Dialogue21.com Family of Forums  

Go Back   Dialogue21.com Family of Forums > Science > Physics > Theoretical Physics' Theories > Pulsoid Theory
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Pulsoid Theory A Paradigm shift! in symbolic theoretical physics. Pulsoid Theory as the 1955 precursor of String Theory is the philosophically logic rationalization of String Theory's enigmas.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-20-2008, 04:05 AM
Epsilon=One's Avatar
Epsilon=One Epsilon=One is offline
Avant-garde Sr. Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 207
Default I do not quibble with the results of research physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
If you never predict details that can be observed then you can claim 'consistency' and 'reconciliation' in some vague manner.
I do not intend to be vague. Possibly, I am vague; or, you have interpreted a comment that lacks clarification that may, or may not, exist somewhere within Pulsoid Theory (PT).

If you will point out a specific example of where PT is not reconcilable or consistent with logic and observation, I will either provide such; or, clearly state the lack thereof.

I have provided many details that are observable . . . including the acceptance of much “text book” modern physics. What I rail against is the illogical, unobservable, speculation, and lack of fundamental definitions that are rife within all aspects of academic, theoretical physics. I do not quibble with the results of research physics.

Further, I contend that academic, theoretical physics does much harm to the general population by legitimizing faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
They only needed charge forces for most of atomic and molecular data analysis. For spin, they used an analogy to orbital angular momentum which proposed charge and mass circulating in a circle having close to the radius from Compton's wavelength equation. Very clever and it matched the data well. SOM has built on this idea and proposes a fundamental force related to the Compton wavelength euation, but also has reduced the number of things attached to particles: instead of mass, MM (magn. mom.), spin, isospin and charge, only spin is used (SOM=Spin-Only Model).
I worship simplicity; however, in physics, simplicity belongs at fundamental levels of evolution. The environment where you contend, “only spin is used,” is far, far, from the fundamental evolution of quanta.

You seem to well understand that “They” do not understand. “They” rely on most all the usual lack of fundamental definitions that lead theoretical physicists astray.

One of the attractions to your thoughts is that you are “out of the box.” Without going “out of the box” of Standard Model physics our environment will never be rationalized.

However, I fail to understand what it is that SOM creates mass from. Why do spinors exhibit gravitational effects? What is the unified force that spinors arise from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
I already disagree, based on modeling and data, with your claim that a proton is a single (half?)spinor (assuming your 'spinor' and mine are in any way related).
The relationship is quite tenuous.

I can better reply if you will specify exactly what it is that you disagree with concerning what I have said about a proton. Proton, being an ambiguous, incomplete definition, is not a terminology of Pulsoid Theory (PT).

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
And what is a neutron? You already have to backtrack on what a zero-spin alpha might be.
A neutron (also not a PT term) is the combined effect of a proton and an electron (also not a PT term).

And, why do I “have to backtrack on what a zero-spin alpha might be”? Do you have a better explanation that does not rely upon mystic symbolism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
Since you have redefined 1/2-spin to be something new, you can claim anything you want. Relating it to data is a different matter. In SOM, the turning of (something close to) h_bar, with angular momentum units, is energy.
I have not redefined half-spin. I have explained the underlying geometry of the phenomenon, which contradicts nothing that has been previously observed or mathematically implied by researchers.

I do question the fundamental definition of many SOM terms beyond symbolism; and, the mathematical derivations from imprecise equations that arose from extrapolated data.

What is the “something” that is “turning” in SOM? Where does this “something” come from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
Yes, but what is the connection between your 'spin' and QM's spin?
I know of no difference; except, PT rationalizes its origin and geometry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
I mildly disagree. By 1934, they knew many of the nuclear spins (without knowing about neutrons). From SOM perspective, all learned since then except measurements on nuclear radii and nuclear MMs would contribute little to fundamentals and, in fact, has diverted many resources.
I agree with your conclusions; and, I don’t mind your “mildly” disagreeing with mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
I've gone beyond QM's limits, but QM has been proven correct whereas SOM has not. How does PT help?
Being proven correct has little to do with fundamental description and rationalization of its genesis.

PT has a bit going for it; in that, it reconciles the known forces; accelerating, galactic recession; the Universe’s “container”; etc,; and, most importantly for SOM, the genesis of both subatomic phenomena and the fundamental mathematics/geometry needed to describe the phenomena.

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
I've stated it before: the turning of electron spin as it traverses a coil is sensed by the (turning of)spinors and/or antispinors in the test electron or proton.
What is the mechanism that provides the sensing of spinors?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon=One
And, where did the "units" of "proton…mass energy" evolve from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by som
Einstein
And, how did Einstein explain the evolution of the objects that the symbolic “units” were applied to; particularly, when, at the time, there was almost no knowledge of directly observable, subatomic phenomena. Certainly, there was no geometric and/or philosophically logical rationalization that reconciled observation.

