The Wilson Theory of Space.

This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them.

Imagine if there were only one piece of matter in the whole universe, a single
electron.

We know that the electron has an electric field around itself that will repel
like charges and attract unlike ones. Its strength tapers off with distance
according to an inverse square law. In the physical sense, we have no idea what
makes a 'field'.

Now the question we must ask is, what happens as we move further and further
away from the electron.
Does its field strength become infintely weaker and weaker? ...or is there a
point where it can be reduced no more and becomes fragmented.
In other words, is there a point where the electron field becomes so weak that
it can be no longer be reduced in strength? Can a point be reached where the
field of the electron doesn't permanently exist at all?

ARE FIELDS QUANTIZED?

Would there be regions of space where 'field quanta' are so rare that most of
that region literally consists of 'absolutely nothing'?

In space there are gravitational 'fields', electric fields, magnetic fields and
possibly a few that we know nothing about.. No matter where we go in the
universe, we will presumeably see distant stars and fall freely under the
influence of some gravitational system....so EM is reaching us regularly.
.....but is it possible that in very remote space, the fields that make up EM
and gravity become literally 'full of holes'?

My hypothesis says that 'empty' space somewhat resembles felted fibre or foam
polystyrene, where the fibrous or plastic bits resemble the field 'quanta'
whilst the holes consist of genuine 'nothing'. The holes are very temporary
since EM carrying its own fields passes through them continuously, partially
destroying them.

Because 'Wilsonian nort-holes' consist of nothing, they have no properties, no
geometry, no time. The concept of an infinite nort-hole presents no real
problem since the word 'nothing' in reality implies a genuine 'absence of
anything' and without anything, the concept of infinity doesn't really exist.

It is possible that huge nort-holes separate all the individual universes that
make up space.

Light travels through a nort-hole purely ballistically since there is no
intrinsic dielectric constant or magnetic permeability there. Maxwell's
equations have no relevance in a nort-hole.

Any attempt to investigate a nort-hole will destroy it.

The 'Wilson Density Threshold' is that at which nort-holes first start to
appear. (Note: 'density' refers to both matter and fields, here)
As the density decreases, so does the proportion of 'nothing' in any volume.

Indeed, since nort-holes possess no spatial properties, the true volume of what
we presently refer to as 'empty space' must be redefined to mean 'that volume
actually occupied by field quanta which exist there'. It is a distinct
possibility that lengths as well as volumes are effectively 'contracted' in
most of intergalactic space.

What makes space carrying field quanta different from that which is completely
devoid of any is a question that remains to be answered.







It is reasonable to assume that space that contains a fields

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them.

Imagine if there were only one piece of matter in the whole universe, a
single
electron.

We know that the electron has an electric field around itself that will
repel
like charges and attract unlike ones. Its strength tapers off with
distance
according to an inverse square law. In the physical sense, we have no idea
what
makes a 'field'.

The charge of an electron does not reside within the electron. The electric
field is the distortion in the ether created by the absolute motion of the
electron in the ether. This model elinimate the question what makes a field
and resolves the infinity problems exist in QED.

Ken Seto

On Feb 19, 1:40 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

[snip junk]

Notice how there is no mathematics and no supporting evidence for this
latest "theory".

Just like with the three subdimensions of time, just like h-aether,
just like with logarithmic space. No substance, no volume, no content.

Just fluff from a man who fancies himself as a physicist because he
lies about his name [actual name Ralph Rabbidge] and forged some
science diplomas.

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:40:11 GMT
:
This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them.

Imagine if there were only one piece of matter in the whole universe, a single
electron.

Well, there's a useful supposition! :-) But OK, let's see how far this
goes.


We know that the electron has an electric field around itself that will repel
like charges and attract unlike ones.

And the location of another charge within this supposed
Universe is ... oh, wait, there isn't one.

Problem already!

Its strength tapers off with distance
according to an inverse square law. In the physical sense, we have no idea what
makes a 'field'.


As far as I'm concerned, a "field" -- more properly, a vector field --
is simply a mapping of coordinate space (and possibly time, if the
charge is moving and/or variable) into a series of vectors. In the case
of the singleton electron the vectors would all point in towards the
electron (this is admittedly an ad hoc convention), with length e/d^2
where d is the distance between the point and the electron.

Now the question we must ask is, what happens as we move further and further
away from the electron.
Does its field strength become infintely weaker and weaker? ...or is there a
point where it can be reduced no more and becomes fragmented.
In other words, is there a point where the electron field becomes so weak that
it can be no longer be reduced in strength? Can a point be reached where the
field of the electron doesn't permanently exist at all?

ARE FIELDS QUANTIZED?

I'm not sure this is all that meaningful a question. One problem, of
course, is that fields are a hypothetical construct to begin with.
While one can perform measurements (e.g., with a sensitive electroscope
and/or force meter) around a charge, this is at most an approximation
of the singleton electron case.


Would there be regions of space where 'field quanta' are so rare that most of
that region literally consists of 'absolutely nothing'?

In space there are gravitational 'fields', electric fields, magnetic fields and
possibly a few that we know nothing about.. No matter where we go in the
universe, we will presumeably see distant stars and fall freely under the
influence of some gravitational system....so EM is reaching us regularly.
....but is it possible that in very remote space, the fields that make up EM
and gravity become literally 'full of holes'?

My hypothesis says that 'empty' space somewhat resembles felted fibre or foam
polystyrene, where the fibrous or plastic bits resemble the field 'quanta'
whilst the holes consist of genuine 'nothing'. The holes are very temporary
since EM carrying its own fields passes through them continuously, partially
destroying them.

Because 'Wilsonian nort-holes' consist of nothing, they have no properties, no
geometry, no time. The concept of an infinite nort-hole presents no real
problem since the word 'nothing' in reality implies a genuine 'absence of
anything' and without anything, the concept of infinity doesn't really exist.

It is possible that huge nort-holes separate all the individual universes that
make up space.

Light travels through a nort-hole purely ballistically since there is no
intrinsic dielectric constant or magnetic permeability there. Maxwell's
equations have no relevance in a nort-hole.

Any attempt to investigate a nort-hole will destroy it.

The 'Wilson Density Threshold' is that at which nort-holes first start to
appear. (Note: 'density' refers to both matter and fields, here)
As the density decreases, so does the proportion of 'nothing' in any volume.

Indeed, since nort-holes possess no spatial properties, the true volume of what
we presently refer to as 'empty space' must be redefined to mean 'that volume
actually occupied by field quanta which exist there'. It is a distinct
possibility that lengths as well as volumes are effectively 'contracted' in
most of intergalactic space.

What makes space carrying field quanta different from that which is completely
devoid of any is a question that remains to be answered.







It is reasonable to assume that space that contains a fields



Either this got truncated or you made an error here; in
either case, I don't know what to think of your theory
until you've at least attempted to solve the cosmological
question.

The simplest way to put it, of course, is that, given
the current state of the Universe, we observe a red
shift as things go farther away from us; furthermore,
this red shift is apparently accelerating. Presumably,
your theory, nort-holes and all, can estimate and explain
this acceleration in the Hubble shift.

(Current SR/GR theories suggest an approximate density as follows:

Matter: 5%
Energy: miniscule?
Dark Matter: 25%
Dark Energy: 70%

Whether this explains the acceleration, I for one don't know.

)

--
#191,
/dev/signatu Resource temporarily unavailable

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:05:34 -0500, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them.

Imagine if there were only one piece of matter in the whole universe, a
single
electron.

We know that the electron has an electric field around itself that will
repel
like charges and attract unlike ones. Its strength tapers off with
distance
according to an inverse square law. In the physical sense, we have no idea
what
makes a 'field'.

The charge of an electron does not reside within the electron. The electric
field is the distortion in the ether created by the absolute motion of the
electron in the ether. This model elinimate the question what makes a field
and resolves the infinity problems exist in QED.

So you claim that an electron that is at rest in your aether has no charge?

It doesn't eliminate the question,"how can Seto's theory work when there is NO
aether?"


Ken Seto

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:05:34 -0500, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them.

Imagine if there were only one piece of matter in the whole universe, a
single
electron.

We know that the electron has an electric field around itself that will
repel
like charges and attract unlike ones. Its strength tapers off with
distance
according to an inverse square law. In the physical sense, we have no
idea
what
makes a 'field'.

The charge of an electron does not reside within the electron. The
electric
field is the distortion in the ether created by the absolute motion of
the
electron in the ether. This model elinimate the question what makes a
field
and resolves the infinity problems exist in QED.

So you claim that an electron that is at rest in your aether has no
charge?

the fundmental particle (the S-Particle) that makes up the electron is never
at rest. Therefore the ether surrounding the electron is alway distorted.

It doesn't eliminate the question,"how can Seto's theory work when there
is NO
aether?"

If there is no ether then my theory is refuted. But there is ether and the
following proposed experiments will reveal the magnitude and direction of
absolute motion.

In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley

wrote
on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:09:11 GMT
HvuCh.303967$aJ.222662@attbi_s21:
kenseto wrote:


The charge of an electron does not reside within the electron. The electric
field is the distortion in the ether created by the absolute motion of the
electron in the ether. This model elinimate the question what makes a field
and resolves the infinity problems exist in QED.

Ken Seto



What specific infinity problems in QED are you referring to Seto?

And for that matter, why is the charge of an electron always constant?
Surely not all electrons have the same aboslute motion, especially since
*we* have changing absolute motion (on the order of about 2 * 10^-4 c)
depending on the time of year.

--
#191,
Linux. Because vaporware only goes so far.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hi Henri_Wilson,
Measuring infinite density and an infinitely powerful vacuum
are forever and always impossible, mere metaphysical notions.

Based on the desired result and " givens ",
scientists chose the best model(s)... be it Quantum Mechanics,
thermodynamics, special relativity, general relativity or a mix.

General Relativity can model the field of a massive object
only because its energy is so very predictable.
" Static 4-D spacetime " ( i.e. GR's gravitational field )
equals, " 8 * pi * G * T_αβ / c^4 ".
( A function of density and pressure )

The laws of thermodynamics are cosmic in scope;
so, like all energy, gravity is constantly fading away,
being " consumed ", as it were... This is " Dark Energy ", I posit.

The cosmos is truly causal ( i.e. falsely random ),
so all changes ( including so-called choices ) are nominal.
Time is truly spatial ( i.e. falsely directional ) and
" life " arises from this eternal consumption of Gibbs Free Energy.

Cold Dark Matter might merely be regions that are
massive/dense/close enough to have a -- gravitational -- effect
on the outer reaches of the visible Milky Way ( for example ),
....but not massive/dense/close enough to be noticed any other way.

The known Universe has no birth or death,
just a _ Hard _ limit to what can be observed.
Like ever-active yeast in a loaf of bread,
the cosmos expands everywhere, all the time.
In 2-D, I visualise cosmological " time " as the Y axis and
( ever-flat, ever-static 4-D ) Minkowskian spacetime as the X axis.
But the Y axis is " Cosmic Kinetic_Energy/Gravity, CKEG ", not time.
" d CKEG " is a slice of cosmic spacetime in " cosmological time ".
Adding up the slices forms something like a " static 5-D supernova ".

w( z ) always equals -1, I posit, and Omega_Lambda is always .74.
So Rho_Lambda ( and inflation ) was higher when Rho_Crit was higher.
( Because a higher density has a higher " consumption rate " )
And, " Pressure_Cosmos = - ( .74 / .26 ) * Density_Matter * c^2 "
For more, see: " www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/W.PNG "

Where is spacetime free to warp into, if not CKEG ?
What place and time has absolutely no kinetic energy or gravity ?

Already, a portable LaCoste-Romberg gravimeter can measure 10^-9 g's,
and the FINAQS project is developing " quantum gravimeters "
which employ atom lasers.

Quoting from, " www.Finaqs.Uni-Hannover.DE ":

[ Our gravimeters ] may even permit a new definition of the kilogram
- at present based on the mass of a metal artefact kept in Paris -
in terms of the fundamental physical constants.

How is it that Mass can be defined the same way as Length and Time ?
( i.e. as M, L and T oscillations of a special laser )
How is it that GR's gamma alters the standard kilogram,
not just the meter and second ?

Mass is the fifth spatial dimension.

On Feb 19, 9:10 pm, Jeff...Relf wrote:

[snip garbage]


Mass is the fifth spatial dimension.

No it isn't, you ****up.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:36:42 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote

Imagine if there were only one piece of matter in the whole universe, a single
electron.

Ghost, just for you, (the master of irrelevancy) I will change that to a 1
metre round ball with 100000000000000 electrons on it.

Well, there's a useful supposition! :-) But OK, let's see how far this
goes.


We know that the electron has an electric field around itself that will repel
like charges and attract unlike ones.

And the location of another charge within this supposed
Universe is ... oh, wait, there isn't one.

No, one of Eintein's fairies must have gobbled it up.

Problem already!

The master speaks again...

Its strength tapers off with distance
according to an inverse square law. In the physical sense, we have no idea what
makes a 'field'.


As far as I'm concerned, a "field" -- more properly, a vector field --
is simply a mapping of coordinate space (and possibly time, if the
charge is moving and/or variable) into a series of vectors. In the case
of the singleton electron the vectors would all point in towards the
electron (this is admittedly an ad hoc convention), with length e/d^2
where d is the distance between the point and the electron.

Fields ar identified by the forces they exert. I know relativists deny that
forces exist but the GR maths for gravity doesn't work for electrostatic forces
at the same point.

Now the question we must ask is, what happens as we move further and further
away from the electron.
Does its field strength become infintely weaker and weaker? ...or is there a
point where it can be reduced no more and becomes fragmented.
In other words, is there a point where the electron field becomes so weak that
it can be no longer be reduced in strength? Can a point be reached where the
field of the electron doesn't permanently exist at all?

ARE FIELDS QUANTIZED?

I'm not sure this is all that meaningful a question.

........Says the expert at uttering meaingless statements....

One problem, of
course, is that fields are a hypothetical construct to begin with.

Have you ever tried to push two N poles of a bar magnet together Ghost? Was the
difficulty you had purely hypothetical?

While one can perform measurements (e.g., with a sensitive electroscope
and/or force meter) around a charge, this is at most an approximation
of the singleton electron case.

Let's not worry about the practicalities of measuring it Ghost.

Would there be regions of space where 'field quanta' are so rare that most of
that region literally consists of 'absolutely nothing'?

In space there are gravitational 'fields', electric fields, magnetic fields and
possibly a few that we know nothing about.. No matter where we go in the
universe, we will presumeably see distant stars and fall freely under the
influence of some gravitational system....so EM is reaching us regularly.
....but is it possible that in very remote space, the fields that make up EM
and gravity become literally 'full of holes'?

My hypothesis says that 'empty' space somewhat resembles felted fibre or foam
polystyrene, where the fibrous or plastic bits resemble the field 'quanta'
whilst the holes consist of genuine 'nothing'. The holes are very temporary
since EM carrying its own fields passes through them continuously, partially
destroying them.

Because 'Wilsonian nort-holes' consist of nothing, they have no properties, no
geometry, no time. The concept of an infinite nort-hole presents no real
problem since the word 'nothing' in reality implies a genuine 'absence of
anything' and without anything, the concept of infinity doesn't really exist.

It is possible that huge nort-holes separate all the individual universes that
make up space.

Light travels through a nort-hole purely ballistically since there is no
intrinsic dielectric constant or magnetic permeability there. Maxwell's
equations have no relevance in a nort-hole.

Any attempt to investigate a nort-hole will destroy it.

The 'Wilson Density Threshold' is that at which nort-holes first start to
appear. (Note: 'density' refers to both matter and fields, here)
As the density decreases, so does the proportion of 'nothing' in any volume.

Indeed, since nort-holes possess no spatial properties, the true volume of what
we presently refer to as 'empty space' must be redefined to mean 'that volume
actually occupied by field quanta which exist there'. It is a distinct
possibility that lengths as well as volumes are effectively 'contracted' in
most of intergalactic space.

What makes space carrying field quanta different from that which is completely
devoid of any is a question that remains to be answered.



Either this got truncated or you made an error here; in
either case, I don't know what to think of your theory
until you've at least attempted to solve the cosmological
question.

The simplest way to put it, of course, is that, given
the current state of the Universe, we observe a red
shift as things go farther away from us; furthermore,
this red shift is apparently accelerating. Presumably,
your theory, nort-holes and all, can estimate and explain
this acceleration in the Hubble shift.

The redshift is caused by a number of factors that I have outlined over the
years.
There was NO BB and nothing is expanding....except your appetite for
irrelevancy...

(Current SR/GR theories suggest an approximate density as follows:

Matter: 5%
Energy: miniscule?
Dark Matter: 25%
Dark Energy: 70%

Who cares about the guesses of relativists?

WCHs make up the dark matter.

Whether this explains the acceleration, I for one don't know.

I for another, don't care...

What has happened to Androcles. He seems to have disappeared.