Re: [Vo]:SO(4) Physics

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

One more question regards  the existence of the magnetic lines.  Does 
the theory identify a cause for the lines between events?  Regarding 
this question, application of the Biot-Savart Law of classical EM theory 
is used in SO(4) physics, is it not?


You (I needed it too.. ) will need quite a long "learning phase 
to"/understand how a magnetic field propagates in SO(4). Already to 
visualize the Clifford torus single sided surface that is 4D needs some 
deep minding.
In fact you must be able to see two things based on the flux change 
(induction) law. A change in magnetic flux flowing through an area 
induces an electric field what is equivalent to separated charge 
(current). Second all such induced charge again interacts with magnetic 
flux in all!! adjacent dimensions. As soon as a magnetic flux lines 
leaves the optimal (SO(4) symmetric) orbit additional charge is 
generated what compensates the movement and classically is known as 
strong force.
The main difficulty is to see/understand that the 5^th rotation induced 
by the charge coupling leads to a topology that fully encloses the 
magnetic flux inside a closed trajectory what finally results in a 
"static" condition between amount of charge and radius of Biot-Savart 
coupling. The Biot-Savart operator (coupling) is restricted to 3 
dimensions what explains why the "center" of mass must be a Clifford 
torus surface as the force is always orthogonal to the surface and "flux 
tubes" do run along the surface. For the modelling I used projections to 
the real torus.


  You seem to say that the lines propagate in 3-D space at the speed of 
light  as in classical/relativistic theory, but are associated with a 
Clifford torus, which “starting at the source, what typically is a 
harmonic moving charge.”  It seems that you suggest that  that the 
rotating torus surface is itself a dimension and influences all points 
in 3-D space (which you call “free space.”)   I may be inferring too much?


The classic real (Minkovski) space ends at the De Broglie radius of 
(particle-) mass. Below this radius classic physics by definition no 
longer works as this is also the horizon of uncertainty given by the 
measurement symmetry when using E/B fields. SO(4) treats everything 
below De Broglie radius.
Light speed is the wrong concept for dense mass as only the frequency 
allows to make a connection to energy. The wave packets, classically the 
phase, can propagate at least at 64c according to the latest 
experiments. My guess was that the maximum speed of light inside dense 
mass is given by the power of 2 of the maximal possible rotations times 
the group measure.


Is there any free space that is not influenced by the magnetic lines?

I too would like to understand the real reason (only mass?) why & when 
virtual charge is generated (that is influenced by magnetic lines) . 
Obviously there exist only a few basic topologies (e,p, relativistic 
muon ) that are long time stable and produce "visible" charge. E.g. the 
charge inside a photon cannot be seen externally, but as soon as it 
enters dense mass the photon may couple over an SO(4) orbit (see 
Holmlid), besides being "classically" absorbed.


Does the concept of “cause and effect” apply to the mapping you   discuss?

The cause/effect currently is restricted to Maxwell laws. The current 
model is not perturbative for all coupling dimensions. To understand 
e.g. radioactive decay (cause/effect) we must be able to add small 
perturbations to combined "many body" SO(4) orbits. I would say that we 
just opened the door to a new view on the real inner part of our world. 
The next steps will need far more time an brain power!


Please also keep in mind that this is just one more step in the 
direction of understanding the basics of nature. Whether mass is just a 
wave node of e.g. a perturbation in the ( more complex) background 
(ether) is an other story.


J.W.

Am 13.01.20 um 21:37 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:


Jurg—

Thanks for those additional comments.  I would guess that those folks 
not familiar with the nature of the SO(4) 6 dimensions will have some 
of the questions I sent along.


One more question regards  the existence of the magnetic lines.  Does 
the theory identify a cause for the lines between events?  Regarding 
this question, application of the Biot-Savart Law of classical EM 
theory is used in SO(4) physics, is it not?


  You seem to say that the lines propagate in 3-D space at the speed 
of light  as in classical/relativistic theory, but are associated with 
a Clifford torus, which “starting at the source, what typically is a 
harmonic moving charge.”  It seems that you suggest that  that the 
rotating torus surface is itself a dimension and influences all points 
in 3-D space (which you call “free space.”)   I may be inferring too much?


Is there any free space that is not influenced by the magnetic lines?

Does the concept of “cause and effect” apply to the mapping you   discuss?

Re: [Vo]:SO(4) Physics

[mixent]

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:37:25 
+:
Hi,

I suspect that only the angular momentum of photons is quantized. 
Allowed atomic transitions can be found by making that assumption, without 
applying any other rules, i.e. Occam's razor.

[snip]
>Comment:
>
>I have started to read reference 8 concerning the Biot-Savart operator.  It 
>appears to apply to SO(4) physics.  However it does appear that the math of 
>reference 8 assumes a continuous vector function  that would address angular 
>momentum.  In my humble opinion angular momentum is quantized at h/2pi in the 
>real world where the Biot-Savant operator is applied per the assumption of 
>reference 8.  (h is Planck’s constant.)
>
>I also conclude that the magnetic flux of SO(4) physics is quantized in order 
>to explain real quantum changes in a system’s angular momentum.  I.e., the 
>“spinors” should be predicted to exist  in discrete quanta.
>
>Bob Cook
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:SO(4) Physics

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jurg—

Thanks for those additional comments.  I would guess that those folks not 
familiar with the nature of the SO(4) 6 dimensions will have some of the 
questions I sent along.

One more question regards  the existence of the magnetic lines.  Does the 
theory identify a cause for the lines between events?  Regarding this question, 
application of the Biot-Savart Law of classical EM theory is used in SO(4) 
physics, is it not?


  You seem to say that the lines propagate in 3-D space at the speed of light  
as in classical/relativistic theory, but are associated with a Clifford torus, 
which “starting at the source, what typically is a harmonic moving charge.”  It 
seems that you suggest that  that the rotating torus surface is itself a 
dimension and influences all points in 3-D space (which you call “free space.”) 
  I may be inferring too much?

Is there any free space that is not influenced by the magnetic lines?

Does the concept of “cause and effect” apply to the mapping you   discuss?

Comment:

I have started to read reference 8 concerning the Biot-Savart operator.  It 
appears to apply to SO(4) physics.  However it does appear that the math of 
reference 8 assumes a continuous vector function  that would address angular 
momentum.  In my humble opinion angular momentum is quantized at h/2pi in the 
real world where the Biot-Savant operator is applied per the assumption of 
reference 8.  (h is Planck’s constant.)

I also conclude that the magnetic flux of SO(4) physics is quantized in order 
to explain real quantum changes in a system’s angular momentum.  I.e., the 
“spinors” should be predicted to exist  in discrete quanta.

Bob Cook

From: Jürg Wyttenbach
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 3:30 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:SO(4) Physics

Am 13.01.20 um 05:40 schrieb 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com:
Jurg—

I am continuing to study your papers regarding SO(4) physics.  The latest is 
your item on ResearchGate  “Nuclear & Particle Physics version 2.0 < SO(4) 
physics > Main achievements” of September, 2019.

Some questions and comments follow:

  1.  In the introduction and throughout the detailed sections you refer to 
rotations of a something.  It seems that the rotating entity is a real charge 
of a certain magnitude relative to classical physical constants.  Is  this what 
the SO(4) modeling assumes?

The natural trajectory of EM-flux (= magnetic field lines) in SO(4) is a 
complex 2,3,5 or 8 fold rotation. A EM flux that spans the full Clifford torus 
surface (Moves through all 16 hyper quadrants) needs to do 8 360 degree full 
rotations. In free space EM-flux (= magnetic field lines) travel outwards 
(radial), at light speed, starting at the source, what typically is a harmonic 
moving charge. In dense space the EM flux orbits are closed "loops" what I call 
rotation. This is pretty much what you call spinors in classic theory but with 
one more dimension.

As EM flux is equivalent to energy flux = mass it also follows mechanical laws 
for mass. In each rotation dimension mechanical rotation energy is stored. This 
can be directly seen in the magic nucleus 28-Si that has the second torus rigid 
momentum (=7/4, in body rotation) proportion added to the protons 9/8 diameter 
axial rotation. (Always seen as a projection to classic space! ) ( Also seen in 
56/84 symmetric! nucleons)

Be aware that EM-flux alone is "mass less" or virtual mass only. Real mass is 
generated on Biot-Savart coupling, but we know that the nucleus only works with 
such coupling and thus it is OK to use the term mass.



  1.  Also in the introduction you indicate: “ A uniform time axis is a 
mathematical trick that allows us to model events that change the relation 
between an old and a new state in a regular fashion. But from the more 
fundamental information theory we know that there is no global time and we can 
only model phenomena that are based on a partial order of events.”  I would 
infer that time is a virtual concept—not a real dimension.  Is this a correct 
inference?

Time is of course a virtual concept and works fine for classic problems. 
Anybody that would like to have a basic proof for the impossibility of a global 
time axes (communication between entities, also called stopping/halting 
problem) should read basic information theory.



  1.  The Introduction refers to various references for background theory and 
other references are made throughout the paper.  A list of references is 
desirable.

The literature reference is after the theory, before the LENR part end of chpt. 
10. Sorry I just added the LENR part I poste it below!



  1.  The NPP2.0 seems to include 3 real space dimensions and up to 3 more 
dimensions.  Are  these additional  dimensions described by a continuous 
numerical scale or an eigenvalue or finite element space dimension or some 
other measure?
SO(4) has 6 dimension O(4) (Euklids 

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[H LV]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM H LV  wrote:

> This is an illustration from Newton's Principia of his famous cannon
> thought experiment. It shows how a cannonball fired horizontally from a
> mountain top (assuming no air resistance) will orbit the Earth without
> falling to the ground if it is fired with sufficient speed.
> https://imgur.com/gallery/dzSLWaa
>
> Now imagine an ice covered planet which is perfectly smooth, with no
> mountains or valleys. On the surface rests a curling stone of a given
> _weight_. If the curling stone is propelled horizontally with sufficient
> speed it will orbit the planet while sliding over the surface. At this
> velocity it will be in free fall so its weight will be effectively zero.
> The question is does the weight of the curling stone gradually increase as
> the horizontal velocity gradually decreases or does the curling stone
> resume its full weight for any velocity less than the orbital velocity?
>
> Harry
>

To answer my own question... the classical prediction is the weight of the
stone should increase, because the centrifugal force is decreasing in the
frame of reference of the stone. However, if gravity in General Relativity
is not a force then a corresponding a centrifugal force does not arise.
Therefore, if GR is true, the weight of the stone should jump to its full
weight for any value less than the orbital speed. (Actually I think there
is argument to be made that even Newtonian gravity is not a force and is
just an acceleration).
Harry

[Vo]:Fwd: Posible confirmation-Dr Fred Alzofon-ex-Boeing-Antigravity Paper 81-1608

[Ron Kita]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 9:57 AM ron kita  wrote:

> Greeting Bill et al,
>
> A cheap was well as interesting experiment on the late Dr Alzofon s AIAA
> 81-1608 Antigravity paper-
> seems to follow his teachings.
>
> 18 minites...highly interesting -IMHO. Comments are most welcomed.  I
> visited the page 9 months ago according to the repiles.
>
> Ad astra,
> Ron..Chiralex
> Weight Loss in Aluminum? Gravity Control? Part 1
> 
>
> Weight Loss in Aluminum? Gravity Control? Part 1
>
> Sadly, this technology seems to be completely ignored by establishment
> science. Developed by a respected physici...
> 
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[H LV]

This is an illustration from Newton's Principia of his famous cannon
thought experiment. It shows how a cannonball fired horizontally from a
mountain top (assuming no air resistance) will orbit the Earth without
falling to the ground if it is fired with sufficient speed.
https://imgur.com/gallery/dzSLWaa

Now imagine an ice covered planet which is perfectly smooth, with no
mountains or valleys. On the surface rests a curling stone of a given
_weight_. If the curling stone is propelled horizontally with sufficient
speed it will orbit the planet while sliding over the surface. At this
velocity it will be in free fall so its weight will be effectively zero.
The question is does the weight of the curling stone gradually increase as
the horizontal velocity gradually decreases or does the curling stone
resume its full weight for any velocity less than the orbital velocity?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:SO(4) Physics

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Am 13.01.20 um 05:40 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:


Jurg—

I am continuing to study your papers regarding SO(4) physics.  The 
latest is your item on ResearchGate  “Nuclear & Particle Physics 
version 2.0 < SO(4) physics > Main achievements” of September, 2019.


Some questions and comments follow:

 1. In the introduction and throughout the detailed sections you refer
to rotations of a something.  It seems that the rotating entity is
a real charge of a certain magnitude relative to classical
physical constants.  Is  this what the SO(4) modeling assumes?

The natural trajectory of EM-flux (= magnetic field lines) in SO(4) is a 
complex 2,3,5 or 8 fold rotation. A EM flux that spans the full Clifford 
torus surface (Moves through all 16 hyper quadrants) needs to do 8 360 
degree full rotations. In free space EM-flux (= magnetic field lines) 
travel outwards (radial), at light speed, starting at the source, what 
typically is a harmonic moving charge. In dense space the EM flux orbits 
are closed "loops" what I call rotation. This is pretty much what you 
call spinors in classic theory but with one more dimension.


As EM flux is equivalent to energy flux = mass it also follows 
mechanical laws for mass. In each rotation dimension mechanical rotation 
energy is stored. This can be directly seen in the magic nucleus 28-Si 
that has the second torus rigid momentum (=7/4, in body rotation) 
proportion added to the protons 9/8 diameter axial rotation. (Always 
seen as a projection to classic space! ) ( Also seen in 56/84 symmetric! 
nucleons)


Be aware that EM-flux alone is "mass less" or virtual mass only. Real 
mass is generated on Biot-Savart coupling, but we know that the nucleus 
only works with such coupling and thus it is OK to use the term mass.




 1. Also in the introduction you indicate: “ A uniform time axis is a
mathematical trick that allows us to model events that change the
relation between an old and a new state in a regular fashion. But
from the more fundamental information theory we know that there is
no global time and we can only model phenomena that are based on a
partial order of events.”  I would infer that time is a virtual
concept—not a real dimension.  Is this a correct inference?

Time is of course a virtual concept and works fine for classic problems. 
Anybody that would like to have a basic proof for the impossibility of a 
global time axes (communication between entities, also called 
stopping/halting problem) should read basic information theory.




 1. The Introduction refers to various references for background
theory and other references are made throughout the paper.  A list
of references is desirable.

The literature reference is after the theory, before the LENR part end 
of chpt. 10. Sorry I just added the LENR part I poste it below!




 1. The NPP2.0 seems to include 3 real space dimensions and up to 3
more dimensions.  Are  these additional  dimensions described by a
continuous numerical scale or an eigenvalue or finite element
space dimension or some other measure?

SO(4) has 6 dimension O(4) (Euklids 4 rotations) is the center symmetry 
part given by the geometry of the Clifford torus (2 sided 8 rotations). 
The tricky part is to understand that the whole torus itself can have 
one more rotation, what is responsible for the virtual charge that binds 
all nuclear EM flux.


 1. Most of the constants NPP2.0 includes involve time and distance. 
If time is not a global dimension, then it seems the constants are
nothing more than virtual (not real) ideas. **

**

We all stay in "real" space and can only do measurements in real space. 
Thus all calculations/experiments we can do must be performed or mapped 
to real space. Such mappings are tricky as the group measure for one 
radius is 2^1/2 . Even more complicated is the understanding/distinction 
between real and virtual mass.


A change in reference frame usually includes 2 radial dimensions what 
gives a factor of 2. If e.g an electron (= charge mass) moves from the 
"chemical" orbit to the nucleus then the virtual charge mass is 2 times 
larger, what reduces the effective= real charge mass.



There is not all info in the summary as in reality I should write a 
book. The full rotation matrix is in fact in one of the first 
versions... Also the quite interesting classic! virtual deuterium model 
can be found there. Not even to mention the gamma ray calculations.


J.W.




[1] B.I. Ivlev Conversion of zero point energy into high-energy photons

Instituto de F ́ısica, Universidad Auto ́noma de San Luis Potos ́ı, San 
Luis Potos ́ı, 78000 Mexico, Revista Mexicana de F ́ısica *62 *(2016) 83–88


[2] Lipinski WO2014189799 united gravity about LiP (H*) fusion.

[3] Leonardo Chiatti, Quantum Jumps and Electrodynamical Description

[4] 2016: Mills, Randell L., The GRAND UNIFIED THEORY of CLASSICAL 
QUANTUM MECHANICS;ISBN 978-0-9635171-5-9 (2016)