Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Postby Q-reeus » Sat Oct 08, 2016 12:22 am

lkcl wrote:...apologies to jay, but it's not easy, and it's not obvious, because the approach being taken by mainstream QCD (which jay is trying to replicate - apologies for pointing that out, jay) is completely wrong. if you examine dr randall mill's paper he explains that (just as jay does in a similar way) the electron g-factor is divided into several separate parts. what dr mills managed to do is: work out that those *are* entirely separate, and that they may be separated into entirely unrelated formula, then summed up. the sum therefore comprises *only four* terms, the first of which is "1.0", is incredibly simply, and comes ****EXACTLY***** repeat *****EXACTLY***** - i repeat again - ****EXACTLY**** to the current best-known experimentally-measured value for g/2.

the problem with the current approach being taken by mainstream QCD is that they attempt to use partial differentiation to calculate the (four) contributions all at once. using this (completely wrong) approach, when you *happen* to make some guesses and include a hell of a lot of postulation, you can pick some arbitrary magic constants that *happen* to give you the coefficients in the series, but there is absolutely ZERO real explanation for them. this should tell you everything that you need to know.

by contrast, dr mills has ALREADY BROKEN DOWN g/2 into its magnetic and electro-magnetic constituent parts, solved the equations from first principles based on low-level solutions to Maxwell's Equations, done the math and got the answer to within the current experimental uncertainty (somewhere around 11 to 12 d.p.)...

You are enamored with that long-term scam-artist? My opinion on some of RM's erroneous beliefs:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=241&sid=54f13b506b0ecff60fe7d14db0092736#p6227 (and further down that thread)
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51&p=5840#p5792 (and further down that thread)

Anyone with basic physics & engineering clues should soon realize just how hopelessly flawed as a technology is his latest blazing inferno incantation of 'boundless hydrino power' scheme. And that's allowing the underlying hydrino theory has a grain of truth to it.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Postby thray » Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:56 am

Hi Jay,

Just a placeholder here, for further comment. I wrote the following reply to Jonathan Dickau on the FQXi blog:

Jonathan,

Einstein formulated general relativity in terms of Mach's mechanics. Because space plays no role in Mach, and spacetime in relativity is physically real, Einstein preserves Mach’s pure relativity of motion without giving up an absolutely local material rest frame.

This local gravitational relation can't be explained in terms of Mach's nonlocal mechanics, without the limit of special relativity. " ... E. Mach was led to make the attempt to eliminate space as an active cause in the system of mechanics. According to him, a material particle does not move in unaccelerated motion relatively to space, but relatively to the centre of all other masses in the universe; in this way, the series of causes of mechanical phenomena was closed, in contrast to the mechanics of Newton and Galileo. In order to develop this idea within the limits of the modern theory of action through a medium, the properties of the spacetime continuum that determine inertia must be regarded as field properties of space, analogous to the electromagnetic field." (“The General Theory,” in The Meaning of Relativity, fifth edition, Princeton University Press, 1956. p. 56)

We know that the electromagnetic field properties of a book and those of the table on which it rests, are many times stronger than the gravitational attraction between them. Inertia plays no apparent role. Yet the properties of the spacetime field itself, that determine inertia however weakly, also form the basis of Einstein's attempt at a unified field theory: " … the infinitesimal displacement field ... replaces the inertial system inasmuch as it makes it possible to compare vectors at infinitesimally close points." (Ibid,Appendix II, p. 142)

A tensor field framework for the unified theory failed. However, it is basic to Einstein that no space is empty of the field. No space, therefore, is empty of the time metric even at sub-Planck scale.

Jay Yablon has produced calculations that incorporate time dilation at that scale. In the Tower Wang paper (http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1001.4965v2.pdf), the author writes: "In our formulation, the electromagnetic temperature could be negative. This looks bizarre. Especially, this impairs the physical significance of the formally thermodynamical interpretation. At first sight, one may avoid it by focusing on the systems with the same signature of charge. If there is no signature difference in charges, there will be no signature difference in temperatures, and then one can always choose a positive signature. However, in that situation we can only study the repulsive Coulomb force. When physically interpreting our mathematical formulation, the problem of negative temperature is confronted as a serious obstacle. The authors in [11] met the same problem when they try to accommodate inflation in the entropic force scenario. At the moment, we do not have a good solution to this problem. We hope there will be progress in the future."

The solution IMO, is simple time symmetry. Because we cannot distinguish entropy of the past from entropy of the future--consistent with special relativity--the electrodynamics of entropy locally will not differ in signature. Negative temperature is not the issue. Einstein already knew that by E^2 = M^2c^4 + (PC)^2 that any particle with calculable mass and zero momentum has to possess negative mass (therefore negative temperature, since temperature is the average momentum of a system's state of motion) any measureof the state of motion will be positive, since the measurement releases energy. Time dilation independent of scale would explain that cumulative release. (That's why I say E_0 = mc^2 is the equation of state for the entire universe.)

And the energy will be positive in every inertial frame. Where thermodynamic signatures will differ is in the radiation from bodies into space.

I am still studying Jay Yablon's equations, which look to me very promising. (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=280)
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

Re: Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Postby lkcl » Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:48 am

Yablon wrote:
lkcl wrote:...
jay: a clue to follow up is to read Bracewell Chaper 12. the formula on page 241 (two-dimensional fourier transform) should be immediately recognised. it contains that all-familiar e^(-pi.xxxxx) as do the subsequent Hankel Transformations that Dr Mills successfully applies in GUTCP.

http://lkcl.net/reports/fine_structure_ ... Chap12.pdf

Luke, that link is not working. Thanks, Jay


working fine here, confirmed working, try again?
lkcl
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:15 am

Re: Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Postby lkcl » Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:46 am

jay, in confirmation of the parts about alpha being related to time-dilation: https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/ ... nload/4917

also, in dr randell mill's work, he has a section covering special relativity corrections to the radius of the electron. the corrective factor: 1/2pi. ironicallly however even he treats the fine structure constant as... a constant :)
lkcl
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:15 am

Re: Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Postby thray » Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:35 am

Jay,

I must pay you a high compliment on your skills as a teacher. In reply to Rick Lockyer on RW, you wrote:

" ... if I label (4R)” with an R subscript and (4L)” with an L subscript as a reminder of whether we are using (1R) or (1L), then:

[ (I.a), (I.b) ]_R + [ (I.a), (I.b) ]_L = 0 (5)

which is alternative way to state Joy’s claimed result that:

E ( (I.a) (I.b) ) = -a.b (6)

Equation (5) is reminiscent of other expressions for commutator = 0 which are litmus tests for conservation principles, Abelian gauge theories, simultaneous observable, and the like."

This leads right into your time-dilation calculations.

Observation adds energy to the system -- energy that must be accounted for in the context of invariance. A Lorentz-like transformation at the microscale is self-similar to the transformation of large scale geometry, with the scale-dependent requirement that Planck's constant goes to zero. That leaves us with a strict boundary condition, [0,1), and the ability to analytically continue the spacetime field.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

Re: Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Postby thray » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:07 pm

And I find in Jay's paper, approximately what I mean::

" ... if one were (to) create a field map for any region of the universe – whether macroscopic or microscopic – in terms of the energies E that exist at each event point in that region, one could equivalently map out that very same region in terms of the dt / dτ = E / mc2 ratio at each event point with the total energy E having a variety of origins from a variety of interactions and motions. The coordinates for measuring all events in this 'dt / dτ field' are then established by a laboratory clock of the observer observing this field, for which clock dt / dτ = 1 exactly, by definition. And all other observed events (except for extremely-large motions or extremely-strong interactions) will have a dt / dτ ≅ 1 differing from 1 only by parts per million or billion or trillion or higher. But there will still be a difference from 1 that establishes a measurable dt / dτ = E / mc2 field which serves a proxy for the energy field. We shall refer to this as the 'time dilation field,' recognizing that in some instances time will dilate negatively, i.e., contract."

Except that I would call it "spacetime dilation field" because the price for dt/dtau ~1 is the identifying (not entanglement) of observer with event. Spacetime contracts; time goes to zero as Planck's constant goes to zero -- and the whole origin of events is on the interval [0,oo), the complete classical domain. That eliminates boundaries of extremely large motions or extremely strong interactions.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

Re: Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Postby lkcl » Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:59 am

Q-reeus wrote:You are enamored with that long-term scam-artist? My opinion on some of RM's erroneous beliefs:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=241&sid=54f13b506b0ecff60fe7d14db0092736#p6227 (and further down that thread)
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51&p=5840#p5792 (and further down that thread)

Anyone with basic physics & engineering clues should soon realize just how hopelessly flawed as a technology is his latest blazing inferno incantation of 'boundless hydrino power' scheme. And that's allowing the underlying hydrino theory has a grain of truth to it.


ok so as you probably noticed i did not respond to you because i was so shocked by what you said that i thought it best to think over how best to respond.

before doing so, i will begin by saying "I Read What You Wrote In The Links That You Gave Above and..." the moment that it became clear, in both cases, that you had not read properly what Dr Mills has written, and, thus, i was able to confirm for myself that you've made an error of judgement, i stopped reading... but i *did read what you wrote*. whilst i appreciate that it is a fantastically overwhelming 1800 page document, you say in your second post "it is important to keep an open mind" yet hypocritically begin your paragraph above with the blanket and blatant statement involving the words "scam" and "artist", whilst *at the same time* accusing me of being both incompetent and incapable of independent thought, and, crucially, incapable of using a 25-year-established skill of "knowledge discernment and inference" on which i have successfully made my livelihood in the field of Reverse-Engineering and deep protocol analysis and security threat assessment.

what particularly pissed me off about your blatant accusation of incompetence on my part was that you did not begin with the words "I Read What You Wrote and....".

ANY acknowledgement of what i wrote would have been better than you beginning with a shocking accusation of complete incompetence in my core area of expertise: empirical deduction, cross-referencing and comprehensive analysis from zero prior knowledge, aka "Black Box Reverse-Engineering".

examples include:

* I Read What You Wrote and... i strongly disagree with it for the following reasons and would like to debate them with you because i am KEEPING AN OPEN MIND.

* I Read What You Wrote and... i am being tactful and diplomatic by asking you to clarify X Y and Z because I don't understand and am KEEPING AN OPEN MIND.

* I Read What You Wrote and... I am concerned at the discrepancy between my assessment of Dr Mills and your assessment of Dr Mills... could you elaborate on why you believe I should pay attention to his work, because i am KEEPING AN OPEN MIND in light of your clear excitement and belief that theres something important here.

the fact that you did not do so - instead loudly proclaimed by inference on a public forum that i must be incompetent - not only REALLY pisses me off but also allows me to go through the following logical assessment:

* this person showed good logical reasoning skills at the beginning of this thread, and seemed to be knowledgeable. assess and associate probability of them making useful statements that should be followed up, interact with them in a useful and productive way, spend time doing so: 0.9.

* this person then made indirect accusations that i am totally incompetent, as well as made blanket statements demonstrating a lack of open-mindedness, lack of attention to detail and a failure to be able to assess comprehensive and complex documents in a field that is outside of their direct and immediate area of expertise. i know from my own experience that i am NOT incompetent at black-box reverse-engineering and knowledge inference, therefore this person's assessment must be completely false instead. they're also incredibly rude (and probably don't even realise it), leaving me with very little desire to interact with them. CONCLUSION: reassess and associate probability of them making any useful statements in the past or in the future, or any interactions being enjoyable and fun and useful and productive: 1e-6.

