[General] Short summaries of ideas?

[DataPacRat]

Thank you for that series of summaries; and thank you, Vivian, for the
'Classical Aspects' PDF.

If I may ask, are there any handy tables of newly extrapolated
properties of any of the standard-model particles from the viewpoint
of these approaches; or reasonably simple formulas which make
predictions beyond the standard? I find that while reaching towards a
mental model is often useful, it's even more useful to know what that
model might be leading to.


On 17/03/2019, Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>


-- 
Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Does aₘᵢₙ=2c²/Θ ? I don't know, but wouldn't it be fascinating if it were?"