On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:26:58 +0200) it happened "Thomas Heger"
wrote in :


"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

I have made it to page 15, and still have no clue what you are trying to say?

"Jan Panteltje" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:26:58 +0200) it happened "Thomas
Heger"
wrote in :


"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

I have made it to page 15, and still have no clue what you are trying to
say?
Read it backwards.Interesting is at the end.
I tried to find a sytem, that nature could actually perform. This should
answer questions of the 'why' type. I found way more then expected. I use
quaternions as elements of spacetime and rebuild quantum-physics within
spacetime. This works *very* well. I promise.
Today I wrote something about the magic numbers. You get a very intuitive
idea about how that could actually work. It's speculative, but I'm next to a
proof. In general its based on the idea that there is a conneting point
between GR and QM. This is called observer on the GR side and position
operator on the QM side. This is because QM uses a formular in the same way
and same meaning as the formular for quaternion rotation. And I can show,
that you can build spacetime out of spinning quaternions.
Now I show, that there is a one to one match of phenomena in both fields,
but different and incompatible methods. Then I show, that the 'real' thing
is in fact spacetime.

Thomas Heger

On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:48:26 +0200) it happened "Thomas Heger"
wrote in :


"Jan Panteltje" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:26:58 +0200) it happened "Thomas
Heger"
wrote in :


"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

I have made it to page 15, and still have no clue what you are trying to
say?
Read it backwards.Interesting is at the end.

OK, I did start at the end.
I see you had a bar, and did economics.
The world's financial system cis in a bad ste it seems,
too much hedging.
This is a nice site too:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Personally I drink no alcohol, keeps the mind clear, and the reaction time better.

Read it backwards.Interesting is at the end.

OK, I did start at the end.
I see you had a bar, and did economics.
The world's financial system cis in a bad ste it seems,
too much hedging.
This is a nice site too:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Personally I drink no alcohol, keeps the mind clear, and the reaction time
better.


Oh no. Maybe not the last pages. Its about a scheme to do physics without
observers. that is regarded as the way nature behaves. QM i treat as physics
of observations, since that depends on an observer. You get a defintion of
time through your observation, what you could do with a clock. But spacetime
is about intervalls. Now I build particles out of intervals and it works
very well. The very interesting point is, that you can build intervals out
of dimensionless numbers. This is very very interesting, I promise!

Thomas Heger

On a sunny day (Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:29:30 +0200) it happened "Thomas Heger"
wrote in :


Read it backwards.Interesting is at the end.

OK, I did start at the end.
I see you had a bar, and did economics.
The world's financial system cis in a bad ste it seems,
too much hedging.
This is a nice site too:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
Personally I drink no alcohol, keeps the mind clear, and the reaction time
better.


Oh no. Maybe not the last pages. Its about a scheme to do physics without
observers. that is regarded as the way nature behaves. QM i treat as physics
of observations, since that depends on an observer. You get a defintion of
time through your observation, what you could do with a clock. But spacetime
is about intervalls. Now I build particles out of intervals and it works
very well. The very interesting point is, that you can build intervals out
of dimensionless numbers. This is very very interesting, I promise!

Thomas Heger

OK, but I have read more from the end then the last few.
For a moment it reminded me of some proposition I have seen from some
uni about what conducts EM waves.
Maybe these things are simply over my head...
Sure, there must be something that makes up space....
And it must have very special properties.
But I still think your terminology is perhaps to vague to really hit
'eureka'.
It is indeed more philosophy.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Timo wrote:

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.

"Without mechanism, physics will not advance" is not a claim about
gravity, it's a claim about mechanism and physics in general.

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?

Feel free to use gravity as an example, but keep in mind that your
original claim was that "physics will not advance" without mechanism, not
that tiny parts of physics will not advance without mechanism.
Essentially, a claim that the whole program of Newtonianism, that
mathematical models are sufficient and mechanism is not needed, is flawed.

It might also be useful if you try to define "mechanism". All that I know
about what you mean is that "field" is not "mechanism" (just in
gravitation, or in electromagnetism as well - you appeared to deny the
sufficiency of "field" in the context of EM, but perhaps you would like to
try to weasel out of this claim now as well), the "little ball" analogy of
electrons is "mechanism" (despite being _wrong_), and, in the context of
optics, "waves" is "mechanism".

This appears odd, since "field" explains more about the interactions
between electrons, and between electrons and positive charges, than the
"little ball" model, which tells you nothing unless you add on Coulomb's
law, which is just a Newtonian-style mathematical-model-only force law.
Accepting "waves" as mechanism in optics but not "field" in EM is odd,
since classical optics is a special case of electromagnetism, and the
waves in question are electromagnetic waves. "EM field" is not a
mechanism, but "EM waves" are?

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.

So, "every time"? Perhaps you'd best define "mechanism". We know how stars
work (and our "mechanism" is every bit as good as the "little ball" model,
largely consisting of such a "little ball" model) - where has industry
taken a great flight using that to do things? Indeed, you were complaining
about the lack of progress based on the mechanism of nuclear fusion.

We know the mechanism of solar sails (it's just reflection of EM waves,
after all) - what great flights has industry achieved?

So, perhaps sometimes, not "every time".

--
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 (Thu, 1 May 2008 05:14:23 +1000) it happened "Timo A. Nieminen"
wrote in
:

It might also be useful if you try to define "mechanism". All that I know
about what you mean is that "field" is not "mechanism"

Field is a mathematical concept, it describes the forces we observe.
You may as well write 'ghost'.
It does _not_ tell you how those forces are transmitted, or conveyed if you like.

(just in
gravitation, or in electromagnetism as well - you appeared to deny the
sufficiency of "field" in the context of EM, but perhaps you would like to
try to weasel out of this claim now as well), the "little ball" analogy of
electrons is "mechanism" (despite being _wrong_),

It is not wrong, it has limitations, but so has all of physics.


and, in the context of
optics, "waves" is "mechanism".

When there are waves, something must wave :-)
As opposed to 'photon', and other mathematical construct.


This appears odd, since "field" explains more about the interactions
between electrons, and between electrons and positive charges, than the
"little ball" model, which tells you nothing unless you add on Coulomb's
law,

Of course you add that, and its mass, etc.

which is just a Newtonian-style mathematical-model-only force law.

True.

Accepting "waves" as mechanism in optics but not "field" in EM is odd,
since classical optics is a special case of electromagnetism, and the
waves in question are electromagnetic waves. "EM field" is not a
mechanism, but "EM waves" are?

Right.
See my definition of 'field' at the start of this posting.


So, "every time"? Perhaps you'd best define "mechanism".


We know how stars
work (and our "mechanism" is every bit as good as the "little ball" model,
largely consisting of such a "little ball" model)

We know partly how stars work, see the recent paper about quantum_gravity
and black holes by Carlip for example, mentioned here today.


- where has industry
taken a great flight using that to do things?

Well, plasma physics really is used in lots of places.


Indeed, you were complaining
about the lack of progress based on the mechanism of nuclear fusion.

Sure, nature presents us with fusion balls (sun etc), while
these guys try to do the doughnut thingy so they have a primary turn
in a transformer.
Can you bend the plasma the way you want [in circles]?


We know the mechanism of solar sails (it's just reflection of EM waves,
after all) - what great flights has industry achieved?

Sorry I do not understand that remark, it is late here....

OK, but I have read more from the end then the last few.
For a moment it reminded me of some proposition I have seen from some
uni about what conducts EM waves.
Maybe these things are simply over my head...
Sure, there must be something that makes up space....
And it must have very special properties.
But I still think your terminology is perhaps to vague to really hit
'eureka'.
It is indeed more philosophy.

Maybe you concentrate on only one question.
The model is based on a simplification of spacetime. You take only one
spatial dimension and one temporal. In this a light cone is a triangle
pointing up from an event. Now I think about, what make this movement
upwards. That is modelled out of spinning quaternions. Those are special
numbers with three imaginary components and a real scalar part. By those
quaternions you can model rotations. -out of roations i build the whole
spacetime of GR. So those quaternions are supposed to be fundamental
entities. Out of that I build structures that look like atoms. Those behave
more like the atoms we actually observe than those described by
quantumphysics. So there is a different model for atoms. The whole thing is
quite strange, but it is very much like things observed. I can actually
solve most of the top unsolved problems with my model. I checked it on many
problems and it allways worked fine. So I think that it's a good model.


Thomas Heger

"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote in message
...
That brings me to the puzzle of the self shielding toroidal coil. How
is it that the external magnetic field is negligible?

The idea is that the magnetic field produced (strictly) by the current flowing
in the conductors that completely enclose the toroid produce zero external
field. Certainly in the real world there are wires running up to that toroid
and those wires will contain a field around them. This is probably not
specifically mentioned in the text because (1) it detracts from the problem at
hand (determining the fields inside and outside of the toroid), (2) actually
computing the fields at the junction between, say, some twisted pair of wires
that then diverge and encircle the toroid is a highly non-trivial problem that
probably can't be solved analytically (look up the papers on calculating the
fields in something as "simple" as a step change in the width of a microstrip
transmission line and you'll get a field for what you're up against), (3) the
field from the wires leading up to the toroid will generally be quite small in
comparison to those inside of it and hence can be neglected, and (4) some
authors probably figure this would all be self-evident.

(Note that authors usually do explicitly mention "feed" concerns when they're
dealing with devices intended to create significant external fields, such as
antennas. Pretty much every discussion of dipole antennas, for instance,
contains at least a little bit about how you need to be careful in arranging
the feed...)

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.

The other thing is that, by design, transformers are controlling where almost
all of the flux goes (the bit that "gets away" is leakage, and there's plenty
of discussion on designing transformers to minimize it), whereas with "random
wiring" there's no such control and it's difficult to make accurate
predictions. There are common middle grounds, though, such as microstrip
lines and twisted-pair wiring where -- while the field does extend off to
infinity -- you can still draw reasonably accurate pictures of what's going on
in regions close to the conductors.

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.

Um, no, it just creates leakage inductance, which primarily serves to limit
frequency response and decrease the transformer's efficiency.

If that flux that would have travelled through air went into the core
then it would cancel out any induced magnetic field.

Not in the general case... fields are vector quantities, so unless you can get
the magnitudes and directions to line up exactly the right way (like a
reversed secondary coil on a transformer does), the fields don't cancel.

---Joel

On Apr 30, 2:35*pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 1 May 2008 05:14:23 +1000) it happened "Timo A. Nieminen"
wrote in
:

It might also be useful if you try to define "mechanism". All that I know
about what you mean is that "field" is not "mechanism"

Field is a mathematical concept, it describes the forces we observe.
You may as well write 'ghost'.
It does _not_ tell you how those forces are transmitted, or conveyed if you like.

(just in
gravitation, or in electromagnetism as well - you appeared to deny the
sufficiency of "field" in the context of EM, but perhaps you would like to
try to weasel out of this claim now as well), the "little ball" analogy of
electrons is "mechanism" (despite being _wrong_),

It is not wrong, it has limitations, but so has all of physics.

Semantic clarification. If a model has a boundary of applicability,
that can be called a limitation. But if a theory makes a definite
prediction that is contrary to measurement, that's an indicator it's
*wrong*. Now, the cheesy way out is to say, "OK, so don't make that
prediction with the model." This is theoretical gerrymandering,
generally frowned upon in science.


and, in the context of
optics, "waves" is "mechanism".

When there are waves, something must wave :-)

Yes, but it does not need to be a material substance. It can well be a
field.

As opposed to 'photon', and other mathematical construct.

This appears odd, since "field" explains more about the interactions
between electrons, and between electrons and positive charges, than the
"little ball" model, which tells you nothing unless you add on Coulomb's
law,

Of course you add that, and its mass, etc.

which is just a Newtonian-style mathematical-model-only force law.

True.

Accepting "waves" as mechanism in optics but not "field" in EM is odd,
since classical optics is a special case of electromagnetism, and the
waves in question are electromagnetic waves. "EM field" is not a
mechanism, but "EM waves" are?

Right.
See my definition of 'field' at the start of this posting.

So, "every time"? Perhaps you'd best define "mechanism".
We know how stars
work (and our "mechanism" is every bit as good as the "little ball" model,
largely consisting of such a "little ball" model)

We know partly how stars work, see the recent paper about quantum_gravity
and black holes by Carlip for example, mentioned here today.

- where has industry
taken a great flight using that to do things?

Well, plasma physics really is used in lots of places.

Indeed, you were complaining
about the lack of progress based on the mechanism of nuclear fusion.

Sure, nature presents us with fusion balls (sun etc), while
these guys try to do the doughnut thingy so they have a primary turn
in a transformer.
Can you bend the plasma the way you want [in circles]?

We know the mechanism of solar sails (it's just reflection of EM waves,
after all) - what great flights has industry achieved?

Sorry I do not understand that remark, it is late here....