Jump to content

Olorin

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-6 Poor

About Olorin

  • Rank
    Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Relativity

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Because, as with magnetism, there is an imbalance created in the forces emanating from positive and negative particles due to space contraction so that these unbalance fluxes produce slightly different attraction or repulsion on the two species of charged particles that make up matter or antimatter. However, these charges being reversed in antimatter, this residual force manifesting as gravity will separate the atoms neutral atoms formed from the charged particles, particularly if there are no neutral material particles in existence as exhibited by the spontaneous breakdown of neutrons outside of a nucleus or part of a neutron star. There are no stable neutral particles in a free state except for energy quanta. Also, if neutrino's are properly the antiparticle that materialises with photons in intergalactic space (where no materials annihilate one of the pair produced), White Holes would be repelling photons which pass through antimatter unimpeded, while Black Holes would repel converted material and energy as neutrino's likewise. There are a hoard of astrological phenomena that may find explanations in this scenario (gamma ray bursts, Centaurus A, Hoag's Object, M 82 with hydrogen materialisation normal to the galactic plane, recycling of matter and energy and the accelerating expansion of the Universe, and perfect conservation if anti-mass is negative). We see the photons, but are we sure we are observing ANY phenomena due to neutrino interactions with anything other than their antiparticle the photon (energy sufficient)? Could the energy range of beta rays be because they are triggered by neutrinos from our galactic core, materialising the energy bound to relativistic nuclear electrons we had to invent mesons and short range forces to explain? Was that a long unrecognised faulty hypothesis? Are we making subatomic physics more complex than necessary? Who knows? But science advances by speculative hypotheses which need to be tested, like all of Einstein's work once the world could no longer doubt his ideas. Frankly, it took a World War to make it happen, or remained in the crackpot category. So also is all this speculation. I don't have the resources for more than that in this lifetime. The idea came to me in 1969 when I hear of antimatter and the universal expansion, and has been evolving in my mind since.
  2. Your mathematics is beyond me, unfortunately. Intuition alone may not be enough. But...perhaps the concept of a Gravitational Dipole is not inconsistent with what you have explained. The concept of White Holes is mentioned in Wiki and used in astronomy. It is postulated as the back of a Black Hole absorbing nothing, but only emitting the Black Hole food. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole Others are entertaining the concept of White Holes on a subatomic level. I have personally entertained the concept as this: mass density reaches a maximum at the singularity where time stops and space has collapsed and is discontinued. The food must be maintained to make this singularity continue to exist so that when the equilibrium of hydrogen drawn into the galactic corona and the mass vanishing into the black hole is reversed due to the draining of surrounding intergalactic space, the singularity eventually cannot be maintained, the [fossil] galaxy becomes a swarm of very old stars, and drifts toward areas where minimal density has begun the accumulation of a typically giant elliptical galaxy to become one of the typical thousands of globular clusters needed to begin the more rapid star formation in the growing mass of pure hydrogen, while huge red giants are forming to do the same. My question is, anti-hydrogen has protons and electrons with opposite charges. If these electrons produce a force akin to magnetism but due to General Relativistic considerations (electrons as actual particles moving in circular motion = acceleration toward the nuclear proton) then this force will be in opposite directions for matter and antimatter hydrogen, and gravitational fields will cause these two species to move opposite directions. In this way we would have both Black Holes and White Holes, a Gravitational Dipole. This particular dipole however would be one where like attracts like and unlike repels unlike. It would explain an accelerating universal expansion, while maintaining a status quo in a finite Universe. It would also solve the anomalies currently covered by: 1. Dark matter; 2. Dark energy; 3. Assymetric matter-antimatter reactions. Of particular interest is the fact that there must also be an anti-photon that displays the properties of matter and our photons symmetrically. There is a particle that fits the job description, on and of, since it was postulated to cover beta-ray energies. Is such a situation mathematically feasible, or is this scenario contradictory to what may be so determined? If this is a possibility, we have a Universe that was once created to continue indefinitely (ancient Egyptian idea in Book 2 of "The Divine Pymander" of Hermes). Else the Universe has always existed as is and will always continue to do so. I must leave this to more accomplished mathematicians to evaluate as possible or impossible.
