Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pulsoid Theory: an Overview

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

  • #16
    The bugaboo of attraction-at-a-distance would seem to remain . . .

    Originally posted by som
    Sorry, I was thinking nuclei and you did say nucleons.
    I understand no difference. In Pulsoid Theory (PT) a particle is defined as something with mass.

    If it is a particle, something with mass, it must be half-spin. Half-spin is a manifestation that has nothing to do with something that is half spinning; however, what is important is that it is the phenomenon of half-spin that imparts “mass” to an object.

    Half-spin connotes different properties than something that is arbitrarily denoted as “0” or full spin. There are reasons from observation why the term “spin” is used; however, half-spin merely denotes a different characteristic than that of other spin phenomena. No one in academe really understands what the spin “really” is; other than, apparently, something that involves exceptionally complex, little understood, “polygon, embedding” mathematics. Other than arbitrary symbolism, no one in academe has the slightest idea where the energy for the angular momentum for any class of spin comes from; nor, what it is. Therefore, theorists have contrived metaphysical forces/interactions; and, are satisfied to progress further into irreconcilable fantasy theory.

    Originally posted by som
    The helium-4 nucleus has mass approx. 4 protons, 'charge' 2 and spin 0.
    The helium-4 nucleus and other rare isotopes of helium are unusual exceptions that most researchers have a difficult time placing within the scope of particles because of their extraordinary, almost “other-worldly” properties. As one example of theoretical ignorance, many theorists believe such helium isotopes were created within the Big Bang . . . an absolute absurdity when considering modern observation. However, as with most metaphysics, there is a bit of truth. Helium-4, and its rare “cousins” are the result of the earliest evolution; not of the Universe, but of a quantum. Pulsoid Theory considers this evolutionary epoch as somewhat analogous to a Bose-Einstein condensate . . . or vice versa; that is, a plasma state before nucleon formation (no dual, ellipsoidal “envelope” has evolved). When the quantum expansion is between one Conceptual Unit (CU) and two CU major radials, “m,” expansion, there are no Resoloids . . . only energy that is not harmonic, only “focused” between the foci and periphery of the quantum; thus only bosons; thus a spin 0 designation.

    Originally posted by som
    Well, I can't do physics without the language of physics.
    That’s not good enough, It is a difficult situation, as most of those that can best understand the problems of physics depend upon the “language of physics” which has a limited following and is full of undefined terms; and, those that are not familiar with physics have difficulty grasping the concepts and a rational explanation of the physical environment. Academic, theoretical physicists tend to depend upon mathematics and argot that shuts out otherwise intelligent thought; while others believe the same physicists well understand the fundamental enigmas of their craft and requisite philosophical logic . . . which, in many instances of grave error, they have shown that they do not. A byproduct of this situation is the “ignore”-ance of PT.

    Research physicists are excellent . . . very brilliant, concerning the “How?” (the major concern of engineers); however, they have little concern regarding the fundamental “Why?” For instance, where do forces come from? Are they reconcilable . . . unified? Why are numbers and mathematics able to describe Nature? Why is there a Universe? Why is there life and what is its essence? Physics depends upon mathematics; though there is little concern about the fundamental proof of that mathematics. As an example, how many physicists are aware of the problems raised by Kurt Gödel’s reasoning that all but destroyed philosophical, symbolic logic and mathematic proof since the early 1930s.

    Back to the point: the “language of physics” must be understood to be no more than symbolism; it is only as good as those symbols, which are not the object . . . Nature.

    Much of physics’ theory depends upon the extension, to absurdity, of concepts, equations, and functions derived before the “modern” era of observation. Also, much of physics is unproven or “rounded”/estimated mathematical extrapolations that well answer the questions of “How?” while completely ignoring “Why?”

    Originally posted by som
    For me, energy is the turning of spinors and the units aren't correct without the spinors having angular momentum.
    Well and good, providing that you can adequately define the required dimensions including time . . . and their origins. And, whence comes the initial impetus that changes/creates the momentum to angular? You seem to be starting with many inexplicable givens where a fundamental explanation for the occurrence of the seminal concept is a requirement.

    For instance, you are depending upon the theories and symbolic mathematics of persons who never understood, from observation, the subatomic or Cosmic motions

    A theory that does not begin with the reconciliation of the macro motions and the micro motions; is as useless for explaining fundamental phenomena as a balance sheet that is one penny out of balance.

    It is not the penny that is important . . . it is the reconciliation; as, the penny may hide many tremendous off-setting discrepancies.

    Such is the case with mathematical symbolism when it becomes the object rather than the tool; and, particularly so, when it manipulates functions that have been originally derived from faulty logic, which leads theorists to consider the distractions of Big Bangs, worm holes, strong and weak interactions, fractional charges, attraction-at-a-distance, light as a constant speed, space-time, etc., etc. The madness seems to exponentially increase as scientists trumpet progress. With the departure of Einstein, Gödel, and Feynman, the children took charge of the enterprise . . . and then, the children took refuge from rationality.

    Originally posted by som
    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.
    Gibberish in terms of the above concerns.

    I may be ranting; however, there are two points that you should keep in mind: 1.) I strongly believe in IPSO (and wish theorists were as concerned as I); and, 2.) There is much to your theory that is interesting.

    Concerning your theory: it would seem that you have gone about as far as possible from the top down considering the tools that you are using. My advice is to begin at the beginning and work upward. At some point, you should be able to tweak such that the approaches unite/reconcile.

    The beginning requires a continual reduction of complexity until you can go no further toward simplicity. It should be possible to still find all elements of complexity within such simplicity. Then, build/evolve toward your spinors. As you seek the simplicity, you must shed symbolism and anthropic taint; basically, this means that much UN-learning is required. You cannot progress up the tree of wisdom from the bending tip of a limb until you crawl back nearer to the trunk.

    Originally posted by som
    Half spin comes from quantum mechanics (QM) and I can't derive QM from SOM.
    Here are at least two red flags. First: QM is no more than an incomplete theory, at best, and cannot be relied upon beyond certain limits. And, second: there is much of QM that is quantitative and observable that should be accessible from SOM. Also, if it is of any help, I doubt if Frank Wilczek can adequately/fully explain the geometry and mathematics of “half-spin” to himself; my guess is that he merely observes the “tracks” produced in a collider and tweaks it to a function of some questionable derivation.

    Originally posted by 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.
    This is ridiculous to speculate about until someone can adequate prove QM beyond an “incomplete” theory; define the genesis and forces of what is connoted by the term “field”; physically define Planck’s constants beyond contrivances; complete the complex, “embedding” mathematics that is involved; etc.. However, there is merit to understanding the genesis of the outside, complex forces that cause rotation and resonance at a high frequency of pulsation. I refer to this amalgam of complex motion/force as Triquametric motion (TM).

    Originally posted by som
    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).
    I wouldn’t expect anything better than “reasonably close” until, at the least, SOM can account for the creation of the illusion of some gravitational effects.

    Note that gravity appears to act from the infinitesimal. At this point, I’m not concerned whether you attribute the phenomena to various forms of bonds (van der Waals, gluons, etc.) or simply reconcile close-by attraction-at-a-distance illusion with the macro illusion. To do this, should reconcile why the mass differences of fermions that are otherwise undifferentiated. (I am not implying that I believe the action is truly voodoo “attraction-at-a-distance.)

    Originally posted by som
    Your claim, yet to be related to data I know about.
    I consider the claim that protons and electron are similar in all manner except for their location within the dual, embedded, ellipsoidal quantum to be self-evident from the mathematics of half-spin and the overall genesis of mass. Also, I know of no other theory that can satisfactorily reconcile subatomic phenomena without the concept of Triquametric motion’s (TM) resonance. To understand what I’m saying, probably, depends upon a theoretical understanding of the Universe’s perpetual cycles of evolution . . . which is problematic for anyone grounded in Big Bang metaphysics.

    Originally posted by som
    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.
    I used the qualifier: “seem to relate”; I’m glad that I was wrong. “Equal and opposite effect” better connotes what I believe is occurring.

    I believe there is a bit of consensus here; as, you state “could be called ‘charge’”; and, “dynamic…interactions.” EM may be caused by electrons; but, this does not explain what an “electron” or “field” actually are. And, of course the bugaboo of attraction-at-a-distance would seem to remain . . .
    ..."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


    • #17
      Re: The bugaboo of attraction-at-a-distance would seem to remain . . .

      Originally posted by som
      Sorry, I was thinking nuclei and you did say nucleons.
      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
      I understand no difference. In Pulsoid Theory (PT) a particle is defined as something with mass.

      If it is a particle, something with mass, it must be half-spin. Half-spin is a manifestation that has nothing to do with something that is half spinning; however, what is important is that it is the phenomenon of half-spin that imparts "mass" to an object.

      Half-spin connotes different properties than something that is arbitrarily denoted as "0" or full spin. There are reasons from observation why the term "spin" is used; however, half-spin merely denotes a different characteristic than that of other spin phenomena. No one in academe really understands what the spin "really" is; other than, apparently, something that involves exceptionally complex, little understood, "polygon, embedding" mathematics.
      1/2-spin is a shorthand that means that the vector component 1/2 h_bar angular momentum (of total 0.866 h_bar) is aligned with a magnetic field. If you redefine it, nothing but confusion can result. As far as what kind of time/space average and of what this "really" is, that's what SOM is partly about for nucleons. For atomic electrons, the internals of the electron have less consequence and huge numbers of analyses have been satisfactorily made. As far as non-1/2 nuclei, it's perfectly clear from QM rules. I don't see why to redefine them also. I have the same concerns as you as to what's underlying QM that makes it work.
      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
      Other than arbitrary symbolism, no one in academe has the slightest idea where the energy for the angular momentum for any class of spin comes from; nor, what it is. Therefore, theorists have contrived metaphysical forces/interactions; and, are satisfied to progress further into irreconcilable fantasy theory.
      For SOM, spinor and antispinor angular momentum in a proton has only mass energy (due to turning with respect to the rest of the universe's spinors and antispinors) until it is put in a magnetic field. Then there is a slight additional turning in the plane of the coil. The idea that a proton has a permanent '1/2 spin' and permanent 'magnetic moment' is the misconception.
      Originally posted by som
      The helium-4 nucleus has mass approx. 4 protons, 'charge' 2 and spin 0.
      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
      The helium-4 nucleus and other rare isotopes of helium are unusual exceptions that most researchers have a difficult time placing within the scope of particles because of their extraordinary, almost "other-worldly" properties. As one example of theoretical ignorance, many theorists believe such helium isotopes were created within the Big Bang . . . an absolute absurdity when considering modern observation. However, as with most metaphysics, there is a bit of truth. Helium-4, and its rare "cousins" are the result of the earliest evolution; not of the Universe, but of a quantum. Pulsoid Theory considers this evolutionary epoch as somewhat analogous to a Bose-Einstein condensate . . . or vice versa; that is, a plasma state before nucleon formation (no dual, ellipsoidal "envelope" has evolved). When the quantum expansion is between one Conceptual Unit (CU) and two CU major radials, "m," expansion, there are no Resoloids . . . only energy that is not harmonic, only "focused" between the foci and periphery of the quantum; thus only bosons; thus a spin 0 designation.
      Speculation on how the universe formed is not for me. If your theory predicts it: great. But it has to predict all of the other stuff, too. My helium-4 models seem reasonable to me.
      Originally posted by som
      Well, I can't do physics without the language of physics.
      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
      That’s not good enough, It is a difficult situation, as most of those that can best understand the problems of physics depend upon the "language of physics" which has a limited following and is full of undefined terms; and, those that are not familiar with physics have difficulty grasping the concepts and a rational explanation of the physical environment. Academic, theoretical physicists tend to depend upon mathematics and argot that shuts out otherwise intelligent thought; while others believe the same physicists well understand the fundamental enigmas of their craft and requisite philosophical logic . . . which, in many instances of grave error, they have shown that they do not. A byproduct of this situation is the "ignore"-ance of PT.

      Research physicists are excellent . . . very brilliant, concerning the "How?" (the major concern of engineers); however, they have little concern regarding the fundamental "Why?" For instance, where do forces come from? Are they reconcilable . . . unified? Why are numbers and mathematics able to describe Nature? Why is there a Universe? Why is there life and what is its essence? Physics depends upon mathematics; though there is little concern about the fundamental proof of that mathematics. As an example, how many physicists are aware of the problems raised by Kurt Gödel’s reasoning that all but destroyed philosophical, symbolic logic and mathematic proof since the early 1930s.

      Back to the point: the "language of physics" must be understood to be no more than symbolism; it is only as good as those symbols, which are not the object . . . Nature.

      Much of physics’ theory depends upon the extension, to absurdity, of concepts, equations, and functions derived before the "modern" era of observation. Also, much of physics is unproven or "rounded"/estimated mathematical extrapolations that well answer the questions of "How?" while completely ignoring "Why?
      I find most of basic physics and QM still apply. If you're talking about Standard Theory, that's different. Everybody wants the "why?", the TOE. Nobody sees a candidate that's close. Maybe you have it. Maybe Lebau or Duffield are closer. Lockyer thought (still thinks?) he had it. SOM has lots of evidence pointing elsewhere, but as you have said: how does the spinor action-at-a_distance work at a lower level. Maybe there will always be a 'lower level'.
      Originally posted by som
      For me, energy is the turning of spinors and the units aren't correct without the spinors having angular momentum.
      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
      Well and good, providing that you can adequately define the required dimensions including time . . . and their origins. And, whence comes the initial impetus that changes/creates the momentum to angular? You seem to be starting with many inexplicable givens where a fundamental explanation for the occurrence of the seminal concept is a requirement.
      Research in physics has never been about solving everything at once. (If you do it, it'll be obvious: you'll understand where QM came from and you'll be able to calculate all nuclear energy levels) We are talking about very small and hidden objects. I've simplified to one object and one equation. I do calculations. I make progress with reasonable models. I'm working alone. It's not as though I have unlimited resources.
      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
      For instance, you are depending upon the theories and symbolic mathematics of persons who never understood, from observation, the subatomic or Cosmic motions

      A theory that does not begin with the reconciliation of the macro motions and the micro motions; is as useless for explaining fundamental phenomena as a balance sheet that is one penny out of balance.

      It is not the penny that is important . . . it is the reconciliation; as, the penny may hide many tremendous off-setting discrepancies.

      Such is the case with mathematical symbolism when it becomes the object rather than the tool; and, particularly so, when it manipulates functions that have been originally derived from faulty logic, which leads theorists to consider the distractions of Big Bangs, worm holes, strong and weak interactions, fractional charges, attraction-at-a-distance, light as a constant speed, space-time, etc., etc. The madness seems to exponentially increase as scientists trumpet progress. With the departure o f Einstein, Gödel, and Feynman, the children took charge of the enterprise . . . and then, the children took refuge from rationality.
      Feynman was part of fractional charge and Einstein, though old, had no better ideas. Attraction-at-a-distance still applies, IMHO. I said before: I don't think a theory of gravity is necessary to make progress on nuclear forces. There's more to learn from nuclear forces. So that's where I work.
      Originally posted by som
      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.
      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
      Gibberish in terms of the above concerns.

      I may be ranting; however, there are two points that you should keep in mind: 1.) I strongly believe in IPSO (and wish theorists were as concerned as I); and, 2.) There is much to your theory that is interesting.

      Concerning your theory: it would seem that you have gone about as far as possible from the top down considering the tools that you are using. My advice is to begin at the beginning and work upward. At some point, you should be able to tweak such that the approaches unite/reconcile.

      The beginning requires a continual reduction of complexity until you can go no further toward simplicity. It should be possible to still find all elements of complexity within such simplicity. Then, build/evolve toward your spinors. As you seek the simplicity, you must shed symbolism and anthropic taint; basically, this means that much UN-learning is required. You cannot progress up the tree of wisdom from the bending tip of a limb until you crawl back nearer to the trunk.
      What you call the top down , I call the bottom up. Have you heard of more simplicity than SOE: one spinor, one equation. Of course, it may not 'hold up', be able to 'jump through all the hoops'.
      Originally posted by som
      Half spin comes from quantum mechanics (QM) and I can't derive QM from SOM.
      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
      Here are at least two red flags. First: QM is no more than an incomplete theory, at best, and cannot be relied upon beyond certain limits. And, second: there is much of QM that is quantitative and observable that should be accessible from SOM. Also, if it is of any help, I doubt if Frank Wilczek can adequately/fully explain the geometry and mathematics of "half-spin" to himself; my guess is that he merely observes the "tracks" produced in a collider and tweaks it to a function of some questionable derivation.
      QM doesn't get down to SOM's range, except in generalities such as the spin/parity of nuclei.
      Originally posted by 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, the frequency of which can be detected by external electronics.
      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
      This is ridiculous to speculate about until someone can adequate prove QM beyond an "incomplete" theory; define the genesis and forces of what is connoted by the term "field"; physically define Planck’s constants beyond contrivances; complete the complex, "embedding" mathematics that is involved; etc.. However, there is merit to understanding the genesis of the outside, complex forces that cause rotation and resonance at a high frequency of pulsation. I refer to this amalgam of complex motion/force as Triquametric motion (TM).
      To 'ridicule' an amazingly successful theory without an adequate replacement is 'Naderism'. Maybe you do have a replacement, but I don't understand how it works. (It seems to me you could write a succinct summary of what you're doing.) I think the reason QM is incomplete is because the critical data is hidden in nuclear complexity. High energy physics doesn't work because the complexity is just increased. You get lots of data to keep physicists employed, but it doesn't apply to the underlying problem.
      Originally posted by som
      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
      I wouldn’t expect anything better than "reasonably close" until, at the least, SOM can account for the creation of the illusion of some gravitational effects.

      Note that gravity appears to act from the infinitesimal. At this point, I’m not concerned whether you attribute the phenomena to various forms of bonds (van der Waals, gluons, etc.) or simply reconcile close-by attraction-at-a-distance illusion with the macro illusion. To do this, should reconcile why the mass differences of fermions that are otherwise undifferentiated. (I am not implying that I believe the action is truly voodoo "attraction-at-a-distance.)
      I don't think proving gravity is a prerequisite for SOM. I heard 2 guys last year were close to deriving gravity from EM. Also Dan McCoin's UniKEF is somewhat compatible with SOM. So, of course, I'm interested.
      Originally posted by som
      Your claim, yet to be related to data I know about.
      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
      I consider the claim that protons and electron are similar in all manner except for their location within the dual, embedded, ellipsoidal quantum to be self-evident from the mathematics of half-spin and the overall genesis of mass. Also, I know of no other theory that can satisfactorily reconcile subatomic phenomena without the concept of Triquametric motion’s (TM) resonance. To understand what I’m saying, probably, depends upon a theoretical understanding of the Universe’s perpetual cycles of evolution . . . which is problematic for anyone grounded in Big Bang metaphysics.
      Reconcile' is one thing, calculating measurable nuclear details is another.
      Originally posted by som
      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.
      Originally posted by Epsilon=One
      I used the qualifier: "seem to relate"; I’m glad that I was wrong. "Equal and opposite effect" better connotes what I believe is occurring.

      I believe there is a bit of consensus here; as, you state "could be called ‘charge’"; and, "dynamic…interactions." EM may be caused by electrons; but, this does not explain what an "electron" or "field" actually are. And, of course the bugaboo of attraction-at-a-distance would seem to remain.
      There is less data on an electron since it does not form larger clumps like nuclei do. My guess is that it is one antispinor on a 'outer layer of a ball of yarn' radius of 386 FM. A B-field was defined approx. 2 paragraphs above. Action at a distance remains and implies something like Lebau's ether and waves travelling at least at c, probably much greater.
      Last edited by Epsilon=One; 12-11-2008, 11:42 PM. Reason: Format URLs

      Comment


      • #18
        There cannot be a precise definition with undefined imprecise connotations.

        Originally posted by som
        1/2-spin is a shorthand that means that the vector component 1/2 h_bar angular momentum (of total 0.866 h_bar) is aligned with a magnetic field. If you redefine it, nothing but confusion can result.
        Without an explanation of: “Why?,” there will never be anything but confusion when defining “half-spin.” Nowhere in Standard Model QM is there any attempt to define the fundamental forces that are involved.

        There cannot be a precise definition with undefined imprecise connotations.

        The symbolism that is used to define half-spin explains nothing of the object beyond a precision of symbolism.

        “Shorthand” for half-spin says nothing about the complex embedded mathematics that is required; and much less, concerning how such embedded motion has evolved. For example: Why does half-spin underlie the phenomenon of mass?

        Such is what Pulsoid Theory (PT) directly, and succinctly, does. See: Dynamic, emergent separation (DES); and, parse for meaning: Emergent Expansion (EX).

        Originally posted by som
        As far as what kind of time/space average and of what this "really" is, that's what SOM is partly about for nucleons. For atomic electrons, the internals of the electron have less consequence and huge numbers of analyses have been satisfactorily made. As far as non-1/2 nuclei, it's perfectly clear from QM rules. I don't see why to redefine them also. I have the same concerns as you as to what's underlying QM that makes it work.
        PT does not redefine QM; PT merely gives a philosophically logical reason of “why” much of QM “works.”

        As QM has been tweaked for nearly a century, it has never attempted a fundamental explanation of its derivation beyond the manipulation of symbolism and uncertain mathematics. How can you expect QM to be a solid basis for fundamental “anything” when it was derived when almost nothing was known of the micro/macro environment?

        QM has distinct limits, your research, has “pretty much” reached those limits. It is near impossible to push QM any further until it can account/explain voodoo; such as: 1.) attraction-at-a-distance; 2.) “fields”; 3.) macro effects; and, 4 etc.

        Originally posted by som
        For SOM, spinor and antispinor angular momentum in a proton has only mass energy (due to turning with respect to the rest of the universe's spinors and antispinors) until it is put in a magnetic field.
        Interesting. Exactly what is a “magnetic field”? And, where did the “units” of “proton…mass energy” evolve from. You cannot use the terms of definition that are used to define SOM/spinors until you have a solid/non-circular definition of “time” and “space.”

        It would seem a philosophical paradox if both time and space definitions were not independently derived from quanta.

        Originally posted by som
        Then there is a slight additional turning in the plane of the coil. The idea that a proton has a permanent '1/2 spin' and permanent 'magnetic moment' is the misconception.
        PT has no such misconception; as, there is no allowance for “permanent.”

        Why does a plane evolve in a Universe without straight lines . . . or lack of motion?

        Originally posted by som
        Speculation on how the universe formed is not for me.
        It must be of concern if you expect to push the limits of the subatomic environment. Otherwise, your tools are analogous to cutting a fine diamond with a wood chisel and sledgehammer.

        It is necessary to understand the simplicity of how the forces are generated; and, why numbers and mathematical manipulations can explain Nature; and . . . the spinors that you are trying to explain.

        Originally posted by som
        If your theory predicts it: great. But it has to predict all of the other stuff, too.
        PT does much more than predict (though, it does “predict” all the paradoxes and enigmas of standard theory that I am aware of. ), PT rationalizes the total micro/macro environment where other academic theorists often don’t even have a theory that is reconcilable and consistent with observation.

        For over 50 years it has not been successfully challenged on any single point by the elite of academia. Of course, the author has been roundly denounced; but, never has a specific of the theory been challenged. Not saying that they can’t be improved; merely stating that no fundamental point has been disproved.

        Originally posted by som
        My helium-4 models seem reasonable to me.
        I can find nothing reasonable, if you insist that fermions can exist without half-spin.

        Possibly, the problem is semantics, Whatever, the concept is extremely important to a fundamental understanding of “why?” mass.

        Originally posted by som
        I find most of basic physics and QM still apply.
        I agree. However, nothing in QM explains any fundamental origin or “Why?”; I do not quibble with the “How?” and observation.

        How can you expect QM to “work” beyond its limits when you consider the lack of knowledge/observation of the originators compared with what is known today ??? And, remember, much of what they accomplished (“they” are my heroes) evolved from concepts of nearly a century earlier . . . even more in Sir Isaac’s theory . . . which he had little faith in understanding except for “God” . . . much like Hawking’s musings . . .

        What physicists have accomplished is not to be set aside. It is merely “incomplete” and can not be pushed much further until a “new” physics, a Paradigm Shift!, is established.

        Originally posted by som
        If you're talking about Standard Theory, that's different. Everybody wants the "why?", the TOE. Nobody sees a candidate that's close.
        Quite an indictment of the academic profession. Of which I agree.

        Originally posted by som
        Maybe you have it. Maybe Lebau or Duffield are closer. Lockyer thought (still thinks?) he had it. SOM has lots of evidence pointing elsewhere, but as you have said: how does the spinor action-at-a_distance work at a lower level. Maybe there will always be a 'lower level'.
        I certainly don’t expect “the lower level” to be much of a mystery once a new generation of physicists comes along that respect philosophical logic, true theology, and fundamental (pure/real) mathematics.

        Originally posted by som
        Research in physics has never been about solving everything at once. (If you do it, it'll be obvious: you'll understand where QM came from and you'll be able to calculate all nuclear energy levels)
        Yes.

        Originally posted by som
        We are talking about very small and hidden objects. I've simplified to one object and one equation. I do calculations. I make progress with reasonable models. I'm working alone. It's not as though I have unlimited resources.
        I understand. I am trying to help. Something like the jackass and the four x four; I first must get your attention.

        You have well, and quite aptly, demonstrated your “learning” and puzzle solving abilities.

        However, the “one object” is little more than mathematical symbolism that has come from nowhere. And, the “one equation” is an evolution of equations, functions, and theory that have come from the past when little was actually understood beyond macro concepts . . . that often depended upon a belief in an anthropic God.

        Originally posted by som
        Feynman was part of fractional charge and Einstein, though old, had no better ideas.
        Yes. And, they both knew what they didn’t know; something that escapes the hubris of most all of today’s academic, theoretical physicists.

        Originally posted by som
        Attraction-at-a-distance still applies, IMHO. I said before: I don't think a theory of gravity is necessary to make progress on nuclear forces. There's more to learn from nuclear forces. So that's where I work.
        IMHO, you are myopic; I cannot imagine how it can be possible to make much further progress concerning the understanding of nuclear forces without understanding how they create the secondary forces that create the illusion of gravitational forces. And, of course, the voodoo concept of “attraction-at-a-distance must be discarded; if only to keep physics logical and rational.

        After all, gravitational effects seem to emanate from the infinitesimal, which is considered the “stompin’ grounds” of nuclear forces . . .

        Originally posted by som
        What you call the top down , I call the bottom up. Have you heard of more simplicity than SOE: one spinor, one equation.
        Yes; PT goes down quite a few more levels. PT goes below the evolution of dimensions, numbers, even forces themselves. The one spinor and one equation have been defined from higher level concepts; thus, I refer to SOM as a “top-down” theory.

        Originally posted by som
        Of course, it may not 'hold up', be able to 'jump through all the hoops'.
        With some tweaking from the “bottom up” SOM has potential.

        Originally posted by som
        QM doesn't get down to SOM's range, except in generalities such as the spin/parity of nuclei.
        Here we agree. QM is incomplete.

        Except, maybe, SOM tends to see too great an evolutionary difference between protons and electrons. Why should the genesis of that which acts as mass be much different from one another? Fundamentally, there must be a unification of all that exists to a simple quantum. All that exists (including space, time, and light) are quantized.

        Originally posted by som
        To 'ridicule' an amazingly successful theory without an adequate replacement is 'Naderism'. Maybe you do have a replacement, but I don't understand how it works. (It seems to me you could write a succinct summary of what you're doing.)
        I have. Those that are familiar with academic physics are unable to understand “simplicity” . . . or, integers.

        Originally posted by som
        I think the reason QM is incomplete is because the critical data is hidden in nuclear complexity.
        I think just the opposite. I believe the “critical data is hidden in nuclear” simplicity.

        Originally posted by som
        High energy physics doesn't work because the complexity is just increased. You get lots of data to keep physicists employed, but it doesn't apply to the underlying problem.
        LOL. My point . . . exactly!

        Originally posted by som
        I don't think proving gravity is a prerequisite for SOM. I heard 2 guys last year were close to deriving gravity from EM. Also Dan McCoin's UniKEF is somewhat compatible with SOM. So, of course, I'm interested.
        Despite Feynman’s thoughtful admonition; rationalizing gravity is imperative for the recognition of any complete theory . . . any theory that hopes to improve on current theory.

        Originally posted by som
        Reconcile' is one thing, calculating measurable nuclear details is another.
        Quite true. One is the province of engineers; the other theorists.

        Originally posted by som
        There is less data on an electron since it does not form larger clumps like nuclei do. My guess is that it is one antispinor on a 'outer layer of a ball of yarn' radius of 386 FM. A B-field was defined approx. 2 paragraphs above. Action at a distance remains and implies something like Lebau's ether and waves travelling at least at c, probably much greater.
        Great!!! It appears that you agree that the (decelerating) speed of light is nowhere near a limit for speed.

        Have you given thought to “Why?” electrons do “not form larger clumps like nuclei”; or, vice versa?
        ..."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


        • #19
          Re: There cannot be a precise definition with undefined imprecise connotations.

          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
          Without an explanation of: "Why?,"there will never be anything but confusion when defining "half-spin."
          Pulsoid Theory is fully reconciled and
          consistent with logic and observation.
          .
          If you never predict details that can be observed then you can claim 'consistency' and 'reconciliation' in some vague manner.
          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
          Nowhere in Standard Model QM is there any attempt to define the fundamental forces that are involved.
          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).
          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
          There cannot be a precise definition with undefined imprecise connotations. The symbolism that is used to define half-spin explains nothing of the object beyond a precision of symbolism. "Shorthand" for half-spin says nothing about the complex embedded mathematics that is required; and much less, concerning how such embedded motion has evolved.
          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). And what is a neutron? You already have to backtrack on what a zero-spin alpha might be.
          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
          Why does half-spin underlie the phenomenon of mass?
          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.
          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
          PT does not redefine QM; PT merely gives a philosophically logical reason of "why" much of QM "works."
          Yes, but what is the connection between your 'spin' and QM's spin?
          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
          As QM has been tweaked for nearly a century, it has never attempted a fundamental explanation of its derivation beyond the manipulation of symbolism and uncertain mathematics. How can you expect QM to be a solid basis for fundamental "anything" when it was derived when almost nothing was known of the micro/macro environment?
          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.
          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
          QM has distinct limits, your research, has "pretty much" reached those limits. It is near impossible to push QM any further until it can account/explain voodoo; such as: 1.) attraction-at-a-distance; 2.) "fields"; 3.) macro effects; and, 4 etc.
          I've gone beyond QM's limits, but QM has been proven correct whereas SOM has not. How does PT help?
          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
          Interesting. Exactly what is a "magnetic field"?
          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.
          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
          And, where did the "units" of "proton…mass energy" evolve from.
          Einstein
          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
          You cannot use the terms of definition that are used to define SOM/spinors until you have a solid/non-circular definition of "time" and "space." It would seem a philosophical paradox if both time and space definitions were not independently derived from quanta.
          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.
          Originally posted by Epsilon=One
          Why does a plane evolve in a Universe without straight lines . . . or lack of motion? .
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            I do not quibble with the results of research physics.

            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.

            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 of mass? What is the unified force that spinors arise from?

            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).

            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?

            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?

            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.

            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.

            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.

            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?

            Originally posted by Epsilon=One
            And, where did the "units" of "proton…mass energy" evolve from.
            Originally posted by som
            Einstein
            And, how did Einstein explain their evolution; 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.

            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”?

            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

            Comment


            • #21
              I do not quibble with the results of research physics.

              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.

              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?

              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).

              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?

              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?

              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.

              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.

              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.

              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?

              Originally posted by Epsilon=One
              And, where did the "units" of "proton…mass energy" evolve from.
              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.

              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”?

              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

              Comment


              • #22
                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?

                Comment


                • #23
                  The relative position of the hadron and lepton ellipsoidal envelopes are reversed.

                  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.

                  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.

                  Originally posted by som
                  Emergent means 'developing'?
                  Yes. Developing from a source.

                  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).

                  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.

                  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

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X