Seeking Help of Mathematicians (Lie Algebra, Invariants, Group Theory) To Complete A Derivation.

[RuthlessOptimism]

I have been continuing my own research into proving Tetryonics and have recently read through a popular science book (for non scientists) about the standard model and I have a question I was hoping someone here could answer for me.

 

I was wondering if someone could quickly explain to me in as simple terms as possible why it is in QED that when you calculate the total electric charge of a "naked" electron, one where you are ignoring vacuum polarization due to the virtual particles around it, why the calculated electric charge of the naked electron is infinite? My intuition tells me this has something to do with the idea that while charge, momentum, force, energy etc. everything on this scale is quantized potential energy is still modeled as being continuously distributed, is that more or less correct?

[Mordred]

Something doesn't seem quite right with your description on what is infinite. Are you sure your statement on infinite isn't the number of gauge symmetries? Which can be infinite if you don't consider global symmetry.

 

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/six.pdf

 

see equation 6.12

 

Could you post a quote of the section here, it's difficult to tell what treatment of the naked electron is being applied. (There are numerous variations ,such as the Kerr-Newman-Dirac treatment.)

 

Also keep in mind the naked electron is a hypothetical particle as one cannot seperate it from the photon field in actuality.

(It's been awhile since I last read up on naked electrons, but if memory serves correct, this is referred to as the confinement problem.

 

I suspect your talking of the energy of an electron prior to renormalization. This wiki article covers this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization

The last link should answer your above question.

 

Edit, your descriptive matches the last link as far as I can decipher

Edited August 8, 2015 by Mordred

[RuthlessOptimism]

The last link was helpful but it doesn't completely give me the answer I was hoping to find. Mostly because once again I don't understand most of the math... I had thought I had found a way to solve the second part of my derivation of Tetryonics, step 2.), similar to my potential solution to step 1.) (involving Noethers theorem) this is not a well defined solution simply an intuition or trail of breadcrumbs from the little I understand that I think probably could lead me to what I want to find.

 

Basically step one was to prove that energy can and should be given a geometry (or associated with one), the idea is to use Noether's theorem to describe some kind of conservation of geometry, associated with conservation of energy (or equivalent to conservation of energy).

 

Step two is two show that this geometry for energy should be a regular tesselation. This intuitively makes sense but there is no mathematical motivation for it, it would just be really convenient and 'nice' if things worked out that way. From what I gather from that link about renormalization, renormalization is essentially what I am talking about. In order to get rid of infinities in integrals at very small length scales you want to renormalize constants with respect to energies that create the length scale you are interested in (due to EM wavelength contraction). I noticed in that link that one way people do that is with a lattice. So it seems to me like there could be a solution to step 2.) of my derivation hiding within the idea of renormalization in QED just like I think there is a solution to step 1.) hiding in Noether's Theorem. I just don't have the skills yet to find it. Just looking at Tetryonics you can clearly see that it is essentially renormalized (the way I understand this concept) with respect to plancks costant h, each quanta is one h's worth of energy, and area etc. So with renormalization you could probably create a rigorous mathematical argument for the regular tesselation idea, this naturally leads to step 3.) where you are forced to choose which one, the only possible choice out of: squares, hexagons and triangles is triangles because they are normally distributed as I would prove in a completed step 3.).

 

*Edit

 

A side note here about something that I don't know how would come into play is the idea that in Tetryonics all fields, including electrostatic ones are finite in size. This means that basically the Lagrangian (difference between Potential and Kinetic Energy of a system) is completely not defined for systems that are sufficiently far away from each other to the point where their finitely sized fields can no longer interact. What my original line of thought was, does this somehow solve the problem of infinities that renormalization theory in QED was originally constructed to get rid of? And if so how it accomplishes that specifically might be useful to solve step 2.) of my derivation.

 

end *Edit

 

The only problem I immediately see is the idea of "loops" in QED. In Tetryonics imaginary particles basically don't exist as the standard model defines them. The quanta themselves define all exchange particles for all force interactions. Furthermore as I understand electrostatics in Tetryonics an electrons electric field doesn't interact with itself under "normal" circumstances. One possible exception is if it has a gigantic amount of energy in its KEM field, as the KEM field decays and creates new matter particles like is observed in particle accelerators where muon electrons decay, Tetryonics simply redefines muon electrons as normal electrons with an extremely large KEM field. The newly created particles would interact with the electrons subsequently reduced KEM field and its electrostatic field. So this is, sort of like interacting with itself, but not really.

Edited August 9, 2015 by RuthlessOptimism

[Mordred]

Well I can't really speak of your model. Without the math its osubjective to interpretation. I have no idea how it handles the coupling constants nor the fine structure constant.

 

There is a good chapter on renormalization in this introduction to QFT.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CB8QFjACahUKEwi13a7XgJvHAhXJVz4KHQ5bDyI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fisites.harvard.edu%2Ffs%2Fdocs%2Ficb.topic521209.files%2FQFT-Schwartz.pdf&rct=j&q=qed%20renormalization%20pdf&ei=0cHGVfWwEcmv-QGOtr2QAg&usg=AFQjCNFF7siLmbFnBP6Yvx3CCSeMtFV0eQ&sig2=YSRod5tFAcvh7qtNNvejXA

 

If your wiliing to buy good textbooks I would recommend Quarks and Leptons.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Quarks-Leptons-Introductory-Particle-Physics/dp/0471887412

Another is Introductory to particle physics. By Griffith neither teaches QFT specifically but the info in them is needed for QFT. ( Youll also need relativity,)

 

http://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Elementary-Particles-David-Griffiths/dp/3527406018

 

his book on QM is also excellent.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Mordred

[RuthlessOptimism]

Hello,

 

I am back with what I think is a major breakthrough to do with Tetryonics, this post is long but I think you will find it is worth it. This is something I thought up myself and have notified the theory’s author about but I have yet to hear back from him regarding it. This I think people may find particularly interesting because it allows us to now model Tetryonic quanta in time and in three dimensions, something that before it was not entirely clear how to do.

 

The solution is very simple, in order to model the 2d quanta in time and 3 dimensions all we have to do is rotate them about a center axis. The result in 3d is this.

 

 

This is a negative quanta. There is a very important conceptual idea that has to be elaborated here with interesting, sometimes bizarre and far reaching consequences. This quanta as previously defined is a perfect quantum inductor, as a result it obeys the Left Hand Rule. If you curl your left hand fingers in the direction of the arrows your thumb will point in the direction of the tip of the cone, this is also the direction of the quanta’s magnetic moment, the curling of your fingers a twisting electric field. As a perfect quantum inductor these quanta induce themselves. They consist of a changing electric field which in turn creates a changing magnetic field, which creates the changing electric field again and so on and so forth. However it is also important that as with the 2d representation each quanta has an associated vector velocity, pointing in the 2d case from the base of the triangle to its tip, and in the 3d case from the base of the cone to its tip. The twisting electric field creates the magnetic field as well as a vector velocity causing the quanta to move.

 

 

The above is the image of a positive quanta, it obeys the Right Hand Rule. Unfortunately there are a few errors in the pictures I’ve created and will be showing in this post and I will not have access to the software to fix them until Monday. I accidently made the quanta the wrong color, in order to sync with the 2d geometry the red one should be positive and the blue one should be negative as well as possess a black color. Everything still works fine, its just the mismatch in color is a bit jarring when you are trying to think of the 2d and 3d representations (sorry).

 

As a result of the application of the LHR and RHR the interaction of quanta in a very odd way becomes uncoupled from their charge and magnetic moment and you will see that it is the direction of their twist and linear momentum that become the only important things to consider.

 

Over the next few pictures we will see how these quanta can qualitatively interact in three dimensions. It is important to note that these pictures have had their components “exploded” to more easily see what is going on. In reality the only way a force is ever established between quanta, or energy transferred between geometries is when there is overlap of the geometries, we will come back to this in a little bit because it has very important implications with regard to time dilation and phase matching.

 

 

In this picture the twists are in opposite directions. Thus the resulting order of magnetic poles going from left to right is (S-N)-(S-N) an attractive configuration, the magnetic poles will in this case want to and try to align with each other. Due to their opposite color the quanta are also obviously oppositely charged, also producing attraction. Their linear momentums are also parallel. In this case the interaction reinforces each of their linear momentum, they are in a state that I am thinking is equivalent to constructive interference.

 

 

In this picture the twists are in the same direction. Thus the resulting order of magnetic poles going from left to right is (N-S)-(S-N), a repulsive configuration, the magnetic poles in this case should want to deflect each other. I am guessing this will occur dependent upon what each field geometries respective energy is, ie a larger energy field will dominate the interaction because it has more inertia. You may be wondering what I mean by “field” when we are supposed to be talking about quanta. While each of these are representing a single quanta of energy we know that the geometry is fractal in 2d. As a result which we will see in more detail later the interactions and properties of the smallest quanta are duplicated by larger geometries. What is going on is we can essentially define 1 in our system of math to be any square number, we can build an equilateral geometry out of 4 ones, one row of 1 quanta, and another row of 3 quanta, but we could redefine our 1 to be a group of 4 quanta, giving us a row of a single N^2=4 “quanta” and a row of three N^2=4 quanta beneath it (it makes sense if you draw a picture).

 

Getting back to the interaction in the picture. The magnetic fields want to deflect, the electric fields are opposite polarity and want to attract, the linear momentum is anti parallel and convergent. Thus I think the quanta should want to pass through each other, it is not entirely clear since this is actually a special case of this interaction where each field has equal energy. You would have to create some kind of simulation to really see what happens but the exciting part of this new development is I think the tools of actually accomplishing that are now very close to being realized.

 

 

This is essentially the same picture as the previous except that the quanta are now on opposite sides of each other. This picture has an error in it. The blue cones rotational arrows should display a spin going the opposite direction from what is shown in the picture. Thus each cones spin is going in the same direction and the magnetic poles progress from left to right as (S-N)-(N-S), once again these should want to repel / deflect each other. The electric fields are once again opposite and attractive, but the linear momentum is divergent. I am once again not entirely sure what the NET interaction should be, it would depend on which field has more energy. It is interesting to note however that this is the same geometry as a photon, but in 3d. Photons obviously radiate at the speed of light. It is not obvious what the difference between opposing KEM fields of opposite charge and photons are other than that a photons geometry has two equal and opposite KEM fields, in the case of the KEM fields of colliding / or interacting particles this is not necessarily the case.

 

 

This is a tilted picture of a three dimensional KEM field. KEM fields are supposed to form by the inductive coupling of quanta, here we see that must mean that they have twists going in the same direction.

 

 

This is a three dimensional KEM field as viewed from the top. We can see that if we align all of the 3d quanta along a single plane and look at the KEM field perpendicular to this plane we see the 2d geometries already defined by Kelvin. This 3d interpretation does not replace the 2d one, it is more a complimentary viewpoint. As I continue explaining how we end up with time domain modeling capabilities out of a 3d structure you will see that a 2d geometry is essentially the same as analyzing a system in terms of its frequency domain, and energy spectrum density, whereas viewing the geometry in terms of 3d is like analyzing a system in terms of its time domain.

 

A 2d geometry for energy always bothered me because electrostatic fields should be 3d, as that is what is measured of them. The thought used to be that the diamond shape of an electrostatic field is simply a slice, or cross-section of the real field. Thinking about how if it is just a slice then the field should really be everywhere in 3d space at once I thought back to first year calculus and the idea of rotating graphs about an axis and decided that the quanta are probably in fact cones. But then if they are cones I thought how do we keep all of the good stuff that Kelvin already discovered about 2d geometry, it was not clear to me for awhile until the very simple answer hit me like a lightning bolt one day while I was thinking about time dilation.

 

If we have a circle of radius r and a concentric circle of radius R with R>r and a point p on the circumference enscribed by r and another point P on the circumference enscribed by R with p and P also both located along the length of R. If we now cause each of these circles to rotate with a few restrictions we can basically create a system that models time dilation. These restrictions are p and P must always lie along R, p rotates with constant tangential velocity regardless of R’s length. Now obviously because p rotates at constant velocity if we lengthen R then P is going to take longer and longer to go through a full rotation as compared to p, = time dilation.

 

Now here is where it gets really interesting. If we say that KEM fields rotate about their central axis with the restriction that the quanta immediately next to / along this axis rotate at one constant speed then as the KEM field gets bigger its outer tips have a longer period of revolution than the center. Thus large energy geometries corresponding to large velocities produce time dilation at the quantum level.

 

This is a picture of a 3d KEM field from the back generally displaying what I am talking about.

 

 

Since every quanta in the KEM field spins in the same direction where they meet should essentially act like gears with intertwined teeth causing them to rotate about the central axis of the KEM field.

 

What is really cool is that if we average out the location of the energy over a single period we should end up with a 3d geometry that is once again basically a cone. So larger geometries behave exactly like smaller geometries, in 2d the geometry of energy is fractal, in 3d I don’t know if it still satisfies that definition but it sort of is.

 

It gets even more interesting when we think about how forces are transferred. We know forces are the result of the overlap of opposing or parallel energy momenta, thus creating states of convergent or divergent energy momenta. If a KEM field rotates, and here I am including KEM fields that are part of larger composite geometries like electrostatic fields, photons and even Matter. What ends up happening is that force is not transferred continuously, but it is transferred upon *ticks of each of the fields energy clock.

 

When these energy clocks tick in opposite directions the rate of ticking of this composite system is very fast.

 

If one energy field is much larger than the other then the rate of ticking is dependent upon how big the gap between them is, however because we know that energy is transferred in sequentially odd numbered jumps the energy will “flow” from the large field to the small.

 

Now you may be thinking or have been for awhile that I seem to have missed an EXTREMELY important point to do with self inductance. A self inducing field like a photon has both negative and positive components of polarity over time. Well I claim that so too do these energy cones, but not in the same way. For example, if we look at the red cone head on, its twist is clockwise, say defining a negative electric charge. But if we now look at the negative red quanta from behind, its twist is counter clockwise. But counter clockwise twist “belongs” to a positive blue quanta as viewed from the front. It almost seems like there is a gap in logic here because then if we applied the RHR to this twist it should indicate that the momentum should be going the opposite way but there in fact isn’t, and it is very interesting why. Charge is only measured relative to another charge. Just like when we had the 2d electrostatic fields that had positive and negative sides to the 2d quanta we noted that this in fact didn’t matter because the overlap of each respective side produced the same interaction as long as we kept them separate. This is also true of our left and right hands. This is what I was talking about at the begging when I was saying that now fields are loosely coupled to magnetic and electric field polarity, it’s the direction of twist and linear momentum that is truly important.

 

 

I would like to leave you all with a few final thoughts regarding a different but related idea to all the previous.

 

I believe there has been a serious error in the formulation of electromagnetics. Now this is somewhat ridiculous of me to claim since I only just started my 3^rd year engineering electromagnetic course but allow me to take you on a bit of a long walk of reasoning…

 

This error is an assumption that was implicitly made without even realizing it. Electric and magnetic fields are obviously spherically symmetric and electrons and quarks as far as anyone can tell are point particles and have no structure. A spherical coordinate system obviously is defined by two angles and a distance (theta, phi, roh). Because EM fields are spherically symmetric I believe an implicit assumption has resulted that the phase of an electric field Ephase, and the phase of a magnetic field Mphase as well as the magnitude of interaction (force) F correspond to coordinates like this..

 

Ephase->theta, Mphase->phi, F->roh .

 

But this is not necessarily true even if the fields are spherically symmetric. I have written before about the gauss bonnet theorem. I won’t go into a proof of it here or too much detail the basics should suffice. The basics are that any closed orientable surface without dents in it has the same total curvature, if you place a normal vector at every point along such a surface simultaneously at infinity they will define a sphere. As such any field source sufficiently small will have spherical symmetry because the total tangential curvature k1 and total torsional curvature k2 will add up to four pi when integrated over the entire surface no matter the surfaces size. Thus I believe a more correct interpretation is like this:

 

Ephase->k1, Mphase->k2, F->overlap (of neighboring field geometries)

 

The electric and magnetic fields are symmetric with respect to each other over two “indices of symmetry” = k1 and k2 the total value of which is conserved across an infinite number of different 3d geometries.

 

Thus when we are trying to define a single quanta of charge we have to be a lot more careful than implicitly assuming that it is enough for the total “symmetry” to be conserved. As I have explained in my first post for 2d frequency domain the only geometry that is capable of producing the normal distribution is triangles, thus it is a far more useful candidate than anything else, unless of course someone discovers some other subtle nuance of physics beyond the inclusion of geometry at the quantum level.

Thank you.

Edited September 20, 2015 by RuthlessOptimism

[RuthlessOptimism]

Hello I am back again to share something. I have been thinking about how to construct math to describe 3d conical quanta in the theory of Tetryonics and I have come up with a preliminary result that is kind of interesting. What I was trying to do is create a model for electrostatic charge out of Maxwell’s equations that would describe an electrostatic field as being composed of two changing magnetic fields that cancel each other out at every point in time and space but still leave behind a measurable electrostatic charge field. What I ended up with almost works, it is a way to describe an average charge density as being created by the curl of a magnetic field. I don’t know if this is something already known about in the standard model, maybe someone here can answer me that question, it does almost seem like it should be a pretty basic result. The point where this result fails to do what I want it to is that it is not composed of two magnetic curls. I don’t know how to describe the way that this result is not complete. If you curl your right hand with your thumb pointing toward you, obviously from the perspective of someone looking at you, you are actually curling your fingers to the right instead of the left. Though you are still using your right hand, you can never actually see this phenomenon yourself, only imagine it, if you walk slowly around in a circle and continue this exercise you always see your hand performing this process in the same configuration. As noted in my previous post this is basically what an electrostatic field in Tetryonics is doing, curls curling the same way but with opposite orientation cancel each other as effectively as curls that curl in opposite directions with the same orientation. This result does not describe that phenomenon, but I would like to find some way to make it do that.

 

On to the math… (This might be painful to read, I had everything all nicely made in word but the forum won't let me copy that into a post)

 

Maxwell’s equations tell us that,

 

(Dell)XB = u*(J+e*((d/dt)E)) = C = (A+B)

(Dell)*E = p/e = D

 

We would like to show (somehow) that all or part of C = D, subject to some kind of condition.

 

(A+B)=D

 

The simplest condition imaginable is multiplication by some term Y. This can be thought of as equivalent to integration, if we change our condition somewhat such that instead we show that all or part of dC=dD. This condition could take alternate forms, such as A or B = 0 with the other term multiplied by dY and integrated. The point of this is to find all possible conditions such that a curling, or twisting magnetic field can create a static charge distribution, and check if any of these conditions actually make some kind of physical sense. If one of them does it could provide insight as to how to model 3d quanta in time, as well as their interactions.

 

p/e = (e*u)*((d/dt)E)*Y

(Q/m^3)*((kg*m^3)/((A^2)*(sec^4)) = (c^2)*(d/dt)(kg*m/((sec^3)*A))*Y

 

Where c is the speed of light, e and u are electric and magnetic permittivity and permeability respectively.

 

(Q/1)*(1/((A^2)*(sec^4)))=(c^2)*(m/((sec^4)*A))*Y

(Q/1)*(1/(A*(sec^4)))=(c^2)*(m/(sec^4))*Y

(Q/1)*(1/A)=(c^2)*(m/1)*Y

(Q/1)*(1/(Q/sec))=(c^2)*(m/1)*Y

sec=(c^2)*m*Y

 

Remember that in Tetryonics we do this…

c^2 -> m^2 (Radial relativistically normalized units)

sec/(m^3)=Y

dt/(dV)=dY

 

This makes some kind of sense due to the divergence theorem and the time derivative of the electric field, if we integrate with respect to time then normalize with respect to volume we get an average charge density out of term B.

Now lets do the same to term A.

 

p/e=u*J*Y

Q/(m^3)=(c^2)*J*Y

Q/(m^2)=(c^2)*(A/(m^2))*Y

Q/(m^3)=A*Y

Q/(m^3)=(Q/sec)*Y

sec/(m^3)=Y

dt/dV=dY

 

We get the exact same Y. Therefore

 

[(Dell)X(B)]*Y = (Dell)*E = p/e

 

Where *Y is the operator,

 

[C]*Y = (d/dV)*integral(C,dt)

 

Over one complete period of the cyclic C. (I know there is nothing to inherently suggest this about the math so far, I am using assumptions about what this is going to be eventually applied to).

 

Although this would take some kind of actual proof / figuring out we can intuitively guess that this operator has an inverse (due to the properties of electric and magnetic fields as well as derivatives and integrals (fundamental theorem of calculus)).

 

[D]*Y^-1 = (d/dt)integral(D,dV)

 

Discussion: As noted before it would actually take some work, that I am as of yet unsure how to do, to investigate further properties of this operator.

 

-It should have an inverse, but the order you perform the integration then partial differentiation might matter, I am not sure.

-Also I don’t think this operator is necessarily commutative, though it is probably associative.

 

-A simple thought experiment to make sure that this idea makes sense can be to think about a straight current carrying wire. The current creates a uniform curl along the length of the wire, lets assume the current is constant. Our dV in this case becomes dx (a differential of length), if the current is constant we don’t have a time varying electric field so ignore that part. If we integrate the curl created by the current along the wires length we end up with an average density of charge inside of the wire.

 

-I predict, but once again don’t have any proof (it does make sense though from my own familiarity with manipulating vector integrals in school assignments) that if you have a curl that varies with respect to distance along a single dimension, like say a current carrying wire where the current decreases with respect to distance and you integrate it with respect to the dimension along that distance you will end up with a cone-like volume of average charge density.

 

-With regards to the conical quanta, this math does not provide a means for a derivation of conical quantization of electric and magnetic fields it simply provides a clue as to how we might be able to model them. The derivation would still probably have to be similar to what I described before, as one of the largest differences between Tetryonics and the standard model is that fields have finite dimensions in Tetryonics, and this is a direct result of the fact that energy is quantized. In Tetryonics instead of having discrete imaginary particles as force / energy / information carriers we have regular tesselations.

 

-This math is as noted before not a complete description of Tetryonic quanta in time. One of the most important results that I was trying to create with this but have not yet succeeded is to show within the framework of the standard model that you can create a mathematical model of electrostatic charge from a the (I don’t know the proper way to describe this lets say) superposition of two oppositely facing curls of dynamically changing magnetic fields. Thus you could describe an electrostatic field as being created by a two changing magnetic fields composed of magnetic components that have destructively interfered with each other so as to make them not feasibly measurable while the electric field is.

Edited October 10, 2015 by RuthlessOptimism

[RuthlessOptimism]

Hello, I am back again with another intriguing development. Progress is slow for me right now because I am currently enrolled in school. This post is regarding some tinkering I have been doing to epsilon and ooh (someone who studies ancient history once told me that “mew” is actually supposed to be pronounced “ooh”, “mew” is an English bastardization of it, I can’t break the habit of calling it ooh now). I’ve been doing this to once again figure out how to manipulate Maxwell’s equations to give a good time domain model of individual quanta.

 

What are epsilon and ooh in Tetryonics exactly? One is obvious the other is a little bit odd.. I kind of hate simply manipulating units but for now it’s the only thread I have to tug on really.

epsilon = (amps^2)*(sec^4)/(kg*(m^3))

There is another reparametrization in Tetryonics that is sometimes useful, it is

 

Amps = kilograms/sec

mass of charge carrier(s) per second

Using this reparametrization we continue on..

 

= ((kg/sec)^2)*(sec^2)/(kg*(m^3))

= kg/(m^3)

In terms of electrical charges and the physical description of what permittivity is this makes sense. Permittivity is a measure of how easy it is to store electrical energy. It does this by polarizing / orienting dipoles. So if we have a lot of mass of possible charge carriers per volume then we have a high permittivity and we can polarize a lot of material and store a lot of electrical energy.

 

But we can also do this..

 

= (Energy/c^2)/(m^3)

= (Energy/c^2)/(c^4)

= density of 2d planar energy per relativistically normalized spherical volume

This is another equation full of subtlety and like most things in Tetryonics is best explained by a picture, unfortunately I don’t have a picture for this so you’ll just have to imagine things in your mind. The energy per c^2 is the energy per 2d radial area. The c^4 signifies a 3d spherical volume. If we want we can construct the “frame” of a sphere by two perpendicular 2d circles. This gives us horizontal and vertical polarizations of light for example. But we really could construct a sphere out of an infinite number of different circles all at different angles to each other centered on the sphere’s center. This is what this equation or Epsilon is describing. Epsilon, at least the value that is currently measured for epsilon naught is strangely enough not a fundamental property of anything, it is merely a correction factor for the local energy density of our region of the universe. We know that waves turn towards regions where they are moving slower, that light moves slower through high permittivity mediums relative to vacuum. Epsilon is basically a measure of the “electrical stiffness” of a region of space. A spring with high k constant (basically epsilon) can store more energy but its harder to compress it, because it has a high energy density. This is exactly what epsilon is, because energy has associated with it momentum, and it is the overlap of different energy geometries and their momentum that create forces.

 

Now for ooh

ooh = Newtons/Amps^2

= kg*(m/sec^2)*(1/Amps^2)

= (Energy/c^2)*(m/sec^2)*(1/amps^2)

= (Energy*m/((c^2)*(sec^2)))*((sec/kg)^2)

= (Energy/c^2)*((c^2/Energy)^2)

= m*(c^2/E)

= meters * ( (radial relativistically normalized area) / (energy) )

The problem is I don’t really know what ooh by itself means. It’s a measure of how much mass decreases with distance, I guess? It sort of makes sense, because of the idea that in Tetryonics you have an associate mechanism for red shift. Energy expands and covers more area as it radiates, so that if you have a source and a destination that are stationary relative to each other but extremely far away from each other the energy emitted from the source will shift to red by the time it reaches its destination. This once again does not supersede the idea of Doppler shift, it occurs simultaneously to Doppler shift. What is odd is that this is only associated with ooh, and that it is associated with ooh at all, the idea makes sense what I can’t make sense of is why this idea is here specifically.

 

The product of ooh and epsilon is supposed to equal the speed of light squared.

 

[Epsilon]*[ooh] = c^2

=[(Energy/c^2)/(c^4)]*[m*(c^2/E)]

= m/c^4

Distance per relativistically normalized spherical volume??

In this case the product under Tetryonic reparametrizations for mass and amperes gives us something weird..

 

This is something that once again only kind of makes sense. I don’t have any proof of this yet but what I think is going on is if you have a sphere that is being traced out by four oppositely travelling beams of light, for a given volume they will have travelled a certain distance. The product of epsilon and ooh then does give us a constant ratio regarding the speed of light, but the order doesn’t match, its not c^2, not really. Also there is no time dependence, but time dependence I don’t think is really a problem (the thing I don’t have proof for) because of ideas from differential geometry. I’ve talked before about how the gauss bonnet theorem is essentially built into our current formulation of electromagnetic with far reaching and subtle implications. For all of the machinery of the gauss bonnet theorem and differential geometry to work we are dependent upon a few important assumptions about the vector fields / surfaces that they are operating on. The important one in this case is that all curves in our space travel at “unit speed”, or the magnitude of the tangent vector to them is always equal to 1 everywhere along them. This is why I think the time dependence disappears, it is essentially redundant due to the construction of the geometries we are working with anyways, energy only travels at one speed during transverse propagation, the speed of light.

[RuthlessOptimism]

Hello I am back again.

 

This time I have come to share a prediction made by Tetryonics that in theory is actually testable, but actually testing it invovles a bunch of different problems. The first major problem is the usual one with Tetryonics, and that is a lack of computational math. So the idea is once again best described through pictures.

 

The first picture is regarding a phenomenon I have actually worked with in a lab before, dielectrophoresis. Basically you can force dielectric materials to move (its sort of like conduction) through an electric field so long as that electric field has a high curvature.

 

 

This can involve the creation of voltage gradients in excess of 1000 volts. But with clever microfabrication / device design voltages as low as 25 are feasible. What Tetryonics predicts, and this is not really that revolutionary an idea is that the presence of an electric or magnetic field can alter the trajectory of light. This is obviously possible in high ooh materials via, for a magnetic example, the Faraday Effect (occuring inside of lead doped glass), but has never been witnessed in free space, although it might be possible even in the standard model if the field intensity is extremely high. I am thinking that you might not need an extremely high field intensity if the geometry employed is correct, though it still may be very large. This is the first major problem, that there is no way to compute just how high the field intensity might need to be. But once again in pictures the basic idea works like this:

 

 

The reason I think the field intensity might not have to be extremely high is because of the same reasons it does not have to be for dielectrophoresis. In Dielectrophoresis, as well as in this phenomenon it is the gradient in intensity that is actually important. In the most general terms a gradient in energy density through space produces a force, true for gravity, true for DEP, true for electrical conduction. Now this does not completely decouple the magnitude of the phenomenon (diflection of the light's path) from the magnitude of the field intensity, but it does decrease the dependence. You can artificially increase the gradient of the field intensity by bending the field lines, this can be accomplished by using "pointy" field sources at acute angles to each other, and situating the object to be actuated just outside of the center of the two sources (producing actuation away / or toward the sources in a direction perpendicular to the tangent of the field lines). However the maximum value for the gradient can still only be at most the magnitude of the field intensity, ie this is the unrealistic case where the field completely drops from its maximum value to zero over a very short distance (like a reverse step function).

 

The second major problem with testing this is that it can only be done by matching the polarization of the light being used to the field geometry used. This means you can only do it with a laser, this is not a real problem since even a dollar store one might work as it is the magnetic field intensity that matters and not the light intensity. The problem is you must know the polarization of the beam before hand. This is not that much of a problem either though since you can simply try both of the geometries displayed in the picture (this is assuming the laser comes out either vertically or horizontally polarized and not at some wierd angle..).

 

The third problem is that even if you were to produce a diflection of the beam it might be extremely small, say on the order of microns (I really have no idea). There are some ways to get around this problem however. The first is to focus the beam through a lens before you reach the region of highest field gradient, if the spot size of the beam is very large any diflection of it will be "washed out" so ideally you would focus the beam as tightly as possible (say 1 micron with a microscope objective of some kind). The second method that could be used is to attempt to measure diflection very far away from the magnets, in order to do this it would be helpful to recollimate the beam after having it focused through the magnetic field. The final method is to bounce the re-collimated beam off of a mirror at a very wide angle (as close to 180 degrees as feasible), in order to help amplify any diflection. Finally you could employ microfabrication to create a very tiny array of photodetectors, but this would obviously require a lot of time / money etc.

 

If someone could actually demonstrate this ( I plan to eventually try but have no money for materials right now ). It would be pretty amazing, because from what I gather the general consensus among academia is that this is impossible.

 

 

 

[RuthlessOptimism]

Hello,

 

I have come up with an interesting explanation for electric potential in terms of Tetryonics. This explanation is helpful to demonstrate how the expressions of physical laws contained in Tetryonics is equivalent to almost all expressions for these same physical laws in the standard model.

We will start with the equation for the potential due to a point charge.

 

[latex]

V=\frac{kQ}{r}

[/latex]

 

It is helpful for our understanding to recognize that geometrically speaking (1/r) corresponds to the measure of curvature of a circle, and that we can define for a fixed r, a circle of which all points on the circle have equal potential. A diamond can be enscribed within a circle, and so for a sequence of equipotential circles, decreasing at a unit value we can inscribe a sequence of equipotential diamonds also decreasing at a unit value.

 

 

Because of the fact that a diamond can be inscribed or circumscribed about a circle (a simplistic argument) diamonds have the same total curvature as circles. Thus by interpreting 1/r as being a measure of total curvature we can generalize potential to any geometry of equal total curvature.

 

[latex]

 

V=(Curvature)*k*Q

 

[/latex]

 

The math is basically satisfied, but there are a few conceptual points to clear up. Something I have found that people often seem to forget about voltage, charge and electric fields is that they are only ever measured relative to something. In the case of charge this is an opposite charge, or relative absence of charge (ie there is less positive charge here than there). In the case of the electric field it is measured relative to a test charge, and in the case of voltage relative to ground (or another relatively lower potential which is itself relative to ground).

 

In the theory of Tetryonics voltage is a separation of charge. Opposite charges experience an attractive force due to the mutual reinforcement of the energy momenta within each charge’s charge field geometry that are pointing toward the other charge, or an overlap of different energy geometries. Potential energy exists when there is an equal or greater force that keeps these opposite charges held apart. I am not going to talk in detail about the special case of conduction through a material here. The description as to how / why conduction is different is actually contained in my previous post about epsilon and ooh. The basic idea is that during conduction there are essentially two paths for energy to flow through in order to neutralize the separation of charge. One path is “easier” for energy to flow through because it has a higher epsilon ooh product, producing a larger distance per volume, thus the energy is “more free” to expand and neutralize through the conductive path.

 

For point charges in free space it helps to think about the discretized form of the properties of voltage described in Tetryonics through some terminology and ideas used in the mathematics of Analysis and Set Theory.

 

 

In this picture we have defined a 2d open “ball” of radius r centered on a point P, this is the white circle. An open ball is simply a circle of points that excludes its boundary. Inside of this open ball is another point P1, this is the smaller blue circle, its not actually a point because the graphical drawing software I used doesn’t have the ability to make points. P1 is the center of another open ball of radius R. This blue open ball defines an equipotential circle around a its source charge P1, the potential on this circle is just above zero, generally speaking we can make it as close to zero as we want and here we are defining voltage in the way usually done in the standard model.

 

 

Now we have two point charges about which are equipotential circles. These equipotential circles would be just above zero (once again via the standard model definition) if these charges were separated very far apart. And now we want to answer the question of what is the potential of our blue encircled charge relative to our white encircled test charge. We know that in Tetryonics force is proportional to the overlap of charge fields, force is related to potential energy. We can redefine the voltage of the blue charge then relative to the white charge by the overlap of their charge geometries and then in the usual formulation in the standard model normalize this with respect to the magnitude of the white charge’s charge.

 

Calculating the area of the overlap is simple, there are many known geometric relations to exploit in doing so.

 

[latex]

Area of overlap of two circles = 0.5*\sqrt{(-d+r+R)(d-r+R)(d+r-R)(d+r+R)}

[/latex]

 

We could also work with the geometry of equilateral triangles if we wish to.

 

[latex]

Area of enscribed diamond = \frac{4 r^2}{\sqrt{2}}

[/latex]

(I can't figure out what's wrong with latex here)

Area of enscribed diamond = 4*(r^2)/sqrt(2)

 

[latex]

Area of circle = \pi r^2

[/latex]

 

Area of circle = pi*r^2

 

[latex]

Circular area to diamond area := r^2 \frac{4 r^{2}}{\sqrt{2} \pi}

[/latex]

 

Convert circular area to diamond area := 4*(r^2)/(sqrt(2)*pi)

 

[latex]

Area of overlap of two diamonds (or equilateral triangles) = \frac{\left(r+R-d\right)^2}{2}

[/latex]

 

Area of overlap of two diamonds = ((r+R-d)^2)/2

 

The important aspect of these equations is their distance of separation dependence.

 

With these relations we can turn any normal standard model problem regarding finding the potential between two charges dependent upon their distance of separation into a Tetryonic model problem by equivalently asking what is the area of overlap of the lowest equipotential “enclosure” (I guess you could call it) of each source such that this enclosure is sitting at just above zero (hence it’s the least one), and of course renormalize with respect to your new geometry.

 

This shows that the very simple case of modelling two point charges in Tetryonics and the standard model is going to produce the same qualitative result, and will even produce the same numerical result upon simply using the right correction factor. But we can also extend this to charge distributions.

 

 

Now we have two source charges, P1 and P2 inside of our original open ball. If we want to calculate the potential due to geometric overlap of a test charge placed nearby we do it the same way we would in the standard model. By the superposition of the potential of each individual charge, we calculate the overlap with the teal circle, then add that to the overlap of the blue circle, and we can see that depending on how we situate our test charge as we move it closer to the open ball at the center we will generate more overlap at different rates, ie if we came in from the upper left or bottom right the overlap (potential) would grow slower than if we came in from the bottom left or the top right (this is assuming both charges in the center open ball have the same polarity and are not a dipole, but it also will produce the same results for dipoles as the standard model). This can be generalized to an arbitrary number of charges and charge sign and / or magnitude.

 

 

I don’t have an example of this, but it would be feasible to also go in reverse. Start with a known potential distribution and then find the radius of curvature of the osculating circle for the lowest equipotential line (in this case the rightmost one) at a sampling of points across it, the center of the osculating circle should lie on top of your charge distribution and correspond to a point source. This laplace solver picture is bad because of the way it is plotted, because the top and bottom are held at 0 voltage boundary conditions the plot is distorted.

 

Now you might be wondering what is this useful for? Well the answer is that it is not useful for anything, yet. It is simply a demonstration as to how you can arrive at the same results using Tetryonics as the standard model. People keep thinking that Tetryonics changes too much to ever be accepted, but I think it changes very little. I think what Kelvin, the theory’s author has discovered is something that was basically hiding under the surface of the standard model all along.

Edited November 19, 2015 by RuthlessOptimism

[RuthlessOptimism]

Today I upload another mathematical exploration regarding Tetryonics. This one regarding electromagnetic interactions and gravity.

Definitions:

 

[latex] I = [/latex] current (amperes)

[latex] J = [/latex] Current Density (amperes per meter squared)

[latex] A = [/latex] Area (meters squared)

[latex] R = [/latex] Resistance (ohms, assumed for simplicity to be constant even though this is a very untrue assumption)

[Latex] r = [/latex] Radius from source (meters)

[Latex] V = [/latex] Voltage (volts)

 

Now I cite two different sources:

 

[A] T.K. Gaisser and T. Stanev, “Cosmic Rays”, (Bartol Research Inst., Univ. of Delaware)

Y.M.Wang, “On The Relative Constancy of The Solar Wind Mass Flux At 1 AU”, Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 715:L121-L127, 2010

Wherein [A] it is stated that of the particles comprising the solar wind that reach the earth’s upper atmosphere 79% are free protons, and wherein it is stated that the mass flux density of the solar wind at a distance of one astronomical unit (1.5x10^11 meters, or the shortest distance from the sun to earth) ranges between 2x10^12 to 4x10^12 (particles/(m^2*sec)).

 

Since 79% of the particles reaching the earth’s upper atmosphere are free protons then by definition there is a net current flowing through our solar system, outward from the sun.

Ohm’s law

 

[Latex] V = IR [/latex] (1)

 

In our case since we have a measure of the flux density of the current at a given distance from our source we reformulate this.

 

[Latex] V = JAR [/latex] (2)

 

Assuming an equal area at two separate distances from the source and constant resistance, or impedance of the vacuum (it is definitely finite).

 

[Latex] V_2 – V_1 = \left(J_2\minusJ_1\right)AR [/latex] (3)

 

(I'm going to have to properly learn latex soon)

 

V2-V1 = (J2-J1)*AR

 

The measure of intensity (of any quantity) follows an inverse square law with respect to distance from its source (assuming the flux out of the source is spherically symmetric).

 

[Latex] \frac{\left(Intensity_1\right)} {\left(Intensity_2\right)} = \frac{(r_2)^2}{r_1^2} [/latex]

 

We solve for [latex] J_2 [/latex] and substitute into equation (3) obtaining

 

[Latex] V_2 \minus V_1 = \left(\left(\frac{(r_1)^2}{(r_2)^2}\right)-1\right)(J_1)AR [/latex]

V2-V1 = ((r1^2)/(r2^2)-1)*J1AR

 

Thus we have defined a voltage distribution throughout the solar system due to the predominantly positive charge comprising the solar wind.

 

[latex] r_1 [/latex], [latex] J_1 [/latex], [latex] R [/latex], [latex] A [/latex].

 

If we plug in values, letting A = 1 meter squared, J1 equal to 2x10^12, and r1 = 1.5x10^11, and R equal to the value stated on Wikipedia 376.73. We can let the change in voltage equal to 1 volt and solve for the distance required to create that, or r2. What I got is:

 

1.5x10^11, or another astronomical unit. Its not very much but its still there. An interesting result of this is that it shows that we are likely sitting inside of a gigantic and extremely powerful electric field, but it is basically not measureable because voltage is always measured relative to something and the gradient is so small. An additional way that we can infer that this electric field is extremely large and powerful is in the current density, 2x10^12 amps per meter squared!? Who has ever heard of that before lol.

 

Edited November 25, 2015 by RuthlessOptimism

[robinpike]

 

Since 79% of the particles reaching the earth’s upper atmosphere are free protons then by definition there is a net current flowing through our solar system, outward from the sun.

 

 

 

 

Is there the possibility that there is an equal number of free electrons in the solar wind to the free protons, but electrons being lighter than the proton, they do not make it to our upper atmosphere because of greater deflection by the earth's magnetic field?

[imatfaal]

 

Is there the possibility that there is an equal number of free electrons in the solar wind to the free protons, but electrons being lighter than the proton, they do not make it to our upper atmosphere because of greater deflection by the earth's magnetic field?

 

I really do not know if that is correct Robin - but as a exercise in critical thinking I applaud it; your idea makes perfect sense and even without evidence by introducing a counter-hypothesis it shows that the logic of the quoted section of the OP is potentially flawed.

 

I am pretty certain the solar wind is essentially neutral on a large enough scale (Debeyer Length for plasma?)

---

 

After a bit of google-fu here is Bad Astronomy on the subject - debunking a book

 

This is simply wrong. There are many experiments in space which directly measure the solar wind, and have found it to be ionized, but electrically neutral. In other words, the same number of positive and negative particles are emitted (see, for example, here, or here). If the Sun's wind were primarily positive particles, then the Sun would build up a vast negative charge on its surface. This would affect everything about the Sun, from its magnetic field to the way the surface features behave. We see no indications at all that the Sun has a huge negative charge.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/solarwind.html

[RuthlessOptimism]

 

Is there the possibility that there is an equal number of free electrons in the solar wind to the free protons, but electrons being lighter than the proton, they do not make it to our upper atmosphere because of greater deflection by the earth's magnetic field?

 

Good point I never thought of that. I'll need to do some more reading on the subject and come back to this idea later. Astrophysics / astronomy is probably the area that my knowledge is the most lacking. It is interesting that the theory fails here, since it works so well with everything else. I'm still convinced its probably right.

 

*Edit:

 

Crazy idea, it definitely has no basis / motivation other than it would make this whole idea "work", but one of my favorite quotes is: "The day before anything was a major breakthrough it was a crazy idea". In measurements of the solar wind performed by spacecraft mostly outside of the influence of the earth's magnetic field (where the wind is net neutral). Can the devices doing the measuring actually measure the direction of individual particles? Or do they just assume that the particles are all moving the same way? I'll look into this later, but the idea is that with regards to electrical current it matters which way the charge is moving just as much as the polarity of the charge. By our convention positive charge produces a current in the same direction as it is moving (conventional current), but negative charge produces a current the opposite direction that it is moving. If the differently charged particles are moving in the same direction with about the same flux then there is no net current, if they are moving in different directions then the net current is actually doubled.

 

This would obviously lead to the question of where is all this negative charge coming from if not the sun? I have no idea, its just a thought.

Edited November 25, 2015 by RuthlessOptimism

[RuthlessOptimism]

Hello,

 

An interesting few ideas occurred to me recently so I am posting them here. I will eventually get back to the idea(s) of the solar wind at some later date, I have to as those idea(s) are related to other ideas at the end of this post. This post will be a link to Imgur basically which contains an album of pictures, of text. I know this is an odd thing to do I just don’t have time right now to re-format this, the equations especially, and this is simply more convenient for me (thank you if you read it).

 

http://imgur.com/a/KOdtT

Edited December 4, 2015 by RuthlessOptimism

[RuthlessOptimism]

Still working on the whole multiple directions of the solar wind thing. This is actually a correction to my reparametrization of epslion and ooh in terms of geometry.

 

Something that is a bit tricky to keep track of when trying to reparametrize systems is the 1/c^2 as I think I've related before it can mean multiple things: an arbitrary area that we have defined (that could be static or expanding at constant rate) within which we are measuring a quantity, or an intrinsic property of energy (its literal 2d area or size) which can be: bounded by a fixed area (the energy is held from expanding and propogating due to a force or feedback), or a constant rate of change (in terms of QAM, or the projection of perpendicular area of the time domain description of the quanta into a reference plane), or another case where the literal 2d area / or size of the energy is being compressed (EM wavelength contraction or expansion due to the addition or subtraction of quanta into a geometry) or is rubber banding and expanding (Doppler independent red shift). It could also mean all of these things simultaneously.

 

Hopefully all this latex comes out properly.

[latex]

\epsilon = \frac{A^2 s^4}{kg m^3}

\epsilon = \frac{\frac{kg}{s}^2 s^4}{kg m^3}

\epsilon = \frac{kg s^2}{m^3}

\epsilon = \frac{frac{E}{c^2}}{V\prime\prime}

Epsilon is planar energy density per accelerating volumetric expansion.

 

\mu = \frac{N}{A^2}

\mu = \frac{kg \frac{m}{s^2}}{\frac{kg}{s}^2}

\mu = \frac{m}{kg}

\mu = \frac{m}{\frac{E}{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}}

\mu = \frac{V\prime \prime}{E}

 

\epsilon \mu = \frac{V\prime \prime}{E} \frac{frac{E}{c^2}}{V\prime\prime}

 

\epsilon \mu = \frac{1}{c^2}

[\latex]

Edited January 4, 2016 by RuthlessOptimism

[imatfaal]

[latex]\epsilon = \frac{A^2 s^4}{kg m^3}[/latex]

 

[latex]\epsilon = \frac{\frac{kg}{s}^2 s^4}{kg m^3}[/latex]

 

[latex]\epsilon = \frac{kg s^2}{m^3}[/latex]

 

[latex]\epsilon = \frac{\frac{E}{c^2}}{V\prime\prime}[/latex]

 

[latex]\mu = \frac{N}{A^2}[/latex]

 

[latex]\mu = \frac{kg \frac{m}{s^2}}{\frac{kg}{s}^2}[/latex]

 

[latex]\mu = \frac{m}{kg}[/latex]

 

[latex]\mu = \frac{m}{\frac{E}{\frac{m^2}{s^2}}}[/latex]

 

[latex]\mu = \frac{V\prime \prime}{E}[/latex]

 

[latex]\epsilon \mu = \frac{V\prime \prime}{E} \frac{\frac{E}{c^2}}{V\prime\prime}[/latex]

 

[latex]\epsilon \mu = \frac{1}{c^2}[/latex]

[mp][/mp]

 

My good turn for the day.

 

BTW - your oblique (or slash) in the closing latex tag was in the wrong direction. Even correcting this there are too many lines for a latex translation on our site; use one equation per set of tags if possible. Also every frac declaration must include the slash otherwise it writes the word frac

[RuthlessOptimism]

Thank you imatfaal.

 

After a helpful class lecture today I have another quick update about modelling 3d quanta. This link is to my imgur acount again showing some results of a simple numerical simulation (mostly created by someone else), as to how the magnetic and electric field components of 3d quanta could be modeled through space.

 

http://imgur.com/a/uC9bL

[RuthlessOptimism]

Hello,

 

Another quick update.

 

I have condensed a lot of the work I've done in trying to understand, apply, and improve Kelvin Abraham's theory into three interdependent lectures that I recently gave at my university. I filmed them and have uploaded them to youtube. If you look up my user name on youtube: "RuthlessOptimism". You should be able to find my channel, which has the same name. Like I said these lectures are interdependent and each subsequent one assumes you watched / understood the last one.

 

I forgot to number them in the order they are supposed to be watched (I'll fix this later) which is:

 

1.) Tetryonics: Deriving the Periodic Table

 

 

-Like the title says in this one I use Tetryonics / all of its main assumptions about energy to derive the periodic table and its properties.

 

2.) Tetryonics: Kyle's Attempt at Deriving the Theory, Material Properties, Gravity

 

 

-In this video I relate my general strategy (that is still incomplete in most areas) as to how you could derive the theory of Tetryonics itself. This is the exact same thing as what was in my original post in this thread except with a few minor improvements in the way it is explained.

 

3.) Tetryonics: 3d Time Domain Quanta

 

 

-This is the most interesting one in my opinion. In this one I talk about my incomplete / ongoing work in trying to make the theory more tractable to computation, the 3d time domain model for these quanta that I have so far come up with. I also talk a bit about special relativity, general relativity, how time dilation comes about in Tetryonics, as well as what is normally described as bending of space in general relativity. Also, the uncertainty relation, lap laces equation, how solutions to differential equations can be abstracted to transformations performed upon discrete geometries (as well as all measurements in physics), how Fourier analysis is connected to Tetryonics, as well as entanglement.

 

*NOTE: I am not a very good public speaker (yet), and I did not have a whole lot of time to prepare for doing this. So I misspoke a lot but there are annotations to clear up what I actually meant to say. Plus I end up using the same phrases a lot, its annoying even to me now that I go back and re-watch it. I am probably going to re-record these at some later date when I have more stuff to add to them.

Edited February 22, 2016 by RuthlessOptimism

[RuthlessOptimism]

I've recently made what I think are some interesting theoretical observations regarding Tetryonics, and created a video series regarding this and uploaded it on to YouTube. Unfortunately I don't remember what e-mail I associated with my last YouTube account so these are uploaded under a different one with the exact same user name (from what I understand of how accounts work this should not be possible).

 

url deleted

 

This is the link to the playlist of videos I have created. The total time of all of them is about 2 hours.

 

The basics of what I have done in them is shown how theoretical aspects of Transmission Line, or Microwave Engineering mirrors a lot of theoretical aspects of Tetryonics. Specifically regarding the way that KEM fields should interact with each other and produce acceleration on each other during events like elastic collisions. But the theory should be able to be generalized to any field geometry.

 

Barring finding solutions to a few stumbling blocks within this new model of KEM interactions it could be used to actually perform computation within the Theory of Tetryonics and simulate particle interactions. What is especially interesting is that unlike the standard model we are not limited in this model to only predict the before and after outcomes of a collision or interaction based upon the conservation of momentum or energy. If this model could be completed it would allow one to see a collision in real time as it occurs, and the subsequent creation / mechanism for the creation of things like photons and other particles out of the collision.

 

A lot of this lecture series will basically be review for most people familiar with classical electromagnetics but it might be difficult to skip large portions of it because of some important observations made along the way to building transmission line theory.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

A reminder of rule 2.7. Emphasis added.

 

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned.

 

In short, your last two posts, being basically invitations to watch your videos, are in violation of this rule. The link to your playlist has been deleted.

 

[RuthlessOptimism]

Then I would like you to delete this thread. There is no way I can conveniently re-create everything covered in the videos I create in a format that can be posted on this forum, as such there is no point in continuing it.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

We want to be clear. Discussion at this site is based on the written word and mathematics, for clarity and ease of use. Videos can be extremely cumbersome to deal with when it comes to quoting and understanding the spoken words. What most can read in seconds becomes minutes of spooling through video.

 

We have to care for the convenience of the majority over the convenience of a few. Thanks for understanding.