Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pulsoid Theory: an Overview

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pulsoid Theory: an Overview

    ...............Pulsoid Theory is a
    ............................................. . . Paradigm Shift !
    Pulsoid Theory heuristically describes
    the geometry and etiology of
    the first essence of existence; and,
    how that essence evolves to
    the complexity of the Universe . . .
    and then, dissipates to its beginning.

    Pulsoid Theory is fully reconciled and
    consistent with logic and observation.

    No portion of the logic of
    Pulsoid theory has been challenged
    by academia during more than fifty years.

    ......"The truly fundamental objects are
    .....................universal, transformative ethers: quantum fields,"

    .........................–Frank Wilczek
    ............................2004 Nobel Laureate in Physics
    ............................Fantastic Realities, 2006, pg. 158

    Frank Wilczek's "universal, transformative ethers: quantum fields" are the Pulsoids that are mathematically described by Pulsoid Theory (PT). However, PT goes beyond quantum theory in that Pulsoids are reconcilable with accelerating, galactic recession, and . . . consciousness.
    Pulsoid Theory (PT) is a rational alternative theory to the internally inconsistent, and irreconcilable to one another, standard models of post-modern, theoretical physics.

    PT, essentially and ultimately, challenges the integrity of academic peer review and scientific method.

    PT specifically replaces the Big Bang as an opposing force to the illusional, attraction-at-a-distance, gravitational force; while, also, rationalizing the, otherwise ludicrous, description of Light, which is currently described as both a particle and a wave.

    PT establishes a constant that regulates the Time/Cycles of all physical manifestations such that a universal rhythm is maintained. It is this rhythm that is referred to as fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT).

    The constant is universal; its beat is referred to as the metronome of Reality, which is the Conceptual Unit (CU) that is heuristically defined by the Elliptical Constant that is established at the first harmony of the ephemeral, seminal motion.
    Pulsoid Theory has never been
    formally challenged by
    academic Physics, Mathematics, or Philosophy.
    The strength of PT is the beauty, inevitableness, and logical completeness of its underlying Natural mathematics.

    The validity of PT depends upon the singularity of Infinity, the universal Proof of One, the Elliptical Constant, and the definition of Triquametric motion.

    The power of PT is the Brunardot Series and the Ultron Ellipse's evolution to an infinitely large spheroid.

    PT rationalizes Reality beyond the effective parameters of special relativity (SR), general relativity (GR), string theories (ST) and its derivatives, loop quantum gravity (LQG), and the conventional Standard Models, without discarding that which "works."

    PT began in late 1954 and blossomed, with a simple "gedanken," in the spring of 1955. The gedunken involved an assumption that the speed of light was neither constant nor a limit; and, that light's internal structure was most likely that of a complex, oscillating ellipse that pulsed in a uniform, sinusoidal manner.

    It was quickly noted that under such conditions the enigmas of the early 1950s were reconciled with observation and logic. This seemed to indicate that either something was wrong with the description of light and gravity in accordance with special and general relativity . . . or the gedanken.

    The supporting mathematics was developed during the period of 1991 to 1994 after, futility, searching the halls of many universities and research labs for assistance. (Though, there was reward in the meeting, enjoying, and cultivating some of my, now, most respected friends.)

    Pulsoid Theory is committed to the principles of IPSO and II (Intelligent Inquiry). These principles are simply: Individualism, Philosophic logic, Scientific method, and Observation.

    The basic idea of Pulsoid Theory is to develop a simple mathematical paradigm that will rationalize all the phenomena of Reality such that the layman will have little need for enervating faith . . . beyond, possibly, Infinity and seminal motion, which are “packaged” as the Unified Concept.

    Pomo elite theoretical physicists expend untold amounts of intellectual capital while attempting to unify the “forces”; forces that they cannot even properly define. Until these forces are understood, as other than metaphysical; and, not one of them is anything but metaphysical; they cannot be unified. "The emperor has no clothes . . ."

    PT explicitly follows the etiology from one dimension and force to the next as evolution progresses in the manner of the Equilibrium Theory of Reality and CASA.

    Pulsoid Theory was not developed for the technician or the elite theoretical physicist; it is not a guide book for the operation of, or data interpretation from, cyclotrons . . . it has never been able to get beyond the vested interests of, and "ignore"-ance from, academia for over fifty years.

