<p>
Guys,
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
Cheers
</p>
<p>
Mike <br />
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
On Dec 12 2016, Arend Lammertink wrote:
<br />
<br />
,Hello James,<br />
<br />
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:32 AM, James Rose wrote:<br />
> Gentlemen,<br />
><br />
> Where do biology, ecology, economics, information theory, etc coordinate<br />
> with each of your interesting proposals?<br />
<br />
<br />
*) Information theory;<br />
<br />
Hans wrote in his book:<br />
<br />
"History shows that the course of development of science not always<br />
follows a logical route. The<br />
discoverers of the structure that acts as a candidate for physical<br />
reality were searching for reasons<br />
why one of the known topological spaces could be used as a base for<br />
modelling quantum physical<br />
theories. They discovered that the set of closed subspaces of a<br />
separable Hilbert space has the<br />
relational structure of what they called quantum logic and what<br />
mathematicians later called an<br />
orthomodular lattice."<br />
<br />
Since a Hilbert space is a generalizations of Euclidian space and the<br />
vortex ring topology has been suggested to be a fundamental structural<br />
base for a particle and/or structural model, it should be possible to<br />
define a dynamic "orthomodular lattice' as a generalization of the<br />
vortex ring topology.<br />
<br />
The vortex ring topology can be defined using a number of parameters:<br />
<br />
1. The parameters describing the medium (density, specific modulus)<br />
2. the Euclidian spatial parameters defining the toroidal ring vortex<br />
topology (r, R);<br />
3. since the two rotational axes of this topology have a 90 degree<br />
angle with respect to one another and can each be defined by an<br />
(angular) frequency parameter, we get two spectral / Fourier /<br />
chronological parameters (f1, f2), with f = 1/(2 * pi) * omega, the<br />
angular velocity;<br />
4 from the above parameters, the pressure distribution within and<br />
around the vortex ring is also determined, we get two dependent<br />
parameters, the pressure at each point within the ring vortex,<br />
naturally expressed in toroidal coordinates ( σ , τ , ϕ ) {( \sigma<br />
,\tau ,\phi )} .<br />
<br />
These parameters define a fundamental structure in 2 + 2 + 2 + 2(*) =<br />
8 parameters / dimensions, which can all be considered constant in<br />
differential equations, when r and R are taking in the limit to zero.<br />
<br />
(*) According to Stowe ( http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237 , eq 13 - 19),<br />
a vortex ring toroidal structure has a number of parameters and<br />
eigenvalues and can be represented by 2 parameters, since A and S are<br />
related for specific stable "resonating" "eigenvalue" "frequencies":<br />
<br />
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNatureCharge#StowesChargeConcept<br />
<br />
"A=4Ï€2Rr and S=2Ï€2Rr2 {R is the large toroidal radius and r the<br />
poloidal axis} and represents an intrinsic fluctuation of the<br />
quantized particulate momentum in the limiting volume element.<br />
<br />
<br />
Since the structure has a number of stable solutions, in which<br />
"resonance" occurs (the "eigenvalues" of the sysem), it is possible to<br />
define these 8 dimensional solutions for this structure by 4 phasors (<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor ). Re "real" part of these<br />
phasors then subsequently define the amplitude of the conjugated<br />
parameters, while the complex angles define their phase.<br />
<br />
Now our definition for the electric and magnetic fields are defined by<br />
application of the Laplacian and the Helmholtaz decomposition, which<br />
means that our definition for these fields can be shown to be<br />
orthogonal in differential consideration:<br />
<br />
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOfEverything#OrthogonalFieldDefinition<br />
<br />
<br />
Since the vortex ring is defined using 4 orthonormal complex<br />
dimensions and it occupies a limited volume of space, a single vortex<br />
ring, fully defines a normed vector space within and in the area<br />
around the volume it occupies in 3D cartesian + 1 time coordinate.<br />
<br />
Subsequently, such a vortex ring:<br />
<br />
* Has a defined momentum (p),<br />
* occupies space of volume (s),<br />
* and obeys Newton basic laws of motion<br />
<br />
And since superposition holds for [E] + [B], it is possible to define<br />
two possible Sobelev spaces:<br />
<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobolev_space<br />
<br />
Intuitively, a Sobolev space is a space of functions with sufficiently<br />
many derivatives for some application domain, such as partial<br />
differential equations, and equipped with a norm that measures both<br />
the size and regularity of a function.<br />
<br />
I see two possible options to describe the distribution of such vortex<br />
rings across space:<br />
<br />
1. We assume that N such vortex rings are distributed randomly or<br />
according to a defined statistical distribution across space;<br />
<br />
2. we assume that N such vortex rings are distributed along a certain<br />
structure (for example: platonic solids) across space.<br />
<br />
<br />
For both of these distributions, we can define "bulk" or "average"<br />
parameter distributions using the continuum hypothesis, and thus<br />
fundamentally define a Hilbert space which intuitively describes a<br />
continuous medium consisting of "vortex ring" "molecules":<br />
<br />
http://community.dur.ac.uk/suzanne.fielding/teaching/BLT/sec1.pdf<br />
<br />
"At a microscopic scale, fluid comprises individual molecules and its<br />
physical properties (density, velocity, etc.) are violently<br />
non-uniform. However, the phenomena studied in fluid dynamics are<br />
macroscopic, so we do not usually take this molecular detail into<br />
account. Instead, we treat the fluid as a continuum by viewing it at a<br />
coarse enough scale that any “small†fluid element actually still<br />
contains very many molecules. One can then assign a local bulk flow<br />
velocity v(x,t) to the element at point x, by averaging over the much<br />
faster, violently fluctuating Brownian molecular velocities. Similarly<br />
one defines a locally averaged density Ï(x,t), etc. These locally<br />
averaged quantities then vary smoothly with x on the macroscopic scale<br />
of the flow."<br />
<br />
<br />
Now we also proposed a possible definition for gravity along the<br />
Laplacian for [E]. However, when we take the Laplacian for [E] + [B]<br />
instead, we obtain a principle whereby the continuum hypothesis is<br />
described c.q. defined by the application of the Laplacian to the real<br />
part of our Sobolev c.q. Hilbert space at a given "resolution".<br />
<br />
By re-apllication of the Laplacian to the gravitational aether, we<br />
obtain a new Hilbert space definition at at an increasing scale and<br />
thus decreasing "resolution".<br />
<br />
Theoretically, when we can define the inverse of the Laplacian, we can<br />
apply this inverse to our "Maxwell equation" resolution and obtain a<br />
decreasing scale and thus an increasing "resolution".<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Further, Eric Verlinde published a very interesting paper called "On<br />
the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton":<br />
<br />
https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785<br />
<br />
In this paper, he argues that information theory can be connected to<br />
"entropy" within a holographic model of the structure of physical<br />
reality, whereby the concept of "force" is shown to be directly<br />
associated with "entropy" and "information":<br />
<br />
"Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the<br />
information associated with the positions of material bodies"<br />
<br />
Since the basis of our aether model is the definition of a fluid-like<br />
medium consisting of discrete entities, called "momenta" by Paul, our<br />
vortex ring aether Hilbert space models have a defined entropy, which<br />
has a relation to, amongst others, "temperature" but also, more<br />
importantly to "information" and thus "information theory".<br />
<br />
<br />
*) Biology:<br />
<br />
Since our vortex ring aether Hilbert space models are defined as the<br />
superposition of discrete vortex rings at different "resolutions", the<br />
DNA molecule can be described in terms of "information theory" entropy<br />
parameters, within a Hilbert space with a suitable chosen<br />
"resolution".<br />
<br />
This way, it can (eventually) be shown that the DNA molecule "encodes"<br />
c.q. represents a certain amount of information, within a Verlindian /<br />
Hilbertian holographic, orthogonal model of the structure of<br />
"spacetime" and thus further fundamental insight into biology can be<br />
obtained.<br />
<br />
*) Ecoolgy:<br />
<br />
While not directly connected to the proposal discussed now, Prof.<br />
Claus Turtur has shown that it is possible to convert "zero point"<br />
energy into directly usable "mechanical" energy, using the "static"<br />
electric and magnetic fields. Based on this theory, and the analysis<br />
of some devices claimed to provide "free energy", I proposed that<br />
"electrolytic capacitors" can *theoretically* be used as devices with<br />
which practical, clean and environmentally friendly "free energy"<br />
devices can be built:<br />
<br />
https://steemit.com/science/@lamare/let-me-als-supply-this-to-the-public-domain-free-energy<br />
<br />
At his moment, I do not have conclusive experimental data to either<br />
confirm or reject my proposal on that subject. However, I'm working on<br />
obtaining exactly such data experimentally. So, time will have to tell<br />
whether my proposal on this one is correct or not.<br />
<br />
<br />
*) Economics<br />
<br />
Sorry, this model is limited to physics. For economics, please study<br />
"Austrian economics" and buy some physical silver coins, while you<br />
still can. At the moment, silver coins are *still* readily available<br />
in Europe and the US in exchange for a totally worthless piece of<br />
paper with some nice pictures and the number "20" printed upon it. See<br />
for example:<br />
<br />
https://www.milesfranklin.com/blog/articles/ (in English)<br />
http://blog.thesilvermountain.nl/ (in Dutch)<br />
<br />
Such an *incredible* bargain won't last forever!<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Arend.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
><br />
> James Rose<br />
><br />
><br />
> ________________________________<br />
> From: Arend Lammertink <br />
> To: Hans van Leunen ; General Physics and Natural<br />
> Philosophy discussion list <br />
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 5:14 PM<br />
> Subject: Re: [Physics] Discussion ‘new beginning’ in physics necessary'.<br />
><br />
> Hi Hans,<br />
><br />
> Thanks for the link. I'm going to study your book. Quickly took a<br />
> look, and I liked what I saw, especially:<br />
><br />
> "Some scientists start a research project that has as target to<br />
> develop a theory of everything. This is an implausible enterprise<br />
> because the target is far too complicated to be comprehended by a<br />
> human being. In fact, what these scientists pursue is the discovery of<br />
> a foundation, whose extension automatically leads to a theory that in<br />
> principle can cover all aspects of physical reality. I never had the<br />
> intention to develop a theory of everything. Instead I am interested<br />
> in the structure and the functioning of the lower levels of physical<br />
> reality. "<br />
><br />
><br />
> "what these scientists pursue is the discovery of a foundation, whose<br />
> extension automatically leads to a theory that in principle can cover<br />
> all aspects of physical reality. "<br />
><br />
> That's what I claim to have found. My equations, as I have now can be<br />
> found here:<br />
><br />
> Some very good criticism has been given by Zoltan, in the thread :<br />
><br />
> http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/2016-December/thread.html<br />
><br />
> Basically, all the comments in the thread should be read by all whom<br />
> are interested in discovering such a "theory of everything".<br />
><br />
> I think I found the principle. But that's IT!<br />
><br />
> You state: "This is an implausible enterprise because the target is<br />
> far too complicated to be comprehended by a human being."<br />
><br />
> What if it is actually much simpler than we had ever could have imagined?<br />
><br />
> So, contrary to what you claim to be impossible, I claim it_is_<br />
> possible, because we simply think waaay to complicated and illogical.<br />
> Now I have convinced myself I found a fundamental error in Maxwell's<br />
> equations.<br />
><br />
> So, the question I would like an answer to is: Am I right?<br />
><br />
> Could physics be so simple and elegant, yet capable of displaying such<br />
> incredible views, images, movies right in front of our own to eyes?<br />
><br />
> Please consider reading all the threads this month, and the previous<br />
> months as well. I will read up opon them one day, and reply.<br />
><br />
> I think Nanian's proposal is worth listening to. That's basically the<br />
> model we use as the basis for our aether theory.<br />
><br />
><br />
> Best regards,<br />
><br />
><br />
> Arend Lammertink, MScEE,<br />
> Goor, The Netherlands.<br />
> W: http://www.tuks.nl<br />
> T: +316 5425 6426<br />
><br />
><br />
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Hans van Leunen <br />
> wrote:<br />
>> Nainan,<br />
>> Try TheHilbertBookTestModel by Hans van Leunen https://doc.co/WmxXCB<br />
>> Hans van Leunen<br />
>><br />
>> ----Origineel Bericht----<br />
>> Van : matterdoc@gmail.com<br />
>> Datum : 11/12/2016 13:23<br />
>> Aan : physics@tuks.nl<br />
>> Onderwerp : [Physics] Discussion ‘new beginning’ in physics necessary'.<br />
>><br />
>><br />
>> Contemporary physics has far too many assumptions, virtual particles and<br />
>> imaginary forces. These lead to circular reasoning and often result in<br />
>> absurd theories.<br />
>><br />
>> To be logical, in physics, there should be only one fundamental assumption<br />
>> and all physical theories should be based on this single assumption. In<br />
>> material world, existence of matter is nearest to absolute truth. Hence,<br />
>> existence of matter can be chosen as the fundamental assumption on which<br />
>> all<br />
>> physical theories should be based.<br />
>><br />
>> ‘Action at a distance through empty space’ is the most illogical<br />
>> assumption<br />
>> used in physics. Various media were suggested / are used to overcome this.<br />
>> However, all alternatives are imaginary entities which are worse than the<br />
>> problem. Therefore, a ‘new beginning’ in physics is necessary.<br />
>><br />
>> See: http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0048<br />
>><br />
>> Nainan<br />
>><br />
>><br />
>> --<br />
>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br />
>> *<br />
>> * * * * * *<br />
>> All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by<br />
>> alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'.<br />
>> http://www.matterdoc.info<br />
>><br />
>><br />
>><br />
>> _______________________________________________<br />
>> Physics mailing list<br />
>> Physics@tuks.nl<br />
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics<br />
><br />
>><br />
><br />
> _______________________________________________<br />
> Physics mailing list<br />
> Physics@tuks.nl<br />
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics<br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
> _______________________________________________<br />
> Physics mailing list<br />
> Physics@tuks.nl<br />
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics<br />
><br />
<br />
_______________________________________________<br />
Physics mailing list<br />
Physics@tuks.nl<br />
http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics<br />
</p>