The Problem of Spin

[junglelord]

This question and answer from Dave Thomson is interesting to quote here. It begins with a quote I sent him from Wilbert Smith

Wilbert Smith quote

"We know that gravity is not all Newton visualised. Far from being a basic force in nature, it is really a derived function, and is the consequence of a dynamic condition, not a static one. We know what goes into its makeup; we know its formula and we have a pretty good idea of how to go about bringing it under control. We have conducted experiments that show that it is possible to create artificial gravity (not Centrifugal force) and to alter the gravitational field of the Earth. This we have done. It is Fact. The next step is to learn the rules and do the engineering necessary to convert the principle into workable hardware." (26) That statement was made in 1959. The question is, what has been achieved since then?

It has been claimed by some that Smith turned away from orthodox scientific work to the more metaphysical aspects of what he termed 'the new science'. Such was not the case. He carried on his normal scientific work and at the same time delved into the science of metaphysics as a possible answer to the UFO mystery, which apparently produced some concrete results in the laboratory. In the realm of purely orthodox science, Smith was working on the development of an anti-gravity device and believed himself to be on the verge of an important breakthrough just prior to his death.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/muf ... bsmith.htm
Now my question.

Is it not correct to say the same of APM. Gravity is not a primary function but rather a result of dynamic condition? Wilbert Smith is very clear that to construct Realtiy you must begin with Dimensions that build on each other. That any other method is not logical. You both share the same ideology as far as constructs. New and redefined Dimensions is a priority if one is to rebuild the Universe.

You do have the Vortex = Cube something I harp on and also the Golden Mean Ratio Implicite in the APM Theory. So far so good as I have known that these things are so the moment I saw them. You may have done a better job at fleshing out the details but the basic constructs were clear in my mind and I know your on the proper path as those constructs are found throughout what I have read so far. I am going back and start some notes and this will let us have a more fullfilling discussion about what is needed to help relate models by ideas vs by comparison of models. If you get my drift. I am not so sure the Standard Model makes Dimensions the number one priority, that would lead to a classical mess. If my take on gravity is still a basic correct statment, then it is not a primary force, it is a result of dynamic condition. yes or no?

The dynamic condition is of course the Angular Momentum. Gravity is a result of Angular Momentum which is a Dimension in APM, correct?
Junglelord

Hi Dean,

The gravity seen by the APM is the same gravity seen by Newton. All the fundamental forces are dynamic. This is because the Gforce is dynamic, and the Gforce acting upon dimensions (charge and mass) produces the fundamental forces in real time.

Angular momentum is a unit, it is composed of dimensions, but is not a dimension of itself. At the quantum and subquantum levels, angular momentum is a string of mass moving perpendicular to its length.

The Gforce acts upon the split singularity (which results in electrostatic and electromagnetic charge), to produce an Aether unit. Thus, the Aether unit is also dynamic. The Aether unit absorbs primary angular momentum (non-material dark matter), to produce a subatomic particle (onn). The subatomic particle, even if it doesn't move anywhere, is dynamic as long as it exists. There is no such thing as static physical existence.

The subatomic particle contains primary angular momentum. Primary angular momentum possesses mass. The Gforce acts upon the mass of the subatomic particles to produce the gravitational force. The string of mass (ligamen circulatus) is moving through the Aether unit and this movement creates electromagnetic charge. The Gforce acts upon the electromagnetic charge to produce the strong force. The Aether unit, in which the LC is moving, is the source of the electrostatic dipole. Whichever side of the Aether unit the subatomic particle is on, it takes that polarity of electrostatic charge for its own. The Gforce acts upon the electrostatic charge to produce the electrostatic force.

The forces that cause movement are in turn caused by the Gforce. The Gforce is the source of all dynamics in the Universe. Everything that moves is able to move because of the Gforce.

Dave

[junglelord]

Spin is the essential non continuous compression of a tensegrity structure.
that is what angular momentum does to charge to create a particle/onn of a e- p+ or n
Charge is distributed and is continuous tension. These are the two fundamental building blocks of a tensegrity structure.
Tensegrity is the structural engineering of all levels of reality from dimensional to universal. Everyone in nano technology understands a bucky ball. It is from the level of non material dimensional structures and overlays that we have this tensegrity principle occur. It takes both tension and compression. Charge/tension and angular momentum/compression

The galactic web is a tensegrity structure.
The universe is electric from end to end, that is continuous tension.
Star are discontinuous compression members as is any material state of matter.

[junglelord]

David Bohm on spin

When I first studied quantum mechanics I felt again that sense of internal relationship--that it was describing something that I was experiencing directly rather than just thinking about.

The notion of spin particularly fascinated me: the idea that when something is spinning in a certain direction, it could also spin in the other direction but that somehow the two directions together would be a spin in a third direction. I felt that somehow that described experience with the processes of the mind. In thinking about spin I felt I was in a direct relationship to nature. In quantum mechanics I came closer to my intuitive sense of nature.

I always felt spin was not quantified properly, and that once one did that, then many things would fall into place. David Bohm was particulary interested in spin. I find it amazing that spin, angular momentum in APM, is finally quantified as a fundamental construct within the context of a entire set of quantum constants. Indeed the implicit order of David Bohms theory of wholistic collective behaviour, is in part due to spin and his fascination with it.

[upriver]

Spin seems to be a more fundamental quality than charge but the 2 seem to be intimately related at least in most theories advanced here.

You should beware of the term "spin." If one uses the "classical radius of the electron" and the known total angular momentum of the electron, it is easy to calculate that a point on the equator of the electron is moving at about 137 times the speed of light! Thus, although we will continue to use the word "spin" it is really a shorthand for "intrinsic angular momentum."
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralI ... rlach.html


So what is spin?

Is it a mechanical motion?

An electronic motion?

Is it motion at all?

How do they detect spin?

[Plasmatic]

So what is spin?

Is it a mechanical motion?

An electronic motion?

Is it motion at all?

How do they detect spin?

All very good questions Upriver.

[StevenO]

Spin seems to be a more fundamental quality than charge but the 2 seem to be intimately related at least in most theories advanced here.

Spin is 'spinning charge' though that sounds a little funny.

What you have to realize is that "spin" they are referring to is a three dimensional rotation around a point(spherical rotation) and not a two dimensional rotation around an axis like a gyroscope. This rotation has a special property in that it does'nt change space around it (==does not radiate EM waves). The spinning body will be in its initial state again after a 720 deg rotation, that is how the magical '2' appears.

Actually you can do this rotation with your arm.

It seems that only three dimensional rotation has this special property, which might be the reason matter only exists in three dimensions, but I'm no expert in these things.

[webolife]

Thanks for starting this specific thread, JL.
So what is "spin"... momentum, a description of Newton's "inertia", in the real world, is always encountered in relation to an axis of rotation, whether seen/described as a gyroscopic surface (3D) or as a manifold (4D) produced by the spinning focus, hence the whole universe is in rotation, has spin, has angular momentum . Newton's ideal rectilinear constant-velocity motion of inertial objects simply does not exist. Vector density of the unified force field pressure (Thomson/APM's GForce) determines the local importance of this rotational effect, spin, hence at the atomic scale (of greatest vector density), spin becomes an essential characteristic of matter, and is easily (though not precisely) interchanged with charge, electron, etc. Velocities greater than "c" at this tier of existence are no problem at all in the model of instantaneous action across distance to which I subscribe, but saying an electron has points rotating on its equator is somewhat misrepresentational. The forces at work at this scale of atoms are so powerful as to overwhelm descriptions belonging to gravitational mass. What we call an electron may just be the delta-energy effect of the atom's 3D or 4D spin. The electronic field of the atom is what is phenomenal; changes in this field that we attribute to electron motion or activity (electron as a particle) may be due to changes of spin caused by the interaction of one atomic field with another. At larger scales (eg. the galactic level) the UF vector density is so rarified that Newton-like descriptions of momentum and gravitation become understandable, even satisfactory for some phenomena... Of course, that's why we're all here at EU... the recognition that electrical fields effect every scale. The vast difference in vector density between atom and galactic scales produces the "time" mental construct (and mental blockage) many of us experience trying to qualify and quantify spin at these different scales. Birkeland currents at the astronomical scale seem to be a means by which electrical properties (I mean real estate here, not merely or necessarily "dimensions" or "non-material" stuff) are transferred from one local field to another, whereas gravitational descriptions seem to work for planetary/terrestrial scale effects (eg. orbital dynamics), and electrostatics/electrodynamics of "charge" are manifest at the atomic scale. The unified field at all scales has more or less to do with compression and spin... same geometry, same interaction of fields (what JL refers to as "tensegrity"), same fundamental dynamics. The fun thing for us humans is getting to discover and (maybe) understand a world where both macroscopic and microscopic effects of the UF are at work all around us!

