Electron in Magnetic Field

This post is inspired by Berry’s challenge…

So let’s have a magnetic field of 0.1 T in z-direction and an electron with \(\vec f\) aligned in x-direction and a velociy of 100 m/s in x-direction. What happens according to TOEBI?

How does it play out in TOEBI? Let’s assume that the magnetic field is homogeneous and constructed with two opposite magnetic poles where electron density is constant (electrons/area). First of all, unit Tesla is defined by mainstream physics without the knowledge of the underlying mechanism which generates electric and magnetic fields. Therefore our first task is to solve the amount of electrons in magnetic poles which would generate the effect of 0.1 T. We already know how such a homogeneous magnetic field is constructed, we need to have our electrons (in the magnetic poles) in a symmetric spinning vector pattern around the center of the pole (CoP). Every electron has its spinning vector aligned with the pole’s surface and perpendicular to the direction of CoP and neighboring electrons’ spinning vectors are parallel (see picture).

Lower magnetic pole (N) from above
Lower magnetic pole (N) from above

How big force 0.1 T field would generate on our moving charge? Mainstream unit (T) requires mainstream equation, hence \[f=q*v*B=\frac{m*v^2}{r}\approx1.60217657*10^{-18}\text{ N}\tag{1}\]so the radius for generated circle would be \[r=\frac{m*v}{q*B}\approx5.68563*10^{-9}\text{ m}\tag{2}\]and we do know that single electron changes its spinning vector orientation antiparallel to the spinning vectors on its trajectory. Electrons in magnetic poles can’t change their spinning vector orientations (too easily) due to their interactions with the surrounding material (magnet’s material).

The question goes, how many electrons is needed to keep the electron in the track where \(r\) is known? First observations is that the electron must experience attractive net force towards the CoP and part of the attractive force is generated by the electrons on the other half of the circle. On top of those electrons, also the electrons on the right hand side of the electron’s path generate repulsive force pushing the electron towards the CoP. Net attractive force overcomes also the repulsive force generated by the electrons between the electron and the CoP.

*** Removed the calculation for now

Updating…

Above would hold if the electron between the poles wouldn’t change its spinning vector orientation in relation to the CoP, however, it does change it because it’s moving. Surrounding FTE density is pretty much the same in radial dimension, hence the electron is free to change its spinning vector orientation perpendicular to its velocity during the time when the electron is between adjacent orbital electrons in the poles. The amount of spinning vector orientation change depends on the velocity of the electron, slower it moves more it’s capable of changing the orientation, hence lesser the force towards the CoP.

If the electron doesn’t move at all it will find itself between the adjacent orbital electrons having its spinning vector aligned with the pole radius.

More updating…

Finally I realized what’s going on in the gap between the poles. Also I realized that I had a wrong idea about how particles behave during motion. Now I have updated Introduction to TOEBI paper accordingly. I’ll re-write this post in future.

146 thoughts on “Electron in Magnetic Field

  1. I tried to keep it simple, you went the other way. The result is so bogus, I don’t know where to start. Well, why not at the beginning:

    > We already know how such a homogeneous magnetic field is
    > constructed, we need to have our electrons (in the
    > magnetic poles) in a symmetric spinning vector pattern
    > around the center of the pole (CoP).

    Why? Which law of TOEBI asserts that such a “symmetric spinning vector pattern” creates a homogeneous magnetic field?

  2. The behaviour of electron in the described system matches the behaviour of electron in a homogenous magnetic field. TL2 is used to calculate exerted force on the electron.

  3. > The behaviour of electron in the described system matches
    > the behaviour of electron in a homogenous magnetic field.

    Where did you prove that?

  4. > I’m proving it in this very blog post.

    So why did you claim that “We already know”? That was obviously a lie!

    Moreover, you’re not proving it, you’re still assuming it. You just calculate some meaningless \(x\) and \(r\) here.

    And most imortant: Your claim is wrong.

    And since your basic claim is wrong, I won’t go into detail about the absurdities in the calculations above.

  5. > Don’t be so dramatic 🙂

    I’m not dramatic, I’m just pointing out that once more you didn’t try hard enough to be honest.

    > And we’ll see about the correctness of my claim.

    How would we see, if we just relied on you? We’d never, since you don’t distinguish between claiming and checking, between claiming and proving. As long as it’s your own claim, you deem it unimpeachable.

    But the wrongness of your claim is multifarious. Let’s place the origin of the coordinate system in one COP and let’s denote the position of the test electron as \(\vec r=(x,y,z)\) with \(z>0\). Two first problems with your claim:

    P1) The test electron (with its \(\vec f\parallel\vec e_x\)) experiences an attractive force (i.e. towards the pole) for \(y < 0\), a repulsive one for \(y > 0\) and zero force for \(y = 0\). Hence, the “field” generated by one pole is clearly non-homogeneous. How a second pole should fix that, is unclear, you don’t even bother to specify its properties (e.g. the distance between the poles doesn’t enter your bogus calculation at all). And even if a second pole could fix the inhomogeneity for \(|\vec r|\ll 1\) nm (which I strongly doubt), the net field would of course be non-homogeneous for larger \(|\vec r|\).

    P2) Leaving the botched homogeneity aside, the “magnetic forces” created by one pole are independent of the test electron’s velocity, which is clearly utterly wrong. For zero velocity, no force must be exerted on the electron, which is violated by your setup.

    Is that the result when you promise “But now on I put more weight on robustness”?

  6. I answer in parts… regarding P1) the electron’s spinning vector in relation to the near-by electrons in the poles are antiparallel when the electron moves in the gap between the poles. The gap size is 0.001 m, which explains that used 0.0005 m.

  7. > the electron’s spinning vector in relation to the near-by
    > electrons in the poles are antiparallel

    How that? The test electron has \(\vec f\parallel\vec e_x\) and for \(y < 0\) that's not anti-parallel to the N-pole electrons. And the \(\vec f\)-pattern of the S-pole is still unknown, anyway.

  8. Probably you postulate that the electron will always have its \(\vec f\) anti-parallel to the pole electron at \((x,y,0)\). That’s still creates an inhomogeneous “magnetic field” and will have other hilarious consequences.

  9. That’s right… I should have that \(\dot{\vec f}\) because the electron must change its spinning vector orientation depending also on its velocity…

    Anyway, this post has teached me more about the potential \(\dot{\vec f}\).

  10. The thing is, I don’t even understand why you would try such a complicated problem when TOEBI is totally wrong just about the interaction between 3 or more electrons.

    I mean, shouldn’t you solve that MUCH easier problem first?

    Additionally:

    First of all, unit Tesla is defined by mainstream physics without the knowledge of the underlying mechanism which generates electric and magnetic fields.

    I won’t comment on your general pretentious behaviour, but, hey, come on, seriously. TOEBI is overstuffed with such utterly unbearable ill-conceived claims, which make it even more boring to read than with its blabbering language alone and its obvious physical and mathematical errors.

    If you don’t know anything at electromagnetism, if you never opened a book about physics, could you at least stop making such stupid claims?

