The internal structure of a light wave.

[Epsilon=One]

Concerning Reality Physics:

Reality Physics is correct in the general reasoning and conclusion that: ”Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics will never be able to correctly describe the universe.”

Rather than a concept of “spinning light,” RP might consider complex oscillating light? The observed enigmas of both light and subatomic particles would seem to indicate an internal structure of light that is consistent with an oscillating, ellipsoidal locus that can mathematically morph to mass.

The etiology of seminal motion would support the geometry of such a relativistic ellipsoid.

[WARPULL]

not necessarily the interpretation of particles are not the contemporary view that they are round compact little balls of tangibility.
a particle is that point on the field itself that is more compressed,so when it nears other fields of greater density itself compresses to suffice that turn of dimensionality. ;)
and does light have a internalized structure yes,and its geometry is very similar to that of energy with mass :eek: said too much

[WARPULL]

would anybody like to know the specifics> the secrets of quantum gravity

[Epsilon=One]

would anybody like to know the specifics> the secrets of quantum gravity

Quantum gravity is a metaphysical concept that resides in the mind of many physicists.

[WARPULL]

Metaphysical concept? not what i said.
:cool:
Metaphysical is not what physicists regard as physics because it is not a study in physics its a study in philosophy about mind to matter,.,what reality is composed of.

This is a physics[excuse me a light wave discussion] discussion if you want philosophy im sure they have one

I said a quanta [" how much ''] -quantum you know.... what defines the discreet amounts of energy units ,.,.,we measure [oh excuse me approximate ] on the planck scale

QED-qauntum electrodynamics

QCD-quantum chromodynamics

you know what physicists are looking for ?the holy grail ;no not that holy grail
the grand unified field theory-you know what you were quoting " relativity theory and quantum mechanics '' not being able to correctly describe the universe well,.,.,.,. that is what scientists are trying to splice the theories together but there so different from one another right.,.,so
thats why they have been directed toward a complete understanding on how
gravity really works on a small scale obcourse.,.,. you know quantum gravity

thats impossible to figure.
no :D

[Epsilon=One]

Metaphysical concept? not what i said.
:cool:
Metaphysical is not what physicists regard as physics because it is not a study in physics its a study in philosophy about mind to matter,.,what reality is composed of.

This is a physics[excuse me a light wave discussion] discussion if you want philosophy im sure they have one

I said a quanta [" how much ''] -quantum you know.... what defines the discreet amounts of energy units ,.,.,we measure [oh excuse me approximate ] on the planck scale

QED-qauntum electrodynamics

QCD-quantum chromodynamics

you know what physicists are looking for ?the holy grail ;no not that holy grail
the grand unified field theory-you know what you were quoting " relativity theory and quantum mechanics '' not being able to correctly describe the universe well,.,.,.,. that is what scientists are trying to splice the theories together but there so different from one another right.,.,so
thats why they have been directed toward a complete understanding on how
gravity really works on a small scale obcourse.,.,. you know quantum gravity

thats impossible to figure.
no :D
Following is a post from elsewhere in the forum (PHYSICS FRAUDS: PHYYSICS CRACKPOTS: PHYSICS HOAXES - Titled: "Gravity is the biggest hoax perpetrated by physics."

I believe it may be applicable as a reply on this thread.

Gravity, as currently understood, is the biggest, longest-running hoax the world has known from science.

Gravity rivals an anthropic god from the theologists; though, the theologists are backing off, while physicists are becoming more entrenched.

Physicists speak, without caveat, of gravity to the layman as if its attraction is a fact; not faith based.

There is absolutely no logic that can support action-at-a-distance in any medium; there is always something unseen or unperceived.

Caltech, alone, may well spend over a billon dollars looking for gravity waves that do not exist. If as Einstein’s theories contend (erroneously) that nothing can exceed the speed of light, we would have found gravity waves long ago.

Quantum gravity is as faith based as quantum mechanics, QCD, etc.

Gravity is not a fundamental force. It is not even close to qualifying as fundamental phenomena. More over, gravity is an amalgam of several unique phenomena.

The source of gravity is unknown; as is its etiology; as is its speed, if observation and GR are reconciled and consulted.

No one less than Feynman has contended that the concept of gravity is metaphysical. And, no one has raised their voice to contradict him . . . until now.

What is referred to as gravitational attraction is actually a compression phenomenon that joins with several other “new physics” phenomena to appear counter-intuitively as observed from the anthropic scale/view of the Universe.

There is nothing metaphysical (faith as a requirement for rationalizing) about gravity. Or, for that matter any other, Natural phenomena.

[WARPULL]

your stating all this opinions but dont try to validate it .
its like your blind and feeling a wall in front of you '' saying this is not a wall"

Some force holds us to the ground.,.what do you call it then??

when we discover that all forces are one that is when gravity dosent exist , but for now we need this precept of labeling this force in order to structure a foregoing model to help us reach to the next level of thinking[understanding]
by the way you talk as it sounds as if you cant interpret the basics of what is known about physics sorry.

oh and by the way attraction between mass through empty space how can you assume its empty there is no such thing as empty. thats crazy

ask me why.

gravity waves? einstein?thats almost a hundred years old in thinking or graviton.
He did his part now our turn.

That was just scientists trying to use the electromagnetic models to interpret how gravity works they found no proof.
you see that when i said from my first post that, lights geometry was similar to that of rest mass, obcourse there is a connection to THE APPARENT GRAVITY they all come from the same point[matter&space]

what is space? ask me.what ,you think space dosent exist? whats your compression phenomenon?ask me.

I have proof ,but indirectly its a matter of fitting in only particularly types of geometrys that only fit one way.what geometry? ask me.

Origins? all thats up for grabs God,bing bang what have you so what?
sounds like your reading this out of a publishing ,oh you are .they dont know how to preceive the meanings of our universe,they talk arbitrarily with a veiw of ambiguity twist it to discredit .to sell words.

intuitive? doesnt sound very concrete and you said it again" there is nothing metaphysical about gravity" I NEVER SAID METAPHYSICAL
And all this time you believe there is gravity?
but what is currently understood you dont? :confused:
you know if you want to talk thats fine ,but lets keep this step by step

i think i may know what your saying> YOU DONT BELIEVE IN THE STANDARD GRAVITY MODEL. RIGHT? ;)

[Epsilon=One]

your stating all this opinions but dont try to validate it .
its like your blind and feeling a wall in front of you '' saying this is not a wall"

Some force holds us to the ground.,.what do you call it then??

I validate my opinion that gravitation is metaphysical as per the current explanation of what “force holds us to the ground” by quoting Feynman:

The theory of gravitation...(is) not understandable
from the laws of motion...it stands isolated from...
other theories.

Gravitation is...not understandable in terms of
other phenomena."

Richard P. Feynman [1918-1988]
QED

The force that holds us to the ground is referred to as relative, hierarchical compression, which together with confluent congruence (entanglement) and triquametric motion (force that is sourced from the infinitesimal) accounts for the phenomena referred to as gravity

when we discover that all forces are one that is when gravity dosent exist , but for now we need this precept of labeling this force in order to structure a foregoing model to help us reach to the next level of thinking[understanding]
by the way you talk as it sounds as if you cant interpret the basics of what is known about physics sorry.

The unification of current fundamental forces is a farce; as the forces that physicists are trying to unify are metaphysical (garbage in; garbage out).

Gravity is a far cry from qualifying as a fundamental force. As currently defined, the gravitational force requires mass, which is a long way down the line of evolution. Worry about understanding gravity’s action when you can understand how light (complex oscillating energy) morphs to mass.

I don’t accept the basic postulates of modern physics because I worship IPSO (Individualism, Philosophic logic, Scientific method, and Observation) as the cornerstone of Intelligent Inquiry (II).

oh and by the way attraction between mass through empty space how can you assume its empty there is no such thing as empty. thats crazy

ask me why.

I agree that empty space is an illusion. I clearly understand the etiology of “dark” energy that so proves it.

gravity waves? einstein?thats almost a hundred years old in thinking or graviton.
He did his part now our turn.

That was just scientists trying to use the electromagnetic models to interpret how gravity works they found no proof.
you see that when i said from my first post that, lights geometry was similar to that of rest mass, obcourse there is a connection to THE APPARENT GRAVITY they all come from the same point[matter&space]

You are not quite correct about the “same point.” Your “same point” rationalization can not account for the acceleration of galactic recession and many other phenomena such as the infinite speed of gravity (otherwise the cosmos would appear as balls on a pool table). The mechanics of gravity are much more complex than you or others understand it to be.

what is space? ask me.what ,you think space dosent exist? whats your compression phenomenon?ask me.

”Space” doen’t really exist as being something that is empty. That said; space is relativistic (a function of speed) and its orthogonal qualities are that of an ellipsoid.

I have proof ,but indirectly its a matter of fitting in only particularly types of geometrys that only fit one way.what geometry? ask me.

Origins? all thats up for grabs God,bing bang what have you so what?
sounds like your reading this out of a publishing ,oh you are .they dont know how to preceive the meanings of our universe,they talk arbitrarily with a veiw of ambiguity twist it to discredit .to sell words.

I do all that I can to avoid ambiguity. However, it cannot be avoided when I am speaking to a broad audience. I must depend on questions to clear up what might be ambiguous. If you are interested in ambiguity a fine primer would be studying the system of reasoning for fundamental, theoretical physics.

intuitive? doesnt sound very concrete and you said it again" there is nothing metaphysical about gravity" I NEVER SAID METAPHYSICAL
And all this time you believe there is gravity?
but what is currently understood you dont? :confused:

I indicated Feynman implied that gravity was metaphysical (“…not understandable in terms of other phenomena.") I understand that there is an illusion of “attraction-at-a-distance”; however, I prefer a mechanical explanation to a voodoo explanation.

you know if you want to talk thats fine ,but lets keep this step by step

I’m trying.

i think i may know what your saying> YOU DONT BELIEVE IN THE STANDARD GRAVITY MODEL. RIGHT? ;)

Right!!!

[WARPULL]

ill right this is cool.
thx for the challenge.

ok this is whirling out .

First step: metaphysical is a philosophy cant prove gravity right?: y or n

second:so is everything else to you including other phenomena[ forces]

3: how does matter and gravity relate specifically .to you?


ill start with that

[Epsilon=One]

ill right this is cool.
thx for the challenge.

ok this is whirling out .

First step: metaphysical is a philosophy cant prove gravity right?: y or n

Metaphysics is a term that I use which means that much unprovable faith is required to explain something that is otherwise inexplicable.

A "mechanical"-like Gravity can be understood in terms that are consistent with IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142) (Individualism, Philosophical logic, Scientific Method, and Observation).

second:so is everything else to you including other phenomena[ forces]

The etiology of existence is motion that coalesces, propagates, compresses, and dissipates in an endless cycle.

3: how does matter and gravity relate specifically .to you?

Matter morphs from that which coalesces and propagates in a manner that mathematically involves the nature of ellipsoids and limits (this phenomenon is that of Pulsoids).

ill start with that

And, I have started with generalities for reasons that should become obvious.

[WARPULL]

oh it didnt make sense.

you dont believe anyone can prove physics? right?

individualism? you need someone to think with ...ok

philosophical logic. imagination to theororize with...ok

scientific method? other than experimentation [trial & error] what? you dont agree with the conventional way?

observation? other than, your senses what? how is this different than conventional ways. do you use your spiritual eyes or what?

The origin is coalesces, propagates,compresses,and dissipates endlessly. what !!! thats the origin.??? these terms are in physics sure the very vauge ones.

coalesces> bonding of molecules/fusion of elements/ what type of bonding ? all different according to elements/ particle anti-partical annihilation what?

propagates> goes on and on undulations[waves spread out ward],inertia mass in motion[ what keeps it in motion?}}}}}]

compresses> 3 dimensions,4,5,6,7,8,9,.10,11? how are each of these applied
to what behaviors in type of enviroments.
particle compression /mass defect/light in blackhole/lorenz effect/doppler effect / cold compress what?

dissipates> ?fission/loss of heat/ emittence of electromagnetism[light].

mechanical like ? gears,from the beginning of natural philosophy[physics first name]they understood everything was connected some how kind of like a clock [machine] in terms that are consistant with your list above ,later on it was being suggested that maybe substance had to be made of something obcourse then later democules thought maybe from small individual pieces which was termed atomos

so on and so on someone asked what pulls the apple to the earth,
other questions rise ;what keeps us in orbit around the sun :what keeps the moon around us; galaxies ,stars .......ellipsoids...just a flat surface and nothing more...p-utters out,,,.,.,.,.........,
so
Matter changes[morphs] from what comes together and gos on???
sorry you dont make any sense.
what comes together that is separate from matter?
ok matter comes from something which forms together. This something isnt matter? well if its something doesnt that make it matter?

The ancient chinese believed a water dragon god made there water for them is it something like that? haha

You still havent tried to answer the last question what causes this "gravity" and when you explain it,throw the word matter in the sentence

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Warpull, please! keep going! EP=1 is a good Comedic read..... :p :cool:

[Epsilon=One]

oh it didnt make sense.

you dont believe anyone can prove physics? right?Right.

individualism? you need someone to think with ...okIndividualism has the opposite meaning.

scientific method? other than experimentation [trial & error] what? you dont agree with the conventional way?I understand scientific method as the conventional way.

observation? other than, your senses what? how is this different than conventional ways. do you use your spiritual eyes or what?I use the term observation as it is conventionally used in the sciences.

The origin is coalesces, propagates,compresses,and dissipates endlessly. what !!! thats the origin.??? these terms are in physics sure the very vauge ones. These terms describe the totality of all that "exists." The terms have quite clearly defined connotations within science.

coalesces> bonding of molecules/fusion of elements/ what type of bonding ? all different according to elements/ particle anti-partical annihilation what?Coalescemce is a precise term that describes a phenomenon that concerns waves.

propagates> goes on and on undulations[waves spread out ward],inertia mass in motion[ what keeps it in motion?}}}}}]Your understanding of propagates is passable. All motion is fundamentally sustained from seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179).

compresses> 3 dimensions,4,5,6,7,8,9,.10,11? how are each of these applied
to what behaviors in type of enviroments.You have confused me. I cannot understand your question/statements.

particle compression /mass defect/light in blackhole/lorenz effect/doppler effect / cold compress what?I have no idea what you are saying.

dissipates> ?fission/loss of heat/ emittence of electromagnetism[light].Dissipation is something along these lines. What is your question?

mechanical like ? gears,from the beginning of natural philosophy[physics first name]they understood everything was connected some how kind of like a clock [machine] in terms that are consistant with your list above ,later on it was being suggested that maybe substance had to be made of something obcourse then later democules thought maybe from small individual pieces which was termed atomosI don't understand your point. Are you asking what "mechanical" means?

so on and so on someone asked what pulls the apple to the earth,
other questions rise ;what keeps us in orbit around the sun :what keeps the moon around us; galaxies ,stars .......ellipsoids...just a flat surface and nothing more...p-utters out,,,.,.,.,.........,
so
Matter changes[morphs] from what comes together and gos on???To ask questions is noble.

sorry you dont make any sense.The regret is mine. The loss is yours.

what comes together that is separate from matter?
ok matter comes from something which forms together. This something isnt matter? well if its something doesnt that make it matter?Not certain what you are trying to say. I do separate phenomena that is composed of energy into two categories: Mass and Light.

The ancient chinese believed a water dragon god made there water for them is it something like that? haha

You still havent tried to answer the last question what causes this "gravity" and when you explain it,throw the word matter in the sentenceEven Einstein and Feynman found it difficult to know what "causes" "gravity"; however, I rationalize the phenomenon as an amalgam of forces; the most salient of which are Confluent Congruence (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=123) (CC) and Relative, Hierarchic Compression (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=124) (RHC).

[Epsilon=One]

Warpull, please! keep going! EP=1 is a good Comedic read..... :p :cool:Can I assume that "Comedic" lends itself to redeeming entertainment.

Sometimes, it is difficult to determine the comedian.

And:.

It is most difficult
......knowing that you are right
............. . . when no one else agrees.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Can I assume that "Comedic" lends itself to redeeming entertainment.
Sometimes, it is difficult to determine the comedian.
And:.
It is most difficult
......knowing that you are right
............. . . when no one else agrees.
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Responded to, Here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=225&page=2)

(P.S. Maybe no one agrees cause you are, acutally, wrong...ever thought of/considered that?)

[Epsilon=One]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Responded to, Here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=225&page=2)

(P.S. Maybe no one agrees cause you are, acutally, wrong...ever thought of/considered that?)Yes. Others and history must judge.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Yes. Others and history must judge. ...and will you accept their Judgments?

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Forgive me, but your manner is (somewhat) Caustic, perhaps? why so few (willingly) engage you....?

[Epsilon=One]

...and will you accept their Judgments?Certainly.

Forgive me, but your manner is (somewhat) Caustic, perhaps? why so few (willingly) engage you....?Perhaps so. I try not to be.
It is most difficult
.....knowing that you are right
........... . . when no one else agrees.
Fifty plus years of ad hominem, specious arguments, and evasion from others, who know not what they speak, may color, on occasion, my demeanor. I try to live as this quote expresses:

Suffer a fool; until . . .
........the fool won't suffer you.Often others, unlike yourself, are not capable of having any opinions besides those that they have learned by rote; thus, few understand the fundamentals upon which their own philosophy is built.

In such a situation, others often find it difficult to carry on a prolonged dialogue.

I admire and respect your courage, opinions, and your willingness to express them. That we should disagree concerning an anthropic god is not unusual.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I admire and respect your courage, opinions, and your willingness to express them. That we should disagree concerning an anthropic god is not unusual.

Thnak you, I appreciate your sincerity, it shows.

(as does your learned understanding, age does help, with patience)

Once again Thanks! :cool:

[CforRP]

Whether the photon "spins" or "oscillates", according to Reality Physics, it produces an outward force of 113,500 newtons. We can calculate this force by using Newton's equation for centrifugal force: CF = (m x Vp^2) / r (where Vp is the angular velocity of the photon spinning within the particle, r is the radius of the particle, i.e., its Compton Wavelength and m is the mass of the particle.

If we let this Vp (the photon spin velocity within the particle) equal "c" (the speed of light, or time) and the radius of the particle equal its Compton wavelength (for a proton, for example: 1.32x10^-15 meters), and the mass of the proton equal 1.67x10^-27 kg. we have:

CF (of proton) = (1.67x10^-27 kg. x (3x10^8m/s)^2) / 1.32x10^-15 m,

we obtain: 113,500 newtons, as has been verified by experiment.

So whether is "spins", or "oscillates" it produces this outward force of 113,500 newtons. The thing to take note of here is that: only the internal photon spin velocity (Vp) of "c" (the speed of light, or time) will give the correct value for this equation, obviously meaning (since light is the ONLY thing we know of that travels at the "speed of time", or "c", that subatomic particles (proton, electrons, etc) must be made of spinning light. This equation also works for the electron.

Consequently, according to Reality Physics, all Fermion subatomic particles get both their mass, and physical configuration, from the angular momentum of photon spin, spinning, or oscillating, within the "action-disance" of the particle's Compton wavelength to form the particle.

The formula from Reality Physics: CF = (mass of particle)^2 x c^3 / h (where h is Plank's Constant also gives this same result.

all the best,

J Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS

[Epsilon=One]

Whether the photon "spins" or "oscillates", according to Reality Physics, it produces an outward force of 113,500 newtons.I agree that an “outward” force is created. What is most interesting is an explanation of: why this force “appears” as constant.

I prefer the terms “Resoloid” to photon as it connotes a spheroid formed by the resonance of a form of pulsing energy (Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98)), whereas, photon, for many, connotes a massless particle (an oxymoron).

A Resoloid spins on an axis; and, it is formed from complex oscillations of swing, slide, and vibration of seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179), which I refer to as Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101).

It is interesting that many theoretical physicists consider Light as a force; though, it, supposedly, has neither mass nor acceleration; and, then, ignore centrifugal force and accept centripetal force. Of course, the last time I noticed, there is not even agreement as to what the formula, or constituents, for force should be. And, on this force ambiguity, and the unproven concept of mathematics, is laid the foundation for the discipline of academic theoretical physics.

we obtain: 113,500 newtons, as has been verified by experiment.What has been verified is that there is a constant relationship referred to as a "newton." A “newton” is circularly defined by its units and there is little insight into “why” such a force exists.

So whether is "spins", or "oscillates" it produces this outward force of 113,500 newtons. The thing to take note of here is that: only the internal photon spin velocity (Vp) of "c" (the speed of light, or time) will give the correct value for this equation, obviously meaning (since light is the ONLY thing we know of that travels at the "speed of time", or "c", that subatomic particles (proton, electrons, etc) must be made of spinning light.Your conclusion is absolutely correct that particles (mass) are made of "spinning light."

I have some very minor reservations as to your use of the term “speed of time,” which I very much like for its insightfulness. Of course, the term begs the question for a firm definition of "time" and a bit of an explanation as to the mechanism that creates the near constancy of light's speed regardless of the speed of its "source."

Also, I would be interested in the geometry and mechanics that you can provide that produces the “spin,” and “the speed of light, or time” that must be related to some fundamental that is nearly “constant.”

Of course, the mechanics of "why" light manifests as mass is what I find important. And, why do pulsing waves create spin?

Consequently, according to Reality Physics, all Fermion subatomic particles get both their mass, and physical configuration, from the angular momentum of photon spin, spinning, or oscillating, within the "action-disance" of the particle's Compton wavelength to form the particle.I agree that this follows from your “spinning light” analogy. Can you explain why sometimes the manifestation is light and at other times mass?

The formula from Reality Physics: CF = (mass of particle)^2 x c^3 / h (where h is Plank's Constant also gives this same result.I do not dispute the result. I do dispute that there is an understanding of the phenomena that produces the result.

A better understanding of the underlying phenomena is required before the standard models of theoretical physics can be reconciled with one another.

I enjoy the term "Reality Physics" as opposed to the present state of affairs that I pejoratively refer to as: pomo theoretical physics.

I have no doubt that all worldclass theoretical physicists are well aware that the current state of affairs is intolerable; however, only a few, for many vested reasons, will concede that a Paradigm Shift! is required.

I thank you very much for your time and learned insight.

[CforRP]

I agree that an “outward” force is created. What is most interesting is an explanation of: why this force “appears” as constant.

I prefer the terms “Resoloid” to photon as it connotes a spheroid formed by the resonance of a form of pulsing energy (Pulsoid (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98)), whereas, photon, for many, connotes a massless particle (an oxymoron).

A Resoloid spins on an axis; and, it is formed from complex oscillations of swing, slide, and vibration of seminal motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=179), which I refer to as Triquametric motion (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=101).




Using a new type of geometry called: "ACTIVE GEOMETRY", as developed by "Reality Physics", we can now give the correct reason as to why all Fermion subatomic particles have a 1/2 spin:

where: d = distance the obtect will "fall" (Newton's equation)

a = acceleration (centrifugal acceleration of photon spinning
within particle)
t = time

f = frequency

w = Compton wavelength of fermion particle


d = 1/2 a t^2 > a = 2d / t^2
^
(from Newtonian Dynamcs): [equa.#1]


a =f^2 / w (since f = 1/t, then:) a = (1/t)^2 x w ,or: a = w / t^2
^
(from Reality Physics): [equa#2]

setting both accelerations equal (equations #1 and #2) we have:

2d / t^2 = w / t^2 , where the t^2 in the denominators cancel we get:

2d = w, or: d = w/2, showing how the distance the photon will "fall", or "spin" as it makes one revolution within the Fermion is 1/2 of the particle's Compton wavelength, now illustrating why all Fermion particles have a "1/2 spin", since this one revolution "spin distance" equals 1/2 of their Compton wavelength.