    Pulsoid Theory is a Philosophy.
    Pulsoid Theory's philosophy is Conceptualism, which is based upon the awesome beauty of simple mathematics, applied logic, and observation such that an understanding of the environment will promote sustainability and tolerance in a manner that will maximize happiness for all conscious beings.
    PT is intended to help the non-academic elite people of the world rationalize previously inexplicable observable enigmas of the environment; such as: Why the Sun and Moon "hang" unsupported in "space" as they both move in a complex manner at unfathomable speeds. Of course PT's specific, ultimate effect, is hoped to be, an answer to the questions of: Why are we here?; and, How should we comport? The answers to these questions should be found by answering the questions of: Where have we come from?; and, Where are we going?

    Pulsoid Theory was first considered in the spring of 1955 at Cornell University with encouraging suggestions and support from Philip Morrison.

    Subsequently, some of the concepts found their way into String Theory (ST); and, subsequently, Super String Theory (SST), and other academic musings; however, Pulsoid Theory incorporates concepts, such as CASA, that establishes it as more of a philosophical Theory of Everything (TOE); rather than as a scientific Grand Unified Theory (GUT).

    String Theory and Super String Theory are attempts to unify conventional forces; whereas, Pulsoid Theory establishes a different concept of force as a matrix of complex Realms of background, complex, solitonic, hyper-relativistic oscillations referred to as Pulsoids that are immediately compressed to Taisoids.

    Pulsoids are complex pulses of Triquametric motion that manifest in a manner somewhat analogous to the foam of a bubble bath; spinning solitons in the water of swimming pools on hot, calm days; or, a swirling Jacuzzi spa . . . or even, a galactic forming cloud of ions.

    Pulsoids form Soloids at Critical Oscillation (CrO), which culminates, at Critical Coalescence, into the more "observable" "dark" matter, Ultrons, that, heuristically, manifest in the manner of Taisoids.

    Pulsoids are the phenomena that Pomo theoretical physicists depict in explanation and little understand,which they generally refer to as "dark" energy.

    It is "dark" energy (Pulsoids) that evolve to what these same physicists refer to as "dark" matter.

    Both "dark" energy, and its evolved manifestation, "dark" matter are inexplicable when using the Standard Models of current, academic physics; yet, the affects of the existence of these enigmatic phenomena are observed everywhere (No more so than the, also, inexplicable, ultra-high energy. background radiation).

    The contrived Standard Models are flawed and do not reflect Reality beyond limited parameters. Einstein well understood the limitations of general relativity (GR) to the most simple of problems.

    It is not a question of whether Pulsoid Theory is correct; it can always be refined and "tweaked" (or, even discarded) in accordance with better philosophic logic, scientific method, and . . . observation in accordance with IPSO.

    Pulsoid Theory does not distract from any current knowledge that "works"; Pulsoid Theory builds upon that knowledge.

    What is important is that Pulsoid Theory is an alternative theory, that the layman, as well as the learned, can understand, where there is now no theory that is reconcilable with observation or minuscule faith.
    Pulsoid Theory is written in the vernacular. The intent is that Pulsoid Theory be understandable by a mass audience; rather than being the private preserve of a select priesthood. High school students should be able to rationalize the dimensions and forces of Reality, their environment, better than Einstein, Bohr, and Feynman . . . and in some ways better than the pomo elite such as Frank Wilczek, 2004 physics Nobel laureate.

    PT is for those that need a better understanding of their environment to live meaningfully; than, it is for those who "preach to the choir" of acolytes.

    PT logically begins with the singularity, Infinity, and traces its manifestation, referred to as the Unified Concept (UC) that is heuristically referred to as: seminal motion, as it coalesces, propagates, compresses, and dissipates, ad infinitum. Along the way, are all the wonders of Reality.

    PT demonstrates, heuristically, with the Brunardot Ellipse, a Natural origin of mathematics that relies on the geometry of dynamic, emergent separation (DES) to establish Natural integers, their scale, and arithmetic manipulation; as well as . . . a Proof of One.

    The revised Fibonacci sequence; pi; the Golden Ratio; sinusoidal and elliptical curves; prime numbers; Pythagorean triangles; the relationship of odd-even and even-odd integers (Par numbers); exponents and roots; "positive" and "negative numbers"; the Elliptical Constant (EC); in fact, the entire panoply of mathematical operations, curiosities, and mysteries are directly related. This relationship arises from their generation when there was only motion and time. Such is the essence of Triquametric motion.

    PT runs the gamut from the source and evolution of fully dimensional "strings" to human consciousness.

    Corollaries of PT relate to biological evolution; as well as, philosophical rationalizations that unite Science, Theology, and Philosophy (STP).
    Pulsoid Theory heuristically describes
    the geometry of
    the first essence of existence; and,
    how that essence evolves to
    the complexity of the Universe . . .
    and then, dissipates to its beginning.

    Pulsoid Theory is fully reconciled and
    consistent with logic and observation.

    The logic of Pulsoid Theory has
    never been seriously challenged.


    ©Copyright 2005-2008 by Brunardot. All rights reserved.
    Terms: Dialogue21.com, Brunardot, and Pulsoid Theory must be cited.
    Sorry! This Thread has not been completed.
    Please Bookmark and return to this site often.

    If there is an immediate need for information,
    please e-mail directly at the below "Click" link.

    Please note that any private correspondence
    may be edited and anonymously posted unless
    requested otherwise.

    Every effort will be made to expedite a reply
    with the requested information.
    Please ask questions.
    With questions it’s possible to know if
    comments are logical and convincing;
    or whether clarification is required.

    .....
    ..........
    ..........If images don’t display, "click" the Refresh Icon.
    Last edited by Epsilon=One; 03-11-2008, 06:37 AM. Reason: Format
    ..."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

  • #2
    Re: Pulsoid Theory: an Overview

    Originally posted by Epsilon=One
    PT establishes a constant that regulates the Time/Cycles of all physical manifestations such that a universal rhythm is maintained. It is this rhythm that is referred to as fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT).
    I think time is regulated by the the internal motions of spinors inside protons plus the way every proton 'sees' every other proton, each causes a bit of every other's mass.

    Originally posted by Epsilon=One
    PT began in late 1954 and blossomed, with a simple "gedanken," in the spring of 1955. The gedunken involved an assumption that the speed of light was neither constant nor a limit; and, that light's internal structure was most likely that of a complex, oscillating ellipse that pulsed in a uniform, sinusoidal manner.

    PT specifically replaces the Big Bang as an opposing force to the illusional, attraction-at-a-distance, gravitational force; while, also, rationalizing the, otherwise ludicrous, description of Light, which is currently described as both a particle and a wave.
    IMHO, light is just a mechanism that we use in experiments to connect the 'source' and 'detection' parts. If we knew enough about protons and their interactions, then photons could be dispensed with. In practice, that will never happen. I don't get hyper about photons, but I can't see building a theory on their internal strucure.
    Last edited by Epsilon=One; 11-22-2008, 10:52 PM. Reason: Quotes formatted for clarity

    Comment


    • #3
      You must define the internal geometry of the “motion of spinors” and why the “tick” is generated.

      Originally posted by som
      I think time is regulated by the the internal motions of spinors inside protons plus the way every proton 'sees' every other proton, each causes a bit of every other's mass.
      It would seem to me that before such a definition concerning spinors and time regulation can be proposed that you must define the internal geometry of the “motion of spinors” and why the “tick” is generated.

      I see the proton more as a spinor, itself, within a complex, oscillating (slide, swing, and vibration), pulsating ellipsoidal envelope.

      To my thinking, the spinor is a mathematical method of an attempted definition of the harmonic, resonating motion that is the essence of all fermions (and their subsequent bosons when ejected) . . . without a scintilla of understanding the geometry of said resonating Triquametric motion . . . or, its genesis; or, the genesis of the involved dimensions.

      Originally posted by som
      IMHO, light is just a mechanism that we use in experiments to connect the 'source' and 'detection' parts. If we knew enough about protons and their interactions, then photons could be dispensed with. In practice, that will never happen. I don't get hyper about photons, but I can't see building a theory on their internal strucure.
      I consider the photon (an ejected Resoloid) as every bit as “real” as a proton. They merely manifest with different properties; though, with quite similar “internal” geometry from the same originating quantum phenomena.

      Standard Model physics has no concept of the fundamental geometry or genesis of either protons or photons. No physics theory can be “viable” until the “internal structure of all fermionic and bosonic phenomena is well understood.
      ..."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

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pulsoid Theory: an Overview

        Originally posted by Epsilon=One
        It would seem to me that before such a definition concerning spinors and time regulation can be proposed that you must define the internal geometry of the “motion of spinors” and why the “tick” is generated.

        I see the proton more as a spinor, itself, within a complex, oscillating (slide, swing, and vibration), pulsating ellipsoidal envelope.
        There are 2 spinors and 1 antispinor, magnitude h_bar, travelling at magnitude c velocity, spin along velocity for spinors and opposite velocity for antispinors. The turning of angular momentum is mass energy per the Compton wavelength equation.

        They would be 3 threads of 'yarn' on the 'outer layers of a ball of yarn' but the continuous repulsion of spinors and the attraction of spinor/antispinor pairs spread out the paths. I use a Gaussian distribution to approximate this. A time unit would be the time to travel the average circumference. The spin property is the average of 3 random spins which may have correlation.
        Last edited by Epsilon=One; 11-24-2008, 12:45 AM. Reason: Edited to clarify source of quotes

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pulsoid Theory: an Overview

          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
          I consider the photon (an ejected Resoloid) as every bit as "real" as a proton. They merely manifest with different properties; though, with quite similar "internal" geometry from the same originating quantum phenomena.
          Most people do. I don't need it because in my model the matrix of protons store the temporary energy and release it at the 'detection' place and time. (Planck looked at it in about the same way but not for the same reasons.)
          Last edited by Epsilon=One; 11-24-2008, 12:59 AM. Reason: Edited for Quote Format

          Comment


          • #6
            I see nothing that explains the fundamental geometry.

            Originally posted by som
            There are 2 spinors and 1 antispinor, magnitude h_bar, travelling at magnitude c velocity, spin along velocity for spinors and opposite velocity for antispinors. The turning of angular momentum is mass energy per the Compton wavelength equation.
            This is why I was attracted to your thoughts.

            I have no problem with the direction of your thoughts; only the lack of fundamental reasoning.

            I see nothing that explains the fundamental geometry or source of your spinors, which appear to be little more than mathematical contrivances.

            Fundamental, academic mathematics itself has no tie-in to Nature . . . which I consider a necessity if you are going to rely upon mathematics to describe Nature. And, of course Kurt Gödel’s roadblock of the Incompleteness Theorem seems to limit the mathematics of spinors . . . not to mention their many unresolved complexities beyond the general concept.

            Most academic physicists have little regard for Number Theory or the Philosophical Logic that underlies the symbolism that they so cavalierly manipulate and rely upon for their description of fundamental, Natural processes. Such symbolism and contrivances is fine for gross understanding; but, quite limited for fundamental understanding. For outrageous examples, see Special and General Relativity.

            Einstein never did understand why the speed of Light could not be constant or the three or more major errors that he made with the Cosmological Constant when he contrived his equations.

            And, unlike the slavish, academic physics community, Einstein well understood his errors and worked on them until he died.

            You use Planck’s constant and a Compton equation; what did they know about fundamental physical phenomena in their day. It’s sort of like depending upon Newton to know the “speed” of gravity or to understand the directional duality of its effect. To his credit, as Feynman well understood, Newton and all subsequent physicists . . . don’t have a clue. Your spinors to be dependable on the micro scale must be able to explain the acceleration of galactic recession at the macro scale.

            All that said, I remind you that I admire your approach . . . possibly you have dug deeper than a quick forum post indicates. If not, I hope I can nag your further inquiry. Are you aware of the thoughts of Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 3rd or 4th Edition?

            Originally posted by som
            They would be 3 threads of 'yarn' on the 'outer layers of a ball of yarn' but the continuous repulsion of spinors and the attraction of spinor/antispinor pairs spread out the paths. I use a Gaussian distribution to approximate this. A time unit would be the time to travel the average circumference. The spin property is the average of 3 random spins which may have correlation.
            The above comments are also apropos here.

            Also, why is there repulsion and attraction? Is it metaphysical action-at-a-distance?

            My greatest confusion is your equating a “time unit” with distance. This strongly appears as if you are relying on Einstein’s space-time illusion. Einstein neither understood the origin of orthogonal dimensions; nor, the subsequent evolution of time’s “clock” . . . much less what time is . . . something that academic physicists have yet to successfully address.
            ..."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

            Comment


            • #7
              The concept of “temporary energy” is great.

              Originally posted by som
              Most people do. I don't need it because in my model the matrix of protons store the temporary energy and release it at the 'detection' place and time. (Planck looked at it in about the same way but not for the same reasons.)
              The concept of “temporary energy” is great.


              Don’t rely too heavily upon Planck’s concepts. At the time, he understood almost nothing fundamental about the photon’s evolution or its origin from an atomic quantum.

              Why do you consider the proton of such importance? What is the difference, if any, between the internal geometry of the proton and electron? How is the neutron related to the proton? What gives these fermions their property of mass . . . particularly, concerning gravitational effects?
              ..."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

              Comment


              • #8
                The concept of “temporary energy” is great.

                Originally posted by som
                Most people do. I don't need it because in my model the matrix of protons store the temporary energy and release it at the 'detection' place and time. (Planck looked at it in about the same way but not for the same reasons.)
                The concept of “temporary energy” is great.

                Don’t rely too heavily upon Planck’s concepts. At the time he understood almost nothing fundamental about the photon’s evolution or its origin from an atomic quantum.

                Why do you consider the proton of such importance? What is the difference, if any, between the internal geometry of the proton and electron? How is the neutron related to the proton? What gives these fermions their property of mass . . . particularly, concerning gravitational effects?
                ..."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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Protons as primary

                  Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                  Why do you consider the proton of such importance? What is the difference, if any, between the internal geometry of the proton and electron? How is the neutron related to the proton? What gives these fermions their property of mass . . . particularly, concerning gravitational effects?
                  Protons and antiprotons store most of the universe's energy (as mass). You maybe think of light as energy, but I think light energy is in "proton storage" until it shows up as a change in particles with mass. A proton is 2 spinors plus 1 antispinor. An electron is one antispinor. A neutron is an antiproton plus a suborbital positron spinor.

                  If you are forcing me to guess about gravity, I would say it's a slight difference between charge on electrons and charge on protons.
                  Last edited by Epsilon=One; 11-28-2008, 08:48 PM. Reason: Editing to simplify the format of a quote.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Mass is a “bonding” phenomena of resonating motion . . .

                    Originally posted by som
                    Protons and antiprotons store most of the universe's energy (as mass).
                    Protons and electrons, while in the “dark” matter state must be equal in number and identical in all properties except their geometric proximity to the center of the “dark” matter quantum. Protons being closer to the center exhibit considerably more mass than the outer electrons. Mass is a “bonding” phenomena of resonating motion (a fundamental protoforce) that is a function of location geometry.

                    How or what can make a proton manifest as an “antiproton”? . . . or vice versa. In your model what geometry accounts for the property of “anti”?

                    Originally posted by som
                    You maybe think of light as energy, but I think light energy is in "proton storage" until it shows up as a change in particles with mass.
                    ”Proton storage” is OK; however, most radiant energy evolves from what you would most likely refer to as “electron storage." Also, the concept of “a change in particles with mass” is OK.

                    Originally posted by som
                    A proton is 2 spinors plus 1 antispinor. An electron is one antispinor. A neutron is an antiproton plus a suborbital positron spinor.
                    I’m not disagreeing with your concept of the prominence of “spinors”; however, I am having great difficulty trying to understand where you believe they come from, what their particular oscillations are, and how they evolve . . . to what?

                    Originally posted by som
                    If you are forcing me to guess about gravity, I would say it's a slight difference between charge on electrons and charge on protons. [/COLOR]
                    If gravity remains a guess when considering any physical model, then, the most kindly I can comment is a fall back on the “master” of contemporary physical models . . . “It is incomplete.”

                    Charge is an interesting concept that has no meaning to me unless its geometry is clearly explained.

                    That which is so often referred to as “charge” is most often applied to fundamental concepts; I consider “gravity” as a mix of secondary forces which, certainly, do not comprise any metaphysical "attraction-at-a-distance" . . . such as “charge” implies.
                    ..."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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Mass is a “bonding” phenomena of resonating motion . . .

                      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                      Protons and electrons, while in the "dark" matter state must be equal in number and identical in all properties except their geometric proximity to the center of the "dark" matter quantum. Protons being closer to the center exhibit considerably more mass than the outer electrons. Mass is a "bonding" phenomena of resonating motion (a fundamental protoforce) that is a function of location geometry.
                      How or what can make a proton manifest as an "antiproton"? . . . or vice versa. In your model what geometry accounts for the property of "anti"?
                      You have an internal bonding model. Mine is external: every proton pushes in on every other proton with some internal bonding due to the 2 to 1 ratio of spinor/antispinor bonds to spinor/spinor bonds. "Anti" just means that the spinor moves at c with the spin opposite the velocity instead of in the same direction. The turning of angular momentum is mass per Compton's wavelength equation. All energy is the relative motion of spinors or antispinors.

                      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                      I’m not disagreeing with your concept of the prominence of "spinors"; however, I am having great difficulty trying to understand where you believe they come from, what their particular oscillations are, and how they evolve . . . to what?
                      As I said before: at some dimension much smaller than a proton, these objects possess angular momentum and send out 'waves' that can cause similar objects to turn.

                      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                      If gravity remains a guess when considering any physical model, then, the most kindly I can comment is a fall back on the "master" of contemporary physical models . . . "It is incomplete."
                      As are all theories about gravity.

                      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                      Charge is an interesting concept that has no meaning to me unless its geometry is clearly explained.
                      Ultimately, every energy is spinors turning with respect to one another.
                      Last edited by Epsilon=One; 11-30-2008, 10:10 PM. Reason: Edited for proper quote attribution.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Where do the “spinors or antispinors” acquire their motion from ???

                        Originally posted by som
                        You have an internal bonding model. Mine is external: every proton pushes in on every other proton with some internal bonding due to the 2 to 1 ratio of spinor/antispinor bonds to spinor/spinor bonds. "Anti" just means that the spinor moves at c with the spin opposite the velocity instead of in the same direction. The turning of angular momentum is mass per Compton's wavelength equation.
                        OK! This appears to be logical. I expected “anti” had something to do with an “opposite” geometry.

                        Pulsoid Theory (PT) has both external and internal bonding throughout, which provides a balance. All bonds/forces, including the gravitational effects, must be balanced; as, for every force there is an equal and opposite . . .

                        See: Tini Circle Groups for a symbolic representation of external forces. Imagine that the smaller circles are emerging motion (seminal quanta) that eventually, externally, compresses and balances the internal forces of the larger circles (quanta),

                        Originally posted by som
                        All energy is the relative motion of spinors or antispinors.
                        Where do the “spinors or antispinors” acquire their motion from ???

                        Originally posted by som
                        As I said before: at some dimension much smaller than a proton, these objects possess angular momentum and send out 'waves' that can cause similar objects to turn.
                        OK and logical; particularly, if you can explain what the waves “are” and how they behave regarding retro rotation concerning all “similar objects” they contact.

                        Originally posted by som
                        As are all theories about gravity.
                        And, unless you are Wilczek, how can you espouse any theory that does not include gravity?

                        Of, course, Pulsoid Theory’s strength is a strong rationalization for what is probably the most mystifying quantitative, gravitational effect . . . accelerating, galactic recession. .

                        Originally posted by som
                        Ultimately, every energy is spinors turning with respect to one another.
                        Not quite, I understand spinors as the result of some much more fundamental motion that creates seminal quanta from which, internally, spinor geometry eventually evolves. I refer to motion rather than energy because energy requires dimensions.
                        ..."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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pulsoid Theory: an Overview

                          Reply to thread 'Pulsoid Theory: an Overview' (I'm stopping the antimatter thread and combining answers here. Too many answers were interrelated. And I don't see the point of moving to QC as suggested below.)

                          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                          Pulsoid Theory) (PT) has both external and internal bonding throughout, which provides a balance. All bonds/forces, including the gravitational effects, must be balanced; as, for every force there is an equal and opposite . . . See: Tini Circle Groups for a symbolic representation of external forces. Imagine that the smaller circles are emerging motion (seminal quanta) that eventually, externally, compresses and balances the internal forces of the larger circles (quanta)...
                          Pulsoids consist of complex, harmonic oscillations that are referred to as Triquametric motion, that creates resonances, that are referred to as Resoloids, that manifest as mass; which, when said Pulsoids are critically compressed, within quasars and gamma-ray bursts, some of said Resoloids are ejected and dissipate as radiant energy quanta, atoms, and subatomic particles.

                          Because of the simplicity of its source and the simple, dynamic, double-ellipsoidal geometry of its emergence, the Pulsoid’s structure is orthogonal; and, cyclic energy transfers to the resonances such that the Pulsoid, also, is the "clock" that sets, and generates, the uniform iterations of fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT).

                          The dynamic, geometric process of emergence and dissipation of Pulsoids is an unending cycle, which, "while along the way," the Pulsoids interact, evolve, and dissipate; thus, manifesting as all the phenomena within the Universe .
                          (See: Pulsoid Theory) :
                          Likewise, it isn't required to know advanced physics and mathematics to understand the Universe such that a person no longer must rely on the metaphysics and confusion of others…
                          SOM (spin-only model) is a more direct path to where we need to go unless you can show that pulsoids generate recognizable nuclear, atomic and molecular energies.

                          (Reply to thread 'Why is there no antimatter within Reality?' Discontinued see above)

                          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                          That except for geometric proximity to the center of a quantum that they are identical to one another and to . . . electrons. Quantitatively, that their "half-spin" phenomenon is geometrically explainable by the dynamic action of the dual, ellipsoidal, "envelopes" that they are within. See the Resoloids that are symbolized by inscribed circles at around three pulses) and 530 pulses (blowup at bottom of page). Mass is a function of distance from the quantum's center
                          Not all nucleons have half spin. I still don't see how to match your model against data. Are 3 and 530 pulses supposed to be nucleons you've identified? By SOM (spin-only model), a proton is not a small electron, it has 3 spinors in it per (1) it's magnetic moment and (2) it's size as inferred backwards from larger nuclear sizes.

                          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                          The best I can figure your spinor is mathematical symbolism that is derived from what spinor mathematical theory, exactly, I’m not certain. There is much that I like about your spinor theory if it can be rooted to some fundamental derivation.
                          I've some evidence for the spinor/antispinor potential: it's 1/r and it's magnitude is about 65 MeV/fm.

                          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                          You’ve focused upon a major problem when you state, "the spinor itself is ill-defined since it's too small to measure." This problem basically accounts for the enigmas of all subquark theory. And, before that Planck’s contrivances for the limit of "smallness." Planck was on to something that he solved pragmatically with little concern for the: "Why?" At such micro levels of thought, It is necessary to employ philosophical logic, geometry, and number theory . . . in that order. Number theory reconciles the prior disciplines. Unfortunately, most physicists with their emphasized concern for the quantitative fail to consider why their "tools" work. They must consider and rationalize the origin of motion, dimensions, numbers (mathematics), and the genesis and evolution of quanta before their "tools" are efficient at the micro and macro scales and the reconciliation of observation at the limits of said scales.

                          Observation at the micro/macro limits can not be rationalized without understanding/defining the concepts of Infinity, orthogonal dimensions, and [URL=www.101123.com/Time[time[/URL]). These concerns are beyond, and little considered within, "top-down," quantitative physics theory, which will remain "incomplete" until they are considered. If you are interested, and few physicists are, there is much that directly addresses these problems in Pulsoid Theory (PT). An excellent starting point would be to move this dialogue to "A Quantum Constants' Relation to Natural integers." (QC) As with all PT forum postings, within QC there is much that is assumed and/or left unclear. Ask questions where there is not clarity.
                          I didn't try to 'explain' space, time and gravity. I set out to reduce the properties of particles to the simplest set. I ended up with (1) one fundamental spinor object (two if you include the 'anti') and (2) balancing the number of spinors and antispinors (matter/antimatter balance in a sense) simply by putting negatively charged particles in the 'have more antispinors than spinors' camp.
                          Gravity comes last in my book, not first, mainly because particle mass and nuclear energy are where the energy, structure and data is. EM (electromagnetism per Maxwell's equations) would be next, then gravity. Relativity is mixed in all, but 1/2 m v^2 is good enough except in high-energy which is just, IMHO, just semistable spinor/antispinor bonds with extra particles such as muons, pions etc. Spinor/antispinor potential is 1/r which is probably why charge and gravity are also; the latter two are just low-level averages energywise.
                          Last edited by Epsilon=One; 12-04-2008, 09:31 AM. Reason: Edited for proper quote attribution.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            There is a major problem to reconcile.

                            Originally posted by som
                            Not all nucleons have half spin. I still don't see how to match your model against data. Are 3 and 530 pulses supposed to be nucleons you've identified? By SOM (spin-only model), a proton is not a small electron, it has 3 spinors in it per (1) it's magnetic moment and (2) it's size as inferred backwards from larger nuclear sizes.
                            I will have much to say concerning this post. I do believe many wrinkles can be brought to agreement.

                            But first, there is a major problem to reconcile that of necessity must be first clarified.

                            You state that, “Not all nucleons have half spin.” I do not understand how any manifestation that exhibits the properties of mass can have anything other than “half-spin.”

                            What is your understanding of the genesis and geometry of “half-spin.” I am not concerned with any definition that contains the term “h-bar”; as, I consider h-bar as a blatant contrivance.

                            What evidence is there for a “nucleon” that does not have the spin properties of fermions???

                            Yes; a proton does differs from an electron; but, not in its genesis . . . nor, does the physical geometry vary in other than mass and spin/pulse; the difference is because of location within the atomic quantum (central or peripheral), not genesis or geometry of size.

                            Your spinors seem to relate to the “quark” third charges of Gell-Mann, which are entirely contrivances; all charges (a poor descriptive word) must be full integers . . . no fractional charges can exist anymore than there are fractional waves.
                            ..."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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Pulsoid Theory: an Overview

                              Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                              I will have much to say concerning this post. I do believe many wrinkles can be brought to agreement. But first, there is a major problem to reconcile that of necessity must be first clarified. You state that, "Not all nucleons have half spin."
                              Sorry, I was thinking nuclei and you did say nucleons.

                              Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                              I do not understand how any manifestation that exhibits the properties of mass can have anything other than "half-spin."
                              The helium-4 nucleus has mass approx. 4 protons, 'charge' 2 and spin 0.

                              Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                              What is your understanding of the genesis and geometry of "half-spin."

                              I am not concerned with any definition that contains the term "h-bar"; as, I consider h-bar as a blatant contrivance.
                              Well, I can't do physics without the language of physics. For me, energy is the turning of spinors and the units aren't correct without the spinors having angular momentum.. This leads to sizes in femtometers (fm) and magnetic energies in terms of magnetic moments related to Compton's wave equation, although quantized, in terms discussed next.

                              Half spin comes from quantum mechanics (QM) and I can't derive QM from SOM. If a coil creates a field then the QM model is that a 'half spin' particle has 1/2h_bar pointing along the field (or opposite) and the torque on the 0.707h_bar component perpendicular to the field causes it to rotate at a frequency dependent on the field which can be detected by external electronics. To relate this to spinors, you have to consider the average turning rate of electron spinors in the coil and relate that to a torque on a test nucleon or nuclei. There are all sorts of SOM model and geometric factors, but it comes out reasonably close (but not close enough to be partial proof of SOM).

                              Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                              Yes; a proton does differs from an electron; but, not in its genesis . . . nor, does the physical geometry vary in other than mass and spin/pulse; the difference is because of location within the atomic quantum (central or peripheral), not genesis or geometry of size.
                              Your claim, yet to be related to data I know about.

                              Originally posted by Epsilon=One
                              Your spinors seem to relate to the "quark" third charges of Gell-Mann, which are entirely contrivances; all charges (a poor descriptive word) must be full integers . . . no fractional charges can exist anymore than there are fractional waves.
                              I don't use charge in nucleons. EM is caused by electrons. There is an equal and opposite effect of electrons in nucleons which could be called 'charge' but it's all dynamic spinor/antispinor interactions.
                              Last edited by Epsilon=One; 12-05-2008, 10:21 AM. Reason: Edited for proper quote attribution.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X