Muon - Take Two

Update: Second law of TOEBI is updated.

Based on the feedback from Berry and Yop I updated TOEBI to accommodate made observations. But before entering made changes I want to thank both Berry and Yop, Thank You! At the same time I have to apologize for barking current physicists for wrong reasons, namely for my own mistakes.

So what has changed? Here we go... new Second law of TOEBI

\[\vec F_{1\leftarrow 2}=G_{electron} \frac{M_{electron}^2}{r^2_{12}}\vec{e_{12}}\cos\alpha\tag{1}\]


where \(M\) is electron mass, \(\alpha \) is angle between spinning vectors,
\(r\) is distance between electrons (center to center), \(\vec e_{12}=\frac{\vec r_{12}}{r_{12}}\) is unit vector pointing from electron 1 to electron 2 and

\[G_{electron}=f_{electron}^2 \ \mathrm{\frac{m^3}{kg}}\tag{2}\]


where \(f_{electron}\) is the spinning frequency of electron.

At first look, it might seem that I have narrowed down my second law even further, but that's not the case. Protons are constructed of three electrons, also muons are electrons with the bigger mass. Ok, how muons have gained the bigger mass? That's the topic of a future blog post.

Now we can say that TOEBI agrees with

\[F_{e-e}=F_{\mu-e}=F_{\mu-\mu}\tag{3}\]

Finally, if I may say so.

I might continue this post later...

151 thoughts on “Muon - Take Two

  1. So now, attraction between two elementary particles is alway the same… You really think that it will do the trick? Pffff… Ok, two very simple questions:

    1 - Now, let's have a look at your "massy" photons. What should happen to them in an magnetic field? Heavy muons bent less than electrons. Light photons (I'm even ashamed to write such BS, but I'm vicious anyway) should bend faster, shouldn't they?

    2 - Protons are made of 3 electrons. Yeah, I see, for some strange reason, you want to believe in quarks (good), while you actually even questioned measures made on muons (incoherent). Maybe you should also tell us how those electrons gain mass. A proton is far from being 3 times heavier than electrons.

  2. 1. Photons are not "electron based", so equation (1) can't be applied with photons.

    2. Proton mass, of course, is generated by those three spinning electrons (no other possibility in TOEBI). Denser local FTE around proton defines its mass.

  3. 1. I fail to see which law of TOEBI governs photon. May you help me?

    2. Denser local FTE. Or little snorltings dancing around it. Exactly the same explanation, unless you actually describe precisely how much denser and why in physical terms.

    I'll give you a hand here. You're trying to define TOEBI's fundamental laws for it to look as standard model fundamental laws. But in standard model, those laws define interaction between the elementary particles of the standard model. That's why they're so efficient and valid from microscopic to macroscopic level.

    So what you have to do, and have been surprisingly reluctant to, is to define the interaction between YOUR elementary particles, namely FTEP. Are their collision elastic? Inelastic? Are they deformable? Is there only friction when they interact? And then you will be able to define the properties of your ether, its density, viscosity, etc.

    THEN ONLY, you may be able to start determining what happens when you constitute larger particles such as your electrons or protons (sic.). I'm not saying you will make any breakthrough or what, but at least will your theory be funny to read and interesting despite being erroneous.

    Honestly, I'm becoming increasingly dubious about your skills as a math major. You make really major mistakes in calculating in your head even elementary implication of your TL2 (going from it to first principle of dynamics). You seem to have difficulties integrating your interaction on the long range. And you're totally reluctant at working on FTEPs at a basic level. Afraid of integrals?

  4. 1. Only First law is applicable for photons (at the moment).

    2. Good points! I'll do something about them. I'm not afraid of integrals but for some reason I haven't considered FTEPs that interesting, even though they are.

  5. I'm not inclined to interfere with your dialogue on these persistent problems of TOEBI. So I'll address something else:

    As you have written down TL2 in (1), it looks pretty much like Coulomb's law, you just need to fudge your \(f_e\) in order to yield the equality \(G_e M_e^2=e^2\) where \(e\) is the elementary charge. So your \(f_e\) seems to be nothing else than a disguised charge/mass, i.e. it almost doesn't bring in anything new.

    "Almost", because it's a vector and up to now we only considered the cases \(\alpha=0\) and \(\alpha=\pi\). Well, we had not much choice, because TOEBI doesn't provide any law for the temporal evolution of a spinning vector \(\vec f\), one of its many issues of incompleteness.

    Do we have to be interested in other values of \(\alpha\)? Actually yes, because for \(\alpha\not\in\{0,\pi\}\) TL2 no longer is a central force. That's bad, because a non-central elementary force has never ever been found experimentally. It would violate the conservation of angular momentum, one of the most powerful and best established cousins of the conservation of energy.

    What to do? Invoke First Law of Kimmo? Or announce a new blog post on that issue? Would that help?

  6. Sorry, I had intended not to join that thread, but you made me to.

    You deemed your FTEPs "not interesting"?!? WTF?

    Whether you find dem interesting or not, they're essential for TOEBI. Firstly due to the latter's "construction", and secondly because you invoke them everytime you cannot explain something with TL2 (which is pretty much all the time).

    Finding the central and essential ingredient of your very own theory "not interesting" displays once more your utterly deformed idea of what science is all about.

  7. Regarding that Coulomb's law, what other possibilities there could be? Similarity is quite expected. But as you said, TL2 does give something on top of Coulomb's law, that vector property. I wouldn't be too worried about the fact that non-central elementary force hasn't been found experimentally. Based on TOEBI, one can design an experiment which finds one.

    Lack of temporal evolution is true, but I believe that after the proper inspection of FTE & FTEPs behaviour that issue is solved as a by-product.

  8. Luckily, I'm fast learner... But you guys should also look at the mirror every once in a while. What holds you from discovering the TOE? Maybe inadequate underlying theories? I mean, because you are so smart what other would prevent you from discovering the TOE? Don't take that too seriously though.

    My goal is to find the Goddamn TOE and I have a pretty decent idea for it. Of course, at current state TOEBI is nothing but a seed but with time and help from real physicists it might take over.

    Above doesn't mean that my antimatter idea isn't valid.

  9. > I wouldn't be too worried about the fact that
    > non-central elementary force hasn't been found
    > experimentally.

    I know you wouldn't, that's just First Law of Kimmo all over again: "If there is an experimental fact, irrefuted since over 300 years, contradicting TOEBI, then obviously experimentalist have been stupid for over 300 years."

    Somewhere you said you wouldn't have a problem if TOEBI should be proven wrong (which I don't believe you at all). But what would consitute a proof of its wrongness for you? To me it seems that could only be the creator of the universe appearing directly in front of you and declaring: "Kimmo, your theory is a load of horse pucky!"

    > Based on TOEBI, one can design an experiment which
    > finds one.

    "Based on TOEBI", yeah, but that is less than 1% "well tought out, tested and ready". So that's quite an unusable premise.

    > Lack of temporal evolution is true, but I believe
    > that after the proper inspection of FTE & FTEPs
    > behaviour that issue is solved as a by-product.

    Sure, you're a strong believer in your very own theory. You must be, obviously, in order to continue with it. But there is a reason why you couldn't convince anyone else but you.

  10. > Luckily, I'm fast learner...

    No, sorry, you're not. If you were, you would have gathered sufficient skills in basic physics during all the time you already spent working on TOEBI.

    You don't know me or the amount of time I have spent on TOEBI, so adjust your comments accordingly. I'm referring at also that Dunning-Kruger effect comment.

    So watch out your language and stick with the theory (I deleted your comment).

  11. If somebody conducts the experiment with solid hydrogen and the outcome is negative then I'm done with TOEBI.

    One other thing. I believe that there is a fundamental mechanism which explains different interactions and they all emerge from the same basic principles and phenomena.

  12. > or the amount of time I have sent on TOEBI,

    You're talking about it since at least five years (but not much longer, I reckon).

    > other hobbies and interests.

    That's very good for you, fine. But it was meant to say that you don't have enough time to work on TOEBI (despite the sheer amount of text we find on this site), right? That's a pity, but it should make you even less confident in judging your own competence.

  13. > If somebody conducts the experiment
    > with solid hydrogen and the outcome is
    > negative then I'm done with TOEBI.

    Is the positive outcome rigorously derived from TOEBI's fundamental laws?

    But talking about experiments: Let's pretend I'm an experimentalist and I want to test TL2. How do I have to treat my elementary particles to give their \(\vec f\) a certain direction? How can I measure that direction at all?

    > One other thing. I believe that there is a fundamental
    > mechanism which explains different interactions and
    > they all emerge from the same basic principles and
    > phenomena.

    Of course, yes, and you're surely not alone with that. But this believe has no consequences for the validity of any theory which promises to obey it. Believe alone doesn't count in science, only in religion.

  14. > So watch out your language

    Where was my language inappropriate? Or are you rather referring to the content?

    > (I deleted your comment).

    You delete my doubts casted on your skills in physics? I could elaborate on the reasons, but probably you won't like to hear that, either.

  15. Let's stick with the theory. I have spent 2.5 years with it, every now and then.

    But it was meant to say that you don't have enough time to work on TOEBI (despite the sheer amount of text we find on this site), right? That's a pity, but it should make you even less confident in judging your own competence.

    That's right.

  16. Or are you rather referring to the content?

    > (I deleted your comment).

    You delete my doubts casted on your skills in physics? I could elaborate on the reasons, but probably you won't like to hear that, either.

    Yes, the content. I'm more interest on the properties of the theory than valuation of myself.

  17. I must say that I'm very disappointed by your behavior. After asking us to look ourselves in the mirror, while none of us claimed to be looking for the TOE, it's strange to complain that we went too far beyond discussing your actual theory, and I find it disappointing to view comments disappear.

    If you're not ready for 2 commenters on the internet to question your knowledge or your skills when you actually make a lot of basic mistakes when doing physics, you might not be ready to get in the actual scientific world. Especially when wanting to promote a new TOE, a much stronger force of character is required.

    You won't admit that your math have repeatedly proven wrong, and that your knowledge of particles physics is really low ? Muon was discovered in the 30's, hey, nothing new here. It's that part of my post which got me deleted?

  18. I'm not interested in comments about my skills, also I don't have any problems admitting when I'm wrong.

    I would like to stick with the theory and its properties in these conversations.

  19. Problem is, each time we discuss about you theory, the only outcome is either:

    1- I don't understand why I am wrong. You must be.
    2- Ok, after those ten times explaining me basic physics, I admit being wrong
    3- This, despite my claims, isn't yet implemented in TOEBI, so I'll talk about it in another post.

    '3' is really the main problem. I don't want to be monomaniac, but that's the typical answer I got when talking about photons. Photons have mass, photons interact with each other on their own, TOEBI explains double slit experiment. The 2 first ones don't have even the slightest explanation, calculation, or experiment to defend them. The last one is an outright lie: TOEBI doesn't explain double-slit experiment, and we're not even talking about quantum erasers.

    What would be nice, if you really want to discuss your theory, is a post giving us TOEBI's achievement so far. That's to say, what physical phenomenons can TOEBI predict. And nothing like "FTEP wriggle here, there, and throughout and BAM". No, something like "I drop the ball 1 m high, and in 0.45 s it's on the ground".

  20. Sorry, Kimmo, but even if you're in a huff because we raised the issue of That-What-Must-Not-Be-Named, you should at least mark the sections in our comments where you have applied censorship.

  21. > Let's stick with the theory. I have spent
    > 2.5 years with it, every now and then.

    Oh, yes, my mistake (I didn't verify a Google hit, which attributed viXra-activity of yours to 10/25/2009).

    > I'm more interest on the properties of the
    > theory than valuation of myself.

    But That-What-Must-Not-Be-Named strongly affects the properties of your theory, the final one being the property that it is ignored.

  22. But That-What-Must-Not-Be-Named strongly affects the properties of your theory, the final one being the property that it is ignored.

    But I keep on working on it, nowadays considerably more than previously.

  23. In a strict sense, no. That would need the mathematics covering both FTEPs and FTE. But in conceptual level I think it's doable.

    For spinning vector manipulation and measurements (in some extent) ordinary quantum mechanical procedures do fine.

    Based on my believe I'll keep on developing the theory which is based on the idea that there is a mechanism which does the trick. I just hope that real physicists realize the potential in my ideas and start to study the theory thoroughly and develop it further with me. In some sense, you and Yop have already done that... which I'm very thankful of.

    You are real physicists so I need to convince you more before I dare to ask you for a collaboration with me. But if I'm right, there will be a totally new world ahead of us.

  24. Hopefully it will show.

    Ok, with that I let the matter rest (unless you praise yourself again for being a quick learner, that is).

  25. > In a strict sense, no.

    Then a failure of the hydrogen experiment wouldn't invalidate TOEBI (but, to avaid misunderstandings and hasty statements to the press, other things already do).

    > That would need the mathematics covering both FTEPs and FTE.

    Which you must provide. Until then, FTE* are just friendly sprites which come to rescue your theory by sheer magic whenever someone points out yet another problem in it.

    > But in conceptual level I think it's doable.

    Just thinking (i.e. believing) something isn't enough in a physical theory. You must prove it. Hint: Listening to counter-arguments can help to avoid spending too much energy on trying to prove the unprovable.

    > For spinning vector manipulation and measurements (in some
    > extent) ordinary quantum mechanical procedures do fine.

    You're claiming that \(\vec f\) and QM spin are essentially the same?

    > Based on my believe I'll keep on developing the theory which is
    > based on the idea that there is a mechanism which does the trick.

    But the core stays just the idea, a belief and is not a theory, yet. TOEBI almost doesn't predict anything (rigorously, provably, quantitatively, not just on some vague "conceptual level" but rather scienctifically, you know?), and the few things it actually does predict, are all wrong (unless they are the very relations you use to calibrate spinning frequencies, but even that is not a warranty). And this state of affairs doesn't the affect the core idea, the belief at all (almost like Yop and me had merely found some typos in TOEBI).

    > I just hope that real physicists realize the potential in my ideas

    I've already told you what real physicist will realize in your theory. You deleted my comment.

  26. Rats, there should have been a closing "/strong" behind "prove". Any progress on a preview function?

  27. Any progress on a preview function?

    I checked out couple plugins for preview functionality earlier, but those didn't work with the latest WordPress version. I'll check again if there's any updates.

  28. > In a strict sense, no.

    Then a failure of the hydrogen experiment wouldn't invalidate TOEBI.

    In a strict sense, no. However, I would take possible negative result as the invalidation of TOEBI.

    > That would need the mathematics covering both FTEPs and FTE.

    Which you must provide. Until then, FTE* are just friendly sprites which come to rescue your theory by sheer magic whenever someone points out yet another problem in it.

    This is crystal clear for now, thank you guys.

    Hint: Listening to counter-arguments can help to avoid spending too much energy on trying to prove the unprovable.

    Unprovable... we'll see about that one.

    > For spinning vector manipulation and measurements (in some
    > extent) ordinary quantum mechanical procedures do fine.

    You're claiming that \(\vec{f}\) and QM spin are essentially the same?

    No, they are not. QM electron spin emerges from TOEBI spinning vector in case we measure or manipulate electron spin. For example, spinning vector gets aligned (due to interaction with other electrons) in magnetic field.

    And this state of affairs doesn't the affect the core idea, the belief at all (almost like Yop and me had merely found some typos in TOEBI).

    You are wrong, I listen you guys very carefully, at least currently.

  29. > Unprovable... we'll see about that one.

    That's what also the circle-squarers say.

    > QM electron spin emerges from TOEBI spinning
    > vector in case we measure or manipulate
    > electron spin.

    So, the two behave at least in the same way in experiments?

    > For example, spinning vector gets aligned
    > (due to interaction with other electrons)

    In TOEBI, the spin of a single electron does not get aligned in a magnetic field?

    > in magnetic field.

    How do you know that? You admitted that the temporal evolution of \(\vec f\) is still missing in TOEBI. Hence, what is the basis for this claim?

    But let's pretend I'm buying it: Two electrons in proximity, being subjected to the same homogeneous magnetic field get their spin aligned in the same direction then, right?

  30. > QM electron spin emerges from TOEBI spinning
    > vector in case we measure or manipulate
    > electron spin.

    So, the two behave at least in the same way in experiments?

    Yes (as far as I know).

    > For example, spinning vector gets aligned
    > (due to interaction with other electrons)

    In TOEBI, the spin of a single electron does not get aligned in a magnetic field?

    Yes it does, at least if it's free electron. I meant the electrons in magnets by that interaction with other electrons.

    > in magnetic field.

    How do you know that? You admitted that the temporal evolution of \(\vec{f}\) is still missing in TOEBI. Hence, what is the basis for this claim?

    Based on TL2. Force would be greatest when spinning vector is aligned.

    But let's pretend I'm buying it: Two electrons in proximity, being subjected to the same homogeneous magnetic field get their spin aligned in the same direction then, right?

    In proximity... kind of vague term. The outcome of their spins would depend on the initial orientation of their spinning vectors, like in Stern–Gerlach experiment.

  31. >>> QM electron spin emerges from TOEBI spinning
    >>> vector in case we measure or manipulate
    >>> electron spin.

    >> So, the two behave at least in the same way
    >> in experiments?

    > Yes (as far as I know).

    How can you possibly know? For that you need to calculate the behaviour of a TOEBI-electron in a TOEBI-magnetic-field. And for the latter you have no equation at all. So what is the basis (in a strict sense) for this "Yes"?

    > In TOEBI, the spin of a single electron does not
    > get aligned in a magnetic field?

    > Yes it does, at least if it's free electron.

    Even though you cannot calculate this alignment process from anything in TOEBI. But ok, I keep it in mind.

    > I meant the electrons in magnets by that
    > interaction with other electrons.

    Is the source of the magnetic field relevant for the alignment process?

    >>> in magnetic field.

    >> How do you know that? You admitted that
    >> the temporal evolution of " />0<d The outcome of their spins would depend
    > on the initial orientation of their spinning vectors,
    What? So now, the spinning vectors of two electrons would no longer going to be aligned in a magnetic field. Now it works only with a single electron?
    > like in Stern?Gerlach experiment.
    That's not at all the point in the Stern?Gerlach experiment.
    Click to Edit>>> QM electron spin emerges from TOEBI spinning
    >>> vector in case we measure or manipulate
    >>> electron spin.

    >> So, the two behave at least in the same way
    >> in experiments?

    > Yes (as far as I know).

    How can you possibly know? For that you need to calculate the behaviour of a TOEBI-electron in a TOEBI-magnetic-field. And for the latter you have no equation at all. So what is the basis (in a strict sense) for this "Yes"?

    > In TOEBI, the spin of a single electron does not
    >get aligned in a magnetic field?

    > Yes it does, at least if it's free electron.

    Even though you cannot calculate this alignment process from anything in TOEBI. But ok, I keep it in mind.

    > I meant the electrons in magnets by that
    > interaction with other electrons.

    Is the source of the magnetic field relevant for the alignment process?

    >>> in magnetic field.

    >> How do you know that? You admitted that
    >> the temporal evolution of \vec f> in TOEBI. Hence, what is the basis for this claim?

    > Based on TL2. Force would be greatest when
    > spinning vector is aligned.

    1) What has the force between two particles, which changes their relative position, to do with the change of the direction of their spinning vectors " /> is still missing
    >> in TOEBI. Hence, what is the basis for this claim?

    > Based on TL2. Force would be greatest when
    > spinning vector is aligned.

    1) What has the force between two particles, which changes their relative position, to do with the change of the direction of their spinning vectors \vec f_i<img src='http://www.toebi.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/latex/cache/tex_6767f8d9e27830b020ef590c4de43d46.gif&#039; style='vertical-align: middle; border: none; padding-bottom:2px;' class='tex' alt="? You cannot know because you have no law for the alignment process in TOEBI.

    2) Why is there a second particle at all? We were talking about one particle in a magnetic field. For the latter you have no law at hand, anyway. It seem's, you're again trying to sell us the presence of another particle as a magnetic field. Have you forgotten your statement "I might have had some wrong ideas about electric fields and magnetic fields, shame on me. Second law works exactly right with electric fields." or do you just think we're easily fooled?

    3) Your statement is flatright false, anyway. The force according to TL2 has the same magnitude for " />? You cannot know because you have no law for the alignment process in TOEBI.

    2) Why is there a second particle at all? We were talking about one particle in a magnetic field. For the latter you have no law at hand, anyway. It seem's, you're again trying to sell us the presence of another particle as a magnetic field. Have you forgotten your statement "I might have had some wrong ideas about electric fields and magnetic fields, shame on me. Second law works exactly right with electric fields." or do you just think we're easily fooled?

    3) Your statement is flatright false, anyway. The force according to TL2 has the same magnitude for \alpha\in\{0,\pi/2,\pi\}> But let's pretend I'm buying it: Two electrons
    >> in proximity, being subjected to the same
    >> homogeneous magnetic field get their spin
    >> aligned in the same direction then, right?

    > In proximity... kind of vague term.

    Choose any distance " />. Hence, you cannot infer anything about the alignment process from that, not even the triggering.

    Can you imagine the difficulty I have not to raise That-What-Must-Not-Named again when getting such a patently nonsensical answer?

    >> But let's pretend I'm buying it: Two electrons
    >> in proximity, being subjected to the same
    >> homogeneous magnetic field get their spin
    >> aligned in the same direction then, right?

    > In proximity... kind of vague term.

    Choose any distance 0<d The outcome of their spins would depend
    > on the initial orientation of their spinning vectors,

    What? So now, the spinning vectors of two electrons would no longer going to be aligned in a magnetic field. Now it works only with a single electron?

    > like in Stern–Gerlach experiment.

    That's not at all the point in the Stern–Gerlach experiment.

  32. > Yes (as far as I know).

    How can you possibly know? For that you need to calculate the behaviour of a TOEBI-electron in a TOEBI-magnetic-field. And for the latter you have no equation at all. So what is the basis (in a strict sense) for this "Yes"?

    I'll get back to this comment when I have more continuous time available.

  33. For that you need to calculate the behaviour of a TOEBI-electron in a TOEBI-magnetic-field. And for the latter you have no equation at all. So what is the basis (in a strict sense) for this "Yes"?

    Equation will be the sum of forces over all magnet electron - test particle pairs. You'll get the proof later.

    Is the source of the magnetic field relevant for the alignment process?

    No.

    1) What has the force between two particles, which changes their relative position, to do with the change of the direction of their spinning vectors \(\vec f_i\)? You cannot know because you have no law for the alignment process in TOEBI.

