FrankForum (Frankness IS Forum)

Magnetism aka Theory of Everything
Page 1 of 1

Author:  brainout [ 01 Jul 2017, 23:20 ]
Post subject:  Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

I'll gradually find and add twitter posts on the topic here. Turns out Twitter now limits searches to 3 days so something I sent a week ago retweeted from my Android, I can't now find. Use the thread for what YOU want, too. Or, make your own!

Meanwhile, a magnetism video parked in Fractal Geometry, is again parked here:

Author:  brainout [ 01 Jul 2017, 23:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

Here's the gif I spent two hours trying to find in my twitter feed. It was originally tweeted by @BlackPhysicists, who have a lot of stuff on black holes. It's a video you can download but I it won't work in the forum.

This is helpful too: play the video on the section's right-hand side

All three of these lead to some upending hypotheses:

1. There are two types of magnetism, and they are antithetical: the traditional one which the Distinti video refutes but not wholly, and the alternate version of magnetism that same video propounds, with the gif and the spin videos concurring.
2. Since Light is both wave and particle in function, then maybe magnetism is as well, accounting for #1.

3. I think Planck inadvertently proved Light a spectrum starting with mass at absolute zero, cuz he had to insert integers to test emission. So there is a state 0 with no omission which we can call stasis (no function, but exists); the other integer states are not constants, but limit sets for a given frequency (or set of frequencies). Seems to me the above all helps demonstrate that claim.

4. Fractalic processes carry out these waves and functions.

Have to think more on it.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 02 Jul 2017, 00:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

New Magnetism part II is also important for explaining why iron filings (and therefore ferro-fluid in ferro cells) create the illusion of flux lines.

Another interesting concept is the concept of negative magnetic image reflection. Might have application to potential realities vs actual reality.

Author:  brainout [ 02 Jul 2017, 01:19 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

Thanks. We were both typing posts at the same time. I revised mine just before yours, but it's still word salad right now. Just wanted to write its first draft.

I was able to prove his claims true with the magnets on my refrigerator. Especially, the turning focused on in the 2nd video, I experienced while watching and testing during the first one.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 04 Jul 2017, 04:03 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

I felt it important to park this video, since magnetism is directly related to "electron" spin. If you have trouble with the mathematical representation of the principles in question, there is an excellent demonstration with pendulums starting at 5:35.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 04 Jul 2017, 16:56 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

I'm putting this video, about the different variations of the torus here, since magnetism seems to be toroidal in nature.

The little joke made by the presenter at 10:32 is pretty much how I envision the proton field of an atom (would have to be a double torus structure), but I never imagined it as a single Mobius band. Maybe that's what I was missing.

Author:  brainout [ 06 Jul 2017, 01:48 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

Yeah, as a result of listening to the 1964 Feynman lectures, I'm rethinking that too, found this:

The Feynman lectures from Cornell, are here (positioned at the one I'm hearing again):

Right now I'm wondering if gravity isn't a residue force of electromagnetism, which would account for why the latter is so much more powerful (covered in the prior Feynman lecture). If so, that would argue for your EUT propositions.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 06 Jul 2017, 05:03 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

This guy has a 3 or 4 part video series on a new, potentially unifying, electromagnetic theory. I haven't even had time to complete all of the first video, but it is definitely compelling, least from what I've seen. In the video, you will see real experiments conducted with simple ferro magnets, as well as plasma experiments to show the spiral galaxy model using double toroidal magnetic fields. Interestingly, this video somewhat dovetailes with Disinti's assertions. Cant wait to watch Feynman's lecture too.

Author:  brainout [ 07 Jul 2017, 19:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

Great, thanks. I'm gonna watch a ton of gravity vids for awhile. Gravity just doesn't make sense to me, anymore. What I mean is, the 'pull' has to be electromagnetic in nature, with mass somehow leveraging its power. Yet if I drop two objects of very different weights, they hit the ground at the same time. So something isn't accounted for.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 07 Jul 2017, 22:00 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

If it helps, Disinti says gravity is not a pull, but a push down as the earth consumes aether. That would go well with expanding earth theory. Basically its like we're caught under a waterfall.

