Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm

2023-05-23 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe
tenants of solid geometry apply to real > spcce > > > > Bob cook > > - > > > > *From: *Jürg Wyttenbach > *Sent: *Saturday, May 6, 2023 11:00 AM > *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Link between em and

RE: [Vo]:Link between em and qm

2023-05-23 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
mo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm Stefan There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a sphere except for one axes angular motion (w instead of v) J.W. On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > I think the following p

RE: [Vo]:Link between em and qm

2023-05-10 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
geometry may come together in the concept of REALITY. Bob Cook From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe<mailto:stefan.ita...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 7:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm It's kind of crazy how the

Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm

2023-05-08 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe
It's kind of crazy how the brain works. It parses your complaints and then when I wake up I see things even more clear. So the addition to the setup are that we need to constrain interactions in the rest frame of the current moving at C (you can consider a limiting argument to make this stringent)

Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm

2023-05-06 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe
I added a new name for this paper a new link I have different names on this one, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GChNtVtTgvQzF4jSu1tSjCx5ub9lu4RD/view?usp=share_link On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > Also the potential is not correct... > > If you do it quark like 2/3

Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm

2023-05-06 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe
You may have a point but I updated the paper and I hope that it does not have this property now. The last update was at 20:34 CET On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > Also the potential is not correct... > > If you do it quark like 2/3 2/3 -1/3 you will get 2*(2/9) - 4/9 = 0!

Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm

2023-05-06 Thread Jürg Wyttenbach
Also the potential is not correct... If you do it quark like 2/3 2/3 -1/3 you will get 2*(2/9) - 4/9 = 0! because 2/3 are repulsive... You should always write down all details of what you exactly name how and what e.g. potential means. The Dirac equation is plain nonsense as the e/p

Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm

2023-05-06 Thread Stefan Israelsson Tampe
You are right, the paths are more complex than just on a sphere, we build it up as an addition of such paths. On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > Stefan > > There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a > sphere except for one axes angular motion

Re: [Vo]:Link between em and qm

2023-05-06 Thread Jürg Wyttenbach
Stefan There is no such thing as a common velocity for 3 different points on a sphere except for one axes angular motion  (w instead of v) J.W. On 06.05.2023 15:33, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: I think the following paper illustrate an avenue to find the connection between EM and QM now