what is charge?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby webolife » Tue May 20, 2008 3:21 pm

Lizzie somewhere indicated [in agreement with my thinking] that gravitation and electrostatics are analogs. In my model, the primary effect of the gravitational force is mass (recognizing electrogravitic potential), and if analogous, the primary effect of the electrostatic force is charge. Hence mass and charge are analogs. But JL and others would say that mass and charge are dimensions [or dimensional recombinants] of matter and electrons, which others would say are wave-like in nature. Waves are described by a variety of formulations [in and outside of the hypothesis of EU] of geometric principles, with an anticipation that these principles, once verified and clarified, describe the long-sought "theory of everything". Working backwards through this train of thought, a number of things need to be clarified, eg, what is the meaning of:
1. Waves
a. Transverse
b. Longitudinal
c. Standing
d. Electromagnetic [the differences between relativistic, typical EU, and various aetherial meanings]
e. Spirals, Vortices, and fractals... are these synonyms or descriptions of waves, causes or effects of waves?
2. Matter vs mass, is matter just waves/energy? By the way what exactly is energy?
3. Electrogravity, gravity vs electrostatics, is gravity just electrostatic fields at a macro level?
4. Energy vs Force -- is there a really a fundamental, not just formulaic, difference, and how does this affect all the formulations of physics?
5. Magnetism -- is it the fundamental process, or is it a [subsidiary?] orthogonal component to the fundamental electric field?
6. Energy, waves, forces, and geometry... does anyone really understand how these all relate to the physical universe?
7. Dimensions -- fundamental elements? properties of matter? measurements? aspects of space? theoretical constructs?

Leaving me with the same question... just "what is charge?"

Where is my basic EU vocabulary thread :?: :?: :?:
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Tue May 20, 2008 9:46 pm

webolife wrote:<...> Working backwards through this train of thought, a number of things need to be clarified, eg, what is the meaning of:
1. Waves
a. Transverse
b. Longitudinal
c. Standing
d. Electromagnetic [the differences between relativistic, typical EU, and various aetherial meanings]
e. Spirals, Vortices, and fractals... are these synonyms or descriptions of waves, causes or effects of waves?

a+b=c
All waves are EM, which in itself is just space moving in different ways.
Spirals vortices, fractals, etc. are just examples of movements that are restricted in certain dimensions.
2. Matter vs mass, is matter just waves/energy? By the way what exactly is energy?

Mass is three dimensional energy.
3. Electrogravity, gravity vs electrostatics, is gravity just electrostatic fields at a macro level?

Gravity is the compression of spacetime.
4. Energy vs Force -- is there a really a fundamental, not just formulaic, difference, and how does this affect all the formulations of physics?

It's different ways of looking at the same thing.To descibe a force we need at least two space dimensions vs. just a single one for energy.
5. Magnetism -- is it the fundamental process, or is it a [subsidiary?] orthogonal component to the fundamental electric field?

The latter is the better description, but the electric field is not fundamental. Charge is fundamental.
6. Energy, waves, forces, and geometry... does anyone really understand how these all relate to the physical universe?

That's a bit of an open question...you mean anybody having a proven TOE finished yet...just look around....nature finished it long ago :D
7. Dimensions -- fundamental elements? properties of matter? measurements? aspects of space? theoretical constructs?

A human conception.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Wed May 21, 2008 2:45 am

As an analogy charge can best be imagined as a three dimensional spring:
  • Please beware that conventional springs have just one-dimensional operation!
  • If you apply pressure to it (==give it a potential==increase its rotation frequency) it will store energy.
  • If it is under constant pressure it will have a 'mass' property (==inertia).
  • A charge with mass will stretch until it finds something that pushes back, which explains electron behaviour.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby webolife » Wed May 21, 2008 12:33 pm

Very astute, StevenO --
Thank you for accepting my challenge to define vocabulary before spouting answers! It took only two readings of your post to fully understand everything you said. This understanding was aided by my recognition of "my" UFT model in every one of your comments.
"Compression of spacetime" for example is just another phrase for my "centropic force field". You clearly analogized charge and mass,
and showed the fundamental unity of force and energy. Even "moving space = EM", as non-material as that comes across, describes the interaction of fields, and the kinetics of material within fields, as defining the phenomenon of light.

