- Thank you received: 0
Cosmological Redshift and Expansion of Space
16 years 6 months ago #15106
by jim mash
Replied by jim mash on topic Reply from Jim Mash
Tom
Because it is some time since I read some of your books and visited your web site I have taken a fresh look but as far as I can see there has not been much progress. You state that the Meta Model for gravity has implications for the quantum world but it stops short of attempting to model electricity, magnetism or the structure of matter. Your model of gravity is based upon particles but it does not explain how they are or were created, what they are made of, how they interact with matter how fast they travel, how many exist per unit volume, whether or not the density is uniform throughout the universe, do they have a limited lifetime and if not why are they stable etc.
FET explains how the gravitational force arises, what it consists of and how it interacts with matter and radiation and it uses the same explanation for electricity, magnetism, quantum theory and relativity. FET is founded upon the assumption (and all theories have to make some assumptions) that energy is a real substance. I first considered it to be particulate but this did not solve the problem of defining its size or structure. Atoms were once thought to be the ultimate particles, then neutrons, protons and electrons, then quarks and gluons, and now vibrating strings. I took this to the limit and assumed the ultimate particles to be infinitesimal. This solved several problems at a stroke. If energy is continuous then it must be the only substance to exist otherwise another substance could surround it and break it up into particles. It also meant that it must fill all space otherwise if you had empty space then there would have to be a boundary and this too would result in particles. I therefore concluded that energy fills all space, space is infinite and both space and energy have always existed.
Now if energy is the only substance to exist you might wonder how it forms matter, radiation and forces. The answer is simple, it is due to variations in its density and flow rate. A continuous substance that is fluid behaves differently to one that is particulate in that if there is the slightest movement then it is felt everywhere. Consequently, regions of motion unite to conserve momentum by forming 2-dimensional, self sustaining whirlpools. These concentrate fluid energy within them by the centripetal force until the density reaches 2x10^54eV. per m^3. This is the energy density of neutrons and is a maximum due to fluid energy becoming a solid. Because it can no longer compress the energy it starts to build up as a particle. Now a spinning solid develops a centrifugal force that increases with the size of the particle. When the diameter of the particle reaches 10^-15m the centrifugal force exceeds the centripetal force and the neutron breaks apart into a proton and an electron, i.e. a hydrogen atom.
These particles are compressed together by larger whirlpools to form molecules, which are compressed by even larger whirlpools to form stars, which are compressed together to form solar systems, galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc. Notice that this process gives rise to disc shaped solar systems and galaxies in which the motions of stars are controlled by the centripetal force and therefore there is no need for dark matter. Hence we have a theory that works on every conceivable scale with the same assumptions and mathematics.
Radiation is created when particles reach the critical size and throw off packets of fluid energy that move at the same speed as the surface, which is calculated to be c. I did not derive this value for the speed of light by setting the spin rate that would give this answer but from an entirely different route. It is easy to show how these packets of energy lose energy at the same rate as the red shift of starlight and how a single packet can pass through two holes simultaneously and form an interference pattern. Plus it can explain why that pattern disappears if you look at one of the holes.
I calculated that the energy density of the continuum before particle formation occurred must have been 2x10^15eV per m^3.
Notice that the ratio of the energy density of the continuum to that of a solid particle is 10^39. This is the same ratio as the strength of the gravitational force to the electromagnetic force. This is not a coincidence but arises from the graviational force being associated with flowing continuum energy whilst the electromagnetic force arises from a flow from solid energy.
The Earth's gravity arises from continuum energy flowing into every nucleon within the planet and this generates a flow of 11.2km per sec at the surface. You asked how a continuous velocity could generate an acceleration in a falling object but you seem to have forgotten that when a continuous uniform force is applied to an object it undergoes an acceleration. The Earth's flow of continuum energy can be shown to generate an acceleration of 9.8m per sec per sec.
One of the possibilities you identify to explain how planets explode is gravitational heating. FET shows that the amount of gravitational energy flowing into the Earth is at least 4 times the amount of radiation it receives from the Sun. The difference is that the latter warms only the surface whereas the former is distributed evenly throughout the whole planet. This energy will keep the planet (and all others) hot forever.
