Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

2020-06-28 Thread Jürg Wyttenbach 


On 28.06.2020 01:50, Che wrote:
Is it your claim that mass is a function of the inertia of spinning 
energy -- here, in some toroidal form..?


Yes exactly that is what SO(4) physics shows with the highest possible 
precision.



I was referring to the mathematical analysis of bulk matter rather than 
any sort of underlying particle theory of matter.


If matter is composed of point particles separated by some distance, 
then each point particle could have a finite mass connected to it.


Harry

Such an approach is similar to statistical thermodynamics where we 
define some class rules to get some useful information. For engineering 
all methods are allowed/should be used! But keep in mind there as there 
is no ideal gas there is also no ideal point mass - and always we do 
have mixtures.


J.W.

--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

2020-06-27 Thread H LV 
Engineers and applied physicists never stopped using the concept of an
infinitesimal so they should be happy to know that it isn't bad mathematics
after all.

Harry



On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator.
> Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass
> mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering.
>
> Why physics did use the fringe Virial approach (square integrable
> functions..) is an enigma. May be most were mathematicians bare of any
> physics understanding.
>
> The solutions of the rigid mass operator problems are torus surfaces! It
> is thus no surprise that all particles can be modeled by  higher order
> tori! Of course we do not need any fantasy numbers or point masses...
>
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 27.06.2020 23:59, H LV wrote:
>
> I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the
> concept of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that would
> imply infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively zero mass
> and zero charge. However these conundrums are resolved mathematically by
> moving from the real number system to the hyperreal number system first
> formulated by Abraham Robinson in the early 1960s. The hyperreal number
> system extends the real number system by including  infinitely small
> numbers and infinitely large numbers and gives a logical foundation for the
> calculus of infinitesimals known as "non-standard analysis". Today  most
> physicists and students still learn calculus  using "standard analysis"
> which is based on the notion of limits and was developed by mathematicians
> in the 19th century.
>
> An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in different
> sizes. For example if  ε   is an infinitesimal then  ε  < 2 ε  < 3ε
>  ...etc.
> The reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so there
> are also different size infinities. For example 1/ε  > 1/2ε > 1/3ε
> ...etc.
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...
>>
>> SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is
>> generated and mediated between hadronic masses.
>>
>> Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating with point
>> particles that do not behave as points because these points have a magnetic
>> moment. No more cheating with massless charge as such an assumption simply
>> is a form of infantile dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge
>> does move without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most
>> idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment then would
>> oscillate. We can go on with this as you only need college level
>> understanding to find out that the foundation of SM is children logic.
>>
>>
>> J.W.
>> On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/
>>
>>
>>
>> some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….
>>
>>
>>
>> Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is
>> probably is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear  conditions
>> and isotopic transitions.  It  may also  change gravity
>>
>> Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic dipole
>> attraction is modified—either increases or reduced?  *This question   stems
>> from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an *random* collection of
>> nuclear magnetic dipoles  and the respective 0  (zero) net angular
>> momentum.
>>
>>
>>
>> The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large distances
>> between randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles  supports the
>> CONJECTURE  noted above IMHO.
>>
>>
>>
>> *http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>> A better reference would be nice.
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>> --
>> Jürg Wyttenbach
>> Bifangstr. 22
>> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>>
>> +41 44 760 14 18
>> +41 79 246 36 06
>>
>> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

2020-06-27 Thread H LV 
I was referring to the mathematical analysis of bulk matter rather than any
sort of underlying particle theory of matter.

If matter is composed of point particles separated by some distance, then
each point particle could have a finite mass connected to it.