    2) Why is there a second particle at all? We were talking about one particle in a magnetic field. For the latter you have no law at hand, anyway. It seem's, you're again trying to sell us the presence of another particle as a magnetic field. Have you forgotten your statement "I might have had some wrong ideas about electric fields and magnetic fields, shame on me. Second law works exactly right with electric fields." or do you just think we're easily fooled?

    Those other electrons create the magnetic field, that's why I have been talking about them.

    3) Your statement is flatright false, anyway. The force according to TL2 has the same magnitude for \(\alpha\in\{0,\pi/2,\pi\}\)

    What do you mean by that?

    What? So now, the spinning vectors of two electrons would no longer going to be aligned in a magnetic field. Now it works only with a single electron?

    Of course two electrons will be aligned. How you got the idea that they won't be?

    > like in Stern–Gerlach experiment.

    That's not at all the point in the Stern–Gerlach experiment.

    Not the point, but it shows that TOEBI spinning vector will select either parallel or anti-parallel alignment with magnet electrons' spinning vectors. Parallel spinning vectors generate attractive force and anti-parallel pushing force.

  34. 3) Your statement is flatright false, anyway. The force according to TL2 has the same magnitude for α∈{0,π/2,π}
    What do you mean by that?

    Oh, For sciences's, the whole humanity pantheon's and love's sake (your choice), can't you just do basic math once in a while? That's exhausting, to say the least.

    You - Force will be greater if spin-vector aligned.
    Berry - No, force is identical in the case where spin-vectors is collinear, same direction or not, or in the case where it is fucking PERPENDICULAR.
    You - What do you mean by that?
    my poor spirit - HE MEANS THAT SPIN-VECTOR ALIGNED OR PERPENDICULAR = SAME FORCE. THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID.

    Either you're laughing at Berry's face, either we have a big problem. Because it's your law, your formula, with a cosinus and a sinus that YOU insist are there.

    How many times will we have to read your own formulas for you, damn it? Can't you stop assuming we are stupid and just try to do some basic math once in a while?

  35. No need to yell. Yes, the force's magnitude is the same in collinear or fucking perpendicular case but the direction is not.

    Avoid using words fucking or stupid.

  36. Yes, the force's magnitude is the same in collinear or fucking perpendicular case but the direction is not.

    Yes, but no one cared about the direction in this case. You were asked about the magnitude, and said it would be greatest when collinear. And you once again evaded by asking clarification where only applying your own formula yielded an answer.

    The direction thing is a much bigger problem, that's true. It's most fortunate that you actually gave up on gravitation, Uranus cases would have become reeeaaaally funny.

    Anyway, the funniest case is certainly the no force case. If alpha is \( \alpha = \arcos \frac{-1+ \sqrt(5)}{2} \), providing the 2 spinning vectors are perpidencular to the axis linking the 2 particles, then, there is no force. That should be easy to verify experimentally ? Give the good spin to an electron, send it in the good electric field, and it won't experience ANY acceleration.

  37. Oh, I will put it on the undefined control sequence. I have no idea how the LateX works here. Any way, just take alpha so that sin^2(alpha) = cos(alpha), good vector orientation and whooooooo ! Force = 0 according to TL2.

  38. If I have two spinning vectors there will be always \(\alpha\) between the vectors, right? Therefore there will be a force > 0. Or did you mean that we have proper magnetic field satisfying your equation and then we put test particle with good vector orientation into it? In that case, it would make an excellent test for TOEBI.

  39. Sigh… Ok… Subtitles…

    Let's imagine 2 particles, A and B.

    Let's say f1 and f2 are orthogonal to AB axis. f1 x f2 vectorial product is along AB.

    Let's say (sin(alpha))^2 = cos(alpha) (or cos(alpha) = -sin(alpha)^2, depending on vectorial product orientation).

    What is the force?

  40. Oh my! How could Berry miss that?!

    This is actually so funny, I just give a thought, always following my little setup, with f1 and f2 orthogonal to AB.

    At this point, if you imagine alpha is 45° (or 135, depends on your convention, once again), then you have F(alpha)>F(0°). That's wonderful!

  41. >> For that you need to calculate the behaviour of a
    >> TOEBI-electron in a TOEBI-magnetic-field. And for
    >> the latter you have no equation at all. So what is
    >> the basis (in a strict sense) for this "Yes"?

    > Equation will be the sum of forces over all magnet
    > electron - test particle pairs. You'll get the proof
    > later.

    This proof will never exist. Proof for that: (1) According to TL2, one pair of TOEBI-electrons doesn't create anything magnet-like (you coining them "magnet-electrons" doesn't change that). (2) Forces add up linearly. (1)+(2) => Many TOEBI-electrons don't create a magnet field. I've already explained that, but you prefer to ignore such arguments. You seem again to have forgotten your statement: "I might have had some wrong ideas about electric fields and magnetic fields, shame on me. Second law works exactly right with electric fields." In case you think otherwise: A magnet field is not the sum of many electric fields.

    To repeat it once more: Your claim "Electromagnetic interaction can be calculated directly with second law of TOEBI." is flatright wrong. I gave the proof already, you have no counter-argument (besides your promise "You'll get the proof later.") Evidently, "even" you cannot do said calculation. You're unable to show how a bunch of "magnet-electrons" would create a magentic field, not even for the simplest "magentic situation" one can think of. Why should anybody (except "dwarf") take your claim seriously?

    >> Is the source of the magnetic field relevant for the
    >> alignment process?

    > No.

    So how come you think that "magnet-electrons" must be taken into consideration?

    >> 1) What has the force between two particles, which
    >> changes their relative position, to do with the
    >> change of the direction of their spinning vectors
    >> \(\vec f\)? You cannot know because you have no law
    >> for the alignment process in TOEBI.

    Why don't you comment on this? Do you have such a law or not?

    >> 2) Why is there a second particle at all? We were
    >> talking about one particle in a magnetic field. For
    >> the latter you have no law at hand, anyway. It
    >> seem's, you're again trying to sell us the presence
    >> of another particle as a magnetic field. Have you
    >> forgotten your statement "I might have had some
    >> wrong ideas about electric fields and magnetic
    >> fields, shame on me. Second law works exactly right
    >> with electric fields." or do you just think we're
    >> easily fooled?

    > Those other electrons create the magnetic field,

    That's still your unsubstantiated claim, and with TL2 alone it is still false. Cf. above.

    > that's why I have been talking about them.

    So, the source of the magnetic field is relevant? Or do in TOEBI-world exist magnetic fields only due to TOEBI-electrons (despite the utter lack of a law or proof for that)?

    >> 3) Your statement is flatright false, anyway. The
    >> force according to TL2 has the same magnitude for
    >> \(\alpha\in\{0,\pi/2,\pi\}\).

    > What do you mean by that?

    I mean what I wrote. What is the problem? Don't you know the meaning of \(\alpha\)? Or don't you know the meaning of "magnitutde"? Or what?

    >> What? So now, the spinning vectors of two electrons
    >> would no longer going to be aligned in a magnetic
    >> field. Now it works only with a single electron?

    > Of course two electrons will be aligned. How you got
    > the idea that they won't be?

    Your statement "The outcome of their spins would depend on the initial orientation of their spinning vectors [...]" gave me that idea. But now I understand that you wanted to say, that \(\vec f\) can get aligned parallel or anti-parallel to the magnetic field and that the initial conditions determine which one, right?

    So, we imagine two or more electrons in proximity, getting aligned (by chance or by preparation) all parallel to the magnetic field. Any odds against that?

    >>> like in Stern–Gerlach experiment.

    >> That's not at all the point in the Stern–Gerlach
    >> experiment.

    > Not the point, but it shows that TOEBI spinning
    > vector will select either parallel or anti-parallel
    > alignment with magnet electrons' spinning vectors.

    A classical magnetic dipole won't do that. And as long as you have no law for the change of \(\vec f\), nobody (including you) knows what TOEBI-spins will do.

    > Parallel spinning vectors generate attractive force
    > and anti-parallel pushing force.

    We're talking about magnetic fields, TL2 does not.

  42. 3Pi/4 is not the good angle if you make your vectorial product correctly. There's a cos and a sin^2.

    But anyway, so you have no problem explaining us that now, there is a specific spin so that particles don't interact. And no one would have ever noticed that, in 70 years making particles physics.

  43. No, Kimmo, you're wrong, and I fear it's That-What-Must-Not-Be-Named which prevents you from understanding Yop.

    Let's consider, to be as specific for you as possible, the case \(\vec e_{12}=\vec e_z,~\vec f_1/f_1=\vec e_x,~\vec f_2/f_2=\vec e_x\cos\alpha+\vec e_y\sin\alpha\). Then, the cross-product in TL2 evaluates to \(\vec e_z \sin\alpha\) and hence the magnitude of the term in parentheses is just \(\lvert\cos\alpha+\sin^2\alpha\rvert\), which becomes maximal at \(\alpha=\pi/3\) with a value of 5/4, but already at \(\pi/4\) it's \(1/2+1/\sqrt{2}>1\) , just as Yop said.

    Who ever mentioned a major in math?

    (Re-editing kills all backslashes now, pity.)

  44. That's a pity, I've grown very fond of it actually. The force between two particles can take totally random value based on the spinning axis, values even higher than Lorentz Force. And I'm pretty sure that we can easily check that the direction of the force vector can pretty much be anything. AND NO ONE EVER NOTICED IN A MANIPULATION ROOM.

    At this point, we might say that not only physicists missed the big picture, but that they are actually hired based on their inability to notice an elephant in a corridor.

    But, just a question, what, in the first place decided you to add this other vector thing in the first place?

    (Additional question: Ok, you don't want us to question any more about you math skill, but, well, maybe you could explain yourself in this last case…)

  45. > Also, I'm not married with that other vector...

    That's hardly an excuse for first not analyzing and then denying its implications, is it?

    But if you're going to kill it: So, electrons are now interaction free for \(\vec f_1\perp\vec f_2\)?

  46. >> electrons are now interaction free for \(\vec f_1\perp\vec f_2\)?

    > That's right (according to TOEBI).

    That's... interesting.

    > I'll update the paper later on.

    No need to rush that. Maybe you can collect some modifications and apply them to TL2 in batches. Otherwise one could get the impression that you're changing your fundamental laws more frequently than others their underwear.

    Don't forget the open questions in http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/muon-take-two/#comment-1375
    Well, point 3) in there got hopefully clear for you now.

  47. I'm kind of agile... naturally due to the lack of due diligence regarding the implications of my equations.

    What was the point 3)? There wasn't any numbering.

  48. But, just a question, what, in the first place decided you to add this other vector thing in the first place?

    I can't remember the reason exactly, but it might have been initially related to gravitational interaction. But that part went out of window earlier...

    Well, I haven't done any serious math for about 20 years, so I might be a little rusty. I'm senior software architect and I don't need that much mathematics in my daily job or in my daily life for that matter.

  49. > I'm kind of agile... naturally due to the lack of due
    > diligence regarding the implications of my equations.

    But nevertheless you expect TOEBI to be taken seriously?

    > What was the point 3)? There wasn't any numbering.

    Wrong, there was (and still is) numbering from 1 o 3. Care to check for yourself?

  50. > I can't remember the reason exactly, but it
    > might have been initially related to gravitational
    > interaction.

    Very funny. The cross-product kills the conservation of angular momentum, which in turn is confirmed for the planets' movement since 405 years. But ok, you've already admitted not to be up to date with latest research.

    > I'm senior software architect and I don't need
    > that much mathematics in my daily job or in my
    > daily life for that matter.

    And that's why you thought it to be of minor importance for the revolution of physics as well?

  51. > The cross-product kills the conservation of angular momentum

    To be more precise: Not the cross-product per se, of course, but a force component perpendicular to \(\vec e_{12}\).

  52. And that's why you thought it to be of minor importance for the revolution of physics as well?

    Very funny. As I have said earlier, I rushed through physics without paying too much attention on details for a reason. Because early on, I realized the huge potential regarding antimatter (as realized in TOEBI) based applications, energy production for various purposes.

  53. Wrong, there was (and still is) numbering from 1 o 3. Care to check for yourself?

    Now I found it.

    But nevertheless you expect TOEBI to be taken seriously?

    I certainly hope so because possible implications make it or break it our future existence.

  54. > As I have said earlier, I rushed through physics
    > without paying too much attention on details for a reason.

    But a bad reason. Being so much in love with your own ideas about physics that you can't pay enough attention to physics. How wise is that?

    > Because early on, I realized the huge potential
    > regarding antimatter (as realized in TOEBI) based
    > applications, energy production for various purposes.

    You didn't realize them, you only fantasized them.

  55. > Now I found it.

    So... ? No inclinations to answer the open questions?

    >> But nevertheless you expect TOEBI to be taken seriously?

    > I certainly hope so

    And the idea that you weird attitude towards fundamental physical concepts has something to do with the lack of attention you get is still alien to you?

    > because possible implications make it or break
    > it our future existence.

    When did you first notice that you have clairvoyant abilities?

  56. Well, I don't know... it most certainly is bad from the scientific point of view but pushing the idea as far as it goes on the other hand is very rewarding (thought experiments). Most likely you mean by realizing that I calculated the stuff out of my equations, in that sense I didn't realize those applications, nevertheless I'm convinced that I'm right about them.

    The best part is that trying out my ideas is cheap and relatively easy, I'm referring at solid hydrogen based experiments. Even I can produce them with less than 10 kEUR and available time resources. Naturally it would help to have a team of experimental physicists. On the other hand, there is a possibility that somebody conducts such an experiment by "accident" while looking for some other phenomena than "annihilating" protons in big time. Also, by "advertising" my idea (e.g. in ResearchGate), there is a chance that somebody actually tries out it on purpose, you never know...

  57. Ok, then...

    1) What has the force between two particles, which changes their relative position, to do with the change of the direction of their spinning vectors? You cannot know because you have no law for the alignment process in TOEBI.

    You mean the lack of transformation equation?

    > Those other electrons create the magnetic field,

    That's still your unsubstantiated claim, and with TL2 alone it is still false. Cf. above.

    > that's why I have been talking about them.

    So, the source of the magnetic field is relevant? Or do in TOEBI-world exist magnetic fields only due to TOEBI-electrons (despite the utter lack of a law or proof for that)?

    Yes, magnetic fields exist only due to TOEBI-electrons and yes despite the lack of proof. Anyway, that proof is in my todo list.

    Your statement "The outcome of their spins would depend on the initial orientation of their spinning vectors [...]" gave me that idea. But now I understand that you wanted to say, that \(\vec{f}\) can get aligned parallel or anti-parallel to the magnetic field and that the initial conditions determine which one, right?

    Right.

    So, we imagine two or more electrons in proximity, getting aligned (by chance or by preparation) all parallel to the magnetic field. Any odds against that?

    Based on TL2 those two (or more) electrons would initially generate attractive force towards each other... but at very close proximity repulsion kicks in which changes either electrons spinning vector antiparallel.

  58. > it most certainly is bad from the scientific point of view

    That's right. So, the scientific aspect of this whole business is of minor importance to you?

    > but pushing the idea as far as it goes on the other
    > hand is very rewarding (thought experiments).

    You're misunderstanding the concept of a thought experiment, the input of which must stem from the theory's laws (yes, in a strict sense, even if the laws are only tentative) and the outcome of which must too be compared to experiments (which may be qualitatively, e.g. that apples should fall to the ground). What you are actually referring to is private, mental science fiction. True, that can be rewarding in terms of its entertainment value, but it won't convince anyone to do experiments for you.

    > Most likely you mean by realizing that I calculated
    > the stuff out of my equations,

    ... that you not calculated them from your equations, that is.

    > in that sense I didn't realize those applications,

    Nice you hear you admitting that. All your texts try to tell a different stroy.

    > nevertheless I'm convinced that I'm right about them.

    Yes, I've noticed very well that you're a firm believer in your own ideas despite the lack of a scientific basis and that you're unable or at least unwilling to distinguish between your own hypotheses and proven facts.

    > Even I can produce them with less than 10 kEUR
    > and available time resources.

    Well, then do that already! But avoid telling that you're going to work on an antimatter bomb. That could put off the supplier.

    > there is a possibility that somebody conducts such
    > an experiment by "accident"

    There is the possibility (even more likely) that someone already did a related experiment, where some specific effect should have necessarily occured given that your ideas were correct. That's what physicists call "research", too, but you don't do that.

    > Also, by "advertising" my idea (e.g. in ResearchGate),

    ... or elsewhere (http://www.onlineprnews.com/news/302549-1356280427-simple-and-testable-theory-of-everything-by-illusion-toebi.html), yes ...

    > there is a chance that somebody actually tries out it on
    > purpose, you never know...

    The chance that someone without a background in physics will try out such an experiment is pretty small. But yes, I never know, maybe the moon is actually made out of cheese.

  59. >> 1) What has the force between two particles, which
    >> changes their relative position, to do with the
    >> change of the direction of their spinning vectors?
    >> You cannot know because you have no law for the
    >> alignment process in TOEBI.

    > You mean the lack of transformation equation?

    I have no idea why one would call that a transformation equation, but as sure as eggs is eggs there is an equation \(\dot{\vec f}=\dots\) missing.

    >> Or do in TOEBI-world exist magnetic fields only due
    >> to TOEBI-electrons (despite the utter lack of a law
    >> or proof for that)?

    > Yes, magnetic fields exist only due to TOEBI-electrons

    So Maxwell was stupid, too? Just as Coulomb and Newton? Or have magnetic fields in TOEBI nothing to do with what they are in mainstream physics?

    > and yes despite the lack of proof.

    Just because you like this neat little idea of yours?

    > Anyway, that proof is in my todo list.

    A proof-attempt being on your todo list has no scientific relevance at all. I already gave a proof why yours is impossible, but you prefer to ignore that.

    >> So, we imagine two or more electrons in proximity,
    >> getting aligned (by chance or by preparation) all
    >> parallel to the magnetic field. Any odds against
    >> that?

    > Based on TL2 those two (or more) electrons would
    > initially generate attractive force towards each
    > other...

    In full contradiction to Coulomb's law, yes.

    > but at very close proximity

    At what distance, roughly?

    > repulsion kicks in

    Where does this replusion come from, even before \(\vec f\) has changed? Once more the helpful FTE* sprites are summoned?

    > which changes either electrons spinning vector antiparallel.

    Again with the corresponding law still missing (cf. above). How many of them are flipped, then? But, ok, let's say 50%, and then? They repell and move apart again?

  60. @Berry I'll get back to your comments as soon as possible, now I'm pretty busy with my other tasks. For some reason nested commenting stopped working! I'll check that up also later.

    Anyway, the needed equipment can be purchased from eBay, like used cryo cooler.

  61. > For some reason nested commenting stopped
    > working! I'll check that up also later.

    Yep, I first thought it to be my fault.

    > Anyway, the needed equipment can be purchased
    > from eBay, like used cryo cooler.

    Great news! So, what's stopping you?

  62. Chronic lack of free time, that's what stopping me. Also handling for example cryocooler (proper cooling of the device etc) is all new to me. I would need some serious studying of the device. Sure, I'll do that eventually but I would prefer collaboration with experimental physicists who have the equipment and the proper skill set.

  63. Before going through your points and questions few words about the evolvement of the \(\vec{f}\). I'm surely able to construct a proper equation for it, BUT it requires a deeper analysis of the properties of FTE and FTEPs. For example when particle moves a velocity how incoming FTEPs affect its spinning vector orientation and in what rate. Same applies in case of two or more particles. All that must be combined into a single equation, nice.

    I have no idea why one would call that a transformation equation, but as sure as eggs is eggs there is an equation missing.

    But not for long...

    > Yes, magnetic fields exist only due to TOEBI-electrons

    So Maxwell was stupid, too? Just as Coulomb and Newton? Or have magnetic fields in TOEBI nothing to do with what they are in mainstream physics?

    How come? Of course magnetic fields in TOEBI turn out to be the exactly same as in mainstream physics.

    Just because you like this neat little idea of yours?

    > Anyway, that proof is in my todo list.

    A proof-attempt being on your todo list has no scientific relevance at all. I already gave a proof why yours is impossible, but you prefer to ignore that.

    You'll get that in future, don't worry. First I'll take care of the evolvement function of \(\vec{f}\) then magnetic fields.

    > Based on TL2 those two (or more) electrons would
    > initially generate attractive force towards each
    > other...

    In full contradiction to Coulomb's law, yes.

    I wouldn't too sure about that. You are certainly familiar with positronium. Based on TOEBI there is actually two electrons in that system...

    > but at very close proximity

    At what distance, roughly?

    > repulsion kicks in

    Where does this replusion come from, even before (vec{f}) has changed? Once more the helpful FTE* sprites are summoned?

    > which changes either electrons spinning vector antiparallel.

    Again with the corresponding law still missing (cf. above). How many of them are flipped, then? But, ok, let's say 50%, and then? They repell and move apart again?

    Those three get answers after the equation I mentioned at the start of this comment is delivered.

    Ok, this Ajax comment editor plugin sucks... I'll remove it.

  64. > it most certainly is bad from the scientific point of view

    That's right. So, the scientific aspect of this whole business is of minor importance to you?

    It has been until recently. My goal has been to get the kickstart for TOEBI through the experiment. After successful experiment there will be plenty of physicists looking into these new ideas of mine.

    > there is a chance that somebody actually tries out it on
    > purpose, you never know...

    The chance that someone without a background in physics will try out such an experiment is pretty small. But yes, I never know, maybe the moon is actually made out of cheese.

    Haha... I meant that an experimental physicist who has read my idea in ReseachGate conducts the experiment... just for the curiosity.

  65. > Before going through your points and questions few
    > words about the evolvement of the \(\vec f\). I'm
    > surely able to construct a proper equation for it,

    Talk is cheap. Do it.

    >> I have no idea why one would call that a
    >> transformation equation, but as sure as eggs is eggs
    >> there is an equation missing.

    > But not for long...

    As I said: Talk is cheap.

    >>> Yes, magnetic fields exist only due to TOEBI-electrons

    >> So Maxwell was stupid, too? Just as Coulomb and
    >> Newton? Or have magnetic fields in TOEBI nothing to
    >> do with what they are in mainstream physics?

    > How come? Of course magnetic fields in TOEBI turn out
    > to be the exactly same as in mainstream physics.

    So, why don't they obey Maxwell's equations?

