If this gravitation permits a kind of stability of matters Inside this universal sphere, there are reasons and they are not electromagntic in logic.
Ridiculous Simplicity by Peter Jackson
PJ
You have offered a rich set of ideas regarding fundamental concepts. Motion is basic and three dimensional space is filled by rotation. There are particles that have intrinsic spin but also some with zero intrinsic spin. Compared to linear motion, rotation needs higher spatial dimensions and thus offers a larger set to help explain phenomena. I may disagree with your conclusions but commend your effort in seeking that which is most fundamental in nature.
JK
Steve,
I'm afraid I really didn't understand any of that in any physical sense. Two things I certainly disagree with are gravitons and the pre 'AGN' black hole concept. I read it twice but it seemed a jumble of words.
I'm on Linked-in which is ok for conversations. I'm sure I did once have a facebook account but never use it & don't know how!
Best wishes for a bearable outcome.
Peter
Steve,
Answered below. There is definitely no increase in 'weight' as the pole is leant over. It weights the same (vertcal vector) whatever angle it's at and however it's held.
If held at an end there IS a tortional force, which does NOT affect weight. Then; Yes, the tortional force (orthoganal vector) changes with angle by it's cosine, which yes, IS interesting. Pythagoras actually first found it but didn't apply it to rotation.
In the leaning motor cycle case you can have the person holding it at weight zero and the total weight would still be the same at any angle!
Very best
Peter
John, . (.. copied from your string)
Thanks for your nice comments on mine. As my conclusions were a logical consequence of the classical reproduction of the Cos[su]2 curve can you identify what you thought was missing from the mechanism, or logically 'wrong' in the conclusions?
The finding is very important if correct, though I know varies a little from your prior views, but I suspect I may not have described the ontological sequence in a way to allow it to be kept all in mind at once.
If not I need to identify any error you saw.
Many thanks
Peter
Well, Fisrt Peter, gravitons are bosons and not my particles of gravitation which are not baryonic.That said interesting analyse peter, so relevant and full of relevance lol, perhaps you could understand what is this DM and these BHs but I am doubting now, indeed you are not the good person to help me, you are better for the plagiaring of words and the mixing of ideas of people.Pzerhaps also you could learn what are the geometrical algebras , after we shall speak lol
a physical sense, no but frankly I am dreaming there ,if you cannot encrcle this DM and these BHs and these sphères, why you try to utilise these sphères ? for what Peter, you do not need recognising? me yes I need recognisings because since that I have shared this theory of spherisation on FQXI, I see that many now speak about these sphères and do not respect me , you think it is normal Peter ? not it is not logic and frankly I thought you were a friend, not a plagiarist discriminating.
You are not general, ask concrete questions abut this equation, if this matter exists so it is produced by something but perhaps you prefer the MOND? It is ironical there Peter, the jumble of words like you say are logic and rational , if they exist these particles, this DM so they are also encoded in nuclei.Are you sure you encircle this universe and its laws lol ?because speak is one thing, understand an other Peter,Well, just for you now I am going to analyse all your papper and I am going to discuss here and write a lot , just for you Peter. sPHERICALLY YOURS LOL
I am sorry Peter , I thought that you could understand in fact what is the real aether, what is this dark matter not baryonic and what is this quantum weakest force, but unfortunately, you cannot encircle these things.Sorry to have thought that yes you could.Make a jumble of mixings in a spherical electromagntic way, it is better indeed for you.The innovant things, really are not for you.
Ok now Like I am here to open your mind, I am going to re-explain my eqaution because you have not understood, E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² .m(b) is the mass baryonic you know this mass with c² and m(nb) is the mass non baryonic, you know this Dark matter which have big probablmilities to exist.Now if you cannot encircle whait is l , their linear velicity like c the linear velocity of photons, so there is a big problem there Pter, you must make an other passion than Theoretical physics, but it is just a suggestion of course, of course that is going to increase your vanity and in logic you arer going to be obliged to answer with odd words.Now if my reasoning is correct about the spherisation with quantum and cosmological spherical volumes Inside this universal 3D sphere, wo you must also encircle that if these particles of DM exists so they are produced by something, I see only one solution, the BHs.If now you cannot encircle what is the aether , you know this field from God like in the 1D field of strings or the muminiferous aether of eisnetin, so still make an other passion.Now my aether is gravitational p^roducing these particles from this cosmological central sphere, and we see that God Is connected with all quantum singularities.Now if you cannot encircle also that like the photons these particles are encoded in nuclei and that this standard model is encircled by this gravitation, there is a big problem, and really make an other passion than theroretical physics and indeed it is very very ridiculous.If you want speak about sphères also and about the spherisationn optimisation of this universal sphere, please make it well Peter , sorry but I am frank, I thought that you could help for my publications, but no you cannot.
Best that said and good lmuck in this contest.SPHERICALLY yours Jedi of thr Sphere lol
PJ
At your request I offer one questionable statement you make. You write
The Dirac electrons 4 spinors are equivalent to Maxwell's linear & curl states handed, inverse with each other over 90o and reversing over 180o.
I do not agree with that statement if I understand its intention The 4 elements of Dirac refer to two separate particles (the electron and the positron with different charges) and two polarization's or spin orientations that each particle enjoys. The connection of 4 aspects of Maxwell EM refer to a different set of properties. Both systems have 4 elements but I find the assumption that they are related by that fact is a stretch.
JK
Thanks :)
I have had your file open the whole day...as also some other Days...
The sub-quantum' or root function is beginning to see light. It is the monopole as instance, as a bending loop, rotated. The most surprising (or not surprising at all?) is it is an solitonic expansive state. What cause the expansion? Maybe just the vanishing complexity? It must go into i-World, as I don't understand the 'annihilation' aspect at all...
"the Higgs process or fermion pair production 'popping up' from nowhere' implies a smaller perhaps more fundamental 'sub quantum' scale of rotations as a 'sub-ether'. but we principally constrain ourselves to the testable realm and scale of condensed matter. This domain limit is also the lower end of electromagnetic (EM) coupling."
This is what I talk of too. But the scenario you ask for is beyond this, and reversed actually, see the finnish scientist as instance the links here https://people.aalto.fi/index.html?profilepage=isfor#!vladimir.eltsov
There is btw. very Little discussion about a non-Higgsian material emergence today.
About motion I would suggest harmonic oscillation as one good candidate to explore in GR.
https://www.google.fi/search?q=orbital+angular+momentum+Bloch+sphere&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw4Z7usLDZAhVJsKQKHQUTBSsQBQgkKAA&biw=1280&bih=855#
On the vector model of angular momentum, Peter Saari, 2016 fig 2. you see if you have it on a Bloch sphere, you get Three rotations.... hope you can open it.
The problem with Bob and Alice is the assupmption the entanglement is broken by gravity, but at the same time gravity cannot break it otherwise.... maybe an informational theoretic approach would be fine? The head/tail approach is like coin flipping and has Little information, you need something more complex, and I have thought a bit about the Three-states. Can they be entangled? They should?
Also amplitude is an important factor, at least in the semiconductors. It can maybe give some flip-flopping?
I see you have the same problem as me, too Little space, but we do as well as we can. Your text reminds me of someone, Mr S.
Thanks, it would be interesting to talk more with you.
Ulla Mattfolk.
Thanks for the encouragement -- yes that is the way to do it Peter -- Shockingly (neither of us seem to mind shocks) I falsify Cartesian 'wire frames' and substitute planes forming enclosures, which seems to fit your schema. Each plane is a near/far field transition (or LT).
Yes planes (or 2-D areas) that are enclosed is the ticket -- that is the basic idea.
I'm writing up the technical version (Thanks to Armin and Edwin for their input) which is all maths -- which has whole heaps of diagrams to help people work out what a S sedenion in abstract algebra is, the sedenions form a 16-dimensional noncommutative and nonassociative algebra over the reals, I actually draw a S as an enclosed area and then I can draw O Octonians and then H quaternions (8-D) and then C then R then N all as areas. Which is what are you saying in the above quote.
Each plane is a near/far field transition that is shown in the diagrams as well. Thanks for the email address when it is ready I will send you a copy Yours Harri.
I will send it off and I will look over your links to other essays. Harri -- go the new revolution
John,
I really appreciate your reply. I agree, in fact more than 'a stretch'! such a "new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded." JB p.27.
It followed from Majorana, (e it's own antiparticle) also; "..a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." p.172.
We know the underside of Maxwell's left hand has opposite (right) polar spin. My table top experiment, (photo's in text, protocol in end notes) confirmed the two inverse orthogonal momenta pairs with Cos theta (latitude) distribution for EACH particle!!, that's for ALL spheres at ALL radii (so 'through coloured').
I also thought Diracs handing must be 2 particles but he's only describing ONE each time then correlating so that fails logically! A,B have one each. Lets split a sphere spinning on any axis and send half each way, each still has BOTH poles. A,B polariser electrons are the same & can be flipped independently. So B reverses his dial & 'opposite' becomes 'same'!
Not detects are explained by the phase difference at measurement angles. The solution hits the steering violation to close the detection loophole (as Traills essay). Born's (Malus') 'law' also then emerges with the second nonlinear Cos momentum transfer at the photomultiplier field. The statistics then don't represent what Bohr & statisticians assume. (Prof. Phillips Bell curve essay helps explain).
Of course ANY classical way to reproduce CHSH >2 was though impossible so needs checking out. It's a small collaboration but the problem is no top PR journal will overcome cognitive dissonance and accept it without a more authoritative figure such as yourself involved -??
Very Best
Peter
John,
For the spherical momenta see figs 1 & 2 in last yrs essay here;
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2755
equivalent to the Dr Bertlemann 'reversible lined sock' solution in my top scored 2015 essay om Wigners statement here; The Red/Green Sock Trick
Did you see the 100 sec video? - deriving non integer spins from the same insight;
Peter
Dear Peter,
reading your essay, I appreciate your idiosyncratic efforts to come up with "ridiculously simple" concepts that explain and unite a number of phenomena in different fields of physics.
But I have trouble to see what your main idea, or main claim, really is. You are listing many detailed facts in several different fields of physics, but it would have helped to build these into a more coherent message or conclusion. For example, you mention 10 axioms on page 4, but you never refer to them later.
Also, I wasn't sure how to interpret your QM section. Are you claiming there to give a local realist model of a singlet state? We know due to Bell that this is impossible. What is the point that you are trying to make with your explanations in these two paragraphs?
Thanks, and best wishes,
Markus
Ulla,
Not found Sari yet, but others, and also the 'Poincare Sphere' "complex superposition of two orthogonal polarisation states". So there all along!
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1107006341
Did you see my last years finalist essay? The two figs explain it simply.
(PLUS the cognative dissonance most accredited physicis can't seem to overcome so halting any advancement!, and do look at & comment on my feedback loop/ quantum switch cognition derivation.)
very best
Peter
[deleted]
Peter,
You asked: ...(copied to mine)
«I'm interested in why & how the motions of larger bodies further away are assumed to be a different case to smaller closer bodies».
«Surely there aren't two different 'types' of gravity?».
Answer: «there are no two types of gravity».
There is the only remote mechanism in the Universe for forming the force of interaction between the elements of matter, which is realized as a result of the interaction of the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves at the common frequencies of the parametric resonance (entanglement effect).
This quantum mechanism of gravity is shown in a photo of phenomena observed in outer space (essay 2017) https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806.
On the photo https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1MvF-AefpMmNWJ2MGJkRmJvR00/ two interacting large bodies are shown which, using a multitude of toroidal gravitational waves, move small elements of Saturn's rings (their moving is an indicator of the action of force between bodies) https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/4755/?category=images. It should be noted that there are no toroidal gravitational waves directly connecting the bodys. Toroidal gravitational waves interact with each other only at Lagrange points.
Similarly, with the help of toroidal gravitational waves, the Earth and the Moon interact, and the ocean tides are indicators of their interaction
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hzn3q0vZVToxOMVFkwGsRlOxnNeb9OiY/.
Orbital toroidal gravitational waves are formed due to parametric resonance in the medium of the physical vacuum (these are soliton waves), which minimize the force of interaction between bodies in a very rigid superfluid medium of the physical vacuum.
Ie, any force leads to the formation of toroidal gravitational waves aimed at minimizing the force, including minimizing the inertia force. Therefore the force of attraction of the Moon to the Earth is minimized, and the law of gravitation of Newton is unfair for both stars in galaxies and for orbital bodies.
Those. The moon is in orbit in the potential well of gravitational fundamental interaction and is not attracted to the Earth. All fundamental interactions have a potential stability pit as a strong interaction.
For example, no one uses the law of gravitation of Newton to calculate the ephemeris of planets and satellites. It is impossible to explain complex trajectories of the orbital motion of bodies without quantum reformation of toroidal gravitational waves. On a photo of rings of Saturn https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/5512_IMG004512.jpg
depicts the principle of the formation of a complex trajectory of the orbital motion of the small bodies of the rings of Saturn under the action of toroidal gravitational waves of two gravitationally interacting satellites of Saturn. And here is showed, complicated moving of the Pioneers https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1MvF-AefpMmVXJfWjF1VF9JaVU/ .
However, the mechanism of minimizing the force with the help of toroidal gravitational waves is not ideal. No ideality is caused by the absorption coefficient in the medium of the physical vacuum (the Hubble parameter).
