junglelord wrote:In modern theory, charge is treated as a point, yet notated as
single dimension. A single dimension of charge would have a
linear structure. A point is an impossible structure for
physical existence and would be dimensionless.
One of the feeble arguments against the Aether is that since it
is non-material existence, there is no need for quantifying it in
physics. Yet, nobody seems to be concerned with charge being a
point. The Aether Physics Model properly notates charge as
distributed and shows that it has a surface structure.
Compounding the problem is that five
units (permeability, permittivity, inductance, capacitance,
and conductance) are expressed with distributed charge
dimensions
superfluous quantum constants.
Modern physics describes the mechanics of the Universe. We have discovered a new foundation
for physics, which explains the components of the Universe with precision and depth. We
quantify the existence of Aether, subatomic particles, and the force laws. Some aspects of the
theory derive from the Standard Model, but much is unique.
A key discovery from this new foundation is a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory.
Other fundamental discoveries follow, including the origin of the fine structure constant and
subatomic particle g-factors, a slight correction of neutron magnetic moment, a geometrical
structure for charge, the quantification of electromagnetic charge as separate from electrostatic
charge, a more precise meaning of spin, the quantification of space-resonance in five dimensions,
and a new system of quantum units.
The Aether quantifies as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields with electromagnetic,
electrostatic, and gravitational dipole structures. Subatomic particles quantify as angular
momentum encapsulated in a quantum, rotating magnetic field. All quantum, atomic, and
molecular processes can be precisely modeled, leading to discrete physics with new
understandings and insights.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
Quantum Charge
Let us define charge as a dimension, which when given a quantity, measures electricity. There
are two manifestations of charge, electrostatic and electromagnetic. In previously established
theory, the electromagnetic charge quantifies as a relativistic expression of electrostatic charge.
In the APM, electromagnetic charge quantifies using simple Newtonian type expressions with
dimensions of Coulomb squared.
From observation, we see that charge covers a surface, yet leaves no null spaces in between
charges. Since charge exists over a distributed length (area), let us then assume that charge
dimensions are also distributed. In the APM, the quantum electrostatic charge is the same value
as the elementary charge in established theory, except its dimensions modifies to represent
distributed charge. Therefore, we notate the quantum electrostatic charge as e2 . Charles
Coulomb also proposed the distribution of charge.
There is a second type of charge, named electromagnetic, or strong charge,
The strong charge quantifies as the angular momentum of the subatomic particle times the
conductance of the Aether and has a quantifiably different geometry than the electrostatic charge,
as explained later in this paper. All charge is distributed, although there is no length associated
with this geometry unless the distributed length dimensions specifically appear with charge
dimensions in a unit. The dimension of charge is not the same as an electron or proton. Therefore, in the Aether
Physics Model it cannot be said that a quantity of charges exist in a given volume of space. It
would be correct to say that electrons and protons exist in a given volume of space.
Reciprocal Relationships
All dimensions have both an obverse and reciprocal characteristic. We can think of the obverse
dimension as flat or linear and the reciprocal dimension as curved or cyclical. In general, the
reciprocal dimension reads as obverse cycles per reciprocal unit. For example, time is an
obverse dimension and has a linear characteristic, while its reciprocal, frequency is cycles per
time. The same logic applies to the obverse dimension of length, which is linear, and its
reciprocal of wave number, which is a cycle per length.
Let us assume that primary angular momentum can only spin in the forward direction of time,
thus as the Aether inertia oscillates between forward and backward time, the primary angular
momentum only sees half the cycle. Therefore, primary angular momentum has half-spin. It
is assumed that when the Gforce acts upon the mass dimension within primary angular
momentum, it can exert either a push or a pull, but not both. Whether the Gforce exerts a push
or a pull on the mass dimension appears to depend on the spin parity of the subatomic particle.
Thus, matter would attract to matter and antimatter would attract to antimatter, but matter would
repel antimatter.
Charge is a misunderstood dimension. Current is the only unit in widespread use where charge
is obverse. In the unit of current, charge is a linear quantity. However, charge normally appears
in the denominator of other unit expressions, and expresses in its reciprocal form. In the
reciprocal form, we read cycles per charge. For example, potential is the unit of energy per
charge. Magnetic flux is angular momentum per charge. Resistance is magnetic flux per charge,
and so on.
In the SM, there is only one type of charge quanta, the elementary charge. In an attempt to
quantify the strong force, the previous theory assumed the existence of gluons and pions and
defined the charges in terms of color and flavor. As such, the concept of angular momentum
per charge sounds meaningless within the understanding of previous theory. However, in the
APM, there are two types of quantum charge and the elementary charge is the less significant of
the two. The electromagnetic charge is the charge referred to in all charge related units except
magnetic moment. In the case of magnetic moment, the unit refers to both types of charge, as
explained in section 11 of this paper. It is because the units generally refer to electromagnetic
charge, and not electrostatic charge, and previous theory does not quantify the electromagnetic
charge of each subatomic particle relative to the electrostatic charge, that previous theory is not
capable of unifying the forces.
junglelord wrote:The notion of a point charge is not logical to me. That is talking about a quantum identity that never occurs....
StevenO wrote:...It is the only concept that unifies all observables. It is a pity Einstein messed up the spacetime concept by using only one time dimension. That leads to paradoxes.Neither has he "shown that a universe of slightly more than 7 space dimensions would have maximum surface area." Here is what he says:The question is, how can we know how many dimensions is the universe made up from. All the arguments mentioned above can be applied to any dimension and would imply the possibility of an infinite dimension space. But mathematics shows us that there are yet unknown reasons for which an ultimate dimension may be reached. One very interesting curve is the plot of surface area of hyperspheres of different dimensions, shown below. One would easily think that as we go higher in dimensions, the surface area of the n-sphere would increase at each stage, and yet, something very strange occurs, as a maxima in its surface area is reached at the 7th dimension. Could this indicate the real ultimate dimension of the universe?.
What he has "shown" is that a hypersphere or n-sphere has maximum surface area when n=7. This is mathemathics, not the real world. This has nothing to do with the universe. He makes the "connection" by asking a question at the end of the paragraph.
Well... maybe he was hoping someone would pick it up as a proof, like you just did?
But the simple truth is, he might just as well ask if the Seven Dwarfs in Snow White indicate the number of dimensions in the universe...
I'm all with you here. In the table on the same page you can see that around 5 dimensions has maximum volume, so that could also be a potential limit. Since dimensions are our own conceptions I think there is only a practical limit.
To describe a gravitional field you already need 6 space and time dimensions. That is already over the limit for me...
junglelord wrote:Zome has a 61 dimension hypercube exposing itself in the Zome Tools system based on the Golden Ratio. Google "2 3 5 infinity" and watch the one hour demonstration on atomic structure and PHI.
StevenO wrote: 1, 2 and 3 itself can be directly derived from the unit circle
Wikipedia wrote:1: Monad
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "unit"; monos, "alone"), which according to the Pythagoreans, was a term for God or the first being, or the totality of all beings. Monad being the source or the One meaning without division.
For the Pythagoreans, the generation of number series was related to objects of geometry as well as cosmogony. According to Diogenes Laertius, from the monad evolved the dyad; from it numbers; from numbers, points; then lines, two-dimensional entities, three-dimensional entities, bodies, culminating in the four elements earth, water, fire and air, from which the rest of our world is built up.
The term monad was later adopted from Greek philosophy by Giordano Bruno, Leibniz (Monadology), and others.
2: Dyad
The Dyad is a title used by the Pythagoreans for the number two, representing the principle of "twoness" or "otherness".
Numenius said that Pythagoras gave the name of Monad to God, and the name of Dyad to matter.
3: Triad
The Triad is a Pythagorean title for the number three. According to Priya Hemenway they considered it the most beautiful number, as it is the only number to equal the sum of all the terms below it, and the only number whose sum with those below equals the product of them and itself.
Proton plus electron forms neutron (where is sizing edit tool?)
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests