On Apr 23, 3:20 am, "Thomas Heger" wrote:
I would like to attract your attention to something called 'isomap'. I just
have found that and I allready love it. Try to google for that. I guess you
find out yourself what I mean. Or maybe you look at the the thread 'simple
theory' on
sci.physics

, where I collected some of my
ideas.

Thomas Heger

I took a look at the isomap wiki but have not read the paper. The
short circuit concept feels pretty foreign but plausible. It seems
somewhat like imposing a planck distance but with some more freedoms.

As I read the coherent authors on this thread it is reassuring that
they admit that the electron is still puzzling. The context of the
discussion so far takes the electron as fundamental and I like that
too. But does the quark model need to be included to round out the
model? What about spin?

Spin I believe is conflicted in modern theory. We are told that this
is a binary quality of up or down yet the attempts to produce a spin
polarized beam of electrons is not nearly so simple as the Stern
Gerlach experiment portrays; the last I checked 80% was the best they
could do. Constantly we hear interpretations of 'shaving off' as in a
continuum for this supposedly binary quality. I have proposed in the
past that an improper transformation might be an accurate though
abstract model for the electron spin:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned...eformStudy.gif

This is pretty tangential to the isomap concept but the polysign
system does expose natural dimensional reduction. For instance the 3D
sphere in the undergoes transformation down to a 1D structure and a 2D
structure at specific orientations under arithmetic product alone.
This behavior extends upward into higher dimensions though I have
little general work in P4+. Anyow assosiative algebra makes enough
claims to support this stance on dimensional reduction in high
dimensions.

But in terms of the raw electron whatever it may be shouldn't we
expect a clean mathematical model exists for it? If we accept this as
an assumption then the modern collage of mathematics is dubious. We
need a basis with more dynamics in order to simplify the particle
itself. Such a step would of course come with numerous side effects
which should line up with more of accepted physics. The only measure
of such a pure mathematical construction is in its consequences so
correspondence is all that matters. Beyond this any freedom should be
taken yet the basis should fold down slimly.

How can quantum mechanics be ignored? One simple attack on quantum
mechanics is to ask whether they ever recovered
F = q E
from their theory? I'm fairly certain the answer to this question is
no and that they impose this old field law atop their harmonic
oscillators and other various mathematical constructions. This is a
theoretical misstep since they've supposedly demolished such clean
behaviors and replaced it with probabilistic treatment.

I would appreciate some feedback.

- Tim http://www.BandTechnology.com

On Apr 23, 5:43*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:09:16 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 22, 4:46*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:28:00 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:04*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
So you admit you don't know the difference between the mathematics of
the link and the physics of the link. All you care to project is that
there is something missing and leaving you unsatisfied, but you can't
say what.

That's right Draper. You are getting the picture at last.

Oh, I'm not at all surprised that you don't know the difference
between the mathematics of the link and the physics of the link.

All we know is that it must exist.

WHAT must exist? If you don't know what it is, please explain how
you're going to recognize the physics when you stumble upon it.

Draper, a PHYSICAL explanation of the mathematics of fields MUST EXIST.

But you can't distinguish a physical explanation from a mathematical
explanation. You just admitted that. So saying it more loudly doesn't
get you any closer, does it?

You are just fiddling with words now, Draper.
Stop wasting my valuable time.

Funny how when you find yourself in a little rabbit warren, you think
it's due to someone ELSE wasting your time.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:50:04 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:14:28 GMT) it happened HW@....(Dr. Henri
Wilson) wrote in :

It sounds like, for you, "mechanism" means an easily visualised picture.

As in the EM case waves, everybody works with waves, this has been discussed here.

...and you were doing so well.....

This has been discussed, go to any optics related group, all waves.

You should know that the wave theory cannot explain many aspects of light.

EM consists of 'photons', which are lumps of 'stuff' that is intrinsically
oscillating.

If EM radiation is generated by an electron changing orbit in an atom,
then the amount of enery is E = h.c / wavelength, where h is Planck's constant.
And, depending on that electron orbit and atom, a specific frequency
(energy) is emitted.
This is a mathematical construct.
But what if the electron is simply moved by some remote field (electrostatic
or magnetic), can it not have any energy?
So what does that leave of 'light comes in photons'? Nothing.

Well, when an electron is accelerated by a field it DOES emit EM radiation. How
and why that radiation can be quantized is hard to say.

Maybe when an electron 'freefalls' in a field, it doesn't radiate EM.

The most interesting revelation from this whole thread is that supporters of
relativity generally cannot even understand the question.
It is becoming more and more clear that they possess a lower IQ than the
average individual.

I dunno, the education system, as we know it, crams ideas into the kids heads.
Neural paths are formed at young age, and then they are stuck with it.
The education system does NOT support analysis, or finding out things for
yourself.
So once relativity was crammed into a generation, it sort
of preserves it self, then is transferred to the next generation.
It is the difference between understanding and parroting.
They do not really have a low IQ, just their neural wiring is wrong for
the purpose of understanding.

A classical case of the weaknesses of 'cultural inbreeding'.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Timo wrote:

Well, put it very simply: It is easier to think in little balls moving
around, knowing their charge, their preferences (such as to repel each other),
their mass, etc.
It allows you to visualise.
AND THEY REALLY EXISTS!

Sure, they exist. OK, and you like to visualise them as little balls. But
surely "mechanism" means more than "easily visualised"! Where is the
"mechanism"?

Like I said: There is a limit to the depth (of our knowledge), and especially
_my_ knowledge, you have to stop somewhere, but it is needed to ask the question
'how' nevertheless.
The level of little balls (with charge of course) is in many cases sufficient
to 'visualise' or understand what is happening (like in a vacuum tube, or capacitor, etc).

Oh! This is the level of "mechanism" you are happy with? An easily
visualisable picture that is _known_ to be wrong? This is the kind of
"mechanism", known to be wrong, that you said physics will not advance
without?

No wonder you were unwilling to commit yourself to saying that the whole
Newtonian approach - mathematical models without mechanism - was wrong!

Sure, simple easily-visualisable analogies are good for teaching. See,
e.g., hydraulic analogies in circuit theory. But how can such "mechanisms"
be necessary for physics to advance? Do recall that this was your original
claim.

Alas, they _don't_ behave like little balls. Sure, electrons exist. But
they're not little balls.

Shoot one in the CRT, see it hit, looks so much like 'ball'istics to me :-)

[moved]
Well, to know what happens in these devices, you'd better forget about
electrons being "little balls".

Nope, works just fine.

Oh? How do "little balls" tell you about, e.g., electron diffraction?
Atomic energy levels (even the Bohr model does better than "little
balls")?

Almost all electrons we deal with in everyday life are attached to atoms.
"Little ball" fails miserably when trying to deal with the behaviour of
such electrons.

How can you explain, e.g., tunnelling, interference, diffraction, etc. in
terms of "little balls"?

How can a _known to be wrong_ "mechanism" be fundamentally needed or
necessary for physics to advance?

Historically, Newtonianism looks like a better bet for advances than
easily visualisable but wrong analogies.

By how much do the _electromagnets_ increase the speed of the particles?

That depends on the timing, the field strength.
Tick tick tick, like a clock, wrong timing and they slow down.

By how much can a magnetic field change the speed of a charged particle?

Never more then accelerating it to close to c.

What? The "little ball" analogy fails to provide any kind of quantitative
answer? Again, by how much can a magnetic field change the speed of a
charged particle?

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:39:23 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

What? The "little ball" analogy fails to provide any kind of quantitative
answer? Again, by how much can a magnetic field change the speed of a
charged particle?



Look dude, read a text book.
I dunno what your point is, or if you have one.
But it gets tiring arguing with a knowbetter.
You are beyond reason.