  3. If G becomes resolve like the permeability constant as a function of the permittivity constant and the speed of light, it is my opinion that many of the problems of subatomic physics and astrophysics will evaporate, and the knowledge of the source from which all power comes will be ours again, to rebuild the Great Pyramid, or even to explain its existence, or the age of the stalagmites and stalactites in the Bahama Blue Holes. It may however, not be our fate to reacquire such power on this world, which likely is not our first to leave behind us, if the author of "Jap Herron" is to be believed (concerning the last note from Mark Twain at the end of the prologue "The coming of Jap Herron"). It promises to be a hard nut to swallow. The World has much to thank the US for besides in so many ways. Thank you all for your input. Good luck with your ventures.
  4. I do understand the historical concept of an aether as the frame where light does vector c, and the disproven idea that all other frames moving at vector v relative to this frame having light doing c - v, knocked on the head by the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and purportedly leading to a constant c. I have just read the treatise on pseudo forces above, separating gravity from electric forces as the cause of space-time. I have been trying to go back to first principles to perhaps untangle a physics that seems to me to be getting lost in semantics, and stalled, despite this well intentioned reply. In terms of pseudo-forces as explained above, there may only be pseudo forces and thus only one force. The aether in these terms is a timeless-spaceless source of the potentials and dynamic disturbances which manifest, not only the "pseudo-force" called gravity, but time and space themselves, relative to the material body of a specific observer in a particular frame, inertial or non-inertial. This makes my "aether frame", so defined, completely unobservable otherwise, except as the substance and source of what is observed, which is manifestation, the firmament, the universe and all of its phenomena, all expressed in space-time terms and derive-able laws we call science. And so - Einstein has said that "the universe may not have an existence independent of the observer" which he also stated as "science cannot determine whether the senses are some kind of psychic phenomenon" (no doubt paraphrased from memory but definitely from his writings and lectures). Thus, before matter in space-time existed except as a possibility in the Mind from which reason manifests in nature, the creation of 2 oppositely charged particles formed the force between them which we call an electric field, and the dynamics that became the Universe as matter and energy perfectly conserved and finite, is what we perceive. Is it real or a dream? What is the difference? One is shared by all, the other personal, the substance the same, and possible the purpose also. Anciently, light and consciousness were considered synonymous. Yea or nay is ours to determine and called free will. But this seems also to have been the opinion of Albert Einstein, and the source of his passion, genius and unquestionable humanity.
  5. No science fascinates me more than Special and General Relativity and the mind that produced them. Thanks for the reference. On this score I have posed a question critical to my views: "OTOH, electric and magnetic fields are not the be-all-end-all of what can be in space. This summary of the preamble in the same post is the source of my contention with opinions on what is and what is not "Mainstream". Since no reply seems forthcoming, I will reply to the question posed: "Of interest is the relation between the permeability constant u0 (mu subscript 0) and the permittivity constant e0 (epsilon subscript 0): u0 = 1/e0.c^2.........................................................................................(i) e0 is the constant used in the force law relating to electric charges: F = 4.pi. e0.q1.q2/r^2 which bears a striking similarity to" F = G.m1.m2/r^2 and to which, in desperation Einstein applied a "cosmological constant" to account for the expanding universe (knowing nothing of antimatter yet except for the positron) only to recount his idea as so ad hoc as to call it his greatest blunder. We have done worse since to the nth degree. Maxwell recognised that the speed of light was a factor in much of his work. You will note that it is a part of equation (i) above. The mathematics for this relation is staggering. But to attempt to find a similar relation for G: G = f(c, e0)..................................................................................................(ii) would, by comparison, turn a "Theoretical Scientist" into a basket case, if it were only based in the General Relativistic effects of shell-electrons, much less the possibility of the nuclear relativistic electrons as well. If the derivation were achieved none the less, it would quantitatively resolve this issue with current Mainstream thought. I will submit an excerpt deriving and explaining relation (i) from my pre-matriculation textbook unedited for consideration here. We will thereby also evaluate the possibility that everything from the most miniscule meson to the bigest boson are entirely unnecessary to explain a great deal of phenomena. If so we can give the Nobel Prize to George Lucas and begin to wonder how One Force can create time, space and what will doubtless become perceived as a Universal status quo. I do not have the mathematical skill to do the derivations, nor the funding to test the implications for consistency with observed phenomena. But since the year 1969, when I read the attached text, I have been following evolving scientific thought and also evolving my own ideas on the Universe." The request has been ignored but is critical to the understanding of gravity as a force not dissimilar to magnetism but from General, not Special Relativity considerations. The explanation of Magnetic forces and the derivation of relation (i) above is in the PDF. Can anyone produce the analogous derivation for relation (ii) likewise. A hoard of physics postulates will receive an acid test with its implications. Refer to the attached PDF for relation (i). Magnetism.pdf
  6. Yet Einstein spent 8 year in Bern, Switzerland on long walks discussing Special Relativity with Emanuel Lasker, never to see eye to eye on the matter. Emanuel saw, and dodged the implication that space and time are relative to the observer (hence all phenomena, which are not derived therefrom?) by claiming that no vacuum exists in the universe in which light would have infinite speed (zero delay at a distance). https://www.chessmaniac.com/albert-einstein-and-chess/
  7. Thanks for your interest and the content. The M features significantly in my solution, and may have had its interpretation changed among an intellectual elite to supply a concept foreign to "normal people" of the day, being originally used to "cross out" the place where overflow produced a zero and a carry to the next place in the representation. Thus misunderstood, M, a squiggle originally, may have been redeployed as the article describes in the middle ages. Further, the invention of our Hindu-Arabic numerals is historically coincident with the Fall of Rome, employing the concept of exponentiation. The Roman Numerals could have been more cleverly refined as our numerals today, continuing the slow evolution. Egyptians used patterns of 1 to 9 strokes as in tallying, and invented characters or hieroglyphs used likewise for further powers of 10 up to 10,000,000. This last number is the clue to what may have been the numerals of the learned elite. Compare the two equivalent representations below: 9,223,372,036,854,775, 808 IX CCXXIII CCCLXXII XXVI DCCCLIV DCCLXXV DCCCVIII To the untrained eye, this would have only ever appeared to be 7 distinct Roman Numerals. The M, as zero, would have rendered 1,000,000 as I M M. It would not be too surprising that this knowledge escaped the history pages. It may have been way over the heads of the general rank and file. It may have incited revolution and maintained as covert as the military secret that destroyed Troy. The male population of Troy were put to the sword because the Trojan Horse was set on fire to decoy the guard on the city gate. Without this the alarm would have been raised to thwart the Greek plan. Surely this tactic would have been considered beforehand as absolutely necessary for success, and may possibly be used again.
  8. 😡 No takers? I'll give it a day...and then present my SPECULATION on this subject. Why? Because someone may want to erect a monument and put a date on it in the year 4000 in Roman Numerals? No, there had do be a system that the Roman elite used simply to function. And believe it or no, evidence of such a system seems to survive in an unsuspected present day phenomenon. And it seems that SPECULATION is all that remains to resolve this matter of some interest (to other wackos like me).
  9. So what do you suppose tweaked Einstein's curiosity concerning the non-Euclidean, non-Newtonian, etc. properties of light (or more generally, the propagation of disturbances in the electric field (aether for want of a more appropriate term)?
  10. Roman Numerals present something of a mystery. While the Plebeians may have been too poor to have much use for numbers as large as 1000 or M by virtue of their poverty and limited technology, their system (excluding for the moment shorthand representations like IX for 10 - 1 = 9) is a descendant of the Egyptian system apparently without the shorthand convention, and with different characters. The beauty of it, though, was that Plebeians did not need schooling to count and learn some arithmetic tricks. The non-subtractive notation was a direct representation of results on an abacus. So how did the accountants of Patricians operate with such a limited system during the glory days of Rome? How was ordinance requisitioned by the builders of the Colosseum? How did Generals count and supply their soldiers, and compare the strength of their armies with those they wished to conquer? We cannot avoid these questions and continue the myth that there was no larger number than 3999 = MMMCMXCIX available to them. Is an answer to this known in any quarter, I wonder? Is our history deficient with regard to this small matter?
  11. I did read it somewhere that Einstein informed Hubble about the Universal expansion, when I first investigated Hubble and his Theory on the net. As a controversial matter however, like a chess player considering all moves, it may yet have occurred to him as a possibility leading to his conjecture. I guess we will never know. The Michelson-Morley experiment is often cited as the prompt. It may have gone even deeper, into the mystical considerations that he was not adverse to by all accounts. It is interesting to ask how "inspired" conjectures arise in the minds of Science's founding fathers, again like trying to see how a chess master has discovered a startling combination in a position long known. To learn to emulate these people must advance any fraternity. I will take your correction on board.
  12. Sorry, I hadn't finished the thought, and have edited the post to correct this as you will see above. I was trying to explain what seems to have been the inspiration for Special Relativity (of which Newtonian mechanics is actually a special case or sufficient approximation with v << c) as taken from "the horses mouth", so to speak. It makes his insights more visible than the "relative to the observer" version usually cited.
  13. This "static universe" may well be the Universal Status Quo idea called a SteadyState Theory at the time. https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.0132v1.pdf This does not discount an expanding universe. Firstly, his Special Relativity Hypothesis is stated in "Ideas and Opinions" as "The speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of the source." (which is foul of Newtonian Mechanics) may have been inspired by the universal recession velocities. Otherwise, some "photons" would pass us at the speed of butterflies. He informed Hubble that the universe was expanding. But the antiproton, required to induce the possible existence of antimatter galactic clusters was not discovered until the year of or after his death (depending on sources). Lastly, he considered the universe finite unless its mass density become arbitrarily close to zero with distance. All these facts do not support his belief in a static universe. A universe that is recycling matter somehow and finite (a straight line is only the largest circle - hence Euclid's parallel postulate so stated), and thus fundamentally continuing eternally seems more consistent with his ideas and his failed quest. The Unified Field Theory left him frustrated, but may also have been a part of this quest. To be fair, ad hoc hypotheses creating designer materials and forces to make anomalies evaporate would not have blown his lab coat up, judging from his other contributions.
  14. OTOH, electric and magnetic fields are not the be-all-end-all of what can be in space. This summary of the preamble in the same post is the source of my contention with opinions on what is and what is not "Mainstream". Since no reply seems forthcoming, I will reply to the question posed: "Of interest is the relation between the permeability constant u0 (mu subscript 0) and the permittivity constant e0 (epsilon subscript 0): u0 = 1/e0.c^2.........................................................................................(i) e0 is the constant used in the force law relating to electric charges: F = 4.pi. e0.q1.q2/r^2 which bears a striking similarity to" F = G.m1.m2/r^2 and to which, in desperation Einstein applied a "cosmological constant" to account for the expanding universe (knowing nothing of antimatter yet except for the positron) only to recount his idea as so ad hoc as to call it his greatest blunder. We have done worse since to the nth degree. Maxwell recognised that the speed of light was a factor in much of his work. You will note that it is a part of equation (i) above. The mathematics for this relation is staggering. But to attempt to find a similar relation for G: G = f(c, e0)..................................................................................................(ii) would, by comparison, turn a "Theoretical Scientist" into a basket case, if it were only based in the General Relativistic effects of shell-electrons, much less the possibility of the nuclear relativistic electrons as well. If the derivation were achieved none the less, it would quantitatively resolve this issue with current Mainstream thought. I will submit an excerpt deriving and explaining relation (i) from my pre-matriculation textbook unedited for consideration here. We will thereby also evaluate the possibility that everything from the most miniscule meson to the bigest boson are entirely unnecessary to explain a great deal of phenomena. If so we can give the Nobel Prize to George Lucas and begin to wonder how One Force can create time, space and what will doubtless become perceived as a Universal status quo. I do not have the mathematical skill to do the derivations, nor the funding to test the implications for consistency with observed phenomena. But since the year 1969, when I read the attached text, I have been following evolving scientific thought and also evolving my own ideas on the Universe. Magnetism.pdf
  15. joigus said: "OTOH(?), electric and magnetic fields are not the be-all-end-all of what can be in space." Of interest is the relation between the permeability constant u0 (mu subscript 0) and the permittivity constant e0 (epsilon subscript 0): u0 = 1/(e0c^2) which I render u0 = 1/e0.c^2 attributing higher precedence to . than to /, to be clear. To establish common premises, do you understand the derivation of this relation?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.