Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #435618 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-02-27 17:07 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-02-28 05:07 +0000 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
3How AP finally got rid of negative numbers out of Physics, (Charge is really Wire) the last stronghold of the nonexistant negative numbers Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 17:07 -0800
Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-28 05:07 +0000
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-27 17:07 -0800 |
| Subject | 3How AP finally got rid of negative numbers out of Physics, (Charge is really Wire) the last stronghold of the nonexistant negative numbers |
| Message-ID | <ac2bfd37-3ce3-4ec4-b4e5-da483cd71a3d@googlegroups.com> |
3How AP finally got rid of negative numbers out of Physics, (Charge is really Wire) the last stronghold of the nonexistant negative numbers
current should be in numerator of voltage, not denominator Re: in New Physics the electric current is better defined
Halliday & Resnick mistake on voltage page A21:
On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 6:11:13 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 5:02:41 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 4:44:19 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > This still is a mess and need to straighten it out of units. I thought i did this a long time ago, but apparently not correctly.
> >
> > I thought I had the units in V = iBL totally squared away a long time ago, but apparently not. So I must review the units for V = iBL
> >
> > I was hoping to get a algebraic sense of the meaning of charge, rather than a geometry of clockwise or counterclockwise.
> >
> > The idea still is a candidate of truth. That Gravity = EM means the Sun magnetic lines of force intersects Earth, and then those lines of force are curved closed loop so that when a monopole hits Earth from the Sun, in the closed loop pulls the Earth closer to the Sun.
> >
>
> I probably caught Halliday&Resnick PHYSICS, part2 extended version, 1986 in another mistake. A mistake in their units on page on page A21. A mistake for Halliday&Resnick regardless of the fact I am using V= iBL and they are using V= iR. The mistake concerns their definition of quantity of electricity, C, Coulomb as A*s and A as electric current. Maybe just a mix up on the part of H&R. Or, maybe my New Ohm's law shows that Old Physics Ohm's law is untenable.
>
> What H&R cite on their page A21 and elsewhere:
> Voltage = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C*s^2
>
Alright, H&R gave Voltage those above units and on the same page gives Resistance as
Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
So, sure enough if we multiply Resistance by i=A we end up with Voltage.
But if we are given just iR or iBL we should have the current i=A in the numerator of both iR and iBL. And that means the Voltage should have the current in the numerator also.
And why should resistance have current*current which makes little to no sense at all.
Why should Magnetic Field B and angular momentum L have current*current in the denominator?
I think five reasons screwed up these units for Halliday&Resnick and all physics professors who followed.
1) there exists no electric field, but is the voltage
2) they screwed up on what voltage units truly are, not knowing that if you have iR or iBL, the current must be in the numerator.
3) magnetic monopoles exist and are the particle of charge or no charge .5MeV
4) Ohm's law is correct only when R is replaced by BL
5) even sillier to think B and L have a current term
> Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2 = kg /C*s
>
> angular momentum = kg*m^2/s
>
> Charge = C = A*s
>
> Electric Current = A = i
>
> The trouble with the above is that we have current in denominator of voltage, when we are required by Ohm's law, either the Old Ohm's law of V = iR or the New Ohm's law of V = iBL that the current can only be in the numerator.
>
> So the mistake that Halliday & Resnick make and all the rest of physics professors, is that they have current upside down in units. They never realized that as you take voltage by itself, then you take iR or iBL by itself, the two have to equal one another.
>
> If current is in the denominator of voltage, then it is impossible to get current in the denominator of either iR or of iBL.
>
> So this is a huge serious mistake of Halliday and Resnick and all physics professors thereafter.
>
Probably this mistake was made since Old Physics still believes in their idiotic Electric Field when that is so much redundant, for voltage is the electric field.
AP
me (Archimedes Plutonium change)
3:25 PM (8 minutes ago)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 22:00:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: current should be in numerator of voltage, not denominator Re: in New
Physics the electric current is better defined
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 06:00:26 +0000
current should be in numerator of voltage, not denominator Re: in New Physics the electric current is better defined
Now let us sort this out— something i should have done in 2017 but was swept away by the tide of discovery that real proton and electron were 840 to 105 MeV.
Force = kg*m/s^2
Voltage = kg*m^2/A*s^3
Electric Field = kg*m/A*s^3
Magnetic Field = kg/A*s^2
Mind you the above is what Old Physics and Halliday & Resnick give. But in New Physics voltage and Electric Field are one and the same. And New Physics follows New Ohms Law V = iBL where voltage equals current multiply magnetic field multiply angular momentum.
That means the units of voltage are in error in Old Physics since current A=i must be in the numerator of voltage to have iBL as true.
So, many mistakes and compounded mistakes.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 22:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: current should be in numerator of voltage, not denominator Re: in New
Physics the electric current is better defined
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 06:20:29 +0000
current should be in numerator of voltage, not denominator Re: in New Physics the electric current is better defined
Since current A=i has to be in the numerator for voltage suggests A is not a term in either B or L. Or alternatively A is a term in all three of i, B, L and where A is inverse to A in one of B or L
Like this algebra A x 1/A x A
Another alternative would be
A x 1/A^2 x A^2
In Old Physics they had no A^2 except in their R resistance.
So let me sleep on this and by tomorrow hopefully know the correct answer, no rush, since this lay dormant since 2017 anyway.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 23:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: new voltage and magnetic field units Re: current should be in
numerator of voltage, not denominator Re: in New Physics the electric current
is better defined
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:52:39 +0000
new voltage and magnetic field units Re: current should be in numerator of voltage, not denominator Re: in New Physics the electric current is better defined
Alright, I already found the answer.
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 12:20:32 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Since current A=i has to be in the numerator for voltage suggests A is not a term in either B or L. Or alternatively A is a term in all three of i, B, L and where A is inverse to A in one of B or L
>
> Like this algebra A x 1/A x A
And that is the answer. Every term in V = iBL needs a A=i current. We are in fact speaking of the angular momentum of current, the magnetic field of current and the voltage of current
>
> Another alternative would be
>
> A x 1/A^2 x A^2
>
No, it would not be A^2 for that is energy in the form of E=mc^2 where the c^2 is replaceable by A^2
> In Old Physics they had no A^2 except in their R resistance.
>
> So let me sleep on this and by tomorrow hopefully know the correct answer, no rush, since this lay dormant since 2017 anyway.
>
So, in New Physics we have brand new equations for Voltage = electric field, and for units of voltage, units of magnetic field and units of angular momentum.
The above is likely a proof in and of itself that no electric field exists that is independent of voltage, in other words, one is the other, and not two separate physics parameters.
AP
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 3:42:01 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
what is this physics parameter we call charge Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
That certainly was a long post, but I needed to show that length to show the reasoning.
Old Physics had the Maxwell Equations all screwed up with electric field, voltage units.
But the worst screw up in EM theory is that they thought the real electron was the .5MeV particle when that was actually the Dirac Magnetic Monopole and the real electron is the muon at 105MeV leaving the real proton to be 840MeV.
Yet, worst of all these mistakes, is the idea that subatomic particles are like organs inside a animal with those organs having jobs and tasks and functions. So the muon is the bar magnet in Faraday Law and the proton is a coil in Faraday Law.
Now, only now can we go back and fix and correct all the errors of Old Physics with EM theory, and finally start to understand what in the world is this physics parameter we call "Charge".
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 15:14:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: what is this physics parameter we call charge Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT
CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:14:59 +0000
what is this physics parameter we call charge Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
One of the hardships of understanding charge is we cloaked it in a dumb math terminology of positive and negative.
Sometimes in science when you cloak a phenomenon with bad math you prevent from understanding how it really works for a thousand years— Ptolemy insisting circles had to be orbits.
When we cloak charge with bad math of + and - we delay our true understanding of charge by centuries.
For “charge” is really a force, it has to be if gravity = EM. But if your mind is polluted with - and +, it is difficult to envision charge as not a property but a actual force.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 15:25:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: what is this physics parameter we call charge Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT
CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:25:30 +0000
what is this physics parameter we call charge Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
Everyone in Old Physics got voltage units wrong, even my heroes— Maxwell, Dirac. They thought voltage was kg*m^2/A*s^3.
Trouble with that is Voltage in Old Physics was V=iR and in New Physics V=iBL
No matter what physics you believe, voltage units cannot have the A=i in the denominator. The A must always be in the numerator.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 17:24:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2, angular momentum = kg*A*m^2/s, Voltage = kg*A*m^2 /s^3 Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 01:24:10 +0000
Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2, angular momentum = kg*A*m^2/s, Voltage = kg*A*m^2 /s^3 Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
>
> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 23:52:38 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
> Subject: new voltage and magnetic field units Re: current should be in
>
> numerator of voltage, not denominator Re: in New Physics the electric current
>
> is better defined
>
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
>
> Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 07:52:39 +0000
>
>
>
> new voltage and magnetic field units Re: current should be in numerator of voltage, not denominator Re: in New Physics the electric current is better defined
>
>
>
>
>
> Alright, I already found the answer.
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 12:20:32 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > Since current A=i has to be in the numerator for voltage suggests A is not a term in either B or L. Or alternatively A is a term in all three of i, B, L and where A is inverse to A in one of B or L
>
> >
>
> > Like this algebra A x 1/A x A
>
>
This would be the easiest choice that makes the most common sense, and it implies a A term in magnetic field and that of angular momentum
>
> And that is the answer. Every term in V = iBL needs a A=i current. We are in fact speaking of the angular momentum of current, the magnetic field of current and the voltage of current
>
> >
>
> > Another alternative would be
>
> >
>
> > A x 1/A^2 x A^2
>
That is unpalatable choice for it has a A^2 in both magnetic field and angular momentum
Also the choice of no A term in magnetic field and angular momentum is a unpalatable choice especially since magnetism is the inverse of electricity.
So the clear favorite choice is a A term in magnetic field, in angular momentum and in voltage.
> >
>
>
>
> No, it would not be A^2 for that is energy in the form of E=mc^2 where the c^2 is replaceable by A^2
>
>
>
> > In Old Physics they had no A^2 except in their R resistance.
>
> >
>
> > So let me sleep on this and by tomorrow hopefully know the correct answer, no rush, since this lay dormant since 2017 anyway.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So, in New Physics we have brand new equations for Voltage = electric field, and for units of voltage, units of magnetic field and units of angular momentum.
>
>
>
> The above is likely a proof in and of itself that no electric field exists that is independent of voltage, in other words, one is the other, and not two separate physics parameters.
>
>
Old Physics has:
Electric current = A=i
Force = kg*m/s^2
Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2
Voltage = kg*m^2 /A*s^3
angular momentum = kg*m^2/s
What do I need to do to make true V=iR of Old Physics and also V = iBL of New Physics?
Let me try this on for size:
Electric current = A
Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2
angular momentum = kg*A*m^2/s
Voltage = kg*A*m^2 /s^3
Where Resistance R = BL
That works fine because V= iBL comes out as a true equality
There is only one point of contention that I can see is when you multiply kg by kg it is safe to say you end up with a scalar kg, not some vector of kg^2.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 19:50:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: forces multiplied together is just a larger force or a new entity?
Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 03:50:17 +0000
forces multiplied together is just a larger force or a new entity? Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
So, let us try this out for the New Ohm's Law Voltage = current* magnetic field*angular momentum V=iBL
Electric current = A
Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2
angular momentum = kg*A*m^2/s
Voltage = kg*A*m^2 /s^3
A * (kg /A*s^2) *(kg*A*m^2/s)
And sure enough that yields kg*A*m^2/s^3
Now in Old Physics, there Electric field was altogether different from voltage, and was Voltage/meters
And so in New Physics we look at kg*A*m/s^3 and compare to say kg*A*m^2/s^3. And compare to magnetic field where meters do not come into the picture at all unless you want to discuss meters in electric current A.
But the important feature to note is that magnetic field, the A is inverse to voltage or electric field.
In New Physics we make the assertion that voltage and electric field are one and the same physical entity.
So, now, to understand what Charge is, we have to ask a similar question to when we multiply two forces. Does the physics EM theory say anything about multiplying one EM force by another and is the result a EM force itself?
We had that problem when multiplying B by L with the kg term. Do we get kg^2 something different from kg*kg or do we just get a larger kg? Mass is scalar so that kg*kg is just more kg. But meters or seconds are variables and so s*s is not more s but rather s^2 and meters*meters is not more meters but is area of m^2.
What about Forces, when we have F_1 * F_2 do we end up larger force of F_3 or do we end up with an entirely new entity. Old Physics never delved into these sort of questions.
But I am confident that the answer for forces multiplied is a larger force from the multiplicands. Not a new entity.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 20:18:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: explaining charge geometrically Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY
IS IN PHYSICS
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 04:18:46 +0000
explaining charge geometrically Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but I suspect the argument goes that Forces of EM theory are a vector space and when you multiply two or three vectors you end up with a new vector. Not a new entity.
That leads me into saying Voltage is a force, and current is a force, and magnetic field is a force, and angular momentum is a force. Four forces in all. And multiplying three forces produces the one force of voltage. And in New Physics Voltage = Electric Field.
That brings me to Geometry explanation, not only of charge, but Gravity = EM. And here is where I so desperately need this diagram pictures of lines-of-force of a bar magnet.
_ __ _
,' | N| `.
/ | | - |
| + | | /
`. _ |S | _ .'
_ __
,' | N|
/ | |
| | |
`. _ |S |
_ __
,' | N|
/ | |
| | |
`. _ |S |
__ _
| N| `.
| | |
| | /
|S | _ .'
_ __ _
,' | N| `.
/ | | |
| | | /
`. _ |S | _ .'
What I propose to do is show that charge is gravity = EM force
We enlist the three Kepler laws for what Kepler discovered is a geometry of gravity, and then Newton put the geometry into a algebra format.
But neither Kepler or Newton could really explain how gravity works-- they just said-- here, here is some math that predicts gravity orbits. They could not say gravity was magnetism because "repel" kept them away. The reason AP can explain gravity as magnetism and not be bothered by "repel" because it was never a repel force at all, but rather a "denial of same space occupancy" Pauli Exclusion.
What I propose to do is show that Charge = force, the force of magnetic attraction.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 21:12:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: explaining gravity as geometry of magnetism Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT
CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 05:12:46 +0000
explaining gravity as geometry of magnetism Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
Alright, before I go to bed, I want to make a half-hearted start at explaining how Charge is gravity = Magnetism. I am sure I will have to revise this many times. But I need to start.
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 10:18:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> Not to put too fine of a point on it, but I suspect the argument goes that Forces of EM theory are a vector space and when you multiply two or three vectors you end up with a new vector. Not a new entity.
>
> That leads me into saying Voltage is a force, and current is a force, and magnetic field is a force, and angular momentum is a force. Four forces in all. And multiplying three forces produces the one force of voltage. And in New Physics Voltage = Electric Field.
>
> That brings me to Geometry explanation, not only of charge, but Gravity = EM. And here is where I so desperately need this diagram pictures of lines-of-force of a bar magnet.
>
>
> _ __ _
> ,' | N| `.
> / | | - |
> | + | | /
> `. _ |S | _ .'
>
In the above we see two different lines-of-force of magnetism a counterclockwise + ellipse as closed loop, but a special type of ellipse for it has a straightline segment from S to N. Then the second loop of - is clockwise going from N to S and with a straightline segment S to N. Each of these closed loops are a modified ellipse and the two together is one big ellipse.
In Kepler laws, an ellipse is a force and an ellipse is angular momentum (another type of force). So in this picture we have three ellipses in all.
>
> _ __
> ,' | N|
> E | |
> | | |
> `. _ |S |
Now imagine in the above where the NS is the Sun and E is the Earth in orbit around the Sun
> _ __ _
> ,' | N| `.
> / | | E
> | | | /
> `. _ |S | _ .'
>
Imagine in the above that the Sun is NS and the two ellipses forming a large ellipse is the orbit of E. The E is Earth in its orbit around the Sun as NS.
Now, how gravity as magnetism works is that a Sun line-of-force intercepts Earth and Earth then follows that line-of-force
Now the line-of-force is actually a physical object of either a +1charge photon or a -1 charge photon that forms the line-of-force. Now it could be a neutrino instead of a photon.
Now the charge of +1 or -1 are not quantities but rather only direction, so that instead of +1 we could say counterclockwise or -1 we could say clockwise.
Now the reason Earth does not fly off into Space in a straight line but is stuck in orbit around the Sun is because the Sun's Lines of Force are so massive in photons and neutrinos that are curved, that the Earth is trapped into that pathway of Sun's lines of Force.
> What I propose to do is show that charge is gravity = EM force
>
> We enlist the three Kepler laws for what Kepler discovered is a geometry of gravity, and then Newton put the geometry into a algebra format.
>
> But neither Kepler or Newton could really explain how gravity works-- they just said-- here, here is some math that predicts gravity orbits. They could not say gravity was magnetism because "repel" kept them away. The reason AP can explain gravity as magnetism and not be bothered by "repel" because it was never a repel force at all, but rather a "denial of same space occupancy" Pauli Exclusion.
>
> What I propose to do is show that Charge = force, the force of magnetic attraction.
>
Now, Charge is Force, for Charge are the Lines of Force, the A or electric current is charge, is a force. Current is magnetic monopoles, and many monopoles come in energy of .5MeV.
In the case of the Sun and Earth, think of the Sun's Lines of Force large and broad, so broad that Earth follows these lines of force as if these lines of force are a highway and Earth a car on this highway.
AP
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 11:46:33 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
explaining gravity as geometry of magnetism Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
So, charge is going to end up being photons or neutrinos that are the circuits in EM theory the paths or wires or roads upon which mass travels. To say charge is to say a wire path.
The proton of atoms is the Faraday coil
The muon= electron of atoms is the Faraday bar magnet
The neutron of atoms is the capacitor storage chamber of monopoles produced by protons and muons
The photon and neutrinos are wires of the atom and the world. Wires as lines of force or paths or roads. And photons and neutrinos are magnetic monopoles.
And light allows us to see other things in the world and metaphorically is that not a path or road to that seen object.
AP
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:19:47 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Re: explaining gravity as geometry of magnetism Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 11:12:48 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, before I go to bed, I want to make a half-hearted start at explaining how Charge is gravity = Magnetism. I am sure I will have to revise this many times. But I need to start.
>
> On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 10:18:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> >
> > Not to put too fine of a point on it, but I suspect the argument goes that Forces of EM theory are a vector space and when you multiply two or three vectors you end up with a new vector. Not a new entity.
> >
> > That leads me into saying Voltage is a force, and current is a force, and magnetic field is a force, and angular momentum is a force. Four forces in all. And multiplying three forces produces the one force of voltage. And in New Physics Voltage = Electric Field.
> >
> > That brings me to Geometry explanation, not only of charge, but Gravity = EM. And here is where I so desperately need this diagram pictures of lines-of-force of a bar magnet.
> >
> >
> > _ __ _
> > ,' | N| `.
> > / | | - |
> > | + | | /
> > `. _ |S | _ .'
> >
>
> In the above we see two different lines-of-force of magnetism a counterclockwise + ellipse as closed loop, but a special type of ellipse for it has a straightline segment from S to N. Then the second loop of - is clockwise going from N to S and with a straightline segment S to N. Each of these closed loops are a modified ellipse and the two together is one big ellipse.
>
> In Kepler laws, an ellipse is a force and an ellipse is angular momentum (another type of force). So in this picture we have three ellipses in all.
>
>
>
> >
> > _ __
> > ,' | N|
> > E | |
> > | | |
> > `. _ |S |
>
> Now imagine in the above where the NS is the Sun and E is the Earth in orbit around the Sun
>
> > _ __ _
> > ,' | N| `.
> > / | | E
> > | | | /
> > `. _ |S | _ .'
> >
Keep in mind here in gravity = magnetism there are three ellipses of force here. Each ellipse being a force. Two of the ellipses have a straightline segment. And the overall ellipse does not. Each ellipse is a force such as current or magnetic field or angular momentum.
>
> Imagine in the above that the Sun is NS and the two ellipses forming a large ellipse is the orbit of E. The E is Earth in its orbit around the Sun as NS.
>
> Now, how gravity as magnetism works is that a Sun line-of-force intercepts Earth and Earth then follows that line-of-force
>
> Now the line-of-force is actually a physical object of either a +1charge photon or a -1 charge photon that forms the line-of-force. Now it could be a neutrino instead of a photon.
>
> Now the charge of +1 or -1 are not quantities but rather only direction, so that instead of +1 we could say counterclockwise or -1 we could say clockwise.
>
> Now the reason Earth does not fly off into Space in a straight line but is stuck in orbit around the Sun is because the Sun's Lines of Force are so massive in photons and neutrinos that are curved, that the Earth is trapped into that pathway of Sun's lines of Force.
>
>
>
> > What I propose to do is show that charge is gravity = EM force
> >
> > We enlist the three Kepler laws for what Kepler discovered is a geometry of gravity, and then Newton put the geometry into a algebra format.
> >
> > But neither Kepler or Newton could really explain how gravity works-- they just said-- here, here is some math that predicts gravity orbits. They could not say gravity was magnetism because "repel" kept them away. The reason AP can explain gravity as magnetism and not be bothered by "repel" because it was never a repel force at all, but rather a "denial of same space occupancy" Pauli Exclusion.
> >
> > What I propose to do is show that Charge = force, the force of magnetic attraction.
> >
>
> Now, Charge is Force, for Charge are the Lines of Force, the A or electric current is charge, is a force. Current is magnetic monopoles, and many monopoles come in energy of .5MeV.
>
> In the case of the Sun and Earth, think of the Sun's Lines of Force large and broad, so broad that Earth follows these lines of force as if these lines of force are a highway and Earth a car on this highway.
>
And now, if we replace the word “charge” with “wire” we get a better description of the physics
Parameter and can thence throw out the terms positive and negative also.
Instead of saying “charge” say wire.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:39:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: explaining gravity as geometry of magnetism Re: UNDERSTANDING
WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:39:28 +0000
Re: explaining gravity as geometry of magnetism Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
And this solves one of my most nettlesome problems of physics— redshift of light from distant galaxies. Last time on this issue i said it was tired light. But no, it is not that. It is the fact of the bent arc of path the light makes. And so redshift is not a distance measure to source of light.
This also means the galaxies form many Rings, not just the one Jarrett found at Caltech.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:46:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: good day when you can solve two nettlesome problems all at once Re:
UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 21:46:03 +0000
good day when you can solve two nettlesome problems all at once Re: UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHARGE REALLY IS IN PHYSICS
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:39:32 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> And this solves one of my most nettlesome problems of physics— redshift of light from distant galaxies. Last time on this issue i said it was tired light. But no, it is not that. It is the fact of the bent arc of path the light makes. And so redshift is not a distance measure to source of light.
>
> This also means the galaxies form many Rings, not just the one Jarrett found at Caltech.
>
What I am referring to above with Jarrett is this:
--- quoting ---
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
supercluster
(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or
chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
--- end quoting ---
What I am saying here, is that the cosmic survey of galaxies when using redshift properly, then, all the galaxies line up into a coil of rings.
When we look out at the night sky of galaxies, we imagine them as uniformly distributed, sometimes even chaotic with voids here and clusters there. And as we gain data of galaxy redshifts, we then think those redshifts mean distance away. But not so, if we think of the redshift as the curved arc that light naturally travels, means the galaxies are not uniformly spread but rather are all forming rings, rings upon rings into a coil of rings.
After Jarrett tabulated all the data on galaxy redshifts then placed those galaxies in a 3D position, to him, they are uniformly spread except for that Ring he could not make disappear. That Ring is not a result of projection but rather is the result that all galaxies are in a ring formation and when Jarrett could not understand his redshift is not distance but rather is arc-curvature of light. Jarrett's wrong idea of redshift cannot remove the Ring because the Ring is true and Jarrett's redshift notions are false.
Now, if Jarrett were to re- do his plotting of where all galaxies reside with a true redshift as arc curvature, he should discover that there are many many Rings forming a Coil of Rings.
Perhaps some mathematicians would have a easier time of seeing this.
But let me also talk about how I finally got rid of the enormous pest of -1 and +1 when no negative numbers ever existed in math or physics. This problem was as bad as Doppler redshift of physics-- total fakery.
So, how did AP finally get rid of -1, negative numbers out of physics.
It is a surprize to me also, how this was accomplished. For years and years I have been looking for a replacement of positive and negative such as up or down or clockwise or counterclockwise.
It never dawned on me, until last night, that the way forward in getting rid of negative numbers out of physics was not to replace -1 and +1 with something, no, that was a futile exercise. But the way forward was to replace "Charge". As long as i had charge, I could not get rid of -1.
I had to go a higher level of theory-- not -1 and +1 but to the higher level concept of charge. Once I replace charge with a meaningful physics concept-- Wire. Then the -1 and +1 go away automatically.
The lesson here is that not only was -1 and +1 vague and nonsense, but "charge" from whence -1 comes from is vague and nonsense.
So in Electricity and Magnetism, you need wires, never do you need charge.
Faraday Law is not about charge, but about wires. Electricity is not about +1 and -1 but about flow, flow of something and you can only have flow if you have wires-- whether the wires are copper or are photons or neutrinos.
So, finally, finally, AP manages to get rid of -1 in math and in physics. For no negative numbers exist. And the way AP got rid of -1 and all other negative numbers, is that Charge is not a physics concept at all, but a hack fakery. Wire is the concept. And it is silly and ridiculous to think that Wire comes in two types. Wire is just wire. Now you have two types of magnetic poles-- North and South. And those are directions. So we can say a wire that has current counterclockwise is North and wire that has current clockwise is South. The Right-Hand Rule is a north or south rule.
AP
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-28 05:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <q57qaa$nbc$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #435618 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >explaining how Sun forces Earth to orbit and why Voids in physics do not >exist Re: Understanding that "Charge" really is WIRES in Physics, photons >and neutrinos are wires Oh why does Plutonium always have to play "let's pretend"? Why does he pretend to discover physics and math? He says sci.math and sci.physics are for math and physics, so why does Plutonium just attack and pretend?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web