[junglelord]

So what is spin?
Primary Angular Momentum is a quantum unit

Is it a mechanical motion?
No, because the quantum world is not solid

An electronic motion?
Not sure what you mean by that, but it does involve charge motion

Is it motion at all?
yes, in fact it is a measured distance, it is quantum unit of Plancks Length

How do they detect spin?
A Collider will show the spin of sub atomic particle quite clearly in the bubble chamber results...in fact it is left hand spin.

[upriver]

So what is spin?
Primary Angular Momentum is a quantum unit

I think linear momentum is more primary because it only requires one force to create. Aetherometry uses a meters per second system.

Is it a mechanical motion?

No, because the quantum world is not solid

An electronic motion?

Not sure what you mean by that, but it does involve charge motion

Is it motion at all?

yes, in fact it is a measured distance, it is quantum unit of Plancks Length

Around the electron? At what distance? I seriously doubt that "particles" actually spin. Angular momentum seems to be more of a force.

How do they detect spin?

A Collider will show the spin of sub atomic particle quite clearly in the bubble chamber results...in fact it is left hand spin.

The Stern-Gerlach Experiment, Electron Spin, and Correlation Experiments
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralI ... rlach.html

So the direction of the track is not from the collision and the momentum from the colliding particle? I would expect that that track would go on forever if it was spin internal to the electron that caused the track. So unless you know the spin of the collider and the side of the target particle that it hit , what can you say....
The tracks remind me of a top that runs down.....
http://www.particlephysics.ac.uk/news/p ... 29_med.jpg

What about the quantum corral pictures??

[junglelord]

"Spin" as a force. Interesting. So you would have five forces?
How would you arrange the force model, aka standard model?

I believe that there are only three forces, two charge, one gravity.

PS, I dont believe in atomic particles. But subatomic "waving clouds" I do believe in. Everything spins at the atomic level, even at absolute zero. Spin never stops, never. It is well known that quantum models spin even at absolute zero. You cannot freeze spin.

[StevenO]

"Spin" as a force. Interesting. So you would have five forces?
How would you arrange the force model, aka standard model?

I believe that there are only three forces, two charge, one gravity.

PS, I dont believe in atomic particles. But subatomic "waving clouds" I do believe in. Everything spins at the atomic level, even at absolute zero. Spin never stops, never. It is well known that quantum models spin even at absolute zero. You cannot freeze spin.

I agree with your inference. Any element of space must "spin" by itself even in its lowest dimensional form, otherwise it could never contain or propagate energy. Ultimately the fabric of space is a broken dimension.

From that we can generate the higher dimensional recursive patterns: heat is "one" dimensional undirected energy, momentum is directed two dimensional energy, matter is undirected 3 dimensional energy, EM is directed 4 dimensional energy, our clustering of matter is 5 dimensional undirected energy, gravity/inertia is directed 6 dimensional energy. Increasingly smaller forces with a similar pattern, like fractals behave...

[webolife]

junglelord wrote:
"Spin" as a force. Interesting. So you would have five forces?How would you arrange the force model, aka standard model?
I believe that there are only three forces, two charge, one gravity.
PS, I dont believe in atomic particles. But subatomic "waving clouds" I do believe in. Everything spins at the atomic level, even at absolute zero. Spin never stops, never. It is well known that quantum models spin even at absolute zero. You cannot freeze spin.

StevenO wrote:
I agree with your inference. Any element of space must "spin" by itself even in its lowest dimensional form, otherwise it could never contain or propagate energy. Ultimately the fabric of space is a broken dimension.
From that we can generate the higher dimensional recursive patterns: heat is "one" dimensional undirected energy, momentum is directed two dimensional energy, matter is undirected 3 dimensional energy, EM is directed 4 dimensional energy, our clustering of matter is 5 dimensional undirected energy, gravity/inertia is directed 6 dimensional energy. Increasingly smaller forces with a similar pattern, like fractals behave...

my turn:
Am I oversimplifying here? I'm already over my own simple mind... Spin at the macro level produces the effects commonly referred to as "centrifugal force". At the atomic scale this kinetic effect I believe may be responsible for what we call "electrons". The repulsive force of equally charged (spinning) "electrons" could be simply a "centrifugal force" of interacting atoms. I fully recognize, and mentioned earlier that this is not the typical "rectilinear "ideal" of Newton's inertia, but it does in part describe the charge/mass analog lizzie and I like so much. So spin has "force-like" effects, but is not a force per se, as I see it. JL, I don't understand anything in your phrase, "quantum models spin... at absolute zero." What does that mean?

StevenO, when you say that heat is "undirected" energy (I'll take your "one" dimensional allusion as a reference to a ray/vector phenomenon... correct me if mistaken), what exactly do you mean by "undirected"? I wonder if you might see spin as analogous to heat? I do see a relation of the two. Temperature for me is centropically directed vector density, ie. the closer you get to the local centroid, the denser the centropic vectors, and subsequently higher temperature, as a radius squared relation. Heat is it's coexistent counterpart, they drive each other. Proposal: Heat is to temperature as magnetism is to electricity as angular momentum is to centropic force in the unified field.
Call it all spin. My mind is spinning

[junglelord]

JL, I don't understand anything in your phrase, "quantum models spin... at absolute zero." What does that mean?

Everything spins at the atomic level, even at absolute zero. Electrons do not sit still, even at absolute zero. They rotate around the nucleus.

[webolife]

I know what you said... saying it again doesn't help... but what does "absolute zero" mean to you if the electrons are still spinning around a nucleus? Where in your view of the universe would absolute zero exist? And a "model" is a mental construct... I agree there... my mental constructs are definitely [still] spinning... no oxymoron intended.

[junglelord]

Absolute zero is the coldest temperature. Its basic physics in BEC, Superconductors and thinks like that. Its another facet of quantum physics where large classical mechanical size devices operate as a single quantum entity. It should be noted that superconductors have been operated at much warmer temperatures then when they were first conceived.

Absolute zero is the lowest possible temperature where nothing could be colder, and no heat energy remains in a substance. Absolute zero is the point at which molecules do not move (relative to the rest of the body) more than they are required to by a quantum mechanical effect called zero-point energy. It is a theoretical limit and cannot be achieved with the current technology available.

By international agreement, absolute zero is defined as precisely 0 K on the Kelvin scale, which is a thermodynamic (absolute) temperature scale, and −273.15 on the Celsius (centigrade) scale.[1] Absolute zero is also precisely equivalent to 0 °R on the Rankine scale (also a thermodynamic temperature scale), and −459.67 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale. Though it is not possible to cool any substance to 0 K,[2] scientists have made great advancements in achieving temperatures close to absolute zero, where matter exhibits quantum effects such as superconductivity and superfluidity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero