[General] Short summaries of ideas?

Sun Mar 17 08:24:14 PDT 2019

Now spell-checked and Cc:ed correctly  - sorry for my eagerness to send! 
/joakim

Hi DataPR,

A crash-start from a long-term reader of this forum:

* Vivian Robinson studied implications of the assumption that matter is 
self-confined EM fields. From that assumption he can derive the world as 
we see it, basically. He also postulates a theory of this 
self-confinement like Heisenberg/Feynman might have: A push action from 
particle-particle exchanges with all possible "background" or "virtual 
as in not really there permanently but quite possible for short enough 
time" particles in its immediate neighbourhood.

* John Williamson studied the EM field itself and worked for many years 
on getting one particle right: the largest-volume and lightest-mass 
confined particle he can describe with it: an electron/positron. That 
theory is complementary to Vivian's as it postulates a confinement 
theory like Maxwell/Shrödinger/Einstein might have: A pull action from 
the gravity field within. It can explain all the standing wave 
phenomena, superconductivity, charge and flux quantization as simple 
topological problems: A wave knot is the same knot, topologically, 
however far you stretch in it any direction. It is perhaps easier to 
imagine a free particle (field knot) as a photon circling a black hole. 
But here the black hole is the gravity field created by itself, or in 
other words some distributed space-void within. A bound particle 
(electron in an atom) is circling a larger mass so it can be further 
away from the gravity centre, but then it also has (for an outside 
viewer) a lower frequency/longer wavelength so that it still finds 
itself after the same number or rotations around the void. It then 
interferes constructively over all its path and stays stable. A next 
level of understanding is that the different particle-fields inside 
compound matter like a free atom or a sold-state piece of matter are as 
affected by the neighbouring fields as by itself, and therefore they 
also stretch as more field is added (to preserve their individual 
topologies). A more advanced level of understanding is that all these 
single-particle fields actually are the same field, just more intense 
and more complex than a fixed set of topological parameters: all the 
possible combinations of the topological parameters that still conserve 
the net compound topology are in there, in the net field, but at 
different times or rather room-time zones. That last level explains what 
happens in superconductors as it slips through a pin-hole of magnetic 
flux from one side to the other, or any other particle-wave experiment. 
I could never explain this in detail before John W explained his 
photon-electron theory.

* John Macken studied the gravitational field itself, and found that it 
sets a limit on the density of black holes in a given universe-size. I 
see this as the ultimate level of understanding, where any field we 
observe is explained as a "swirl" and any particle as "rotation" on the 
sea of all possible oscillations in the gravity-field. I guess it is 
life-time of the object studied that defines the universe size that 
quantizes these gravitational oscillations. Big bang was very short and 
might therefore have created all possible oscillations it could contain 
in a super-excited black hole that then exploded as more oscillations 
opened up with time.

Now this summary is just one of many that could be made, and all have 
their favourites here, but hopefully it can give some leads for even 
better stories to explain the world in worlds that even more can 
understand.

Best wishes,

Joakim Petterson

>
>------ Originalmeddelande ------
>Från: "Viv Robinson" <viv at universephysics.com>
>Till: "DataPacRat" <datapacrat at gmail.com>; "Nature of Light and 
>Particles - General Discussion" 
><general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>Skickat: 2019-03-17 00:59:59
>Ämne: Re: [General] Short summaries of ideas?
>
>>Hi DataPR
>>
>>I append a dozen pages that gives a physical and mathematical 
>>description of photons as I understand them. No calculus involved. 
>>Most of the mathematics is straight from text books, or slight 
>>extensions to them. The wave function equations are just a 
>>mathematical format of the physical description shown in the images. 
>>Photons of this structure and description are stable and self 
>>sustaining. They do not need other properties to describe them.
>>
>>Hope this helps.
>>
>>Vivian Robinson
>>
>>On 17 March 2019 at 3:26:52 AM, DataPacRat (datapacrat at gmail.com) 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hello to the members of this list,
>>>
>>>If you don't mind my asking, would it be possible for any of you to
>>>share some short summaries of your approaches and the implications?
>>>I'm afraid that I don't have the mathematical chops to truly
>>>understand most of what I've been able to skim from the list's
>>>archives, but I do write the odd amateur science-fiction story, and I
>>>like being able to add physics details most other SF authours don't.
>>>
>>>For example, I might describe one small part of Chip Akins' ideas as
>>>"photons are spiralling ribbons of EM fields, kept together by the
>>>strong nuclear force; neutrinos are the same thing, only with a
>>>different angle of twisting, and electrons the same but circling
>>>around and around". (Which is about as much as I've managed to
>>>assemble so far from the PDFs he's released.) I could do something of
>>>the same with my superficial understanding of quantized inertia (or,
>>>for fun, try to combine QI with Akins' ideas), but I've seen mentions
>>>of other approaches in the archives that I haven't been able to track
>>>down, let alone start reading.
>>>
>>>How much can you explain to someone who's forgotten just about all 
>>>the
>>>techniques of calculus?
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you for your time,
>>>--
>>>DataPacRat
>>>"Does aₘᵢₙ=2c²/Θ ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it 
>>>were?"
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of 
>>>Light and Particles General Discussion List at 
>>>viv at universephysics.com
>>><a 
>>>href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>>Click here to unsubscribe
>>></a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20190317/e67aa00a/attachment.html>