Planets larger than the Earth explode because when they are entirely molten they can lose heat from the surface by convection and conduction. But when the surface cools and forms a solid crust the heat loss falls dramatically as it can no longer be lost by convection currents. But because gravitational heating continues, the inside of the planet starts to heat up and increase the pressure. This continues until the pressure explodes away the solid surface.
Your comment that the speed of light cannot depend upon wavelength does not take into account that laboratory measurement generate light from atoms in a controlled manner. Light originating from explosions will not exhibit the same effect.
I have made many prediction with FET and also suggested how they can be tested. For example, my value for the energy density of the continuum should not prove too difficult to measure.
I have explained quite a lot about FET but most of it can be found on my web site because I have presented 2 whole chapters and plan to release more from both the book on cosmology and the second book on the interactions of photons with matter.
My offer of free copies of the first book to any interested parties will last until they are all gone. All that I require is an address that can be sent to me confidentially via the contact address on my web site.
Regards
Jim Mash
Because it is some time since I read some of your books and visited your web site I have taken a fresh look but as far as I can see there has not been much progress. You state that the Meta Model for gravity has implications for the quantum world but it stops short of attempting to model electricity, magnetism or the structure of matter. Your model of gravity is based upon particles but it does not explain how they are or were created, what they are made of, how they interact with matter how fast they travel, how many exist per unit volume, whether or not the density is uniform throughout the universe, do they have a limited lifetime and if not why are they stable etc.
FET explains how the gravitational force arises, what it consists of and how it interacts with matter and radiation and it uses the same explanation for electricity, magnetism, quantum theory and relativity. FET is founded upon the assumption (and all theories have to make some assumptions) that energy is a real substance. I first considered it to be particulate but this did not solve the problem of defining its size or structure. Atoms were once thought to be the ultimate particles, then neutrons, protons and electrons, then quarks and gluons, and now vibrating strings. I took this to the limit and assumed the ultimate particles to be infinitesimal. This solved several problems at a stroke. If energy is continuous then it must be the only substance to exist otherwise another substance could surround it and break it up into particles. It also meant that it must fill all space otherwise if you had empty space then there would have to be a boundary and this too would result in particles. I therefore concluded that energy fills all space, space is infinite and both space and energy have always existed.
Now if energy is the only substance to exist you might wonder how it forms matter, radiation and forces. The answer is simple, it is due to variations in its density and flow rate. A continuous substance that is fluid behaves differently to one that is particulate in that if there is the slightest movement then it is felt everywhere. Consequently, regions of motion unite to conserve momentum by forming 2-dimensional, self sustaining whirlpools. These concentrate fluid energy within them by the centripetal force until the density reaches 2x10^54eV. per m^3. This is the energy density of neutrons and is a maximum due to fluid energy becoming a solid. Because it can no longer compress the energy it starts to build up as a particle. Now a spinning solid develops a centrifugal force that increases with the size of the particle. When the diameter of the particle reaches 10^-15m the centrifugal force exceeds the centripetal force and the neutron breaks apart into a proton and an electron, i.e. a hydrogen atom.
These particles are compressed together by larger whirlpools to form molecules, which are compressed by even larger whirlpools to form stars, which are compressed together to form solar systems, galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc. Notice that this process gives rise to disc shaped solar systems and galaxies in which the motions of stars are controlled by the centripetal force and therefore there is no need for dark matter. Hence we have a theory that works on every conceivable scale with the same assumptions and mathematics.
Radiation is created when particles reach the critical size and throw off packets of fluid energy that move at the same speed as the surface, which is calculated to be c. I did not derive this value for the speed of light by setting the spin rate that would give this answer but from an entirely different route. It is easy to show how these packets of energy lose energy at the same rate as the red shift of starlight and how a single packet can pass through two holes simultaneously and form an interference pattern. Plus it can explain why that pattern disappears if you look at one of the holes.
I calculated that the energy density of the continuum before particle formation occurred must have been 2x10^15eV per m^3.
Notice that the ratio of the energy density of the continuum to that of a solid particle is 10^39. This is the same ratio as the strength of the gravitational force to the electromagnetic force. This is not a coincidence but arises from the graviational force being associated with flowing continuum energy whilst the electromagnetic force arises from a flow from solid energy.
The Earth's gravity arises from continuum energy flowing into every nucleon within the planet and this generates a flow of 11.2km per sec at the surface. You asked how a continuous velocity could generate an acceleration in a falling object but you seem to have forgotten that when a continuous uniform force is applied to an object it undergoes an acceleration. The Earth's flow of continuum energy can be shown to generate an acceleration of 9.8m per sec per sec.
One of the possibilities you identify to explain how planets explode is gravitational heating. FET shows that the amount of gravitational energy flowing into the Earth is at least 4 times the amount of radiation it receives from the Sun. The difference is that the latter warms only the surface whereas the former is distributed evenly throughout the whole planet. This energy will keep the planet (and all others) hot forever.
Planets larger than the Earth explode because when they are entirely molten they can lose heat from the surface by convection and conduction. But when the surface cools and forms a solid crust the heat loss falls dramatically as it can no longer be lost by convection currents. But because gravitational heating continues, the inside of the planet starts to heat up and increase the pressure. This continues until the pressure explodes away the solid surface.
Your comment that the speed of light cannot depend upon wavelength does not take into account that laboratory measurement generate light from atoms in a controlled manner. Light originating from explosions will not exhibit the same effect.
I have made many prediction with FET and also suggested how they can be tested. For example, my value for the energy density of the continuum should not prove too difficult to measure.
I have explained quite a lot about FET but most of it can be found on my web site because I have presented 2 whole chapters and plan to release more from both the book on cosmology and the second book on the interactions of photons with matter.
My offer of free copies of the first book to any interested parties will last until they are all gone. All that I require is an address that can be sent to me confidentially via the contact address on my web site.
Regards
Jim Mash
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 6 months ago #20915
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jim mash</i>
<br />Because it is some time since I read some of your books and visited your web site I have taken a fresh look but as far as I can see there has not been much progress.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The web site contains just small snippets of Meta Science, and my book's second edition is now nine years old. All the new stuff is in the Meta Research Bulletin, which has gone "open access" since mid-2006. We're preparing a CD with older issues.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You state that the Meta Model for gravity has implications for the quantum world but it stops short of attempting to model electricity, magnetism or the structure of matter. Your model of gravity is based upon particles but it does not explain how they are or were created, what they are made of, how they interact with matter how fast they travel, how many exist per unit volume, whether or not the density is uniform throughout the universe, do they have a limited lifetime and if not why are they stable etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The modeling of electricity, magnetism, and the structure of matter is on the web site at metaresearch.org/cosmology/Quantum_Physi...tructureOfMatter.asp
All those issues about gravity are addressed in various articles such as my chapter in the 20-author book "Pushing Gravity". A collection of all the relevant gravity papers is available on our "Gravity" CD. See the web site store for order information.
Many of these topics have been discussed on this Message Board, if you look back far enough. But discussions are not always well-organized.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">FET explains how the gravitational force arises, what it consists of and how it interacts with matter and radiation and it uses the same explanation for electricity, magnetism, quantum theory and relativity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This still sounds like an add, not a comparison of model specifics.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">FET is founded upon the assumption (and all theories have to make some assumptions) that energy is a real substance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MM's only assumption is that the universe and all of physics can be understood and explained and predicted without miracles. Assuming anything else is risky and usually wrong.
In MM, energy is simply moving particles, often too small and too fast to detect individually with present instrumentation. It too considers substance to be infinitely divisible and eternal in an infinite space. The big difference is that MM says no scale is special, whereas in your model the infinitesimal energy units are special.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I did not derive this value for the speed of light by setting the spin rate that would give this answer but from an entirely different route.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For this and the other specific questions I asked you, your answers have been very vague.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Earth's flow of continuum energy can be shown to generate an acceleration of 9.8m per sec per sec.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">More vagueness where I asked for specifics. If an asteroid approached Earth at a speed exceeding 11 km/s, then the "flow" direction it encounters would be reversed. So would the asteroid experience anti-gravity?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your comment that the speed of light cannot depend upon wavelength does not take into account that laboratory measurement generate light from atoms in a controlled manner. Light originating from explosions will not exhibit the same effect.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Vague. No details. Requires a leap of faith.
