[Physics] New beginning in physics necessary?

[Arend Lammertink]

Hi Nainan,

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Nainan <matterdoc at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you very much, Thomas Goodey and Arend Lammertink

You're welcome.

>
> I also wish to emphasize on this very same point. At present, matter is not
> a fundamental concept because we do not know what matter is and what its
> properties (if any) are.

Yes, it has been established with Young's experiment that "particles"
inhibit both the characteristics of waves as well as that of discrete,
distinctly distinguishable entities.

My basic postulate is that "vortex rings" inhibit exactly such kind of
a mixture between a distinguishable entity and a wave. I always like
to throw this picture from Nassim Haramein around, which shows an
animation of two of such vortex rings on top of one another:

http://www.tuks.nl/img/dualtorus.gif

IMHO, this picture shows that the consideration of the vortex ring as
a candidate dynamic structure which could explain what matter is, is
warranted.

> However, I hope you would agree that, for an entity
> to have objective reality and positive existence in space, it has to have a
> substance (stuff).

This is a true Natural Philosophy kind of proposal, which does not
necessarily have to be true.

For instance, Eric Verlinde wrote a very insteresting paper,
suggesting we may be living in a holographic Universe:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

While I don't subscribe to his conclusions (deriving Einsteinian
relativity), I do believe the "holographic" hypothesis may very well
be true. At the very least, one cannot rule that possibility out at
this moment.

A similar idea is the hypothesis that we may be living in an extremely
good simulation, which would mean that what we perceive as being real,
actually is an illusion. Kind of think of it as being Neo in "the
Matrix".

Yet, we have to start somewhere. Can we describe "substance" in such a
way that we can first concern ourselves with what we do know, and then
fill in the details later?


> I propose this substance is provided by matter. If
> accepted, this would make matter the most fundamental concept of all
> physical theories. It can supply a uniform material for structure of atoms,
> subatomic particles, and much smaller matter-particles structuring these.
> See; http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0048

I propose a starting point whereby we can describe what we know about
"substance", but can also avoid having to describe "substance" at a
fundamental level.

This is possible by starting at "continuum mechanics":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_mechanics
"Continuum mechanics is a branch of mechanics that deals with the
analysis of the kinematics and the mechanical behavior of materials
modeled as a continuous mass rather than as discrete particles."

This way, we can model the "substance" everything is made of, as a
liquid or a gas without having to concern ourselves too much with what
kind of "molecules", "particles" or "entities" the substance is made
of. We just know that it has a certain mass density (distribution), a
certain compressibility, a certain electric resistance (or
better:impedance) and other more macroscopic parameters.

>
> Matter and mass are quite different. Matter is a real entity but mass is a
> functional entity. Matter, being real, provides substance to all real
> entities. Mass is only a mathematical relation between external force on a
> body and body’s acceleration in the direction of force. It is an attribute
> of matter-body. It is often used as equivalent to matter-content of a body.

I normally consider things the other way around. :)

As you all know, I start out with the assumption of a fluid-like
medium called aether to exist. For me, the *big* advantage of starting
out at this assumption, is that it enables me to use analogies, such
as the vortex ring in water, or the smoke ring.

So, let's explain my model, using water - like a big lake - to refer
to "the medium", the aether.

So, we have water, which is our hypothesized "substance".  We know
water exists out of H2O molecules, which have various properties. But
we also know that it's a fluid. We know how water moves, what it does.

So, let's talk about a "vortex ring". Since the analogy with the
aether is virtually 100%, we can use the analogy.

So, I can give you a "mathematical" picture of what a "vortex ring" looks like:

http://www.tuks.nl/img/torus-vortex-accentuated.360x360.gif

What you see here, is a visualization of a model, which has been
described using mathematics.

So, this is the most simple "particle model", of which it is suggested
it is a real possibility that this is a pretty accurate model for
describing the "free electron", an electron considered to be in "free
space", which would theoretically mean that no external forces are
enacted upon it.

Paul Stowe suggested it is possible to accurately calculate the
elemental charge of the electron, e, as well as it's mass, thereby
resolving it's magnetic anomaly.

If this were true, we would gain tremendous knowledge and insight into
Tesla's "wheelwork of Nature", which literally is proposed the
electron to be. That is: the "free" electron, void of *any* external
energy exchange.

I believe this to be true, so when you're looking at a "vortex ring",
you're looking at what our model predicts to be the "electron" that is
spinning in the (w)a(e)ther !!!!

So, may I present you the first "simulation" of the "free" electron,
propagating along the *surface* of a conductor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8

So, that's where I am now.

I will watch that video again, right now. Because that's going to
teach me how to solve the "90 degree problem".

Best regards,

Arend.