The ONLY spin configuration that is able to do this is a "MOBIUS STRIP", since it is a ONE dimensional entity (in that it has only ONE side) that can spin in two different dimensions simultaneously.

So according to this new "ACTIVE GEOMETRY" of Reality Physics, Fermions are photons reconfigured into this Mobius Strip configuration spinning at the speed of light (or time - since according to Reality Physics light always travels at the SPEED OF TIME - even as is spins within a particle), and it is this constant 2-dimensional, omnidirectional speed of time with space that continually "dirves" this "photon spin action" to continually form the Fermion particle.

This further means that according to "Reality Physics", or "Time Squared", Fermion subatomic particles are very small clocks that always keep perfect time and, as they move, this speed of light, or time, spinning within the particle to form the particle, slows down now causing a "Time Dilation", thus giving us a real physical reason as to why Time Dilation occurs due to vector velocity, as opposed to Relativity where Time Dilation is only defined as "appearances and measurements".

Thanks for you question and observations and I look forward to your comments and opinions.

all the best,

Jeff Lee CENTER FOR REALITY PHYSICS

[Epsilon=One]

Half-spin is a result of fermion resonances being within a double ellipsoidal quantum (Emergent Ellipsoid (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EEd)) where each ellipsoid’s oscillations impart a spin factor.

So according to this new "ACTIVE GEOMETRY" of Reality Physics, Fermions are photons reconfigured into this Mobius Strip configuration spinning at the speed of light (or time - since according to Reality Physics light always travels at the SPEED OF TIME - even as is spins within a particle), and it is this constant 2-dimensional, omnidirectional speed of time with space that continually "dirves" this "photon spin action" to continually form the Fermion particle.No, not quite; you have the phenomenon somewhat backward. Photons are "unrestrained" electrons (one of various types of fermions). You might say that the unrestrained (ejected from a quantum of "dark" matter) spinning electron "unwinds" and manifests as a photon. How can you say that light "travels at the SPEED OF TIME" when you seem to define the SOL, or time, circularly (no pun intended) as “spinning within the particle to form the particle…”???

...Fermion subatomic particles are very small clocks… Fermions are more analogous to the “stops” of an escapement rather than the entire “clock.”

…that always keep perfect time and, as they move, this speed of light, or time, spinning within the particle to form the particle, slows down now causing a "Time Dilation"…You are correct about “Time Dilation” being a physical slowing down; however, it is not time that slows. Time is constant (You are correct when you say: perfect time.); it is the speed of light’s (SOL) dissipation that slows down as it’s amplitude (minor diameter) increases (red-shift). It slows one Conceptual Unit (http://www.2-CQ.info/PT/CU) per pulse (frequency), which is not noticeable on an anthropoidal scale.

thus giving us a real physical reason as to why Time Dilation occurs due to vector velocity, as opposed to Relativity where Time Dilation is only defined as "appearances and measurements".Yes, subject to my above statement and rather than “vector velocity” I prefer pulse velocity, which is the square root of the vector “velocity.”

Sorry about the delayed response, Somehow, I lost track of this thread.

Your insight concerning time, photons, and electrons is beyond that of most persons. Try tweaking the overall concept before doing the math; then, see what happens.

[Cerveny]

...
you know what physicists are looking for ?the holy grail ;no not that holy grail
...


It is impossible to find it because Einstein did not interpret gravity properties of anti-mass correctly ...

[SupraLegis]

Concerning Reality Physics:

Reality Physics is correct in the general reasoning and conclusion that: ”Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics will never be able to correctly describe the universe.”

Rather than a concept of “spinning light,” RP might consider complex oscillating light? The observed enigmas of both light and subatomic particles would seem to indicate an internal structure of light that is consistent with an oscillating, ellipsoidal locus that can mathematically morph to mass.

The etiology of seminal motion would support the geometry of such a relativistic ellipsoid.

Let me preface this by stating that im barely a high school graduate, and my mathmatics education is no further than basic algebra. However, ive felt recently that need to escape the womb so to speak, and make an attempt to interpret more than my tangible surroundings. Excuse the lay language.

The traditional light wave model (what i was tought) is something that has always bothered me, i believe that it presents a way to almost effectively make representation and prediction in behavior; accuracy of hand grenades...

I keep trying to visualize what would happen if light could be amplified, or accumulated, in a taurus similar to a particle accelerator, maybe its not possible... i just visualize some kind of contraption generating a single path of no resistance through which light travels with no loss to its point of origin, and thus could be accumulated without acceleration or loss... it is my understanding that light possesses inertia, and is affected by gravity, therefore might exert these properties if it could be contained and accumulated? morph to mass?

This is just something i keep thinking about on long drives, is this completely nuts? I by no means consider myself having any kind of meaningful knowledge in this area, i just wondered if this has been thought of before, and if so where can i read more about this. Im just looking to be pointed in a direction other than words of ridicule lacking tact or value.

[Epsilon=One]

Let me preface this by stating that im barely a high school graduate, and my mathmatics education is no further than basic algebra.You are better equipped than most persons for understanding your environment more fully.


The traditional light wave model (what i was tought) is something that has always bothered me...And also bothered most all theoretical physicists that are honest with themselves.

...i just visualize some kind of contraption generating a single path of no resistance through which light travels with no loss to its point of origin, and thus could be accumulated without acceleration or loss...Everything that exists knows some "resistence" and has some "loss" to and from its point of origin; even light and other subatomic "particles."

...it is my understanding that light possesses inertia, and is affected by gravity, therefore might exert these properties if it could be contained and accumulated? morph to mass?At extreme speeds (Energy), a definition that separates light from mass (as usually defined) is very difficult.

This is just something i keep thinking about on long drives, is this completely nuts?Depends upon how you define "nuts." Keep so thinking. Keep an open, unbiased mind. You might peruse Conceptualism (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Conceptualism) and Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PT) (summary (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Sum)). Keep asking questions until you have satified and rationalized your curiosity.

where can i read more about this. Im just looking to be pointed in a direction other than words of ridicule lacking tact or value.PhysicsMathForum (PMF) does not lack for "words of ridicule lacking tact or value"; however, it does comes with a renaissance spirit, that is important because you should not be satisfied with the obfuscation from conventional, "state of the art" pomo theoretical physicists.

If you peruse PMF, you should be able to think of succinct questions, which may be tolerated and answered better than you can find elsewhere.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


Please take note: the "YUTZ" Immediately above is on My "Ignore list" so if anything is being stated in reference to me or any of my previous postings, (I) have "not a clue" (can not see it, other then, it lists his name as "there"/{here} ) and (I) DO NOT WANT TO RESPOND OR ENCOURAGE TO SUCH AN ARROGANT INVASIONARY HIDDEN PEACOCK

(Watch out for his FALSE information too)

[Epsilon=One]

Please take note: the "YUTZ" Immediately above is on My "Ignore list" so if anything is being stated in reference to me or any of my previous postings, (I) have "not a clue" (can not see it, other then, it lists his name as "there"/{here} ) and (I) DO NOT WANT TO RESPOND OR ENCOURAGE TO SUCH AN ARROGANT INVASIONARY HIDDEN PEACOCKI believe that I would rather be a “PEACOCK” than an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Hopefully, your above statement can be construed as meaning you no longer will waste my time with your distortions.

Your continuing behavior is beyond the norm for civilized dialogue. Though you don’t seem to understand the Renaissance spirit of this forum, I hope you appreciate that spirit; as nowhere else would such personal, off-topic attacks and diatribe be tolerated.

(Watch out for his FALSE information too)Ad hominem argument is weak; if you are going to make spurious charges, you should be able to back them up. Exactly what statement of mine that I have made concerning physics, math, or philosophy do you find “FALSE”? If such is the case, I would very much like to correct it.

[bpj1138]

The average IQ of the place must have climbed considerably.

[WARPULL]

yo! 45678910