  11. Yeah, I perfectly understand. Because you know, spinning vector is such a minor part of TOEBI that one could totally think that it doesn’t need real care.

  12. So your evasion from the three electron failure towards the EM phenomena (which you claimed to be able to take over faster, whether I believed it or not) turned out to be yet another failure instead of giving “us nice and easy the behavior of ‘charged’ particle in e.g. magnetic field.”. Both stories are good examples of being not at all well thought out by you. But all the failures we witnessed in the past two months don’t change your attitude: It’s always Kimmo who knows best.

    What now? Will you return to work assiduously on \(\dot{\vec f}\)? And after one week without success, will you make up yet another silly excuse why it can actually be avoided?

  13. I most certainly don’t know best! And again, I need that equation.

    I thought about the equation and realized one very much possible solution… which might solve nice & easy both cases (3 electrons and magnetic field). I have to ponder it couple of days but I think it might make my day, as well as yours.

    How blind I have been…!

  14. > I most certainly don’t know best!

    Then why such phrases as “By approximated spinning vector behaviour I can take over EM phenomena faster (believe it or not).” or “unit Tesla is defined by mainstream physics without the knowledge of the underlying mechanism” or “We already know how such a homogeneous magnetic field is constructed” (without having properly thought about it)? You seemingly cannot stop with “talk big or go home”. But maybe there is hope, in this last comment you sound exceptionally cautious.

    On the other hand, you still consider “ToEbi predicted antimatter phenomena and technology” as top notch, robust science, right?

    > And again, I need that equation.

    Nice, that you’ve got that now. Only two days ago you tried to convince us differently.

    > How blind I have been…!

    We’ll see how long you keep that one in mind.

  15. Just for accuracy’s sake: You misquoted me in the top of this post. I actually wrote: “… an electron with \(\vec f\) aligned in \(x\)-direction …”

  16. A couple of day has elapsed, and unsurprisingly nothing came out. There was no sense in calling a fundamental law the interaction between anything else than FTEPs in TOEBI, and though, you still insist in making TL2 functional.

    What are you waiting exactly to give up on TL2? I know you’ve worked on it for 2 years, but that’s a prerequisite to being a physicist to be ready to forget about your concepts when they are proven to be so utterly wrong.

    I’ll give you a great deal of help here : what you’re looking at since the beginning is this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier–Stokes_equations . I really thought you’d find it on your own, but hey, now you won’t have any excuse not to try to describe FTEPs behavior.

  17. I found that information earlier but I didn’t utilize it, so far. Thanks for the tip though.

    I have developed my \(\dot{\vec f}\) as much as possible in couple of days. I’ll release it at the end of the week.

  18. You’re welcome.

    Yeah. You didn’t use it.

    Because FTEPs behavior is not really important. You can sum it up as “some flux must go there toward somewhere and, pouf, TL2 works”.

    Like 2 weeks ago, when an equation for f was not important, since it could just shift very very quickly according to what you wanted.

    What are you waiting exactly to give up on TL2? You should have understood by now that it’s not in anyway going to be a fundamental law.

  19. Even though not fundamental, I’d like to see Kimmo’s \(\dot{\vec f}\). At least, some results of it can be discussed. An evolution equation for the FTE, on the other hand, is utterly out of reach.

  20. Well… 3 electrons interaction is already out of reach. If you use such standard, nothing can be done!

  21. And all the caution is already gone: “Not for long! I have already solved the ‘problem'”

    You’ve already claimed so too many times, Kimmo. Would you dare to bet on the robustness of your upcoming “solution”?

  22. There is a sneak preview in that Introduction to paper, check out the section Particle in Motion. It contains \(\dot{\vec f}\) in its simplest case.

    Interaction between particles gives some additional sugar… but I haven’t wrote that down yet. Given equation is in its pure form regarding only particle motion, excluding for example effects from gravitating objects.\[\dot{\vec f}=\begin{pmatrix}f_{x} & f_{y} &f_{z}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}\sin \alpha_{t}\\\cos \alpha_{t}\\1\end{pmatrix}\]and\[\alpha_{t}=(\alpha_{t_{0}}-\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{t}{t_{f}})\]Variables are explained in the paper.

  23. Your \(\dot{\vec f}\) has wrong units and unclear notation: What kind of mathematical operation takes place between the two pairs of parentheses?

  24. Nice, my brains were sleeping… I meant this

    \[\dot{\vec f}=\begin{pmatrix}f_{x} &f_{y}&f_{z}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}\sin\alpha_{t}&0&0\\0&\cos\alpha_{t}&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}\]

  25. The units are still wrong, and the equation doesn’t make much sense for \(\dot{\vec f}\), anyway. Kimmo, do you actually know, what \(\dot{\vec f}\) really denotes?

  26. > What units are wrong?

    As I already have written, the units of your \(\dot{\vec f}\) are wrong, what else?

    Physics quiz, 1st semester: “If \(\vec f\) has SI-units 1/s, which SI-units does \(\dot{\vec f}\) have?”

    I know that you regard consistent units as something only for pettifoggers, but that’s not true.

    > Yes I know.

    That conflicts with all the evidence you’re presenting here.

  27. I took azimuthal and polar angles into usage… now the matrix is \[\dot{\vec f}=\begin{pmatrix}f_{x} & f_{y} &f_{z}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}\sin \phi_{t}\cos \theta_{t}&0&0\\0&\sin \phi_{t}\sin \theta_{t}&0\\0&0&\cos \phi_{t}\end{pmatrix}\]

    \[\theta_{t}=(\theta_{t_{0}}\pm\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{t}{t_{f}})\]and\[\phi_{t}=(\phi_{t_{0}}\pm\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{t}{t_{f}})\]

    When \(\theta_{t}\) reaches \(\pm\frac{\pi}{2}\) or \(\phi_{t}\) reaches 0 or \(\pi\) then the spinning vector has gained the final orientation in relation to its velocity.

  28. I didn’t do anything with the units, I fixed angle issues.

    Do you think that I spend all day with this stuff? FYI, I don’t. For example, yesterday I spent less than two hours for the developing… for fuck’s sake, give me some slack! 🙂

  29. Kimmo, do you actually know, what \(\dot{\vec f}\) really denotes?

    I thought it means how \(\vec f\) changes in time but apparently it means the velocity of the change… nice. So, I didn’t know what it means.

    Anyway, where do I need that information? To me, the important information is how \(\vec f\) changes its orientation in time, so I can calculate the force between particles accurately.

  30. Yeah, you’re not as stupid as Newton. Guess what: He even thought he’d need an equation for \(\ddot{\vec r}\), when all what he really wanted was \(\vec r(t)\).

    Kimmo, do you have a clue of the role of differential equations in physics?

    And by the way: Even if you replace \(\dot{\vec f}\) by \(\vec f(t)\) in the equation above, it is still nonsense. The matrix is not a rotation matrix.

  31. Rotation matrix? Do you mean its applicable in case of magnetic field? Actually I updated this blog post a bit, it hopefully clear things up a bit.

    Can you see what I’m aiming at?

  32. > Rotation matrix? Do you mean its applicable in case of
    > magnetic field?

    I’m not talking about a magnetic field, because that doesn’t exist in TOEBI. I’m talking about your very first steps in non-handwaving about \(\vec f\), which produced a varying \(f=\lVert\vec f\rVert\), while the subject was flipping of \(\vec f\).

    > Actually I updated this blog post a bit, it hopefully
    > clear things up a bit.
    > Can you see what I’m aiming at?

    More handwaving?

  33. And even when pretending your matrix to be a rotation matrix (which is quite a painful task), we immediately crash into the next error: The concept of \(\vec f\)’s “final orientation in relation to its velocity” is nonsensical, as I’ve already explained about 8 weeks ago.

  34. Rotation matrix to a point and every passage of the electron near magnet’s electron “resets” the orientation perpendicular to the direction of CoP. We can call such a “reset” at the moment as a postulate if you will (because I haven’t gone through how electron-electron interaction affects spinning vectors)

  35. > every passage of the electron near magnet’s electron
    > “resets” the orientation

    Which one of the \(10^{20}\) is “magnet’s electron”? Kimmo, you’re not adding sense to the whole business with bungle like that.

    And of course Yop is right: Why are you dealing with \(10^{20}\) electrons when you have severe problems already with only three of them?

  36. The reason why I’m dealing with a magnetic field is due to my erroneous initial thought that I can pull it off easily… I couldn’t, but I learned a lot and developed that change operator (matrix) which is naturally valid with easier cases.

    I put this task on hold and stick with two and three electron interactions.

  37. > The reason why I’m dealing with a magnetic field is due to
    > my erroneous initial thought that I can pull it off easily

    Since this applies to all of your stuff, it makes still more sense to start with the simplest situations.

    > change operator (matrix) which is naturally valid with
    > easier cases.

    This matrix is heavily bodged and (being diagonal) an unnecessarily clumsy notation. If you think you’ve learned something valid about 3D rotations by “developing” it, you’re wrong.

  38. Still it doesn’t make sense, as I’ve already explained: The usage of \(\vec f\)’s “final orientation in relation to its velocity” is nonsensical, because a Galileian transformation changes the latter but not \(\vec f\). We’ve had this topic already 8 weeks ago.

  39. Making sense is not really a goal of TOEBI. We’re talking about a Theory invoking mechanical ether little particles which second fundamental law is the interaction between 2 huge bunches of a precise unique number of particles in a mess of little particles which we don’t even know the density, aside from not knowing why the bunches of particles named “electrons” hold together correctly.

    So, well, let’s forget about making sense if we don’t want to stress out Kimmo. 2 hours a day is already very little time when you want to uncover the real reality of it all. It’s most fortunate that Kimmo’s lack of modesty authorized him to readily present it with such insufficient work.

  40. Oh my, it’s not all, I just saw Kimmo’s last research gate question. Containing such statement as:

    “I’m writing a book about a new and promising theory of everything.”.

    Mechanical ether, new? Seriously?

    Promising? Like in “explaining for now only attraction by 2 electrons” promising?

    “a fresh approach and so far promising and interesting path to follow.”

    Fresh? Like in “centuries year old discarded theory” fresh?

    Interesting path to follow? Like in “rebunked by my only two commenters generally less than one hour after blog post” interesting?

    Kimmo, you don’t need “co-writer” or “mentor”. You need some relaxed time, good physics book (Landau lipschitz would be a bit hard, but you should manage with time), and much more investment only to allow yourself to comment on the standard theory. But believe me, even if you’re a genius and I’m an average physicist, you will have a hard time to get the level I acquired in 5 years after high school.

  41. @Yop We’ll see… I just can’t understand how physicists like yourself misses totally the lurking potential in TOEBI. Can you imagine it all? You just take the different interactions as God given?

  42. > We’ll see…

    That’s what you keep telling since more than two months. And what do we acutally see? Failure after failure.

    > I just can’t understand how physicists like yourself misses
    > totally the lurking potential in TOEBI.

    The “Illusion” in TOEBI’s name denotes your illusion that it had any potential.

    > You just take the different interactions as God given?

    Why should a purely mechanical interaction be better acceptable as God given than a non-mechanical?

  43. @Kimmo: The 20 lines it takes to rewrite the whole of physics is the same for me as your little Ether particles and the fundamental laws that will settle their behaviour when you understand how to make a TOE.

    I’m a fundamental atheist. No God, nature’s as is, and if it takes 20534 fundamental particles, 1065 principles or postulates and 356 different laws to explain it in the simplest possible ways, well, I’ll take it as is (Fortunately, it’s much simpler than that). I don’t want to sound petty here, but you’ll criticize my views on physics when you’ll know about the physical model I agree with (like most scientists do).

    But understand that in your view, FTEPs are God given, as well as the laws that’ll organize them.

    And once again, I like the analogical properties of physics. I think it’s one of the funniest stuff in the world, showing nature being ironical at us. SO I LOVE ALTERNATIVE THEORY, even knowing they are wrong. I love ether involving theory, I love this theory about the classical model of the electron. This is FUN.

    And let me say that your alternative theory is :
    1 – Nothing new.
    2 – Clearly not fun at any time. Simply because it doesn’t work the least. On the paper, TOEBI was really promising. I’m sure one can go pretty far in this way. Not you, obviously.

  44. Why should a purely mechanical interaction be better acceptable as God given than a non-mechanical?

    Concrete things is better starting point than current physics assumptions, don’t you think? If not, please explain why not.

    My illusion at the moment, sure. Can you imagine the potential in TOEBI?

  45. On the paper, TOEBI was really promising. I’m sure one can go pretty far in this way. Not you, obviously.

    So, what’s holding you back? or Berry? I’m not hoarding TOEBI to myself, I’m always willing to collaborate.

  46. Oh, well, reading alternative wrong theory that works prettily is fun.

    Writing them is long, hard, and require a much better level in physics than I have, as well as a lot of time. I came here hoping to have found some crackpot genius who would have found some nice mechanical model fitting at least classical physics. It sounded fun. Only one word was wrong in my expectation.

    Once again, standard physics perfectly works for me. Thing is, contrary to you, I am aware that the world is really complex, full of mind bogging phenomenas and difficult to understand concepts. I find that considering this complexity, the standard model is impressively simple. A bit like when Darwin solved hundred of billions of different live form by “survival of the fittest”. This IS impressive.

    Second thing is, clearly, we would make no collaboration with you. Sorry to tell you that, but we’d mostly waste our time explaining you physics and maths. No use. And I don’t know what Berry’s motivation to stay here is. I have to admit that part of me just want to mock or humiliate you. I’m trying to help most of the time though.

  47. > Concrete things is better starting point than current
    > physics assumptions, don’t you think?

    If “concrete” means “being ruled by classical mechanics”, then no.

    > If not, please explain why not.

    Because they don’t work. And that’s not only based on the fact that you’re unable to prove any of your swaggering claims.

    > My illusion at the moment, sure. Can you imagine the
    > potential in TOEBI?

    In the same way as I imagine the potential of a sorcerer.

    > So, what’s holding you back? or Berry?

    The knowledge that TOEBI is dead on arrival.

  48. Nice to hear your opinions. I’ll keep on developing TOEBI to the point where somebody makes the annihilation experiment. After that, I’ll drop the ball no matter what’s the outcome.

    It’s relatively easy to do and the potential reward is enormous, so for sure, somebody is going to give it a shot.

  49. > I’ll keep on developing TOEBI to the point where somebody
    > makes the annihilation experiment. After that, I’ll drop
    > the ball no matter what’s the outcome.

    Is that… logical?!?

    > It’s relatively easy to do

    That’s not true.

    > and the potential reward is enormous, so for sure,
    > somebody is going to give it a shot.

    How much would you bet on that?

  50. Is that… logical?!?

    Let’s see… A) I’m right. The outcome changes everything and I’m not a player in the endgame. B) I’m wrong. What’s the point to continue?

    > It’s relatively easy to do

    That’s not true.

    It depends… for example in comparison to Manhattan project my little experiment is a walk in park at the sunny day.

    How much would you bet on that?

    It depends on the time scale of course… in 10 years scale I would bet 100 euros.

  51. >> Is that… logical?!?

    > Let’s see… A) I’m right.

    But it depends crucially on the state of TOEBI at the time the experiment is done; whether i) it’s still in shatters like now or whether ii) it can rigorously make robust, quantitative predictions about the outcome of the experiment.

    Only in the totally unrealistic case ii) would there be a relation between the experiment and the right/wrong of TOEBI.

    >>> It’s relatively easy to do

    >> That’s not true.

    > It depends… for example in comparison to Manhattan
    > project my little experiment is a walk in park at the
    > sunny day.

    Yeah, in that sense, our solar system is relatively small, too.

    >> How much would you bet on that?

    > It depends on the time scale of course… in 10 years
    > scale I would bet 100 euros.

    That’s trifle. I rather thought of a deal like this: Every year that passes without the experiment being done, you pay 100 to some charitable institution. The day the experiment is actually done, I’ll compensate you.

  52. That’s very generous of you, but doesn’t display the actual confidence you have in “for sure, somebody is going to give it a shot”.

    Anyway, what’s the state of \(\dot{\vec f}\) now? Are you still surely able to construct a proper equation for it?

  53. Yes I am. I work for it every day and make progress too. Now I can handle two & three electrons (two electrons case is already in the paper).

    At some point, I just merge different cases into one equation or something like that.

  54. “The paper” distnguishes between the cases of a moving and a stationary electron, right?

    > At some point, I just merge different cases into
    > one equation or something like that.

    Sure, you must.

  55. “The paper” distinguishes between the cases of a moving and a stationary electron, right?

    In case of stationary (fixed spinning vector orientation, fixed distance) electron there is TL2 and in case of moving electron there is TL2 with changing spinning vectors orientations and changing distance.

    What are you aiming at?

  56. Probably is he aiming at the same stuff he’s been arguing about for like weeks, your vision of f orienting depending on the speed being stupid. But that’s not like he’s going to make it repeating the same stuff a 30th time.

    Additionally, I’m very curious to understand how you solved the much more basic problem I highlighted, that’s to say TL2 yielding inferior force to Coulomb as soon as there is more than 2 electrons, whatever the f orientation. Did you change f yield to do so?

  57. your vision of f orienting depending on the speed being stupid.

    It doesn’t depend on speed only, it depends also on FTE density differences generated by other particles or gravitating system of particles.

    On the other hand, I have understood that accelerated particles tend to change their set transverse spins towards the velocity, which is a bit of a problem in experiments requiring transverse spins.

    You are able to read the answer to your question in couple of days. The mechanism is already updated to the paper (in section handling two electron based particles).

  58. > It doesn’t depend on speed only,

    But that’s already enough to make it nonsensical. Can’t you understand that the question with which speed something is moving is inevitably observer dependent? That’s a very basic fact, found 400 years ago by this Italian guy. Was he as stupid as Newton and Maxwell?

  59. > Environment created by the most influential surrounding
    > gravitating sources.

    Three electrons alone in space don’t have any “surrounding gravitating sources”.

  60. > Of course there is, at least in case those electrons exist
    > in our universe.

    Three electrons in our universe are not alone in space. Hence, TOEBI is not applicable to the idealized situation of empty space (empty except for the few electrons under consideration)? That’s bad.

    > Naturally the effect from those sources is minuscule.

    It most certainly is not minuscule. Let the “most influential surrounding gravitating source” for our poor electron (located at x=0) be some piece of dust (located at x=1m). And let this piece of dust move with a velocity of v=+1 micron/hour with respect to the electron. According to you, it’s the dust particle which determines what an observer has to consider as “rest”, i.e. “actually” the electron has a velocity of 1 micron/hour to the left and this direction determines \(\vec f\) because that has a “final orientation in relation to its velocity”. Now, we reverse the velocity of the dust particle such that the electron has a velocity of 1 micron/hour to the right. Thus, also the final orientation of \(\vec f\) is changed (being opposite to before, one should guess). In other words: Changing the velocity of a tiny, remote dust particle by a tiny amount has completely flipped the final \(\vec f\) of our poor electron. Does this result make sense to you?

  61. Oh, what a wonderful update.

    FTE density between electrons ncreases to the point where electrons’ trajectories are reversed.

    Once again a new phenomenon highlighted by Kimmo, with no laws to describe it of course.

    So now, FTE is also a spring like ether. But please tell me, why in the first place would the density “build up”. Can’t tiny winy little particles move away from the electrons trajectory? Try shooting two footballs at each other: at which point do they experience repulsive force?

  62. Yep, and TL2, instead of being the fundamental rule for the forces between electrons, has now actually become a burden, which must be overruled by “repulsive potential energy” (or so). But we mustn’t be impatient, soon we’ll get new pictures to finally open our eyes.

  63. I’d bet on a cylinder closed by electrons at each side, in which the pressure rises whenever electrons get close together.

  64. Yeah, “FTE channels”, great idea. Much more concrete, much saner than “current physics assumptions”.

  65. And even in free handwaving mode, TOEBI produces wrong results, cf. above: “slower it moves more it’s capable of changing the orientation, hence lesser the force towards the CoP” (emphasis by me)
    That means, the direction of the force is wrong.

  66. @Berry

    Bad day? What a heck is this garbage?

    Three electrons in our universe are not alone in space. Hence, TOEBI is not applicable to the idealized situation of empty space (empty except for the few electrons under consideration)? That’s bad.

    Surely it is, the effect from gravitating objects is negligible. Electrons are the players in idealized situation.

    I’m too busy to answer more today.

  67. Yeah, right, do you or do you not need a gravitational object aside from the electrons? YES. Hence Berry’s description of the problem is totally limpid. Contrary to classical physics theory, where you begin by simple situation and goes to more complex stuff by combining your different laws, TOEBI’s working on the contrary, you need a complex situation in order to solve a simple problem. Brilliant.

  68. > Surely it is, the effect from gravitating objects is
    > negligible.

    In normal physics, that would be true. But in TOEBI it’s
    not, because they are, as you claim, needed to “nail down the coordinates”. I proved that by means of the gedanken experiment with the dust particle. Care to analyze it in more detail? Or is that unnecessary because anyway it’s always Kimmo who knows best?

  69. TOEBI’s working on the contrary, you need a complex situation in order to solve a simple problem. Brilliant.

    Complex situation… better phrase for it would be “existing reality”.

  70. But please tell me, why in the first place would the density “build up”. Can’t tiny winy little particles move away from the electrons trajectory? Try shooting two footballs at each other: at which point do they experience repulsive force?

    If you have two fluxes of FTEPs colliding what other than increasing FTE density can happen? I mean, FTEPs are entering smaller and smaller volume (when electrons approach each other) and paths for decreasing the density get smaller and smaller.

    Also surrounding FTE density resists this FTE density decreasing from between the electrons. Eventually electrons can’t proceed their approaching and build up FTE density kicks electrons apart.

    Regarding footballs, repulsive force acts at atomic level. Footballs on their own have ability to absorb impact energy into their structure and then release it (elastic collision in practice).

  71. > Naturally the effect from those sources is minuscule.

    It most certainly is not minuscule. Let the “most influential surrounding gravitating source” for our poor electron (located at x=0) be some piece of dust (located at x=1m).

    LOL, you are absolutely right! I was picturing empty space which included only those electrons and nearby stellar objects. But yes, dust particles are important 🙂

    I’ll go through your example today.

  72. > I was picturing empty space which included
    > only those electrons and nearby stellar objects.

    That’s a very peculiar meaning of “empty space”.

    > I’ll go through your example today.

    But even before going through it, you already knew that my objection must be garbage? That’s the spirit, that’s our Kimmo!

  73. If you have two fluxes of FTEPs colliding what other than increasing FTE density can happen? I mean, FTEPs are entering smaller and smaller volume (when electrons approach each other) and paths for decreasing the density get smaller and smaller.

    What happens is that FTEP are moving in 3 directions, not 1. So there’s at least 2 directions to move away from the electrons trajectory when you’re pushed out of the way. Why would FTEP pushed by an electron move ONLY toward the other electrons, especially when other FTEPs come toward them. Collisions would push them out of the way.

    I won’t talk about the more “realistic” phenomenon that would happen such as drag, pressure built up, speed of sound, etc. since you promised that you would actually try to explore it.

    But I cannot even picture how you can’t picture in your hear two balls moving in a mess of smaller little balls. It’s obvious that the only way for the balls attracted to each other to be pushed back by the particles between them is when they get so close that FTEPs are not able to move fast enough from the trajectory. So there’s a FTEP mean path to calculate dependent on the FTEPs properties such as viscosity, density, temperature, etc. Then the repulsion is both dependant to the speed of the electrons and their position.

    And despite having a dependancy to all these properties, you will tell me that you’ll obtain something as simple than Coulomb force?

    Updated by Kimmo (Irrelevant suggestion removed)

  74. But I cannot even picture how you can’t picture in your hear two balls moving in a mess of smaller little balls.

    I can, easily. I haven’t got the time yet to bring viscosity and other concepts into the picture.

  75. @Berry Regarding your electron-dust example… You haven’t either read properly or understood what I have written. If you move electron into opposite directions there won’t be any \(\vec f\) orientation changes after the electron has gained its final (movement induced) orientation during the first movement.

  76. I can, easily. I haven’t got the time yet to bring viscosity and other concepts into the picture.

    No you can’t, because it would show you how obviously wrong you are thinking you could even get close to an approximation of Coulomb with your “spring” effect.

    You didn’t have the time to bring anything related to FTEP-FTEP to TOEBI. That’s the problem. That’s the very very obvious main huge problem of TOEBI. Though you found time to argue about electron-electron attraction, gravitational attraction, and even to focus on a magnetic problem.

    When are you gonna start working on TOEBI and not on fairy tales of how FTEPs magically solve all TL2’s failure?

  77. > You haven’t either read properly or understood what I have
    > written.

    You’re sure? Well, let’s see. So, we have the dust particle “nailing down the coordinates” (hence, I choose its position to be always the origin) and the electron at \(x_e=\pm 1\mathrm{m}\). It’s \(\pm\) because we place the electron to the right of the dust particle (when looking at the x/z-plane with \(\vec e_z\) pointing up) but we don’t know the direction \(\vec e_x\) of the \(x\)-axis, yet; it could point to the left (\(\Rightarrow x_e=-1\mathrm{m}\)) or to the right (\(\Rightarrow x_e=1\mathrm{m}\)).

    The electron’s initial \(\vec f\) may be given by \(\theta_{t0}=0,~\phi_{t0}=\pi/2\), i.e. \(\vec f=f\vec e_z\). According to your “book” the angles evolve as \(\theta_t=0+\pi/2\cdot t/t_f\) and \(\phi_t=\pi/2+\pi/2\cdot t/t_f\) such that after time \(t_f\) we have \(\theta=\pi/2\) and \(\phi=\pi\), i.e. \(\vec f=-f\vec e_x\) as final orientation. Now we urgently need to know the actual direction of \(\vec e_x\).

    We distinguish two cases: If a) the two particles are approaching each other, the electron’s velocity \(\vec v\) points to the left and, according to your “book”, so does \(\vec e_x\). If they b) are moving apart, \(\vec v\) and \(\vec e_x\) point to the right.

    Thus, seen from the electron, the direction of the dust particle’s velocity \(-\vec v\), now matter how tiny its magnitude or how far away the dust particle, determines the electron’s final \(\vec f\).

    Where is the error?

  78. The electron’s initial \(\vec f\) may be given by \(\theta_{t0}=0,~\phi_{t0}=\pi/2\), i.e. \(\vec f=f\vec e_z\).

    If \(\vec f=f\vec e_z\) then \(\phi_{t0}\) should be 0? I thought polar angle was the angle between \(z\) axis and \(\vec f\).

    Just an observation… I’ll continue later.

  79. > I thought polar angle was the angle between \(z\) axis and \(\vec f\).

    It is. Hence, when it’s zero, the value of \(\phi\) is irrelevant. Unintentionally, you’re getting on a track to another problem of your funny evolution of \(\vec f\). But first things first…

  80. I know, but: So what? If we start with \(\theta=0\) AND \(\phi=\pi/2\), we have, according to your “book”, \(\theta=\pi/2\) AND \(\phi=\pi\) after time \(t_f\). And if “A AND B” is true, then “A OR B” is true as well. So, what’s your point?

  81. I know also this, dear Kimmo, that’s the very reason why I called \(\theta=\pi/2,~\phi=\pi\) the “final orientation”, because only then A OR B gets true. At all other times \(t\in[t_0,t_0+t_f)\) A OR B is false. So what’s your point?

  82. That’s not true. Either \(\theta\) or \(\phi\) can get the value which stops the “time” regarding the spinning vector orientation changing. You know, if A or B then stop changing the spinning vector orientation.

  83. > That’s not true.

    What is not true? Be specific, please.

    > Either \(\theta\) or \(\phi\) can get the value which
    > stops the “time” regarding the spinning vector orientation
    > changing.

    Either or, why? Out of which hat do you pull this “exclusion law” now? What prevents the angles to incidentally reach their stopping value at the same time? That’s sheer nonsense. But even if you insist on it, it won’t help you. The effect of this “exclusion law” (which isn’t mentioned in your “book”, either) can be immediately removed.

  84. It’s not required that both angles reach their final target angles in order to the spinning vector have its orientation perpendicular towards the densest FTE (a.k.a. the dust particle).

    No hats required, it’s obvious based on orientation postulate, right?

  85. > It’s not required that both angles reach
    > their final target angles

    I know that! Where the heck did I write that A AND B would be required for stopping? It’s not required; but it’s not forbidden to happen, either, or is it? So, what is your point since today 07H10?

    > it’s obvious based on orientation postulate, right?

    Wrong. But first things first…

  86. Of course it isn’t forbidden to happen, with proper angles that can happen. My point is that when one of the two angles gain the final value there won’t happen any more spinning vector orientation changes.

  87. > Of course it isn’t forbidden to happen

    Then it is wrong to state “Either \(\theta\) or \(\phi\) can get the value which
    stops the ‘time'”! Could you please take more care?

    > My point is that when one of the two angles gain the final
    > value there won’t happen any more spinning vector
    > orientation changes.

    For haven’s sake, do I have to repeat again that that was clear from the beginning? Has anyone said otherwise? Who? Where?

    My question remains: What has your “point” to do with my analysis? To what were you referring with “That’s not true.” at 08H29? Care to answer that?

  88. It isn’t XOR, it’s just OR which allows both conditions to be true.

    Aa… your analysis, it hold initial errors so I thought that it’s obsolete. I’ll try to look at it today.

    Update: It doesn’t make sense anymore. Electron won’t change its spinning vector orientation if it’s already perpendicular towards the dust particle.

  89. > It isn’t XOR, it’s just OR which allows both conditions to
    > be true.

    That’s what I assumed from the beginning, as can be read above. But then you said “That’s not true.” (without explaining what was not true) and you stated “Either \(\theta\) or \(\phi\)”. Either – or, that is XOR.

    > your analysis, it hold initial errors

    What are you talking about? I haven’t changed the analysis, what are these alleged “initial errors”? Care to explain that?

    > Update: …

    I come to that later.

  90. Good example how difficult communication can be.

    By initial error I mean that if \(\vec f\) is initially perpendicular towards the densest FTE then there won’t be anything to analyse, it stays the same when we operate in \(x\) axis.

  91. > Good example how difficult communication can be.

    You think that justifies calling my result “garbage”?

    > By initial error I mean that if \(\vec f\) is initially
    > perpendicular towards the densest FTE

    But that’s not what your “book” is saying. There, the crucial ingredient is the electron’s velocity.

  92. > For cry out loud! 🙂

    Is that your new niveau of discourse?

    I summarize:

    * You describe your \(\vec v\)-based rules for \(\vec f(t)\) in your “book”, page 14.

    * I raise the objection that they are observer-dependent.

    * You assign a special observer-role to the “gravitational environment which nails down the ‘coordinates'”.

    * I raise the objection that the tiniest velocity difference of the tiniest gravity source decides which of two diametrical final orientations is taken on by \(\vec f\).

    * You reject my analysis with “What a heck is this garbage?”. Later you elaborate the rejection because “there won’t be any \(\vec f\) orientation changes after the electron has gained its final (movement induced) orientation during the first movement.”

    * Since I’ve never spoken of any first or second movement or of changes after the final orientation, I can only conclude that you didn’t understand my objection and I lay out the analysis in even more detail.

    * You raise the issue of A AND B not being required; totally irrelevant because nobody claimed that to be required.

    * You claim “That’s not true.” without ever explaining what’s not true.

    * You claim that my analysis “hold initial errors” without explaining what these errors are.

    * You declare the analysis as obsolete, because meanwhile you’ve invented a new rule regarding \(\vec f\) which involves “perpendicularity towards the densest FTE”.

    * I complain that no such thing was mentioned in your “book” section about “Spinning Vector Behaviour” on page 14.

    * You conclude with an asinine “For cry [sic] out loud! :)”

    Is this a foretaste of your idea of a collaboration?

    I try it once more: Can you understand that, based on the \(\vec f(t)\)-rules described in your book on page 14, the tiniest velocity difference of the tiniest gravity source can decide which of two diametrical final orientations is taken on by \(\vec f\)? Can you, yes or no?

  93. Nice summary!

    Is this a foretaste of your idea of a collaboration?

    Of course not. If you asked about me from people I collaborate with (for example at work) you would realize that I’m very likeable, friendly and prefered co-worker. So, no worries, we would do just great 😉

    I’ll get back to your latter question, well… later.

  94. > Nice summary!

    Is it accurate or not?

    Meanwhile, I’ve understood the origin of the misunderstanding of the “first and second movement”. I admit that “Now, we reverse the velocity of the dust particle” (January 14, 2015 at 09:05) was really quite misleading. It should have read: “Now we repeat the procedure with the velocity of the dust particle reversed”. The same applies to “has completely flipped the final \(\vec f\)” which should better have read “has yielded a final \(\vec f\) being flipped with respect to the first case”.

    But my second description (January 15, 2015 at 18:49) should have clarified that.

  95. Can you understand that, based on the \(\vec f(t)\)-rules described in your book on page 14, the tiniest velocity difference of the tiniest gravity source can decide which of two diametrical final orientations is taken on by \(\vec f\)? Can you, yes or no?

    Actually, I can’t. I mean, the velocity difference (towards or away from the electron) of the dust particle doesn’t affect the electron’s spinning vector orientation in any way. The dust particle just provides a denser local FTE for the electron, right? According the book, electron interacts with gravitating object by changing its spinning vector perpendicular to the direction of the densest FTE, the velocity of the densest FTE doesn’t matter, especially in the case where the dust particle moves only towards or away from the electron.

    Can you understand that?

  96. > Can you understand that?

    No, and I already explained why: In your “book”, the \(\vec f(t)\)-rules on page 14 (left column) about which I’m speaking don’t refer anywhere to the direction of the densest FTE. They only use the electron’s velocity \(\vec v\) and the stopping angles for the final orientation.

    Could you please explain the discrepancy between this part of your book (page 14, left column) and your last comment? Maybe with more substance than “For cry [sic] out loud! :)”? Are those rules maybe obsolete?

  97. If you read from page 13 (right column) there is mentioned how gravitating object \(O\) (in our case dust particle) affects the spinning vector of the moving particle.

  98. There is this statement: “At the same time, the spinning vector is aligned according to FTE generated by object \(O\), but let’s ignore the fact for a moment.” And then you proceed to introduce the flipping time \(t_f\), the (funny) evolution of the angles \(\theta\) and \(\phi\), their stopping criterion and the direction convention \(\vec e_x\parallel\vec v\), i.e. precisely the things I have used for my analysis.

    And then, when is the moment of ignoring \(O\) over? When is the purely prosaic \(\vec f\)-rule from page 13 reconciled with the rules from page 14? Nowhere. Hence my question again: How are these two related? Do you claim that they are equivalent? Or that both have somehow (how?) to be applied simultaneously without ever having to worry about a conflict? Or must either the one or the other be applied, depending on… yes, depending on what? Depending on which argument against TOEBI is brought forward?

    Kimmo, what is actually the law for \(\vec f(t)\)?

  99. In real life situation we won’t ignore the effect from gravitating object (O) of course.

    Rule from gravitating object and particle velocity are easily combined because we can apply those at the same time. Gravitating object(s) (or to be exact, their FTE densities) defines the plane where particle spinning vector can change its orientation according to its velocity based rules.

    What kind of conflict you had in mind? BTW, we are approaching the function, let’s enjoy the journey.

  100. > In real life situation we won’t ignore the effect from
    > gravitating object \(O\) of course.

    Then, what are the non real life situations, where I can safely ignore the effect?

    > Rule from gravitating object and particle velocity are
    > easily combined because we can apply those at the same
    > time.

    That’s just plain wrong.

    > Gravitating object(s) (or to be exact, their FTE
    > densities) defines the plane where particle spinning
    > vector can change its orientation according to its
    > velocity based rules.

    Wrong, because the \(\theta/\phi/\vec v\)-rules easily yield \(\vec f\parallel\vec v\) or \(\vec f\parallel-\vec v\) as final orientation. But \(\vec v\) doesn’t need to lie within that plane. Your “book” reveals that you think otherwise: “as its velocity vector (which is perpendicular to the direction of object O’s center of mass)” But that’s just nonsense.

    > What kind of conflict you had in mind?

    The one that jumps into the face of every person who is not unilluminated in basic kinematics. And it’s so obvious that you didn’t give the combination of the two rules a second thought before: Why would I need two angles when the \(\vec v\)-driven alignment only takes place in a plane anyway?

    > BTW, we are approaching the function, let’s enjoy the journey.

    You have no idea. Less than three weeks ago you uttered “How blind I have been…!” Why do you think that this would have changed?

  101. Less than three weeks ago you uttered “How blind I have been…!”

    That still holds, I just haven’t got the opportunity to finish off my writing.

    It might be better that I write a bit further the book and explain how gravitating objects (like Earth, rock, dust particle, particle) and particle velocity affect spinning vector orientation simultaneously.

    Then, what are the non real life situations, where I can safely ignore the effect?

    Actually there isn’t one.

  102. >> Less than three weeks ago you uttered “How blind I have
    >> been…!”

    > That still holds,

    That’s very, very true. So, why do you keep on assuming that everything you deem a solution actually is a solution (considering the proof as an unnecessary, burdening formality)? Why do you keep on claiming hat this and that is “easily” done in TOEBI when it’s glaringly obvious that you didn’t even bother to check it?

    > I just haven’t got the opportunity to finish off my
    > writing.

    You seem to imply that your writing of updates and new blog posts would solve anything. That hasn’t been the case in the last months. The craziest example is the “Three free electrons” post. At its beginning its aim was to show how TOEBI could emulate Coulombian three electron repulsion (something you had never considered before) by some magical, quick \(\vec f\)-choreography. Unable to pull that off, you chose to revert to First Law of Kimmo.

    > It might be better that I write a bit further the book and
    > explain how gravitating objects … and particle velocity
    > affect spinning vector orientation simultaneously.

    That seems to imply that

    1) actually “rule from gravitating object and particle velocity are not easily combined” but

    2) you already have the solution and you just need to write down the explanation.

    Since 2) is certainly false, I can’t understand why you think that “further writing the book” was a good idea. We all can predict the outcome: four parts of hand waving, one part of TOEBI praising and one part of tangible but inconsistent content

    Usually a scientific discussion is used to grill the last part beforehand, but you prefer to repeat a different pattern over and over again: Claiming that now you’ve really found the definite, bulletproof solution (the mere existence of which proves once more the magnificence of TOEBI) and uttering fantastic follow ups, then preseveringly trying to weasel out of the flaws pointed out by someone from your readership, and then: Oh, well, then you just need to add/modify/postulate this and that… and the circle closes.

    Ad 1): Have you meanwhile understood that according to the \(\theta/\phi/\vec v\)-rules, the tiniest velocity difference of the tiniest gravity source can decide which of two diametrical final orientations is taken on by \(\vec f\)?

    >> Then, what are the non real life situations, where I can
    >> safely ignore the effect?

    > Actually there isn’t one.

    Then, what’s the purpose of the section in your book encompassed by “let’s ignore the fact for a moment”?

  103. Ad 1): Have you meanwhile understood that according to the \(\theta/\phi/\vec v\)-rules, the tiniest velocity difference of the tiniest gravity source can decide which of two diametrical final orientations is taken on by \(\vec f\)?

    Sure.

    Then, what’s the purpose of the section in your book encompassed by “let’s ignore the fact for a moment”?

    To show the pure velocity factor.

  104. >> Have you meanwhile understood that according to the
    >> \(\theta/\phi/\vec v\)-rules, the tiniest velocity
    >> difference of the tiniest gravity source can decide which
    >> of two diametrical final orientations is taken on by
    >> \(\vec f\)?

    > Sure.

    Berry on Jan 14: first formulation of this objection

    Kimmo on Jan 14: “Bad day? What a heck is this garbage?”

    Kimmo on Jan 15: “You haven’t either read properly or understood what I have written.”

    Berry on Jan 15: second, more detailed formulation of the objection

    Kimmo on Jan 17: “your analysis, it hold initial errors”

    Kimmo on Jan 21: “Actually, I can’t.” [understand that]

    Kimmo on Jan 23: “Sure.”

    So, where was my analysis garbage? The influence of the tiniest dust particle is not minuscule, it can determine the remote electron’s \(\vec f\) to a totally different outcome by just having a vanishingly different velocity! Do you find that plausible?

    But also the perpendicularity rule has such ridiculous properties: Let’s have an electron at the origin, then one dust particle with a tiny mass \(m\) at \((x,y,z)=(1\mathrm{cm},0,0)\) and a second dust particle with a mass \(3m/4\) at \(0,1\mathrm{cm},0)\). The first particle is the gravity-boss, hence electron’s \(\vec f\) is forced into the y/z-plane. Then, we move a third dust particle with mass \(m/2\), coming from \((0,1\mathrm{km},0)\) towards the second dust particle and unite the two. Now, they’re the boss and electron’s \(\vec f\) is forced into the x/z-plane. Do you find that plausible?

    And now your goal is to combine these two absurd \(\vec f(t)\)-laws into one mega absurd one?

    Kimmo, you don’t have a working \(\vec f(t)\)-law!

  105. So, where was my analysis garbage?

    It wasn’t, my bad!

    The influence of the tiniest dust particle is not minuscule, it can determine the remote electron’s \(\vec f\) to a totally different outcome by just having a vanishingly different velocity! Do you find that plausible?

    That’s not plausible and that’s not happening either. Dust particle generates local FTE conditions where the electron moves, so far so good. Electron changes its spinning vector orientation perpendicular to the direction of this gravitating dust particle. On the other hand, electron’s movement in generated FTE conditions has its consequences on electron spinning vector orientation.

    Those two can be combined. Dust particle – electron gravitational interaction defines the plane (if dust particle moves then the plane changes) where electron’s movement induced spinning vector orientation changes happen. Every potential direction for electron movement changes electron’s spinning vector orientation on the plane, just like particles behave in normal conditions here on Earth.

    Is there problems with the above description?

  106. Hey, new style, I like it!

    >> The influence of the tiniest dust particle is
    >> not minuscule, it can determine the
    >> remote electron’s \(\vec f\) to a totally different
    >> outcome by just having a vanishingly different velocity!
    >> Do you find that plausible?

    > That’s not plausible and that’s not happening either.

    It is what is happening according to your \(\theta/\phi/\vec v\)-rules, face it. If it’s not happening, then your \(\theta/\phi/\vec v\)-rules do not apply.

    > Dust particle generates local FTE conditions where the
    > electron moves, so far so good.

    Not so good, actually. Arbitrarily light dust particles cause conditions over arbitrarily large distances to significantly influence electron’s \(\vec f\). It needs a lot of … fantasy to swallow that. And of course it contradicts your statement from ten days ago: “Naturally the effect from those [gravity] sources is minuscule.” It’s obviously not minuscule.

    > Electron changes its spinning vector orientation
    > perpendicular to the direction of this gravitating dust
    > particle. On the other hand, electron’s movement in
    > generated FTE conditions has its consequences on electron
    > spinning vector orientation.

    But the latter not according to your own \(\theta/\phi/\vec v\)-rules! And for the former you don’t even have an equation.

    > Those two can be combined.

    Not without modifying at least one of them. And if you’re just going to restrict the \(\vec v\)-rule to the “gravity plane”, this won’t remedy the problem which took you ten days to admit.

    > Dust particle – electron gravitational interaction defines
    > the plane (if dust particle moves then the plane changes)
    > where electron’s movement induced spinning vector
    > orientation changes happen.

    Laws which fulfill these conditions could be written down as a formula, sure. But you haven’t done that.

    > Every potential direction for electron movement changes
    > electron’s spinning vector orientation on the plane, just
    > like particles behave in normal conditions here on Earth.

    What constitutes those “normal conditions”?

    > Is there problems with the above description?

    Only three of them: The two I’ve already pointed out (and I’m not surprised that you didn’t address my example involving the three dust particles), which don’t go away by combining the two laws, and the fact that the combined law exists only in handwaving form, not as a formula.

    But maybe that’s all irrelevant now. The original motivation for having a definite \(\vec f(t)\) was the possibility to calculate actual trajectories via TL2. But since TL2 is overruled at your whim by unspecified Fairy Tale Extensions, actual trajectories are impossible anyway. Once again, the amount of TOEBI’s quantitative predictions has dropped to zero.

  107. But the latter not according to your own \(\theta/\phi/\vec v\)-rules! And for the former you don’t even have an equation.

    I should most definitely write a new blog post about this darn dust particle case. At least it sums up neatly the discussion so far and hopefully helps me to explain what I’m picturing in my mind. It will help me also with the development of the equation.

  108. As I’ve already said: Why do you still think that “writing a new blog post” would solve anything? Look at Muon, Muon – Take Two, Three Free Electrons and Electron in Magnetic Field: None of them solved the problem indicated in their title. And the solution in Mercury was just to scrap TL2 for gravitation altogether.

    And, because you ignored it: What are those “normal conditions here on Earth” which make “electron movement change electron’s spinning vector orientation on the plane”? To which experiments are you referring?

  109. New blog post with improved theoretical background makes always sense. So you have to wait couple of days for it.

    What are those “normal conditions here on Earth” which make “electron movement change electron’s spinning vector orientation on the plane”? To which experiments are you referring?

    Free electron under influence of Earth’s gravitational field.

  110. > New blog post with improved theoretical background makes always sense.

    I haven’t seen any improved theoretical background in your previous new blog posts. You used to announce them with high hopes, but they all failed.

    >> What are those “normal conditions here on Earth” which
    >> make “electron movement change electron’s spinning vector
    >> orientation on the plane”? To which experiments are you
    >> referring?

    > Free electron under influence of Earth’s gravitational
    > field.

    Yes? Which experiments report on \(\vec v\)-induced spin alignment, horizontal and/or along \(\vec v\)? I don’t know any.

  111. I haven’t seen any improved theoretical background in your previous new blog posts.

    Good one! Well, I have few surprises coming.

    Yes? Which experiments report on \(\vec v\)-induced spin alignment, horizontal and/or along \(\vec v\)?

    I thought that’s common knowledge in particle physics…

  112. > Good one! Well, I have few surprises coming.

    You didn’t skimp on such bragging announcements during the last (almost) three months, and nothing came ever out of them. You didn’t solve a single one of TOEBI’s problems (except scrapping glaringly wrong appendices of TL2), and the only equation you ever provided at all (the \(\theta/\phi/\vec v\)-rules) turned out to be useless. But if your credo is “talk big or go home”, you cannot do differently, I see.

    > I thought that’s common knowledge in particle physics…

    I’m no particle physicist. Please enlighten me. If it was true, Stern-Gerlach wouldn’t work.

  113. Two consecutive SG measurements reveal the wonders of quantum mechanics. One of the non-wonders is that if the first SG device measured “spin up”, the second one measures “spin up” with 100% probability. If the spin would get aligned according to TOEBI (disregarding once more that electron spin and TOEBI-\(\vec f\) are actually different entities altogether) in between, that result wouldn’t be possible. And please spare me with further Fairy Tale Extensions cobbled together in ten minutes and allegedly proving “Now that you mention it, that’s exactly what happens according to TOEBI!”.

    Rather you should name actual experiments which provide evidence for velocity induced spin alignment. I’m waiting …

  114. If the spin would get aligned according to TOEBI (disregarding once more that electron spin and TOEBI-\(\vec f\) are actually different entities altogether) in between, that result wouldn’t be possible.

    Nonsense. I’ll demonstrate how it works according to TOEBI after I have updated this post.

  115. > Nonsense. I’ll demonstrate how it works

    Yeah, sure. That’s what we’ve learned during the last three months: It’s always Kimmo who knows best and who makes things come out right.

    And you still didn’t name any experiments which provide evidence for velocity induced spin alignment.

  116. I took this from http://www.toebi.com/blog/apocalypse/watch_out_curve/#comment-2000 in the irrelevant Curve post to here and beg you to follow up.

    > You surely can calculate the force between two magnetic poles with
    > TL2.

    Wrong! One (not you) surely can calulate the force between two plates “made out of” fixed TOEBI-electrons (how that fixing is supposed to work in TOEBI is yet another question). But the result will fail to qualify as magnetic.

  117. > I dropped also velocity induced spinning vector orientation
    > changing, it’s not needed.

    Ok, but that doesn’t cure magnetism in TOEBI at all. You still haven’t got a solution for my “challenge”, and the TL2-driven attraction of two TOEBI-magnets still contradicts experimental facts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *