Nothing by Nobody Nowhere (No Where = Now Here)

[G_burnett]

Actually it is quite a fascinating idea, Lloyd. We can have the centrifugal charge running perpendicular to the centripetal charge from and to the atomic singularity. The increasing velocity around the singularity could explain the mass which decays according to the inverse square law. The neutrons can be replaced by photons/gravitons as a result of the em fields being separated within the atom, where the spins are divided between the two fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parson_magneton

i like the link in this .. very interesting reference matter to my ponder these days, ty kind regards graham

[Nobody Nowhere]

You may have noticed at the bottom of the link, Graham, the "Current Status", which can be likened to an electric current itself because it creates its own magnetic influence on the minds within the community. They create a consensus followed by a standard in a perhaps too rushy a fashion and leave important thoughts behind only to be discovered or recovered decades or centuries later. It seems to be both a money game and a race to fame.

I don't believe in point particles myself, outside of conceptual singularities serving as stationary points for differentiating relative motion, and I think following this logic the point-particle concept can be categorized as such to allow measurements to be extracted from scalar fields.

When Lloyd first proposed this I was against it because we naturally observe vectors, but quantifying variable shapes might work even better because we can eliminate the need for moving particles.

[G_burnett]

You may have noticed at the bottom of the link, Graham, the "Current Status", which can be likened to an electric current itself because it creates its own magnetic influence on the minds within the community. They create a consensus followed by a standard in a perhaps too rushy a fashion and leave important thoughts behind only to be discovered or recovered decades or centuries later. It seems to be both a money game and a race to fame.

I don't believe in point particles myself, outside of conceptual singularities serving as stationary points for differentiating relative motion, and I think following this logic the point-particle concept can be categorized as such to allow measurements to be extracted from scalar fields.

When Lloyd first proposed this I was against it because we naturally observe vectors, but quantifying variable shapes might work even better because we can eliminate the need for moving particles.

yes i understand fully ... the contained current function vector meets to the rise of MF and Mf as one is and inverted but perpendicular to the current flow which is the declination of the axis
by the consideration of frame drag or not the higher value against the ratio in the inverted y function of the Mf ... no one but a few will follow this i am sure and guilty of trying to put it in the simple because it is indeed to dynamic a conceptional intuitve logic image .. then it spins by orbital observation but not the necessity so much as one would go into the small subatomic free rad to atomic alignment of the toric .. what is theeffect you think of losing the structure alignment in the outer reaches of the atmosphere for the example where the density of space compared to the forces at play .. i see gravity depreciate as an observation where the the push of the universe potential mass alows for the rise of mass in the more advanced structures atomic and molecular .. the ocean rises for the example .. the transient zones are most important to consider then put the math to it and do not for get for the avid the H one to six and share of the H + H of one electron ... this is very much an area of ponder that needs the consideration to a solution using the math available ... keping the whole in the perspective with little mind set to the singular views and varied premice trails of differentiating motion that is based on just then expand error ... ok the new view must start with a real generalization in the small but keepan open mind building it up to the big.. .. hmm that is a lot said for me these days .. take care and have a happy tet kind reagards graham

[ggullet]

"nothing" connects us and "nothing" seperates us

[G_burnett]

how could we experiment with the idea that aligned state of space and non aligned space (the content of there of) has different potential to be effect able by other?
kind regards graham

[WHY 137?]

Why 1/137 for the Fine-Structure Constant and not 1/2

The size of the one and only universe, this being its only boundary condition, is that of a 4D finite hypercube of quadric space made of infinite 3D spaces sitting atop one another, governs the quantization of energy forms, taking the form of Planck’s constant for light, and being the reason for elementary particles having the same magnitude of unit charge.

Charge (q) is responsible for the Coulomb force:

Fq = q^2 / 4*pi*e0*r^2

where e0 is a constant know as the permitivity of free space.

The ratio of the Coulomb strength to Planck’s constant (hc) is called the fine structure constant, 1/137.

One might think that it should be 1/2 since photons are complete, having an inherent positive and negative that sums to neutrality, the polarity only showing forth when an electron and a positron are produced, whereas a matter particle is always an incomplete form having either a positive or a negative charge.

The reason this is not the case is because unlike Plank’s constant, the Coulomb’s force strength is not a direct assessment of unit polarity volume, for it is but a byproduct of unit polar volume just as electrostatic potential energy is a byproduct of rest energy.

A photon’s hypervolume is geometrically closed, while a matter particle’s unit polar volume is open; so, a matter particle’s net polarity prevents the spacial encapsulation of its 4th dimensional elevation of deflection, it thus being a distributional boundary condition, a family of relationships, time = unit polar volume of charge / volume.

Photons are the encapsulation of time by space, while matter particle fields are the encapsulation of space by time; thus t heir radically different properties.

Space is continuous and causal. The reason why a matter particle’s central deflection of elevation in time diminishes with distance is because external deflection is governed by a dimensional relationship between time and space in 4D space-time and this relationship is a constant. Spacial deflection attenuates due to increasing volume because spatial volume causes this attenuation.

Herein lies the meaning of charge. The Coulomb's force increases with the amount of external deflection, but it is not simply a case of a maximum deflection somewhere in space, but is a combination of deflection and volume, and this determines the deflection at any given range.

A matter particle distribution consists of an infinite number of concentric spherical surfaces with 4th-dimensional elevation scaled by their volume and unit polar volume.

Matter particles are radically symmetrical, so the volume element of their field distribution is a sphere.

t = 3*(unit polar volume of charge) / 4*pi*r^3

External deflection decreases as the cube of the distance from a particle’s center. Whereas 3-dimensional deflections decrease as the square of distance, attenuated by increasing area, 4th-dimensional deflections decrease as the cube of distance, attenuated by increasing volume.

Unit polar volume is hc/4pi, so substituting, not shown, we can get a matter particle’s field’s actual displacement,

9.4(10^-1 / r^3, in meters, and so, since a proton’s electrostatic field is active at a radius as close as 1 Fermi (10^-15) from its energy center, yields an external deflection of a trillion light years (9.4(10^27) m).

Deflections of this magnitude are possible because although ‘c’ is energy’s speed limit through space, there is no limit to space’s speed through time.

I am curious
I recently read about 'phonons'

how do phonons fit into the bigger picture that includes photons too?

namaste