    >> A proof-attempt being on your todo list has no
    >> scientific relevance at all. I already gave a proof
    >> why yours is impossible, but you prefer to ignore
    >> that.

    > You'll get that in future, don't worry.

    Once more: Talk is cheap.

    >>> Based on TL2 those two (or more) electrons would
    >>> initially generate attractive force towards each
    >>> other...

    >> In full contradiction to Coulomb's law, yes.

    > I wouldn't too sure about that.

    Sure, that's First Law of Kimmo kicking in again: "A law experimentally irrefuted since 230 years? That's piffle compared to the grandeur of my TOEBI!"

    > You are certainly familiar with positronium.

    ... which does not violate Coulomb's law, yes.

    > Based on TOEBI there

    Based on TOEBI, which is less than 1% "well tought out, tested and ready", and the Second Law of which needed to be changed four times in one month already, we get all kind of nonsense, like an electron radius five million times larger than the experimentally determined upper bound. I don't know why you think that "Based on TOEBI" was an awe-inspiring premise.

    > is actually two electrons in that system...

    So, you're backing up one contradiction with another one? Great! In case you don't know: The outer electric field of two electrons is pretty different from that of an electron-positron pair. But probably the friendly FTE* sprites (which are on the verge of getting their well deserved equation, yay) come to rescue again.

    > Those three get answers after the equation I mentioned at the start of this comment is delivered.

    Ok, the world is waiting with bated breath for the real First Law of TOEBI (the necessity of which had first to be explained to you by Yop). And until then? Which of your predictions (including TL2 itself) are excluded from being whishful thinking instead of being strictly derived from this fundamental equation to come? Still no global disclaimer is in order?

  66. > After successful experiment there will be plenty
    > of physicists looking into these new ideas of mine.

    So, you're really clairvoyant? I'm jealous.

    > I meant that an experimental physicist who has
    > read my idea in ReseachGate conducts the Experiment

    Is a subjunctive missing here or does said physicist actually exist?

  67. > How come? Of course magnetic fields in TOEBI turn out
    > to be the exactly same as in mainstream physics.

    So, why don't they obey Maxwell's equations?

    Maxwell's equations are the approximation of underlying TOEBI phenomena (I didn't use word quantum on purpose).

    >> In full contradiction to Coulomb's law, yes.

    > I wouldn't too sure about that.

    Sure, that's First Law of Kimmo kicking in again: "A law experimentally irrefuted since 230 years? That's piffle compared to the grandeur of my TOEBI!"

    Once again, TOEBI works underneath the classical physics and the final outcome agrees with classical physics.

    So, you're backing up one contradiction with another one? Great! In case you don't know: The outer electric field of two electrons is pretty different from that of an electron-positron pair. But probably the friendly FTE* sprites (which are on the verge of getting their well deserved equation, yay) come to rescue again.

    But if we study electric field of two electrons what we have at that point is already evolved setup where those electron spinning vectors are antiparallel. Positron-electron setup consists of two electrons with parallel spinning vectors.

    Ok, the world is waiting with bated breath for the real First Law of TOEBI (the necessity of which had first to be explained to you by Yop). And until then? Which of your predictions (including TL2 itself) are excluded from being whishful thinking instead of being strictly derived from this fundamental equation to come? Still no global disclaimer is in order?

    My favourite, go big or go home... sure the press release was premature, no question about it.

  68. >> So, why don't they obey Maxwell's equations?

    > Maxwell's equations are the approximation of
    > underlying TOEBI phenomena

    In what sense is "electrons are not needed for a magnetic field" an approximation to "electrons are inevitably needed for a magnetic field"?

    >>>> In full contradiction to Coulomb's law, yes.

    >>> I wouldn't too sure about that.

    >> Sure, that's First Law of Kimmo kicking in again: "A
    >> law experimentally irrefuted since 230 years? That's
    >> piffle compared to the grandeur of my TOEBI!"

    > Once again, TOEBI works underneath the classical
    > physics and the final outcome agrees with classical
    > physics.

    No, it does not! Electrons attracting each other are not in agreement with classical physics.

    > But if we study electric field of two electrons what
    > we have at that point is already evolved setup where
    > those electron spinning vectors are
    > antiparallel. Positron-electron setup consists of two
    > electrons with parallel spinning vectors.

    So, why doesn't do it the same thing our two (or more) electrons in the magnetic field are supposed to do? I.e. repulsion and flipping back to anti-parallel.

    >> Ok, the world is waiting with bated breath for the
    >> real First Law of TOEBI (the necessity of which had
    >> first to be explained to you by Yop). And until
    >> then? Which of your predictions (including TL2
    >> itself) are excluded from being whishful thinking
    >> instead of being strictly derived from this
    >> fundamental equation to come? Still no global
    >> disclaimer is in order?

    > My favourite, go big

    Which includes imposture?

  69. >> Is a subjunctive missing here or does said physicist actually exist?

    > We'll see about that... I can't open up the issue more than that.

    Very funny. Do you really think you're displaying credence with statements like that?

  70. In what sense is "electrons are not needed for a magnetic field" an approximation to "electrons are inevitably needed for a magnetic field"?

    If that quotation is my text then my bad! Where I have said that?

    No, it does not! Electrons attracting each other are not in agreement with classical physics.

    Initially two electrons with parallel spinning vectors behave that way. After initial interaction those spinning vectors will be antiparallel (in case of free electrons)

    So, why doesn't do it the same thing our two (or more) electrons in the magnetic field are supposed to do? I.e. repulsion and flipping back to anti-parallel.

    Electrons in magnets overpower the interaction between two or few electrons in the field.

    > We'll see about that... I can't open up the issue more than that.

    Very funny. Do you really think you're displaying credence with statements like that?

    No I don't. But the point is that I have connections which eventually might "blast" TOEBI on the map.

  71. @Dwarf

    I can see that you have a desire to come back (even via login functionality, naughty boy). Unfortunately you pushed the envelope for far too long. I'll let you come in if you donate 1 000 dollars into a charity and prove the transaction somehow.

    Let's say that the offer is valid during this year.

  72. >> In what sense is "electrons are not needed for a
    >> magnetic field" an approximation to "electrons are
    >> inevitably needed for a magnetic field"?

    > If that quotation is my text then my bad! Where I have said that?

    Kimmo: "Yes, magnetic fields exist only due to TOEBI-electrons"
    Berry: "So Maxwell was stupid, too?" (meaning: contradiction TOEBI Maxwell's equations)
    Berry: "Or [2nd possibility] have magnetic fields in TOEBI nothing to do with what they are in mainstream physics?"
    Kimmo: "magnetic fields in TOEBI turn out to be the exactly same as in mainstream physics"
    Berry: "why don't they obey Maxwell's equations?"
    Kimmo: "Maxwell's equations are the approximation of underlying TOEBI phenomena"

    What else did you want to say, other than there is disagreement between Maxwell's equations and TOEBI because you claim the former to be just an approximation of the latter (a grim slap in dead Maxwell's face, by the way)?

    >> No, it does not! Electrons attracting each other are
    >> not in agreement with classical physics.

    > Initially two electrons with parallel spinning vectors behave that way.

    NO, they don't, at least not in the real world (as opposed to TOEBI-world where wishing is deemed as valid as proving). Actually it is a well known fact that electrons with parallel spins repel each other even more strongly than by Coulomb force alone, that's the so called Fermi hole. So please stop selling your fantasies (which are not even based on the new, almost-existing FTE*-laws) as facts.

    > After initial interaction those spinning vectors will
    > be antiparallel (in case of free electrons)

    And then? They repel and move apart again?
    Wait, do I have a déjà vu? I had already asked that... Ah, yes, and you evaded that by playing the "wait for the \(\dot{\vec f}\)"-card. And now you come back with this story despite being still without \(\dot{\vec f}\). Nice move, Kimmo.

    >> So, why doesn't do it the same thing our two (or
    >> more) electrons in the magnetic field are supposed
    >> to do? I.e. repulsion and flipping back to
    >> anti-parallel.

    > Electrons in magnets overpower the interaction
    > between two or few electrons in the field.

    I beg your pardon? Let me get this straight: According to your fantasy (as opposed to actually being derived from something in TOEBI), in a magnetic field (created by "electrons in magnets", of course), the initially parallel TOEBI-spins do flip, despite the magnetic field trying to keep them (anti-)parallel to the field. In TOEBI-positronium, on the other hand, the TOEBI-spins don't flip, even though no magnetic field is present. And this you call "overpowering" of the electron interaction by the magnetic field? And you find this "explanation" logical? Really?

    >>> We'll see about that... I can't open up the issue
    >>> more than that.

    >> Very funny. Do you really think you're displaying
    >> credence with statements like that?

    > No I don't.

    Good. Because you don't.

  73. TOEBI electrons = electrons

    It might be better not to discuss particle phenomena happening in magnetic field at this point. I really need that function before I can answer without speculating too much over my head.

  74. NO, they don't, at least not in the real world (as opposed to TOEBI-world where wishing is deemed as valid as proving). Actually it is a well known fact that electrons with parallel spins repel each other even more strongly than by Coulomb force alone, that's the so called Fermi hole. So please stop selling your fantasies (which are not even based on the new, almost-existing FTE*-laws) as facts.

    That's true, between electrons in atom. And guess what... The phenomenon is obvious from TOEBI point of view. In case of antiparallel spinning vectors FTEP flux won't accumulate between electrons as much as (a.k.a. smaller distance between electrons is possible) in the case of parallel spinning vectors. Can you picture what's happening in these cases according to TOEBI?

  75. > TOEBI electrons = electrons

    No, they're not, because actual electrons don't attract each other. Your claim that they would is refuted by zillions of experiments and is only your defiant argument of last resort to protect TL2, of which you don't even know whether it follows form the new, almost existing FTE* laws.

    > It might be better not to discuss particle phenomena
    > happening in magnetic field at this point. I really
    > need that function before I can answer without
    > speculating too much over my head.

    Wiser words you've never spoken. But "talk big or go home" being your favorite, it will be difficult for you to abide by that.

    On the other hand, you have successfully evaded to discuss the problem of TOEBI flatly contradicting Maxwell's equations. Nice move, Kimmo!

    > That's true, between electrons in atom.

    Not only there, also in an electron gas.

    > And guess what... The phenomenon is obvious from
    > TOEBI point of view.

    Why, of course, now that you mention it. Who would ever have thought otherwise? How could I possibly have missed that? It obviously follows rigorously from TOEBIS rigorous laws. NOT!

    > In case of antiparallel spinning vectors FTEP flux
    > won't accumulate between electrons as much as
    > (a.k.a. smaller distance between electrons is
    > possible) in the case of parallel spinning vectors.

    And once again, the friendly FTE* sprites, despite being still without an equation to describe their behavior (which you're on the verge of writing down, sure), come to rescue your theory from glaringly counterfactual predictions. Bravo, Kimmo, very convincing indeed!

  76. > TOEBI electrons = electrons

    No, they're not, because actual electrons don't attract each other.

    So be it. It only means that when two electrons are put together spinning vectors parallel then one of them immediately changes its spinning vector antiparallel. As I said earlier, I need that function which describes these kinds of behaviour.

    On the other hand, you have successfully evaded to discuss the problem of TOEBI flatly contradicting Maxwell's equations.

    What do you mean?