Author:  brainout [ 08 Jul 2017, 21:21 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

Yeah, well then you need to watch the Susskind videos parked in the EUT thread, for he (as did David Tong) account 'dark energy' as being a repulser. Susskind in his talk on Black Hole Wars goes so far as to depict what almost sounds like a flat universe, with cliffs at the end caused by dark energy's repulsion, which he accounts as the cause for the universe expanding. It's the 73rd video in my Physics playlist (again, in the EUT thread).

Not saying I agree or disagree. This is all news to me. I'm trying to match up each doctrine I know to something in physics. The doctrines I know, the physics I don't. There are so dang many particles that I can barely remember the names, but the overall 'forest' of it is all I seek to grasp at this time.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 09 Jul 2017, 06:24 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

Im quoting this from the EUT thread, because I think the comment fits best here.

brainout wrote:
Wow, those are some good videos. Parked here is my Physics playlist, which might end up containing some of the videos above. The one below is set at the beginning of the Leonard Susskind lectures, which start with Einstein and then go through string theory with a lot of math. You'll find Lecture 2 and 3 especially interesting for answering your questions, as the 'Black Hole War' which covers your toroidal and holographic concerns, albeit indirectly in the context of black holes. Apparently it's axiomatic in physics re holographs and that [b]matter is created as a byproduct of field interaction[/b]. However, the fields are not merely toroidal, but are often toroidal, as you'll see when Dr Susskind draws. There's really no substitute for hearing him talk, as the contexts help clarify the meaning.

I wanted to comment on the toroid issue, as I think it's a very important clue to all of this. I've had some time to research and think on the nature of magnetic fields, and this is my conclusion so far, given the information that is available.

1) The spin/angular momentum of the magnetic field is directly related to the direction of electric current flow. If electric current is flowing through a wire away from you (away from your face), the magnetic field will spin around the wire in a clockwise direction relative to your position. If the current is flowing toward you, the magnetic field spins counter clockwise. This is called the right-hand rule of electricity.

2) All known electric are dipolar. This means all electric fields have a positive and negative charge. [There is speculation in some QM circles that electric monopoles can exist, but they have yet to be discovered, and the moment a monopolar body begins to move, the subtle distortion caused by any motion divides the monopolarity into dipolarity. This is potentially important information.] The very fact that all electric fields are dipolar means that current must flow in a circuit.

3) All electric current flows in a circuit. A circuit can exist in any shape. If we have a perfectly circular electric circuit, the magnetic field will take the shape of a perfect toroid. In other words, it will resemble a donut. If the electric circuit is square shaped, the magnetic field will look like a square donut. If rectangular, a rectangular donut, etc. No matter how long, distorted, or incoherent the electric circuit appears to be, there will always be a magnetic field rotating around the flow of current. This means that a magnetic toroid can have any conceivable shape. It can be a neat donut (closer to a black hole shape), or it can look like a distorted hot mess, but regardless of the distortion, the magnetic field is a toroid.

4) There are cases where objects (such as the moons, stars, and even impact craters) can have what appear to be multipolar magnetic fields. These fields generally appear chaotic in shape and they reflect very chaotic electric fields. Despite the appearance of multipolarity, these fields are a collection of multiple dipolar fields, superimposed upon each other in an incoherent fashion (misaligned fields). Rather than looking like donuts, these toroids (and their spin/angular momentum) are so distorted that they wind up looking like a tangled ball of yarn.

