Cop>17 Here's Why This Result Was Predicted

[Farrah Day]

Always interesting talking with you Rosemary.

I like your Florence Nightingale analogy, very good.

I guess when you put your theories to some hardened scientists, it's like telling them that the offspring they have lovingly raised and nurtured for all these years is not really theirs.

If I remember rightly, the phlogiston theory, was a bit of a hindrance to the progress of science until it was eventually defunct by scientists of the time. After which far more rapid progress was made on the formation of the periodic table.

People on this and other forums see me as someone set in the old ways; someone not prepared to open my mind to new theories and new concepts, but they really have me pegged totally wrong.

My argument with them is that (unlike you) they never forward any kind of satisfactory scientific explanation. They just expect people to take their word for it - and many simply do! But for me, any theory or concept must be accompanied by at least some science for me to get my teeth into... otherwise it's simply conjecture or worse, meaningless drivel.

I'm actually very open-minded, it's just that I'm a little past the age of believing in Santa or the Tooth Faery!

Farrah

[witsend]

Hi Rosemary

Just some Tolman-Stewart links that may be of intertest:

Histories of the Electron: The Birth ... - Google Books

with above, scroll down to page 267.

http://www.df.unipi.it/~macchi/FISIC...an-stewart.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/9/5/166.full.pdf

IngentaConnect Electric fields in accelerating conductors: measurement of the EM...

Regards, Farrah

Yes. I saw the 'other forum' link. I was tempted to look further there and found a high standard of discussion. Refreshing.

The first link here is gold. Thanks for that Farrah. It strikes me that all our Giants have puzzled through these 'gas' theories. I've actually downloaded this so I can study it at length.

So glad of these references. Between you and sucahyo and your 'links' I may yet get eductated. LOL

[witsend]

Always interesting talking with you Rosemary.

I like your Florence Nightingale analogy, very good.

Glad it resonated.

I guess when you put your theories to some hardened scientists, it's like telling them that the offspring they have lovingly raised and nurtured for all these years is not really theirs.

Indeed. But it's like you said. If it works - use it. And there's no question that it works.

If I remember rightly, the phlogiston theory, was a bit of a hindrance to the progress of science until it was eventually defunct by scientists of the time. After which far more rapid progress was made on the formation of the periodic table.

I had to look up this as well. I feel rather emabarrassed to admit this but actually that phlogiston theory has a lot to do with my own concepts - especially as it relates to the thermodynamic property within amalgams. I'm not sure if I'm entirely antiquated - or if I'm vindicating an antiquated concept. Golly.

People on this and other forums see me as someone set in the old ways; someone not prepared to open my mind to new theories and new concepts, but they really have me pegged totally wrong.

My dear Farrah. However else anyone sees you - I doubt they can call you 'closed minded'. Personally I see a rare acuity and a refreshing need to check the facts. I think the most of us tend to plug our hobbiest philosophies to the entire or partial exclusion of the hard faught progress achieved by mainstream science. And, like you, I think we do this at our peril.

My argument with them is that (unlike you) they never forward any kind of satisfactory scientific explanation. They just expect people to take their word for it - and many simply do! But for me, any theory or concept must be accompanied by at least some science for me to get my teeth into... otherwise it's simply conjecture or worse, meaningless drivel.

My own bete noire is the 'deliberate obfuscation'. What's needed is the clarity afforded by simple logic. But having said that I feel that I am advancing very simple concepts and really discerning readers, sucahyo among them - are entirely lost. Therefore - am I as guilty of the same obfuscation? I've also been accused of 'bloviating' - where I thought my language use is simple. You see the problem? Medicine to the one - is poison to the other. Clarity to the one is mud to the other. And so it goes.

I'm actually very open-minded, it's just that I'm a little past the age of believing in Santa or the Tooth Faery!

LOL. I know Santa exists. They just spelt his name wrong. It's Satan. And it's defintely satanic that he more or less empties my bank balance every every Christmas. And as for the 'tooth faery' - I even had to pay her when my child swallowed his loose tooth! Trust me. They're both alive and well and kicking. And they charge through the nose. And they kick like mules.

On a more serious note though - I am utterly intrigued by what I see as 'emerging consciousness'. It's been with us forever. The gradual awaking of a better understanding of things. This is our birthright. We all LOVE our puzzles. And clearly you're up there with your questions together with the rest of us. Personally I rather envy those people who have more answers than questions. They'r so excessively smug and so bombastically self opinionated. I tend to grapple with things and find myself either on thin ice or knee deep in quicksand. I keep hoping for some sure footing. But the pleasure of this 'quest' is that one has the occasional rare pleasure of meeting 'like minds'.

[witsend]

Guys - and girls? I need to get back on track with the thesis. While I'm happy to remind you all that the proposals may be wrong - by the same token they may be right and I've promised - some time back - to explain the thinking that justifies the composite nature of all stable particles.

The following are going to be written as my own logic unfolded. It's really the only justification that I can offer for the thesis in the first instance. Hopefully it's understandable.

If a magnetic field comprises particles - then those particles are not detectable.

According to relativity theories - nothing with mass may exceed the speed of light. But if something exceeded light speed then the possibility exists that light itself may not find that particle. Again. The analogy here is to wind which we cannot see blowing a balloon which we can see. If the wind is invisible - and yet it is the motive force for the ballon, then in the same way 'something' may be the motive force for the photon itself. The question, still unanswered, points to the possibility that a photon may be 'moved' by something.

However. If the field comprises particles and those particles - albeit smaller - are also 'fixed in space' with no relative velocity then photons WILL find them. Therefore too, if the field comprises particles and if they exceed light speed, then they may remain invisible to photons.

Sorry. I skipped a step here. If the field comprises particles and those particles - albeit smaller - are also 'fixed in space' with no relative velocity then photon Will find them. Since they have NEVER been discovered we can assume that they move or that they have a natural velocity. And as light itself cannot find them, then they may have a velocity that exceeds light speed.

SO. Assume both conditions. The particle is faster than light speed and smaller than a photon.

By the way - this is simply a repeat of previous argument but I'm restricting it to pure deductive reasoning. Bear with me. I'll add more as and when I get time. Any specific questions - then I'm happy to interrupt the argument to explain. I don't want any concepts or any logic missed. That's assuming I have readers here - LOL.

EDITED

[witsend]

a synopsis

Perhaps I should have started here. How do I justify that a magnetic field holds any particles at all? This was based on what I called a 'principle of correspondence'. It's just the simple evidence that when we look at a kettle then we also know that the kettle comprises atoms - plastic, copper, bits of both - whatever. A horseshoe comprises iron - or some alloy of this. Water comprises mostly molecules of hydrogen and water - and on and on. If we could separate the whole into it's various parts then we'd be left with their basic atoms. The whole is the sum of its parts. This is fatuously self-evident. But it's important. In the same way I'm proposing that albeit that we cannot detect the particle in a magnetic field it too may be the sum of the whole - the sum of its smaller parts.

If the whole is made up of its separate parts and if the parts then describe the whole, then - in as much as a magnet has two distinctly opposite charges being a north and a south, then it may be that the particle has a north and a south.

If the particle comprises a north and a south then what shape would the particle take? Bell's theorems requires that 'the statistical predictions of quantum theories... cannot be upheld with local hidden variables'. This simply means that at a profoundly deep and fundamental level - there must be a consistency to sustain the predictions required by quantum mechanics. Quantum predictions are correct - amazingly so. In as much as their predictions cannot be based on any fundamentally 'chaotic' condition then consistency is required. Symmetries provide consistency. Therefore the model proposes that this fundamental particle may be spherical - only because it's the most symmetrical shape I could manage.

And finally, in as much as the field has a north and a south, then each particle would be a magnetic dipole. In as much as the magnet's norths attract souths and souths attract norths, and their like poles repel - then they simply appear to obey the laws of charge. As it is evident that the field 'obits' inside and outside the structure of the magnet and as that orbit includes two directions - the one half opposing the other, then the field itself would be neutral. But as the justification of particle in the field is either clockwise or anticlockwise, then the particle itself is charged, having a 'fixed' direction.

And if we structure the field in the form of the necklaces that I proposed, which is still an extension of their 'charged' property, then the laterally juxtaposed strings would repel each other to induce a movement away. That movement of the one particle would result in the movement of all the particles comprising the necklace. The movement would describe an orbit. And that orbit would induce the perpetual movement or velocity of the entire field. Yet it would also result in a fixed justification or direction - clockwise or anticlockwise - but the entire field, and each part of that field would also be entirely neutral.

There has been a long period in our history where the atom was proposed but never seen. In fact I think the Greeks were the first to suggest it and that, some 2500 years ago. I haven't actually come across the proposal before but nor am I that familiar with conventional teaching. So I just don't know if this is a first. What I'm here and seriously proposing is that the subdivision of matter is not into entirely molecular, atomic and then particulate matter - but that all particles are themselves, composites of even smaller particles. And the proposal is that the smallest - the particle from which all particles are made - is the magentic particle. And this particle is now proposed to be a mangnetic dipole - and that it may exceed light speed and that it may be smaller than a photon.

Now. The next questions would be if fast - then how fast? And if small - then how small?
EDIT LOL Read all reference to magentic, mangnetic and others as magnetic. Seems my spelling is getting to be as adventurous as my thesis.

[witsend]

Now. If the primary field comprises long strings or necklaces of these particles, then the structure is essentially 'longitudinal'. But put a whole lot of fields on all sides of any one of those necklaces and there's a 'lateral' association. The longitudinal structure is definitively 'charged'. It moves with a single justification or direction - clockwise or anti clockwise. The velocity of the field is determined to be the result of the lateral strings or 'necklaces' where the movement or displacement of one magnetic dipole would reposition all the dipoles in that necklace. This would induce a cascading interaction moving in 'lock step' where none of the dipoles would find a 'rest' position. Yet all the fields would orbit in synch with each other

But there are neutral areas to the field. The one is the 'other side' where the orbit reverses. The other is between the magnetic dipoles themselves, where the charge would be voided or 'neutral'. Effectively, if one imagined a 'plate' full of necklaces, where the one string sits on the boundary of the next - in a sort of 'flat choker' arrangement, then the neutral field would be between those fields and it would describe straight lines that irradiate outwards at any point in that plate. I'll put this up on youtube when my computer is back. The direction of the orbit is fixed - indicating that each dipole is charged. The dipole itself is not neutral but in fact holds both a positive and negative charge potential. The field is entirely neutral as there are two opposing orbital directions. And the lateral positioning of each string is repellent albeit that there is a neutral zone defined between the dipoles themselves. These latter neutral lines would, effectively, describe a straight line of neutral potential albeit that the lines themselves would curve in synch with the size of the field - the bigger the field the greater the curve.

If you can hold that 'structure' in your mind's eye - then I'll move on - back to the proposal that we've got a broken string where the magnetic dipoles have broken loose from the field arrangement courtesy some, as yet, undefined singularity.

EDITED

[witsend]

Now I need to introduce another 'complexity' to the argument. It's a 'boundary constraint'. Here all that is proposed is this. Imagine that a machine is designed to propel rocks. It throws these rocks in a vacuum and in a gravitational field. No friction and some experience of weight mass into that equation. Now, given that the machine throws with a constant force, then the distance of each rock thrown will be dependant on it's weight - the smaller the further the machine will propel it - and conversely the bigger the rock then the shorter the distance thrown. But here's the thing. Given a rock that is too big and the machine cannot throw it - and given a rock that is too small then the machine cannot detect it. That's what I refer to as a boundary constraint.

Now. It was argued that the particle in the field is undetectable and this because it is smaller than a photon and faster than light speed. So. This arguement begs the question as whether there is a 'relative' relationship between size and velocity, broadly indicating that the smaller the particle the faster. Equally therefore the proposal is that the bigger the particle the slower. And this in turn begs the argument that there is an inverse proportional relationship between speed and size.

Therefore assuming a force separates a single magnetic dipole (zipon) from the field. The zipon gets slower and bigger in a precise and inverse proportion to it's previous small fast condition. It is now outside the field and just too big to be seen by the field. The field cannot interact with it. But as the force - applied to separate it from the field - is expended - then the particle would again reverse to it's previous condition of fast and small. At some critical moment it would again revert to the 'size' of the particle in the field. Being a single particle it could not resist the greater force of that greater field and it would simply decay and 'slot back into' one of those strings in the greater magnetic field.

It is proposed that nuances or virtual particles are just such manifestations. The rate of decay of these particles would then be dependant on the condition of their first 'ejection' from the field, the angle of that ejection and the force of that ejection. This, theoretically, would allow for an infinite variety of such particles to be ejected from the field and for the potential of an infinite variety of those virtual particles. it would also explain the disappearance of such particles when they are simply seen to decay into the greater void as evidenced in the bubble chambers of a cyclotron.

EDITED

[witsend]

The big/slow and the small/fast

So far I've argued that the magnetic field may comprise particles. They would not be neutral but, to borrow Aspden's terminology - would be ambipolar, meaning that they would move in one of two potential directions. Both it's mass/size and charge would be dependant on its position in or out of a field, the former being both smaller and faster than a photon. Out of the field I've argued that any single magnetic dipolar particle, or zipon, would be subject to decay unless it established an orbital relationship with another zipon. Alone it could not withstand the force of the surrounding field when it decays.

This study depends on symmetry. Provided that the one zipon remained big and slow and the second zipon was correspondingly small and fast, then they would both be able to withstand the force of the field. If the one was bigger and slower than the field and the other was smaller and faster than the field then the field would not see either one. Effectively they would both be out of range of the influence from the field. This was the only arrangement that could support the concept of two such particles resisting the influence of the field and yet comply to the required symmetries. Effectively each visible particle would have a corresponding invisible particle and neither particle would be influenced by the field.

And I could then argue that the force applied to both particles would be symmetrically balanced in expressing these two potentials in size. In effect, a singularity that 'impacts' on the primary field to disassociate it's particles - would potentially impact to produce particles that expressed either one of these two options and would therefore need as many big/slow as small/fast.

The orbital pattern is then - though complex to imagine as they both have potentially two charges each, effectively one can assume some adjustment in space that they present attractive charges to each other. Then, as the force of the expulsion is expended the small/fast would become slower and bigger. The big/slow would become smaller and faster. And at some stage they would again reach the same speed and size as the zipons in the field. At that moment they are again influenced by the field. Their combined charge - direction would, of necessity, oppose the justification of the field. It must be remembered that they can only experience a single justification as the field is proposed to move in one direction - one charge only. They have two charges, either moving together or apart. Once they meet - the quark with the particle - then at that point they will be repelled by the string. And purely for purposes of symmetry it would require that at the point of their meeting they would then be propelled, the small/fast to become the new big/slow and the big/slow to become the new small fast. The particle and it's quark would swap latices - positions - and the cycle would then be repeated.

Of interest is that their combined charge is always neutral and the only neutral charge in the field is in those straight lines identified earlier in the field. Therefore these particles would be propelled in a straight line and many such particles from a single light source would therefore irradiate outwards in such straight lines. This corresponds to the known path of photons. Therefore two such particles orbiting each other - the big/slow and the small/fast, would evince the same properties and characteristics of a photon.

[witsend]

I know that I have a flair for visualising things in patterns. I am not sure how easy this is for our members and readers. But I would appeal to you to try and 'imagine' these shapes and paterns. I'm proposing complex shapes, inside more complex shapes - and I'm not sure that the logic is easily grasped. Effectively I've proposed that the entire universe is really based on a binary system that is entirely forged from this single magnetic dipole. It needs nothing else. But binary systems, albeit understandable, are actually extremely complex - especially as it relates to charge, and space and velocities and the rest. I see the emergence of a steady pattern that is endlessly repeated. It could probably best be expressed in fractals. And I have nothing to advance these concepts, at this stage, other than words. It's a poor substitute. I just hope it's half-way comprehensible. And, while the proposals may seem fanciful, their products match observed phenomena and therefore the proposals may be correct. I'm just sorry that I cannot make the concepts more simple and I just hope that there are some readers here who can still follow this logic.

[witsend]

The good news is that I am now on photobucket and I'll be able to post some illustrations. Hopefully this will make it clearer. I'll be working on this during the day and will post as and when it's completed. AT LAST.

[witsend]

Just practising. Bear with me.

[witsend]

These are the pillars of creation - 7 light years across. Not the clarity I was hoping for.



The proposal here is that the universe is simply a huge magnetic toroid and that it comprises zipons held in the 'lines of force' that Farraday proposed. The length of those lines are also therefore proposed to be enormously long and wrap the entire universe. Their breadth however is infinitessimally small - comprising as is proposed - a particle that is half the mass/volume of a photon.

The idea is that when one of these strings break - it causes the singularity - which then tumble those particles into a localised area of space. At that moment the particles that were held in the string are then freed from the field and therefore lose their velocity. They reach a relative 'rest state' and are then detectable by photons. In other words - we can find them to see them - or, more correctly, photons can find them to show them.

[witsend]

Finally managed to upload this. It's meant to show the two zipons that make the photon. The larger should be precisely 4 times larger than the zipon in the field and the smaller 4 times smaller. As such they are both out of range of the field.

The proposal is that the larger then gets smaller and the smaller then gets larger until they are both the same size as the field. At that point their charge is experienced to oppose the field charge. It must be remembered that the particles in the field only have one charge - one direction. The combined charges of the orbiting photonic particles oppose this. One of the two charges in the photon will be substantially repelled by the field and the other will be substantially attractive to the field. The net result is that they are again propelled by the field. At this point the quark changes places with the larger photonic zipon so that it becomes the 'evident' particle and the larger then becomes the smaller quark - which is not measurable in our dimensions.

Not drawn to scale but hopefully it gives the general idea.

[witsend]

Now - Here's the thing. The proposal is that two disassociated zipons formed an arbitrary association and their retained charge was fixed at the moment of their ejection from the field. Then too, the force of that ejection would have transferred its energy into that transaction.

In terms of this field model, the zipon is the fundamental particle. Time - in this proposal is defined as a 'zipon moment' - that time it takes for one zipon to replace another zipon in it's passage in a field. Let us then assume that the force with which the photon was ejected was, say, 5 zipon moments. Therefore it would take five zipon moments for the photon to reach the greatest size and another five zipon moments for it to reduce back to it's original size. Correspondingly, the quark would take 5 zipon moments to reach its smallest size and five zipon moments to again decay back to its original size. At the point at which they've both decayed back to the size in the field, then they 'swap lattices' or simply 'swap places' so that the quark gets big and the photon gets small. But it also means that the actual area that they can travel is restricted to half the speed of the field.

Now. If there is a proportional relationship between speed and size, as is proposed, then in the process of getting bigger, the bigger photon would travel across 5 threads or strings. That's a spatial displacement. So. If the photons are travel at light speed, which they do, then the zipons are travelling at twice light speed. Therefore the proposed velocity of the zipons in the field is 2C.

There's also a proportional relationship between velocity and size - which I'll get to later. But this is the basic justification for the velocity of the zipon in the field and it would apply to all magnetic fields.

[witsend]

Also note that the time proposed as 5 zipons could be a fraction of that time to 5 thousand zipon moments or more. The frequency therefore is only a measure of the energy in the wave - or the wave length. The number of frequencis or wavelengths could, indeed, be infinite. But the actual rate of travel would always be contrained to light speed.

And the model proposes that neutrinos are just very fast photons that take 'fractions' of a zipon moment. Then - indeed - they are more penetrative than any other particle as ALL matter would be entirely invisible to them.