Is it possible that space is composed of four spatial dimensions instead of four-dimensional space-time?

Jeff

<a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm> Shadows </a>

Not bad for starters, but the question vexing me concerns what a "dimension" is made of. What is that thing behind a coordinate axis, that enables its definition in the first place?

The physician structure of a dimension made up of the resonate properties associated with the mass and energy components of space defined by Einstein equation E=mc^2. This not only enables to define the physical mechanism responsible for a dimensional axis but also to define its quantum nature. Do you feel that this definition may allow for the defining of a quantum gravitational theory?

Jeff

<a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter2.htm> Chapter 2</a>

That's quite a bit of reading there, jeff. I'll get back to you once I find enough time to review it.

Thanks overdose

I’ll be looking forward to hearing comments from both you and the other members of our group.

Jeff

Just throw in a bunch of intelligent sounding words, add e=mc<SUP>2</SUP> stir and there you have an all pourpos answer.

Why did you start the same thread over in
'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology'

Curious.

jeffocal,

We do not do crossposting or multiple posts of the same thread in different forums. I will close and lock the one in Astromony and you may come here for the discussion. If you wish to take it up with me, pm me.

Originally posted by Chagur
Why did you start the same thread over in
'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology'

Curious.

Courious

The reason why I chose to post this in both forums is because the ideas contained in Shadows cover a very wide and diverse range of interests and expertise. By making multiple postings, it permits the simultaneous discussions involving different aspects of this idea to proceed.

Wanderer

My sincerest apologizes for breaking the rules however it will not happen again.

Jeff

Originally posted by jeffocal
Is it possible that space is composed of four spatial dimensions instead of four-dimensional space-time?
That's something I've been thinking about for years. So I started reading up on String Theory and Super String Theory... it all just confused me a lot. (Unfortunately, I don't have the necessary physics and mathematics background to understand it all.) :( Supposedly, the universe is made up of 11 dimensions. *shrug*

There was a book I read a while ago called "Flatland" (http://www.geom.umn.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/) which discussed what it would be like for a being that lives in a universe of 2 spacial dimensions to come into a universe of 3 spacial dimensions. It was pretty interesting. You might want to give it a look.

I also have a problem with the 11 dimensions of string theory. To quote Einstien "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." It is possible to define a common mechanism in terms of four spatial dimensions and the relativistic equation E=Mc^2 to account for all of the physical laws of nature and all experimental observations made to date. So why should we complicate things by generating more dimensions that we need.

I have read flatlander however have you had a chance to read <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm> Shadows </a>. I think that you will find in Relatively (pun intended :) ) understandable and informative.

Jeff

jeffocal

I've read a few chapters of your website, Shadows, and quite frankly, I find your explanations rather confusing and long-winded. If at some point I can begin to comprehend your explanations, as well as your interesting use of new terminologies, I'll take a little more time to comment.

BTW - Where's the math ?

I would like to have included more math to quantify the arguments however analytical mathematics is extremely difficult for me due in part to a neurological injury. I chose to geometrically define the concept contained in shadows for that reason. This may also help you to understand the rather long-winded explanations. I wanted to make sure that I provided the mathematicians all of the geometric tools they would need to quantify the geometry.

However, Shadows is a theory, which is primarly based on a physical observable geometry. That is the mass component of four-dimensional space, which is experimental observable as is shown in <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter23.htm> Chapter 23</a>. Therefore, it should not be as necessary to rely on abstract mathematics to verify or refute it as it is with string theory or relativity because one of the basic postulates of shadows is physical observable with today’s technology. Have you ever physical “seen” or observed a “cup” of space-time or have you only “seen” it in a mathematical equation. How can you be sure that space-time physical exists if you cannot physically observe it? However, Chapter twenty-three of Shadows provides an experimental method of physically measuring and observing the mass contained in a “cup” of four spatial dimensions.

Jeff

jeff

I found your website at http://www.crank.net/gravity.html. They have catagorized it as "illucid." That's not as bad as 'crank' or 'crankiest,' but it definitely ranks up there with the best, or worst.

Sorry about your neurological injury.

Originally posted by jeffocal
So why should we complicate things by generating more dimensions that we need.


Because Einstein's theory only covers a small amount of ground. Quantum mechanics covers a bit more and neither are complete.

As it stands Relativity only explains large scale structures. It partially explains details of the Universe. It does not explain why things are the way they are, it only describes behaviour. QM has the same problem in the small scale.

It's a given that all 'forces' become one symmetrical force at large enough energies. General Relativity describes the force of gravity. Quantum electrodynamics the unified electrodynamic and weak nuclear forces, electroweak force, and Quantum Chromodynamics the strong nuclear force. There should be one mathematical description that describes all 4. This will hopefully also shed light on 'why' the Universe is the way it is.

In order to get this 'supersymmetrical' or grand unified theory you have to, at present, assume more dimensions. Two guys found a strange thing about 70 years ago. If you assume 5 dimensions exist you can describe Relativity and Quantum Mechanics with Electromagnetism 'dropping out' quite naturally. As more physics has been discovered the need to have more dimensions has occured.

Frankly, your attempt to describe reality using one result of special relativity is at best extremely weak. E=Mc^2 is a result of special relativity and relies on the assumptions of that theory, which is only relevant in the special case of an inertial frame of reference. Other aspects of Relativity are more germaine in other circumstances. It does not even begin to explain gravity, which is why Einstein had to use General Relativity. Even that breaks done in extreme cases. Your 'model' does not even begin to describe the standard model of particle physics, the particle zoo. What have you to say about CPT violations and the nature of the fine structure constant? Why do fermions have half-integer spin? What is a graviton? Granted, modern physics is struggling with this as well but it at least provides some tentative testable and falsifiable results.

Originally posted by jeffocal
So why should we complicate things by generating more dimensions that we need.


Because Einstein's theory only covers a small amount of ground. Quantum mechanics covers a bit more and neither are complete.

As it stands Relativity only explains large scale structures. It partially explains details of the Universe. It does not explain why things are the way they are, it only describes behaviour. QM has the same problem in the small scale.

It's a given that all 'forces' become one symmetrical force at large enough energies. General Relativity describes the force of gravity. Quantum electrodynamics the unified electrodynamic and weak nuclear forces, electroweak force, and Quantum Chromodynamics the strong nuclear force. There should be one mathematical description that describes all 4. This will hopefully also shed light on 'why' the Universe is the way it is.

In order to get this 'supersymmetrical' or grand unified theory you have to, at present, assume more dimensions. Two guys found a strange thing about 70 years ago. If you assume 5 dimensions exist you can describe Relativity and Quantum Mechanics with Electromagnetism 'dropping out' quite naturally. As more physics has been discovered the need to have more dimensions has occured.

Frankly, your attempt to describe reality using one result of special relativity is at best extremely weak. E=Mc^2 is a result of special relativity and relies on the assumptions of that theory, which is only relevant in the special case of an inertial frame of reference. Other aspects of Relativity are more germaine in other circumstances. It does not even begin to explain gravity, which is why Einstein had to use General Relativity. Even that breaks done in extreme cases. Your 'model' does not even begin to describe the standard model of particle physics, the particle zoo. What have you to say about CPT violations and the nature of the fine structure constant? Why do fermions have half-integer spin? What is a graviton? Granted, modern physics is struggling with this as well but it at least provides some tentative testable and falsifiable results.

I agree with you that <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm> Shadows </a> does not provide the complete picture of the universe. However, it does provide clues to broad overall structure of the universe by providing a physical connection between the General theories of relativity, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism. Shadows explains why things are the way the are on both the large and small scales by defining the quantum nature of space in terms of relativistic equation E=mc^2. In other words, it defines Quantum Relativity. The creditable of shadows should be based on the scientific validity of the arguments used to make that connection. One should not base the validity of a theory on an issue that it does not fully address. If the connection between quantum mechanics and relativity is scientifically valid then it may prove worthwhile to attempt to broaden the scope shadows by examining the physical properties of the “particle zoo” in terms of the model that Shadows presents.

Could you please comment on inconsistencies you may find in Shadows derivation of the mattercule or quantum unit of space defined in <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter1.htm> Chapter 1</a> because it defines the relativistic nature of quantum mechanics. If we cannot find a flaw in the agreements used to define quantum space, them we can look deeper into the shadows. :)

Thanks for your comments

Jeff

jeff

I agree with you that Shadows does not provide the complete picture of the universe.

It does not even provide a snapshot. Most of it is merely confused ramblings.

However, it does provide clues to broad overall structure of the universe by providing a physical connection between the General theories of relativity, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism

I did not find that anywhere. Please feel free to identify those connections directly.

Shadows explains why things are the way the are on both the large and small scales by defining the quantum nature of space in terms of relativistic equation E=mc^2. In other words, it defines Quantum Relativity

Again, I found no such explanations. Please identify.

The creditable of shadows should be based on the scientific validity of the arguments used to make that connection. One should not base the validity of a theory on an issue that it does not fully address.

I've seen nothing on your site that gives validity to anything you're purporting.

Could you please comment on inconsistencies you may find in Shadows derivation of the mattercule or quantum unit of space defined in Chapter 1 because it defines the relativistic nature of quantum mechanics. If we cannot find a flaw in the agreements used to define quantum space, them we can look deeper into the shadows.

That would be difficult due in part to the confused ramblings. Added to that is the convenient lack of math.

However, if you wish to have you're theory critiqued for what its worth, please stand by. It will take a little time to try and make some sense of what you're written.

Originally posted by jeffocal
Is it possible that space is composed of four spatial dimensions instead of four-dimensional space-time?

Jeff

<a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm> Shadows </a>

Actually the "black" we see in space is junk of other planets (which most of them we can't see).

There are a lot of dimensions.
According to the new cords theory, there are AT LEAST seven dimensions.
<b>I recommend again and again to read the book "The elegant universe" by Brian Greene.</b>

It was the scientific aspect.....

Groove on. :)

Thanks Gil_W

I have read Brian’s book.

BTW Dissident

I agree with you that shadows is flawed in that it does not provide enough qualitative verification of the concepts it develops even thought it does define the structural equations that will allow for quantitative verification of the relativistic quantum nature of energy associated with a photon in <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter3.htm> Chapter 3</a>. However I disagree with you that “Most of it is merely confused ramblings”. If you have read over Brian’s Greens book you will find that it is formatted in a similar manner with one idea leading to another in a logical and consistent manner. In addition, if you read over Brian book you would realize that theories are not developed by one person but by a group of people who use their specialties to work together to develop ideas. Those who specialize in the concept foundations must rely on those who specialize in the analyzing to help develop ideas.

Please do not post portions of shadows out of context to support your statement. Shadows defines a logical and consistent picture of the universe by individually defining each piece of the puzzle and then allowing the reader to put them together in their minds to form the complete picture. This would be similar to a jig saw puzzle where one individual piece has little or no meaning however when the all of the pieces are put in their proper places their meaning is obvious. To fully understand the individual concepts one should make an effort to view them with respect to the all of the others.

If you have question regarding a specific portion of shadows post them one at a time and explain what you do not understand about it. I will attempt to put it in context either by explaining it or directing you to review the section of shadows that it pertains to.

Jeff

jeff

I agree with you that shadows is flawed in that it does not provide enough qualitative verification of the concepts it develops even thought it does define the structural equations that will allow for quantitative verification of the relativistic quantum nature of energy associated with a photon

Yes, thoroughly and completely flawed. No verification whatsoever.

However I disagree with you that “Most of it is merely confused ramblings”. If you have read over Brian’s Greens book you will find that it is formatted in a similar manner with one idea leading to another in a logical and consistent manner. In addition, if you read over Brian book you would realize that theories are not developed by one person but by a group of people who use their specialties to work together to develop ideas. Those who specialize in the concept foundations must rely on those who specialize in the analyzing to help develop ideas.

Appeal to authority. Your argument is fallacious.

Please do not post portions of shadows out of context to support your statement.

I've done nothing of the sort.

Shadows defines a logical and consistent picture of the universe by individually defining each piece of the puzzle and then allowing the reader to put them together in their minds to form the complete picture.

That's not how theories work. You're supposed to clearly define your theory in that the reader need not put pieces of a puzzle together themselves.

This would be similar to a jig saw puzzle where one individual piece has little or no meaning however when the all of the pieces are put in their proper places their meaning is obvious. To fully understand the individual concepts one should make an effort to view them with respect to the all of the others.

Nope. If one "piece of the puzzle" is flawed, the entire theory is flawed. There are no exceptions.

If you have question regarding a specific portion of shadows post them one at a time and explain what you do not understand about it. I will attempt to put it in context either by explaining it or directing you to review the section of shadows that it pertains to.

Very well, let's start with your recent link of chapter 3:

Electromagnetic energy is not transmitted by the displacement of the mattercule but by the coupling, form one mattercule to the next, of the internal oscillations of the mass and energy components of the mattercule. This coupling is caused by the interaction of the electrical properties of the energyfield that generates the “matterenergy wave ” responsible for the wave nature of electromagnetic radiation.

Completely wrong. An electromagnetic wave consists of alternating electrical and magnetic fields. These two fields are oriented 90 degrees from each other. They travel at the speed of light oriented another 90 degrees. The electrical field generates the magnetic field and in turn the magnetic field generates the electrical field. There is no 'coupling' or 'displacement' of so-called 'mattercules' whatsoever.

This one flaw demonstrates your misunderstanding of electromagnetic energy. Your theory collapses from the get-go.

Originally posted by (Q)
jeff



If you have question regarding a specific portion of shadows post them one at a time and explain what you do not understand about it. I will attempt to put it in context either by explaining it or directing you to review the section of shadows that it pertains to.

Very well, let's start with your recent link of chapter 3:

Electromagnetic energy is not transmitted by the displacement of the mattercule but by the coupling, form one mattercule to the next, of the internal oscillations of the mass and energy components of the mattercule. This coupling is caused by the interaction of the electrical properties of the energyfield that generates the “matterenergy wave ” responsible for the wave nature of electromagnetic radiation.

Completely wrong. An electromagnetic wave consists of alternating electrical and magnetic fields. These two fields are oriented 90 degrees from each other. They travel at the speed of light oriented another 90 degrees. The electrical field generates the magnetic field and in turn the magnetic field generates the electrical field. There is no 'coupling' or 'displacement' of so-called 'mattercules' whatsoever.

This one flaw demonstrates your misunderstanding of electromagnetic energy. Your theory collapses from the get-go.

Actually, your description of an electromagnetic wave supports the concepts presented in chapter three. The relationship between the magnetic and electrical component of an electromagnetic wave is developed in chapter <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter11.htm> 11</a> and <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter13.htm> 13</a>. Briefly, it derives orientation of the magnetic and electrical fields associated with an electromagnetic wave in terns of four spatial dimensions and resonate properties associated with the mass and energy components of space. If as Shadows has defined electromagnetic energy is a result of a matter and energy wave traveling on the surface of the three dimensional space with respect to the fourth spatial dimension the orientation of the electric and magnetic fields would have to be oriented 90 degrees with respect to each other.

I’d prefer if you could review chapter eleven and thirteen and if you still have questions regarding this process please post.

Thanks again for your comments.

Jeff

Chapter One

Matterenergy

Discussing the properties of a universe that consists of four spatial dimensional is not possible until we have an understanding of how the universe functions.

Why can we not perceive this fourth spatial dimension? Why have you not included time?

We begin our voyage not by defining matter and energy but by describing the physical process and mechanism that is responsible for their interaction.

It's hard to define how things interact if you don't know what they are to begin with.

First, we must understand the internal physical structure of space is the result of the resonance properties associated with the attractive forces of the mass or matterfield and the repulsive forces of the energy or energyfield components of space.

I'll accept this as a postulate as there is no evidence for resonance between mass and energy or that space even has properties. I suspect this results in proof reductio ad absurdum.

What makes you think energy provides a repulsive force. Where's the observational evidence.

There are four types fields. Positive matterfields are attracted to other positive matterfields, a phenomenon called gravity.

So a matterfild is just matter. How does this reduce to Newtonian theory? How does this tie in with Relativity? Why use this idea rather than just plain old matter.

The opposite of the positive matterfield are the negative matterfields. A negative matterfield is opposed by a positive matterfield.

What do you mean by opposed? Repulsed? You've just defined anti-gravity then, very clever.

The third and fourth fields that make up the physical structure of the universe are the positive and negative energyfields, which are associated with positive and negative electrical charges.

Again, why use this model when charge will do. What about their attractive and repulsive properties? Charge and energy are not the same thing by the way. Mass can gain energy. How does your model explain Coulombs law?

The combination of the matter and energy fields form matterenergy.

Mass is indeed energy and vice versa. But in your theory energy fields are related to charge so your saying charge and mass are interchangeable, this is patently wrong. What about non charged objects.

In this paper the definitions of the matterfield, energyfield, and matterenergy will be developed with respect to the geometric process and mechanism that governors their interaction and not with respect to what they physically represent. Most of the terms used this paper will be defined in a similar manner.

Where is your evidence that energy or charge can be modelled geometrically. We don't even know what charge and energy actually are.

Most are familiar with three out of four of these fields that define the physical structure of the universe. Mass and the attractive forces of gravity are associated with the positive matterfields

Uh huh.

while positive and negative electrical charges are associated with the positive and negative energyfields.

I'll come back to this in a minute.

[/quote]However, some may not be familiar with the opposing force of the negative matterfield, which is associated with the anti particles and opposes the force of the positive matterfield. [/quote]

So what your saying is that anti-particles generate anti-gravity. This is simply not observed and totally invalidates the rest of your argument. You fail the first test of falsifiability.

[/quote]This opposition is analogous to the opposition two like electrical chargers have on each other which means the forces associated with the matterfields interact opposite to that of the energyfields or electrical charges. [/quote]

So 'matterfields' (mass) oppose 'energyfields' ) charge. For one, this is internally inconsistent if you think about it. If A opposes A' and B opposes B' and A&A' oppose B&B' then what happens when A and B' come together. in other words an eletron and anti-proton say? According to you they both oppose and attract.

At worst you just said they are same and different.

In other words two similar energyfields repel, while two similar matterfields attract each other and two dissimilar energyfields attract or cancel out each other

Hang on, if two dissimilar energy fields can cancel then two similar matterfields reinforce. If you disagree, why?

So far all we've had is a flood of assertions with no basis in fact. I can see where you re coming from but it's not quantitifed.

while two dissimilar matterfields repel or cancel out each other.

As I say, what of two similar matterfields and similar energyfields.

According to your general rules two like charges are additive and two masses can be additive. Wheres the evidence for this.

Again, so far we have had a vast number of assumptions, about as many as there are sentences without one shred of evidence to back them up. That alone is good evidence your model is seriously flawed.

It will be demonstrated in later that the attractive and repulsive properties of the matter and energy fields are a result of the direction of spin of the energy vortexes is space.

Simply inventing terms does not make a good theory. So far you have defined 8 (4 permutations) possible states of your 'fields' and only described a few possible interactions. Definitely not good.

These four fields interact to produce the physical framework of dimensional space.

What physical framework? Where's your evidence for this assertion.

In Chapter Two the physical structure of the mattercule or the quantum unit of space

Quantising space? Mattercule? WTF. You just introduced a term with no apparent background. Whatmakes you think space can be quantised?

will be derived in terms of the resonate properties associated with the mass or matterfield and energy or energy field components of space.

How do they resonate. You said above that they are attractive or repulsive and repulsive, even cancel. That precludes resonance. You defined them to do one thing and are now redefing them.

BTW, you also say the energyfield is related to charge. You did not mention energy.

Later in Chapter three the constancy of the speed of light will be derived in terms of the rate or velocity at which the matter and energy filed components of space interact.

You quoted Einstein somewhere (actually it was Occam) that the simplest eplanation is the best. So far we have the most convoluted set of assumptions possible. using your own logic you are therefore wrong.

[quote]Therefore the relative strengths of the matter and energy field components of space are defined by the equation E=mc^2

Whoa. That equation has a velocity component, which you missed. It does not describe anything about which you are wittering. There are no terms in that equation for energyfields or any other deluded nonsense you are inventing. So far you have defined about 10 or 12 terms and used a simple equation with two variables and a constant to 'prove' your theory. And that without even using any geometry (which you claim is the basiss of your theory) at all. Even if you where right you need Reimannian geometry to describe this idea, not basic special relativity couched in one dimension.

Sorry but I can't go much further with this. It is not even wrong.

jeff

Actually, your description of an electromagnetic wave supports the concepts presented in chapter three.

I don't think so. That may be your interpretation but clearly there is no connection of support. Your theory is seriously flawed.

The relationship between the magnetic and electrical component of an electromagnetic wave is developed in chapter 11 and 13.

Chapters 11 and 13 are more of the same incomprehensible ramblings which are starting to give me a headache. You should study physics first and learn the necessary terms and maths required before attempting to present your theories.

Thed

Great commentary. How you managed to make sense of it all is quite impressive. Do you need an Advil ?

Thed

“Why can we not perceive this fourth spatial dimension? Why have you not included time?”
______________________


I did include time please see <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter16.htm> Chapter 16</a>

___________________________

“What makes you think energy provides a repulsive force? Where's the observational evidence.”

_____________________________

The evidence to support the fact that the kinetic energy associated with the energyfield component of space is a repulsive force with respect to the gravitational energy associated with mass or matterfield component of space is developed in the following section of <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter15.htm> Chapter 15</a>

The answer to the other questions you have asked in your article can also be found in other section of Shadows. However please remember that the following should be put in context with the rest of Shadows before its implications can be fully understood.

Thankyou

Jeff

PS Again I’d appreciated it if you could please try to refrain from asking multiple questions in one article

The relationship between time, mass, kinetic and gravitational energy is established by postulating that the force associated with the kinetic energy of velocities is diametrically opposed to the force associated with gravity. There are numerous experimental observations to support this postulate. The kinetic energy associated with the orbital velocities of satellites opposes the gravitational attractive force associated with the mass of the earth and the kinetic energy associated with velocities of a rocket opposes the earth’s gravitational field.

In Chapter two Shadows defined the quantum unit and physical structure of space in terms of the resonate properties of the attractive gravitational forces associated with the mass or matterfield and the repulsive forces associated with energy field component of the mattercule. Therefore the experimental observations mentioned above strongly suggests that the energyfield component of the mattercule is responsible for the properties associated with kinetic energy because the physical structure of space is derived to be the same on the on the microscopic quantum level as it is on the macroscopic level. Since on the microscopic quantum level of the mattercule the forces associated with the energy or energyfield component of the mattercule opposes the gravitational forces associated with the mass or matterfield component of the mattercule it would be logical to assume kinetic energy is associated with the energyfield component of the mattercule. It would also be logical to conclude because of their opposing nature that the kinetic energies associated with velocities must generate an elevation in the surface of three-dimensional space with respect to the fourth spatial dimension because gravitational energy generates a depression in the surface of three-dimensional space.

I'll carry this on tomorrow. It's late over here in leftpondian land and I've had a lot to drink. Plus I've been up since 5am and have to get up the same time tomorrow. But, Jeff, when you raise an issue that has multiple affects and issues around it, I'll raise multiple questions. Modern physics is a massive jigsaw and as (Q) points out one part of it being wrong raises doubt on the whole lot. You can't take one part out by itself.

Originally posted by thed
But, Jeff, when you raise an issue that has multiple affects and issues around it, I'll raise multiple questions.


Thed

I agree with you however most of the questions you are asking are addressed in other areas of shadows. <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter1.htm> Chapter 1</a> gave the basic definitions, which are then elaborated on later in the paper. Can we try to decide on one specific issue and explore it fully instead of all of the issues at once? Because of the way the concepts in shadows are integrated, “an issue has multiple affects and issues around it” focusing only one issue at a time may resolve other issues.

Below I’ve attempted to answer some of the other questions you raised in your previous article.

Thanks again for your comments

Jeff
_______________________

However, some may not be familiar with the opposing force of the negative
matterfield, which is associated with the anti particles and opposes the force of the positive matterfield.

So what your saying is that anti-particles generate anti-gravity. This is simply not observed and totally invalidates the rest of your argument. You fail the first test of falsifiability.

________________

No I am not saying that. Please review <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter21.htm> Chapter 21</a> which derive the of gravitational forces associated with anti particles or the positron

__________________________

[/quote]This opposition is analogous to the opposition two like electrical chargers have on each other which means the forces associated with the matterfields interact opposite to that of the energyfields or electrical charges. [/quote]

So 'matterfields' (mass) oppose 'energyfields' ) charge. For one, this is internally inconsistent if you think about it. If A opposes A' and B opposes B' and A&A' oppose B&B' then what happens when A and B' come together. in other words an eletron and anti-proton say? According to you they both oppose and attract.

____________

This misunderstanding is most probable due to my presentation. It was clearly stated in Chapter one that the matterfield or mass component of space is associated with gravitational field and therefore they would be attractive in nature. Therefore, if you define A as the matterfield component and B as the energyfield component A attracts A while B repels A. When A come together with B they oscillate or resonate around a point defined by the E=Mc^2.

Chapter one also states that the energyfields repel the matterfield componet of space and are associated with positive and negative electrical charges and that similar energyfields or electrical charges repel each other while two dissimilar energyfield or electrical charges attract each other. However, in chapter 13 the polarity of electrical charges was derived in terms of the directional rotational of the energy vortexes in the matterenergy fields of space. Chapter thirteen also shows the forces that are responsible for the repulsive forces associated with the energyfield with respect to the matterfield are not related to the directional rotation of the energyfields but to the physical displacement of the matterfields caused by these enegy vortexes. However, I did not mention and should have that the repulsive forces associated with the energyfields with respect to the matterfields are related to the absolute magnitude of the displacement caused by the energy vortexes associated with electrical charges. Therefore the energyfields associated with both positive and negative electrical charges are repelled by the matterfield or mass component of space.

I’ll edit the appropriate sections of shadow to make this point clearer.


Thanks

Jeff

Originally posted by jeffocal

So what your saying is that anti-particles generate anti-gravity. This is simply not observed and totally invalidates the rest of your argument. You fail the first test of falsifiability.

No I am not saying that. Please review <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter21.htm> Chapter 21</a> which derive the of gravitational forces associated with anti particles or the positron

OK, I'm much more rested. Though driving 40 miles starting at 6am never gets me off to a good start. But anyway, let's focus on one issue and see what you really said regarding 'negative matterfields. From Chapter one of your treatise,

Positive matterfields are attracted to other positive matterfields, a phenomenon called gravity

Matter attracts, OK. That's basic newtonian physics. There is no need to redefine it.

A negative matterfield is opposed by a positive matterfield

Now you introduce something entirely new and say it 'opposes' matter. For want of a better word, it's anti-matter. Anti-matter is routinely investigated in the lab and it behaves just as matter does. There is no need to introduce new concepts to describe it.

Carrying on,

However, some may not be familiar with the opposing force of the negative matterfield, which is associated with the anti particles and opposes the force of the positive matterfield

You clearly state anti-particles are associated with 'negative matterfields' and oppose matterfields. In other words matter and anti-matter will feel a repulsive (anti-gravity) force. They do not so your hypothesis fails on the first hurdle. You fail the test of falsifiability which renders your entire argument invalid.

Pointing to some other aspect of your theory to say this is otherwise also renders your argument to be logically inconsistent.

I'll carry on about Chapter 21 in another post as you brought that up as well.

From http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter21.htm

In Chapter two the resonate properties associated with the mass and energy component of space wpoere shown to be responsible for the origin and physical characteristics of the mattercule or quantum unit of space.

They have been shown to be wrong as the axioms are wrong.

Later in Chapters nineteen and twenty the resonate properties associated with the mass and energy components of space were used to derive the origins and the physical characteristics of the fundamental quantum particles.

They are wrong as well. I'll get back to that in a moment.

The resonate properties associated with the mass and energy component of space can also be used to derive the origins of a positron as describe in the following article provided by <a href="http://hemetis.freeyellow.com">El Sharony Hemet</a>.

Ah yes, quoting another Kook to support your own theory. The fact that this is ludicrously wrong appears to have escaped you. We have,

"From Hemetis As is known, electrons and positrons are identical twins with anti rotations.

Anti-Rotations? I think not. Positrons have opposite charge to electrons but are otherwise identical. Which in your theory means they are associated with 'negative energyfields' and not 'negative matterfields' as you state above. This is why I used the example of a positron and proton. They both have positive charge (positive matterfields so they attract) but one is an anti-particle so by your theory it has a negative matterfield so it opposes the other. What happens in your theory? It is an inconclusive result and wildly differs from the real world.

So you are also internally inconsistent. Another fact that renders your idea totally wrong. As Dirac would say, you are not even wrong.

This infers that the physical structure of electrons and positrons are polar structures.

No it does not as the facts are again wrong.

Yes they are. An electron or a positron is roughly half a photon.

Nope, not even close. How then does a single electron accelerating in a magnetic field give off photons, when no positrons are present? Again, reality is ignored.

A Photon is a magnetic field tornado of double conical structure with the Electron and positron connected at the base.

Best laugh I've had in ages.

A photon is energy. Energy converts to mass, simple you see.

If a Photon hits or enters the premises of a (super intensity) magnetic field, it breaks up forming a positron-electron pair. The electric charge is a function of the direction of the magnetic flux entering the base of the tornado or leaving out from it. Think of positrons as a magnetic flux pump made of magnetic flux similar to air and tornadoes.

So magnets can make anti-matter. Intriquing but also wrong.

This theory infers that there is nothing such as elementary particles. The word elementary is a relatively absolute or a temporarily absolute that reflects the latest scientific analysis of physical structures."

Hang on a minute, apart from being wrong it contradicts yourself in Chapter Twenty. You use the fundamental particles in the SU(3)U(1) group to back your theory but use someone elses work denying this fact to also back your theory. Major logical inconsistentcy there.

So again, your work is riddled with contradictions and internal inconsistencies while contradicting facts.

In short, you are very, very wrong.


=======================================

Edited to change proton to positron above. Minor foul up.

=======================================

Can be found in the first few parapgraphs of http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter20.htm

OK, points for reading a pop-sci book but like all pop-sci books it only deals with the tip of the iceberg. The extra detail is important and invalidates your theory by fact of omission.

One detail is the colour force or gluon. Where does that fit in your theory? You don't mention it. Quarks, the SU(3) generators, can not exist freely. They must have gluons present to mediate forces. All fundamental particle interactions are by gluons. No theory is complete, and hence correct, without mentioning these.

Also, the electrons and neutrinos and part of the U(1) group and are fundamental in themselves.

What also, of the various anti-particles of these groups? You don't mention them. You may claim to have derived properties of the normal particles but you don't derive the properties of the anti-particles in terms of your own theory. That is, what of the anti-up and anti-down quarks?

Now comes a kicker. Our Universe is largely matter dominated. Given that photons disassociate to electrons/positrons and at higher energies to other particle pairs. Given also that the Early Universe was very energetic, there should be equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. Clearly there is not. So where did the anti-matter go?

The answer likely lies in CPT violations of particle interactions. A point not even touched on in your theory. It's a very important result of the standard model that has been tentatively verified in kaon decays.

Your theory can not predict this as you have not built a self consistent groundwork. So again, you're wrong.

At this point I'll give in as I'm getting RSI.

Originally posted by thed


No I am not saying that. Please review <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter21.htm> Chapter 21</a> which derive the of gravitational forces associated with anti particles or the positron

But anyway, let's focus on one issue and see what you really said regarding 'negative matterfields. From Chapter one of your treatise,

Now you introduce something entirely new and say it 'opposes' matter. For want of a better word, it's anti-matter. Anti-matter is routinely investigated in the lab and it behaves just as matter does. There is no need to introduce new concepts to describe it.

Carrying on,

You clearly state anti-particles are associated with 'negative matterfields' and oppose matterfields. In other words matter and anti-matter will feel a repulsive (anti-gravity) force. They do not so your hypothesis fails on the first hurdle. You fail the test of falsifiability which renders your entire argument invalid.


[/QUOTE]


The following section of <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter21.htm> Chapter 21</a> defines what is meant by my statement, “A negative matterfield is opposed by a positive matterfield”. It defines the relative nature of mass in terms of the relationship or orientation of the surface of three-dimensional space with respect to the fourth spatial dimension. I believe that it is ever said that a positive matterfield if repelled by a negative matterfield. If I did it, was a misstatement and will be corrected. The force associated with the negative matterfield component of space contained in the elevation of the in space that defines the mass of a positron will still have the same attractive forces as the positive matterfield component contained in the electron however it will be “oppositely” directed.

Jeff


The oppositely rotating matter and energy components of space associated with the electrical charge of the positron will generate a symmetrically opposite depression in the surface of the third/fourth spatial dimension boundary with respect to the elevation in the surface associated with the negative electric charge of an electron. Therefore a positron’s mass will be opposite to that of an electron because the opposite direction of the rotational energy associated with a positron it will cause a “depression” in the surface of the of three-dimensional space instead of an the “elevation” associated with a electron. Therefore, when they combine they masses will “disappear” and reappear as a photon with the same energy as the one that was responsible for their generation.

__________________

quote:

In Chapter two the resonate properties associated with the mass and energy component of space were shown to be responsible for the origin and physical characteristics of the mattercule or quantum unit of space.

They have been shown to be wrong, as the axioms are wrong.
________________________

Specifically how have you shown this axiom to be wrong? Since this is the central postulate of shadows if it is incorrect, it would invalidate the entire paper. Therefore, I suggest that we focus all of our attention on this one statement by analyzing the mechanism defined in <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter2.htm> Chapter 2</a> that is responsible for the resonate properties of the mass and energy components of the mattercule in terms of the physics involved.

Jeff

You are changing the playing field. You clearly imply 'negative matterfields' are associated with anti-particles. You clearly state above that 'positive matterfields' are attractive and your so called energyfields are the opposites of matterfields. Ergo, by implication and otherwise, 'negative matterfields' are repulsive. Simple as that, it's logically inconsistent.

Using wooly statements to define things as you feel then changing the definitions is not the mark of any good theory.

Your axioms are 'space has 4 spatial dimensions'. There are 2 types of energy and matter 'fields' that are opposite to each other. I put it to you that the real world contradicts this ergo your axioms are wrong. Hence the whole thing is wrong.

To make it worse you use incorrect data to support it.

Originally posted by thed
You clearly imply 'negative matterfields' are associated with anti-particles. You clearly state above that 'positive matterfields' are attractive and your so called energyfields are the opposites of matterfields. Ergo, by implication and otherwise, 'negative matterfields' are repulsive. Simple as that, it's logically inconsistent.


I disagree with you that I have implied anywhere in shadows that negative matterfields are repulsive with respect to the positive matterfields. If they were repulsive in nature, I would have used the word repulsive to describe them. Shadows has defined the third spatial dimension as being composed of one and only one matterenergy field. The positive and negative repulsive or opposing relationships of these fields are due to their movement or concentrations with respect to W axis of four-dimensional space. The polarities of the positive and negative energyfields are associated with oppositly rotating energy vortexes in the same matterenergy fields of space. While mass was defined in <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter8.htm> Chapter 8</a> to be related to the quantity of matterfield or mass component of space contained in the depression or elevation caused by the rotational energy of these positive and negative energy vortexes. A positive matterfield was defined or implied to be the quantity of the matterfield or mass component of space contained in the volume of space below the surface of three-dimensional space. While a negative matterfield is defined or implied to be the quantity of the same matterfield component or mass of space contained in volume of space contained in an elevation in the surface of three dimensional space.

When positive and negative matterfields interact, they oppose one another similar to how a hole in the ground opposed a pile of dirt. One can fill in the hole using the dirt from the opposing pile thereby reducing its depth. Similarly, one can “fill” in the “hole” or “depression” in the surface of space that shadows associates with a gravitational mass with the matterfield component of space that is contained in the “pile” or elevation in the surface of space that shadows associates with mass of anti particles. The dirt in the pile does not repel the dirt in the hole. Similarly, the matterfield component of space in the elevation shadows associates with antiparticles does not repel the matterfield component of space in the depression shadows associates with gravitational mass. However, it does opposite it in the sense that it fills in or reduces the “volume” of the depression or “hole”

<a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter13.htm> Chapter 13</a> defines below defines the force relationships between the positive and negative energyfield or positive and negative electrical charges and defines why the positive and negative energyfields interact the way they do. This also defines the difference between the interaction of the matterfield and energy components of spaced.

The rotation energies associated with these energy vortexes responsible for the physical characteristics of electrical charges. Unlike electrical charges, attract each other because they have opposite rotational energies and to reduce the stress on space they will attempt to combine and cancel out their rotation energies. Similar electrical charges repel each other because the rotational energies are additive there they will move apart to reduce the stress on space.

My apologize if you still do not understand the physical relationship between these forces. However, I feel that it will not be productive to continue discussing this issue because if the explanation I have given above is not consistent with the laws of physics then the concepts contained in shadows are incorrect. If you feel it is so be it but others might have a different opinion and what to move on to discuss other aspects of Shadows.

Jeff

Originally posted by jeffocal
I disagree with you that I have implied anywhere in shadows that negative matterfields are repulsive ... The positive and negative repulsive or opposing relationships of these fields

You can not even agree with yourself.

When put in to context with the article it should be obvious that I meant to say.

The positive, negative, repulsive, and opposing relationships of these fields.

I had mentioned earlier that I hoped you would not take portions of my statements out of context to support your conclusions. The literal meaning of what I originally said may not have been correct but it was clear form the context what it was referring to . Please don’t come back saying that that or any other possible misstatement made in shadows is a reason to invalidate it. It should be judge on whether or not the mechanism it is defining is consistent with the observable universe.

If the only way you can find to invalidate these concepts is to take something out of context then the discussion with you regarding this issue is over because you must have concluded that it does not violate any of the laws of physics that you are aware of. I’m sure that you would have pointed them out if you were. However, I will be more than happy to discuss this and any other issue with those who can demonstrate a more professional attitude.

Jeff

I had mentioned earlier that I hoped you would not take portions of my statements out of context to support your conclusions.

You don't appear to understand that a theory, in part or in it's entirety, must be clearly defined. If you feel that others are taking portions of your statements out of context, then those statements are not clearly defined. Besides, it is you who has presented your theory for all to review. We should be allowed to examine any portion of any statement and demand validation. If any of those statements or portions thereof are able to stand on their own merit and are shown to be testable, we will have no choice but to accept the theory.

The literal meaning of what I originally said may not have been correct but it was clear form the context what it was referring to .

Then you must make it correct so that no one makes assumptions. It must be clearly defined.

It should be judge on whether or not the mechanism it is defining is consistent with the observable universe.

It is not consistent, with the observable universe, or with known definitions.

However, I will be more than happy to discuss this and any other issue with those who can demonstrate a more professional attitude.

Publish your theory for peer review.

thed

You your self said that physics is a jigsaw puzzle. Can you tell what the finial picture is by looking or analyzing individual pieces? Most us have to fit the piece together to then step back to know if the final picture is correct or not. One of the problem physicists may be having is that have been looking at each individual piece of the puzzle to try to figure out what the final picture is instead of putting them together and stepping back.

When you take any theory apart and present the pieces individually, it does not allow one to see the how the pieces fit together to form a consistent picture of the universe. I believe if you wanted to you could take a piece of the standard model out of context with that theory and make it appear to be incorrect. All of questions you have brought up regarding shadows can be can be resolved if they are put into the context of the complete picture that shadows presents.

Please make the effort to read <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm> Shadows </a> over in it entirety and see the complete picture it form before discussing one individual statement or idea. The method of invalidating shadows by only discussing small individual sections without referring to the larger picture could also be used to discredit the currently accepted standard model to someone who was not aware of end result by making them appear to be inconsistent with physical laws when they are supported elsewhere in that model.

Dissident

I disagree with you that a theory must be clearly defined but I agree that its presentation should be. The creditability of a theory is defined by the real world while those who try to describe it to others define the presentation. I also agree with you that any portion of a theory or statement should demand validation however, I also feel that it should be done in context that the statement was used in.

What ever your decision I’ve thoroughly enjoyed these discussion and am looking forward to meeting both of you again.

Until then remember the answers are hidden in the Shadows :)“

Jeff

I disagree with you that a theory must be clearly defined but I agree that its presentation should be. The creditability of a theory is defined by the real world while those who try to describe it to others define the presentation. I also agree with you that any portion of a theory or statement should demand validation however, I also feel that it should be done in context that the statement was used in.

You may disagree, that's fine. However, without clear definition, in part or wholly it will lack understanding. Without validation, in part or wholly, it will lack credibility.

What ever your decision I’ve thoroughly enjoyed these discussion and am looking forward to meeting both of you again.

I have no decisions to make regarding your theory. My comments will stand on their own merit. I believe you are the one that needs to make a decision. That is, whether or not you wish to define and validate your theory and show if it can be testable.

Until then remember the answers are hidden in the Shadows

I agree. They are well hidden, and at this point cannot be found. ;)

Originally posted by jeffocal
you must have concluded that it does not violate any of the laws of physics that you are aware of. I’m sure that you would have pointed them out if you were.

Because your hypothesis does not present any association with any laws of physics.

You can just as well say, "The eggplant field is associated with matter and is what we call gravity. The anti-eggplant field is associated with anti-particles and opposes the eggplant field. Alongside this is the courgette field, which we call charge and the anti-courgette field that we call negative charge. Eggplant fields oppose courgette fields". "Heinsenberg's uncertainty principle is a result of a depression in the eggplant field being rotated around the squash dimension". It has as much meaning.