    And once again, the friendly FTE* sprites, despite being still without an equation to describe their behavior (which you're on the verge of writing down, sure), come to rescue your theory from glaringly counterfactual predictions. Bravo, Kimmo, very convincing indeed!

    Hold your horses... I'm working on it.

    I might also publish a new blog post today.

  77. >>> TOEBI electrons = electrons

    >> No, they're not, because actual electrons don't attract
    >> each other.

    > So be it. It only means that when two electrons are put
    > together

    How close is "together"? Electron-electron attraction has never been observed, not for any density.

    > spinning vectors parallel then one of them immediately
    > changes its spinning vector antiparallel.

    But then TOEBIS \(\vec f\) is (to no surprise) not the electron spin known in mainstream physics.

    > As I said earlier, I need that function which describes
    > these kinds of behaviour.

    I know and I wholeheartedly agree. But do you act accordingly? No, you keep on speculating too much over your head about what that function will yield and you deem these speculations more trustworthy than years of years of experimental evidence. Can you understand that you're not doing science that way?

    >> On the other hand, you have successfully evaded to
    >> discuss the problem of TOEBI flatly contradicting
    >> Maxwell's equations.

    > What do you mean?

    Yet another time? Ok:

    Kimmo: "magnetic fields exist only due to TOEBI-electrons"
    Maxwell: "There can be magnetic fields without electrons."

    Kimmo has no equation and no basis for his claim, Maxwell has very nice equations and is confirmed since almost 130 years (and nowadays is so every day by almost all of us).

    The last trick you tried to pull off to overcome this glaring discrepancy was to insult Maxwell's equations as an "approximation" to the TOEBI-world.

    >> And once again, the friendly FTE* sprites, despite being
    >> still without an equation to describe their behavior
    >> (which you're on the verge of writing down, sure), come
    >> to rescue your theory from glaringly counterfactual
    >> predictions. Bravo, Kimmo, very convincing indeed!

    > Hold your horses... I'm working on it.

    You better hold your speculation horses until you've finished that work.

    > I might also publish a new blog post today.

    I read it and I refrain from commenting on it. But clearly it is not the global disclaimer I find in order. You chose to ignore my related question: Which of your predictions (including TL2 itself) are excluded from being wishful thinking instead of being strictly derived from this fundamental equation to come?

    I don't ask to be thanked, I ask you to admit the current state of TOEBI.

  78. Which of your predictions (including TL2 itself) are excluded from being wishful thinking instead of being strictly derived from this fundamental equation to come?

    We'll see... Meanwhile, I won't speculate.

    Yes, electron spin and electron spinning vector are not the same.

  79. >> Which of your predictions (including TL2 itself) are
    >> excluded from being wishful thinking instead of being
    >> strictly derived from this fundamental equation to come?

    > We'll see...

    You're pretending to misunderstand the question? It's not about the future, not about what will turn out right or wrong. It's about the presence, about what is hopeful speculation and what has been rigorously derived. Could you please comment on that?

    > Meanwhile, I won't speculate.

    I'll hold you to your word.
    Is that the reason why you don't comment on TOEBI contradicting Maxwell's equations?

    > Yes, electron spin and electron spinning vector are not
    > the same.

    Yep, obviously not. So, I could repeat my question: Let's pretend I'm an experimentalist and I want to test TL2. How do I have to treat my elementary particles to give their \(\vec f\) a certain direction? How can I measure that direction at all?

  80. It's not about the future, not about what will turn out right or wrong. It's about the presence, about what is hopeful speculation and what has been rigorously derived. Could you please comment on that?

    Sure, I must proceed with the derived material. In TOEBI, EM phenomena emerge from FTEP flux generated by spinning larger particles, like electrons. Based on TOEBI's hypotheses, outward FTEP flux must equal inward FTEP flux, hence TOEBI disagrees with Gauss's law.

    How in Earth mainstream physics has missed this elephant? Good question which I'm going to answer after I have derived THE equation. Spoiler alert, it has something to do with how electrons change their spinning vector orientation when interacting with neighboring particles.

    I'll continue answering later... and there is new material in Introduction paper (Force Transfer Ether chapter)

    Let's pretend I'm an experimentalist and I want to test TL2. How do I have to treat my elementary particles to give their (vec_f) a certain direction? How can I measure that direction at all?

    At this point, we have to stick with the trivial cases, parallel and antiparallel spinning vectors. But without THE equation we have to hypothesize that for example our electrons are already arranged as wanted in some experimental setup. Classical example would be two identical symmetric ferromagnet's poles where electrons' spinning vectors would be parallel between matching electrons in opposite poles. Now based on material's properties we can calculate how many free electrons will be involved in the magnetic interaction.

    You only need to put the numbers into TL2 and you will find the magnitude of the force between the poles.

  81. >> It's not about the future, not about what will turn out
    >> right or wrong. It's about the presence, about what is
    >> hopeful speculation and what has been rigorously
    >> derived. Could you please comment on that?

    > Sure, I must proceed with the derived material.

    You still didn't answer the question. What is the derived material?

    > Based on TOEBI's hypotheses, outward FTEP flux must equal
    > inward FTEP flux, hence TOEBI disagrees with Gauss's
    > law. How in Earth mainstream physics has missed this
    > elephant?

    Which elephant? Mainstream physics needn't to be interested in this disagreement, because Gauss's law is experimentally well confirmed while TOEBI's FTE* hypotheses are just a bunch of ideas in your head, untested and not even written down properly as a set of equations. You wanted to refrain from speculating until you've finished your homework, but now you're speculating that experimentalists will have to admit of having been in error for over 100 years. Well, that must be attributed to your favorite "talk big or go home".

    > and there is new material in Introduction paper (Force
    > Transfer Ether chapter)

    Is it THE equation?

  82. Laws are not derived, at least at the moment, they are just laws. Antimatter and its applications are derived. That's for the start.

    My ideas are untested for now but that might change, even pretty quickly.

    No, THE equation isn't there yet.

  83. >> Let's pretend I'm an experimentalist and I want to test
    >> TL2. How do I have to treat my elementary particles to
    >> give their (vec_f) a certain direction? How can I measure
    >> that direction at all?

    > At this point, we have to stick with the trivial cases,
    > parallel and antiparallel spinning vectors.

    Yep, and we have to stick with the fact that no experiment ever observed the case \(\alpha=0\), i.e. electrons attracting each other.

    > But without THE equation we have to hypothesize that for
    > example our electrons are already arranged as wanted in
    > some experimental setup.

    Yes, which also means your answer to my question is "I can't tell." which is ok because it's honest.

    Well, then let's consider repelling electrons only, namely three of them, which we assume, purely for simplicity, to be arranged in an equilateral triangle. They all must repel each other (in a symmetric way due to the setup, but that's not important). Hence, they must have anti-parallel spinning vectors: \(\vec f_1=-\vec f_2\) and \(\vec f_2=-\vec f_3\) and \(\vec f_3=-\vec f_1\)

    Alas, that does not work, the three equations can not be fulfilled simultaneously. Kimmo, quick, call the FTE* rescue squad!

  84. > Laws are not derived, at least at the moment, they are
    > just laws.

    That would be ok, because every theory has to start with some fundamental laws, which are not derived from something else. Just like e.g. Newton's axioms.

    But which are the laws you're taking about? TL1 and TL2?

    > Antimatter and its applications are derived. That's for the start.

    They are rigorously derived from which laws?

    > My ideas are untested for now but that might change, even
    > pretty quickly.

    Once more: Talk is cheap, do it!

    > No, THE equation isn't there yet.

    Then it's not important.

  85. Well, then let's consider repelling electrons only, namely three of them, which we assume, purely for simplicity, to be arranged in an equilateral triangle. They all must repel each other (in a symmetric way due to the setup, but that's not important). Hence, they must have anti-parallel spinning vectors: vec{f}_1=−vec{f⃗}_2 and vec{f⃗}_2=−vec{f⃗}_3) and vec{f⃗}_3=−vec{f⃗}_1
    Alas, that does not work, the three equations can not be fulfilled simultaneously. Kimmo, quick, call the FTE* rescue squad!

    What was your point? If you meant proton electrons, then all of those electrons have parallel spinning vectors.

    I'll keep on answering tomorrow...

  86. > What was your point?

    Before Yop starts yelling again at you for this question (and understandably so!), I'll explain it to you in as simple steps as I possibly can.

    We have 3 (three) electrons, okay? Three ordinary electrons like they occur in mainstream physics. Clear up to here?

    Now, according to mainstream physics, which includes a thorough backing up by experiments, they all repel each other in the same way, namely according to Coulomb's law. Clear up to here?

    Now, if it's TL2 job to describe electron interaction in TOEBI-world, also TL2 should predict pairwise repulsion for them, which means anti-parallel spins for each pair of them. Clear up to here?

    Now, pairwise anti-parallel means \(\vec f_1=-\vec f_2\) and \(\vec f_2=-\vec f_3\) and \(\vec f_3=-\vec f_1\). Clear up to here?

    Now my point is that these three equations cannot be fulfilled simultaneously, which is totally self-evident even without writing them down: If you have three objects with the same binary feature, then its value cannot be different for all three of them.

    Do you understand that now? Read my lips: TL2 cannot describe the repulsion of three electrons!

    > If you meant proton electrons,

    No, I was not referring to those products of your speculations (which need a repulsion still not described by a law of TOEBI), I was considering three simple electrons. Got it?

  87. No, I was not referring to those products of your speculations (which need a repulsion still not described by a law of TOEBI), I was considering three simple electrons. Got it?

    Sure. But if those three electrons manage to penetrate each others repulsive wall they won't change their spinning vector orientations and get repelled away. That's why three electrons can construct proton.

    Of course you have to hold your breath again while waiting the mathematical proof. Or should I just postulate it... we'll see about that.

  88. But which are the laws you're talking about? TL1 and TL2?

    Yes, both of them.

    > Antimatter and its applications are derived. That's for the start.

    They are rigorously derived from which laws?

    TL2 and TOEBI hypotheses.

  89. >> No, I was not referring to those products of your
    >> speculations (which need a repulsion still not described
    >> by a law of TOEBI), I was considering three simple
    >> electrons. Got it?

    > Sure.

    No, for haven's sake, you didn't get it! I just don't know whether on purpose or not. Once more: I'm not talking about the TOEBI-proton. Do you hear me? I'm not talking about whether the three electrons may nor may not form a TOEBI-proton. Does it penetrate to you that the TOEBI-proton is not the subject?

    > But if those three electrons manage to penetrate each
    > others repulsive wall they won't change their spinning
    > vector orientations and get repelled away.

    I won't ask what that's supposed to mean, because it's not the subject.

    > That's why three electrons can construct proton.

    Did you finally understand, that I'm not talking about the TOEB-proton.

    I was talking about this: Let's place one electron at \(\vec r_1=a\vec e_x\), number two at \(\vec r_2=-a/2\vec e_x+a\sqrt{3}/2\vec e_y\) and number three at \(\vec r_3=-a/2\vec e_x-a\sqrt{3}/2\vec e_y\) with \(a=10^{-8}\)m and let's assume number one's spinning vector to be aligned "up": \(\vec f_1/f_1=\vec e_z\)

    Now: What happens according to TOEBI?
    (If you're still unable to keep out the TOEBI-proton, I'll make \(a\) even bigger.)

    >>> Antimatter and its applications are derived. That's for
    >>> the start.

    >> They are rigorously derived from which laws?