On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:16:30 GMT) it happened HW@....(Dr. Henri
Wilson) wrote in :

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:50:04 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:14:28 GMT) it happened HW@....(Dr. Henri
Wilson) wrote in :

It sounds like, for you, "mechanism" means an easily visualised picture.

As in the EM case waves, everybody works with waves, this has been discussed here.

...and you were doing so well.....

This has been discussed, go to any optics related group, all waves.

You should know that the wave theory cannot explain many aspects of light.

EM consists of 'photons', which are lumps of 'stuff' that is intrinsically
oscillating.

If EM radiation is generated by an electron changing orbit in an atom,
then the amount of enery is E = h.c / wavelength, where h is Planck's constant.
And, depending on that electron orbit and atom, a specific frequency
(energy) is emitted.
This is a mathematical construct.
But what if the electron is simply moved by some remote field (electrostatic
or magnetic), can it not have any energy?
So what does that leave of 'light comes in photons'? Nothing.

Well, when an electron is accelerated by a field it DOES emit EM radiation. How
and why that radiation can be quantized is hard to say.

Maybe when an electron 'freefalls' in a field, it doesn't radiate EM.


As to the 'ball' versus wave idea, I think it is clear that 'ball' does not
explain everything.
This is a nice link, please scroll to the bottom,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
here it shows that interference, diffraction, and polarisation
cannot be explained by the particle idea.
I think the photoelectric effect can be explained by the wave idea,
and in the past have posted about that.

So do we really need 'photon', other then as mathematical construct?

Of course one can say: 'If something waves, then what makes up the waves?'
Sort of chicken and egg problem, then you have particles again.
That, or there is something else we cannot imagine with our brains.

FreddyFX posted some nice explanations in this group, but I have not heard
from him for a while.
There are many theories.

It is fun to think about, although I am not dedicating a lot of brain cycles to this
issue.
For those who do, maybe something will pop up.
We could really use a FTL drive, or gravity neutraliser, etc,
real fusion power too.
So we can move to those stars that have habitable planets, and
do what we do here....

"Timo A. Nieminen" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Oh! This is the level of "mechanism" you are happy with? An easily
visualisable picture that is _known_ to be wrong? This is the kind of
"mechanism", known to be wrong, that you said physics will not advance
without?

please look at
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?...z2tx_3gfzvqgd6

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
| This is a nice link, please scroll to the bottom,
| http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html
| here it shows that interference, diffraction, and polarisation
| cannot be explained by the particle idea.
| I think the photoelectric effect can be explained by the wave idea,
| and in the past have posted about that.


I think interference, diffraction, and polarisation can be explained by
the particle idea, and still haven't changed my website.
This is nice link:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm


--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

On Apr 23, 7:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:13:22 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:



On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:47:57 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

Alas, they _don't_ behave like little balls. Sure, electrons exist. But
they're not little balls.

Shoot one in the CRT, see it hit, looks so much like 'ball'istics to me :-)

Visualising photons as little balls can also be
very misleading at times.

Not only misleading, but plainly wrong, photon is simply a mathematical construct,
EM is waves.

It sounds like, for you, "mechanism" means an easily visualised picture.

As in the EM case waves, everybody works with waves, this has been discussed here.

...and you were doing so well.....


.. EM consists of 'photons', which are lumps of 'stuff' that is
intrinsically
.. oscillating.

Here is a simplistic challenge to this traditional interpretation.
According to relativity theory the time dilation of an object becomes
zero via the Lorentz factor:
t' = t ( sqrt( 1 - v v / c c )
where sqrt is the square root and t' is the time of the photon from
the observer's local frame where v is c since the object is a photon.
The age of every photon is zero regardless of how far it has
propagated. How then can it oscillate? It seems clear that from our
reference frame that photons do oscillate yet according to relativity
in the photon's own frame it cannot. While the actual Lorentz factor
becomes infinite we would be forced to accept a pencil shape if the
photon is granted a minimum diameter.

The conflict extends farther than the oscillating photon
interpretation.
One way around this puzzle is to grant the photon a more complicated
path which would then exceed the propagation velocity c. Polarization
could then take a mechanistic interpretation as could the energy of
the individual photon. So for instance we could attempt a model of a
photon corkscrewing through space. Wavelength would take a more
physical value for such a photon. The impedance of free space could
take an anisotropic interpretation that will leave us with the
traditional electrical and magnetic field interpretation. There are
signals of such an interpretation within the polysign spacetime basis.
Since the higher energy photon is shorter in wavelength it is catchy
to consider the photon as a ripple of an elastic space. Does this
tweak particle/wave duality? Does it become particle/space duality?
This new duality is perfect.

- Tim

They behave ballistically in empty space.
Radio waves are based on variations in photon density.

Maybe electrons are also 'balls of similar stuff' spinning around vigorously.



Easily visualised pictures are nice, but you need to be careful with them
when, fundamentally, they're wrong.

Agreed.

Well, to know what happens in these devices, you'd better forget about
electrons being "little balls".

Nope, works just fine.

By how much do the _electromagnets_ increase the speed of the particles?

That depends on the timing, the field strength.
Tick tick tick, like a clock, wrong timing and they slow down.

By how much can a magnetic field change the speed of a charged particle?

Never more then accelerating it to close to c.

As to the OP's question, like I said, there is a limit to how deep our knowledge goes.
I asked several times 'what is charge', and I would like to know the answer.
Preferably is a way I can visualise.

The most interesting revelation from this whole thread is that supporters of
relativity generally cannot even understand the question.
It is becoming more and more clear that they possess a lower IQ than the
average individual.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

Hi Tim.

On Apr 25, 4:30 am, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:



On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:13:22 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:47:57 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

Alas, they _don't_ behave like little balls. Sure, electrons exist. But
they're not little balls.

Shoot one in the CRT, see it hit, looks so much like 'ball'istics to me :-)

Visualising photons as little balls can also be
very misleading at times.

Not only misleading, but plainly wrong, photon is simply a mathematical construct,
EM is waves.

It sounds like, for you, "mechanism" means an easily visualised picture.

As in the EM case waves, everybody works with waves, this has been discussed here.

...and you were doing so well.....

. EM consists of 'photons', which are lumps of 'stuff' that is
intrinsically
. oscillating.

Here is a simplistic challenge to this traditional interpretation.
According to relativity theory the time dilation of an object becomes
zero via the Lorentz factor:
t' = t ( sqrt( 1 - v v / c c )
where sqrt is the square root and t' is the time of the photon from
the observer's local frame where v is c since the object is a photon.
The age of every photon is zero regardless of how far it has
propagated. How then can it oscillate?

A measureable oscillation occurs when the
"photon" is reacting and destroyed by an
eyeball or an radio antenna for example.
I'd argue the photon is brought to rest
by an apparatus, and there conveys energy
and mass to the apparatus, hence the photon
does has "rest" mass, when measured.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

It seems clear that from our
reference frame that photons do oscillate yet according to relativity
in the photon's own frame it cannot. While the actual Lorentz factor
becomes infinite we would be forced to accept a pencil shape if the
photon is granted a minimum diameter.

The conflict extends farther than the oscillating photon
interpretation.
One way around this puzzle is to grant the photon a more complicated
path which would then exceed the propagation velocity c. Polarization
could then take a mechanistic interpretation as could the energy of
the individual photon. So for instance we could attempt a model of a
photon corkscrewing through space. Wavelength would take a more
physical value for such a photon. The impedance of free space could
take an anisotropic interpretation that will leave us with the
traditional electrical and magnetic field interpretation. There are
signals of such an interpretation within the polysign spacetime basis.
Since the higher energy photon is shorter in wavelength it is catchy
to consider the photon as a ripple of an elastic space. Does this
tweak particle/wave duality? Does it become particle/space duality?
This new duality is perfect.

- Tim