1. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
330

Originally Posted by Bjoern
What has "voltage" to do with a current loop?
Originally Posted by ngeo
Well, in order to maintain a current you would need a potential.
Originally Posted by Bjoern
Wrong. For current loops, no potential is needed, and can't even be defined in a sensible way. Please read up on the basics of electrodynamics.

Perhaps you can explain your understanding of a current loop, and if you are interested in addressing "the rest", I will attempt to explain it. Otherwise I will take it your interest is merely technical.
[Moderator Note]

I have edited this post to reflect what I think is the original sequence of posts.

[/Moderator Note]
Last edited by Nereid; 2007-Jan-24 at 04:07 PM. Reason: attempt to put quoted text into quote boxes

2. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Could you have a go at editing this please ngeo? I can't quite work out who said what, and in what order, nor what the point of this thread is.

3. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
330
Nereid I will have to figure out how quotes end up in the blue boxes, I haven't done it before. The thread is a continuation from the Q & A section, and the point (for me) is to find out whether the relation I outlined in that thread (I don't believe it is so ATM) is "numerology" as Bjoern has called it, or physical. I believe it is a physical relationship regardless of my "skill level". Sorry I will have to leave it there for a few hours.

4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441

5. Originally Posted by ngeo
Perhaps you can explain your understanding of a current loop...
A current loop means that charges are flowing in a closed path; usually one talks about circular loops, but the following argument applies also to other forms.

For a circular current loop, you need a circular electric field. But for a circular electric field, the rotation (I mean the mathematical "rot" here - look it up if you don't know what that means) does not vanish. And it is a well-known result from vector calculus that for fields with non-vanishing rotation, no (well-defined) potential exists.

6. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
330
I guess by “current loop” I am using terminology that already exists and which does not appear to apply here. In the system I have been describing, the flow of current is a flow of space, and this flow creates the charge. So it is not a system of flowing charges. A tension is created by the opposition of internal and external fields which is released by rotation (flow). So the particle is a surface or shell between the two fields.

7. the flow of current is a flow of space
so current is space ?

Guess I will have to read the other thread, because these messages together make as much sense as "fish with a bicycle".

8. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
[Moderator Note]

ngeo's questions on space etc is the (at present) Q&A thread which lead to this ATM thread.

The relevant exchange/post immediately preceeding the OP (of this thread) is this one. Here is my reconstruction of it:
Originally Posted by ngeo
My last response to Bjoern here:

Bjoern: “What has "voltage" to do with a current loop?
Well, in order to maintain a current you would need a potential.

(Re potential is in internal and external fields)
Bjoern: “And what is that supposed to mean?”
“What does it mean to say that a current flow is "
from fields"?
“What does it mean to say that a current flow "
maintains a loop"?”

I don’t believe that you really do not understand. However, that is possible. I have been thinking on these lines for a long time, and I guess you haven’t.

Bjoern: “Well, then what does it mean to say that "a potential produces a frequency"?”

See “Josephson constant”, “Josephson effect“, etc.

(Re potential and frequency being same thing)
Bjoern: “Then why are they measured in different units?”
That is the problem of trying to understand a system. You have to break it down into parts. But you have to keep in mind that it works as a whole.

Bjoern: “But ignoring the units is an absolutely basic mathematical error.”
I don’t ignore them, I try to figure out what they mean. Now once you end up with a relationship that can be expressed in terms of alpha and electron-proton ratio, giving numbers that match the “unit” numbers, exactly what units would you want?

Bjoern: “h is probably Planck's constant, but what is q? And why on earth should J/C be the same as h/q in this case??? J (Joule) is the unit of energy, C (Coulomb) the unit of charge. So the denominator would match (charge). But the numerator does not match - h is not an energy! h has the unit Joule-seconds, not simply Joule!”

See below.

Bjoern: “Charge is current times time, not current per time! Come on, this is yet again absolutely basic!”

I did not say charge is measured in current per time, I said it is measured in current per second.

From Wikipedia:
1 coulomb is the amount of electric charge carried by a current of 1 ampere flowing for 1 second.
The ampere, in practice often shortened to amp, (symbol: A) is a unit of electric current, or amount of electric charge per second.
---------------

Bjoern: ““But h has units of Joules times seconds. Not Joules per second.”

Again from Wikipedia:

Planck's constant is stated in SI units of measurement, joules per hertz, or joules per (cycle per second) . . . .
In SI units Planck's constant is expressed in Joule-seconds.

It seems the wikipedia author is not that worried about how h is expressed or stated, and neither am I, because I am not thinking about how to express or state h, I am thinking about what it represents. Sometimes it’s hard to see the forest for the trees.

prep.
To, for, or by each; for every: Gasoline once cost 40 cents per gallon.
According to; by: Changes were made to the manuscript per the author's instructions.
By means of; through.
For each one; apiece: sold the cookies for one dollar per.
Per hour: was driving at 60 miles per.
ngeo, re editing, colours, quotes etc: if you know '(HTML) tags', it's easy - [ color ] and [ quote ] (without the spaces, and with the matching [/ ] tag).

If not, it's still easy: enclose the text you wish to be coloured with a pair of tags ([ color = blue ] and [/ color ], for example, without the spaces: [ color=blue ]text you wish to be coloured[ /color ] -> text you wish to be coloured).

Similarly, to make the enclosed text a quote, use [ quote ] and [/ quote ]; to add the attribution, add "={name}" after "quote"; for example: [ quote = Nereid ]To make the enclosed text a quote[ /quote ] ->
Originally Posted by Nereid
To make the enclosed text a quote
[/Moderator Note]

9. Originally Posted by ngeo
I guess by “current loop” I am using terminology that already exists and which does not appear to apply here.
Indeed. And judging from what you write below, you do that also for "field" and several other terms.

Originally Posted by ngeo
In the system I have been describing, the flow of current is a flow of space, and this flow creates the charge. So it is not a system of flowing charges. A tension is created by the opposition of internal and external fields which is released by rotation (flow). So the particle is a surface or shell between the two fields.
So few sentences, so much word salad...

What does "a flow of space" mean? How could such a flow create charge? (what about charge conservation?) What "internal and external fields" do you mean? What does it mean to say that there is opposition between fields? How does this opposition create tension? What is tensed here? What is "released by rotation" - the opposition??? What does "rotation (flow)" mean - that "rotation" and "flow" mean the same thing here? What does it mean to say that something is "between two fields"? How does it follow from the things you said in the previous sentences that a particle is a surface or shell?

10. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
330
Originally Posted by Bjoern
Indeed. And judging from what you write below, you do that also for "field" and several other terms.

So few sentences, so much word salad...

What does "a flow of space" mean? How could such a flow create charge? (what about charge conservation?) What "internal and external fields" do you mean? What does it mean to say that there is opposition between fields? How does this opposition create tension? What is tensed here? What is "released by rotation" - the opposition??? What does "rotation (flow)" mean - that "rotation" and "flow" mean the same thing here? What does it mean to say that something is "between two fields"? How does it follow from the things you said in the previous sentences that a particle is a surface or shell?
In this scenario, a particle represents an internal field attempting to expand into an external field, and an external field attempting to expand into an internal field. This occurs because the fundamental ability of the universe is to expand, which it does at a constant rate (the limit of its ability) at its edge. However within the universe this ability is limited by its own existence everywhere within the universe. This limitation creates pressure. In response to this pressure, certain regions begin to spin. Inside these spinning regions is a small area seeking to expand. Outside these spinning regions is a larger area seeking to expand into these spinning regions. The energy of the two fields, internal and external, is absorbed in the constant acceleration represented by rotation of the surface that separates them. This is not a smooth surface but a vibrating surface. Each field is alternately compressed. It may be that therein lies the “tension” (a word I first hit upon yesterday as a salad ingredient).

That is the basic idea. So in this scenario there is no “nugget” of “matter”, no “kilogram” of “mass”. E=hf turns out to be a handy way to describe the electron and proton in this scenario. It gives a frequency for each particle, h as the work done each cycle, a current per cycle for each particle which must end up as q (elementary charge) in one second, and as a result a voltage or potential. But this potential is not the potential of the particle; it is the potential of the field to produce the rotation, “embodied” in the particle.

Now, digging around for patterns in the set of equations i.e. v = hf/q, vq = hf, etc. I find that the frequency of the electron divided by the square of the voltage of the proton = approximately 140. In addition the frequency of either particle is approximately ½ the product of the square of the voltage of that particle and the voltage of the other particle. When 140 is replaced by the inverse of alpha the fine structure constant (a), then the frequencies are exactly equal to twice the product of the square etc. The voltages and frequencies of each particle are slightly altered also. And a ratio (r) of approximately 1860.308707 appears between proton and electron voltages/frequencies. It is then possible to derive the (new) voltage of the electron as 2 x r / a and of the proton as 2 x r^2 / a, and also the frequencies, using r and a.

It also turns out that the product of electron and proton voltages in this method is exactly equal to the Josephson constant, 2 x q / h, the inverse of the magnetic flux quantum. And this allows the possibility of a system of superconducting current loops between which a quantized magnetic current flows.

The electron (potential in volts = 2r/a) emits half a magnetic flux quantum a^2/2r^3, at a frequency 4r^4/a^3 producing a potential in the field of 2r/a. The proton (potential = 2r^2/a) emits half a magnetic flux quantum a^2/2r^3 at a frequency of 4r^5/a^3, producing a potential in the field of 2r^2/a. The total potential of the field inside the system is then 4r^3/a^2 which is the Josephson constant. Half this potential, 2r^3/a^2, is transferred to each particle and combined with the potential of the particle produces the frequency in the proton of 4r^5/a^3 and in the electron of 4r^4/a^3. The potential of each particle itself, in the absence of this system, is maintained by the external field and the internal field of each particle.

It may be seen that the frequency of each particle is the potential of the particle multiplied by half the Josephson constant. The Josephson constant itself is the product of the potentials of each particle.

11. Originally Posted by ngeo
In this scenario, a particle represents an internal field attempting to expand into an external field, and an external field attempting to expand into an internal field.
Please explain what "field" means to you. As I already pointed out, you seem to use that term with a non-standard meaning, and as long I don't understand what you mean by that, I can't follow the rest of what you write.

12. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2004
Posts
617
Originally Posted by Bjoern
Please explain what "field" means to you. As I already pointed out, you seem to use that term with a non-standard meaning, and as long I don't understand what you mean by that, I can't follow the rest of what you write.
I am not sure, but I think an internal field is a subfield with differencial movement of a larger field (external field) of which it is embedded. The problem I have is that the "pressure" differencials of the two field would not allow a mutual push hydrodynamically. How do you remove and ignore the nature of pressure dynamics and attraction and give preferrence to electrodynamics when the idea of intenal/external fields is based on pressure differencial created by the movement of space?

This is still the question of the day and you haven't answered it yet.

13. ## Not coincidental ratios for mass?

Originally Posted by ngeo
In this scenario, a particle represents an internal field attempting to expand into an external field, and an external field attempting to expand into an internal field. This occurs because the fundamental ability of the universe is to expand, which it does at a constant rate (the limit of its ability) at its edge. However within the universe this ability is limited by its own existence everywhere within the universe. This limitation creates pressure. In response to this pressure, certain regions begin to spin. Inside these spinning regions is a small area seeking to expand. Outside these spinning regions is a larger area seeking to expand into these spinning regions. The energy of the two fields, internal and external, is absorbed in the constant acceleration represented by rotation of the surface that separates them. This is not a smooth surface but a vibrating surface. Each field is alternately compressed. It may be that therein lies the “tension” (a word I first hit upon yesterday as a salad ingredient).

That is the basic idea. So in this scenario there is no “nugget” of “matter”, no “kilogram” of “mass”. E=hf turns out to be a handy way to describe the electron and proton in this scenario. It gives a frequency for each particle, h as the work done each cycle, a current per cycle for each particle which must end up as q (elementary charge) in one second, and as a result a voltage or potential. But this potential is not the potential of the particle; it is the potential of the field to produce the rotation, “embodied” in the particle.

Now, digging around for patterns in the set of equations i.e. v = hf/q, vq = hf, etc. I find that the frequency of the electron divided by the square of the voltage of the proton = approximately 140. In addition the frequency of either particle is approximately &#189; the product of the square of the voltage of that particle and the voltage of the other particle. When 140 is replaced by the inverse of alpha the fine structure constant (a), then the frequencies are exactly equal to twice the product of the square etc. The voltages and frequencies of each particle are slightly altered also. And a ratio (r) of approximately 1860.308707 appears between proton and electron voltages/frequencies.. It is then possible to derive the (new) voltage of the electron as 2 x r / a and of the proton as 2 x r^2 / a, and also the frequencies, using r and a.

It also turns out that the product of electron and proton voltages in this method is exactly equal to the Josephson constant, 2 x q / h, the inverse of the magnetic flux quantum. And this allows the possibility of a system of superconducting current loops between which a quantized magnetic current flows.

The electron (potential in volts = 2r/a) emits half a magnetic flux quantum a^2/2r^3, at a frequency 4r^4/a^3 producing a potential in the field of 2r/a. The proton (potential = 2r^2/a) emits half a magnetic flux quantum a^2/2r^3 at a frequency of 4r^5/a^3, producing a potential in the field of 2r^2/a. The total potential of the field inside the system is then 4r^3/a^2 which is the Josephson constant. Half this potential, 2r^3/a^2, is transferred to each particle and combined with the potential of the particle produces the frequency in the proton of 4r^5/a^3 and in the electron of 4r^4/a^3. The potential of each particle itself, in the absence of this system, is maintained by the external field and the internal field of each particle.

It may be seen that the frequency of each particle is the potential of the particle multiplied by half the Josephson constant. The Josephson constant itself is the product of the potentials of each particle.
(bold mine)

Ngeo, did you just define the 'fine structure constant', viz. 1/137? I thought it had remained a mystery.

Also, isn't the ratio of proton mass (1.672E-27 kg) to electron mass (9.109E-31 kg) or about 1835? Are these alternative 'electron volt' definitions of mass kg?

I can't imagine these ratio constants are merely coincidental. Can mass, kilogram, be redefined as a function of electromagnetic energy about a nuclear point, electron-volts, to give us ordinary 'atomic matter' with mass? Interesting idea, if I understand correctly what you are saying. How would that fit in with ZPE, for example, as the energy locked inside ordinary space?

14. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
330
Originally Posted by Bjoern
Please explain what "field" means to you. As I already pointed out, you seem to use that term with a non-standard meaning, and as long I don't understand what you mean by that, I can't follow the rest of what you write.
I am not a scientist or mathematician so I can only quote from Wikipedia:

“In physics, a field is an assignment of a physical quantity to every point in space (or, more generally, spacetime). A field is thus viewed as extending throughout a large region of space so that its influence is all-pervading. The strength of a field usually varies over a region.”

In this idea, the universe would be a single field. I don’t know what physical quantity would be assigned to every point in the field, but it would have to represent an initial spherical expansion “energy”, and this energy would have to be in opposition to the energy of every other point in the field. However when a direction of flow would be established, namely by rotation, the spherical expansion energy would become a directional movement.

15. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
330
Originally Posted by bigsplit
I am not sure, but I think an internal field is a subfield with differencial movement of a larger field (external field) of which it is embedded. The problem I have is that the "pressure" differencials of the two field would not allow a mutual push hydrodynamically. How do you remove and ignore the nature of pressure dynamics and attraction and give preferrence to electrodynamics when the idea of intenal/external fields is based on pressure differencial created by the movement of space?

This is still the question of the day and you haven't answered it yet.
I am sorry I don't understand fully, I will study what you say, but as far as I understand what you are saying, in this idea there would not be a pressure differential once a complete rotation occurs. The internal field pressure would balance the external field pressure. Added external field "pressure" would produce a higher frequency rotation (a smaller radius), etc., so the rotation is determined by the energy in the field.

16. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
330
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
(bold mine)

Ngeo, did you just define the 'fine structure constant', viz. 1/137? I thought it had remained a mystery.

Also, isn't the ratio of proton mass (1.672E-27 kg) to electron mass (9.109E-31 kg) or about 1835? Are these alternative 'electron volt' definitions of mass kg?

I can't imagine these ratio constants are merely coincidental. Can mass, kilogram, be redefined as a function of electromagnetic energy about a nuclear point, electron-volts, to give us ordinary 'atomic matter' with mass? Interesting idea, if I understand correctly what you are saying. How would that fit in with ZPE, for example, as the energy locked inside ordinary space?

I don't think I defined anything except by accident. I just inserted alpha where the number was close to the value of alpha. I think there are a lot of ways alpha is used and there is equation I think. It's still a mystery to me anyway!

I also don't think the ratios are merely coincidental, they are a clue to a physical relationship.

There has been a move toward redefining the kilogram to take it away from an "artifact" (which has lost mass in the last 100 years) in Paris. Wikipedia and other places have article on it and you probably will understand them more than me, I found one quote which seems to have disappeared and replaced by a new set of proposals under "kilogram" in Wikipedia.

I think somebody with way more knowledge than me would have to figure out the deal with ZPE, but I think this idea does need a different way of thinking than the "vacuum".

17. Originally Posted by ngeo
I am not a scientist or mathematician so I can only quote from Wikipedia:

“In physics, a field is an assignment of a physical quantity to every point in space (or, more generally, spacetime). A field is thus viewed as extending throughout a large region of space so that its influence is all-pervading. The strength of a field usually varies over a region.”
Please not that according to this definition, a field gives a value to every point in space. In other words, a fields extends over the whole space. Hence it makes to sense to speak of an "internal" and an "external" field!

Originally Posted by ngeo
In this idea, the universe would be a single field. I don’t know what physical quantity would be assigned to every point in the field,
"every point in the field" makes no sense. Please read again what you quoted above, and try to understand it this time better, please.

And if you don't know what physical quantity would be assigned to every point, then it makes no sense at all even to talk about a field, since, according to what you yourself quoted above, a field is the assigment of a physical quantity (to every point of space)! If you don't know what is assigned to every point in space, you have no field!

Originally Posted by ngeo
but it would have to represent an initial spherical expansion “energy”,
Fields can't in any way "represent" energy. They can contain energy, or you can have an "energy field" (i. e. to every point in space, a value for its energy is assigned), but this is not "representing" energy.

But you put "energy" in quote marks. May I assume therefore that you don't mean the usual "energy" of physics, but something different? What does "expansion energy" mean? And to what does the word "spherical" refer here? To "expansion", or to "energy"?

Originally Posted by ngeo
and this energy would have to be in opposition to the energy of every other point in the field.
What on earth does it mean to say that energy is in opposition to another energy???

Originally Posted by ngeo
However when a direction of flow would be established, namely by rotation, the spherical expansion energy would become a directional movement.
Word salad. Sorry, I don't understand at all what you try to tell me. And the reason for that is very simple: you use words which have well-defined meanings in physics with your own, private meanings, which I don't know.

Perhaps you should write a thread which consists only of defining all these terms which you use with non-standard meanings, before going on? Or, even better: perhaps you should learn what all these words actually mean in physics and then use them properly? Otherwise, a discussion with you is pointless - we are simply talking past each other.

18. Originally Posted by ngeo
I also don't think the ratios are merely coincidental, they are a clue to a physical relationship.
The temperature of the CMBR is 2.73 K. A (tropical) month has a length of 27.3 days. Do you also suspect that the agreement between these two numbers is not coincidental, but a clue to a physical relationship?

19. Originally Posted by Bjoern
...
Word salad. Sorry, I don't understand at all what you try to tell me. And the reason for that is very simple: you use words which have well-defined meanings in physics with your own, private meanings, which I don't know.

Perhaps you should write a thread which consists only of defining all these terms which you use with non-standard meanings, before going on? Or, even better: perhaps you should learn what all these words actually mean in physics and then use them properly? Otherwise, a discussion with you is pointless - we are simply talking past each other.
Using the word salad argument is not productive. I seems to mean you are rejecting the ideas because they sound nice but until they are mainstream they aren't worth discussion. This is an ATM thread.

Using the "define all terms" argument is a strawman; saying that you can't really make a logical word argument that falsifies the posters position, but you can refuse to try to understand the word usage.

20. Originally Posted by Bogie
Using the word salad argument is not productive. I seems to mean you are rejecting the ideas because they sound nice but until they are mainstream they aren't worth discussion. This is an ATM thread.
No, it means simply, as I already wrote in other places: "I don't understand a word of what you mean; please clarify and tell me what on earth you mean when you say XYZ".

Originally Posted by Bogie
Using the "define all terms" argument is a strawman; saying that you can't really make a logical word argument that falsifies the posters position, but you can refuse to try to understand the word usage.
No again. It's the most natural thing to ask for when I can't make out what my discussion partner tries to tell me, and when he clearly misuses terms.

I can't help you if don't understand (or don't care about?) a very basic principle of discussion: talk/write in a way so that your discussion partner will understand what you mean.

21. Originally Posted by Bjoern
No, it means simply, as I already wrote in other places: "I don't understand a word of what you mean; please clarify and tell me what on earth you mean when you say XYZ".

No again. It's the most natural thing to ask for when I can't make out what my discussion partner tries to tell me, and when he clearly misuses terms.

I can't help you if don't understand (or don't care about?) a very basic principle of discussion: talk/write in a way so that your discussion partner will understand what you mean.
I'll grant you the fact that communication has to be the responsibility of both parties. However, when one uses the "define your term" approach that person should offer a definition of the word that they would understand.

In other words, say what you understand the word to mean, and then using that meaning show how it doesn't make sense to you in the way the poster used it.

That approach may take more time than anyone really has to devote to the discussion of course, and if that is the case, the termination of the discussion could be based on specific examples where the meanings that you attribute to particular words are offered so that the poster can at least learn from the exchange.

22. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2004
Posts
13,441
Originally Posted by Bogie
I'll grant you the fact that communication has to be the responsibility of both parties. However, when one uses the "define your term" approach that person should offer a definition of the word that they would understand.

In other words, say what you understand the word to mean, and then using that meaning show how it doesn't make sense to you in the way the poster used it.

That approach may take more time than anyone really has to devote to the discussion of course, and if that is the case, the termination of the discussion could be based on specific examples where the meanings that you attribute to particular words are offered so that the poster can at least learn from the exchange.
Which may (or may not) be reasonable if BAUT's ATM section were explicitly devoted to assisting those with ATM ideas - giving them the bare-bones basics of the relevant aspects of the relevant modern physics theories, or the essentials of the math needed to address some foundation, or suggesting ways to fix up a glaring hole, or ...*

It may (or may not) also be reasonable if BAUT's ATM section were explicitly devoted to discussion of ATM ideas.*

However, IMHO, it most clearly is neither of these things - it is, IMHO, an opportunity for those with ATM ideas to present them, and expect they (the ideas) will be challenged and attacked (with glee and fervour), in order that the presenter may improve their work, that readers may see how weak the ATM idea is, that ...

So, if a BAUT member presents an idea full of words which appear to have idiosyncratic meanings (or simply meanings that are non-standard wrt the accepted usage in the field(s) of astronomy/physics/etc relevant to the scope of the ATM idea), the burden of clarifying those meanings falls on the one making the ATM claims.

Further, in my own experience, in a great many ATM threads, too many pages are wasted because demands for clarity, wrt the ATM claims being made, were not made firmly enough right at the start of the threads.

Anyway, those are just some views of Nereid, the ordinary BAUT member (not Nereid, the BAUT moderator).

*Of course, any BAUT member may choose to do just this - provide assistance, support, guidance, to the BAUT member proposing the ATM idea; or discuss the ATM idea without challenging or attacking it, or ... and, in the life of many an ATM thread, just such assistance, support, guidance, discussion, ... has been offered - read some of Grey's posts, to take just one example.

23. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
2,440
Originally Posted by Bjoern
The temperature of the CMBR is 2.73 K. A (tropical) month has a length of 27.3 days. Do you also suspect that the agreement between these two numbers is not coincidental, but a clue to a physical relationship?
Why not? Very little in the ATM threads (and particularly this one) makes even this much sense.

Seriously, the general characteristic of the ATM threads seems to be wild flights of fancy based on fundamentally incorrect assumptions, a la von Daniken. There is a dandy thread elsewhere where the originator feels there are point mass(es) inside the electron. There is zero evidence to support this; BAUT member trinitree88 shoots this idea down without mercy. Yet the thread goes on for many pages following. I guess that’s why it’s called ‘Against the Mainstream’.

Generally, ATM posters, it would be nice if you had the math and physics straight first. There are good self-teaching courses available free on the net. Wikipedia has to be the greatest reference source ever, try checking there. I think Bjoern is right; you can’t make up the math and physics as you go along. Do like Newton and stand on the shoulders of giants; you can see a lot further.