Harry


On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 7:00 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> point-particle theory is Boscovich's theory and educators don't teach it
> any more to physics students; only a few physicists know about it because
> now an obscure subject
>
> On Saturday, 27 June 2020, 23:18:35 BST, Jürg Wyttenbach <
> ju...@datamart.ch> wrote:
>
>
> Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator.
> Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass
> mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering.
>
> Why physics did use the fringe Virial approach (square integrable
> functions..) is an enigma. May be most were mathematicians bare of any
> physics understanding.
>
> The solutions of the rigid mass operator problems are torus surfaces! It
> is thus no surprise that all particles can be modeled by  higher order
> tori! Of course we do not need any fantasy numbers or point masses...
>
>
> J.W.
>
>
> On 27.06.2020 23:59, H LV wrote:
>
> I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the
> concept of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that would
> imply infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively zero mass
> and zero charge. However these conundrums are resolved mathematically by
> moving from the real number system to the hyperreal number system first
> formulated by Abraham Robinson in the early 1960s. The hyperreal number
> system extends the real number system by including  infinitely small
> numbers and infinitely large numbers and gives a logical foundation for the
> calculus of infinitesimals known as "non-standard analysis". Today  most
> physicists and students still learn calculus  using "standard analysis"
> which is based on the notion of limits and was developed by mathematicians
> in the 19th century.
>
> An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in different
> sizes. For example if  ε   is an infinitesimal then  ε  < 2 ε  < 3ε
>  ...etc.
> The reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so there
> are also different size infinities. For example 1/ε  > 1/2ε > 1/3ε
> ...etc.
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
> The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...
>
> SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is
> generated and mediated between hadronic masses.
>
> Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating with point
> particles that do not behave as points because these points have a magnetic
> moment. No more cheating with massless charge as such an assumption simply
> is a form of infantile dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge
> does move without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most
> idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment then would
> oscillate. We can go on with this as you only need college level
> understanding to find out that the foundation of SM is children logic.
>
>
> J.W.
> On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/
>
>
>
> some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….
>
>
>
> Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is probably
> is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear  conditions and
> isotopic transitions.  It  may also  change gravity
>
> Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic dipole
> attraction is modified—either increases or reduced?  *This question   stems
> from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an *random* collection of
> nuclear magnetic dipoles  and the respective 0  (zero) net angular
> momentum.
>
>
>
> The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large distances between
> randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles  supports the CONJECTURE
> noted above IMHO.
>
>
>
> *http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
> *
>
>
>
> A better reference would be nice.
>
> .
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

2020-06-27 Thread Che 
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:18 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator.
> Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass
> mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering.
>
> Why physics did use the fringe Virial approach (square integrable
> functions..) is an enigma. May be most were mathematicians bare of any
> physics understanding.
>
> The solutions of the rigid mass operator problems are torus surfaces! It
> is thus no surprise that all particles can be modeled by  higher order
> tori! Of course we do not need any fantasy numbers or point masses...
>
>
> J.W.
>
Is it your claim that mass is a function of the inertia of spinning energy
-- here, in some toroidal form..?

-- grok.





>
> On 27.06.2020 23:59, H LV wrote:
>
> I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the
> concept of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that would
> imply infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively zero mass
> and zero charge. However these conundrums are resolved mathematically by
> moving from the real number system to the hyperreal number system first
> formulated by Abraham Robinson in the early 1960s. The hyperreal number
> system extends the real number system by including  infinitely small
> numbers and infinitely large numbers and gives a logical foundation for the
> calculus of infinitesimals known as "non-standard analysis". Today  most
> physicists and students still learn calculus  using "standard analysis"
> which is based on the notion of limits and was developed by mathematicians
> in the 19th century.
>
> An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in different
> sizes. For example if  ε   is an infinitesimal then  ε  < 2 ε  < 3ε
>  ...etc.
> The reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so there
> are also different size infinities. For example 1/ε  > 1/2ε > 1/3ε
> ...etc.
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
>
>> The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...
>>
>> SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is
>> generated and mediated between hadronic masses.
>>
>> Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating with point
>> particles that do not behave as points because these points have a magnetic
>> moment. No more cheating with massless charge as such an assumption simply
>> is a form of infantile dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge
>> does move without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most
>> idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment then would
>> oscillate. We can go on with this as you only need college level
>> understanding to find out that the foundation of SM is children logic.
>>
>>
>> J.W.
>> On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/
>>
>>
>>
>> some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….
>>
>>
>>
>> Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is
>> probably is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear  conditions
>> and isotopic transitions.  It  may also  change gravity
>>
>> Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic dipole
>> attraction is modified—either increases or reduced?  *This question   stems
>> from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an *random* collection of
>> nuclear magnetic dipoles  and the respective 0  (zero) net angular
>> momentum.
>>
>>
>>
>> The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large distances
>> between randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles  supports the
>> CONJECTURE  noted above IMHO.
>>
>>
>>
>> *http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>> A better reference would be nice.
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>> --
>> Jürg Wyttenbach
>> Bifangstr. 22
>> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>>
>> +41 44 760 14 18
>> +41 79 246 36 06
>>
>> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

2020-06-27 Thread ROGER ANDERTON 
 point-particle theory is Boscovich's theory and educators don't teach it any 
more to physics students; only a few physicists know about it because now an 
obscure subject

On Saturday, 27 June 2020, 23:18:35 BST, Jürg Wyttenbach 
 wrote:  
 
  
Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator. 
Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass 
mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering.
 
Why physics did use the fringe Virial approach (square integrable functions..) 
is an enigma. May be most were mathematicians bare of any physics understanding.
 
The solutions of the rigid mass operator problems are torus surfaces! It is 
thus no surprise that all particles can be modeled by  higher order tori! Of 
course we do not need any fantasy numbers or point masses...
 

 
 
J.W. 
 
 

 
 On 27.06.2020 23:59, H LV wrote:
  
 
  I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the concept 
of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that would imply 
infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively zero mass and zero 
charge. However these conundrums are resolved mathematically by moving from the 
real number system to the hyperreal number system first formulated by Abraham 
Robinson in the early 1960s. The hyperreal number system extends the real 
number system by including  infinitely small numbers and infinitely large 
numbers and gives a logical foundation for the calculus of infinitesimals known 
as "non-standard analysis". Today  most physicists and students still learn 
calculus  using "standard analysis" which is based on the notion of limits and 
was developed by mathematicians in the 19th century.
 
  An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in different 
sizes. For example if  ε   is an infinitesimal then  ε  < 2 ε  < 3ε ...etc. The 
reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so there are also 
different size infinities. For example 1/ε  > 1/2ε > 1/3ε  ...etc.
 
 Harry 
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:
  
  
The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...
 
SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is generated and 
mediated between hadronic masses. 
 
 
Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating with point 
particles that do not behave as points because these points have a magnetic 
moment. No more cheating with massless charge as such an assumption simply is a 
form of infantile dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge does move 
without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most idiotic is the 
assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment then would oscillate. We can 
go on with this as you only need college level understanding to find out that 
the foundation of SM is children logic.
 

 
 
J.W.
 
 On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:
  
  
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/
 
 
 
some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….
 
 
 
Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is probably is 
associated with the creation of unstable nuclear  conditions and isotopic 
transitions.  It  may also  change gravity 
 
Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic dipole attraction 
is modified—either increases or reduced?  *This question   stems from the 
CONJECTURE that gravity results from an random collection of nuclear magnetic 
dipoles  and the respective 0  (zero) net angular momentum.  
 
 
 
The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large distances between 
randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles  supports the CONJECTURE  noted 
above IMHO.  
 
 
 
http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
 
 
 
A better reference would be nice.
 
.
 
 
 
Bob Cook
  
 -- 
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06  
   -- 
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

2020-06-27 Thread Jürg Wyttenbach 
Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator. 
Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass 
mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering.


Why physics did use the fringe Virial approach (square integrable 
functions..) is an enigma. May be most were mathematicians bare of any 
physics understanding.


The solutions of the rigid mass operator problems are torus surfaces! It 
is thus no surprise that all particles can be modeled by  higher order 
tori! Of course we do not need any fantasy numbers or point masses...



J.W.


On 27.06.2020 23:59, H LV wrote:
I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the 
concept of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that 
would imply infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively 
zero mass and zero charge. However these conundrums are resolved 
mathematically by moving from the real number system to the hyperreal 
number system first formulated by Abraham Robinson in the early 1960s. 
The hyperreal number system extends the real number system by 
including  infinitely small numbers and infinitely large numbers and 
gives a logical foundation for the calculus of infinitesimals known as 
"non-standard analysis". Today  most physicists and students still 
learn calculus using "standard analysis" which is based on the notion 
of limits and was developed by mathematicians in the 19th century.


An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in 
different sizes. For example if ε   is an infinitesimal then ε < 2 ε < 
3ε ...etc.
The reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so 
there are also different size infinities. For example 1/ε > 1/2ε > 
1/3ε ...etc.


Harry

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach > wrote:


The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...

SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is
generated and mediated between hadronic masses.

Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating
with point particles that do not behave as points because these
points have a magnetic moment. No more cheating with massless
charge as such an assumption simply is a form of infantile
dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge does move
without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most
idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment
then would oscillate. We can go on with this as you only need
college level understanding to find out that the foundation of SM
is children logic.


J.W.

On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com
 wrote:



https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/

some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….

Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is
probably is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear
 conditions and isotopic transitions.  It  may also  change gravity

Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic
dipole attraction is modified—either increases or reduced?  *This
question   stems from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an
*_random_* collection of nuclear magnetic dipoles  and the
respective 0  (zero) net angular momentum.

The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large
distances between randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles
 supports the CONJECTURE  noted above IMHO.

_http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf_

__

A better reference would be nice.

.

Bob Cook

-- 
Jürg Wyttenbach

Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Re: magnetism heat and dimensions--

2020-06-27 Thread H LV 
I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the
concept of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that would
imply infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively zero mass
and zero charge. However these conundrums are resolved mathematically by
moving from the real number system to the hyperreal number system first
formulated by Abraham Robinson in the early 1960s. The hyperreal number
system extends the real number system by including  infinitely small
numbers and infinitely large numbers and gives a logical foundation for the
calculus of infinitesimals known as "non-standard analysis". Today  most
physicists and students still learn calculus  using "standard analysis"
which is based on the notion of limits and was developed by mathematicians
in the 19th century.

An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in different
sizes. For example if  ε   is an infinitesimal then  ε  < 2 ε  < 3ε ...etc.
The reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so there
are also different size infinities. For example 1/ε  > 1/2ε > 1/3ε  ...etc.

Harry

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...
>
> SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is
> generated and mediated between hadronic masses.
>
> Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating with point
> particles that do not behave as points because these points have a magnetic
> moment. No more cheating with massless charge as such an assumption simply
> is a form of infantile dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge
> does move without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most
> idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment then would
> oscillate. We can go on with this as you only need college level
> understanding to find out that the foundation of SM is children logic.
>
>
> J.W.
> On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/
>
>
>
> some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….
>
>
>
> Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei  is probably
> is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear  conditions and
> isotopic transitions.  It  may also  change gravity
>
> Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic dipole
> attraction is modified—either increases or reduced?  *This question   stems
> from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an *random* collection of
> nuclear magnetic dipoles  and the respective 0  (zero) net angular
> momentum.
>
>
>
> The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large distances between
> randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles  supports the CONJECTURE
> noted above IMHO.
>
>
>
> *http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
> *
>
>
>
> A better reference would be nice.
>
> .
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
> --
> Jürg Wyttenbach
> Bifangstr. 22
> 8910 Affoltern am Albis
>
> +41 44 760 14 18
> +41 79 246 36 06
>
>