"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
Hi Thomas. Here is some feedback on your google doc. I have a hard
time with this statement that you make early on:

"The model don't need anything:
-no fields
-no particles
-no physical laws
-no observer
-no coordinates
-no constants"

don't should be doesn't but my criticism is not about grammar or
typoos. You rely upon quaternions and they do form a coordinate
system. It seems you've been careful yet the page after I've quoted
you say:

I'm german and i'm not a writer. I gues style has to be changed.
What I did: I took all my postings here, selected the best, put them each on
one slide. They I shuffled them around, corrected them, add something in,
wrote a lot, sorted things out.

That was roughly the method. Its quick and dirty. So it would need some
cleaning.

"The observer has a specific role in this model.
The model is working without an observer, but to make some use of it,
it is neccecary to define a few units.
For this porpose an observer is required."

This is too sticky and I think by withdrawing the initial claims you'd
be better off. Such details prevent us from going deeper.
Interpretation and reinterpretation are fine to focus on I think, but
to deny some of the old traits and then come right back to them so
directly is not productive.

How many of your readers get to antisymmetric spacetime versus
symmetric spacetime under Handedness and Hyperspheres? Few I'll bet
and it is here that the interesting thoughts are going on. If you like
to think of coordinates as relations that is fine, but to claim that
you've destroyed coordinates is too much. Interpretation is allowed to
be loosely coupled and without this your own context cannot come
through. Instantiation of a quaternion on a piece of paper will
involve coordinates in the representation. I don't see any way around
that.
I didn't distroy coordinates, and that was not intended. I wanted to arrange
the tools appropropriate to QM and wick-rotate the whole thing into
relations of GR. The pivou point of this is the observer or Nil-point.
The shocking result is, that its really true and you CAN describe our world
by dimensionless numbers.

Thomas Heger

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Timo wrote: in

_You_ claimed that physics will not advance with "mechanism", and you
appeared to claim that the "little ball" _analogy_ for electrons is
sufficient "mechanism".

It is, for many purposes.

And physics can advance with the little ball analogy as "mechanism", and
it can't with a mathematical model of the behaviour of electrons?

Analogies and easily visualisable pictures are nice, and can be useful
even if they're fundamentally wrong, but how can such be _necessary_ for
progress?

What you do isn't "arguing". You made a wrong statement, and cut
discussion of it. _You're_ the one who claimed that Newtonianism is
fundamentally flawed, and physics will not advance until we get rid of it.

Bull, I never claimed that.

You want me to quote you?

Sure, do.

"MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics will not advance".
How is this not a claim that Newtonianism (i.e., priority of mathematical
model over "mechanism") is flawed? You've largely avoided any substantial
discussion of this point, largely by the simple tactic of cut-and-ignore.

Are you trying to deny that you claimed that
physics will not advance with "mechanism".

You must have noticed that we still have Newton's equations, but have no
clue as to what gravity actually is, so we have not advanced.
If we had, we would have been able to manipulate gravity.

That's a stinking pile of crap. Firstly, you ignore the progress that has
been made in physics as a direct result of Newton's law of universal
gravitation (for example, we understand most of celestial mechanics on
that basis; only a few cases require physics or mathematical models beyond
Newton's LUG).

Secondly, even if we knew what gravity _is_, that doesn't mean that we
would be able to manipulate it. We know what stars are, but can we
manipulate them? You might as well try to claim that we don't understand
history, because we can't manipulate it.

Bull, I did not start the topic.

You want me to quote you? Or are you weaseling? Sure, the OP posted that
we don't know what fields "are". But you were the one claiming that
physics will not advance without "mechanism".

Holy ****, you are daft are not you?
This is the SAME thing.
Maybe your idea of mechanism is not of this world or planet.

Don't be such an idiot! Did, for example, electromagnetic theory advance
in 1820-1920 or not? Was this an "advance in physics"? This period in EM
theory can be characterised by a discarding of "mechanism" (as the word is
usually understood in the context - perhaps you mean something quite
different, but it's hard to say, since you've avoided defining what _you_
mean by it). It's pretty clear that physics did advance, on stuff
concerning fields, in the absence of knowing what fields "are". It looks
like knowing how we can quantitatively describe the behaviour is more
important for advance.

Well done! Seriously. Sure, there isn't always much maths involved. But
where did you need "mechanism"?

Electrons, how they react to electric and magnetic fields, my whole
point in this case is, that without the idea of electrons as little balls of charge,
you cannot ever comprehend the experiments.

Electrons as little balls is fine for CRTs. Not needed for almost anything
else in electronics, other than shot noise. Do note how much of
electronics predates knowing about electrons. Do note how much of
electrons requires quantum mechanics, electrons as waves, not little
balls, to understand how it works.

To do electronics, you need to know how
the things in the circuit behave. At most, you need mathematical models
describing the phenomena. Isn't Ohm's law enough to choose an appropriate
resistor for a circuit, even with no "mechanism"?

See, that is the difference between understanding and engineering.
Once you have dreamt up a configuration, then you can do engineering, and
in engineering use Ohm's law to calculate some component.
You cannot _I_ _repeat_ _CANNOT_ start with Ohms law and design
a circuit that does something.
To design a circuit that does something, you need a clue what electrons do.
Once you have your circuit, then use Ohm's law to get the quantities.

So, you can start from the "little ball analogy"? Or do you need to start
at a higher level, and have some experience and knowledge of electronics?

Sometimes. experiment leads. Sometimes, theory leads. For example, fibre
optics. Lord Rayleigh did the theory, and it took about 60 years for the
manufacturing to catch up. Would they, should they, have bothered without
having the theory there that it should work?

Take for example all that stuff about optical cloaking.
Keep on trying :-)

Trying what? But I see you didn't answer the question (again). Should they
have bothered? Should they have bothered without theory telling them that
decades of effort might pay off, if the engineering difficulties could be
overcome?

They did the math, published papers, but if you read it there are very tight
limits where it _could_ work.
Once you see that, should you keep investing millions in trying to get a
cloaking device that completely hides soldiers or tanks?

Who is investing millions in this effort? A lot has been invested in
reducing radar visibility, and it's worked. In any case, if the theory
says it isn't practical, why should that encourage further investment?

--
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 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:03:13 +0200, "Thomas Heger"
wrote:

foolows from symmetry of spactine

Good title for a novel, that.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:43:55 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


| Let's see if you can behave yourself.
|
| Always do....

Starting out with a lie could be construed a violation of your parole.
Never mind that, though, what is it about fields that you wish
to discuss?
BTW, this is the correct way to create an orbit:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.xls
(even with Vista).
The field is centred on the focus... that's the fiducial mark near the
centre which changes its horizontal position as the eccentricity changes.
Panning across, one can see the generated (x,y) coordinates.
You may, if you wish, enter the value 200 into location C2 on the
spreadsheet and obtain a Wombat Wilson Wobbly Worbit, the
spreadsheet is designed for 100 pts.

Mine is far superior. It can produce the velocity and velocity angles (as well
as x and y components) for an unlimited number of points, 30000 being ample in
most instances. The points are spaced equally in time, not angle.

Androcles ....specialising in demonstrating mathematics to wombats too dumb
to learn....

It's so nice to be friends again. I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of
any friend of Hanson.


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

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

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:14:03 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
| On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:43:55 +0100, "Androcles"

| wrote:
|
|
| | Let's see if you can behave yourself.
| |
| | Always do....
|
| Starting out with a lie could be construed a violation of your parole.
| Never mind that, though, what is it about fields that you wish
| to discuss?
| BTW, this is the correct way to create an orbit:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.xls
| (even with Vista).
| The field is centred on the focus... that's the fiducial mark near the
| centre which changes its horizontal position as the eccentricity changes.
| Panning across, one can see the generated (x,y) coordinates.
| You may, if you wish, enter the value 200 into location C2 on the
| spreadsheet and obtain a Wombat Wilson Wobbly Worbit, the
| spreadsheet is designed for 100 pts.
|
| Mine is far superior.

Back in the killfile you go.
*plonk*

hahahahaha! ...thanks for the laughs....,Wilson....


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

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

On Apr 28, 1:38 pm, "Thomas Heger" wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"

Hi Thomas. Here is some feedback on your google doc. I have a hard
time with this statement that you make early on:

"The model don't need anything:
-no fields
-no particles
-no physical laws
-no observer
-no coordinates
-no constants"

don't should be doesn't but my criticism is not about grammar or
typoos. You rely upon quaternions and they do form a coordinate
system. It seems you've been careful yet the page after I've quoted
you say:

I'm german and i'm not a writer. I gues style has to be changed.
What I did: I took all my postings here, selected the best, put them each on
one slide. They I shuffled them around, corrected them, add something in,
wrote a lot, sorted things out.

That was roughly the method. Its quick and dirty. So it would need some
cleaning.



"The observer has a specific role in this model.
The model is working without an observer, but to make some use of it,
it is neccecary to define a few units.
For this porpose an observer is required."

This is too sticky and I think by withdrawing the initial claims you'd
be better off. Such details prevent us from going deeper.
Interpretation and reinterpretation are fine to focus on I think, but
to deny some of the old traits and then come right back to them so
directly is not productive.

How many of your readers get to antisymmetric spacetime versus
symmetric spacetime under Handedness and Hyperspheres? Few I'll bet
and it is here that the interesting thoughts are going on. If you like
to think of coordinates as relations that is fine, but to claim that
you've destroyed coordinates is too much. Interpretation is allowed to
be loosely coupled and without this your own context cannot come
through. Instantiation of a quaternion on a piece of paper will
involve coordinates in the representation. I don't see any way around
that.

I didn't distroy coordinates, and that was not intended. I wanted to arrange
the tools appropropriate to QM and wick-rotate the whole thing into
relations of GR. The pivou point of this is the observer or Nil-point.
The shocking result is, that its really true and you CAN describe our world
by dimensionless numbers.

Thomas Heger

Yeah, but how many numbers? By the time we get to three dimensionless
numbers then we have regenerated dimension. This fits our ordinary
sense of geometry. Then along come the tensor or quaternion and
reencapsulate those dimensions with some satisfaction, but only part
way. Still, OK, we can view the system from those forms as more
integrated and if there are some beneficial side effects in one
particular representation then we can claim one form to be superior
and maybe even claim it to be the native form. If we focus on time as
unidirectional should we anticipate its representation within one of
these formats? It happens that the polysign progression contains a
unidirectional and zero dimensional entity that matches time, that
being P1; the one-signed numbers:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/OneSigned.html
but that is tangential to any discussion of fields.

Getting back to fields to what degree are we really only discussing a
mathematical entity? The strictly mathematical field behaviors(eg real
numbers, complex numbers) are not at all what we mean though the
physical field's behaviors are mathematically pure.

That brings me to the puzzle of the self shielding toroidal coil. How
is it that the external magnetic field is negligible? Doesn't this
behavior contradict standard electromagnetics? In effect we are
sucking all of the flux into the core when traditionally half of it
had to pass along the outside of each wire. I have yet to see any
treatment that takes this discrepancy head-on. I would appreciate a
link that considers this puzzle directly. I suppose that this puzzle
has been around with ordinary transformers as well, it's just that
visualizing all of that flux whirring around in the toroid is far
prettier.

If the flux did travel through air for even a portion of its trip then
the remarkable permeabilities of any core xformer would be corrupted.
If that flux that would have travelled through air went into the core
then it would cancel out any induced magnetic field. The
interpretation can no longer be of a loop of flux traveling about the
conducting wire. I don't see any way around this and it goes against
traditional EM interpretation. Trying to visualize a double ended
strand of flux feels alright, but nobody uses this as a model do they?

Am I missing something?
Are we all a bunch of morons?

- Tim

"Jan Panteltje"
"MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics will not advance".

Maybe you like to hear my idea. Its a model based on GR and Quaternion
rotation.
Gravity is a geometric effect in spacetime. This is due to the energy
content of material bodies. This is modelled via rotation, what would make
the lightpath longer. That is observed as light being deviated or space
curved.
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?...z2tx_3gfzvqgd6

This is a longish text that I'm writing at. Something about electrons and
how they work is there too.
In this text I'm researching particles as structures in spacetime. In this
picture a particle act as an operator.
I can show, that the quantum gravity equivalent to gravity is heat. A bit
difficult to explain, but maybe you try my text.

Thomas Heger

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Timo wrote:

What you do isn't "arguing". You made a wrong statement, and cut
discussion of it. _You're_ the one who claimed that Newtonianism is
fundamentally flawed, and physics will not advance until we get rid of it.

Bull, I never claimed that.

You want me to quote you?

Sure, do.

"MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics will not advance".
How is this not a claim that Newtonianism (i.e., priority of mathematical
model over "mechanism") is flawed? You've largely avoided any substantial
discussion of this point, largely by the simple tactic of cut-and-ignore.

You must have noticed that we still have Newton's equations, but have no
clue as to what gravity actually is, so we have not advanced.
If we had, we would have been able to manipulate gravity.

That's a stinking pile of crap.

No, I am talking about gravity,

No, your original claim was not that without a "mechanism" for gravity,
our understanding of what gravity is will not advance, but rather than
without "mechanism", _physics_ will not advance.

As you might have noticed, there is more to physics than understanding
what gravity "is". We can certainly advance without knowing what gravity
"is". It would be nice to know what gravity really "is", but it quite
clearly not necessary for progress - if you look at the historical
progress following Newton's law of universal gravity, a mere mathematical
model, devoid of "mechanism", you will see rapid and spectacular advances
being made. Just not in the topic of what gravity "is". From history, we
know that Newtonianism was very, very successful.

and you, in the below paragraph, fail to stay
on the subject, and wander of in random directions:

start confused paragraph
Firstly, you ignore the progress that has
been made in physics as a direct result of Newton's law of universal
gravitation (for example, we understand most of celestial mechanics on
that basis; only a few cases require physics or mathematical models beyond
Newton's LUG).
end confused paragraph

Secondly, even if we knew what gravity _is_, that doesn't mean that we
would be able to manipulate it.

Well, from an engineering POV you bet we will!

Given that we don't know what it "is", it seems rather presumptuous to say
that we _will_ be able to manipulate it. Perhaps, perhaps not.

--
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 Apr 29, 7:59*pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Timo wrote:

What you do isn't "arguing". You made a wrong statement, and cut
discussion of it. _You're_ the one who claimed that Newtonianism is
fundamentally flawed, and physics will not advance until we get rid of it.

Bull, I never claimed that.

You want me to quote you?

Sure, do.

"MECHANISM is what we need, and until that day physics will not advance".
How is this not a claim that Newtonianism (i.e., priority of mathematical
model over "mechanism") is flawed? You've largely avoided any substantial
discussion of this point, largely by the simple tactic of cut-and-ignore.

You must have noticed that we still have Newton's equations, but have no
clue as to what gravity actually is, so we have not advanced.
If we had, we would have been able to manipulate gravity.

That's a stinking pile of crap.

No, I am talking about gravity,

No, your original claim was not that without a "mechanism" for gravity,
our understanding of what gravity is will not advance, but rather than
without "mechanism", _physics_ will not advance.

As you might have noticed, there is more to physics than understanding
what gravity "is". We can certainly advance without knowing what gravity
"is". It would be nice to know what gravity really "is", but it quite
clearly not necessary for progress - if you look at the historical
progress following Newton's law of universal gravity, a mere mathematical
model, devoid of "mechanism", you will see rapid and spectacular advances
being made. Just not in the topic of what gravity "is". From history, we
know that Newtonianism was very, very successful.

and you, in the below paragraph, fail to stay
on the subject, and wander of in random directions:

start confused paragraph
*Firstly, you ignore the progress that has
*been made in physics as a direct result of Newton's law of universal
*gravitation (for example, we understand most of celestial mechanics on
*that basis; only a few cases require physics or mathematical models beyond
*Newton's LUG).
end confused paragraph

Secondly, even if we knew what gravity _is_, that doesn't mean that we
would be able to manipulate it.

Well, from an engineering POV you bet we will!

Given that we don't know what it "is", it seems rather presumptuous to say
that we _will_ be able to manipulate it. Perhaps, perhaps not.

--
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_ni.../spirits.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

New particles in colliders are born from the old matter's mass and
field when collided.

Mitch Raemsch

On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:59:25 +1000) it happened Timo Nieminen
wrote in
Pine.LNX.4.50.0804301344340.20824-100000@localhost:

No, I am talking about gravity,

No, your original claim was not that without a "mechanism" for gravity,
our understanding of what gravity is will not advance,

It was.


but rather than
without "mechanism", _physics_ will not advance.

OK, but I ment that part of physics that has no mechanism, and used gravity
as example, I hope that is not too difficult for you?


Secondly, even if we knew what gravity _is_, that doesn't mean that we
would be able to manipulate it.

Well, from an engineering POV you bet we will!

Given that we don't know what it "is", it seems rather presumptuous to say
that we _will_ be able to manipulate it. Perhaps, perhaps not.

Not really, so far every time we found a mechanism, industry took a great flight
using that to do things.
Chem, electronics, are examples.