Tweet
Recently, Eric Dollard, also known as T-Rex on these forums, has posted information regarding dimensional relations. This text can be seen on the new Aether Force website (link).
There are in fact many possible options when choosing a different system of units. Many of these exist under the CGS system, though Dollard does rejects these others:
Centimetre-gram-second system of units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Centimetre-gram-second system of units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Below is a table of various possible alternative unit systems, which are based on setting various values, such as inductance or capacitance, to have "numeric" quality, rather than "substantial" quality (i.e. in other words, regard such as "dimensionless").
http://xda.xanga.com/a82e14eb09132285062518/w227495072.png
Eric Dollard's tentative relations do indeed eliminate mass from the dimensional relations, as he claims (see column with label "E. Dollard's Anti-Rltvy." in the above table). Above table shows how dimensions of mass are replaced with dimensions of "charge squared" in E. Dollard's relativity.
Repeating the first line from the first quotation in this post:
The blue column in the above table is the set of tentative relations that I proposed, based on setting resistance, reactance, and impedance, and their inverses conductance, susceptance, and admittance to also be numeric. This also makes the units of quanta, which are magnetic flux and charge, to have the same dimensions.
The story and recent mathematical exposition regarding a vision of Felix Klein (Indra's Pearls) may give a clue as to the fractal nature of the electromagnetic field (quantum fractal plasma):
Indra's Pearls - Academic and Professional Books - Cambridge University Press
Indra's Pearls
These circles can represent the cross-section of flux tubules. Their radial motions (along the span of each meridian or longitude) can correspond to the longitudinal magneto-dielectric forces (divergence operations on vector fields), while the angular motions (along the span of each parallel or latitude) can correspond to the transverse electromagnetic force (curl operations on vector fields).
The flux tubes may possess properties of both quantum of charge and quantum of magnetic flux simultaneously.
Next down the line is the removal of mass from the dimensional relations for Magnetic Force, and Dielectric Force.* (*Note: These are tentative relations) In addition the Magnetic force and the Dielectric force must be expressed by the same dimensional relation. Also, the Magnetic force and the Dielectric force are considered to be equal and opposite in magnitude when a certain condition exists. This is the condition when the actual, or forced ratio of magnetic induction, phi, to dielectric induction, psi, is equal to the natural, or characteristic, ratio of magnetic induction, phi, to dielectric induction, psi. Here relates to what is known as the Natural, or characteristic impedance of the Electro-Magnetic system,
Weber per Coulomb, or Ohm
This has yet to be proven, however by intuition it must be correct.
Magnetic force is the product of the following,
(1) Magnetic Permeability, Mu,
(2) Magneto-Motive Force, i,
(3) Displacement Current, I,
These are defined by the dimensional relations,
(1) Mu, Centimeter
(2) Ampere, i, Weber per Henry
(3) Ampere, I, Coulomb per Second
And also
(4) Henry, L, Centimeter Square
The magnetic force is thus expressed by,
Dyne, or Mu-Ampere Square
ƒ = μ*i*I, Dynes.
In dimensional expression this magnetic force is given as
Mu – Weber – Coulomb
Per
Henry – Second
Weber per Coulomb, or Ohm
This has yet to be proven, however by intuition it must be correct.
Magnetic force is the product of the following,
(1) Magnetic Permeability, Mu,
(2) Magneto-Motive Force, i,
(3) Displacement Current, I,
These are defined by the dimensional relations,
(1) Mu, Centimeter
(2) Ampere, i, Weber per Henry
(3) Ampere, I, Coulomb per Second
And also
(4) Henry, L, Centimeter Square
The magnetic force is thus expressed by,
Dyne, or Mu-Ampere Square
ƒ = μ*i*I, Dynes.
In dimensional expression this magnetic force is given as
Mu – Weber – Coulomb
Per
Henry – Second
Centimetre-gram-second system of units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In measurements of purely mechanical systems (involving units of length, mass, force, energy, pressure, and so on), the differences between CGS and SI are straightforward and rather trivial; the unit-conversion factors are all powers of 10 arising from the relations 100 cm = 1 m and 1000 g = 1 kg. For example, the CGS-derived unit of force is the dyne, equal to 1 g·cm/s2, while the SI-derived unit of force is the newton, 1 kg·m/s2. Thus it is straightforward to show that 1 dyne = 10−5 newtons.
On the other hand, in measurements of electromagnetic phenomena (involving units of charge, electric and magnetic fields, voltage, and so on), converting between CGS and SI is much more subtle and involved. In fact, formulas for physical laws of electromagnetism (such as Maxwell's equations) need to be adjusted depending on which system of units one uses. This is because there is no one-to-one correspondence between electromagnetic units in SI and those in CGS, as is the case for mechanical units. Furthermore, within CGS, there are several plausible choices of electromagnetic units, leading to different unit "sub-systems", including Gaussian, "ESU", "EMU", and Heaviside–Lorentz. Among these choices, Gaussian units are the most common today, and in fact the phrase "CGS units" is often used to refer specifically to CGS-Gaussian units.
On the other hand, in measurements of electromagnetic phenomena (involving units of charge, electric and magnetic fields, voltage, and so on), converting between CGS and SI is much more subtle and involved. In fact, formulas for physical laws of electromagnetism (such as Maxwell's equations) need to be adjusted depending on which system of units one uses. This is because there is no one-to-one correspondence between electromagnetic units in SI and those in CGS, as is the case for mechanical units. Furthermore, within CGS, there are several plausible choices of electromagnetic units, leading to different unit "sub-systems", including Gaussian, "ESU", "EMU", and Heaviside–Lorentz. Among these choices, Gaussian units are the most common today, and in fact the phrase "CGS units" is often used to refer specifically to CGS-Gaussian units.
Below is a table of various possible alternative unit systems, which are based on setting various values, such as inductance or capacitance, to have "numeric" quality, rather than "substantial" quality (i.e. in other words, regard such as "dimensionless").
http://xda.xanga.com/a82e14eb09132285062518/w227495072.png
Eric Dollard's tentative relations do indeed eliminate mass from the dimensional relations, as he claims (see column with label "E. Dollard's Anti-Rltvy." in the above table). Above table shows how dimensions of mass are replaced with dimensions of "charge squared" in E. Dollard's relativity.
Repeating the first line from the first quotation in this post:
Next down the line is the removal of mass from the dimensional relations for Magnetic Force, and Dielectric Force.
The story and recent mathematical exposition regarding a vision of Felix Klein (Indra's Pearls) may give a clue as to the fractal nature of the electromagnetic field (quantum fractal plasma):
Indra's Pearls - Academic and Professional Books - Cambridge University Press
Indra's Pearls
These circles can represent the cross-section of flux tubules. Their radial motions (along the span of each meridian or longitude) can correspond to the longitudinal magneto-dielectric forces (divergence operations on vector fields), while the angular motions (along the span of each parallel or latitude) can correspond to the transverse electromagnetic force (curl operations on vector fields).
The flux tubes may possess properties of both quantum of charge and quantum of magnetic flux simultaneously.