5) In Disinti's videos (New Magnetism 1 & 2), Disinti proved, by experimentation and observation, that magnetic attraction is not a dipolar phenomenon, but a phenomenon related to like directions of spin/angular momentum. He also noted that magnetic fields do not really have lines of force. Iron filings (and therefore the ferrofluid used in ferrocells) create the illusion of lines of force (aka flux lines) because of the ferromagnetic nature of iron. If you skip to 16:30 in the New Magnetism 2 video, Disinti explains that as iron filings become magnetized, they link together in parallel chains, oriented to the directional flow of the magnetic field. Each individual set of parallel chain repel each other, forming concentric equidistant curves within the magnetic (force) field. In my opinion, this does two things. First, it creates the illusion that magnetic fields have flux lines of force. Secondly, in my opinion, it shows us the exact shape of the magnetic field being observed. Were it not for this amazing phenomenon there probably would not be an coherent way to visualize a magnetic field. Does this disprove the toroid model? How can it? If anything, it shows how the toroidal magnetic field circulates around the dipolar electric field.

6) Black Holes are said to create the shape of a toroid. QM also says that Black Holes have ridiculously strong gravitational fields? So what could we be observing? What if the toroidal shape of a Black Hole is the result of a magnetic field spinning around an electric dipole?

Or, what if a Black Hole is more like a superconductor, having both positive and negative charges both on top and bottom? That would sandwich it between two stacked toroids, causing a shrinking spiral pattern around a singularity?

7) Whatever the case maybe, the link between magnetic fields and black holes seem to be the toroid. So that could argue a very strong case for gravity being directly related to electromagnetism.

My conclusion: Not all fields are toroids. There are many kinds of fields, which are not directly related to electromagnetism...but it does appear that all magnetic fields are indeed toroids, spinning around an electric current.

Now, here are the important questions. More important than toroids and Black Holes.

1) What came first? The magnetic field, or the electric field?

2) Did the electromagnetism start as a monopole? If so, then said monopole would have to exist in perfect static stillness, for the second motion/oscillation/angular momentum is introduced, the static monopolarity becomes a dipolar electric field, spawning a magnetic field.

3) If Standard Physics and QM both axiomatically agree that mass is a product of field interaction, then how could a monopole exist in perfect static stillness? It would be a massless/fieldless anomaly.

Maybe time is indeed the catalyst.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 09 Jul 2017, 07:26 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

Here's a mediocre video on MAGNETIC monopoles. The presenter assumes that magnets themselves have poles, which is a concept that Disinti has proven to be false. Its not the magnetic field which has poles, but the electric field that the magnetic field encompasses. So keeping that in mind, I would say physicists should be looking for ELECTRIC monopoles, not MAGNETIC.

Author:  brainout [ 09 Jul 2017, 08:44 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

Okay, you keep plugging away. I am not comfortable drawing conclusions about trees until I know the big picture, the whole forest. That Susskind Black Hole Wars link I sent you in twitter ( ... BECB9CE9FA ) is forest level, and implies that QM is a cycle, else how can there be TWO ANTITHETICAL TRUE OUTCOMES. So I want to vet that, first. Sounds very much like the doctrine of salvation, where at the end you go into the Lake of Fire (event horizon) or heaven (black hole, which it would seem, to an unbeliever).

Whenever physics says a thing becomes true/untrue due to observer's observation point, they must have hit a truth unacceptable to them. I want to know what it is, so I can see the forest they see, and then can define the trees.

ONE BIG FOREST CHARACTERISTIC, WHETHER BIOLOGY, MATH, OR PHYSICS: hupostasis. I had no idea 'science' was so fluid on that. They thus appear to have solved the Big Bang and the ending, but don't see that yet. But again, needs more study.

Author:  brainout [ 10 Jul 2017, 19:39 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

BTW, in Lecture 9, 70th video in the above playlist, about 1 hour in, Susskind talks about toroidal constructions (apparently called a 'taurus', singular, or maybe 'torus') as a way to compactify multiple dimensions in superstring/M theory.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 11 Jul 2017, 01:30 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

Cool, I'll take a look when I get more time. For clarification, a toroid can take any shape (square, rectangular, triangular, etc). By contrast, a torus is only circular.

