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

[Arend Lammertink]

Thanks a lot for your paper, Mike.

Below the vortex ring consideration as being a "fundamental building
block", I see a more fundamental definition/consideration for "mass"
and "matter", as I replied to Thomas:

http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/2016-December/000283.html

Fundamentally,  "matter" should involve (by definition magnetic)
loops. The vortex ring is just the simplest example of such a loop,
which appears to probably describe the structure of a free electron.

Main point is that such structures can be described within the context
of a fluid-aether model, whereby the "loops" are described in
differential consideration as curl curl [v] at each point [x] in
Euclidean space.

Another key point is that in a vortex ring topology, there are two
axes of rotation, which are orthogonal with respect to one another.
Since the curl of one of these axes forms the other axis in a vortex
ring topology, this appears to be a key property any topology
considered as a candidate for particle models should have.

This because of the problem defining/describing "+" and "-" charges in
relation to the Lorentz force described a few days ago in my
discussion with Zoltan.

In other words: other "loop" topologies are certainly conceivable,
provided they are such that they resolve the problem just mentioned.

Best regards,


Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
Goor, The Netherlands.
W: http://www.tuks.nl
T: +316 5425 6426


On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 6:32 PM,  <mike at mlawrence.co.uk> wrote:
> Guys,
>
>
>
> You make it far too complex when considering vortex ring ideas. Just accept
> that rings can be made of numbers of fundamental particle/anti-particle
> pairs chasing/being chased and then all the properties like mass, spin and
> charge sizes drop out easily. I have given the hyperlink before, but the
> version pointed too is not the final proofed one and has some errors. So the
> correct version is attached.
>
> Cheers
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Dec 12 2016, Arend Lammertink wrote:
>
> ,Hello James,
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:32 AM, James Rose 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=4Ï€2Rr and S=2Ï€2Rr2 {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 Ï (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
>> To: Hans van Leunen ; General Physics and Natural
>> Philosophy discussion list
>> 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
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>