Remember, it was Einstein that gave us “space-time,” the constant speed of light, and GR without any concern for accelerating, galactic recession. Concepts that are still difficult for academic theorists to get beyond.

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
From a philosophical view, this is the key point: SOM would not work unless it is assumed that the 1/r potentials due to the spinors/antispinors in one proton and as seen by the sum of spinors/antispinors in another and when summed over all possible protons outside a test proton cause the turning back to the center of the 2 spinors and one antispinor that is the test proton's mass.
This is one reason that SOM has appeal to me. Now, explain “Why?” SOM can “cause the turning back to the center of the 2 spinors and one antispinor.” What is the overall, underlying geometry? Why is it this geometry effective for “turning back”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
The B-field has been replaced by the planar coil which creates it. The motion is the electrons in the coil and each electron of the current in the coil turns an extra 2*pi each rotation because of the current.
Fine. I digressed with the philosophy of “straightness.”

The issue I was concerned with was your statement: “The idea that a proton has a permanent '1/2 spin' and permanent 'magnetic moment' is the misconception.”

Do you contend that at some moment a phenomenon that exhibits mass is not subject to the geometry that accounts for half-spin? And, that it is other than this geometry that differentiates bosons and fermions?
__________________
..."Click" to E-mail Me Directly
......Or, use a Forum Private Message

....."Seek simplicity; and
....... . . Natural integers."

..........Challenge to Academe
...The Purpose of Pulsoid Theory
..........
...........Forum Designer
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-07-2009, 08:40 PM
som som is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14
Default Re: Pulsoid Theory: an Overview

I have put TM, resoloids, FIT, ISL, pulsoids, EEd and BE in a single Word file (New Times Roman 12). It helps some. A single .doc file with everything in one document would help.

Do protons stay around or are they constantly being regenerated? Emergent means 'developing'?

What are antiparticles?

What causes an orbital/obtuse/e- ellipse to be attracted to a nuclear/acute/nucleus ellipse?

You once mentioned an integration you needed help with. What does that entail?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-08-2009, 01:33 PM
Epsilon=One's Avatar
Epsilon=One Epsilon=One is offline
Avant-garde Sr. Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 207
Default The relative position of the hadron and lepton ellipsoidal envelopes are reversed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
I have put TM, resoloids, FIT, ISL, pulsoids, EEd and BE in a single Word file (New Times Roman 12). It helps some. A single .doc file with everything in one document would help.
I would recommend sans serif . Don’t spend too much time on this; rather, it should be easier to confine yourself to questioning various fundamental statements within the posts.

Much that is fundamental for acute reconciliation has been withheld. Either you can dig and drill for it as you become familiar with the basic concepts; or, wait for a tie-in of the heuristic geometry to SUSY and QCD.

I am updating prior hardcopy, in a more normal manner, with what I have decided to finally make public without the prior requirements I placed on academia, which for more years than I can believe, have failed. Academe has successfully “ignored” and out waited me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
Do protons stay around or are they constantly being regenerated?
The way you have asked the question, they are “constantly being regenerated” with each pulse.

The pulse collapses with the evolution of Resoloids (which then collapse, metronome/feedback effect, and the pulse continues until checked with compression from adjacent, evolving, emergent quanta) with each tick of FIT.

For practical purposes, because of the relativistic, high frequency of the pulses, protons can be said to “stay around”; and, three TM, strong central/nuclear forces don’t allow for much displacement. Eventually, as with all matter, protons do dissipate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
Emergent means 'developing'?
Yes. Developing from a source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
What are antiparticles?
Antiparticles are a phase in the evolution of all “dark” matter, which is a prototype atom before Critical Compression (CrC).

The antimatter phase occurs when all salient, geometric, structural parts of the emergent quantum are relative to an integer common denominator (thus, Resoloids) before the second pulse (B-E condensate phase).

In the antiparticle phase the relative position of the hadron and lepton ellipsoidal envelopes are reversed from the “matter” phase. These envelopes are congruent at the condensate phase (2nd Pulse).

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
What causes an orbital/obtuse/e- ellipse to be attracted to a nuclear/acute/nucleus ellipse?
The separate diagrams are heuristic. Actually the two ellipses have congruent Pulses and vectors, v = εP² (which includes the major diameter); and are parts of the same Emergent Ellipse. Because of ellipsoidal geometry, the contained, emergent, TM forces between the foci and periphery simultaneously generate two ellipses (acute and obtuse).

The three TM forces, heuristically represented by the sides of the inscribing right triangles represent the QCD component effects ascribed to Baskin-Robbins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by som
You once mentioned an integration you needed help with. What does that entail?
A thorough understanding of TM and the pulsing of the Pulsoid (Emergent Ellipsoid) such that the phenomena can be explained in mathematical notation.
__________________
..."Click" to E-mail Me Directly
......Or, use a Forum Private Message

....."Seek simplicity; and
....... . . Natural integers."

..........Challenge to Academe
...The Purpose of Pulsoid Theory
..........
...........Forum Designer
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.