Viewer's Q&A

A collection of questions and answers that may be of general interest

The Higgs Particle?
Does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Apply? QM?
Observable Universe and Mother Universe?


Initial Linked-in discussion September 21th, a Denis English concern:

...no reason to mandate a simpler theory that purportedly is simple to understand and not encumbered by math.

The math is in the ToS and the numbers match up! Maybe the classic electromagnetic math is hard find when used to seeing quantum mechanics (QM) abstract math page after page… May I point out the Summary of the ToS  that in addition to its introduction, lists and points out the support and proofs of the ToS. Further below.

Chris asked September 19th at Yahoo News:

Does the ToS make any verifiable predictions that might give different results with say String theory? I mean can you do real science to prove it correct?


Yes! The ToS document discusses many verifiable predictions and possible proofs. The ToS Summary  specifically lists lots of the support and proofs that already exist for the ToS. In addition, a new theory cannot only “invent new stuff” - all the old knowledge, verified experiments and proofs must also match up.

Where other theories provide correct mathematical descriptions, but don’t provide a description of an underlying reality, the ToS does. After we got correct quantum mechanical descriptions of the hydrogen atom, we have no understandable underlying reality anymore :(  Why does not the electron fall into the positive atom nucleus (QM just says there is a lowest possible energy level – Where does that come from? Electromagnetism has no such thing…)

--- In the ToS it is obvious: The atom nucleus is actually negative! See ToS 4.2.3: The hole-mechanism. And the numbers match up!

And Einstein taught that gravity is curving space-time around matter – How can that happen???

--- In the ToS gravity is the Negtrino density reduction in the Grid around matter. That density – the distance between the Negtrinos in the Grid – determines the size of the atom itself (the distance to its electrons). A ruler, a clock and everything changes size! The Grid is making up space itself and this is the curved space-time. See ToS 4.3.5.

I did not derive the general relativity gravity math (someone more clever than me must do that), but I did it for Newton’s gravity – the gravity constant G become4c4Ro/Wde (ToS 5.5.1). Put in the numbers – It matches the G we know!

Let’s not forget Newton’s second law of motion, F=ma. That is derived in the ToS – That has never been derived before. It was considered impossible – but since mass “only is a mechanism”, it is now possible – and done, see ToS 5.4.2.

It is proof of the ToS that Newton's gravity law and F=ma are correct! And which astronomer can verify that the predicted force accelerating distant galaxies (ToS 5.3) matches the measured data? (They have a tendency to explain it by a force that occured 5 billion years ago, which would be very strange. In the ToS, the distant force instead depends on where the galaxy is in relation to the edge of the universe.)

And the most stunning proof of all: Split up the dark energy the astronomers have found for us on each negtrino and revolution and you get a very important number: 1.0545x10-34. That is Planck’s reduced constant! And analyze the units: kg is not base unit, kg is As2/m3, meaning that mass is not a quality of particles - It is a mechanism (just like gravity)! (See ToS 6.1)

And there are predictions to be verified. The Grid room border around matter can be detected, see both ToS 5.5.5 and ToS 4.4.10 where I propose a modified Michelson–Morley experiment that will show that the speed of light varies with the motion of the observer. The old 1887 experiments failed because the speed was measured in the Grid room of the interferometer itself. Note that special relativity is still correct, since its Principle of Invariant Light Speed relates to motions of the light source, not the observer! 

See also ToS 4.7.2.6 about black holes.

But many many verifications can be done by computer simulation, now that there is a concrete model – a reality description – to simulate and check and learn the mechanism of. Maybe the open source community will be quicker than the scientific community to learn us more about the Grid, and the mechanism of mass and gravity.

And MIT has a finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simulation software package (the Meep) to model electromagnetic systems. It should be able to produce a clear picture of the negtrino itself, its shape, size and other details, see ToS 8.2.2. That would be Something!


Initial Linked-in discussion September 21th, a Denis English concern:

...just because quanta and special relativity are impossible to understand is no reason to mandate a simpler theory that purportedly is simple to understand and not encumbered by math. ...defining experiment that called fundamental hypotheses into question, such as proof of the null hypothesis regarding the aether which led to special relativity.


Very true, but that is not really the case - The ToS is certainly supported by math. See above!

And the ToS is in full agreement with special (and general) relativity! Einstein’s special relativity is not a ground for dismissing the aether. Its Principle of Invariant Light Speed only relates to motions of the light source, not to motions of the observer!  (That actually implies an aether...).


It is the null result of the 1887 
Michelson–Morley experiment - not seeing the speed of light affected by motions of the observer, that is so mysterious and cannot be understood. That is now explained in ToS (the speed was measured in the Grid room of the interferometer itself) (ToS 5.5.5 and ToS 4.4.10). See above!

We can also notice that an aether is back in all theories, whether it is called the Grid, the Higgs field, a brane or structured vacuum. Mass needs something to interact with!

In the ToS, the classical mechanical laws are derived from electricity and energy is explained (ToS 6.3) - That has not happened before and is proof of the ToS. E.g. we know that F=ma, but did not know why (ToS 5.4.2) and did not understand how that force could be equal to the gravity force (ToS 5.5.1). Further below.

G.D. Tosman asks himself September 23th:

Do I really mean that the mechanical laws – Newton’s laws of motion and the Gravity law actually are DERIVED in the ToS?


Yes, they are - See ToS chapter 5 and the picture to the right!

But Newton's laws and other fundamental physical laws cannot be "derived" or "proved" like proofs in math, can they?


No they cannot if they are on the top. But in the ToS, electricity is at the top and there is only the one type of force and one fundamental force law: The force between moving point charges.

Then it is a necessity that the mechanical laws can be derived from this law (or the ToS would be wrong)! And with the model of a single charge particle, both making up all other particles and the Grid itself, plus both gravity and mass being mechanisms instead of qualities of some particle, the derivations were surprisingly simple, see ToS chapter 5!

Even the recently detected force accelerating distant is derived (was believed to be caused by the dark energy…) in ToS 5.3. But it needs to be verified against the measured data. We need help from the astronomers. That force has been described as a force that occurred 5 billion years ago, which would be very strange – Nature does not do such things. In the ToS, the distant force instead depends on where the galaxy is in relation to the edge of the universe.

Is Einstein’s gravity in his general theory of relativity also derived in the ToS?


No – I am not Einstein… But with the underlying ToS model of reality, it must be possible for a clever electrician & mechanist that knows his tensor math, Ricci tensor etc. to do it! (I believe the result will be Einstein’s gravity until the Grid room border, but not inside the Grid room. I have never heard that Einstein’s gravity includes a discontinuity where the Grid room border is, but there has to be a discontinuity there.) 

Is this related to that kg is no base unit in the ToS?


Yes! The fundamental charge particle – the Negtrino – only has charge and magnetic moment, no mass. Mass as well as gravity are mechanisms – not qualities of any particle. That is makes kg a derived unit: kg = As2/m3 (ToS 6.1).


CTReal asked October 29th under Viewer's Q&A:

Regarding the hand written “school equation” you use to derive F=ma at page 84, how do you go between that one and Griffiths’ that should be the same?


That old school equation is as general and complete as Maxwell’s equations and is important for deriving Newton’s second law of motion (F=ma) in ToS 5.4.2 and also as the basis for the proposed Theory of Everything equation in ToS 8.2.
To make sure it is OK, you can convert it to Griffiths variant.



Chris Cork asked September 19th under Top Views:

It seems you chose the negtrino pitch arbitrarily - indeed who is to say it was not chosen so that your equation balanced? Why not instead for instance chose the radius of a proton or for instance the Plank length? Is there any other reason to suggest the negtrino pitch is what you state it is? Furthermore if the Universe is filled with a cubic lattice of subatomic particles, then like a crystal its physical properties should depend on its orientation. However one of the fundamental laws of physics is "Conservation of Angular Momentum" which is aligned with the laws of physics do not change as you change direction. Are you suggesting then, that at least at the quantum level angular momentum is not conserved? If this is true then perhaps this can be detected in spectroscopy due to perturbations in the energies of electrons orbiting atoms.


Q: It seems you chose the negtrino pitch arbitrarily - indeed who is to say it was not chosen so that your equation balanced?
10 pm distance between the negtrinos is of course not "invented" just to fit the dark energy per negtrino and revolution making up Planck’s constant in the equation above (ToS 6.1). 10 pm comes from the atom calculations in ToS 4.5.1 and the maximum density of atomic matter in ToS 4.5.6 (which osmium reaches to 99.7%). 10 pm also matches the calculation of the Grid in equilibrium when charge is 1/3 e and magnetic energy is 1/9 of the electron mass (ToS 3.1.1). The negtrino distance in the Grid is also the wave length 10 pm that separates gamma-rays from X-rays (ToS 3.1.3). See further the ToS Summary 2.3.1.

The negtrinos are out there, 10 pm apart, making up space itself!

Q: Furthermore if the Universe is filled with a cubic lattice of subatomic particles, then like a crystal its physical properties should depend on its orientation.

Good point – That is not likely! In ToS 3.1 I express: “Without a Grid configuration that can be symmetrically repeated, the Grid is believed to consist of slightly curved building blocks of negtrinos in a cubic arrangement. Curved building blocks can form the spherical layers around atoms in the mass generating mechanism (explained later). Such building blocks are also believed to randomize the larger scale alignment of the Grid, so e.g. the speed of light does not vary with the direction in the Grid.“

Computer simulation of the Grid will learn us more about this.

Q: However one of the fundamental laws of physics is "Conservation of Angular Momentum" which is aligned with the laws of physics do not change as you change direction. Are you suggesting then, that at least at the quantum level angular momentum is not conserved?

As per above – but in relation to this: Did you notice that I actually derived F=ma (ToS 5.4.2)? That Newton’s second law is the same as (linear) momentum conservation (Wikipedia explains). "Conservation of Angular Momentum" should also be possible to derive from the single force law in the ToS. In the ToS, electromagnetism (slightly generalized, see ToS 8.2) applies to quantum and below. However, the mechanical laws do not – those are derived with the Grid in place and apply on larger scales!

Chris Cork asked further September 20th under Top Views:

Thanks for replying. Regarding the crystalline nature of Space Time, you are saying in your reply there is no long range or even medium range order. Would you then say this structure is more like a poly crystalline material - if so what are happening at the micro-crystal interfaces? Or more like a glass where coherence drops with distance in a smooth, consistent type of way, if it is like a glass then you would you expect dislocations in the lattice and if so what sort of phenomena would that create on the quantum scale or even on things like the speed of light?


That is not really what I meant. You have the negtrinos 10 pm apart in the Grid (the “crystalline material”). The negtrino itself is small, only 1/20000 of this distance. It is certainly very different if we view things from within that structure or from above, just seeing the Grid as a continuum – It is there our mechanical laws apply.

The qualities of the Grid medium are very special and therefore difficult to express in terms of “poly crystalline” etc.. Just consider that the forces holding each negtrino in place are extreme (ToS 3.1.5) but objects can still move in the Grid without friction. That is because the Grid room encapsulating matter is magnetically decoupled from the surrounding Grid, see ToS 3.2.

Only composed particles (clumped negtrinos) can get in between the negtrinos in the Grid. It is then they electrostatically push-off negtrinos in the Grid and trigger the mechanisms of gravity and mass. Small particles like the electrons interact both electrostatically and magnetically with the Grid, while larger particles – atom nuclei in particular – almost only interact electrostatically with the Grid, whereby the Grid forms the layered spherical Grid rooms encapsulating matter. In the middle of this, parallels with crystalline structures don’t apply.

But in the Grid itself, the negtrino positions are almost fixed - only composed particles can electrostatically push-off negtrinos in the Grid. The forces holding the negtrinos in place are extreme. Each negtrino is in a magnet field 10,000 times stronger than the superconducting magnets in the LHC can produce (ToS 3.1.5)! But, here I believe that building blocks of a couple of hundred negtrinos, on a larger scale randomized directions in the Grid (see previous answer).

We need computer simulations to understand these things better. I have (with pen and paper) been looking for the “correct configuration” of the undisturbed Grid and found that the one seen in the picture here is the most likely – but it cannot be symmetrically repeated, see further in ToS 3.1. (I am glad of that – If there was a fully symmetrical configuration, I think the universe would be a dull and dead place.)

The source of gravity is the increased negtrino distance around objects, but it is a very tiny increase. In ToS 4.3.3 I show that there is a “Grid room filtering” of 3.44x10-23, which is how small the negtrino density increase is inside the Grid room. Outside the Grid room border, the negtrino density decrease is about as small, see Figures 49-51 and 57-61 in the ToS. (That is the cause of gravity producing such a weak force – a mystery in other theories. No need for extra 6 extra curled up dimensions here…)

Q: ... or even on things like the speed of light?

Yes, the speed of light is only the constant we know in the Grid in equilibrium. In matter, light can usually not traverse at all, but in some materials like glass, the light traverses but its speed is lower as we know. And in “vacuum” around a heavy object, the negtrino density is reduced and the speed of light lower – That is what Einstein taught in his general relativity theory: Space-time curves around matter – which is the source of gravity - and gravity slows down light. 


Anonymous asked October 15th under Viewer's Q&A: 

michaelson-morely has been repeated dozens of times with different experimental set-ups, all had the same systemic flaw?


Yes, all Michelson–Morley experiments showing that the speed of light is independent of the movement of the observer have been performed in the Grid room (ToS 4.5.3) of the observer (=the measurement equipment itself). Those experiments actually only confirmed that the speed of light is constant in relation to the Grid (“the aether”). “Partial aether dragging”, that is close to the ToS explanation, was early suggested as an explanation of the results, but without knowledge of the Grid rooms, the remedies that were tested only enlarged the static Grid room around the measurement equipment.

The Grid room border around matter can be detected (see also ToS 4.5.5 and ToS 4.5.10) by modified Michelson–Morley experiments as suggested in the pictures below that will show deviations from the constant speed of light.
The experiment shown in the right picture can be performed in a laboratory on Earth if turbulence in the air around the four rotating masses is shielded off. That can be done by placing all of the equipment or just the rotating masses in vacuum. Maybe it is sufficient to just place the rotating masses inside a thin barrel. The rotating Grid rooms would penetrate such thin shielding. 

The old 1887 experiments failed because the speed was measured in the Grid room of the interferometer itself. Note that special relativity is still correct, since its Principle of Invariant Light Speed relates to motions of the light source, not the observer!

It is a 100-year-long misinterpretation that special relativity contradicts an aether filling up space. It is the existence of a medium where the speed of light is constant and in which nothing can move faster than that speed of light that leads both to the Lorentz transformations and to Einstein’s theory of special relativity. The Grid has exactly those qualities.


Initial Linked-in discussion September 21th, a Denis English concern: : 

... it is erroneous to express mass as kg.

Didn't do that, did I? - See below! See also "How Can I Even Consider Disposing kg – the Unit of Mass" under the Top Views page.

Via email September 20th: 

I am somewhat confused by the equation As2/m3.  I understand that A=Ampere, s=Seconds and m=Meters but don’t understand how these are derived.

It is not an equation and not derived. It is just the units we measure things in. m and s you know and for speed we use m/s. But what if we thought that speed was something in itself and could only measured in a base unit e.g. "m-knots"? If we did not understand that it just was length per time, m/s?

We have thought that mass needs a base unit kg - that it is a fundamental quality - but it is actually As2/m3Yes, that is new and hard to grasp: kg is charge(As)-second(s)-density(1/m3)! 

We had meter (m) for length, kilogram (kg) for mass, seconds (s) for time and ampere (A) for current. Now we only need m, s and A, because kg is As2/m3. Think about that the fundamental Negtrino has charge (As) and can move (m/s), but no mass - that comes as a mechanism later. There is only m, s and A at the fundamental level!

The new units of dimensions from ToS 6.1:

TinaK asked September 28th under Post (one of many) 

One of the most amazing things I see is that “there is no mass”. kg = As2/m3  When thinking about that, isn’t it strange that kg shows up in a pure simple electric law like Coloumb’s? The force between two charges doesn’t have anything to do with mass, yet both in force F and epsilon-zero the kg comes in. Kg should have been eliminated already then, shouldn’t it? How could that have happened?

Your comment on Coulomb’s law (that the force between static electric charges of course should not include mass - kg - at all) is very noteworthy and interesting. That should have been observed and sorted out long ago. 

I looked it up and it seems that “mistake” happened when Current (A) was added as a base unit in 1933-1946 (the World War II came in between). Having just the 3 base units Length (m or cm), Time (s) and Mass (kg or g) before (Even for electrical units!) lead to confusing systems, so Current (A) was added. But one should then have made kg a derived unit As2/m3 and stayed with only 3 base units instead of increasing them to 4.

Maybe that would have stopped the “ghost hunt” trying to find mass and gravity in particles, when they are mechanisms.

Maybe I will do a table to show what happens when eliminating one of the four base units - You can actually eliminate anyone of them, but only replacing kg with As2/m3 makes sense and a very beautiful system, see the table above.


Anonymous asked September 22th under Viewer's Q&A 

Could the "grid" be a projection from a "source" - from singularity?

No - "Singularity" is something very small we don't know what... In the ToS the answer is: There is no Nothing - See below!

Anonymous asked September 22th under Post: Yes, Electricity is Everything. 

I have been posting all this time the possibility of a medium similar to pixels on tv screens. TOS comes very close to what I'm imagining. One of the things I've thought about is the possible source of the "grid" and how it propagated fractally?


Anonymous asked September 18th under Post (one of many)Time to Bring the ToS to the... 

This theory doesn't explain how all of the Negtrinos were created in the first place, does it?


The ToS actually does propose that – not only in section 9 “The Creation”, but also in Section 8 (of the full ToS document). There are some hunches and intuition in there, rather than solid proofs (hope more skilled will help out), so that part is not stressed in the introduction.

In short, the answer of creation is: There is no Nothing – Nothing is unstable. If there is total emptiness somewhere in space, pairs of Negtrinos/Postrinos immediately appear out of Nothing and are being sorted in separate universes of equal charge (ToS 7.1.2). When arranged in the Grid, there is no energy required – that is why it can happen. And the Negtrino can only exist in the Grid or in composed particles. (ToS 8.2.3)

I think that is what the proposed “equation of Everything” in section 1 of the ToS summary or Section 8.2.1 of the full ToS specifies. I did not invent it – it is the equation for force between moving point charges (derived from Maxwell’s equations). I just “added three small circles” to generalize it – to apply even if the Grid (or aether if you like) not is in its equilibrium. 

But what is even more amazing – not proved yet, but could be – is that “the equation of Everything” seem to describe the Negtrino itself, see 8.2.2! That would mean the origin of everything is analog – not quantum at the very bottom level… So if you think the rest of the ToS is radical – what about that thought?


Anonymous asked October 24th under Viewer's Q&A: 

In section 4.4.2 of ToS, you discuss the Higgs Field and the Higgs Boson. Does finding the particle at CERN at all change ToS view of mass and a specific particle that accounts for mass internally rather than the Negtrino field.


No, what I mean in ToS 4.4.2 is that there are many short-lived particles in the searched range from 114-157 GeV/c2 that have zero charge and zero spin, in addition to having that heavy mass. So CERN SHOULD FIND such particles.

However, in the ToS, those particles have nothing to do with giving mass to other particles – they are just heavy particles with zero charge and zero spin – just like CERN is looking for.  In the ToS it is the Grid Rooms in the Grid that gives mass to particles.

Then, as can be seen in Table 2 of the ToS, there are TWO such particles (125,3 and 125,4 GeV) with their masses just at the peak where CERN announced their discovery. So CERN should find such particles just there – But that does not make them Higgs Bosons.

(As mentioned there in last paragraph of ToS 4.4.2, there are even more such particles and four of them are close to CERN’s 125.3 GeV/c2 peak. I may produce the full table for the searched 114-157 GeV/c2 range to see if other peaks also can be expected.)


Eric1 asked September 18th at Yahoo News (one of many):

How does this align with Heisenburgs Uncertainty Principle?


Negtrinos or other elementary particles do not make a difference. It is about what math you use to describe the underlying reality. Quantum mechanics has proven very successful if you don’t know what to describe… In the ToS, there is clear view of what is down there, so I could use classic electromagnetism, which does not need an uncertainty principle in itself.

If you look at reality as frequencies/waves (which often is useful), instead from a continuous time perspective, you get the uncertainty principle – You cannot know the position if you are just watching a short time. That applies also to Negtrinos of course, but in my opinion, it is going too far to interpret that “perspective or measurement limitation” as not knowing whether Schrödinger’s cat is dead or alive. 

In the ToS, I am looking from a time perspective (not using wave functions, Hilbert space and Hamiltonians) so the reality is easier described and understood. But maybe that kind of QM math applied on a ToS reality can bring further insight in some areas – I’m not skilled enough to see how far it would be applicable to describe the mechanisms of gravity and mass – QM may be too much particle oriented.

TinaK asked October 4th under Post:

... What about Quantum Mechanics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in 1927, didn’t that contribute to the scientific “ghost hunt” where everyone still is going (String Theory and QLG latest)? I saw some views at the Q&A.


Yes, my comment is above.

We electricians know that we cannot understand some things by just looking at frequencies on a spectrum analyzer (like using your ears but closing your eyes) (=Quantum Mechanics). To understand reality, you also (firstly) need to use an oscilloscope and look at a signal in the time domain (like using your eyes) (=classical electricity or mechanics). You cannot find out how a violin is designed just by analyzing its frequencies, without even knowing whether it is a tape recorder, an iPod or a real violin you are trying to describe! 

I don’t understand why current quantum theories don’t consider that and realize that such methods have their limits. It may never be possible to describe mechanisms such as Einstein’s gravity (and now also Mass in the ToS 4.3) using Quantum Mechanics.

But Quantum Mechanics has made valuable predictions which have been confirmed in experiments when you don’t have a clue of what it is you are describing :-)  But I don’t think it is applicable to more complex things.


Anonymous asked November 15th under Viewer's Q&A: 

In your model there are only three space dimensions and a time dimension. Specifically section 5.2 you model the universe as a 3d charged sphere. This means that there MUST be a physical location for the center of the universe where the big bang started (not a 4d hyperspace bubble like most physicists model). Since you rely on our observed radius of approx 46 billion light years in every direction...


In an expanding universe, the observer is always in the center even with “only” 3-dimensions and time (I quoted Wikipedias expaination in the ToS 5.2a. You see 46 billion light years in each direction, so every observer must be in the center. Yes, hard to grasp it is.) 

…you have concluded that there is no matter/grid outside of our observable radius (many physicist believe the universe extends beyond our viewable range) otherwise your calculations for G would be wrong.

NO! The Grid is everywhere – there is no emptiness – No Nothing. (Please refer to version 1.3 or later of the ToS – I think I changed/clarified in the direction you are going).

The model used is that the sphere in 5.2 is the observable universe (R=46 billion light years) where we have the additional charge from the Big Bang (seen as the dark energy, which is Planck’s constant per Negtrino and revolution). Below that extra charge, is the 10^50 higher charge in the Grid in balance (ToS 5.2.d), and that part of the Grid (the mother Universe) extends beyond the observable universe. 

The calculations only include the small additional charge in the observable universe. Otherwise we would not reach the correct value for G=4c^4R/W.

Are you then saying that WE are the center of the universe (of the charged sphere universe you model?) If so I would find that hard to believe. If the universe is bigger than what is observable or as you say "mother universe" then the value of the gravitational constant you calculated in 5.5.1 as Tosmans Second Riddle would be bigger. Please clarify as this looks like a theory based on manifest destiny but perhaps I have misunderstood.

With the model explained above it works and G becomes is the G we measure. 

Related: It is hard to accept (took me quite a while to grasp) that if there is no additional charge (the Grid is in perfect balance - no dark energy – no Planck’s constant), there is NO MASS! The mass/gravity mechanisms, Grid rooms, are still there and working but the charge increases do not show up as mass – No Vo and there is no mass! But the Forces (which are between the charge increases and decreases) remains. So a mother universe without the additional charge (the overpressure), it will be “very fast” – no mass means big acceleration.

36 comments:

  1. Could the "grid" be a projection from a "source" - from singularity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really - There is an answer under http://www.theoryofsomething.com/p/viewers-q.html#Creation1

      Delete
  2. Thank you for the response. If singularity or nothingness is unstable as you have stated, is it possible then for black holes to become singularities and their "unstableness" (nothingness)will provide the condition for pairs of Negtrinos/Postrinos (N/P) to immediately appear? I can imagine that "Nothingness" can occur and its "unstableness" is actually the generator to have pairs of N/P to immediatlely appear from Nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the black hole event horizon – or potential horizon as I call it – is such a place. See ToS 4.7.2.5. The same happens between the potential horizon between N/P universes, see ToS 7.1.2. Both are borders between N/P (matter and antimatter) and the Grid is broken down – thus N/P appearing out of Nothing.

      Delete
  3. Thank you. May the force be with you!

    ReplyDelete
  4. No wonder light rays from the Sun are parallel when they reach Earth and starlight bends around the Sun. I'm beginning to see the light!

    ReplyDelete
  5. michaelson-morely has been repeated dozens of times with different experimental set-ups, all had the same systemic flaw? So u explain gravity and dark matter, but what about the old phenomenon? Like radioactive decay, fusion, fission, atomic configurations beyond hydrogen. Or does that all require 'further computer modeling'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just added the Michaelson-Morely response on the Viewer’s Q&A page.

      “about the old phenomenon?” Everything is not explained in the ToSomething :) but here are some quick pointers. For radioactive decay, fusion, fission, see next reply below. And there are examples of larger atom configurations in table 5 in section 4.5.2 of the ToS.

      Delete
  6. The Black Hole Theory makes sense with the negative and positive universe meeting, Particles and anti Particles being destroyed and created (creating the most Know energetic particles w/ Gama Rays Burst) and quantum entanglement with the Magnetic alignment as well as The electromagnetic force producing all other forces. when you think about it Magnetic attracts so i'll assume it can cause fusion and electric i'll attributed to Fission (the Breaking Up or splitting apart or particles)

    My question is what about the other particles E.g. Strange, charm, Bottom, top quarks and The Bosons (Gluon W and Z boson) how do they come into Play?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like your attribution of attracting magnetic forces to fusion – That is what the huge Grid room around a star is doing. The Grid Rooms magnetic forces are squeezing the atom cores together causing fusion. And fission is when the electrostatic pressure between nuclei of a large atom cores isn’t held together by the pressure of the Grid Room (and the residual strong magnetic forces.) (ToS 4.5.8)

      For the larger Quarks - Yes I have some “magnet models” for some of those in a spread sheet, but I saw several alternatives (of particles that are never seen anyway), so I did not include them in the tables in ToS 4.

      Bosons ToS don’t like. Force carrying particles is a strange concept, so that is not used in the ToS – and not needed. Force is something between particles and objects. In the ToS all forces are electromagnetic in nature and the fundamental equation gives the force between moving point charges. I don’t even call the photon a particle (a boson). The photon is a quantified energy package – the rotation of a negtrino in the Grid, carried from negtrino to negtrino at the speed of light in the Grid (ToS 3.1.3).

      Delete
  7. In section 4.4.2 of ToS, you discuss the Higgs Field and the Higgs Boson. Does finding the partical at CERN at all change ToS view of mass and a specific particle that accounts for mass internally rather than the Negtrino field.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, CERN will probably find what they are looking for, but in the ToS that find is just short-lived particles with no mass giving Boson qualities.

      I added a longer response above, under Viewer's Q&A.

      Delete
  8. Regarding the hand written “school equation” you use to derive in F=ma at page 84, how do you go between that one and Griffiths’ that should be the same?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just added that above under >The General Equation for Force Between Moving Point Charges

      Delete
  9. Your theory seems to show a deterministic view of matter rather than a probabilistic view of how atoms actually behave. This seems contradictory to known quantum mechanics. I have three questions for you. 1. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you can never know the position and momentum of a particle at the same time, but you model atoms strictly as "material" entities made up of negtrinos and not at all with wavelike properties. Does your theory violate the HUP? In other words, it seems that in your theory all negtrinos, electrons, protons, and other masses made up of negtrinos act as "particles" with defined positions and momentums. If this is the case then no physicist will take your theory seriously as there have been countless experiments that have validated this theory again and again and Feynman proved that quantum effects cannot be explained by underlying deterministic models. 2. Your theory also does not seem compatible with quantum entanglement. I don't see how two of your entangled negtrino masses can communicate faster than the speed of light when one of them is measured. Please elaborate and yes I read your paper so don't refer me there, b/c it did not answer the question (jedi hand movement). 3. Lastly, how does quantum tunneling work in your theory. There are some purported experiments where quantum tunneling of zero spin particles travel faster than light. This is understandable if the particles are acting like probability waves without defined momentums and positions, but I don't understand how your materialistic negtrino masses could accomplish this when it seems like they have defined momentums and positions? Your answers would help me to understand your theory better as well as give any credibility to your theory. Although you've done well explaining the relativity side of your theory it seems that you've ignored the quantum side and you just can't throw away 100 years worth of known provable quantum theory which seems to be in contradiction with how you model atoms and other particles.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You are interpreting the ToS perspective quite correctly.
    1) Even in the more deterministic ToS world, there is a measurement limitation between time and frequency or position and momentum. You simply can't have both exactly, with or without Mr Heisenberg. The Grid provides a quantification where you cannot have exactness in between.
    2) The suggestion for an entanglement mechanism in ToS 3.4 does not have a speed limitation in its twisting of the magnetic chain. In electromagnetism, charges and fields cannot move faster than speed of light. But there are no fast movement at all in the suggested twist.
    3) I admit I have not considered tunneling, but there is a lot of space between particles in the ToS. Would that not allow for random tunneling? Actually, I think quantum mechanics can describe the ToS reality (but complex non linear mechanisms like mass and gravity generation may be too difficult for QM). I see it as looking at the same reality with an oscilloscope (your eyes) and a spectrum analyzer (your ears).

    There are two answers above under >Does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Apply? QM? that apply.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi GD, thanks for your theory. I developed a theory similar to this about a year ago, but with some differences. You've done a lot of impressive things I didn't and actually helped me form a semi-merger of your theory and my theory. Even though you can't currently do a computer simulation of your theory, you can learn alot about how the ether dynamics will work by studying this video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVBEwn6iWOo

    Take a look at this entire video (the whole video is important to watch) then focus in on 45:25 and 47:25. I believe that the liquid crystal water behaves identical to your grid room. I also believe that the ether outside your gridroom forms a density gradient in your grid a lot like 47:25 in the video. Treat the spheres at 47:25 as atoms with and the negative shell around them as your polarized gridrooms and you and all your followers will more visually be able to see why matter attracts to one another as an emergent force rather than a fundamental force. It will be more clear than any of the diagrams you have used on your website. Gravity is clearly an electromagnetic byproduct of matter interacting with the ether exactly as you say so. It is not fundamental, only the EM force is fundamental. Like-likes-like but in this case it's matter likes matter and instead of water as the solution it is the ether as the solution. I have actually written down a lot of my ideas and would be willing to share if you are interested. I believe you are on the wrong track with dark matter and you have slightly misunderstood dark energy though and I have a complete different model of how it works but might still be mathematically compatible with some of your calculations. Let me know if you are interested in seeing them. Great job once again with all you've put together in your theory and keep honing it to perfection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks bookie203. I checked the water video and at 47 minutes it shows a water molecule attraction mechanism, which is similar to one idea I struggled with to understand how gravity could be always attracting. But I could not get it attracting with the Grid having its negtrinos at almost fixed positions (water does not have the magnetic forces holding it together like the Grid has). It was only after I understood how matter could at all move when encapsulated by the Grid (ToS 3.2) that I could understand the gravity mechanism.

      Funny, you have another Dark Matter idea – I only showed 3 – but actually have a 4th that I didn’t show (thought it was too unlikely). I am not sure what the dark matter is – You can email your variant. For the Dark Energy I am quite sure, it is the slight charge overpressure from the Big Bang. The numbers do match up: The Gravity constant is 4c^4R/W (ToS 5.5.1) and Planck’s constant being “Dark Energy per negtrino and revolution” http://bit.ly/PlanckProof (or ToS 6.1).

      Delete
  12. According to your theory a van de graaf generator charged up with a positive dome should be able to effect the ether density around it thus effecting the gravity around it yet there is no evidence that it gains or loses weight. I would assume that according to your theory it would want to attract in more negative ether thus resulting in a larger gridroom (or as you say mass) and change in the grid density surrounding it leading to more gravity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is very valid remark and especially since the electrical E-fields from mass and gravity are so tiny compared to the E-fields we are used to (you don’t even need van de graaf generator – there is a 10^20 factor in strength difference anyway). I address a related thought in 4.5.4 of the ToS – Why can’t we build an anti-gravity machine by just cancelling the tiny E-field that is the gravity field?

      The key is that there are extreme forces in the Grid: You can regard the negtrino position as fixed relative to the matter. Those increases/decreases in charge density that are the source of mass and gravity remain even if an external E-field is applied, because the electrical and magnetic forces between the individual negtrinos in the Grid are so huge. In “3.1.5 Extreme Forces in the Grid” I show that the force per square mm inside the Grid is 2x10^9 Newton and the magnetic B-field on each negtrino is 10,000 times higher than the best man made superconducting magnet.

      Also, the when we move around in the gravity of the Earth, we are inside the very source of those E-fields, moving the source around. That is different from the normal E-fields we think about.

      Only matter moves the negtrinos and only a tiny bit – That is the mass and gravity mechanism. But it is not obvious to think about electrical things that way. I guess that is why we have believed that mass and gravity are something different in nature – not related to electricity.

      Delete
  13. A-Anonymous (from http://www.theoryofsomething.com/2012/10/there-is-understandable-reality-behind.html) has made a few comments, reporting that he is still amused. I have picked up some of the remarks to comment (but otherwise “censured”):

    AA: “F = ma can be "proved" by least action principles and energy-momentum conservation principles.”
    - F=ma IS THE SAME as energy-momentum conservation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion Newton’s second law. So that is no proof or derivation, just two ways of writing the same law.

    AA: “And ANYONE who believes that Galileo "proved" by experiment that mass is equal to weight clearly does not understand what it actually was about.”
    - Galileo showed they were equal, but we could not understand why – Agree?
    ToS section 5 explains and show why.

    AA: ”Your "proof" of F = ma … …How does the sin come out to .5 except by arbitrary assignment of the angle to 30 deg.”
    - I think you are referring to the vector evaluation on page 85 (version 1.3 of the ToS). I have now clarified that handwritten evaluation hoping it will be easier to follow. There are two vector cross products (resulting in vectors) to be understood.
    - Then a few lines further down, I think you question my “Realizing that the sin^2ϴi factor becomes ½ when summed over all ϴi” which I admit was too short. I have added a footnote “That can be done since qi is constant and so is ri if summed in thin spherical shells, where sin^2ϴi averages to ½ over the sphere.” Hope that makes it easier to see.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In your model there are only three space dimensions and a time dimension. Specifically sevtion 5.2 you model the universe as a 3d charged sphere. This means that there MUST be a physical location for the center of the universe where the big bang started (not a 4d hyperspace bubble like most physicists model). Since you rely on our observed radius of approx 46 billion light years in every direction you have concluded that there is no matter/grid outside of our observable radius (many physicist believe the universe extends beyond our viewable range) otherwise your calculations for G would be wrong. Are you then saying that WE are the center of the universe ( of the charged sphere universe you model?) If so i would find that hard to believe. If the universe is bigger than what is observable or as you say "mother universe" then the value of the gravitational constant you calculated im 5.5.1 as Tosmans Second Riddle would be bigger. Please clarify as this looks like a theory based on manifest destiny but perhaps i have misunderstood.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Good observations/questions! I have answered above under “Observable Universe and Mother Universe”. Please refer to ToS version 1.3 if checking - I think I changed/clarified just because of considerations like yours came up.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I noticed that you didnt talk much about antatter. But it looks like you believe antimatter to br made up of postrinos instead of negtrinos. If this is the case then where do the postrinos come from when our universe all around us is nothing but negtrinos? Antimatter has been shown to form in lightning clouds and beta decay. You model Atoms as cylinders of stacked negtrinos so if part of the atom decays shouldnt it be letting off negtrinos not postrinos ? We can also create positrons by slamming electrons into gold. Again you model electrons and gold atoms as made up of 100% negtrinos so where do the postrinos come from?

    Now i suppose youll suggest that they come from pair production (virtual particles) that spontaneously form in the vacuum (which is what most physicists would say), BUT i dont see any room for pair production in your model and heres why. First, if pair production was occuring everywhere in space around us then your diagram of the "grid" would be grossly inaccurate. It would have to be completely overhauled to show negtrino-postrino pairs forming at virtually everypoint in space so it would look nothing like youve pictured it. There would be trillions of postrinos in your grid with nano second existences which would cause chaotic fluctuations in your grid making it virtually impossible for it to ressemble anything like youve pictured. Essentially youd have to subscribe to the belief in the quantum foam as john wheeler coined it which is modeled as chaotic and turbulent ether not an arderly ether like you present it. Secondly, i dont see how you can believe in pair production anyway when pair production is a byproduct of the heisenberg uncertainty principle(search quantum foam on wikipedia for proof of this). It is a fact that quantum foam is born out of the uncertainty principle. Now here is where your model breaks down. In order for it to work your negtrinos must have absolute defined position and momentum (deterministic values). This
    Means you dont actually believe particles behave probablistic so then WHY do you believe in pair production which is based on probablistic quantum mechanics? If so you couldnt model your negtrinos in deterministic locations like you do. It is a contradiction you are tring to have it both ways by modeling the grid as absolute but then saying a probalistic based fluctuation may inject some postrinos into my universe. If you accept pair production you have to completely overhaul your picture of grid to show this quantum foam turbelence.

    And one other thing. You show our bubble negtrino universe as a bubble encircled by a postrino univers encorcled by another negtrino universe ad infintum. This means there is constant matter-antimatter annihaltion at the border. BUT, matter-AM annihilation creates massive amounts of gamma rays. Since this border would have existed since the beginning of our observable universes inflation or big bang the universe should be filled with these gamma rays literally everywhere but instead our universe is filled with microwave background radiation not gamma ray radiation.

    So please tell us where these postrinos that form antimatter during lightning come from and IF you resort to pair production then explain to us why your grid isnt filled with literally trillions of postrino-negtrino pairs which would completely obliterate any kind of structured grid concept? And lastly explain WHY your grid negtrinos behave deterministically without obeying heisenbergs uncertainty principle but why you believe in pair production, a theory based on quantum fluctuation DUE to the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, trying to explain:

      Antimatter::: There are no news/differences how the ToS sees that antimatter can be generated by excessive energy in decay and other situations (it is even included in the checked decays e.g. at ToS page 46: “A neutron(69) forming a proton(63) plus an electron(9) plus an anti-neutrino(-3)”, i.e. beta decay., where the last particle is an anti-neutrino consisting of 3 postrinos. (It IS news though, that I pinpoint where the equal amount antimatter as ordinary matter is: In surrounding universes (and inside black holes).)

      Pair (negtrino/postrino) production::: In the ToS, that only happens if there is no Grid or a strongly disturbed Grid. After Grids are formed in the energy-less pair production and sorted, I see it as a “quite stable and calm place”.

      Uncertainty etc::: I don’t see a conflict between the ToS and QM or your views here. It is more like the ToS outlines the reality QM is trying to describe with its math. The negtrino and Grid is a quantification level that of course introduces uncertainty (or “quantification noise” we electricians would say when listening to the frequency domain). Just “listening to realilty” instead of “seeing it” gives Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation – even with an underling ToS model, see http://www.theoryofsomething.com/p/viewers-q.html#Heisenburg1.

      Regarding quantum foam … pair production which is based on probablistic quantum mechanics… quantum foam turbulence::: Actually, I think the ToS model also provides the underlying realities for these kinds of descriptions! I don’t know if you have come all the way to section 8 in the ToS. In “8.2.3 The Negtrino is Only Stable in Two Contexts” I state that the negtrino only exists in the Grid and as part of composed particles. Everything else and in between fits the “foam description” quite well. If one takes the view from section 8, that the negtrino is “an analog particle” created out of nothing by the proposed Equation of Everything in section 8.2, charge is created in pairs out of Nothing – but only when the Grid is not present or in good order. Until you reach that stage – that can be seen as the foam. That would be the local state at decays and particle collisions. That foam would be electrical charge curling up into something stable, which would be the negtrino in the Grid or in a composed particle. (And with the Grid in place, you have the “uncertainty” of the quantification (the negtrino distance) in itself.

      Constant matter-antimatter annihilation at the border [potential horizon between universes]… matter-AM annihilation creates massive amounts of gamma rays::: NO, the pair production is an energy-less process (there is no energy in Nothing, and there is no energy in a Grid in itself – It is balanced between electrostatic and magnetic forces.). So the process at the border does not generate energy – no radiation. There is no “quantum mechanical short cut” in the ToS making energy appear out of nowhere. Energy (that is magnetic momentum density) can only be converted and relocated, not created – just like we know.

      (PS: The ToS would certainly benefit from some good mathematician’s analyses of the proposed Equation of Everything in section 8.2. I’ve tried to generalize the equation that contains the complete for electromagnetic theory (by a very small modification that does not destroy anything) to make electromagnetic theory work even without the “aether” (the Grid) in place. But I have only made a quit rudimentary analyses of the result and consequences. Whether that is correct and sufficient certainly remains to be shown.)

      Delete
    2. 1. Light Propagation - You say, "This energy of “a rotating microscopic magnet” is transferred from negtrino to negtrino in the Grid at the speed of light, generating the electromagnetic wave. It is only the energy, not the negtrino particle in itself that is the photon moving at speed of light," which I take to mean that the negtrinos in the grid STAY FIXED (minus the obvious rotation). They merely rotate and cause neighboring negtrinos to rotate and so forth. If this is the case then how can the grid be a "calm and stable place" as you just said in your above reply. A star is constantly emitting light everywhere and in every direction. This means that every negtrino around it would be chaotically dancing and rotating as long as the star shines!! There would NEVER be calmness unless the temperature of the star was reduced to 0 K bc it would always be giving off radiation. Hence, your own theory should conclude that the grid is INDEED a chaotic and turbulent place. Cosmic background radiation is measured everywhere in space. There are no COLD spots where negtrinos are not rotating and locked into a grid.
      2. Intensity/Brightness - It is not clear what intensity is in your model? What is the difference between what is happening to negtrinos around our star vs. negtrinos happening around a light bulb? You can't say that they rotate faster (that's your definition of frequency). You can't say that the wave propagates faster (that's speed of light). What's left to say? Both are causing "fixed" negtrinos to rotate while the light source is present. What is the distinguishing feature that makes one object more luminous?

      Standard current theory states that brighter objects emit MORE photons, but your theory doesn't allow for that. The number of negtrinos in the grid is fixed. Please define luminosity.
      3. Light Polarization - I quote from wikipedia, " sound waves in a gas or liquid do not have polarization because the medium vibrates only along the direction in which the waves are travelling." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_polarization. Because you are modelling light waves similarly to sound waves, I am wondering if your model is capable of light polarization.

      Same wiki , "The simplest manifestation of polarization to visualize is that of a plane wave, which is a good approximation of most light waves. For plane waves Maxwell's equations, specifically Gauss's laws, impose the transversality requirement that the electric and magnetic field be perpendicular to the direction of propagation and to each other." In your model, the magnetic poles work to align themselves in the same direction as the wave is traveling, not perpendicular??
      4. Frequency - In your model, frequency is the rate which negtrinos rotate. This, however, is puzzling and here's why. When negtrino one rotates it causes negtrino 2 next to it to rotate, but the rotation should only be 180 degrees and then it should stop. This means that negtrino #2's rotation speed goes from zero then accelerates to a maximum then decelerates back down to zero again at it completes its 180 degree flip and stops. There is no one frequency of rotation for this negtrino, instead, it is a continuum of varying rotation speeds. So, what defines the frequency of the photon in this case? Doesn't make sense.

      But let's suppose you counter and say that the negtrino doesn't stop spinning after a 180 degree spin, instead it keeps spinning in such a way that it maintains a constant revolving speed or frequency. Well this too wouldn't make sense as it would violate conservation of energy. In order for negtrino two to speed up and rotate and thus gain kinetic energy it has to be taking it from negtrino 1.

      I conclude that there is no constant rotation rate so there can be no clearly defined frequency of the rotating negtrinos.
      So as of now, I'm still not convinced of a structured grid and your theory of light is either incomplete or wrong.

      Delete
    3. What you say above is NOT how I describe and view things (you describe and argue against something else):

      > This means that every negtrino… rotates:
      - Of course not! Only as many as corresponds to the intensity

      > rotate …then how can the grid be a "calm and stable place":
      - That was in relation to matter/antimatter pair production. Light travels of course in the "calm and stable place" Grid!

      > 0 K … INDEED a chaotic and turbulent place. Cosmic background radiation … no COLD spots:
      - Photons carry energy E=hf in the ToS just as usual. The rotating negtrino description explains how a wave can be quantified. It does not change the photon and things into what you say.

      > not clear what intensity is in your model:
      - That is the NUMBER of photons – the energy package carried by a rotating negtrino (only one negtrino carries it and then leaves the energy package (the rotation) to the next negtrino, propagating at speed of light). No difference in photon behavior!

      > your definition of frequency:
      - The rotation frequency is the photon frequency – that is the very point with this description of the photon. E=hf
      It is the “the dark energy per negtrino and revolution” (see http://bit.ly/PlanckProof) that is swung around by the rotating negtrino creating the photon energy package (which in some situations is seen as the particle behavior).

      > you are modelling light waves similarly to sound waves, I am wondering if your model is capable of light polarization:
      - I am not! Please see figures 21 and 22 (in ToS section 3.1.3) illustrating how the rotating negtrino could generate a plane and circular polarized electromagnetic wave.

      > . Frequency … rotation should only be 180 degrees and then it should stop:
      - NO, please see ToS version 1.3 (earlier may have confused). The speed of light c is constant, so for gamma rays having shorter wave length than 10 pm there are several revolutions before the photon energy package lands on the next negtrino. For X-rays and longer wave light, the energy package traverses several negtrinos for one revolution. It is interesting that we separate gamma-ray from X-ray just at the negtrino distance 10 pm!

      And energy is conserved in the ToS – The ToS even explains what energy actually is. Energy is the magnetic moment density, which the Grid keeps constant in space. See ToS 6.3 or http://www.theoryofsomething.com/p/top-views.html#energy .It applies even for the photon itself: The negtrino swinging around its dark energy content in form of a small additional charge density, creates the magnetic moment giving the photon its energy E=hf.

      Delete
  17. And another thing. In your model of dark matter, dark matter wouldnt really be dark. You see atoms vibrate bc they have thermal energy. Now according to your model a vibrating atom for example would be vibrating in the grid causing negtrinos around it to rotate. This would be your mechanism for light propagation and as long as the atom has thermal energy it will vibrate and radiate some frequency of EM. This is because your atoms are made of negatively charged negtrinos which will push/rotate away neighboring negativy charged negtrinos as the atom vibrates toward that side of the grid. BUT your dark matter particles are also made up of negtrinos or negatively charged particles so the only way they WOULDNT give off EM is one of two ways. 1. They have no thermal energy. But this is impossible bc they are made up of negative charges and are surrounded by a sea of negative charges in the grid. Any disturbance in the grid should affect the dark matter and it could never have less energy than what is stored in the vacuum. 2. The only way around this is if dark matter is made up of a neutraltino. Neutraltinos could still have magnetic dipoles but by dropping the charge they would not cause neighboring negtrinos to rotate IF the dark matter DID have thermal energy thus preventing them from interacting with light. 3. You could just claim that the darkatter is the source for the cosmic ackground radiation and that it does have thermal energy and made up of negtrinos and the glow we see throughout universe is the dark matter which then wouldnt be dark. Then no one could argue with you.

    In conclusion either your model of the grid is wrong or your model for dark matter is wrong or your entire theory is wrong or our understanding of cosmic background radiation is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not following your reasoning/alternatives here. The possible dark matter particle (e.g. darktrino6 consisting of 3 negtrinos in ToS 4.4.1) is just one of three alternatives I propose for dark matter in section 4.8. (My first choice is that dark matter is the known neutrino producing gravity, but no mass (ToS 4.7.1)). The darktrino6 with neutral visible charge would be even more difficult to detect than the neutrino, due to having spin 0. And there is a stable place for it in the “ToS particle table”, but no one has ever reported such particle.

      In a ToS view, I would expect such dark particle to interact even less with anything than the neutrino, thus be “even darker”. And finally: No I do not claim your alternative 3.

      Delete
  18. Regarding TOS 2.10.2 - "Most of the mass and energy of matter is outside of the object" and The Grid room can only contribute with a mass of 96 Kg/m3.
    How can this work and still be consistent with known formulas for the moment of angular inertia?
    For example, a solid sphere has a known angular moment of inertia of 2/5 MR^2. Per TOS 2.10.2, most of the mass of a 1 meter diameter sphere made of solid lead would lie at a radius of more than 1 meter, and would therefore result in an angular moment of inertia that does not equal the known formula above...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a correct observation, but the simple answer is that the small charge increase (beyond the huge charge density of the Grid) is not distributed equally inside the Grid room border. Have a look at Figure 51 in the full ToS document (You also find it at the left bottom of this page!). There you see the charge density distribution (blue curve) in and around atomic matter.

      All of the charge increase is inside the matter. Outside of the matter there is still a small charge decrease, even inside the Grid room (otherwise gravity would be reversed there). Force (inertial – like your angular moment - and gravity) acts on charge (That is the only nature of force there is.) so ordinary mechanical laws apply even in the ToS :)

      But the energy E=mc^2 that shows up as mass, is taken from the whole Grid room that extends far outside matter. The negtrinos that form the spherical Grid rooms, each redirect all of their 57 keV (1/9 of the electron mass-energy) magnetic energy from holding the Grid together, to encapsulating the matter. Saying that the SOURCE of mass is outside of matter would be a more accurate, I admit.

      It can be intuitively be understood that the actual charge increase is solely inside the matter. Having a plain Grid, then pulling together negtrinos from Grid, locking them together by the strong magnetic force into atom nucleus and electrons, you pull together a charge increase, where the particle cores are located. However, note that the total charge increase in all of the Grid room only is 3.4 x 10^-23 of the Charge density in the Grid itself (ToS 4.3.3). This factor applies to both mass and gravity and is the reason why gravity is such a weak force (compared the direct electrical forces).

      There are similar Figures 49-51 and 57-61 illustrating the charge density, electrical field (= gravity field) and charge density for objects from a particle to a black hole (including different kind of degenerate matter stars). Beyond atomic matter – inside stars and onwards – the charge density of the Grid is not maintained, but heavily compressed. (There Maxwell’s equations fail since permittivity mu-zero is not constant without the Grid in balance.)

      Delete
  19. Mr. Tosman,
    I find your ToS facinating and thought provoking, but there is one thing that disturbs me greatly about your new electron and its grid room. That is its lack of physical symmetry. Space has no orientation (no up/down, left/right, or front/back), and so your view of the electron interacting with the grid should be the same independent of the viewer's perspective. But your figure of the electron interacting with its 9 negtrino particle room is distinctly non-symetric. Why for example should any one negtrino be pushed farther away from the electron than any other negtrino? It seems to me that the electron's disturbance of the negtrino grid should be roughly spherical, at least as much as possible with quantized negtrino grid spacing. I don't see how your illustration can possibly be in a stable, minimum energy state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Dan,

      You are right that the electron Grid room must be stable – very stable – otherwise we would not have believed it was an elementary particle without any inner structure (as in the standard model). I believe it is the only stable Grid room before we get to the proton and atoms with the multilayer spherical Grid rooms.

      The electron must have an up/down though, it has a magnetic moment about 1000 times stronger than the e.g. the proton. (The magnetic moment is related to its spin +- 1/2 in QM). That is also why the electron has orbitals in an atom – it only fits the surrounding Grid at certain places, because it has this unsymmetrical shape and interaction with the surrounding Grid.

      Otherwise the structure illustrated can be twisted in 90 degrees snaps and look the same (that is some symmetry). A Grid room should have a charge density similar to the Grid and the repelling Coulomb forces between the negtrino charges (including the core charge blowing the Grid room up from the inside) must be compensated by its magnetic forces holding the Grid room together. The only solution I could come up with, was arranging the 9 negtrinos in the Grid room as shown. There are 2 circles of 4 negtrinos held together magnetically, then there is the 9th on top which is magnetically coupled to the core only.

      Can you find another arrangement? Tell us! Eventually, computer simulation should show if I’m close or not.

      Delete
    2. The Grid could consists of spheres (not cubes) arranged in "running-bond" pattern. Beehives start with this pattern then morph into hexagons.

      Delete
    3. http://thenewuniverse2nded.blogspot.com/

      The sorting out (or the creation) of the Negtrino Grid and the Postrino Grid could be similar to the figures shown on Chapter 5 of the above link. In my imagination, the electromagnetic nature of the Grids provide the environment for creating the fundamental particles - Negtrinos and Postrinos as you call them. I can imagine the spheres morphing into three dimensional hexagonal shapes then to 3D triangular shapes (sorry, too lazy to google the Euclidian terms), the most stable and the fundamental arrangement for three dimensional shapes.

      Delete
  20. I never thought that the electron was homogenous. I was taught that the electron is made up of quarks. I was taught that a magnetic field was created by the movement of a charge in relation to the observer. I was taught that a permanent magnet's magnetic field was created by the spin of the valence electrons. Therefore, the charge must be off-center for there to be a motion of the charge on a spinning electron.

    Anonymous seems to be the only way to sign in without linking a comment to another domain. Since I do not wish to suffer the unknown consequences of such an action, my choices are reduced to one. To differentiate, I will sign in as:

    James

    ReplyDelete

Real Time Web Analytics