What is the single, most amazing thing FET brings to the table that is not already in play? And how do you justify this feature? -|Tom|-
<br />Because it is some time since I read some of your books and visited your web site I have taken a fresh look but as far as I can see there has not been much progress.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The web site contains just small snippets of Meta Science, and my book's second edition is now nine years old. All the new stuff is in the Meta Research Bulletin, which has gone "open access" since mid-2006. We're preparing a CD with older issues.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You state that the Meta Model for gravity has implications for the quantum world but it stops short of attempting to model electricity, magnetism or the structure of matter. Your model of gravity is based upon particles but it does not explain how they are or were created, what they are made of, how they interact with matter how fast they travel, how many exist per unit volume, whether or not the density is uniform throughout the universe, do they have a limited lifetime and if not why are they stable etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The modeling of electricity, magnetism, and the structure of matter is on the web site at metaresearch.org/cosmology/Quantum_Physi...tructureOfMatter.asp
All those issues about gravity are addressed in various articles such as my chapter in the 20-author book "Pushing Gravity". A collection of all the relevant gravity papers is available on our "Gravity" CD. See the web site store for order information.
Many of these topics have been discussed on this Message Board, if you look back far enough. But discussions are not always well-organized.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">FET explains how the gravitational force arises, what it consists of and how it interacts with matter and radiation and it uses the same explanation for electricity, magnetism, quantum theory and relativity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This still sounds like an add, not a comparison of model specifics.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">FET is founded upon the assumption (and all theories have to make some assumptions) that energy is a real substance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MM's only assumption is that the universe and all of physics can be understood and explained and predicted without miracles. Assuming anything else is risky and usually wrong.
In MM, energy is simply moving particles, often too small and too fast to detect individually with present instrumentation. It too considers substance to be infinitely divisible and eternal in an infinite space. The big difference is that MM says no scale is special, whereas in your model the infinitesimal energy units are special.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I did not derive this value for the speed of light by setting the spin rate that would give this answer but from an entirely different route.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">For this and the other specific questions I asked you, your answers have been very vague.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Earth's flow of continuum energy can be shown to generate an acceleration of 9.8m per sec per sec.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">More vagueness where I asked for specifics. If an asteroid approached Earth at a speed exceeding 11 km/s, then the "flow" direction it encounters would be reversed. So would the asteroid experience anti-gravity?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your comment that the speed of light cannot depend upon wavelength does not take into account that laboratory measurement generate light from atoms in a controlled manner. Light originating from explosions will not exhibit the same effect.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Vague. No details. Requires a leap of faith.
What is the single, most amazing thing FET brings to the table that is not already in play? And how do you justify this feature? -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 6 months ago #20046
by jim mash
Replied by jim mash on topic Reply from Jim Mash
Tom
You have stated that many of my discourses have been vague but this is only because I cannot replicate here what fills several books. I have looked at the site where you say that MM explains matter, electricity and magnetism but I see nothing but vague statements.
I greatly appreciate the time that you have taken to discuss these issues and you have certainly made me realise how difficult it is going to be to get others to listen. I have decided to take your advice and compare FET with MM bit by bit. In your model you claim that no assumptions are made whereas in FET I have admitted to three assumptions. Having thought more deeply about this I realise that my claimed assumptions are not really assumptions at all but are just requirements based upon observations.
My first assumption that energy is a real substance arises purely from the fact that because we and our surroundings exist, something must be real. Because the only link between everything is energy, the minimum requirement for a universe to exist is that at least one substance should be real. FET is the simplest ever theory as it is based entirely upon the existence of only one real substance.
My second assumption is that energy is a continuous substance, not particulate. This again is the simplest possible requirement rather than an assumption as a continuous substance can have no boundaries. If boundaries existed then we would have to invoke at least one more substance to exist on the other side of that boundary. Also, we would have to invoke forces to create and maintain boundaries as well as properties to define shapes and sizes of particles.