24. Originally Posted by Bogie
I'll grant you the fact that communication has to be the responsibility of both parties. However, when one uses the "define your term" approach that person should offer a definition of the word that they would understand.

In other words, say what you understand the word to mean, and then using that meaning show how it doesn't make sense to you in the way the poster used it.

That approach may take more time than anyone really has to devote to the discussion of course, and if that is the case, the termination of the discussion could be based on specific examples where the meanings that you attribute to particular words are offered so that the poster can at least learn from the exchange.
In general, you are right. But here, ngeo himself provided already the standard definition from Wikipedia, and most what I wrote consisted in pointing out that his use of the word "field" does not match what he himself quoted. I then pointed out his misuse of "energy". That's such a totally basic term in physics that I simply think anyone who doesn't know its meaning should look it up for himself!!! (otherwise it's just lazyness) And the last sentence was simply totally incomprehensible to me - word salad, as I said.

25. Originally Posted by Nereid
Originally Posted by Nereid

However, IMHO, it most clearly is neither of these things - it is, IMHO, an opportunity for those with ATM ideas to present them, and expect they (the ideas) will be challenged and attacked (with glee and fervour), in order that the presenter may improve their work, that readers may see how weak the ATM idea is, that ...
I agree. An opportunity for real science should supersede the airing of pseudoscience
So, if a BAUT member presents an idea full of words which appear to have idiosyncratic meanings (or simply meanings that are non-standard wrt the accepted usage in the field(s) of astronomy/physics/etc relevant to the scope of the ATM idea), the burden of clarifying those meanings falls on the one making the ATM claims.
I agree. It really is hard to be the one who can’t put the right words together to convey an idea, and not know they can’t do that. It reminds me of Clinton saying, “It depends on what you mean by “is”. Thinking that words in English generally are commonly understood, it is a shock to be confronted with the request for simple meanings. Are you sure it is a failure on the part of the originator to use words properly, or can it be a failure on the part of the responder to apply the “commonly understood” meaning to words and then address the idea behind the supposed improper word usage instead of the improper usage itself?

Further, in my own experience, in a great many ATM threads, too many pages are wasted because demands for clarity, wrt the ATM claims being made, were not made firmly enough right at the start of the threads.

Anyway, those are just some views of Nereid, the ordinary BAUT member (not Nereid, the BAUT moderator).
Ordinarily when an OP hits the ATM board, if I am interested in it I will read it and think about the idea being conveyed (or attempting to be conveyed). I can usually determine in the first post if this is likely to be meaningful in either advancing science or at least will result in a discussion that I can learn from.

I think that other readers will also have criteria by which they judge the OP that will determine if they are interested enough to participate or that will determine if the thread is worth following even if they can’t make a meaningful contribution.

To then see a thread with an idea fall victim to the dreaded “word usage” argument instead of calm logical rejection of the idea just makes the ATM forum seem to fall short of the high standards that BAUT clearly has in the Internet community.

*Of course, any BAUT member may choose to do just this - provide assistance, support, guidance, to the BAUT member proposing the ATM idea; or discuss the ATM idea without challenging or attacking it, or ... and, in the life of many an ATM thread, just such assistance, support, guidance, discussion, ... has been offered - read some of Grey's posts, to take just one example.
It is true that there is assistance, support and guidance offered by many members along the way. Too often though, IMHO, the real sources of informed discussion on many of the threads are too quick on the draw, thus eliminating ATM as being a place for beginners to come, learn, and maybe even present an idea of their own to test the waters.

It can be both a venue for real science and a place for science minded to come and learn. Is it better to be the former and not the latter, or is it better to be both?

26. Originally Posted by Bjoern
In general, you are right. But here, ngeo himself provided already the standard definition from Wikipedia, and most what I wrote consisted in pointing out that his use of the word "field" does not match what he himself quoted. I then pointed out his misuse of "energy". That's such a totally basic term in physics that I simply think anyone who doesn't know its meaning should look it up for himself!!! (otherwise it's just lazyness) And the last sentence was simply totally incomprehensible to me - word salad, as I said.
Well said, thanks.

27. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
2,440

## Second the Motion

Originally Posted by Bogie
Well said, thanks.
Well said, indeed!

28. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
330
Originally Posted by Bjoern
Please not that according to this definition, a field gives a value to every point in space. In other words, a fields extends over the whole space. Hence it makes to sense to speak of an "internal" and an "external" field!

"every point in the field" makes no sense. Please read again what you quoted above, and try to understand it this time better, please.

And if you don't know what physical quantity would be assigned to every point, then it makes no sense at all even to talk about a field, since, according to what you yourself quoted above, a field is the assigment of a physical quantity (to every point of space)! If you don't know what is assigned to every point in space, you have no field!

Fields can't in any way "represent" energy. They can contain energy, or you can have an "energy field" (i. e. to every point in space, a value for its energy is assigned), but this is not "representing" energy.

But you put "energy" in quote marks. May I assume therefore that you don't mean the usual "energy" of physics, but something different? What does "expansion energy" mean? And to what does the word "spherical" refer here? To "expansion", or to "energy"?

What on earth does it mean to say that energy is in opposition to another energy???

Word salad. Sorry, I don't understand at all what you try to tell me. And the reason for that is very simple: you use words which have well-defined meanings in physics with your own, private meanings, which I don't know.

Perhaps you should write a thread which consists only of defining all these terms which you use with non-standard meanings, before going on? Or, even better: perhaps you should learn what all these words actually mean in physics and then use them properly? Otherwise, a discussion with you is pointless - we are simply talking past each other.
Perhaps when you comment, you should comment on the entire statement. Breaking a statement into parts may work for a mathematician, but used on words it can reduce sense to nonsense. Which it seems you do, since you seem unable to make sense - say, in the form of a mental picture - out of the words. I guess chopping up statements and sentences does make a word salad.

Again from Wikipedia, the full statement:

“In physics, a field is an assignment of a physical quantity to every point in space (or, more generally, spacetime). A field is thus viewed as extending throughout a large region of space so that its influence is all-pervading. The strength of a field usually varies over a region.”

When I say that the universe is a single field, I am saying that the region of space which is influenced by whatever form of energy is represented by a physical quantity, is the entire universe, as opposed to “a large region of space”. The form of energy is the form that produces an expansion of space. The energy that produces the expansion of space also expands within the already existing space, which then produces pressure. I don’t believe that form of energy is known to physics, which is why I put it in quotes. I do not mean Dark Energy or cosmological constant.

I will try to draw a word picture, which probably will not be satisfying in the absence of a mathematical formulation. Imagine a skinless balloon being blown up so that its radius expands at a constant rate. The interior of this skinless balloon is filled with smaller skinless balloons each expanding at a constant rate. The balloons cannot all expand into each other. So they become distorted. This distortion takes the form of rotation, or of a rotating surface. I believe rotation is acceleration. This acceleration absorbs the energy of the field so that in the region of the rotating surface the field does not expand. It also separates one part of the field from the remainder: the part of the field inside the rotating surface is separated by the surface from the part of the field outside the surface. Maybe this is not known to physics either.

The rotating surface is what I earlier called a current loop (possibly an electron) or rotating charge (possibly a proton). This is where the idea may come into contact with known physics.

If you can’t make sense of that, I can’t help you. If you want to chop it up into word salad, I can’t stop you.

As far as introducing the CMBR and a tropical month into this discussion, why on earth would someone bring an irrelevant argument to argue against something which he apparently has difficulty understanding to begin with? Usually when someone changes the subject like this, it indicates he or she does not want to deal with the subject at hand, which is the exact equality of the product of hypothetical electron and proton voltage with the Josephson constant, a known physical constant.

29. Originally Posted by ngeo
Perhaps when you comment, you should comment on the entire statement. Breaking a statement into parts may work for a mathematician, but used on words it can reduce sense to nonsense. Which it seems you do, since you seem unable to make sense - say, in the form of a mental picture - out of the words. I guess chopping up statements and sentences does make a word salad.
I did break up the statements into smaller parts because taken at a whole, they were merely word salad to me. Breaking them up into smaller parts gave me the opportunity to point out where the problems with your usage of terms lie - which are very probably at the root of the fact that your statements look like word salad to me!

May I remind you that a few posts ago, I didn't break up your statement into smaller parts - and that had then the consequence that I had to follow your single statement with about 10 questions about the meanings of terms etc.?

Originally Posted by ngeo
Again from Wikipedia, the full statement:

“In physics, a field is an assignment of a physical quantity to every point in space (or, more generally, spacetime). A field is thus viewed as extending throughout a large region of space so that its influence is all-pervading. The strength of a field usually varies over a region.”

When I say that the universe is a single field, I am saying that the region of space which is influenced by whatever form of energy is represented by a physical quantity, is the entire universe, as opposed to “a large region of space”. The form of energy is the form that produces an expansion of space. The energy that produces the expansion of space also expands within the already existing space, which then produces pressure. I don’t believe that form of energy is known to physics, which is why I put it in quotes. I do not mean Dark Energy or cosmological constant.
So, let's address this statement in full, once again (or do you wish that I address your whole post in full, instead of breaking it up into paragraphs?).

Saying that "the universe is a single field" has, if one takes the Wikipedia quote you provide into account, nothing to do with what you write in the rest of the paragraph (for starters, you still do not tell us what physical quantity is assigned to every point in space). What does it mean to say that a region of space (or the entire universe, take your pick) is "influenced" by energy? What does it mean to say that a "form of energy is represented by a physical quantity"? Why do you think that energy is needed in order to "produce an expansion of space"? What does it mean to say that energy "expands"? (that is the statement which I could make the most sense of among all the above - but let's see if you meant the same as I understood). Why should the "expanding" of energy produce pressure? Why is the assumption that this form of energy is not known to physics a reason to put "energy" in quote marks?

There you have it. The result of not splitting up your statement into smaller parts is simply a whole paragraph consisting only of questions... what's the big difference to breaking it up? Simple: breaking it up makes the discussion much more clean and neat.

Originally Posted by ngeo
I will try to draw a word picture, which probably will not be satisfying in the absence of a mathematical formulation. Imagine a skinless balloon being blown up so that its radius expands at a constant rate. The interior of this skinless balloon is filled with smaller skinless balloons each expanding at a constant rate. The balloons cannot all expand into each other. So they become distorted. This distortion takes the form of rotation, or of a rotating surface. I believe rotation is acceleration. This acceleration absorbs the energy of the field so that in the region of the rotating surface the field does not expand. It also separates one part of the field from the remainder: the part of the field inside the rotating surface is separated by the surface from the part of the field outside the surface. Maybe this is not known to physics either.
I don't know what you mean with a "skinless" balloon. How could a distortion "take the form of rotation", or "of a rotating surface"? No, rotation is not acceleration, rotation merely involves a special kind of acceleration (centripetal acceleration). What does it mean to say that "acceleration absorbs energy"? What "field", once again? In your balloon analogy, what represents there the "field"? How can a rotation "absorbing" something lead to something not expanding? Have you ever heard of the conservations laws for momentum and angular momentum? How can two parts of a field be "separated" from each other, if we take the definition for "field" you yourself quoted?

What you write is indeed not "known" to physics. In fact, the very few parts which are understandable at all contradict heavily known physics - as I said, look up the conservations laws for momentum and angular momentum.

Originally Posted by ngeo
The rotating surface is what I earlier called a current loop (possibly an electron) or rotating charge (possibly a proton). This is where the idea may come into contact with known physics.
Why do you call a rotating surface a "loop"? This goes even against the common-sense meaning of the word "loop".

Originally Posted by ngeo
If you can’t make sense of that, I can’t help you. If you want to chop it up into word salad, I can’t stop you.
As I said above already: not chopping it up makes it word salad. And as I also pointed out already, you can help me: by either clearly defining what your terms mean, or even better, using the terms with their standard meanings. Since you apparently refuse to do either, I can only conclude that you are not really interested in other people understanding you.

Originally Posted by ngeo
As far as introducing the CMBR and a tropical month into this discussion, why on earth would someone bring an irrelevant argument to argue against something which he apparently has difficulty understanding to begin with?
It was an analogy for searching for meaning in a coincidental agreement between two numbers. Try to understand the point.

Originally Posted by ngeo
Usually when someone changes the subject like this, it indicates he or she does not want to deal with the subject at hand, which is the exact equality of the product of hypothetical electron and proton voltage with the Josephson constant, a known physical constant.
Err, but providing an analogy is not changing the subject. And one point of my analogy, which you obviously completely missed, is that totally ignoring the units of physical quantities is a bad idea (both for K and days on the one hand side, and for the product of "electron and proton voltage" and Hz/V, which is the unit of the Josephson constant).

30. Established Member
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
330
Re the post above, I have done my best to explain in simple language, I don’t know whether I can make the “creation” part of this idea any clearer and it may involve rotation on the equivalent of three axes, which is a big headache even for me. I doubt I could answer any of the questions in a way that would satisfy you. So I am not going to try again.

Apart from this, the particles themselves are taken to be massless, so any physical description or interpretation which invokes bodies of matter (i.e. centripetal force) will not work here. The gravitational force (or spacetime geometry) is an effect of this hypothetical system.

The exact equivalence of the product of two hypothetical voltages with a known constant giving a frequency product of voltage according to 2q/h is in no way similar to the (non-)coincidence given in the analogy. Nor is it the invocation of some supernatural influence. The relationship between voltage and frequency is same as the relationship between q and h. In other words, in this hypothetical system, f/v=q/h. In this system which comes first, f or v? They seem to be in effect functions of each other. The fact that the product of the electron and proton voltages in this hypothetical system is exactly equal to a known constant does not mean that the electron and proton somehow combine their potentials produce this constant. It means, as far as I can figure out, that the constant is a common multiplier which produces the frequency of each particle. Given the ratio of the particle voltages and frequencies determined by inserting alpha into this set of equations, the constant can be described without units, simply in terms of alpha and “r”. It seems to me that the ability to describe a cause-and-effect relation in the electron-proton system in terms of alpha and a ratio derived from the particles themselves is a step forward to a fundamental explanation for these particles, especially since the known physical constant and its inverse, the magnetic flux quantum, are in the middle of this relationship and apply to superconducting currents.

I admit I don’t understand much of the formal “science” of this, maybe only that you can move alpha, “r“, f, v, q and h around in interesting ways. Putting units against the letters and numbers, you come up with “work done per cycle per unit current per second” and suchlike. That’s fine (and doesn‘t make a lot of sense to me in my ignorance), but these units point to some effect we can see in the end, however they are juggled. Maybe there is more than one way to describe the system that creates the effect, and the result I am giving may be a clue to a different - maybe even an easier - way of describing it. It is beyond me how a scientist with a straight face could call the relation a coincidence, or numerology, with the implication “not worth considering”.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•