AND, you answered the thread question! :D
I actually "get" what you are saying, a rare occasion on these forums.

The only thing you didn't touch on, broken record here, is my claim for the instantaneity of light action across distance, centropically directed.
Care to tackle that?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby junglelord » Wed May 21, 2008 12:41 pm

same deal with APM. Angular momentum, compression, unites charge and mass, via the "Ligamen circulatus", a 2 spin rotating magnetic field aether unit.

Primary angular momentum is not a fundamental building block of
Aether. Primary angular momentum is a fundamental building block
of matter. Only when primary angular momentum is absorbed by an
Aether unit, and thus charge and mass are united, there is a
subatomic particle.
Dave Thomson


here is my Q&A or synopsis Chapter 2 Ontological Foundation SOTA third edition, relevant material. Onta means atom, onn means subatomic particle.

Primary Angular Momentum
17. How can we best describe subatomic particles and Atoms?
Answer Page 40
Atoms are more like multilayered, discrete, shimmering clouds. Each layer contains proportionally enormous amounts of energy and shimmers at a different and precise electromagnetic frequency. Only when atoms interact with one another in large numbers do they behave as expected in their classical state, what scientists call the visible world. In APM these multilayered clouds are the angular momentum of individual onta. Since these onta are the smallest stable form of material existence, it is proper to the view the onta as primary angular momentum. When we take the literal dimension of primary angular momentum we find that there is a mass dimension, they are two length dimensions, and there is a frequency dimension. Expressed in terms of quantum measurements angular momentum is
h = m(e) x Lq^2 x Fq
h = planck constant which is the APM quantum constant for angular momentum
m(e) = mass of the electron
Lq = quantum constant of Compton wavelength
Fq = quantum constant of c/Lq = 1.2358898 x 10^20Hz

18. What is a good way to visualize primary angular momentum?
Answer Page 40-41
One way to visualize this is to see a line of mass moving perpendicular at a velocity. Take a straight object, like a pencil and hold it in front of you. The pencil represents a mass times length. In one quick motion move the pencil at a velocity perpendicular to its length across a table. The blurred image you see graphically represents the nature of primary angular momentum. Of course, an electron is not literally a straight line moving sideways. We must take into account the curvature of the Aether double loxodrome structure. Since the onn mass has to fit in the small circumference of the loxodrome tube, the line of mass would appear as a circle. Ligamen circulatus (LC) names this line of mass. The perpendicular path of the line of mass as it moves sideways also traces out a circular path. The resulting geometry is toroidal. The toroid, however, traces on as a sphere and from pole to pole, when viewed in space-resonance coordinates. When viewed in space-time coordinates as with human perception, the shape is actually that of a cardioid. The Aether imparts, and thus accounts for, the spin in the loxodrome structure of the onn. APM full equations for the toroid like geometry of primary angular momentum and its relationship to spin will be examined later.

19. What are the general characteristics of primary angular momentum?
Answer Page 41
Primary angular momentum is a circumferential line (ligament circulatus) moving sideways, the onto have only two dimension of length. The curvature of Aether acts as a mold and imparts geometry to the onta. The ligament circulators moves in time, which means that the onn exist as a function of time between one moment and the next moment. Time is consequently, a component of onta. We could not perceive time and space with our bodies if our senses were not composed of primary angular momentum. Primary angular momentum is the first cause of physical perception, intimately related to the distributed frequency or resonance of the Aether. Because the ligament circulators moves perpendicular to its circumference, in order to scan an area (strong charge), the onta are not solid. They more closely resemble a cloud, as does the scanned area of a pencil moving back and forth in our vision. It is the scanning of primary angular momentum, which gives onta the appearances of a wave and a particle. Primary angular momentum explains why onta can appear as particles when we look at their strong charge, and can appear as waves when we look at the moving LC. Yet these are only appearances. The particulate and wave nature of primary angular momentum are illusions, having meaning only from our macro perspective. The reality of the onn structure is primary angular momentum and nothing else. Interestingly, photons can also appear as primary angular momentum, except that they are also exploding outward at the speed of light.


Empirically, the angular momentum of a quantum electron is equal
to the angular momentum of a quantum photon. The photon radiates
from an atom in the pattern of a cardioid, as shown in the
Compton experiments. The APM shows the electron and positron are
directly linked to photons in all respects except that photons
are equal to electrons times the speed of light. You can't say
something like that from the Standard Model, but it is fully
quantified in the APM.
Dave Thomson


Kaluza - Klein Five Dimensional Model - page 292- 293
In the standard model of particle physics, particles or points moving through space, tracing out a “World Line”. To take into account the different interactions observed, one has to provide particles with additional degrees of freedom beyond position and velocity, including mass, electric charge, color charge and spin. In string theory, all particle types are replaced by a single fundamental building block called a string.

The goal here is to try to visualize a basic string-like theory as developed by Kaluza - Klein. Kaluza first developed this method in 1919. In his original work it was shown that if we start with a theory of general relativity and five-space time dimension's and then curl up one of the dimension's into a circle we end up with a four dimensional theory of general relativity plus electromagnetism. If we assume that the electron has a degree of freedom corresponding to a point on a circle and that this point is free to very on the circle as we move around in space time, we find that the theory must contain the photon and that the electron obeys the equations of motion of electromagnetism. In 1926 Oskar Klein extended this idea. Instead of assuming total Independence of the extra dimension, he assumed it to be compact. This means the fifth dimension would have the topology of a circle with the radius of the order of the Planck length. The Kaluza Klein mechanism simply gives a geometric explanation for the circle. It comes from an actual fifth dimension that has been curled up.

The object represents a superimposition of three objects if viewed in 3-D slices. A helix in the w-x-z coordinates, a sine wave in the x-y-z coordinates, and a circle in the w-x-y coordinates. Being viewed in these three-dimensional slices the object can be defined as both open and close-ended. We will define the four dimensional object as representing light. Maxwell’s wave theory will be shown to be defined by the sine wave into x-y-z coordinates, while the quantum nature of light will be defined by the helix’s end points rotating on the circle in the w-x-y coordinates.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Wed May 21, 2008 2:41 pm

The only thing you didn't touch on, broken record here, is my claim for the instantaneity of light action across distance, centropically directed.
Care to tackle that?

I'll gladly accept...if you explain the 'centropical' thing.

The instantaneity comes from the fact that the electric and magnetic field between two charges describe the result of their wave interactions. The fields describe the local, instantaneous action or force. The EM waves itself are symmetrical in time.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby klypp » Wed May 21, 2008 2:57 pm

StevenO:
The problem to understand basic charge is that it can best be described as space itself moving in three-dimensional time. Imagine something that simultaneously rotates in three dimensions in place. Since one-dimensional time is a common human and scientific misconception it might take a little while to grasp the concept...but it is really not different from three dimensional space.

Is this supposed to make any sense???
Or is it just another derivate from Einsteins Special Relativity Absurdity?

Seems to me Thornhill had a very, very good advice:
Forget Einstein!
User avatar
klypp
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:46 am

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby webolife » Wed May 21, 2008 3:14 pm

Well said, Steven O... we are really getting somewhere, though the rest of the world think us crazy.
Centropic is generally the same meaning as centripetal, although the latter term generally describes vectors directly acting on a moving object [eg. gravitational acceleration], whereas centropic relates to the wholistic field action, what you, I believe, are calling space-time compression, and what I [grandly] call the unified field. The quasibalance (actually imbalance, however slight) between this field action and/or potential/kinetic energy results in the phenomenon of mass, and if we are understanding each other, charge.

Klypp: I don't get phrases like "3 dimensional time" either... this is why I keep insisting on a definition of terms, using language all can understand or agree upon. Einstein was asking the right questions... I don't think he can be faulted for that.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2534
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby klypp » Wed May 21, 2008 4:47 pm

Fair enough, webolife, I'm not sure Einstein is the bad guy either. But he has got his name attached to a lot of absurdity, fair or not fair...

It all started when he postulated that the speed of light is constant and the same for any observer regardless of their motion relative to each other. This is absurd. Nothing, not even the mysterious light can perform the kind of acrobatics needed for this.

It seems like Einstein himself didn't hold on to this "theory" for long. But others did, and they most often make sure to mention Einstein when they need to tell the world about their absurd "findings". It has become the way of lending credibility to thoughts noone really understands.
User avatar
klypp
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:46 am

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Wed May 21, 2008 10:43 pm

klypp wrote:StevenO:
The problem to understand basic charge is that it can best be described as space itself moving in three-dimensional time. Imagine something that simultaneously rotates in three dimensions in place. Since one-dimensional time is a common human and scientific misconception it might take a little while to grasp the concept...but it is really not different from three dimensional space.

Is this supposed to make any sense???

Sorry, if it does'nt ring any bell with you. To understand it better please check the amazing properties of spherical rotation first...
Or is it just another derivate from Einsteins Special Relativity Absurdity?

Could you please enlighten me what is so absurd about it?
Seems to me Thornhill had a very, very good advice:
Forget Einstein!

I'm sorry to say it,but I think Wal is seriously misguided about Einstein. That discredits him, just like his blind adoption of Ralph Sansbury's work. Please see the Wall Thornhill as "heretic pioneer" thread for more details about that.
Last edited by StevenO on Wed May 21, 2008 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Wed May 21, 2008 10:57 pm

klypp wrote:It all started when he postulated that the speed of light is constant and the same for any observer regardless of their motion relative to each other. This is absurd. Nothing, not even the mysterious light can perform the kind of acrobatics needed for this.

Why is a constant propagation speed for EM waves so absurd? Just look what happens when waves propagate in water or how sound propagates through air.

It seems like Einstein himself didn't hold on to this "theory" for long. But others did, and they most often make sure to mention Einstein when they need to tell the world about their absurd "findings". It has become the way of lending credibility to thoughts noone really understands.

I thought Einstein had no doubts about SR. He only had doubts about his mathematical formulation of GR as he was poor in mathematics. I hold that the misconception that time is restricted to one dimension leads to unneccesary mathematical complexity. For some guidance see: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby bboyer » Wed May 21, 2008 11:41 pm

StevenO wrote:
klypp wrote:It all started when he postulated that the speed of light is constant and the same for any observer regardless of their motion relative to each other. This is absurd. Nothing, not even the mysterious light can perform the kind of acrobatics needed for this.

Why is a constant propagation speed for EM waves so absurd? Just look what happens when waves propagate in water or how sound propagates through air.


Improper and invalid use in the function of a constant. Constants should only be fundamental units, should they not? Using a measured speed of light in vacuum (whatever that means) as a constant constitutes the use of duplicated units (m/sec; a meter and a second are fundamental units; m/sec is not a fundamental unit but a measurement value and is not "constant" but variable). See this post, viewtopic.php?f=8&t=508#p5205. Waves propagating in water or sound through air are not used as mathematical constants are they?
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Thu May 22, 2008 3:53 am

arc-us wrote:
StevenO wrote:
klypp wrote:It all started when he postulated that the speed of light is constant and the same for any observer regardless of their motion relative to each other. This is absurd. Nothing, not even the mysterious light can perform the kind of acrobatics needed for this.

Why is a constant propagation speed for EM waves so absurd? Just look what happens when waves propagate in water or how sound propagates through air.

Improper and invalid use in the function of a constant. Constants should only be fundamental units, should they not? Using a measured speed of light in vacuum (whatever that means) as a constant constitutes the use of duplicated units (m/sec; a meter and a second are fundamental units; m/sec is not a fundamental unit but a measurement value and is not "constant" but variable). See this post, viewtopic.php?f=8&t=508#p5205. Waves propagating in water or sound through air are not used as mathematical constants are they?

You have totally confused me now... Are'nt all physics constants measured first and then declared a constant for convenience in simplifying our formula's?

Since the space and time dimensions are human conceptions and lightspeed is a universelly observed constant in a medium I would prefer the lightspeed constant in physics anytime over a purely mathematical conception (length/time). As proof you can see that length and time units in physics are both derived from lightspeed properties.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby junglelord » Thu May 22, 2008 5:08 am

I fail to see how space and time are human constructs. The duplication of units without a unifying principle of quantum constants is the present classical mess. Also the inequality of expression like e = m.c^2 are spoken of like true equations. Its a sad truth the entire model is mixed and matched and the validity of nonequal expressions spoken of like valid equations is the classical mess of the dark ages of physics, the last 100 years.

People rhyme off einsteins expression, even the common man on the street, like it is the holy grail, when in fact its pure inequality. Truth be told, the entire community is confused. If they were not then they would have reorganized the data as quantum constants. They did not, have not, and seem to be willing, to stay in their classical mess. You cannot reconcile the Standard Force Model with 4-D spacetime, you cannot reconcile QM to either of those. Collective Electrodynamics is great for the industry, as a UFT, which it never claims to be, is a dead end.

When dealing with quantum constants, one would organize, c with length and time, as would the electron mass = 1
in a quantum constants model. The quatum constant model is inherit in the observations, but you need to organize the data with that unifying principle. Only yesterday Steven you talked about new models vs recognized data. Yet here you ditch c, length and time....I am confused? That seems like an arbitrary skuttlebut from you! Surely time is a factor in your EE work and equations? Rise time? Phase shift? One cannot pick and choose which measurements and units come and go. Quantum constants take out all that arbitary selection process.

I believe a new system of organization of measurement, units/data, dimensions, constants is required. Without that its all classical mess discussion.
Last edited by junglelord on Thu May 22, 2008 5:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu May 22, 2008 5:15 am

StevenO wrote:You have totally confused me now... Are'nt all physics constants measured first and then declared a constant for convenience in simplifying our formula's?

Since the space and time dimensions are human conceptions and lightspeed is a universelly observed constant in a medium I would prefer the lightspeed constant in physics anytime over a purely mathematical conception (length/time). As proof you can see that length and time units in physics are both derived from lightspeed properties.


I can only say I have to agree with Essen in the earlier referenced post that,

Louis Essen wrote:One was the assumption that the velocity of light is constant. This is contrary to the foundations of science and the fact that it is repeated in all the textbooks I have seen, shows how little these foundations are understood by theoretical physicists. Science is based on the results of experiment and these results must be expressed in a single coherent set of units. The unit of length was the metre and the unit of time was the second. Velocity was a measured quantity as so many metres per second. Even though it was found to be constant under certain conditions, it was quite wrong to make it a constant by definition under all conditions. Only the unit of measurement can be made constant by definition and Einstein’s assumption constituted a duplication of units. It was this duplication that led to puzzling and contradictory results and not the profundity of the theory as relativitists like us to believe.


The speed of EM has never been conclusively proved to be constant. Only interpreted, assumed, and derived to be so by those self-same mathematical conceptions of which you speak. Even as a measured value in a imperfect vacuum produced on Earth, of what value is it when extrapolated via equations to applications in cosmological or "quantum" space of which we really know nothing by direct measurement? At the most we have direct measurements taken from a few space craft we have placed in the ecliptic plane of the solar system, which is far, far from a vacuum. We superimpose our equations upon interstellar and intergalactic spatial relations when the visible universe is 99% plasma; again, far, far from vacuum conditions. Smoke and mirrors, I say. 8-) And that's fine, since we're never likely to be able to do otherwise given our limited condition as humans; just so long as no one really takes it serious as meaning anything other than the sheerest speculation that it, in fact, is and probably forever will be. Universal "law" ... pffffhh. I scoff. :lol: "Science" is great fun, but imho "scientists" (like most of us are so inclined to do) take themselves, their personal thoughts, and opinions entirely too serious. But this (my opinion) and a couple of bucks will get you a fairly decent cup of coffee.

StevenO wrote:As proof you can see that length and time units in physics are both derived from lightspeed properties.


- this makes no sense, Steven. That's the same as saying length and time units are derived from length-per-time (m/sec speed of light) properties. Or length and time units are derived from velocity, which is a measurement using those self-same length and time units. Circular reasoning (circular definitions), duplicated units.

bryan
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests