Farsight

I can explain the Bullet Cluster. I can explain the unusual gravitational lensing. And the flat galactic rotation curves in spiral galaxies. It's all very simple, and it involves Dark Energy, but not Dark Matter. But nobody here would read my explanation, they'll carry on wasting years on neutralinos and other exotica because they have no real understanding of particles and the Standard Model. And they'll doubtless call me names to boot, so I guess I'll pass.

... One answer, that Lee Smolin and a team of people have been working on since late 2005 represents both geometry and matter as a ball-and-tube network. So basically it is a WEB of relationship. And particles of matter are KNOTS in that web. Everything is in ordinary 3D. There are NO EXTRA DIMENSIONS. And you know from your own experience with tangled twine or electric cord or hose that knots or tangles don't have any definite location. You can loosen a snarl in one place and spread it out, and hope it cancels with an snarl somewhere else. But you dont have it in any one place until you, in effect, make a MEASUREMENT. Pull things tight to find out where the knot has gone, or if it has canceled out some other tangle...

 

Sounds familiar. Hey ho. And nobody's read my paper.

...The key point is that by abandoning the point-like particle structure of QT and giving the particles (classical) volume; we can solve all the problems...

I couldn't agree more, elas.

There is no interior physics, Norm. Put that print through a 1/r inversion and there is no interior. When your vacuum field is frozen because of a phase change, things change radically. If nothing can move there's no energy, no light, no time, no distance, no nothing. It isn't there any more. A black hole really is a hole in space. The event horizon is the end of events. And proper time isn't proper at all. Simple really.

I'm sorry chaps, but I'm not carrying on any conversations in this trashcan.

God knows why I'm doing this, but here goes (once more with feeling): Doesn't this poke a big hole in your contention that light is the only available "measure" we have? viz:

Not at all. The electron is a photon configuration. A photon is a propagating distance variation. You can annihilate a proton with an antiproton, and then annihilate the decay products with other particles to end up with just photons. It means the proton is a photon configuration too. A neutron decays into a proton plus an electron and an antineutrino in circa fifteen minutes. It means that in essence, matter is made of light. The motion of a particle, or collection of particles, can be viewed in terms of the motion of light. See the section on mass where I talk about helical springs.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

But you claim these twists are also the source of Charge and that if there are these twists then it will generate a Mass, which also generates a Charge. You also go on to say that the Neutron must have charges inside it but they balance out because you can't have these twists without generating a charge. But You claim the Neutrino is a Twist without Charge. This does not fit in with the rest of your theory.

No. I claim that a neutrino is turn without twist. It has no twist, and therefore no charge. Without the twist it does not remain in one location, and thus it moves like a photon moves. Since mass is energy that is not moving with respect to the observer, then if the neutrino moves at c it has no mass. If it moves at slightly less than c it would however have some mass.

 

Either you have a particle that is an exception, a special case where you have had to make a new consideration that in general violates the rest of your theory which leads us to wonder about the predictive (and therefore usefulness and completeness) of the entire theory. So, either the Neutrino is a special case in your theory that hints that it is incomplete or just plain wrong, or the Neutrino can not exist within your theories frame work.

Please Edtharan, take more care instead of being so keen to "disprove" me that you make mistakes.

 

If this was the case then either Light would bend less or gravity would be stronger. You can not get the correct behaviour of objects within a gravitational field without using a 4th dimension. The maths just don't work out. It is the reason that Newtonian gravity does not correctly predict the path of an object within a gravitational field. It is a space only description of gravity. Einstein used 4 dimensions with gravity and it can now accurately predict the behaviours. Therefore Gravity must be a 4 dimensional curvature as that is the only construct that accurately predicts the path of objects in it. This is a fact and just saying it isn't so does not make it wrong.

No. "Curved Spacetime" is not a fact, and saying so doesn't make it one. It's an interpretation, a name applied to explain the observed effects. Gravity is a fact. Things fall down. But there is no factual fourth dimension in which this curvature resides. You can't see it, or test for it, or show it to me. And you can get the correct behaviour by simply replacing the 4th dimension with a radial gradient in the permittivity of space.

 

Nope, it doesn't. You are saying that because you have a coherent model that it must therefore be correct. Sorry, for your model to be correct it must correctly predict the outcome of experiments. You model does not make any predictions. Also, just because it is coherent, does not mean that it is correct. If you are right about the circular argument in the definition of Time, then that is a coherent model, so it must, by the same argument that coherency make something correct, be correct, if it is correct, then your theory is wrong...

I offer my model for discussion and feedback. I can do no more.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I don't think your problem is how many errors you have made or not; your problem is relevance. Why should anyone be interested in your work?

Because they're interested in physics, and I offer a coherent model that perhaps delivers answers to many former mysteries.

Please stop sniping swanson. Please read the paper and help me chase out any errors. Look at page 30 where I say this: "Now follow the loops again starting from the bottom left and continue twice around the knot, noting the directions at the crossing points. Since each crossing point is encountered twice, omit alternate crossing points to only consider crossings over rather than under. The crossing-point directions are: up, omit, up, omit, down, omit."

 

And DH, the first of the three papers you linked to does not mention the word twist. And do look at the dates on the other two. That said, I reiterate that much of what I say has been said before, and for the record I do feel a degree of warmth towards LQG and Lee Smolin.

But how is that any different from time then?

The motion is through space. Not through spacetime. It means gravity isn't curved spacetime. Instead it's a gradient in the properties of space, and electromagnetism is twisted space.

 

Farsight, besides being too long, wrong about time, and utterly lacking in math, your paper addresses too many topics. Your paper does contain one topic worthy of note, twist, but its not new. Others have beat you to it..

It isn't too long. There's plenty of papers out there longer than this. It definitely isn't wrong about time. And there's lots of topics in here worthy of note. And for many of them, somewhere, somehow, you will find that somebody has come up with the idea before. And not just once. The item I think is most important is Space is a one trick pony and the only trick is distance: the photon is a propagating variation in distance, and just about everything else comes from that. You have read the paper haven't you? Surely you would have spotted that? And the bit about Planck's Constant. And the fine structure constant?

 

Yes: The Neutrino. It can change from one type to another. No motion, just change. This has been measured.

See page 30 of my paper. You haven't read it have you?

 

"The helicity that we call neutrino spin tells us the direction of the running loop. In a neutrino the left-handed spin is a rotation around the running loop that is opposite to the direction of propagation. The antineutrino is the same loop, but running the other way. The neutrino or antineutrino travels, and if it travels slower than light it has mass. That’s because our new view of mass tells us that mass is merely a measure of the amount of energy that is not moving with respect to the observer. It’s a sliding scale: if the energy is moving at c like a photon, we observe none of the energy as mass. If the energy is “going nowhere fast” like an electron, we observe all the energy as mass. Ergo if a neutrino is travelling a little less than c, it has a little mass. Should its speed vary for any reason, such as a weak interaction, its mass will also vary. We can envisage an analogy wherein neutrinos are made of slender spring steel, and the loops tighten or become multiple loops, like a coil. The neutrino can thus oscillate, and an electron neutrino can look like a muon neutrino".

 

Do not use your own conclusions to prove your initial assumptions. It is a Logical Fallacy and does not support your argument.

Whoa. I have a coherent model. You're saying it's a logical fallacy? No it isn't. Everything fits. And I'd be grateful if you could read the paper so that you understand where I'm coming from.

 

If you apply all the reasoning and Maths that you have presented for Time to Space, then space disappears. Do you deny that Space exists?

No it doesn't. The space is there! Look hold your arms out. There it is! And I don't dismiss your arguments. I'm just trying to show you what's there. Now I think I've showed you enough. Please can we move on.

Sorry if I didn't reply prevoiusly. It wasn't intentional. Time is a dimension in that you can measure it. But you can't move through it like you can move through the three dimensions of space. And what you're really measuring isn't time, it's motion through the three dimensions of space. Where there's no apparent motion and you're merely sitting there looking at your watch, there is motion. It's going on all the time, in your electrons and atoms, and in your watch and in your brain.

 

Re the photon, see paper pages 10, 11, 26, 27 and references 9 and 19.

 

How would you measure a distance without any form of motion? Observe a ruler. But see Jacques' post and my response - in a way, motion is all. You couldn't even observe the ruler if light didn't move to your eye and signals didn't move through your brain.

It's like this. But inside out.

 

Gravity is normally considered to be "curved spacetime", but I like to think of it as the "reaction" to "action", the latter being closely associated with energy. This energy might be in the form of a 1022KeV gamma photon, or an electron/positron pair. It doesn't matter which. This energy propagates at a maximum velocity c. If the action is limited to c, then I can see no way in which the reaction can move any faster. The two are always intimately linked. So I can't envisage a change in gravity propagating at a velocity that exceeds c.

I'll keep this quite short: If there exist a single object in space and no other, then according to your opinion we can't have motion. Without the ability to have motion, then we can't have Time. Ok, how about change? If we have a single particle in the universe, and it undergoes an internal state change (no motion at all), we can still determine Time.

You can't have an internal state change without some motion. Consider a nice simple particle like an electron. It exhibits jitter or "zitterbewegung". You can create one along with a positron from a gamma photon using pair production, and destroy it via annihilation with the positron, yielding two half-sized gamma photons. All the electron ever really was, was a photon "tied in a knot". The photon is moving, whizzing around inside. The electorn is chock full of motion. In a way, that's all it is. You can't have a particle without motion, never mind a "state change".

 

So, does this mean that Time is more fundamental than space and that we then derive space from Time? (please note I have don't know if Time is more fundamental than space, but using your thought experiment it seems to indicate that it is, rather that Time being dependant on motion through space).

No.

 

It is your claim that Time doesn't "exist" between events. The current definition of Time is that it does. You have to disprove that before you can make that claim. It is your claim that Time doesn't exist between events and then using that as disproof against the current theories, is a logical fallacy.

Note that I say time exists like heat exists. When you look beyond heat you see the underlying motion. Ditto for time. Your concept of time is that it "exists" as a fourth dimension between events, and you're overlooking the underlying motion in the three dimensions that are there.

 

To show you why, I'll do exactly the same to your theory: Space doesn't exist, therefore you can not have any gap between object, if there is no gap between objects then you can not have movement and so that disproves your theory.

No it doesn't. Come on Ed. I can show you space. We can stretch our arms out across the width of that gap. It's there.

 

I wouldn't accept that argument I posted above against space existing, but that is the exact same argument that you are using against Time existing. If you can't accept that augment against space, then you can't accept your arguments against Time existing.

Like I said, time exists like heat exists. It just isn't what you think it is. Thanks for the shorter post.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Swanson: so sorry. But Edtharan and I have been discussing this for quite some time, and IMHO his long posts make life somewhat confusing. Yes, I know it merges posts. That's why I put in the separator asterisks.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Fred: they used the motion of the earth. Sundials. Or pendulums. Or water. Motion motion motion. Read the paper. Time is just the start of it. IMHO understanding time really is the key that unlocks all the doors in physics.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If anybody wants a summary of my 40-page pdf file, see the conclusion on page 35.

Who is "we?"

People, with our innate curiosity and our desire to understand.

 

Can I go one step further: You need motion to have space. Space and time are emergent quality of motion. I hear you say you cannot have motion without space. I tell you look at the expansion of space: you don't have space but you got motion. You have space only after some motion took place.

I know what you mean. But see the paper, where I say: "..if the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. And when you say "after", note that you are employing time in your conceptual thinking. But OK, I take your point. In a way, motion seems to be all there is. A photon has a motion, that's all it seems to be, and it seems that all material objects are configurations of this motion or "action".

 

Edtharan: please can you try to be more succinct? Your large posts are difficult to respond to.

 

Time is what exists between two events -> A second is a measure of that period. No circular argument.

But nothing "exists" between the two events. Time does not "exist" between two events. That's merely your mistaken concept of time exerting itself as proof of its own concept.

 

If there exists any non spatial "gap" between two events (or you also take into account spatial distances), then what is left between two events is Time. If there is not gap between two events, then they occur simultaneously. It is this Non-Spatial gap that is the important thing.

And how do we measure this gap? The second is defined using the hyperfine transition, the electron is a photon configuration, and all we're doing is totting up the motion of electromagnetic phenomena. We are measuring the "gap" only in terms of the spatial distance travelled by light!

 

Do you agree: that there can be two events (things that happen) that are not separated by distance (or distance is factored out of it), and that these two events are not simultaneous?

I agree that there can be two non-simultaneous events at the same location, but I don't agree that you can remove all reference to distance. The time between the events is associated with the distance moved by light in electrons, atoms, brains, clocks, et cetera.

 

If they are not Simultaneous, then there exists some form of separation that is not spatial. But, what is this separation? It is not Movement. What then is it? It is Time. Length/Period can be used interchangeably. What you are doing here is assuming your theory is correct and then applying it as Proof that your theory is correct. This is another Logical Fallacy.

You're doing this, not me. You're using your current concept of time as proof of that concept. Length/Period should not be used interchangeably. Yes, a period of time is associated with a distance travelled by light, and we talk about a light year as a distance, but we should always remember that a length involves metres, not seconds. A duration involves seconds.

 

Simply put, if you theory is wrong, then my statement is correct. But if your theory is right, then I am incorrect. So presenting this as evidence does not resolve the problem. You must show that a Second has no length, not just claim that it has no length.

Show me the length of it! You can't. There is no evidence to support your view that time is a length. It is simply untenable. The only length we can associate with time is the spatial distance light can travel during your "gap". And this travel is through our existing three dimensions of space.

 

(Farsight:And the 64,000$ dollar question is: what is a second?)This question is very easy to answer: A Second is a unit of Measurement. Oh, and next time you at the post office, mail me a Metre. You can't can you. You might be able to mail me a length of wood that is 1 Metre long, but that is a ruler, not a metre.

And I can't mail you a kilo, or a Joule, or an action, or a motion. But I can show you a metre, and but you can't show me a second. All you can do is count the motions in your watch then declare that a second has "passed". Whoosh. There it goes.

 

One of my continuing points is that whatever you have tried to do to Time, it can equally be applied to distance. So if Time is a product of Motion, then so to is Distance. But: Without distance, you can not have Displacement, let alone Movement. So, if You can get rid of Time like this then so to you get rid if Distance and therefore Motion.

Not so. Here you go: If the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space. But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time. When those objects do move, then and only then can we conceive of time, for it is not space and time that are cofounded, it is motion and time that are cofounded. We observe three dimensions of space, plus motion through it.

 

To make an arbitrary decision, based on human perceptions does not prove your claims. As you even pointed out, human perceptions could be an illusion. So any decision to separate Time and Space based solely on the fact that we can't "see" Time is therefore a Logical Fallacy, one that you claimed that we were falling into.

No it isn't. It's quite plain. See above. We can have space without motion, no problem. But not time.

 

By this argument: If we Measure Temperature, then it is atomic motion that is the derived effect. But hang on, didn't you say that Temperature was a derived effect of the atomic motions? So if we are measuring Motion, might not then might not Motion therefore be the derived effect of Time as that is the sequence with Temperature that you were using to explain what you meant by "derived from"?

Look up derived effect. Also look up emergent property.

 

I have never claimed that Time is a dimension that offers Freedom of Movement. I have claimed that it is a dimension. I have even explained why we can't have freedom of movement in Time. It is You that is making the claim that the current definition of Time is supposed to allow us freedom of Movement like space does.

I'll check up on this. If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies.

 

I have shown how you can have a 4th spatial dimension, that under situations where freedom of movement is restricted, it would act like Time. I'll reiterate this here: Imagine a Space Ship travelling through Space. However, this ship is damaged. It's main engines are out so are it's forward and reverse thrusters. However, the Up/Down and Left/Right thrusters are working perfectly. Now this ship can't change it's forward speed at all. It has no freedom of movement within that "Dimension". This shows that not having Freedom of Movement, is not dependent on the non-existence of a dimension. A Dimension can exist and you can have no freedom of movement.

 

Now, imagine a sheet of very thin paper (in fact 1 Planck distance thick). Because there is nothing smaller than a Planck Distance, then there is no way for that sheet of paper to apply a forwards or backwards force and therefore change its velocity.

 

Think of us as living on a 3D membrane that is moving through a 4th dimension, then you will understand how you can have no freedom of movement in the 4th dimension, and still have motion through it.

 

But we are not! We live in a three dimensional space, and we can move through it. That's what's there. That's what we see. A fourth dimension is an abstraction, it is a fourth dimension in a mathematical "space", not actual space. It simply isn't there. What's there is 3D space and motion through it.

 

We can't change our motion through Time because we have no extent in it (that also explains the sense of now - but that is human perception and not part of my argument). But, as I have pointed out, just because we don't have freedom of movement in a dimension, doesn't mean that dimension doesn't exist. Therefore using the fact that we don't (seem) to have freedom of movement in Time, does not prove that it doesn't exist, or that we aren't moving through it. You have made an arbitrary separation between Space and Time, based on the human perception of Space and Not Time. As this is based on perception, and you have argued against using perception as evidence, we can not accept this evidence that you are presenting for this line of argument.

But there is no evidence for any fourth dimension that we are "moving" through. It is pure abstraction and convention, with no foundation in fact.

 

But how do we know that it is motion as compared to displacement? Easy, there exists a non spatial separation of the events (start and end spatial points). If the two events have no extra, non spatial, separation, then it is displacement, if there is an extra, non spatial separation, then what is it? Time.

No, it's motion. Motion of light, electrons, atoms, et cetera, see above.

 

Motion occurs within Time, therefore Motion must be dependant on Time, not the other way around.

No it doesn't. There you go again. Using your concept of time to justify your concept of time. Totally circular. Motion occurs through space. The +1 time "dimension" is derived from this.

 

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. However, there is scientific proof that Motion is dependant on Time. There is also evidence that there exists an unperceived 4th dimension that has all the properties that is necessary for it to be Time. The curvature that light shows as it passes a gravitating object can only exist if light doesn't move in straight lines, or that there is a 4th dimension.

No, there is no evidence. The Shapiro Effect is described as being caused by "spacetime curvature". But what actually happens is that light takes a greater duration to skirt the sun. It's as simple as that. The light moves slower!

 

When object enter into this "Gravity Well" they show a distortion in Time. We know that there is a 4th dimension from the way things (mainly Light) move within that gravity well. The distortions in Time match the distortions that Light would have if Time was that 4th Dimension.

No. We have 3+1 dimensions. And sometimes the light propagates through space at a different rate because the properties of space are not uniform. It's that simple.

 

So there is actual scientific proof that there is a 4th dimension and that it is Time.

No there isn't! You cling to an interpretation that justifies your concept, claim evidence for this interpretation when there is none, and dismiss the simpler explanation that tells it how it is.

 

Wrong again. Distance is the convention of Measuring Motion through space. If something move through Space, then it has moved a Distance, not a Time.

When measuring motion we customarily employ distance and time together as speed. Distance does not necessarily involve motion through that distance.

 

No more big posts please Edtharan. They disrupt the thread.

Thanks lakmilis. I perhaps think that "pure" space at 0k is no space at all. Do please print the paper out and read it. It involves only 3+1 dimensions, wherein light in a propagating variation in local distance, not in some hidden 4th dimension. It's rather simplistic and lacking rigor, but one has to start somewhere, and so much seems to work out nicely. You'll see that I say energy = stress x volume, and yes, sorry, there are some figures of speech in there such as "we call this stress energy". There will also be some errors, problems, and issues, which is what I'm trying to chase out by being here. I'll be grateful for any feedback you can give. Note that I think relativity is basically correct but is imperfect, or perhaps unfinished is a better word.

 

Fred: guilty your honour. The figures of speech we grow up with colour our thinking. So much so that we find it very difficult to use alternative constructions, or break out of deeply-held concepts and conviction.

One thing I did was draw "spokes" on a balloon spread over the mouth of a jar, then twist the center. To a crude approximation, the spirals looked like hyperbolic spirals, which is why I suggested that. However, the edges of the jar were too close and interfering. I also can't get a good 3D version of such spirals by playing and I'm not sure if I know enough maths or have enough time. How about a bunch of 2D spirals radiating from the center instead?

 

That's the sort of hands on "experiment" I get up to. These "spirals" are certainly 3D, and there's an inverse square rule in there describing the curve. Plot x² with the origin at the centre where the charged particle is. It doesn't rotate round the origin, so maybe spiral is the wrong word.

 

fred: I'll get back to you.

 

YourDadOnaPogoStick: Yes, agreed, but we want to know what's it is, not just what it does.

Help me out here. Imagine the hairball where every hair follows the same curved path where the curvature decreases with increasing distance from the centre. A logarithmic spiral isn't what I had in mind. I've been having a browse, and none of the spirals look right. This exponential curve looks more promising:

 

http://www.2dcurves.com/exponential/exponentiale.html

 

I'll look at it some more but I've got to go now.

Edtharan: maybe this will help: Imagine we’re at a cricket match, on a sunny day enjoying a beer. The bowler is just running up to the crease when I snap my fingers and call out Freeframe! Then I lead you out to the wicket and you peer at the batsman, and the drop of sweat poised on his brow. The bowler is spreadeagled in mid air, and the ball has just left his hand. We are privileged observers, invisible, not really there. You say to me “Farsight, you stopped time”. I reply “No, Edtharan, I stopped motion”.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Does that mean we can assume that you only know basic algebra and trigonometry, along with the basics of physics? That's about the limit for most undergrads. Or do you understand the curl operator that describes the induction portion of Maxwell's Equations and the vorticity in fluid dynamics.

My knowledge level is rather mixed. Yes I know basic algebra and trigonometry and the basics of physics, but in some areas I know more. Do I understand the curl operator in Maxwell's Equations? Well, I've heard of it and its association with magnetism, and "rot". But do I understand it? I'd say no. This is in part because I'm not at home with the fluid analogies of vector fields, eg Gauss's theorem, or the separation between electic and magnetic fields. You know, I'm not even at home with fields these days.

 

OK, we're getting somewhere. Would the spiral look like a hyperbolic spiral or some other kind?

A little like that. But it's gentler, and the central winding angle is thirty degrees.

 

Also, I have had some trouble with the 3D spiral. Many of the descriptions of 3D spirals are like helixes, which is probably not what you want. I tried twisting a wire into a 3D spiral but I either got a helix or something a bit too chaotic to tell whether it was a spiral or not. Can you describe how to make a 3D spiral (or include a picture) for me?

 

Start with this shape.

 

 

Now imagine you can move around it, and regardless of your vantage point you see the same sort of spiral. It's hard to visualize, but it's something like this:

 

 

Farsight, Edtharan:What do you folks think of Planck Units? Maybe you might want to consider Planck Time instead of seconds.

 

Not a lot. Sorry, I don't think they get to the bottom of it.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If your are thinking of the twist field how I think you are, you should be able to describe the magnitude via the curl of the field and the polarity via the divergence of the field (assuming the vector field here is spacetime itself). If you would, I have posted some requests for clarification in the Charge Explained thread that I would like for you to look at.

See my comment above. I have some problems with things like "vector fields" these days. If I look at wiki for example:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field

 

Vector fields are often used in physics to model' date=' for example, the speed and direction of a moving fluid throughout space, or the strength and direction of some force, such as the magnetic or gravitational force, as it changes from point to point...

 

[img']http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/4/43/333px-Vectorfield_jaredwf.png[/img]

 

The vector field is the effect, not the cause. Ditto for the force. There's no fluid flow. It's just geometry. I have the same issue with "curved spacetime". Gravity is a radial gradient, not curved spacetime. Yes, one could perhaps employ curl and divergence, but when I look things up, the concepts just don't fit with those I've developed here. And with my weak maths, it causes me difficulties.

If an electric field is twisted spacetime, what keeps it twisted? IIRC, gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by mass, and when the mass is removed, so is the curvature. This seems to imply a springy-ness to spacetime. Would this not produce an opposing effect? You said charge is like a wound spring. Remember that a wound spring must be kept from unwinding. Essentially, my question is: what keeps the twist field from untwisting?

 

The knot. I know it sounds trite, but the electron configuration is a "trivial" knot. It's not easy to visualise. Ideally we need computer modelling to show it in the form of a movie. The travelling stress goes round and round because it's propagating through the twisted space caused by its own turning.

 

Also, I am confused as to whether this twist is static or dynamic. Is the twist twisting or twisted? From your Falaco Solution analogy, you seem to be saying charge is twisting spacetime, which would cause a charged particle to deflect non-charged particles (put a rubber ducky in the pool). When you described charge as a wound spring, it seemed like you were saying charge is twisted space-time. This leads to the question I have above.

 

The twist is static. The cause is dynamic. When the charged particle moves, the twist moves, and if it moves past you you would say space is twisting, and then the twist is dynamic. Later on in the "scientific paper" I say that all massive particles have charge, and that a neutron has both positive and negative charge. So it's both attracted and repelled, hence there's no net motion due to the electromagnetic field. Note that I say space is twisted, not spacetime.

 

Also, how would you determine the polarity of the charge? I had assumed you were thinking the polarity would depend on the direction in which spacetime is twisted. Then, I quickly decided that such could not determine the polarity since the direction really depends on your position relative to the field and that would mean the two polarities are just one polarity from different angles. It would also mean there are six distinct polarities and infinite intermediate polarities.

 

It's a three-dimensional twist. The best words I can find to describe it is "twist in" or "twist out". It's really hard to visualize. Imagine something like this, only it's three-dimensional and you can move around it, but it always looks like the same from any vantage point.

 

 

Now imagine a mirror image of the above. That's the opposite "polarity".

 

And, as in one of the above posts, I'd like to see how you explain the discrete nature of charge with your twist field speculation.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but perhaps it's to do with the constant photon amplitude, which means an electron comes in one size only. The electron is the simplest knot, the trivial knot, with just one loop. Other stable particles are similar, but with more complexity. For example the proton is a trefoil knot with three loops but the same degree of twist. But come to think of it, apart from the "antiparticle" versions with opposite chirality, and missing out the massless photons and the neutrinos, there are no other stable particles.

 

As to the accusations about your speculations not being theories, I'd say they are not theories YET. From a few moments of thinking about your speculations, I can see a few predictions (most of which don't correspond with reality as we currently know it, however). And as I said in another thread, you can definitely apply mathematics. You problem, as you have been told countless times, is that you are too vague. Once you get more specific, the maths and predictions become easier. Just look at the predictions that fall out of my posts in this thread.

 

All this stuff is certainly no theory, it's a model at best. And a mere toy at that. Thanks for your feedback on this. It's what I want and need. I know I'll have some things wrong, maybe a lot of things wrong, and some howlers too. But there's surely something here that's worth following up. Ideally I could interest somebody else to do some mathematics on it, because I'm kind of stuck in a catch-22 situation wherein this set of concepts can't get anywhere because it isn't adequately developed with sufficient rigor, and I haven't got the mathematical prowess to inject it. I was rather hoping that's why we had discussion forums, to float out a few ideas, kick things around, and get other people interested. It doesn't seem to be much like that.

I'll assume that the formula is correct and I have made a mistake. It would be much appreciated if you can show your working on it.

Frequency = 1 / T and Frequency = v / λ therefore

1 / T = v / λ, flipping both sides over

T / 1 = λ / v, now lose the division by 1

T = λ / v

 

Ok, I could be wrong, but what would the results of the equation T = λ / ( λ / t) if the two different lambdas had different values.

They can't have. We are talking about one particular frequency, one particular wavelength, and one particular period. The T = t is only intended to demonstrate that the official definition of a second doesn't tell you what time actually is, and palms you off with what is in essence "time is time".

 

The "Day" was defined by the period of Time between two events. (1) Midday and (2) Midday the next day. That is the Measurement called "Day" is the Time between two events separated by Time.

Hold it right there. This "separated by time" is your problem. You are building in a presumption that you later use as evidence in support of your argument. Yes, we will agree that the events are somehow separated. But the only measure of this separation that we actually have is in terms of the motion of light. We call this separation time, and I say "time exists like heat exists". But you don't actually move through it. The notion of moving through time is an artifice, and a figure of speech.

 

A "Day" is a measurement of Time, not a period of Time in and of its self. A Second is a fraction of the Measurement call a Day, therefore a Second is a Measurement too. A Second, regardless of how we choose to make the measurement or what apparatus we choose to use to mark out the two events that mark the start or finish of the period of Time, is still just a fraction of this initial definition. Please note the events are not part of the measurement, but just define the start and end of the measurement. And yes, I know that we use atomic clocks to mark out the current definition of the length of a second...

Hold it again. A second has no "length". The only real length associated with a second is how far light would travel during this unit of measurement. That's why we always measure the speed of light to be the same.

 

...and we call that a "Definition of a Second", but this is a linguistic short hand for: A Definition of the Length of a Second. Not, I repeat, the definition of what a Second actually is (which is a measurement of Time, not Time its self).

And the 64,000$ dollar question is: what is a second? What actually is it? You can't show me one. All you can do is not move for a second whilst light everywhere zips about its business, then declare that a second has "passed". It hasn't. All that happened, is nothing. You sat there doing nothing while the ever-whizzing light in our atoms clocks and brains did its moving.

 

What I am getting at here is about the concept of Measurement. You seem to think that because the "ruler" that we use to measure a Second uses EM or Motion as part of the mechanics of it, that the thing we are measuring is dependant on the mechanics that we use for the "Ruler".

The thing we are actually measuring is motion. Not time. That's why I say time is a derived effect of motion.

 

All these arguments you are bringing against my point: that I might have the definition of a Second incorrect, my numbers are out or whatever, is just missing my point altogether. Again here in black and white, the mistake at the core of your argument against the current definition of Time (also not that this is not an argument against your essay, just your approach to the argument against the current definition).

It doesn't matter whether you've made some small error. What matters is your conviction that time is some kind of dimension that offers freedom of movement. You're not alone in thinking this. Most people do. But it isn't. It's space up there, and down here too. And light and other things move through it. We infer a time dimension from this, but we cant move through it. The moving is only through space.

 

What you use to measure something is not the thing that you are measuring. If you understand this you will see why your argument that our current definition of Time is not circular because A second is a definition of a unit of measurement and not the thing we are measuring (Time). Your argument is that our Definition of a second is dependent on our definition of Time, then you then (incorrectly) go on to say that our definition of Time is reliant on our definition of a Second. Our definition of Time is not dependent on our definition of a Second. A Second is a definition of a unit of measurement of Time. Because it is a measurement of something it can not be the thing itself. Therefore our definition of a second is not the definition of Time.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying what we're actually measuring is how much motion light would do. That's why I said time is cofounded with motion. No motion, no time.

 

Remember this is not an argument against your essay at the moment, but it is an argument against your argument that the current definition of Time is wrong. I am not making an argument against your use of motion to define Time. You have got hold of the complete wrong end of the bat on that.

Noted.

 

If you are going to use Movement to Define what Time is (rather than the measurements of it), then you can not use Time to define Movement at all (other wise movement is dependent on the existence of Time being already there). Nothing in any of your essays address this dilemma. Whenever you have referenced Motion you have had to invoke it occuring in Time as well. Time had to have existed, therefore, for you to have your motion (as you defined it in your essays).

What dilemma? Motion happens. We see it. Things move through space. We have evidence of this every day of our lives. What I said is you don't need time to have motion. You need motion to have time. The motion is through space. It isn't through time. You can't move through time. There is no evidence, it isn't scientific. Time is just our convention for measuring this motion through space, comparing it against the motion of light, and counting up the total motion of light since the beginning of the universe or some other marker point.

 

I think we're going round in circles again with this. Why don't we park it for a while? Thereafter please do try to be succinct and raise one topic at once.

But not always. If we really believed your line of reasoning we might as well pack up, give up, and go home. Please log on to my little website, click on the hyperlink at the bottom of the page to call up the pdf document, print the paper, sit down, and read it thoroughly. Then judge it. Please don't judge it before you've read it. I'd then be grateful if you could get back to me pointing out any particular errors or omissions. I'm sure there will be some, but at the same time I'm sure that there is some value there. Do you know anybody else who can offer you a plausible explanation of the fine structure constant? Or what Planck's constant really is? Or what a neutrino is? Or why we see flat galactic rotation curves and why the universe is flat?

It's not places that "could" use it more, they are places the MUST use it more. Your "'back to first principles' approach" necessitates DIFFERENT math than the current theories use. In order to evaluate your speculations, we need these maths from your model. Since they are different, they could be more accurate(good for you), less accurate(not so good for you), or have the same accuracy(which means the only way of evaluating your model is through the predictions). As I said in your Charge Explained thread, your vagueness is hindering your maths and your predictions, assuming, of course, that you are attempting to extrapolate maths and predictions. For example, take a look at my requests for clarification on your Charge Explained thread. Some predictions easily fall out from them. And for this reason, you must provide a "new mathematics" from your "'back to first principles' approach."

 

As I am from the USA, I'm not quite sure what that means. Is that like Algebra 2, Multivariable Calculus, Set Theory, etc?

 

They are your speculations, so, if you want them to be taken seriously as a theory, YOU must produce the maths.

 

You point noted. I am aware that the paucity of mathematical rigor and resultant prediction is an issue. My maths is what you might expect from an undergraduate. I can't readily acquire the experience I'd need here, so I'll look at some form of collaboration.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

But that's not what I asked. I was asking about the twist that you say the electric field is made of, not of the electron. I asked along which axis is the twist? Are you twisting along the x axis? The t axis? I think what you are saying is that the axis of rotation is perpendicular to all space axis but not the t axis? Then it would be twist along the t axis?

Sorry if that wasn't clear. The electric field is a twist in space in the x y and z axes. It isn't "made" of anything other than the geometrical disposition of space. I don't think there's any axis of rotation that I can describe. The electric field of an electron resembles a three dimensional spiral focussed on the electron, which is a point of rotation. There is no rotation around the t axis if by this you mean the time axis.

 

Kudos on having a very specific description of the electron though. I will analyze this shortly, to see if any predictions can be pulled out. BTW you have a typo, the sine of 30 degrees is .5 not the other way around.

Thanks. Do note reference 9.

 

W. K. Clifford is just someone I found out about while trying to look up twist. My googling skills have failed me, though. No one seems to want to explain what twist is in mathematical terms, they just talk about knots. Anyhow, I was just pointing out that others have been researching twisting as electromagnetism and have included maths.

I'll look him up. I have to say I don't know a great deal about knot theory or any mathematics associated with twist. However there seems to be a lot of material out there that I ought to read up on:

 

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TwistKnot.html

I could be specific in review, but that would mean we would be doing the peer-reviewing here. Convincing us is not your goal; you want to convince the physics community. So send it in and see what happens. The only thing I would say is that a "qualitative model" needs to produce some results that other models do not. Othwerwise, what good is it?

 

I would actively like a specific review. I can't lodge it on arxiv because I have no endorsement. And if I can't convince a bunch of guys on a physics forum, what chance do I have of convincing the physics community? Regarding what good it is, it offers a coherent set of concepts that give an intuitive understand of how the world works. That has to be worth something.

 

For any specific set of data points, there are a near infinite number of theories that can be constructed to explain the data. The only way you can tell whether one theory is accurate is that if it predicts data the other theories don't. I didn't see that in my browse of your paper. Perhaps I missed it.

There's a lot in here. I would urge you to print it, and sit down and read it thoroughly.

 

I did note that your yttrium barium copper oxide on page 16 should be YBaCuO, not the "YBCO" that you had. You have yttrium boron carbon oxide.

No. It's YBCO. That's its name. I give the chemical formula on page 16. It's YBa2Cu3O7. Check on google:

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=ybco+superconductor

Sure you can. For example: You describe charge as a "twist" in spacetime. There are several ways to describe twist mathematically that are quite distinct from the way we currently describe charge. You could even create your own set of Maxwell equations describing how twist and turn are related. Your speculations could use maths everywhere. If you did use maths, you might get more serious attention. Out of curiosity, what is your level of maths?

 

I don't disagree with that. Yes, there are places in this paper where I could use mathematics more. OK point noted. My level of maths is A level, though I do a little more mathematics than that. I was rather hoping that others would pick up on this, leaving me free to cover the concepts, the insight, the grasp, the things I enjoy. The recurring theme of what I've been doing is that there are thousands of very capable mathematicians out there who've been searching for answers for perhaps a hundred years. For some reason mathematics has been unable to deliver, hence my "back to first principles" approach.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Well, Farsight, now you claim to understand twist ... but have yet to say anything about the twist. Once again, I ask: Twist along which axis? How much twist? "Flowing" twist (spin) or static twist? Since you claim you know what twist is, why don't you define it?

 

It's twist in all three axes, which is why I showed a picture of a twisted cube on page 15. How much twist is indicated by my explanation of Planck's constant and the fine structure constant on page 26. The photon amplitude is 3.86 x 10¯¹³ metres, the fine structure constant α = e²/2ε0hc has a value of circa 1/137, and is the ratio of the energy required to push two electrons together from infinity to some given distance, as compared to the energy of a photon with a wavelength 2π times that distance. As a simple geometrical illustration, if we cut the moebius doughnut and uncurl it to form a cylinder, it would exhibit a 180º barberpole twist. If we then imagine the cylinder to be thin-walled, such that we could slice it down its length and unroll it to spread it flat, this twist is transformed into a diagonal line across a rectangle of width π and length 2π. Sine 0.5 is 30º, which is one twelfth of 360º. A twelfth of the 511KeV electron mass/energy is reaching out as an electromagnetic field. When we push two electrons together, each is coupling with a twelfth of its mass, so we have to multiply a twelfth by a twelfth to get a combined value of 1/144. This is of course not accurate, but we only need to make the twist angle 30.75687º to arrive at 1/11.7047th of 360º, and squaring this gives us the familiar 1/137. Sure I could say more, or rephrase things, but I thought I'd given enough with all this, and didn't think of giving a "definition".

 

And further, let me add, what makes your idea different than that of W. K. Clifford? He too attempted to explain charge as twist. Some quotes from here..

These folks were no clowns.

 

I don't know. I've never heard of W. K. Clifford. Note though that in the popular-science-book version I have a whole chapter on acknowledgements, and the title is "The Same Elephant". A significant percentage of what I say has been said before in some form or other, and once you know what you're looking for, you know what to look for and uncover more examples.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

Farsight, when (and if) you read this, please take note that my following critique (not criticism) of your essay is intended for you to be able to correct mistakes and to attempt to create a better and more correct essay. I would not have taken the trouble to read and analyse this essay if I was not interested in it and what you have to say in it. Also, so far I have only skimmed a few pages of it, so this is not a complete analysis, but it is highlighting what immediately jumps out as being incorrect or showing logical and reasoning errors.

Please do take the time to sit down and read it all, Edtharan. Some of the points you raise will be dealt with by later sections. Excuse me if I cut things down a little, since your long posts remain something of a problem.

 

A second is actually 1/86400th of a day. That is the definition of a second... The term "Second" is therefore in no way dependant on the motions of the Caesium atoms. That is just a system that gives us an accurate yardstick.

I'm sorry Edtharan, you're wrong here. Please refer to DH's post and check your facts. Also note that if you were right, and the second was defined as 1/86400th of a day, it would still be defined using motion.

 

Frequency=1/T and Frequency=v/λ. Wouldn't combining them give 1/T=v/λ not T = λ / v

The two are equivalent. Just take a reciprocal.

 

The metre is defined as a fraction of the distance around the equator of the Earth..

Again, I'm sorry but you're wrong here too. Please refer to DH's post and check your facts.

 

You have tried to prove that the current definition of Time is circular, but you have ignored the historical aspect of Measurement. The definitions of Metre, or Second are not dependant on each other, however, the tools that we use to measure them today do use the fact that we can convert between them using motion. Neither is dependant on Motion, but conversion between them is.

Both are dependent upon the motion of electromagnetic phenomena. The second is associated with the hyperfine transition, and I later explain the electron as a 511KeV photon configuration. That means the second is intimately associated with the motion of light, which is also used to define the metre.

 

This is just a bit of mathematical sleight of hand. You might think this is true, but you have then fooled yourself.

I'm going to pass over this for the time being. Please speak with other posters about whether this trivial expression is mathematically correct.

 

Firstly this is dependant on the second error in your essay. You had Frequency=1/T and Frequency= v / λ and combined them to T = λ / v. But, I though combining them should be 1/T=v/λ as the common term is "Frequency".

IMHO you're building your argument on very shaky ground Edtharan. Please backtrack and get this right.

 

Also, even if you are correct when you combined the two formulae, this doesn't show anything. All it says is that Time=Time. Distance=Distance too you know. This result does not mean anything. You can't extract any useful information from it.

I know I can't extract any useful information from it. The official definition of a second yields no useful information about what a second really is. That's why I then look again at frequency.

 

What if "T" and "t" were different values or λ had different values in each case (λ1 and λ2)? Then this would produce a nonsense result where you could have 3=6. I have seen similar mathematical sleight of had to show that 1=0 (have a look at some of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%3D0 ).

Please confer with other posters about whether this very simple aritmentic is mathematical sleight of hand.

 

Since the equation is wrong, the conclusions are also wrong. The definition of a Second is not circular, it is only because you have made mistakes that you have ended up with that conclusion.

No, you've made the mistakes, not me. Sorry.

 

Since the rest of this section (at least - if not the whole essay) is dependant on the "fact" that our definition of Time is circular and therefore needs fixing, you need to reassess this entire premise of your essay. You can not use this as an argument against the current definition and as support for your own. To do so is to argue against your own construction (which is not even mathematically correct). It is in fact a Strawman Argument.

I must beg to differ as to who is offering the strawman argument here.

 

Another nail in this paragraph's coffin is that "A Second" is a scale, not the definition of Time. Just as "A Metre" is not distance, but a scale with which we can compare two different distances. If a Metre was actually a definition of distance, then it would be dependant on the direction and position it was defined in. We could not use it in another place at all. However, being a scale, we can use it in multiple places as it allows us to compare the scale differences between two regions. Such as it is with a "Second". this too is a scale as we can use it to compare two different periods of Time. Not only that, we can use Movement to covert between Time and Distance. Movement is a conversion factor between Time and Distance.

Oh come on. A metre is a distance.

 

However, Frequency is dependant on the scale that we call 1 Second. Remember a Second is not defined as a certain number of periods of radiation, but a fraction of the time it takes the Earth to revolve 360 degrees. We just use those periods of radiation as an accurate measure of that fraction of rotation.

Wrong.

 

And in both cases we are just using change and motion to Measure Time. Remember earlier I established that what you use to measure something it not the thing you are measuring. So, even if you are 100% correct and our definition of a Second is circular, that does not mean that our definition of Time is circular.

No, we use time to measure change and motion. You've got it back to front. Change happens. Motion is what we see. Things move through space. We use time to measure it, and it is based upon the motion of light. There is simply no way that we can move through our measure of motion through space.

 

A second is what we use to measure Time. What you use to measure something is not the thing that you are measuring. Understand now?

You are measuring motion. Change. Not time. A pocketwatch doesn't measure time. It measures the motion of the springs and gears within the watch. Your original definition of a second measured the motion of the earth. The atomic clock measures the motion of the hyperfine transition. I do understand. Your concept of time relies upon your concept of time. But you cannot touch time, you can't see it, smell it, touch it, you can't move through it, can't see it flowing, and can't see its length. All these are abstractions that you take for granted. So much so that you are quite unable to examine the concept you hold dear. For the record, my concept of time is summarised thus:

 

Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It is a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time has no length, time doesn’t flow and we don’t travel through it.

Farsight got this right. He is quoting the ISO directly. A second used to be defined as 1/86,400th of a day...

 

Farsight once again has the definition correct. We switched from the Earth-based definition to the meter prototype...

 

Thanks.

 

Edtharan: I have to go now, so I'll get back your post later. Perhaps you might wish to rephrase some aspects of it once you've talked with others.

 

Farsight, do you really think you are seeing a circularity that has been missed by some of the best minds in the world?

Yes. But I am not unique. This idea goes back to Aristotle, was raised as Presentism in 1908, by Godel and Einstein in 1949, and by many others.

 

There is no circularity. This essential flaw in your paper starts on page one and propagates throughout.

Please can you elaborate. This is important.

 

yourdadonapogos: try tackling t mathematically. You just can't. It's axiomatic.

This is not a scientific paper. Except for the excessive length, it has the look and feel of a for-the-masses, non-scientific paper as published in Scientific American.

 

Noted. This is of course something of an issue. But there's not a lot I can do about it because it really is an analysis of basic concepts wherein I'm looking at mathematical terms, axioms, postulates. For example the initial section is examining t, and there's just no way I can tackle it mathematically.

 

Farsight, you still rely too much on your pretty pictures. Its not as bad as in your previous writeups, but this is supposedly a "scientific paper". One big problem with those pictures: To use them in a paper, you need to get written approval from the owner of each and every one of these images.

Again, noted. I've tried to cut it down to a minimum here. Thanks for the input.

 

The charge of vagueness still stands. A paper on physics without any substantial math does not qualify as a scientific paper. In the physics world, the math comes first. The for-the-masses, non-scientific physics articles are published only after the math has been fully hashed out. Learn the math.

Noted.

 

Change the title. The use of relativity in all caps screams CRACKPOT. If you don't want to be viewed as a crackpot, take a few steps to lower your score on Baez' crackpot index.

Noted. I've thought long and hard about this, and I am happy with my decision.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

I'd still say that precision is more important than math. Math is just the easiest way to make things precise. There are equivalent ways, such as geometry. Michael Faraday, though he knew little math, was one of the great scientists of the 1800's.

Ideally we'd see a mixture of mathematics and concept. IMHO I think there's a lot of the former and not enough of the latter. For example I've been struggling with geometry this morning, tying knots and moebius strips and performing various transformations. Whilst the mathematics of trigonometry and knot theory is essential, seeing it and grasping and really understanding it is essential to.

 

The simple concept of magnetic fields was partially responsible for the huge discovery of electromagnetic waves which led to modern physics. Perhaps Farsight's concept of twist could have some similar use (if it works out) ... but I don't think he understands twist.

 

I do. What's to say about twist?