My third assumption is that there must be a limit to the compressibility of energy. This though is not an assumption because it follows that if there were no limit then all of the energy in the universe would have been compressed into oblivion. We also know that there is a limit because we can and have measured it for nucleons. Other suggestions that nucleons can be compressed further are only theories as neutron stars and black holes have never really been seen. The current explanations for such bodies are easily shown to be false by FET, which can also explain why people think they exist.
The MM theory of matter assumes that there are at least five different types of particles. These are Elyssium, gravitons, protons, electrons and neutrons. All of them have very different properties and you offer no explanation as to why this is so. For example, why do electrons generate gravitons and why do gravitons affect Elyssium particles and not themselves. The MM explanation of why protons repel each other but can still exist together within the nucleus of an atom is fairly convincing but it does not explain why neutrons are also required.
FET on the other hand explains why no one has ever isolated an electron and identified its shape or size. You asked me what is the one amazing thing that FET brings to the table and the answer to that is the electron. Most scientists feel lucky if they ever have a "wow" moment. With FET I have had so many "wow" moments that I now shrug my shoulders and think "I just knew FET would explain that". The biggest "wow" moment for me was after I had realised how a neutron particle would reach a critical size and change state and within less than a minute calculated the strength of the attraction between an electron and a proton to be 10^39 times greater than the strength of gravity.
The reason that no one has isolated an electron is because there is no such thing as an electron particle. An electron is the continuous flow of fluid energy from a spinning proton core of solid energy and extends to around 10^-10m before being resolidified upon the core. Thus an electron and a proton are permanently joined together as a hydrogen atom. The apparent ionisation of atoms is merely the extension of its electrons by the absorption of more fluid energy. This is the secret of electricity and magnetism.
Electricity is the flow of fluid energy along electrons in conductors whereas magnetism is the flow of the same energy through the continuum. All forces arise from such flows of fluid energy and are therefore forces of contact and not via particle exchange. Your diagram of a magnet suggests that if you placed an iron filing away to the side of the magnet it ought to be swept along until it reached one of the poles. FET predicts the same flow pattern of fluid energy but because this flow is kept cycling by the perpetual motion of spinning cores of solid energy, magnetic flows are an example of the whirlpools that created the universe. These want to contract but in the case of a magnet it is constantly regenerated by the solid structure of the atoms of the magnet. When a magnetic conductor is placed in the external flow of fluid energy it allows the whirlpool to collapse and hence a material object will move in sideways.
As for the nuclei of atoms, the surfaces of the proton cores are solid except for the part where the fluid electron energy flows away and back. These solid surfaces cannot join together as it would be like expecting two billiard balls to stick if they came into contact. However, if we add a neutron over a certain size (they are still being created and therefore come in all sizes from zero to the critical) it supples fluid energy that then flows around all of the nucleons binding them together.
I will say no more for now and let you assimilate the above. It would certainly help you to understand what FET is all about if you read my first book and my offer still stands although my supply is now very limited.
Regards
Jim Mash
You have stated that many of my discourses have been vague but this is only because I cannot replicate here what fills several books. I have looked at the site where you say that MM explains matter, electricity and magnetism but I see nothing but vague statements.
I greatly appreciate the time that you have taken to discuss these issues and you have certainly made me realise how difficult it is going to be to get others to listen. I have decided to take your advice and compare FET with MM bit by bit. In your model you claim that no assumptions are made whereas in FET I have admitted to three assumptions. Having thought more deeply about this I realise that my claimed assumptions are not really assumptions at all but are just requirements based upon observations.
My first assumption that energy is a real substance arises purely from the fact that because we and our surroundings exist, something must be real. Because the only link between everything is energy, the minimum requirement for a universe to exist is that at least one substance should be real. FET is the simplest ever theory as it is based entirely upon the existence of only one real substance.
My second assumption is that energy is a continuous substance, not particulate. This again is the simplest possible requirement rather than an assumption as a continuous substance can have no boundaries. If boundaries existed then we would have to invoke at least one more substance to exist on the other side of that boundary. Also, we would have to invoke forces to create and maintain boundaries as well as properties to define shapes and sizes of particles.
My third assumption is that there must be a limit to the compressibility of energy. This though is not an assumption because it follows that if there were no limit then all of the energy in the universe would have been compressed into oblivion. We also know that there is a limit because we can and have measured it for nucleons. Other suggestions that nucleons can be compressed further are only theories as neutron stars and black holes have never really been seen. The current explanations for such bodies are easily shown to be false by FET, which can also explain why people think they exist.
The MM theory of matter assumes that there are at least five different types of particles. These are Elyssium, gravitons, protons, electrons and neutrons. All of them have very different properties and you offer no explanation as to why this is so. For example, why do electrons generate gravitons and why do gravitons affect Elyssium particles and not themselves. The MM explanation of why protons repel each other but can still exist together within the nucleus of an atom is fairly convincing but it does not explain why neutrons are also required.
FET on the other hand explains why no one has ever isolated an electron and identified its shape or size. You asked me what is the one amazing thing that FET brings to the table and the answer to that is the electron. Most scientists feel lucky if they ever have a "wow" moment. With FET I have had so many "wow" moments that I now shrug my shoulders and think "I just knew FET would explain that". The biggest "wow" moment for me was after I had realised how a neutron particle would reach a critical size and change state and within less than a minute calculated the strength of the attraction between an electron and a proton to be 10^39 times greater than the strength of gravity.
The reason that no one has isolated an electron is because there is no such thing as an electron particle. An electron is the continuous flow of fluid energy from a spinning proton core of solid energy and extends to around 10^-10m before being resolidified upon the core. Thus an electron and a proton are permanently joined together as a hydrogen atom. The apparent ionisation of atoms is merely the extension of its electrons by the absorption of more fluid energy. This is the secret of electricity and magnetism.
Electricity is the flow of fluid energy along electrons in conductors whereas magnetism is the flow of the same energy through the continuum. All forces arise from such flows of fluid energy and are therefore forces of contact and not via particle exchange. Your diagram of a magnet suggests that if you placed an iron filing away to the side of the magnet it ought to be swept along until it reached one of the poles. FET predicts the same flow pattern of fluid energy but because this flow is kept cycling by the perpetual motion of spinning cores of solid energy, magnetic flows are an example of the whirlpools that created the universe. These want to contract but in the case of a magnet it is constantly regenerated by the solid structure of the atoms of the magnet. When a magnetic conductor is placed in the external flow of fluid energy it allows the whirlpool to collapse and hence a material object will move in sideways.
As for the nuclei of atoms, the surfaces of the proton cores are solid except for the part where the fluid electron energy flows away and back. These solid surfaces cannot join together as it would be like expecting two billiard balls to stick if they came into contact. However, if we add a neutron over a certain size (they are still being created and therefore come in all sizes from zero to the critical) it supples fluid energy that then flows around all of the nucleons binding them together.
I will say no more for now and let you assimilate the above. It would certainly help you to understand what FET is all about if you read my first book and my offer still stands although my supply is now very limited.
Regards
Jim Mash
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 6 months ago #20110
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jim mash</i>
<br />Tom
My first assumption that energy is a real substance arises purely from the fact that because we and our surroundings exist, something must be real. Because the only link between everything is energy, the minimum requirement for a universe to exist is that at least one substance should be real. FET is the simplest ever theory as it is based entirely upon the existence of only one real substance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Following Einstein, energy is equivalent to mass.
It may appear as mass of particles, potential energy between particles, kinetic energy, electromagnetic field, and soon.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
My second assumption is that energy is a continuous substance, not particulate. This again is the simplest possible requirement rather than an assumption as a continuous substance can have no boundaries.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No. This conclusion applies to linear fields, not to non-linear. This error is the source of the famous "wave particle duality" of quantum mechanics. Look at the solitons.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
My third assumption is that there must be a limit to the compressibility of energy. This though is not an assumption because it follows that if there were no limit then all of the energy in the universe would have been compressed into oblivion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The conclusion seems good , but not the demonstration:an infinity may be split into infinities...<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The MM explanation of why protons repel each other but can still exist together within the nucleus of an atom is fairly convincing but it does not explain why neutrons are also required.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
FET on the other hand explains why no one has ever isolated an electron and identified its shape or size.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A 3D soliton has the properties of a particle, although its de Broglie wave is infinite<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The reason that no one has isolated an electron is because there is no such thing as an electron particle. An electron is the continuous flow of fluid energy from a spinning proton core of solid energy and extends to around 10^-10m before being resolidified upon the core. Thus an electron and a proton are permanently joined together as a hydrogen atom. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
In an x rays tube, or a triode, there are free electrons. The quantized charge of an electron is observed in Millikan experiments<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Electricity is the flow of fluid energy along electrons in conductors whereas magnetism is the flow of the same energy through the continuum.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Maxwell equations work well<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
As for the nuclei of atoms, the surfaces of the proton cores are solid except for the part where the fluid electron energy flows away and back.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why?<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I will say no more for now and let you assimilate the above.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not precise enough for me.
<br />Tom
My first assumption that energy is a real substance arises purely from the fact that because we and our surroundings exist, something must be real. Because the only link between everything is energy, the minimum requirement for a universe to exist is that at least one substance should be real. FET is the simplest ever theory as it is based entirely upon the existence of only one real substance.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Following Einstein, energy is equivalent to mass.
It may appear as mass of particles, potential energy between particles, kinetic energy, electromagnetic field, and soon.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
My second assumption is that energy is a continuous substance, not particulate. This again is the simplest possible requirement rather than an assumption as a continuous substance can have no boundaries.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No. This conclusion applies to linear fields, not to non-linear. This error is the source of the famous "wave particle duality" of quantum mechanics. Look at the solitons.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
My third assumption is that there must be a limit to the compressibility of energy. This though is not an assumption because it follows that if there were no limit then all of the energy in the universe would have been compressed into oblivion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The conclusion seems good , but not the demonstration:an infinity may be split into infinities...<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The MM explanation of why protons repel each other but can still exist together within the nucleus of an atom is fairly convincing but it does not explain why neutrons are also required.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
FET on the other hand explains why no one has ever isolated an electron and identified its shape or size.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A 3D soliton has the properties of a particle, although its de Broglie wave is infinite<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The reason that no one has isolated an electron is because there is no such thing as an electron particle. An electron is the continuous flow of fluid energy from a spinning proton core of solid energy and extends to around 10^-10m before being resolidified upon the core. Thus an electron and a proton are permanently joined together as a hydrogen atom. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
In an x rays tube, or a triode, there are free electrons. The quantized charge of an electron is observed in Millikan experiments<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Electricity is the flow of fluid energy along electrons in conductors whereas magnetism is the flow of the same energy through the continuum.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Maxwell equations work well<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
As for the nuclei of atoms, the surfaces of the proton cores are solid except for the part where the fluid electron energy flows away and back.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Why?<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I will say no more for now and let you assimilate the above.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not precise enough for me.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 6 months ago #19937
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The Millikan experment proves the charge is real but not the mass said to be part of this model they call "electron". The mass is not a part of Millikan's stuff. Where and how the electron mass got into the literature is not Millikan's fault but its a shame on science it an unproven property that is the well spring of much mischief in science.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 6 months ago #19942
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jim mash</i>
<br /><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm sorry, Jim, but I'm now completely absorbed by preparations for our fall CCC2 meeting, which is shaping up to be quite an event. I'm also behind in getting out the March issue of the Meta Research Bulletin, which is still a few weeks away from being ready. So I will have to drop out of this discussion for now. I hope some of my tips prove helpful to your efforts. In the meantime, perhaps you can carry on with the other correspondents who have taken notice of this discussion. -|Tom|-
<br /><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm sorry, Jim, but I'm now completely absorbed by preparations for our fall CCC2 meeting, which is shaping up to be quite an event. I'm also behind in getting out the March issue of the Meta Research Bulletin, which is still a few weeks away from being ready. So I will have to drop out of this discussion for now. I hope some of my tips prove helpful to your efforts. In the meantime, perhaps you can carry on with the other correspondents who have taken notice of this discussion. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.710 seconds