Dimensions and Entities

[AntonioLao]

Do you think that a moving positive charge produces a different type of magnetic flux than the moving negative charge?

Although an atom made of orbiting positron around a negative nucleus cannot be found or created, the measurable weak interaction suggested a different magnetic effect as neutral current of Zs bosons and charged currents as W+ and W- bosons.

[dleviwing]

Hi Antonio;
What you say is quite true according to the concepts of particle physics. I find it difficult to accept their conclusion however, due to the fact that these concepts are only hypothetical interpretations of the data.

The process that produces a negative charge and the process that produces a positive charge, are distinctively different. A moving positive charge will not produce the same magnetic phenomena as a moving negative charge.

The problem with particle physics is that when you slam objects into one another, it's hard to tell if the pieces are parts of the original particles, new particles, or just fragmented pieces. I don't view it as an exacting science.

[AntonioLao]

A moving positive charge will not produce the same magnetic phenomena as a moving negative charge.

The electroweak theory by Weinberg, Salam, and Glashow is saying the same things. They called these the neutral and charged currents.

[dleviwing]

The electroweak theory by Weinberg, Salam, and Glashow is saying the same things. They called these the neutral and charged currents.

Antonio;
It would appear then that I have made the same conclusion using my concepts as they did using their concepts. The only difference is that my concept can be taught in high school, their concept requires 8 years of college and a PhD. I guess putting the sun at the center of the solar system does make the math easier!! Care to learn "Toronics"?

[AntonioLao]

Care to learn "Toronics"?

No idea what is it about? Need more information.

[dleviwing]

Antonio;
If you've been reading my posts, then you have already become familiar with parts of the Toronic concept and its fundamental interpretations of the physics terms and measurements.
If not, the book should be out by June of 2006, and web-site sooner. I hope!

[AntonioLao]

Dave,

Correct me if I'm wrong, from what I understand reading a few of your posts is that a toron is neither a particle nor a wave nor a string nor a field nor energy nor space nor time. However, it can still be all of these at one time or another?

[Guille]

Before Dave answers, If Antonio's interpretation is correct, then, toronics are everything but nothing, just like what they aether (or ether, or whatever you call it) is. So, are they supposed to be the same, or two different fundamental concepts?

[dleviwing]

Antonio;
The rules are simple; we cannot change the quantity of motion of any system formed from matter. This feature demands that all structured matter must have a fixed quantity of motion; "Absolute Motion". It was shown in the "Geneses Hypotheses" that even the universe when taken as a whole, is a system formed from matter and thus has this quantity of motion. As the universe evolved through stages of expansion, units of matter formed within the universe that also possessed absolute motion and became autonomous, though still interacting with the universal spatial matter environment around them. As the universe's spatial density continued to decrease (cool), matter reached a final phase that limited the quantity of matter that could form an autonomous unit of matter. This unit became the fundamental unit of structure of all atomic and subatomic physical particle groups of our current standard model.

Others throughout history have suggested the existence of a primary building block and given it names. Of course the "atom" was the original name of this unit! The quantum unity particle (QUP) is the one commonly used name in today's standard models. In Toronics, this QUP is the "Toron"; it really does not possess the character we usually view as a particle or solid object, but it has a unity quantity of matter in a state of motion such that it equates to the quantity of absolute motion. It is best to understand something as to how the "Self-affinity" property of matter functions along side absolute motion in order to recognize the characteristic behavior and interactions of various structures formed from Torons.

Toronics is base on absolutes. It does not interpret terms of measurement as entities like ALL other concepts seem to do, including concepts proposed by those who wish to base their concepts on gluons and gravitons.
Thanks;
Dave

[AntonioLao]

"Absolute Motion".

In my search for this absolute motion, I am stuck with absolute acceleration. And there can't be anything more absolute than absolute acceleration. For absolute acceleration is the only concept that can describe the center of mass. Once the center of mass of the universe is located then everything else is trivial. However, there is another common center of center of mass and center of charge.