    > TL2

    Wow, and even after TL2 had to be changed four times, these derivations are still valid? Could you please point me to these calculations (I don't want go go through six blog posts)?

    > and TOEBI hypotheses.

    Hypotheses about what? FTE* sprites again? They "wriggle here, there, and throughout and BAM" (as Yop so nicely put it)? You're selling us that again as rigorous derivations?

  90. Does it penetrate to you that the TOEBI-proton is not the subject?

    Mmm... you must calm down a bit. Communication is two way street you know. Fair enough, let's talk about three random electrons. I'll get back later today.

  91. Now: What happens according to TOEBI?

    I can't answer before THE equation. For sure, spinning vectors will gain new orientations.

    Firstly, there is no other possibility in TOEBI than particles being their own antiparticles. Differences between particles and antiparticles are naturally explained with particle's spinning vector orientations. Let's save this antimatter conversation for later (life after THE equation).

  92. >> Does it penetrate to you that the TOEBI-proton is not the
    >> subject?

    > Mmm... you must calm down a bit.

    It is very difficult to stay calm when on the one hand you're showing to be unable to understand a simple questions about three electrons while on the other hand certifying yourself a sharpened thinking and exercising big talk (detecting "elephants" unnoticed by physicist, just because they dare to be in disagreement with TOEBI). Did you already forget the would-be problem with G and the candles you ought to light on Newton's grave? Obviously, your statements to "do a lot more validation against current physics knowledge." or "I'm learning to be more modest." or "I have to apologize for barking current physicists for wrong reasons, namely for my own mistakes." are nothing but lip services.

    And this goes on and on and on. Now, the master of TOEBI is even unable to calculate the simple repulsive forces between three electrons while at the same time pretending to have rigorously derived the outcome of a full blown experiment involving antimatter. Who do you think you're able to dazzle?

    > Communication is two way street you know.

    Yes, I know. But sometimes there are simple, precise questions going one way and unrelated tales are coming back.

    Now, back to physics!

    >> Now: What happens according to TOEBI?

    > I can't answer before THE equation.

    Why that? You're selling us TL2 as the fundamental law to govern forces between electrons, and now it's over-strained by such a simple situation of three electrons? Allegedly, you've used it in rigorous derivations of whole applications involving antimatter, and now it can't even handle three simple electrons? That's very... strange.

    > For sure, spinning vectors will gain new orientations.

    Really? "New" compared to which previous situation?

    Anyway, Coulomb's law (experimentally very well established) tells us a much simpler story. It tells us that the electrons will just repel each other and start to move apart. Due to increasing distance the force will diminish and the increase of the velocity will drop. That's all, very simple.

    And if we somehow can keep the electrons in place, the repulsive force will be constant, even simpler. Now, you're telling us that in TOEBI-world we don't have such a simple, constant, repulsive force in this situation, because the \(\vec f_i\) are changing in some way, unknown even to you?

    > Firstly, there is no other possibility in TOEBI than particles being their own antiparticles.

    That's totally irrelevant to the considered situation of three simple electrons.

    > Let's save this antimatter conversation for later (life after THE equation).

    Ok. But at the same time you're still claiming to already have rigorously derived the outcome of antimatter experiments? Really?

  93. Allegedly, you've used it in rigorous derivations of whole applications involving antimatter, and now it can't even handle three simple electrons? That's very... strange.

    In case of antimatter application you won't need TL2. Just put those prepared solid hydrogen blocks together, the rest is history.

    I'll answer more later...

  94. > In case of antimatter application you won't need TL2.

    So when I asked "They [antimatter and its applications] are rigorously derived from which laws?", your answer "TL2 and TOEBI hypotheses." was not meant to be taken seriously?

    > Just put those prepared solid hydrogen blocks together,
    > the rest is history.

    Hello? I had asked for a rigorous derivation from TOEBI's laws. And that's your idea of a rigorous derivation? Really? "If Kimmo says it's true, no more scientific evidence is necessary, he cannot possibly err." That's the result when you're learning to be more modest? Fascinating...

  95. > Funny... but yes, TL2 isn't needed.

    So, why did you claim to have used it?

    And is TL2 then of any use at all? What about the three electrons? Care to answer these questions? Why is TL2 useless for this simple setup?

    > But I'll return to antimatter business after THE equation.

    That's irrelevant for my question: Anti-matter and its applications are rigorously derived from which TOEBI laws? Protons are composite particles, for which you admitted to have currently no law. Nevertheless you claim to have aleady done this rigorous derivations, where are they?

  96. Claiming that TL2 was used was my mistake. TL2 is still valid when we calculate interaction between electrons and electron based particles. The problem is that when particles interact they change their spinning vector orientations and we have to have THE equation which describes the behaviour.

    Where I have said that protons have a derivation? Saying that protons are made of three electrons is merely a working hypothesis.

  97. I updated Introduction to paper a little bit, now it at least have the postulate which says that

    particles other than FTEPs tend to change their spinning vectors perpendicular to the direction of denser FTE (Orientation Postulate)

    Plus other minor changes. Actually there you can see the structure of the future equation.

  98. > TL2 is still valid when we calculate interaction between
    > electrons and electron based particles.

    So, why can't you use it for the case of three repelling electrons?

    > The problem is that when particles interact

    Electrons always interact, except when being infinitely far apart. So, we have always problems with electrons in TOEBI?

    > they change their spinning vector orientations

    That applies to the three repelling electrons, too?

    > and we have to have THE equation which describes the
    > behaviour.

    Which doesn't exist yet. Hence, whenever there is interaction (which always is for electrons!), TOEBI doesn't know what's going on? That's quite disappointing.

    > Where I have said that protons have a derivation?

    Protons as the nuclei of the H-atoms are the central ingredient in your anti-matter experiment. And when I had asked "what is hopeful speculation and what has been rigorously derived?" you answered "Antimatter and its applications are derived." Do you still claim this answer to be true?

    > Saying that protons are made of three electrons is merely
    > a working hypothesis.

    Up to now, you've always sold it as a fact. But ok, I keep that in mind.

    > particles other than FTEPs tend to

    Hence, FTEPs are not the only fundamental particles in TOEBI?

    > change their spinning vectors perpendicular to the
    > direction of denser FTE (Orientation Postulate)

    There are infinitely many of such directions. Together with the very vague "tend to", this postulate seems quite useless to me.

  99. Just to make sure you won't start with the TOEBI-proton again: My questions "So, why can't you use it for the case of three repelling electrons?" and "That applies to the three repelling electrons, too? do not refer to the TOEBI-proton but to the very simple setup I described minutely in my comment from Dec 8, 09:02 and to which I got no answer whatsoever from you.

  100. > they change their spinning vector orientations

    That applies to the three repelling electrons, too?

    Yes, but naturally they all can't be at the same time in antiparallel spinning vector orientation. Spinning vector orientation of electrons in your example will change according to THE equation and at the same time TL2 applies.

    "Antimatter and its applications are derived." Do you still claim this answer to be true?

    No, but after THE equation yes.

    Hence, FTEPs are not the only fundamental particles in TOEBI?

    Every other particle is made of FTEPs, in that sense FTEPs are only truly fundamental particles.

  101. Yes, but naturally they all can't be at the same time in antiparallel spinning vector orientation. Spinning vector orientation of electrons in your example will change according to THE equation and at the same time TL2 applies.

    Yes, but no one cares about this blabbering because in any case, you won't obtain a repulsion comparable to Coulomb's force. IN ANY CASE. EVER.

    Or please, instead of blabberling, try to think about berry's setup. Draw it if you want. Apply the first principle of dynamics, and look at the acceleration you'll get. Or do you want one of us to conveniently spend 3 paragraphs again to explain to you basic geometry?

  102. Yes, but no one cares about this blabbering because in any case, you won't obtain a repulsion comparable to Coulomb's force. IN ANY CASE. EVER.

    We'll see about that.

  103. No we won't. Not with TL2 as is, whatever the spin orientation. That's simply mathematically impossible.

    You will always, ALWAYS (A.L.W.A.Y.S) (Toujours), Forever, have either 2 electrons with the same spin vector (hence attracting instead of repulsing), or have them at an angle between them, hence the cos(alpha) will reduce the force. Whatever the situation. Whatever the case. And even if you consider the spin quickly varying all the time, you won't replicate a force independent of time as Coulomb's one.

    Edited by Kimmo

  104. The equation don't change the mathematics. Whatever it will be.

    If you have 3 electrons, all vectors can't be antiparallel to each other. Ever. That's mathematically impossible.

    You must understand that sometimes, there are impossibilities that are mathematical, not physical.

    Edited by Kimmo

  105. Whatever the three electron setup is there exists the seed for perturbation which determinate the most powerful interaction between any two electrons.

    If we have two parallel and one antiparallel spinning vectors then parallel-antiparallel spinning vector pairs trigger the repulsion chain reaction. If all spinning vectors are parallel then even slightest perturbation resolves the order for the repulsion chain reaction.

  106. Once again: NO.

    It's MATHEMATICS. That's all. Basic geometry, trigonometry and being able to make multiplications.

    Okay, I'll try another way to put subtitles.

    Once again, the 3 electrons experience a repulsion in perfect accordance with Coulomb's law. Let's call them Huey, Dewey and Louie. Now, I will number my propositions, and YOU will refer to this numbering when explaining what's wrong with the evidence I describe.

    1 - TL2 agrees with Coulomb's law concerning electrons only when electrons have antiparallel spin. That's in your equation for TL2, only way is alpha = Pi. THE equation won't change anything to that.

    2 - Huey, Dewey and Louie experience repulsion according to Coulomb's law.

    3 - Huey is repulsed by Dewey according to Coulomb's law. Huey is repulsed by Louie according to Coulomb's law.

    4 - Huey's spin is antiparallel to Dewey's spin. Huey's spin is antiparallel to Louie's spin.

    5 - Dewey's spin is parallel to Louie's spin.

    6 - Dewey and Louie experience attraction according to TL2.

    7 - Once again TOEBI is bullshit (reminder, you said so about Higgs boson, quantum computing, which are waaaaaaay more efficient concept than TOEBI).

    You don't seem to understand. In TL2, all that THE equation will change is alpha. There's nothing more to it. And your only chance to agree with Coulomb is when alpha is 180° for electrons. You cannot have 3 electrons with spin antiparallel to each other simultaneously.

    That's over. TL2 is over in its actual form (revamping ahead, 5th time). THE equation doesn't save TL2, even despite it doesn't exist. I'm once again sorry, you could have got it by yourself, we gave you maaaany chances. Sorry.

  107. >>> they change their spinning vector orientations

    >> That applies to the three repelling electrons, too?

    > Yes, but naturally they all can't be at the same time in
    > antiparallel spinning vector orientation.

    Of course not. That's my point since Sunday. Nice to see that you've got it now.

    > Spinning vector orientation of electrons in your example
    > will change according to THE equation

    Which doesn't exist yet (but will be revealed within a week, I was told). So up to that future revelation of THE equation, what's the use of TL2? Does the "2" now serve as an indication that your hitherto fundamental law of TOEBI can handle no situation more complicated than two electrons?

    But anyway, let's assume, next week you'll have THE equation. Then it will provide three functions \(\vec f_i(t)\), right?

    > and at the same time TL2 applies.

    That's bad, because whatever these three time-dependent vectors \(\vec f_i(t)\) will turn out to be, at no point in time they can all be anti-parallel. That's a mathematical fact from which no FTE* sprite whatsoever can save you. That means, TL2 yields at no point in time a set of symmetric, repulsive forces. Which contradicts Coulomb's law even more severely than anything else discussed before (well, the cross-product-term was also quite a moonshine).

    >> "Antimatter and its applications are derived." Do you
    >> still claim this answer to be true?

    > No,

    So your answer was a lie. Nice move, Kimmo. I still remember your statement "I might be a crackpot, but I try to be a honest one.". Obviously, you didn't try hard enough.

    But I'm not the resentful one, let's have another try. Q3: Which of your predictions published on your blog and in your papers before December 1, 2014 are hopeful speculations and which are rigorously derived from TOEBI's fundamental laws?

    > but after THE equation yes.

    I still don't share your believe in your clairvoyant abilities. But even if this speculation (of which you had promised to refrain from, remember? "Meanwhile, I won't speculate.") would turn out to be true: My question was not about the future, as I had emphasized once more on Sunday and to which you replied with the lie: "Antimatter and its applications are derived." Nota bene: "are dervided", not "will be derived"

    >> Hence, FTEPs are not the only fundamental particles in
    >> TOEBI?

    > Every other particle is made of FTEPs, in that sense FTEPs
    > are only truly fundamental particles.

    Thus, THE equation, anxiously awaited by the scientific world, won't be able to fully describe the behaviour of the FTE*?

    > Whatever the three electron setup is there exists the seed
    > for perturbation which determinate the most powerful
    > interaction between any two electrons.

    There is no equilibrium to be perturbed in this situation. If we have an uud or an udd configuration (or anything equivalent), we always have one pair of electrons attracting each other (in full contradiction to Coulomb's law) and the third electron being repelled from that pair. And we, as the operators of this thought experiment (once you told to be fond of them), can choose \(a\), the initial size of the triangle, as large as we want. Then, the two misbehaving electrons can be observed long enough before they reach that magical distance below which the magical FTE* sprites rush to rescue (though even they would fail in this situation, as proven above).

    > If we have two parallel and one antiparallel spinning
    > vectors then parallel-antiparallel spinning vector pairs
    > trigger the repulsion chain reaction.

    ("Meanwhile, I won't speculate." Yeah, sure!)
    Could you please explain this "repulsion chain reaction" in more detail? Especially: What is the \(\vec f_i\)-configuration after it took place?

    > If all spinning vectors are parallel then even slightest
    > perturbation resolves the order for the repulsion chain
    > reaction.

    Why should this dubious "repulsion chain reaction" here take place at all? For three parallel \(\vec f_i\), we should get smooth attraction, just like gravity. That's against Coulomb's law, sure, but it's according to TL2. Or is poor TL2 never left alone by the miraculous FTE* sprites?

  108. In case of free spinning particles, like electrons in our example, they won't have the time to act on the attractive force. THE equation changes (almost) immediately their spinning vector orientations and electrons start their repulsion chain reaction.

    Of course there is situations where spinning vectors have non-trivial (alpha), like two flat magnetic poles with some angle between them. Ups, did I speculate again?

    Due to lack of THE equation, we can suggest that almost every TOEBI implication or application is speculation at the moment, can't we? However, if I postulate that (anti)parallel spinning vectors put together in head-on manner won't cause a change to their spinning vector orientation then TOEBI antimatter and its applications are saved. Holy cow!

    Actually, I did postulate that spinning vector tends to align perpendicular to the direction of denser FTE... so, if we have two spinning vectors head-on they won't change their orientation because both spinning vectors experience denser FTE but because it's spread symmetrically around them -> no change.

  109. > In case of free spinning particles, like electrons in our
    > example, they won't have the time to act on the attractive
    > force. THE equation changes (almost) immediately their
    > spinning vector orientations

    No matter how far the electrons are apart? The FTE* sprites immediately detect when there are two parallely spinning electrons in the universe and, BAM, they come not to rescue but to discipline this sinning pair? Wow, I'm quite curious about how THE equation is going to pull that one off.

    > and electrons start their repulsion chain reaction.

    I've already asked that: How is this "repulsion chain reaction" taking place? What's its duration? You also completely ignored the mathematical fact, that at no point in time during this "chain reaction" can there be a set of symmetric, repulsive forces. So this "chain reaction" (yet another speculation of yours) cannot be a repulsive one.

    > Due to lack of THE equation, we can suggest that almost
    > every TOEBI implication or application is speculation at
    > the moment, can't we?

    I can not only suggest that, I even can confirm that. But shouldn't the potential reader be informed about this state of matters instead of being deceived by such mind-numbingly boasting statements as "Presented theory is a new theoretical platform which functions as the true theory of everything."?

    About your relativizing "almost": Which of your predictions are now excluded from being just hopeful speculations? That was actually my question.

    > However, if I postulate that (anti)parallel spinning
    > vectors put together in head-on manner

    What's that supposed to mean mathematically?

    > won't cause a change to their spinning vector orientation
    > then TOEBI antimatter and its applications are saved.

    Since THE equation is going to govern the behavior of FTE* in general (isn't it?), this postualte is either redundant or in conflict with THE equation. The same applies to your "Orientation Postulate".

  110. > I did postulate that spinning vector tends to align
    > perpendicular to the direction of denser FTE...

    And I did object, that there are infinitely many of such directions. Hence, this postulate is ambiguous (to avoid the word "nonsensical"). But you don't care about such pettifogging, I know.

  111. You cannot have 3 electrons with spin antiparallel to each other simultaneously.

    @yop Of course not, read couple of my previous comments.

    Irrelevant.

    Please answer using the numbering I used.

    THE equation will only change the alpha. That's all. Any alpha between two electrons that is not 180° will provoke lower repulsion. Alphas (notice the s) between 3 particles cannot always be 180°.

    Do you understand?

  112. Really, my comment was moderated? I don't get what was wrong with it, but I'll try to be as civilian as possible.

    Will THE equation act on anything beside "alpha" in TL2 ?

    If not, do you admit that 3 electrons won't experience repulsion comparable to Coulomb's force?

    If yes, do you recognize that TL2 will never be valid, whatever THE equation will be?

  113. > Of course there is infinite amount of allowed
    > orientations, on the plane perpendicular to the
    > direction of densest FTE. That's perfectly ok.

    Whatever.

    You don't forget the other 5 questions, do you?

  114. You guys ask more question than I possible can answer! Relax a bit, you'll get THE equation soon and then I don't have to wave my hands as much as than now.

    You don't forget the other 5 questions, do you?

    Nope.

  115. > You guys ask more question than I possible can
    > answer!

    Ok, quite a few cans got opened, that's true. But not all of them depend on THE equation.

    > Relax a bit, you'll get THE equation soon
    > and then I don't have to wave my hands as much
    > as than now.

    Alas, that won't be true. (Here I am clairvoyant for a change. 🙂

  116. You guys ask more question than I possible can answer! Relax a bit, you'll get THE equation soon and then I don't have to wave my hands as much as than now.

    Well, here's an idea: actually read the comments of the only 2 commenters of your website. Then you understand why THE equation is already flawed since it cannot help TL2 to be true. You'll avoid time waste.

  117. > Then you understand why THE equation is already
    > flawed since it cannot help TL2 to be true.

    That needn't be a flaw of THE equation. If it would exist and be correct (i.e. having solutions which represent particles behaving like real electrons) it would show TL2 to be wrong. I'm quite surprised that Kimmo didn't fix this anti-parallelism bug of TL2. Having changed TL2 four times already, a fifth wouldn't do anymore harm.

    Otherwise I wohleheartedly agree: More careful thinking instead of weaseling would be useful for Kimmo.

  118. That needn't be a flaw of THE equation. If it would exist and be correct (i.e. having solutions which represent particles behaving like real electrons) it would show TL2 to be wrong. I'm quite surprised that Kimmo didn't fix this anti-parallelism bug of TL2. Having changed TL2 four times already, a fifth wouldn't do anymore harm.

    Yeah, but looking for THE equation thinking it will permit to make TL2 correct is probably like looking for disease origin assuming homeopathy works…

    I mean, in the end, we all know that it can only be some Navier-Stokes stuff revamped with some spin axis vectors that Kimmo has a crush on. It's just that to get it quickly, you have to forget about this TL2 BS.

  119. > but looking for THE equation thinking it will
    > permit to make TL2 correct

    ... is foolish, of course. But who are we to say such things? Just mainstream guys with an attitude, I was told.

  120. I cannot talk about such things and I am trying to control my irony level. I tried to make a complete, honest, and clear answer to the "special edition" post, in order to open Kimmo's eyes, which was violently deleted.

    I'm afraid I'll stay a mainstream guy all my life. Mainstream has this ability to send man to space and give each and everyone access to more computation power than was available to a state a century ago.

    TOEBI just can tell me that maybe sometimes electrons attract each other, and that somehow maybe hypothetically it's possible if it turns out surprisingly to be true that somehow colliding particles with some peculiar spin configuration one might probably get some kind of annihilation.

    Choice is hard, I have to admit it.

  121. > I tried to make a complete, honest, and clear
    > answer to the "special edition" post, in order to
    > open Kimmo's eyes

    But that's not what he wants. He wants to keep them tightly shut to be able to stay in TOEBI-world. Salvation is not asked for.

  122. > Check Two Electron Based Particles subsection,
    > totally derived from TOEBI hypotheses.

    Hmm, I dunno. Does it contain THE equation?

  123. It doesn't contain the equation, because, and I quote the Introduction to TOEBI:

    "We don’t need an equation for describing spinning vector orientation changes as a function of time."

    Of course, this is still wrong and not taking into account the case where 3 electrons have to repulse each other (neither 4 nor 5 nor any number beside 2 actually…). This doesn't solve ANY of the comments we made.

    But in turn, it contains a great and nice amount of FTE flux density BullShit that makes TOEBI such an attraction for our perverted mind. So I think we should stop talking about electrons now and start to go toward photons. Because it's now clear that TOEBI won't explain fermions the least whatever happens. And in turn, it still promise "massy" photons, which should provide us with a lot more fun, as long as, on the boson side Kimmo is not in full denial of its contradictors as he is on the fermion's.

  124. > "We don’t need an equation for describing spinning
    > vector orientation changes as a function of time."

    First, that's a preposterous lie, because TL2 is still in the game, and without knowing \(\vec f_i(t)\), we cannot compute any trajectory from TL2.

    Second, that's 100% weaseling out of the pompous statement: "[...] the evolvement of the \(\vec f\). I'm surely able to construct a proper equation for it,"

    No, Kimmo, obvious, you're not, and the statement quoted by Yop is nothing but a cheap evasion.

    If you seriously want to betake that level of intellectual "honesty", I'm out.

  125. We don't need the equation in the case of three electrons, see my new blog post on the topic. Equation might come later when I have covered every variation in the paper.

  126. What a heck are you talking about? I'll make a new blog post immediately.

    Saw it. Bullshit again. Exploded it.

    I'm talking about the fact that despite my warning, you tried to convert your misunderstanding of geometry to misunderstanding of time.

    To replicate Coulomb, TL2 needs a constant alpha of Pi. That's all. No other way. Alpha cannot switch very quickly, because the math will see it and reduce the average force yielded by TL2 below Coulomb's one. No way round.

Leave a Reply

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