I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand is good they are getting closer. But in the other hand they are doing simulations instead of experiments, and the simulations are based in a lot of assumptions that cripple how close the model can be to reality. I wonder if those doing these simulations ever heard about Bostick or Shoulders. Most probably they haven’t.
This is my impression after studying it all the way up to almost page 2, lol.
The article is not very good. It's confusing wording in the intro (what parts are opposite polarity and why do they represent it this way?), fig 1(a) is ok. fig 1(b) needs to explain the lack of current density at the center of the vortex, while shedding like crazy, fig (c) might be ok but appears to have shifted to a top-down perspective without specifying the change (i.e., where's the negative current coming from if we are looking at electrons swirling in a plane???), and fig 1(d) looks like it eats ions.
Lots of high power behind the simulation, yeah. But there's a lot of high power behind hot fusion development too, and that's been "just around the corner" for... how many decades now?
I think the part that really kills this study for me is the lack of current density in the center of vortex A. It could be explained by a relativistic shift in the wave function of an electron, but at only 0.2 c? You could understand a physical instrument finding electrons to have disappeared, but this is a simulation. Anything that's hidden would have to be programmed deliberately TO be hidden.
And then the packing tape on the top to keep whatever's inside from getting out again, I remind myself how "black boxes" are so often invoked to keep a failing theory from simply going away. In this case its the magical invocation of "relativistic" phenomena.
re: "the ring has essentially no dimension." (2:45)
That's apparently the consensus if considering the magnetic properties..
The A field confined inside swirling electrons would have no dimension. It's a "magnetic potential". s/a Aharanov-Bohm effect.
However, Shoulders' and the simulation under discussion in the video create the ring with electrons. So while it is dimensionless in the magnetic sense, in the charge cluster sense it does have dimensions while it is observable. On the other hand, positive feedback between the swirling around the ring and the field it causes could result in strange phenomena such as even electrons disappearing, teleporting of matter (in unknown states of disassembly?), or do other weird things, mentioned in Shoulders' work - if I understand it correctly (yet),.
A Leak From Our Universe to Another (Ken Shoulders, 2006)
We can see electrons which explaines the negadive charge.
In order to remain in any kind of structure there must be a positive charge, and we see that too (infered from negative eV in 'red' area.). Do we have any understanding of how the positive charge is getting generated or what's causing it?
====================================
Notes for others that may have the same problem I have with all the synonyms (three names for every effect = N^3 times as confusing): ;-)
Video: Dynamics of moving electron vortices and magnetic ring
...self compression of the cell, contents radiate as light and leptons (seen in Hutchison samples), called a "gravity decay" (matsumoto's term).
* * 52:20 particles of matter coliding with 0.5 eV synthesize cold neutrinos (equivalent to relic neutrinos) which facilitate inverse beta decay. (An electron falling into the nucleus frees a proton and some other junk.)
DISCLAIMER: I'm still trying to get up to speed here so if you find any errors, more power to you. I understand Bob's reluctance to create a new vocabulary for these things but without a standard naming convenction, resultant confusion is certain to hinder progress in understanding for newcomers and potential contributors to the effort.
Just A Thought:
Seven pennies set on a table can be clustered into their smallest shape forming a hexagon. These hexagons can be connected in the patter of the "foosball" above to form a sphere. If the center penny is removed the structure would remain IF the coins were glued firmly, in such a way as to remain flat. (like centripetal force?)
I think you've nailed it Bob. Now the problem is the insane number of synonyms, each worthy of credit to their authors, but incredibly confusing, in my opinion. And this problem with nomenclature is not confined to names for various electron behaviors but also the names for the Parkhomov tables. Ouch! :-)
WRT "wheels within wheels within wheels" and flattened toroids - I have a possible explanation for that.
I've been searching for consistent models of the Universe for 50 years. By the time I got to Uni I'd realized that there was something broken in the heart of Chemistry, which then meant Subatomic Physics was also compromised. I eventually worked out there were problems with Cosmology, Geography, and many other areas.
After much searching I believe I at last have come across models which are self-consistent and are a lot better at explaining the basics from the very small to the very large (still a lot of work to be done on the in-between), that being at the small level the model of Miles Mathis, leading into much of the Electric Universe Theory, with work by Per Bak especially showing how they all hold together.
Unfortunately Miles's model especially has a very steep learning curve and is spread over hundreds of self-published papers, so I've done my best to summarise it - you can find it here:
The rest of my site goes over the other bits and how they hang together.
So what does this have to do with this presentation? In Miles's model subatomic particles are built up of what are effectively very small non-compressible billiard balls that have "layers" of spin - first of all axially (like the Earth's rotation), then in an X plane (like the Earth orbiting around the Sun), then Y and Z planes, gradually building up to electrons and larger particles. So what you have in this model is effectively "wheels within wheels within wheels". The spin is so fast that by the time you get to an electron rather than being a sphere it's more like a compact disk - a toroid with a hole in the centre, which is constantly recycling smaller particles, mainly coming in at the poles and being ejected mainly around the equator. As these get bigger they're more 3D than 2D as they can't spin as fast; a plasmoid would have a similar shape to a scaled-up proton, anti-proton or neutron.
Miles's model then goes on to explain how atoms and molecules have definite structure, and how that leads to magnetism, beta decay, electrical conductivity and a host of other properties.
Hopefully you find this useful, as I believe it does a lot better job than the standard model of explaining the basics behind the sort of properties you are finding.
Constructive criticism and suggestions welcome here or via honestscientisttas at-sign gmail dot com.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand is good they are getting closer. But in the other hand they are doing simulations instead of experiments, and the simulations are based in a lot of assumptions that cripple how close the model can be to reality. I wonder if those doing these simulations ever heard about Bostick or Shoulders. Most probably they haven’t.
Bob can you post a link to the paper, please!
[Rats... sorry. Serious typo error correction.]
Maybe I'm still commenting in ignorance, but I'll bet I'm not the only one that feels this way.
At video 29:20 (paper) dynamics of moving electron vortices in laser plasma interactions
https://pure.strath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/122601640/Yue_etal_PoP_2021_Dynamics_of_moving_electron_vortices_and_magnetic_ring_in_laser_plasma_interaction.pdf
This is my impression after studying it all the way up to almost page 2, lol.
The article is not very good. It's confusing wording in the intro (what parts are opposite polarity and why do they represent it this way?), fig 1(a) is ok. fig 1(b) needs to explain the lack of current density at the center of the vortex, while shedding like crazy, fig (c) might be ok but appears to have shifted to a top-down perspective without specifying the change (i.e., where's the negative current coming from if we are looking at electrons swirling in a plane???), and fig 1(d) looks like it eats ions.
Lots of high power behind the simulation, yeah. But there's a lot of high power behind hot fusion development too, and that's been "just around the corner" for... how many decades now?
I think the part that really kills this study for me is the lack of current density in the center of vortex A. It could be explained by a relativistic shift in the wave function of an electron, but at only 0.2 c? You could understand a physical instrument finding electrons to have disappeared, but this is a simulation. Anything that's hidden would have to be programmed deliberately TO be hidden.
And then the packing tape on the top to keep whatever's inside from getting out again, I remind myself how "black boxes" are so often invoked to keep a failing theory from simply going away. In this case its the magical invocation of "relativistic" phenomena.
Where v is 0.2 times the speed of light.
Length contraction = sqrt(1 - 0.v^2) = 0.98. Time dilation = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2) = 1.02.
Your guitar would sound a tiny bit, less than a semitone flat. At 0.23 c it would sound almost exactly a quarter tone flat.
Don't throw out the guitar. ;-)
re: "the ring has essentially no dimension." (2:45)
That's apparently the consensus if considering the magnetic properties..
The A field confined inside swirling electrons would have no dimension. It's a "magnetic potential". s/a Aharanov-Bohm effect.
However, Shoulders' and the simulation under discussion in the video create the ring with electrons. So while it is dimensionless in the magnetic sense, in the charge cluster sense it does have dimensions while it is observable. On the other hand, positive feedback between the swirling around the ring and the field it causes could result in strange phenomena such as even electrons disappearing, teleporting of matter (in unknown states of disassembly?), or do other weird things, mentioned in Shoulders' work - if I understand it correctly (yet),.
A Leak From Our Universe to Another (Ken Shoulders, 2006)
www.rexresearch.com/shoulders/ALeakFromOurUniversetoAnother.pdf
See first parag.
[EDITED (for typos, as usual)]
For Bob and All:
Two parts here. Top part for Bob, the bottom part is a record of my attempt to FAQ my way out of the multiplexed terminology.
Question for Bob:
re. Dynamics of moving electron vortices and magnetic ring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84Yqea-GhaY&t=3240s
cued up at 54:00
We can see electrons which explaines the negadive charge.
In order to remain in any kind of structure there must be a positive charge, and we see that too (infered from negative eV in 'red' area.). Do we have any understanding of how the positive charge is getting generated or what's causing it?
====================================
Notes for others that may have the same problem I have with all the synonyms (three names for every effect = N^3 times as confusing): ;-)
Video: Dynamics of moving electron vortices and magnetic ring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84Yqea-GhaY
Here's what we have so far. LOTS of clarification of definitions in a single video.
13:06 EVO (like smoke ring, like soliton)
? 13:57 Geon (alternating electric and magnetic fields (a standing wave) held in ring by gravity.
19:09 Bostick/Nardi "condensed plasmoid" = EVO.
24:34 rotational splashing from holes made be micro ball lightning or EVOs.
25:37 close together will "wet" together.
42:24 matsumoto - material disappearing (spheres) itonic cluster,
* Possible sructures:
* * Nodal structure under the lion's foot at the Forbidden Palace in Beijing [See video at 21:50]
* * ?? alternate structure made of flat planes of either 5 or 6 sides. (foosball image) https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/1320388983699542029/large (all sides equal length, can be made of cardboard and will form a sphere with no stress points).
...self compression of the cell, contents radiate as light and leptons (seen in Hutchison samples), called a "gravity decay" (matsumoto's term).
* * 52:20 particles of matter coliding with 0.5 eV synthesize cold neutrinos (equivalent to relic neutrinos) which facilitate inverse beta decay. (An electron falling into the nucleus frees a proton and some other junk.)
DISCLAIMER: I'm still trying to get up to speed here so if you find any errors, more power to you. I understand Bob's reluctance to create a new vocabulary for these things but without a standard naming convenction, resultant confusion is certain to hinder progress in understanding for newcomers and potential contributors to the effort.
Just A Thought:
Seven pennies set on a table can be clustered into their smallest shape forming a hexagon. These hexagons can be connected in the patter of the "foosball" above to form a sphere. If the center penny is removed the structure would remain IF the coins were glued firmly, in such a way as to remain flat. (like centripetal force?)
I think you've nailed it Bob. Now the problem is the insane number of synonyms, each worthy of credit to their authors, but incredibly confusing, in my opinion. And this problem with nomenclature is not confined to names for various electron behaviors but also the names for the Parkhomov tables. Ouch! :-)
No biggie. Just another thought.
Howdy, Bob.
WRT "wheels within wheels within wheels" and flattened toroids - I have a possible explanation for that.
I've been searching for consistent models of the Universe for 50 years. By the time I got to Uni I'd realized that there was something broken in the heart of Chemistry, which then meant Subatomic Physics was also compromised. I eventually worked out there were problems with Cosmology, Geography, and many other areas.
After much searching I believe I at last have come across models which are self-consistent and are a lot better at explaining the basics from the very small to the very large (still a lot of work to be done on the in-between), that being at the small level the model of Miles Mathis, leading into much of the Electric Universe Theory, with work by Per Bak especially showing how they all hold together.
Unfortunately Miles's model especially has a very steep learning curve and is spread over hundreds of self-published papers, so I've done my best to summarise it - you can find it here:
https://thehonestscientist.com/miles-mathis/
The rest of my site goes over the other bits and how they hang together.
So what does this have to do with this presentation? In Miles's model subatomic particles are built up of what are effectively very small non-compressible billiard balls that have "layers" of spin - first of all axially (like the Earth's rotation), then in an X plane (like the Earth orbiting around the Sun), then Y and Z planes, gradually building up to electrons and larger particles. So what you have in this model is effectively "wheels within wheels within wheels". The spin is so fast that by the time you get to an electron rather than being a sphere it's more like a compact disk - a toroid with a hole in the centre, which is constantly recycling smaller particles, mainly coming in at the poles and being ejected mainly around the equator. As these get bigger they're more 3D than 2D as they can't spin as fast; a plasmoid would have a similar shape to a scaled-up proton, anti-proton or neutron.
Miles's model then goes on to explain how atoms and molecules have definite structure, and how that leads to magnetism, beta decay, electrical conductivity and a host of other properties.
Hopefully you find this useful, as I believe it does a lot better job than the standard model of explaining the basics behind the sort of properties you are finding.
Constructive criticism and suggestions welcome here or via honestscientisttas at-sign gmail dot com.