[Physics] Discussion ‘new beginning’ in physics necessary'.

Mon Dec 12 11:19:34 CET 2016

 ,Hello James,

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:32 AM, James Rose <integrity at prodigy.net> wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> Where do biology, ecology, economics, information theory, etc  coordinate
> with each of your interesting proposals?

*) Information theory;

Hans wrote in his book:

"History shows that the course of development of science not always
follows a logical route. The
discoverers of the structure that acts as a candidate for physical
reality were searching for reasons
why one of the known topological spaces could be used as a base for
modelling quantum physical
theories. They discovered that the set of closed subspaces of a
separable Hilbert space has the
relational structure of what they called quantum logic and what
mathematicians later called an
orthomodular lattice."

Since a Hilbert space is a generalizations of Euclidian space and the
vortex ring topology has been suggested to be a fundamental structural
base for a particle and/or structural model, it should be possible to
define a dynamic "orthomodular lattice' as a generalization of the
vortex ring topology.

The vortex ring topology can be defined using a number of parameters:

1. The parameters describing the medium (density, specific modulus)
2. the Euclidian spatial parameters defining the toroidal ring vortex
topology (r, R);
3. since the two rotational axes of this topology have a 90 degree
angle with respect to one another and can each be defined by an
(angular) frequency parameter, we get two spectral / Fourier /
chronological  parameters (f1, f2), with f = 1/(2 * pi) * omega, the
angular velocity;
4 from the above parameters, the pressure distribution within and
around the vortex ring is also determined, we get two dependent
parameters, the pressure at each point within the ring vortex,
naturally expressed in toroidal coordinates ( σ , τ , ϕ )  {( \sigma
,\tau ,\phi )} .

These parameters define a fundamental structure in 2 + 2 + 2 + 2(*) =
8 parameters / dimensions, which can all be considered constant in
differential equations, when r and R are taking in the limit to zero.

(*) According to Stowe ( http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237 , eq 13 - 19),
a  vortex ring toroidal structure has a number of parameters and
eigenvalues and can be represented by 2 parameters, since A and S are
related for specific stable "resonating" "eigenvalue" "frequencies":

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNatureCharge#StowesChargeConcept

"A=4π2Rr and S=2π2Rr2 {R is the large toroidal radius and r the
poloidal axis} and represents an intrinsic fluctuation of the
quantized particulate momentum in the limiting volume element.

Since the structure has a number of stable solutions, in which
"resonance" occurs (the "eigenvalues" of the sysem), it is possible to
define these 8 dimensional solutions for this structure by 4 phasors (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor ). Re "real" part of these
phasors then subsequently define the amplitude of the conjugated
parameters, while the complex angles define their phase.

Now our definition for the electric and magnetic fields are defined by
application of the Laplacian and the Helmholtaz decomposition, which
means that our definition for these fields can be shown to be
orthogonal in differential consideration:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOfEverything#OrthogonalFieldDefinition

Since the vortex ring is defined using 4 orthonormal complex
dimensions and it occupies a limited volume of space,  a single vortex
ring, fully defines a normed vector space within and in the area
around the volume it occupies in 3D cartesian + 1 time coordinate.

Subsequently,  such a vortex ring:

* Has a defined momentum (p),
* occupies space of volume (s),
* and obeys Newton basic laws of motion

And since superposition holds for [E] + [B], it is possible to define
two possible Sobelev spaces:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobolev_space

Intuitively, a Sobolev space is a space of functions with sufficiently
many derivatives for some application domain, such as partial
differential equations, and equipped with a norm that measures both
the size and regularity of a function.

I see two possible options to describe the distribution of such vortex
rings across space:

1. We assume that N such vortex rings are distributed randomly or
according to a defined statistical distribution across space;

2. we assume that N such vortex rings are distributed along a certain
structure (for example: platonic solids) across space.

For both of these distributions, we can define "bulk" or "average"
parameter distributions using the continuum hypothesis, and thus
fundamentally define a Hilbert space which intuitively describes a
continuous medium consisting of "vortex ring" "molecules":

http://community.dur.ac.uk/suzanne.fielding/teaching/BLT/sec1.pdf

"At a microscopic scale, fluid comprises individual molecules and its
physical properties (density, velocity, etc.) are violently
non-uniform. However, the phenomena studied in fluid dynamics are
macroscopic, so we do not usually take this molecular detail into
account. Instead, we treat the fluid as a continuum by viewing it at a
coarse enough scale that any “small” fluid element actually still
contains very many molecules. One can then assign a local bulk flow
velocity v(x,t) to the element at point x, by averaging over the much
faster, violently fluctuating Brownian molecular velocities. Similarly
one defines a locally averaged density ρ(x,t), etc. These locally
averaged quantities then vary smoothly with x on the macroscopic scale
of the flow."

Now we also proposed a possible definition for gravity along the
Laplacian for [E]. However, when we take the Laplacian for [E] + [B]
instead, we obtain a principle whereby the continuum hypothesis is
described c.q. defined by the application of the Laplacian to the real
part of our Sobolev c.q. Hilbert space at a given "resolution".

By re-apllication of the Laplacian to the gravitational aether, we
obtain a new Hilbert space definition at at an increasing scale and
thus decreasing "resolution".

Theoretically, when we can define the inverse of the Laplacian, we can
apply this inverse to our "Maxwell equation" resolution and  obtain a
decreasing scale and thus an increasing "resolution".

Further, Eric Verlinde published a very interesting paper called "On
the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton":

https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

In this paper, he argues that information theory can be connected to
"entropy" within a holographic model of the structure of physical
reality, whereby the concept of "force" is shown to be directly
associated with "entropy" and "information":

"Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the
information associated with the positions of material bodies"

Since the basis of our aether model is the definition of a fluid-like
medium consisting of discrete entities, called "momenta" by Paul, our
vortex ring aether Hilbert space models have a defined entropy, which
has a relation to, amongst others, "temperature" but also, more
importantly to "information" and thus "information theory".

*) Biology:

Since our vortex ring aether Hilbert space models are defined as the
superposition of discrete vortex rings at different "resolutions", the
DNA molecule can be described in terms of "information theory" entropy
parameters, within a Hilbert space with a suitable chosen
"resolution".

This way, it can (eventually) be shown that the DNA molecule "encodes"
c.q. represents a certain amount of information, within a Verlindian /
Hilbertian holographic, orthogonal model of the structure of
"spacetime" and thus further fundamental insight into biology can be
obtained.

*) Ecoolgy:

While not directly connected to the proposal discussed now, Prof.
Claus Turtur has shown that it is possible to convert "zero point"
energy into directly usable "mechanical" energy, using the "static"
electric and magnetic fields. Based on this theory, and the analysis
of some devices claimed to provide "free energy", I proposed that
"electrolytic capacitors" can *theoretically* be used as devices with
which practical, clean and environmentally friendly "free energy"
devices can be built:

https://steemit.com/science/@lamare/let-me-als-supply-this-to-the-public-domain-free-energy

At his moment, I do not have conclusive experimental data to either
confirm or reject my proposal on that subject. However, I'm working on
obtaining exactly such data experimentally. So, time will have to tell
whether my proposal on this one is correct or not.

*) Economics

Sorry, this model is limited to physics. For economics, please study
"Austrian economics" and buy some physical silver coins, while you
still can. At the moment, silver coins are *still* readily available
in Europe and the US in exchange for a totally worthless piece of
paper with some nice pictures and the number "20" printed upon it. See
for example:

https://www.milesfranklin.com/blog/articles/  (in English)
http://blog.thesilvermountain.nl/   (in Dutch)

Such an *incredible* bargain won't last forever!

Best regards,

Arend.

>
> James Rose
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>
> To: Hans van Leunen <jleunen1941 at kpnmail.nl>; General Physics and Natural
> Philosophy discussion list <physics at tuks.nl>
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 5:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Physics] Discussion ‘new beginning’ in physics necessary'.
>
> Hi Hans,
>
> Thanks for the link. I'm going to study your book. Quickly took a
> look, and I liked what I saw, especially:
>
> "Some scientists start a research project that has as target to
> develop a theory of everything. This is an implausible enterprise
> because the target is far too complicated to be comprehended by a
> human being. In fact, what these scientists pursue is the discovery of
> a foundation, whose extension automatically leads to a theory that in
> principle can cover all aspects of physical reality. I never had the
> intention to develop a theory of everything. Instead I am interested
> in the structure and the functioning of the lower levels of physical
> reality. "
>
>
> "what these scientists pursue is the discovery of a foundation, whose
> extension automatically leads to a theory that in principle can cover
> all aspects of physical reality. "
>
> That's what I claim to have found. My equations, as I have now can be
> found here:
>
> Some very good criticism has been given by Zoltan, in the thread :
>
> http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/2016-December/thread.html
>
> Basically, all the comments in the thread should be read by all whom
> are interested in discovering such a "theory of everything".
>
> I think I found the principle. But that's IT!
>
> You state: "This is an implausible enterprise because the target is
> far too complicated to be comprehended by a human being."
>
> What if it is actually much simpler than we had ever could have imagined?
>
> So, contrary to what you claim to be impossible, I claim it_is_
> possible, because we simply think waaay to complicated and illogical.
> Now I have convinced myself I found a fundamental error in Maxwell's
> equations.
>
> So, the question I would like an answer to is: Am I right?
>
> Could physics be so simple and elegant, yet capable of displaying such
> incredible views, images, movies right in front of our own to eyes?
>
> Please consider reading all the threads this month, and the previous
> months as well. I will read up opon them one day, and reply.
>
> I think Nanian's proposal is worth listening to. That's basically the
> model we use as the basis for our aether theory.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
> Goor, The Netherlands.
> W: http://www.tuks.nl
> T: +316 5425 6426
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Hans van Leunen <jleunen1941 at kpnmail.nl>
> wrote:
>> Nainan,
>> Try TheHilbertBookTestModel by Hans van Leunen https://doc.co/WmxXCB
>> Hans van Leunen
>>
>> ----Origineel Bericht----
>> Van : matterdoc at gmail.com
>> Datum : 11/12/2016 13:23
>> Aan : physics at tuks.nl
>> Onderwerp : [Physics] Discussion ‘new beginning’ in physics necessary'.
>>
>>
>> Contemporary physics has far too many assumptions, virtual particles and
>> imaginary forces. These lead to circular reasoning and often result in
>> absurd theories.
>>
>> To be logical, in physics, there should be only one fundamental assumption
>> and all physical theories should be based on this single assumption. In
>> material world, existence of matter is nearest to absolute truth. Hence,
>> existence of matter can be chosen as the fundamental assumption on which
>> all
>> physical theories should be based.
>>
>> ‘Action at a distance through empty space’ is the most illogical
>> assumption
>> used in physics. Various media were suggested / are used to overcome this.
>> However, all alternatives are imaginary entities which are worse than the
>> problem. Therefore, a ‘new beginning’ in physics is necessary.
>>
>> See: http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0048
>>
>> Nainan
>>
>>
>> --
>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>> *
>> * * * * * *
>> All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by
>> alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'.
>> http://www.matterdoc.info
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>