notice that i have not assigned you a "zero" probability: that would be "certainty", and the one thing that i have learned from bob podolski's "bill of ethics" is: certainty is a PATHOLOGICAL state of mind.

now, i would say that in a peer-reviewed mainstream setting i would expect such closed-minded and pathological behaviour, but we are a small community of people who work *outside* of mainstream science for the most part, exploring things because we want to, without necessarily having funding (or being forced to drop ideas that we would really like to explore because it would be impossible to get funding for them), and pursuing them anyway because we LOVE to do so.

to witness close-minded and blatantly rude behaviour in this SMALL community has me deeply shocked and upset - hence why i did not respond for a long time as i had to think about what to say (and whether to say it at all). i trust, Q-reese, that you will realise the harm that you've done to yourself, to me, and to the reputation and nature of this forum through the inappropriate and unthinking words that you used.
lkcl
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:15 am

Re: Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Postby Q-reeus » Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:08 am

lkcl wrote:
Q-reeus wrote:You are enamored with that long-term scam-artist? My opinion on some of RM's erroneous beliefs:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=241&sid=54f13b506b0ecff60fe7d14db0092736#p6227 (and further down that thread)
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51&p=5840#p5792 (and further down that thread)

Anyone with basic physics & engineering clues should soon realize just how hopelessly flawed as a technology is his latest blazing inferno incantation of 'boundless hydrino power' scheme. And that's allowing the underlying hydrino theory has a grain of truth to it.


ok so as you probably noticed i did not respond to you because i was so shocked by what you said that i thought it best to think over how best to respond.

before doing so, i will begin by saying "I Read What You Wrote In The Links That You Gave Above and..." the moment that it became clear, in both cases, that you had not read properly what Dr Mills has written, and, thus, i was able to confirm for myself that you've made an error of judgement, i stopped reading... but i *did read what you wrote*. whilst i appreciate that it is a fantastically overwhelming 1800 page document, you say in your second post "it is important to keep an open mind" yet hypocritically begin your paragraph above with the blanket and blatant statement involving the words "scam" and "artist", whilst *at the same time* accusing me of being both incompetent and incapable of independent thought, and, crucially, incapable of using a 25-year-established skill of "knowledge discernment and inference" on which i have successfully made my livelihood in the field of Reverse-Engineering and deep protocol analysis and security threat assessment.

what particularly pissed me off about your blatant accusation of incompetence on my part was that you did not begin with the words "I Read What You Wrote and....".

ANY acknowledgement of what i wrote would have been better than you beginning with a shocking accusation of complete incompetence in my core area of expertise: empirical deduction, cross-referencing and comprehensive analysis from zero prior knowledge, aka "Black Box Reverse-Engineering".

examples include:

* I Read What You Wrote and... i strongly disagree with it for the following reasons and would like to debate them with you because i am KEEPING AN OPEN MIND.

* I Read What You Wrote and... i am being tactful and diplomatic by asking you to clarify X Y and Z because I don't understand and am KEEPING AN OPEN MIND.

* I Read What You Wrote and... I am concerned at the discrepancy between my assessment of Dr Mills and your assessment of Dr Mills... could you elaborate on why you believe I should pay attention to his work, because i am KEEPING AN OPEN MIND in light of your clear excitement and belief that theres something important here.

the fact that you did not do so - instead loudly proclaimed by inference on a public forum that i must be incompetent - not only REALLY pisses me off but also allows me to go through the following logical assessment:

* this person showed good logical reasoning skills at the beginning of this thread, and seemed to be knowledgeable. assess and associate probability of them making useful statements that should be followed up, interact with them in a useful and productive way, spend time doing so: 0.9.

* this person then made indirect accusations that i am totally incompetent, as well as made blanket statements demonstrating a lack of open-mindedness, lack of attention to detail and a failure to be able to assess comprehensive and complex documents in a field that is outside of their direct and immediate area of expertise. i know from my own experience that i am NOT incompetent at black-box reverse-engineering and knowledge inference, therefore this person's assessment must be completely false instead. they're also incredibly rude (and probably don't even realise it), leaving me with very little desire to interact with them. CONCLUSION: reassess and associate probability of them making any useful statements in the past or in the future, or any interactions being enjoyable and fun and useful and productive: 1e-6.

notice that i have not assigned you a "zero" probability: that would be "certainty", and the one thing that i have learned from bob podolski's "bill of ethics" is: certainty is a PATHOLOGICAL state of mind.

now, i would say that in a peer-reviewed mainstream setting i would expect such closed-minded and pathological behaviour, but we are a small community of people who work *outside* of mainstream science for the most part, exploring things because we want to, without necessarily having funding (or being forced to drop ideas that we would really like to explore because it would be impossible to get funding for them), and pursuing them anyway because we LOVE to do so.

to witness close-minded and blatantly rude behaviour in this SMALL community has me deeply shocked and upset - hence why i did not respond for a long time as i had to think about what to say (and whether to say it at all). i trust, Q-reese, that you will realise the harm that you've done to yourself, to me, and to the reputation and nature of this forum through the inappropriate and unthinking words that you used.

Let's see: Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:22 pm (my post) to Mon Feb 06, 2017 2:59 am (your response). A full 4 months. Weird.

Are you quite settled now, having gotten all that anger off your chest at last? Hope so.

First observation: You make many chummy comments with other members here who have continually and derisively castigated opponents of their position. Which is their prerogative. But... re your selective outrage against my supposed unacceptable behaviour - hypocrite much?

Second observation. Unlike the first observation case above, I never singled you out for derision. To me every point I made was self-evidently true. You decided to take it all very personally. And let it smoulder for MONTHS!! Instead of doing the sane thing and promptly challenging me or at least seeking clarification on any point I raised. Not my problem.

Third observation: All you have done is express righteous indignation. Nowhere in your last post is there an attempt to rebut the substance of my criticisms of RM and his now named 'Brilliant Light' venture. Feel perfectly free to do just that, and maybe I will then take you somewhat seriously.

PS: Would you like links to experts in esp. quantum physics who have had even harsher words for RM and his long track record of 'just around the corner' promises? But I imagine you are well acquainted with such and simply choose to reject them all. Whatever.

PPS: To admin. Getting to be a consistent pattern: Only by chance noticed the above posting this thread - to which I remain subscribed. No email notification!
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Postby lkcl » Sat Feb 11, 2017 5:50 am

jay i apologise deeply, i am very embarrassed that this is under the thread which you started, it detracts from the value of your work and i'm really sorry that has happened.
lkcl
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:15 am

Re: Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Postby Q-reeus » Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:53 pm

Jay, it's been ~ 7 months since your last posting on viXra: http://vixra.org/abs/1609.0387
You know my prediction. How has it been traveling with submission(s) to mainstream journal(s)?
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Postby Yablon » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:29 am

Q-reeus wrote:Jay, it's been ~ 7 months since your last posting on viXra: http://vixra.org/abs/1609.0387
You know my prediction. How has it been traveling with submission(s) to mainstream journal(s)?

Actually, Kevin, I have not submitted the paper anywhere since then. As you may be aware, from October through March I became very involved in the retraction watch discussion about Joy's paper on Bells theorem. In early March, my grandson was born which took me out of commission for two weeks, and since my return I have been exceptionally busy and have literally had no time to work on any physics at all. Once I reach a quieter stretch which will likely not be for another month, I am going to return to that paper, review with fresh eyes after more than a half a year of dormancy, and then resume submission. Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: Classical and Quantum Geometro-electrodynamics

Postby Q-reeus » Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:07 am

OK thanks for update Jay. My delayed response btw was owing to no email notification of your reply post (once again). Just a random check of subforum caught it. Something I have to live with it seems.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 54 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library