5acafa67]
There is a charge conservation issue here isn't there?
[/quote:4c5acafa67]
Yes, for conservation of electric charge to exist and we know it
exists, then there must exist at least one monopole in the Universe.
(pages 45,46 of Dirac's Directions in Physics). The Atom Totality would
say that Space itself as a ocean of positrons is one monopole, and the
antimonopole of Space is Mass/Matter which is all pieces of the
electrons of the Atom Totality. So the world has 2 monopoles. And we
need those 2 monopoles to confirm that conservation of electric charge
exists.
As a benefit, we get that gravity = the ocean of positrons attracting
ordinary matter.
[quote:4c5acafa67]When these positrons become absorbed by an atom the electrons will be
deleted right?
[/quote:4c5acafa67]
An atom has two regions. A nuclear region and a region where the
electrons outside the nucleus reside. In the nucleus there is no
"space" as we know it. There is no ocean of positrons in the nucleus
and thus there is no force of gravity in the nucleus. In the Electron
region of an atom, the instant that a electron exists, the space in
which it exists comes into being. Form an electron and you also form
the space in which that electron resides and that space is a positron.
We see Space as gravity. It appears as a vacuum to us, but it actually
is a dense form of invisible energy. It is positrons. What Dirac called
the Ocean of positrons.
[quote:4c5acafa67]When they are radiated from the sun they will charge the sun up
negatively right?
[/quote:4c5acafa67]
Whereever mass and matter exist in our cosmos, there is co-existing the
space in which that mass matter reside. And that space is a ocean of
positrons whose energy matches the "E = mc^2" of that mass matter. Our
Sun resides in a region where there are more positrons than Earth. The
force of gravity, and why Newtons apple fell towards the center of
Earth is because the positrons that make up space around Earth reside
more in the center of Earth and these positrons pull the apple into the
center of Earth.
[quote:4c5acafa67]It seems you will need some sort of a circulatory current or lightning
bolts, or without these effects as the charge builds the effect will
diminish itself.
[/quote:4c5acafa67]
You are confused. The Space = positrons = gravity = monopole does not
annihilate with ordinary matter as a matter to antimatter annihilation,
except in the case where the Space is so deformed such as in quasars.
Quasars are where positron to matter annihilation does occur. And as
noted by recent astronomers Schild and others that blackholes simply
cannot exist.
[quote:4c5acafa67]
I still like your thinking and particularly the atomic fundamental.
-Tim[/quote:4c5acafa67] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:39b4c37135]Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
There is a charge conservation issue here isn't there?
Yes, for conservation of electric charge to exist and we know it
exists, then there must exist at least one monopole in the Universe.
(pages 45,46 of Dirac's Directions in Physics). The Atom Totality would
say that Space itself as a ocean of positrons is one monopole, and the
antimonopole of Space is Mass/Matter which is all pieces of the
electrons of the Atom Totality. So the world has 2 monopoles. And we
need those 2 monopoles to confirm that conservation of electric charge
exists.
As a benefit, we get that gravity = the ocean of positrons attracting
ordinary matter.
When these positrons become absorbed by an atom the electrons will be
deleted right?
An atom has two regions. A nuclear region and a region where the
electrons outside the nucleus reside. In the nucleus there is no
"space" as we know it. There is no ocean of positrons in the nucleus
and thus there is no force of gravity in the nucleus. In the Electron
region of an atom, the instant that a electron exists, the space in
which it exists comes into being. Form an electron and you also form
the space in which that electron resides and that space is a positron.
We see Space as gravity. It appears as a vacuum to us, but it actually
is a dense form of invisible energy. It is positrons. What Dirac called
the Ocean of positrons.
When they are radiated from the sun they will charge the sun up
negatively right?
Whereever mass and matter exist in our cosmos, there is co-existing the
space in which that mass matter reside. And that space is a ocean of
positrons whose energy matches the "E = mc^2" of that mass matter. Our
Sun resides in a region where there are more positrons than Earth. The
force of gravity, and why Newtons apple fell towards the center of
Earth is because the positrons that make up space around Earth reside
more in the center of Earth and these positrons pull the apple into the
center of Earth.
[/quote:39b4c37135]
Physicists today who still do not believe or understand the above must
ask themselves why is it in all Experimental Physics that the so called
vacuum of Space when probed yields positrons? Why positrons? Why not
neutrinos or photons or neutrons or antiprotons? Why positrons?
The answer is that in the Atom Totality all the mass and matter are
bits and pieces of the electrons of the Atom Totality and that means
and demands that the Space be positrons.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:801e890b95]
As to the question of whether the new revised law of Faraday should
have a negative sign for the displacement current, I am still looking
and thinking. Negative or positive signs are often tricky.
So should it be:
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) (-)dB/dt + u i
or should it be:
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) (-)dB/dt +(-) u i
It is a question of mathematical consistency and preserving all the
other laws such as Lenz Law etc etc.
Perhaps the Faraday Law can be run through the Schrodinger Equation
just as the Gauss law was run through by Dirac and the outcome may
reveal whether the negative sign is required.
[/quote:801e890b95]
Another problem of the old Maxwell Equations is the fact that they were
written in a time in which Space was thought of as a Vacuum, of just
plain emptiness with no physical features.
What would have happened if in 1860s Maxwell was required to write the
Equations where Space is a ocean of positrons and thus a + charged
magnetic space? Would there have been a negative sign in the Faraday
Law? Or put in different question-- is the fact that there is a
negative sign in the Faraday Law, not only to satisfy the Lenz Law but
because Space is positively charged as a ocean of positrons?
So many questions all begging for answers.
So this and other reasons, that negative signs in the Maxwell Equations
are tricky.
I have a hunch that the correct answer will be this one:
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) (-)dB/dt +(-) u i
I have that hunch because Space as a ocean of positrons is magnetically
opposite to mass and matter which is overall negative charge and that
the sign in Faraday Law would be opposite that of the signs in Ampere
Law.
And that hunch is supported by the desire to make the Maxwell Equations
not just partially symmetrical but totally symmetrical. So that the
endproduct sums up algebraically to zero. And to get the sum to be zero
would mean the sign of Faraday's Law is opposite to the Ampere Law. But
my chances of being correct are low and being wrong are high. So I need
to keep digging.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com wrote:
[quote:6e464320c6]
I've spent a little bit of time reviewing the Dirac Sea. It's a bit
confusing how to get from its abstract supposition to the actuality of
the positron and still see it the way that it was conceived. Is this a
sea of electron-positron pairs? No, I suppose not; that would be more
the modern quantum view. A sea of negative energy... It's quite
confusing which the electron is and which the positron is and if they
are particle or continuum. Now that the positron is admitted actual
existence and it is admitted to anihillate with the electron I am fully
confused.
[/quote:6e464320c6]
Apparently the Cosmos we view and observe is two things in one. It is
the mass and matter as one entity and this mass and matter are bits and
pieces of the last six electrons of the Atom Totality. So when you see
a star or galaxy or planet you are seeing a tiny piece of the last 6
electrons of the Atom Totality. The other entity is Space and this
space is the Dirac Sea of Positrons. Space is not a vacuum and not some
empty receptacle.
Apparently, electrons when they float around the nucleus of an atom
need a medium in which those electrons can float. And that medium is
the antiparticle energy of the electrons acting as one entity.
This positron Space is not to be thought of as a vial or tube of
positrons. It is to be thought of as a physical entity of just pure
energy with a magnetic moment that corresponds to the force of gravity
for any mass embedded in that space region.
In his book Directions in Physics, Dirac tells us how stable a monopole
should be. And it should be very stable. In that sense, although it
needs very much more elaboration, if we view the Cosmic Space as a
monopole of Dirac's Sea of Positrons, would that tell us why these
positrons do not encounter electrons of the "ordinary cosmos" and thus
annihilate in matter to antimatter contact? Is there something about
the stability of a Cosmic Monopole that annihilation is rare or seldom
to happen? Perhaps annihilation occurs when there is intense gravity
such as quasars? When you bend space so much that you cause a leak in
the monopole and positrons materialize and annihilate with ordinary
matter. I do not know and is a topic for future investigation.
[quote:6e464320c6]
from http://www.answers.com/topic/dirac-sea I see:
"In relativistic quantum mechanics, the completely filled, negative
energy electron state that comprises a vacuum. If a negative energy
electron is promoted to a positive energy state, the hole is perceived
as a positron."
This implies an inversion of what you are claiming. I am looking for
something similar and here Dirac simply is getting electrons for free.
The special places are where the electron isn't.
These are positrons. I need to stew on this for a while.
You've done a nice job of holding up your argument. Some shy away and
fade out but you are owning your argument and you deserve credit for
[/quote:6e464320c6]
Only because I have an Atom Totality theory which can further the idea
of Dirac Sea. If I never had the Atom Totality I would have bypassed
and skipped over the Dirac Sea.
[quote:6e464320c6]that. I can't say that I adopt your model but am happy to admit that
some of it may be helpful for my own. That is what we should all be
doing here. Scavenging and composting, exploring and building. I am
trying to play with what looks like a gravity/thermodynamic
construction of a simplex oscillator on a thread titled The Unity
Problem. But getting charge into it is pushing toward something like a
Dirac Sea. If a point particle excludes a space of radius 'a' about
itself what has it excluded? Perhaps the motion of such a particle
plows through space. This sort of impedance could set up some standing
waves, particularly for a particle oscillator. Such damping appears to
be acceptable under the delta emitter since it is already an endlessly
active source. Anyhow, your Dirac Sea model is a little bit akin to
this and this thought comes from yours. Thanks.
-Tim
[/quote:6e464320c6]
I have too many plates of science all a cooking that I cannot stew over
someone elses problems-- Unity problem (whatever that is).
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John C. Polasek |
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:31:12 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:82602ac73b]"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bv53n293rn02rnu9tk856oti1dp0t0a822@4ax.com...
On 1 Dec 2006 11:45:56 -0800, "a_plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 30 Nov 2006 19:42:42 -0800, "a_plutonium"
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
(snipped)
Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign in
the
total energy equation. He did very little with it.
John Polasek
You meant to say "sea of positrons".
No I meant a sea of electrons, look it up in Eisberg for example. An
electron, when removed, left a "hole".
Well that is your logical error isn't it. Dirac's Sea was logical
inference from available knowledge-- Maxwell Equations, Schrodinger
and
Dirac Equations, Energy formulas.
We are arguing history here, but the Maxwell equations etc. did not
inspire Dirac with his sea of electrons. His total energy equation
purported to describe the total energy of electrons and to quantize
their energies, (again see Eisberg), and, seeing the minus sign next
to the radical, decided to do something about it.
I went after the vacuum to see how it could possibly have 8.8uuF/meter
and as a result, I have the vacuum entirely blueprinted.
Sorry, John. You don't have it entirely blueprinted. You entirely
ignore the QCD "vacuum". But your approach is on the right track.
[/quote:82602ac73b]
Sure I do Fredi. My pair cell is alpha times the Compton wavelength
and when its electron escapes and expands by 1/alpha or, cubed, by 2.5
million, its density becomes equal to that of iron. Electrons out of
pairspace expand with enough energy to support the density of iron at
the velocity of light. In Ch. 13 of the book I show how the continuing
emission of electrons to make stars generates a CMBR temperat;ure of
2.557K vs the "book" 2.724.
What's QCD?
[quote:82602ac73b]Dirac did not go further than monopole and Dirac Sea and positrons,
because he did not have a Atom Totality theory.
As for yours, well, it is not science theory, it is not science
hypothesis, it is merely a "complaint". You do not even list your
basis
theory for which you think you have something new to say to physics.
Apparently your base theory is the Big Bang but you do not even credit
Big Bang, perhaps because you are scared that the Big Bang will fall
also.
You did not look at my #1 paper at my website. It explains exactly how
the vacuum is constructed. There are 16 equations or equation groups.
Pick one and tell what's wrong with it.
My theory does away with the Big Bang but you would not know that;
it's in the book.
Your density is way too low.  Include the QCD "vacuum" and you will
find a much higher density.
[/quote:82602ac73b]
Pairspace density is 4.1x10^10 kg/m^3.
What is your density? Looking at your papers, I don't see the word
density and I don't see any numbers at all, just formulas without
units. In cgs you have to be careful, because the units were wrecked
by the Visigoths who threw out eps0 and mu0. (You can't use coulombs
or volts or farads).
What is your QCD density, numbers and equation?
Now don't forget I am talking about pairspace, the land of the
uncreated, whose electrons after N billion years become our periodic
table and a lot of cooking will have ocurred to make all those
hadrons. Apples and oranges maybe.
[quote:82602ac73b]FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
[/quote:82602ac73b]
John Polasek |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John C. Polasek wrote:
[quote:6898b9e537]On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:31:12 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
(snipped)
Sorry, John. You don't have it entirely blueprinted. You entirely
ignore the QCD "vacuum". But your approach is on the right track.
Sure I do Fredi. My pair cell is alpha times the Compton wavelength
and when its electron escapes and expands by 1/alpha or, cubed, by 2.5
million, its density becomes equal to that of iron. Electrons out of
pairspace expand with enough energy to support the density of iron at
the velocity of light. In Ch. 13 of the book I show how the continuing
emission of electrons to make stars generates a CMBR temperat;ure of
2.557K vs the "book" 2.724.
What's QCD?
Dirac did not go further than monopole and Dirac Sea and positrons,
because he did not have a Atom Totality theory.
As for yours, well, it is not science theory, it is not science
hypothesis, it is merely a "complaint". You do not even list your
basis
theory for which you think you have something new to say to physics.
Apparently your base theory is the Big Bang but you do not even credit
Big Bang, perhaps because you are scared that the Big Bang will fall
also.
You did not look at my #1 paper at my website. It explains exactly how
the vacuum is constructed. There are 16 equations or equation groups.
Pick one and tell what's wrong with it.
My theory does away with the Big Bang but you would not know that;
it's in the book.
Your density is way too low. Include the QCD "vacuum" and you will
find a much higher density.
Pairspace density is 4.1x10^10 kg/m^3.
What is your density? Looking at your papers, I don't see the word
density and I don't see any numbers at all, just formulas without
units. In cgs you have to be careful, because the units were wrecked
by the Visigoths who threw out eps0 and mu0. (You can't use coulombs
or volts or farads).
What is your QCD density, numbers and equation?
Now don't forget I am talking about pairspace, the land of the
uncreated, whose electrons after N billion years become our periodic
table and a lot of cooking will have ocurred to make all those
hadrons. Apples and oranges maybe.
[/quote:6898b9e537]
Okay, I am going to give it one try and then stop reading these
distractions.
John, see if you can get the Dirac Sea of Positrons to match the force
of gravity for the Sun and its planets. In other words, get the force
of magnetism of a Sea of Positrons as Space itself and attracted to
mass of the Sun and Planets (wherein the mass is bits and pieces of the
electrons of the Atom Totality).
So in other words, work out where the magnetism of positron-Space
attracts the mass matter of the Sun and its planets and is equal to the
know force of gravity of the Sun and planets.
In simple terms: find out what force of magnetism with the presumption
of Space as Positrons and where mass and matter are from the electrons
of the Atom Totality. And find out what magnetism is needed to equal
the force of gravity.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| FrediFizzx |
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5sm3n29easmo8gq6cafordrp5eiitj9f39@4ax.com...
[quote:3c0a1e2ecf]On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:31:12 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bv53n293rn02rnu9tk856oti1dp0t0a822@4ax.com...
On 1 Dec 2006 11:45:56 -0800, "a_plutonium"
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 30 Nov 2006 19:42:42 -0800, "a_plutonium"
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
(snipped)
Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign in
the
total energy equation. He did very little with it.
John Polasek
You meant to say "sea of positrons".
No I meant a sea of electrons, look it up in Eisberg for example.
An
electron, when removed, left a "hole".
Well that is your logical error isn't it. Dirac's Sea was logical
inference from available knowledge-- Maxwell Equations, Schrodinger
and
Dirac Equations, Energy formulas.
We are arguing history here, but the Maxwell equations etc. did not
inspire Dirac with his sea of electrons. His total energy equation
purported to describe the total energy of electrons and to quantize
their energies, (again see Eisberg), and, seeing the minus sign next
to the radical, decided to do something about it.
I went after the vacuum to see how it could possibly have
8.8uuF/meter
and as a result, I have the vacuum entirely blueprinted.
Sorry, John. You don't have it entirely blueprinted. You entirely
ignore the QCD "vacuum". But your approach is on the right track.
Sure I do Fredi. My pair cell is alpha times the Compton wavelength
and when its electron escapes and expands by 1/alpha or, cubed, by 2.5
million, its density becomes equal to that of iron. Electrons out of
pairspace expand with enough energy to support the density of iron at
the velocity of light. In Ch. 13 of the book I show how the continuing
emission of electrons to make stars generates a CMBR temperat;ure of
2.557K vs the "book" 2.724.
What's QCD?
[/quote:3c0a1e2ecf]
Quantum ChromoDynamics. ;-)
[quote:3c0a1e2ecf]Dirac did not go further than monopole and Dirac Sea and positrons,
because he did not have a Atom Totality theory.
As for yours, well, it is not science theory, it is not science
hypothesis, it is merely a "complaint". You do not even list your
basis
theory for which you think you have something new to say to physics.
Apparently your base theory is the Big Bang but you do not even
credit
Big Bang, perhaps because you are scared that the Big Bang will fall
also.
You did not look at my #1 paper at my website. It explains exactly
how
the vacuum is constructed. There are 16 equations or equation
groups.
Pick one and tell what's wrong with it.
My theory does away with the Big Bang but you would not know that;
it's in the book.
Your density is way too low. Include the QCD "vacuum" and you
will
find a much higher density.
Pairspace density is 4.1x10^10 kg/m^3.
What is your density? Looking at your papers, I don't see the word
density and I don't see any numbers at all, just formulas without
units. In cgs you have to be careful, because the units were wrecked
by the Visigoths who threw out eps0 and mu0. (You can't use coulombs
or volts or farads).
What is your QCD density, numbers and equation?
Now don't forget I am talking about pairspace, the land of the
uncreated, whose electrons after N billion years become our periodic
table and a lot of cooking will have ocurred to make all those
hadrons. Apples and oranges maybe.
[/quote:3c0a1e2ecf]
We had this discussion before and I think I gave you a rough estimate
that was about 10^18 greater than your pairspace density. Do a
googlegroup search on my handle and your name. You should be able to
figure it out from the vacuum expectation value of about 246 GeV.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 3:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Now one of the features of the StrongNuclear Force that we can all
agree upon is that it is localized. Meaning that its strength is only
over small distance. Whereas the Coulomb force of protons holding
electrons in orbit is over vast distance.
Now we should have an answer as to why StrongNuclear Force is
localized.
If we consider that the neutron is a particle with internal parts of a
proton, electron and antineutrino, that the electron spills out of the
neutron when in the nucleus of an atom and runs around holding together
all the protons. We take that picture as the StrongNuclear force. It is
a Coulomb force and this electron is given the name nuclear-electron to
distinguish it from an electron that is outside the nucleus. And the
Coulombic force of this nuclear-electron is so much stronger than the
Coulombic force of a normal proton and electron outside the nucleus.
But it also explains why the StrongNuclear Force is localized. This is
because there is no Space in the nucleus of an atom. Space exists
outside the nucleus of an atom and that space is a Dirac Sea of
Positrons. Normal electrons have space which they reside in and that
space is the Dirac sea of positrons.
When electrons are inside the nucleus, they are nuclear-electrons and
have no space component. Their space component goes into more energy of
Coulombic energy in holding together the protons.
As for electrons outside the nucleus, they have space in the form of a
sea of positrons and this is gravity. So we end up with the very
strongest Coulombic force of the StrongNuclear of nuclear electrons.
Then we move outside the nucleus to the electrons orbiting the atom and
that is the regular Coulomb force. And finally we have the weakest
Coulomb force of the Space which is a sea of positrons attracted
magnetically to the electrons orbiting in that Space.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I reached a point in my ruminations where I need to review all the
important facets of physics. Get down to the ultimate basis and that is
the Atom Totality.
We know that we never see antimatter in the cosmos at large. Well,
Space as a Sea of Positrons would preclude large scale antimatter
because Space is antimatter against the mass and matter of astro
bodies. This is the first time I am able to explain why no antimatter.
But it leaves open one of the biggest puzzles. As with any idea that
furthers our understanding of the universe, new questions are opened
and new challenges arise.
I am speaking of the unsettling idea of nested atoms. That all mass
matter we see in astronomy is all part of the electron mass of the Atom
Totality. That implies that protons are made up of atoms and more atoms
in protons than in electrons. Unless, the Atom Totality is a special
atom above other atoms. And is there a concept of "nested" in other
sciences or math or logic? So, here I have a big new question and a big
new challenge.
I should talk about this in another separate post.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:17 pm
|
|