Some of the contents of the ice-cream were encouraging certain types of bonding. I keep meaning to read around mind and matter, but I''m not in the mood.
On 8 Sep, 18:41, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems that we can discuss, so I'll answer your > questions. Selectively. Commenting the whole post would > be too long and diverging. > ============= > G: > > > > > BTW, it's not my cup of tea, but at least I know why > > the > > most realistic unifying theories are formulated in > > 10 Dimensions. Not from some Stanford or other kitchen > > almanac, but from my own experience in Physics. > > Do you? > ================ > > jr writes> > > Again do we unify 4 fields where three are fantasy, or do > > we eliminate > > the fantasy fields? I only require three dimensions... > > which is really > > all we have. If we have an atom built from compacted > > electromagnetic > > field structures, we eliminate the two particle fields and > > gravity at > > once. But I am interested in why it must be formulated by > > mainstream > > in 10 dimensions. > > =================== > G: > GR #Space "S" is a 4d #Space unique so far to support the > covariance of Mechanics, Electromagnetism and Gravity. > Now, curved nd #Space allowing for symmetry is embedded > in embedding n*(n+1)/2 d. > Thus 4d "S" is embedded in embedding "V" of 4*5/2=10d. > (S and V point vaguely to surface/volume). > Now, no factually verified Model deals with V and only > GR deals with curved S. SR and QFT are limited to the > flat Minkowski #Space and ignore V altogether. > As there is no empty #Space, V like S must encompass > some form of "matter", where by "matter" I mean a > metalanguage shortcut for some field(s) and > singularities thereof. > My postulate is that unification will consist in unifying > V and S in a unique #Space. > That's where we disagree. Whatever the fabric of the > V-matter, it does not interact with EM, unless you deny > GR, which would close our discussion here and now. > EM is entirely confined to S, whose geodesics never > quit it towards V. > My postulate is open towards luminous "matter" of S > against the dark "mater" of V, indifferent to EM, with > gravity gluing together V and S, as well as towards 10d > constructs such as superstrings. > Apparently in total contradiction to your global EM, > but then vive la difference, mother of discussion. > > > BTW, below you talk about electric current and its > > generated magnetic Field. > > Do you know at least what is the mathematic fabric of > > the so called "magnetic field vector"? > > Again, no sarcasm, very few know and I am ready to help. > ================== > > jr writes> > > Math fabric? Like a background condition??? Again please > > do. > > ================= > G: > Let me recall Maxwell's equations in vector form as: > > curl(E)=-pB/pt (B=mu*H) > curl(H)=pD/pt (D=eps*E) > div(D)=ro > div(B)=0 > where: > E: polar vector of electric field > H: axial vector of magnetic field > eps: dielectric constant of vacuum > mu: magnetic permeability of vacuum > ro: charge density > D: vector electric induction > B: vector magnetic induction > > Vector equations with axial vectors, curls, etc. may > be useful as High School tutorials, but by no means in > Relativity research. > Actually, they are wrong, starting with H, which is > not a vector, but an anti-symmetric tensor of rank 2. > It happens to have in 3D #Space 3 independent > components, which makes it similar to a vector and > allows to consider it in elementary handbooks as > "axial vector". > > Proper tensor expression of Maxwell equations may be seen > in my derivation of E=MC2 inhttp://findgeorges.com/ > DB SPECIAL RELATIVITY > dbe E=MC^2 > > Cheers > Georges. > =================- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