I found this gif you might find interesting, as it links toroids to spheres. ... _torus.gif

This video will tie your mind into knots, but it shows the relationship of the sphere and torus as a massless sphere is turned inside out.

This might be key to understanding electric charge, as charge seems to be a byproduct of field distortion.

Author:  brainout [ 11 Jul 2017, 10:37 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

All that is covered in Lectures 9 and 10, too. Susskind used it as an intro to D-branes which he didn't much discuss.

PS I sound critical only because there are other interps which still validate much of what you're contending. For example, Susskind's talk focused on how toroids CHANGE SHAPE.

Another big thing is how they don't feel that the Gravity part of the Partition Function (the big equation in the David Tong video) has any stable or really provable relationship to the QM in the rest of the Function. They don't feel comfortable with what Gravity is. You contended, I believe, that what we call 'gravity' is really 'magnetism', and since it is more powerful than electrical energy, maybe that's their error, or maybe gravity is an expression or process giving CAUSED BY magnetism, in which case we'd then know the relationship.

Still mulling it all over.

7ToEPartitionFunctionPartsTong.jpg [ 167.17 KiB | Viewed 5308 times ]

Author:  brainout [ 11 Jul 2017, 15:43 ]
Post subject:  Re: Accounting for the Big Bang

Okay, so given all these videos and cogitation, here's a new and simple hypothesis for the Big Bang, inspired by the Brian Greene, David Tong, Richard Feynman, Leonard Susskind and other physics videos in Youtube: . It's 15 minutes, focuses on the pre-Bang 'vacuum' Dr Tong's talk showed, left side of pic below.

Corollary: those nanoparticles aka 'sparks' mentioned in the audio, would be the origin of dark energy and matter. But key would be EM field 'parent', ergo gravity is a child of magnetism. That would explain its universal but per-unit weaker power., and how light can become mass. For what mass exists that doesn't have gravity? Also, the -1 assumption for massless particles at the start of the graph isn't needed. Just assume .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 rounded to 0. What about tachyons? Well, maybe they are real. Can't have change without destabilization. So when a destabilization potential becomes real, inter alia it manifests as a tachyon. And yes, faster than what we call the 'constant' speed of light, cuz there is no such thing. It's a SET like everything else, and like any particular number in a SET, that number will have its own predictable properties and effects on others within the same SET.

Another set of corollaries, re 'dimensions' then becomes apparent (23 mins),

10BigBangMapvsQuantumVacuumTongSmall.jpg [ 255.72 KiB | Viewed 5286 times ]

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 11 Jul 2017, 18:30 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

Don't worry about sounding critical or even agreeing/disagreeing. My priority is discussion.

I'll lay out my seven basic (amendable) Laws for Anonynomenon's Theory of Everything: A
1) Electromagnetism is key to all matter, mass, and force. Some Supersymmetry theories actually equate mass with force.

2) All fields come from the Master Field. The Master Field has no mass, but only mass potential. In is likely spherical in shape, and monopolar (charge being evenly distributed on the surface. The Master Field forms all lower fields through itself (what you call implosion) the moment motion is introduced. This also results in uneven distribution of charge (dipolarity).

3) Lower fields (simply called "fields" are always in motion (oscilation, vibration, angular momentum, etc). This motion is ultimately an echo from the motion of the Master Field.

4) Mass is a product of field-to-field interaction.

5) All "particles" are closed field units.

6) All waves are a disturbance in a medium of particles (closed field units).

7) A particle in motion can cause a wave in a medium, but cannot be it's own wave.

I think the Standard Model's worst blind spot is its incomplete understanding of electromagnetism. We can observe and describe it, but can't explain it. Therefore, I believe the key to unlocking this mystery is understanding electric charge.