In order that the Moon does not fall from the orbit, due to the imperfection of the mechanism of minimizing the force of its attraction to the Earth, on the Moon constantly acts the force that pushes the Moon in orbital toroidal gravitational wave with an equivalent speed of 1 km/s (the first cosmic velocity of the Moon). Therefore, on the surface of the Moon, a gravitational potential is formed equal to the square of the equivalent speed of 1 km/s.
A constant force is also acting on the Earth, it pushes forward it on orbit around the Sun by a stream of physical vacuum in a toroidal gravitational wave, with an equivalent velocity of 8 km/s (this was discovered by Michelson and Morley). Accordingly, a gravitational potential equal to the square of the equivalent velocity of 8 km/s (the first cosmic velocity of the Earth) is formed on the Earth's surface.
For example, it was found that the Sun moves relative to the propagation medium of microwave radiation at a speed of 369 km/s. To minimize the resistance force in a rigid environment of physical vacuum, the Sun forms a huge gravisphere, several light-years in size. The force of the deceleration of the sun in the medium of the physical vacuum is determined by the Hubble parameter, as is the anomalous inhibition of the Pioneers and the red shift of the photons. The entire energy of the braking of the solar system is concentrated in the Sun according to the principle of the action of the heat pump. Through the force of deceleration of the Sun, its radiation power is easily calculated.
Thus, one of the most fundamental parameters in the universe is the energy dissipation coefficient (Hubble parameter) in the medium of the physical vacuum, which determines all the parametric processes in the universe. The stars in the Universe are shining, due to the dissipation of photon energy in the medium of the physical vacuum.
You also asked:
«i.e. there's no explicit proof of the 'curved space-time' hypothesis in the LIGO finding. Is that fair?»
Instead of curvature of space-time, there is a derivative of spatial coordinates in time. Equivalent of "'curved space-time" is the variable speed of propagation of gravitational interaction.
For example, on the surface of the Earth, the velocity of propagation of the gravitational interaction is 8 km/s less than at the periphery of the Earth's gravisphere. Therefore, the elements (gravitons) of toroidal gravitational waves (similarly to the coronal loops on the Sun) are accelerated in bodies, when exiting the Earth (or are decelerated in bodies, at the entrance to the Earth). Thus, the reactive force of attraction of bodies is formed.
In the Earth's magnetosphere often occur conversion powerful toroidal gravitational waves. In this case, there are intense https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1MvF-AefpMmQnJaUXdOTEo4NW8 bursts of electromagnetic radiation over a wide frequency range and recorded the characteristic signals of gravitational waves LIGO project, that unreasonably taken as the signals from the "binary pulsars".
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
Markus, Thanks,
The main finding, yes is an "astonishing"! classical QM. Despite beliefs John Bell did NOT show "a local realist model of a singlet state" is impossible! He showed some assumption was wrong, which I identify as JUST 'up/down spin'. Let's listen more carefully to him;
"..in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong.. ..quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds" p171.
"We would have to devise a new way of specifying a joint probability distribution. We fall back then on a second choice - fermion number density." P.175.
"..a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." p.172.
"...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded." p.27 (so first seeming 'idiosynchratic')
"..the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back.." p.194.
" quantum mechanics is at the best, incomplete." p.26.
The axioms are all required for the mechanism. It'd take half a page each to fully explain but once the ontology is understood all is clear. Those 'two paragraphs' need very careful reading, maybe twice! to do so and overcome normal cognitive dissonance.
Declan Traill's short essay with code and plot, with my experiment, confirm the mechanism works (at CHSH >1) and the 'detection loophole' is (CHSH >1) closed.
This has vast implications (beyond the wide areas you refer to) so I'm quite aghast so many accredited physicists seem to dismiss it so readily. Bell did also say; "..conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better." p.173.
(Editors are the same). But I'd expected some could! I hope you might try that 2nd read of those 2 para's using logic not expectations?
Very best
Peter
Pete,
you are a yachtsman. Your running rigging is laid with a right hand twist of left handed strands. Your sheets are laid left handed of right hand strands, because most people are right handed and will spool a line onto a winch clockwise, and so a left handed lay tails off the winch in fair manner. But both lays are counter-torsional and intended since Xerxes' bridge engineers, to reduce stretch and prevent the strands from untwisting and the fibers from then pulling apart.
So until physicists can agree on a realistic model of what a *photon* IS, a singlet state is an imaginary numerical playmate.
Worm and parcel
with the lay.
Turn and serve
the other way.
Best jrc