but please provide substantial reference in doing so…..

It appears on reflection that my questions have followed a process of elimination to properly identify the dynamic I have sought expression of. I have not yet seriously presented any theory and my previous illustrations of things were not a hypothesis but a means to divulge the nature of a dynamic. I can’t say I haven’t learnt a degree of communication skills along the way.

So. The one question I would now pose of the greater science forum in general is this. Is there an equation that describes space and time, mass and charge, as products of transversely opposing, interdependant AM expressions?

My conclusion is that there are 2 natural expressions of AM that work in tandem. I would simply designate one AM+ and the other AM-, one being representable by an inward spiral and the other an outward. Between these two fundamental energetic expressions a 4 dimensional balance is maintained. I have supplied the revised FoR model that I have constructed, if it clarifies the question(with the “?” on it) further.

DEFINITIONS:

particle= an event

geodesic= state a particle exists in between events

singularity= geodesic bereft of events

boson geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are AM+

fermion geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are AM-

neutron geodesic= state in which the nature of either end of a path are determined by the event

mass= disparity between AM+ and AM-

charge= disparity between AM- and AM+

fermion event= resolution of interval disparity

boson event= resolution of spatial disparity

Too hard.
Ref. IQ< 150

Tamb said:

Too hard.
Ref. IQ< 150

honesty?!!!! :O slaps both cheeks simultaneously

the challenge wasn’t for your benefit Tamb, but thanks. ;)

Please define “AM”.

Michael V said:

Please define “AM”.

Angular momentum/intrinsic particle spin.

Thank you. “AM” as a standard contraction means “Amplitude Modulation”

It always helps others understand what you mean if you define a contraction at its first use.

Michael V said:

Thank you. “AM” as a standard contraction means “Amplitude Modulation”

It always helps others understand what you mean if you define a contraction at its first use.

Sorry. I did assume the context supplied the definition.

it is up to you to show the evidence that what you say is a correct model. that is how science works. it is not up to us to show you wrong. so, show us your workings that are needed to reach these conclusions. you will need to provide substantial reference to QM and relativity.

JudgeMental said:

it is up to you to show the evidence that what you say is a correct model. that is how science works. it is not up to us to show you wrong. so, show us your workings that are needed to reach these conclusions. you will need to provide substantial reference to QM and relativity.

If you say so JM. I’ll reference what is required when it is required. Incidentally, what I have supplied is not a ‘correct’ model. That would require it to be complete. You ought to assume I am working on that seeing as this is fundamentally the only subject I have focussed on, ever.

then basically you have fuck all. it’s rubbish. learn some real science or are you too fucking dumb?

JudgeMental said:

then basically you have fuck all. it’s rubbish. learn some real science or are you too fucking dumb?

you make wildly presumptive assumptions. I have what I have been asking for, which is a description that illustrates the dynamic I was trying to comprehend. There is not a great deal more to provide to the incomplete model already supplied but I do not work at a pace designed to impress yourself or any other, so you will just have to STFU till I do post it. Won’t you?

and i’ve heard that sooooo many times before, “i’m working on it”, “i’ll get back to you”, and guess what? you never do.

JudgeMental said:

and i’ve heard that sooooo many times before, “i’m working on it”, “i’ll get back to you”, and guess what? you never do.

err, I’ve kept get back to you on the same subject for many years. If you are so interested I will make sure to keep you hanging only a short while longer, now that I have that one little piece that was so obviously missing. Can I powder your ass while your waiting? Maybe you are lacking something to suck on?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

JudgeMental said:

and i’ve heard that sooooo many times before, “i’m working on it”, “i’ll get back to you”, and guess what? you never do.

err, I’ve kept get back to you on the same subject for many years. If you are so interested I will make sure to keep you hanging only a short while longer, now that I have that one little piece that was so obviously missing. Can I powder your ass while your waiting? Maybe you are lacking something to suck on?

little update for you JM. I’ve scheduled the next 3 days to provide definition to my ‘model’. The extra time is cause I’m really really hoping your impressed and will want to get on the end of it……….

bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! KJW rocks. woo woo woo woo hoooooooooooooooooooooo :D

Problem solved. Universal binary equals 1/square root -1, not 1/0

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Problem solved. Universal binary equals 1/square root -1, not 1/0

I think I’ve died and gone to heaven. I didn’t realise my brain was rattling off the hinges but I’m glad that has stopped……

DEFINITIONS:

particle= an event

geodesic= state a particle exists in between events

singularity= geodesic bereft of events

boson geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are AM+

fermion geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are AM-

neutron geodesic= state in which the nature of either end of a path are determined by the event

mass= disparity between AM+ and AM-

charge= disparity between AM- and AM+

fermion event= resolution of interval disparity

boson event= resolution of spatial disparity

<><><><><>

….DEFINITIONS:
.
.
.
So far so good. I like definitions.

Now…how do you propose to interrelate these “definitional truths” into a consistent model?

macx

macx said:

DEFINITIONS:

particle= an event

geodesic= state a particle exists in between events

singularity= geodesic bereft of events

boson geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are AM+

fermion geodesic= state in which both ends of a path are AM-

neutron geodesic= state in which the nature of either end of a path are determined by the event

mass= disparity between AM+ and AM-

charge= disparity between AM- and AM+

fermion event= resolution of interval disparity

boson event= resolution of spatial disparity

<><><><><>

….DEFINITIONS:
.
.
.
So far so good. I like definitions.

Now…how do you propose to interrelate these “definitional truths” into a consistent model?

macx

0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1=negative angular momentum and -1= positive angular momentum

>>>0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1=negative angular momentum and -1= positive angular momentum

ermmm…nope that doesn’t work!

try again!

macx

macx said:

>>>0 = 1 over the square root of -1, when 1=negative angular momentum and -1= positive angular momentum

ermmm…nope that doesn’t work!

try again!

macx

It provides me an equation that describes the binary mechanism I’ve been trying to understand. When I understood GR and SR I felt convinced that what was missing was very, very small but universally significant. The binary mechanism provides resolution through transversely opposing interdependant angular momentum polarities. I had to get the mechanism out of my head so that equation has done that much. Now that I formulated it through comprehending the fermion spinor(minimal values of ‘comprehension’ only) I have a relevant FoR to start interpreting the ‘definitions’ part of the exercise….

>>>It provides me an equation that describes the binary mechanism I’ve been trying to understand. When I understood GR and SR….

Well that’s nice…and now your embarking on Quantum Theory I see.

I’m afraid that merging that little lot into a TOE is a little beyond my current pay-scale

:(

macx

macx said:

>>>It provides me an equation that describes the binary mechanism I’ve been trying to understand. When I understood GR and SR….

Well that’s nice…and now your embarking on Quantum Theory I see.

I’m afraid that merging that little lot into a TOE is a little beyond my current pay-scale

:(

macx

the trick is to refuse pay ;)

macx said:

>>>It provides me an equation that describes the binary mechanism I’ve been trying to understand. When I understood GR and SR….

Well that’s nice…and now your embarking on Quantum Theory I see.

I’m afraid that merging that little lot into a TOE is a little beyond my current pay-scale

:(

macx

A common error, but one I do know is the use of ‘your’ instead ‘you are’ or ‘you’re.’

I know people can be equally proficient in maths and English, but it does seem to be common to be very good at one or the other, but below average in the other. It was certainly my case at school where I occupied both extremes, when compared to my other classmates. Do others here find this to be true?

DEFINITIONS:

particle= an event

geodesic= state a particle exists in between events

singularity= geodesic bereft of events

I don’t geddit, Riffy.

Substituting the previous definitions into the subsequent definitions gives something like this:

Particle = an event
geodesic = state of an event that exists between events
singularity = state of an event that exists between events bereft of events.
etc……

Reads nonsensically to me.

esselte said:

DEFINITIONS:

particle= an event

geodesic= state a particle exists in between events

singularity= geodesic bereft of events

I don’t geddit, Riffy.

Substituting the previous definitions into the subsequent definitions gives something like this:

Particle = an event
geodesic = state of an event that exists between events
singularity = state of an event that exists between events bereft of events.
etc……

Reads nonsensically to me.

it is a set of definitions related to the FoR of a binary mechanism. it is listed as aid to defining that binary mechanism further than, 0 = 1 over the square root of -1(when 1 = -angular momentum and -1 = +angular momentum. It is not supposed to make a great deal of sense on it’s own. I’ve got the origin point I’ve been looking for now so it is a matter of properly cover the spinor material and going from there…….

Riff-in-Thyme said:

It is not supposed to make a great deal of sense on it’s own.

Oh, OK. Err… good work then! :P