A proton is deemed positive, yet it can have a mild negative charge due to its motion. The inverse is true of electrons. Therefore, charge can not be purely Additive (+/-), but must also have a Reciprocal (×/÷) mechanism. So we have to go back to the origin of charge. This is why I focus so much on the Monopole. I believe the massless Master Field was a motionless Monopole...perhaps THE Monopole.

Without charge there is no magnetism, no particles, planets, stars, or Black Holes....

Edit: This theory (A) based on super symmetric principles, so it is probably wrong. QM states that symmetry can be spontaneously broken, which implies that super symmetry is not a good description for the universe.

Author:  brainout [ 11 Jul 2017, 18:43 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

Okay, why is a monopole needed? Should be dipole from the get go, as everything in nature is dual. Same argument for why Hypostatic Union has to be two natures in one person.

And I don't understand "We charge can not be purely Additive".

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 11 Jul 2017, 21:14 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism

I edited my post to explain in more detail, and to to clear up some typos. The concept behind a monopole is that everything needed to produce a charge is already there, its just isometrically distributed (meaning equal distribution). This can only be done in the total absence of motion, else drag would break the equilibrium.

Another way to think of monopolarity would be absolute neutrality, or perfectly fused hupostasis.

Author:  brainout [ 11 Jul 2017, 21:28 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

Okay, but the very definition of 'pole' means charge at an END. Else it's not a polar charge. So then you'd have to say no charge or charge but not polar.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 11 Jul 2017, 23:42 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

Ok, so we can think of it as a spherical charge, but maybe not the same as neutrality. Think of the protons in atoms. According to the standard model, they are considered stationary particles, while electrons move about. What if protons are just an oscillating positive charge confined to the nucleus? Electrons would then be the equal and opposite reaction to the proton's oscilation.

So maybe this spherical Master Field would start as a massless and motionless positive charge. The negative charge is a byproduct, as darkness is to light.

Or, even more simply put, electrons are just the shadows of protons.

Author:  brainout [ 11 Jul 2017, 23:52 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

Um, in Quantum Mechanics, nothing is stationary. I don't think even classical theory posited any part of an atom as stationary. Not sure the Master Field is spherical, either. If anything, it should be rectangular, but more likely no shape at all. The shape occurs as a result of what happens in it, if we go by Relativity. QM doesn't undo that. Moreover, a rest state is 0. So any positives have to be offset by negatives. So the totality of the coordinates of the Master Field have to be a sum such that when positives are added to negatives, they equal zero, just as in math. That's a cardinal rule in physics of all kinds.

ON THE OTHER HAND, it turns out Dr Susskind is a fan of monopoles. I just found this, am still listening to it, and it's only the FIRST lecture of that title

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 12 Jul 2017, 01:46 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

Stationary was a bad description. But protons of stable atoms are thought stay within the confines of the nucleus. Thats closer to what I meant to say.

As far as shape of the Master Field, I dont have a way of speculating any more on that for the moment.

Author:  brainout [ 12 Jul 2017, 02:09 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

Okay, well that new Susskind video supports some of what you're now contending. You'll like it. It's conceptual, not much math. Dang, turns out there must be 40 or more of his lectures. So I'm trying to slowly collect them in order in my Physics playlist, but no longer going to binge watch. Too many for that, and my busy season starts soon.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 27 Jul 2017, 02:37 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

I'm just brainstorming here. I needed a place to park my ideas. I still don't know how to explain how electrons carry a negative charge. Maybe they don't really "carry" a charge, but just fill charge voids? I don't know. I tried to keep my theory as short and simple as possible, but some of my ideas aren't so easy for me to put into words, so if something doesn't makes sense to you, I'll do my best to explain.



1) Electric charge is simply described as positive and negative pressure within a medium.

> Where there is an abundance in positive pressure, there will likely be a nearby relative vacuum (negative pressure).

> These positive and negative pressure zones will naturally seek equilibrium. This is called neutrality.

> Any area in space where positive pressure is seeking to fill negative pressure via the movement of charged particles is called an Electric Field.

> As electrically charged particles seek neutrality, they move through space in circular pattern as though traveling through a vortex. This angular momentum of moving charged particles (electric current) stirs the medium in a circular motion, thus creating a Magnetic Field.

> Hence, all moving Electric Fields coexist with moving Magnetic Fields and vice versa. The two cannot be separated.

2) Like charges repel, and opposite charges attract.

> Positive always seeks to fill negative, and negative always seeks to be filled.

> Positive cannot naturally fill positive, nor can negative naturally fill negative, therefore like charges naturally repel.

3) Magnetic Fields move in a spinning motion, perpendicular to the direction of the electric current.

> Therefore, two or more Magnetic Fields spinning in the same direction attract to form a larger field.

> However, two or more Magnetic Fields spinning in opposing directions will repel.

> In most cases, the dominant Magnetic Field will cause the weaker field to orient itself to the dominant field's direction of spin.


1) In a Super Symmetrical universe, every positive charge should have an equal and opposite negative charge to fill. Neutrality would be the End Game.

> Even if the charges were unevenly distributed, neutrality would be inevitable.

2) However, total universal neutrality seems impossible to achieve.

> We exist in a universe filled with a wide variety of plasma clouds, atomic elements, and molecular compounds. This contradicts the principle of Super Symmetry.

> A neutral world would be completely homogenous. Universal neutrality is as unrealistic as universal socio-economic equality.

3) Why is the universe so asymmetrical?

> Could the answer be Quantum Foam/Virtual Particles?


1) In the many denominations of Physics, the word "Energy" is used in a very broad sense. For the purpose of bridging Classical Electric Theory to modern Quantum Field Theory, I will call the source of all Energy, HYPER AETHER.

> Hyper Aether can be defined as an immaterial source of an infinitely wide spectrum of vibration frequencies.

> Vibrations cause wave patterns within a medium, however, in the absence of space, vibrations can only cause varying degrees of Constructive and Destructive Interference within an infinitesimally confined point.

> In other words, Hyper Aether can only act upon itself to create particles, fields, mass, and matter.

2) Via an endless symphony of Constructive and Destructive Interference patterns, Hyper Aether fills space with a boiling host of basic Elementary Aether Fields.

> These Elementary Aether Fields are filled with particles, which are the differential products of frequency oscillation interactions within the Hyper Aether.

> The particles which constitute these Elementary Aether Fields are called Elementary Aether Particles.

> Elementary Aether Particles come in a spectrum of sizes with energy properties corresponding to their frequency oscillation differentials.

3) When Elementary Aether Fields interact with each other, they create Corpuscular Aether Particles and their respective fields.

> In theory, these Corpuscular Aether Particles are the subatomic particles of the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics: Quarks, Gluons, Protons, Neutrons, Electrons, etc.

> The masses of these individual particles depend entirely on how Elementary Aether Fields of varying frequencies interact with each other.

> Each Corpuscular Aether Particle of the Standard Model corresponds to a field of its own kind: Quark Fields, Gluon Fields, Proton Fields, Neutron Fields, Electron Fields, etc.

> When these Corpuscular Particles are met with resistance as they travel through other fields, their energy is condensed into mass.

4) As Constructive and Destructive Interference within the Hyper Aether occurs, energy is constantly exhibiting varying degrees of field resistance point of condensing into mass, and mass somehow loses resistance resulting in it unraveling back into energy. This continuous condensation and unraveling is analogous to the bubbles rising to the top of boiling water.

> As two or more permeating frequencies of energy (Hyper Aether) undergo Destructive Interference, a varying level of resistance exists within the Hyper Aether condensate, which causes the belligerent frequencies to tangle them selves into a sort of web. This tangled web is wha we call "rest-mass". As long as the belligerent frequencies continue to exist in this dissonant state, the rest-mass will remain unchanged as a discrete unit of matter know as a "particle". Such a particle occupies a volume within its field, thus creating a localized relative positive pressure zone (positive electric charge).

> As two or more permeating particle fields undergo Constructive Interference, rest-mass begins to lose resistance as the aggregate frequencies resonate, and therefore matter begins to unravel back into energy (Hyper Aether). The discrete particle "implodes", creating a relative localized negative pressure zone in space (negative electric charge).

> Therefore, the Hyper Aether not only fills space, but causes it to constantly expand and contract as particles constantly boil in and out of existence, resulting in a continual asymmetry of overall electric charge.

Note: Section III-4 was edited on 8/2/2017. Mass and energy is not a state of acceleration, but a state of resistance associated with Constructive Interference (harmonic resonance) and Destructive Interference (dissonance).

Author:  brainout [ 27 Jul 2017, 08:18 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

So then information is actually lost?

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 27 Jul 2017, 13:36 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

Think of the boiling of the Hyper Aether (Virtual Particles) as a chain of binary code. Ever contraction of space is 0 and every expansion 1. We see this exact mechanism going on within the cores of protons and neutrons, yet the protons and neutrons themselves don't fade in and out like the quark-antiquark pairs do. So I wouldn't say information is really lost. Its just constantly pulsating as it toggles between 0 and 1.

Author:  brainout [ 27 Jul 2017, 23:50 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

So are you positing a condensate aether field (as Susskind explained to show the import of the Higgs particle)?

To physicists, 'condensate' is the one place where energy can be removed or added without import. I don't quite understand why, something to do with the fact of it being so vast and so changing, that it's considered like equilibrium.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 28 Jul 2017, 02:19 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

I guess you could call the Elementary Aether Fields (EAFs) a condensate since position and charge could be uncertain, but that "uncertainty" would result from the constant unpredictable "boiling" nature of the EAFs . In QM, we can only somewhat observe Virtual Particles in action because the scales and windows of interaction are so small (barely measurable). However, in the case of protons, electrons, and neutrons, there is much more certainty regarding general position and charge.

So it seems that a condensate is just field uncertainty. The uncertainty is probably nothing more than a blind spot in our observations.

I think the uncertainty surrounding condensates opens the window for physicists to debate over Super Symmetry vs Spontaneous Asymmetry. Since condensates are considered like equilibrium, you could claim that any given condensate both exist in a state of equilibrium and "un-equilibrium" at the same time (like Schrodinger's cat), but I would say it has to be one or the other...cant be both. This is basically what Bohmian Theory argues, that our uncertainty comes from our limited observations.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 28 Jul 2017, 03:26 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

This guy is hard to follow. He tends to rant a lot, and rarely explains his word salad, but if you can decipher it, it seems that he is on to something important.

He claims:

Electrification = Magnetism x Dielectricity.

And, the four factors of electrical engineering are:

1) Magnetism

2) Dielectricity

3) Space

4) Time

The idea is, when Dielectricity and Magnetism meet (in movement) in space and time, the result is Electrification. Its basically another way to say that moving Magnetic Fields cause Electric Current, but when he stated it, I suddenly realized that it describes an inverse relationship to Mass.

The principle behind E=mc^2 seems correct. It states that Mass is decelerated Energy, and Energy is accelerated Mass. Never mind the assumed constant of light speed. Its the principle that is important. So in a similar way, an accelerated Magnetic Field yields Electrical Energy. This is a big clue, because it suggests that Mass, Gravity, and Electromagnetism are the same force expressed in different ways.

Furthermore, electric generators generate electricity by accelerating powerful magnets (and their respective Magnetic Fields). However, these magnets never move anywhere near the Speed of Light, let alone the "Speed of Light^2", yet we can turn the some of the rest mass within a magnet into electric energy.

In my mind, that seems to disprove the "c" in E=mc^2...unless of course, I'm missing something.

Author:  brainout [ 28 Jul 2017, 14:10 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

Wow. That bold text in context, clicks in my head. Still need time to ponder it. THANK YOU!

Anonynomenon wrote:
The idea is, when Dielectricity and Magnetism meet (in movement) in space and time, the result is Electrification. Its basically another way to say that moving Magnetic Fields cause Electric Current, but when he stated it, I suddenly realized that it describes an inverse relationship to Mass.

The principle behind E=mc^2 seems correct. It states that Mass is decelerated Energy, and Energy is accelerated Mass. Never mind the assumed constant of light speed. Its the principle that is important. So in a similar way, an accelerated Magnetic Field yields Electrical Energy. This is a big clue, because it suggests that Mass, Gravity, and Electromagnetism are the same force expressed in different ways.

Furthermore, electric generators generate electricity by accelerating powerful magnets (and their respective Magnetic Fields). However, these magnets never move anywhere near the Speed of Light, let alone the "Speed of Light^2", yet we can turn the some of the rest mass within a magnet into electric energy.

In my mind, that seems to disprove the "c" in E=mc^2...unless of course, I'm missing something.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 03 Aug 2017, 03:50 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

brainout wrote:
Wow. That bold text in context, clicks in my head. Still need time to ponder it. THANK YOU!

It turns out I was wrong. Maybe on the right track, but still wrong. Positive and negative acceleration is not what determines whether energy becomes mass, and vice versa. Its actually RESISTANCE. When two frequencies are in phase with each other, they are resonating, therefore energy is amplified. This is Constructive Interference. It means little to no resistance. When they're out of phase, you get dissonance/high resistance, resulting in Destructive Interference, and diminished amplification. So this is how energy becomes mass:

Mass is one or more superimposed (or permeating) frequencies of energy resisting each other.

Energy is Mass losing its resistance due to frequency resonance.

Now think of matter moving through a dissonant field. The matter has rest mass, which is its stable mass value while at "rest". The rest mass and dissonant field will resist each other. You can call it friction. The more you accelerate rest mass though a dissonant field, the more relative mass it will gain. So relative mass is the mass of an object under resistance compared to its mass while at rest.

Think about it. When astronauts go into orbit, they are weightless. In reality, they have lost almost all of their relative mass. The reason is, while on earth, their bodies are constantly resisting the downward motion of the "gravitational" field. So while on earth, its like we're standing under a waterfall. In orbit, the waterfall is more of a trickle, and resistance is proportionally diminished.

In reality, rest mass and relative mass are exactly the same phenomenon...its just one or more fields interacting in a way that causes resistance. The only difference is, at the quantum level, the particles that form atoms are more stable, so their relative mass looks more like a constant.

By the way, I edited "ANONYNOMENON'S THEORY OF EVERYTHING (2.0): Asymmetric Field Theory", section III, point 4 to reflect this new idea.

Author:  brainout [ 03 Aug 2017, 10:36 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

So matter creation/destruction, comes from the friction?

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 18 Aug 2017, 03:25 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

I found this short but interesting clip explaining electron-positron pair creation from two colliding photons. It supports some of what I said about destructive interference.

The above video mentioned the "electroweak" force. This is new to me. Here is a crash course on the Electroweak Theory (unifying electromagnetism with weak force).

Author:  brainout [ 23 Aug 2017, 00:27 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

This Einstein GR video might tie to what you've been thinking.

Author:  Anonynomenon [ 24 Aug 2017, 03:09 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

This video goes into gauge theory and gauge symmetry. I haven't had the opportunity to watch it all yet, so I'm just leaving it here until I can.

Author:  brainout [ 08 Oct 2017, 02:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: Magnetism aka Theory of Everything

There are new #physics tag posts in Twitter which relate to this, usually with either my @brainouty name, or @BlackPhysicists.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited