[dipayankar]

That is a good way of looking at things. But I doubt whether spin would decide the charge of a partcle..

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com

Dip, how's it going out there in the 'void'.

Maybe positives are spinning one way and negatives are spinning the other way, as there always seems to be two ways for things, like right and left.

[Profpat]

So which is positive and which is negative? Doesn't it depend on your position?

[Profpat]

This is from Wiki:

One of the foremost experts on electricity in the 18th century was Benjamin Franklin, who argued in favour of a one-fluid theory of electricity. Franklin imagined electricity as being a type of invisible fluid present in all matter; for example he believed that it was the glass in a Leyden jar that held the accumulated charge. He posited that rubbing insulating surfaces together caused this fluid to change location, and that a flow of this fluid constitutes an electric current. He also posited that when matter contained too little of the fluid it was "negatively" charged, and when it had an excess it was "positively" charged. Arbitrarily (or for a reason that was not recorded) he identified the term "positive" with vitreous electricity and "negative" with resinous electricity. William Watson arrived at the same explanation at about the same time.
Electrification by friction

Notice how the term positive and negative were arbitrarily set. There are of course OPPOSITE charges. Opposites attract, like kind repel. WHY?

[Max™]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

Hi Max

Time has it's own set: past, present and future.

regards
Felix

Past present and future are just directions.

Same as left, here, right or up, here, down.


Spin is a very misleading term, it isn't really angular momentum. It's a measurement of symmetry.

Opposites attract because one has something which completes the other.

A bend one way will seek to fit up against another bend that way ) ).

Positive curvature to negative curvature is a push and a pull.

Turn one around so the positive curvature faces the positive curvature, ) ( and you get a push and a push.

[dleviwing]

Hi Profpat;
Try doing that with a real 3 dimensional model rather than the ambiguous 2 dimensional rubber sheet model. It should give you a new perspective of reality.

[Max™]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Hi Profpat;
Try doing that with a real 3 dimensional model rather than the ambiguous 2 dimensional rubber sheet model. It should give you a new perspective of reality.

Word, as the rappers say.

I remember how I started to think of gravity the way I do now, I was trying to make the jump from the 2-D sheet analogy, to a 3-D "sheet".

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Hi Profpat;
Try doing that with a real 3 dimensional model rather than the ambiguous 2 dimensional rubber sheet model. It should give you a new perspective of reality.

Granted David that is a 2 dimensional picture but it does represent a 3 dimensional rubber sheet when the conical points are considered.

I can do the same exercise with a piece of paper, with one of my fingers pressing " down " on the paper and the other pressing " up ". Again depending on how I view the paper determines which one is " Up " and which one is " Down "

Best to you sir,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Max™

Oh, I indeed believe there is a correlation between everything.

In fact, I believe there is only space+time, and matter and energy are merely ripples and knots in space. The interactions we perceive are due to the shape of those knots, and the way those knots interact with time.

Hi Max;

I tend to agree that ALMOST everything, indeed maybe EVERYTHING is space.

We all know that it's mostly space between the galaxies, and the stars, and the planets.

We also know that the atom is mostly space, and the proton is mostly space.

In fact we are told that with the big bang theory that everything in our universe can be squished into an almost dimensionless point, which of course means that almost everything is really interactions and reactions among the smallest fundamental substances.

But I for one am not willing to give up the smallest fundamental substances, which I believe are the 1 dimensional Planck Length Entities called strings.

I believe something other than just space must be interacting.

Best to you,

Pat

[Max™]

Think of a string as my knots in space then?

They're very similar, I just avoid the problem of describing the quantum interactions through a little sidestep and rotation to turn the spatial vibration/spread of strings/waves/operators/oscillators into a temporal interaction/spread.

All of these theories are very very similar deep down, as they should be, since we're all attempting to describe the universe in a self-consistent way.

[Profpat]

You could be right Max.