Three Free Electrons

Let’s get this conundrum clear now. How do they behave in various setups. Our basic assumption is that these three free electrons are in equilateral triangle shape so that the distance between any two electrons is the same.

Three ElectronsThree Electrons upside down

Major update starts

Let’s assume that the initial distance between the electrons is large enough for not disturbing the wave pattern generated by these electrons (at least not too much), so that second law is applicaple. Now we can describe quolitative what happens. After more detailed description of repulsive force we are able to do quantitative predictions regarding the timing and trajectories.

Electrons having parallel spinning vectors experience attractive force towards each other as stated by second law and they start moving towards the center of the system. FTE density between electrons ncreases to the point where electrons’ trajectories are reversed. Build up repulsive potential energy does the job. If one of the electrons had antiparallel spinning vector orientation at begin with then things would progress differently. Now the electron with antiparallel spinning vector starts immediately generate repulsive force towards the other two. At the same time those two electrons with parallel spinning vectors attracts each other to the point where repulsion kicks in.

In principle it should be possible to measure the different electron behaviour between this setup and the setup where all spinning vectors were parallel. All we need to measure is if all these electrons hit symmetrically (and with proper distances) set up measuring devices at the same time. In case of all spinning vectors parallel, electrons should hit the measuring devices at the same time but in the other case one electron (antiparallel one) should hit the measuring device before the other two. Those other two electrons have to travel an additional distance before they start experience the repulsive force.

Major update ends (text below is wrong)

1. Scenario

All spinning vectors are parallel. The key player is the bottom electron which has FTEP flux which ejects FTEPs from underneath itself towards the other two (for more information check out subsection Two Electron Based Particles from Introduction to Theory of Everything by Illusion). This electron (electron B) starts to change its spinning vector orientation after the other two. But which one of these other two electrons starts the spinning orientation changing? Again, the surrounding FTE density dictates the order. The one which is closer to Earth’s center of mass (electron C) generates denser FTEP flux (*), hence will be the anchor for the other electron. So, the spinning vector changing order would be, top electron, down electron and the original anchor electron. This order is also the order for electrons leaving the scene.

(*) If the triangle is top down, then the upper electron which ejects FTEPs from underneath of itself towards the other upper electron will be the anchor for the other upper electron. In the picture right it would electron A.

2. Scenario

three_electrons_uud

There is two parallel spinning vectors (electrons A and B) and one antiparallel (electron C). This one is easy. Based on TL2 those antiparallel spinning vectors (B and C) generate repulsive force which triggers the movement for those electrons.

three_electrons_uud_phase2

That single antiparallel electrons experiences the repulsion first and after that, electron A changes its spinning vector, which leads to repulsion between electrons A and B. At the same time electrons A and B are travelling away from electron C.

 

three_electrons_uud_phase3

Again surrounding FTE ordered which electron changes its spinning vector orientation. Momentum will be conserved (the sum of momentum vectors is zero).

3. Scenario

Random spinning orientations (I’ll write this later)

217 thoughts on “Three Free Electrons

  1. Ok, scenario 2 is the only one where you finally give a clear description of your idea. THANK GOD, it was looooong. Now, why is this idea stupid?

    So let’s study Hewey, Dewey and Louie in this scenario. Let’s forget this possibility for electrons to attract each other for a while. I… I don’t even know why I’m dealing with such a sentence, but, okay, let’s forget it…

    T0 Hewey is down, others up.
    -Hewey’s feeling repulsion according to Coulomb.
    -Dewey’s repulsed according to 1/2 Coulomb in Coulomb’s direction (He’s headed wrong, but hopefully, next situation, will make it okay)
    -Louie’s repulsed according to 1/2 Coulomb in Coulomb’s direction

    T1 Dewey decides to go down since one amongst Louie and him has to. Louie’s up, other down.
    – Hewey’s repulsed according to 1/2 Coulomb.
    – Dewey’s repulsed according to 1/2 Coulomb.
    – Louie’s repulsed according to Coulomb.

    T2 It’s time for Huey to go up, in order to contradict Dewey’s decision to have the same spin as him. Dewey’s down, others up.
    – Hewey’s repulsed according to 1/2 Coulomb.
    – Dewey’s repulsed according to Coulomb.
    – Louie’s repulsed according to 1/2 Coulomb.

    T3 everything goes back to same as T0, for the happy TOEBI chain reaction.

    So, let’s look at the average situation as seen by Hewey.

    From T0 to T1, Huey experienced Coulomb. From T1 to T2, half Coulomb. From T2 to T3, half Coulomb.

    So during T0 to T3, he experienced on average a force less than Coulomb. After T3, the situation will evolved the same way yielding, maybe, new T4, T5 up to T6, etc. But never ever can Hewey experience Coulomb force as a full.

    Typically, if we imagine T1 – T0 = T2 – T1 = T3 – T2, the only way for Scrooge nephews (let’s not call them electrons, electrons deserve better) to experience an average force as similar as possible, Hewey experience an average Force of 2/3 of Coulomb’s. If T1 and T0 are very close, that’s 2/3 of the expected acceleration (worse if they’re not).

    Once again, TOEBI fails miserably.

    There’s not even an equation, so I guess the text will get a revamp. That’s easier than an equation.

  2. > That single antiparallel electrons leaves the
    > scene first

    What’s that supposed to mean? If the electrons start with a distance of (say) 10nm, at which distance has the repelled electron “left the scene”?

    It’s rather your proposed “solution” (to a “problem” which doesn’t exist at all in reality) which is a conundrum.

  3. I will update this post (within 24 hours) with few pictures which hopefully open *your* eyes.

    @Berry We can calculate the repulsive force between two parallel and one antiparallel electrons at distance of 10 nm. Generated acceleration is quite large so that leaving the scene, say 1 m from the ground zero, won’t take that much time.

  4. Oh…

    Please Kimmo, I spent some time reading your post, making a comment even you could understand, so instead of despise, could you for once consider other human beings, and tell me what you don’t understand in my comment?

    And, oh my, your answer to Berry. If the antiparallel electron leaves the scene after one meter, TL2 tells us that the parallel ones will have punched into each other long before that… So either leaving the scene is not being one meter apart, either I want what you smoke.

  5. > Generated acceleration is quite large so that
    > leaving the scene, say 1 m from the ground zero,
    > won’t take that much time.

    Yes, that will take a few microseconds. That’s not “much time” for a human being. But what will the attracting pair do during that time? They have to wait this long before beginning their flip?

  6. I’m taking this over from the previous thread:

    > We don’t need the equation in the case of three
    > electrons

    Don’t say “we”! Maybe you don’t need it, because you’re never interested in making rigorous, quantitative predictions. Me, I want to know where the three electrons are at every point in time. With mainstream physics that’s easily done. With TL2 alone (i.e. without \(\vec f_i(t)\)) that’s impossible. Bummer!

  7. > in order to know exactly the positions

    But that’s what ultimately a physical theory is all about. Not just drawing neat pictures, throwing around fancy words and hyping oneself; in the end, hard numbers are asked for.

    So, since you’re “surely able to construct a proper equation for it”, go ahead and do it finally. To argue “Equation might come later when I have covered every variation in the paper.” is nonsensical (and obviously evading), because the equation would cover every of the infinitely many variations automatically.

    But before, please answer my question, what the attracting pair in the “This one is easy.” does during the microseconds it takes for the repelled one to “leave the scene”.

  8. > I’ll deliver the equation as soon as I have derived it.

    That will be before or after delivering THE equation?

    > Forget that 1 meter remark, it’s nonsense.

    So what’s the correct distance to travel in order to have “left the scene”?

  9. Nice move, because I reckon we won’t see THE equation till doomsday. To avoid misunderstandings: \(\dot{\vec f}=\dots\) is not THE equation, you get that? It’s just the necessary ingredient for TL2 to be of any use at all.

    Anyway, you’re still sure that this idea of “leaving the scene” will work at all? And it doesn’t bother you that it predicts an asymmetric scenario while (the experimentally well established) Coulomb’s law yields a (stably) symmetric one?

  10. Anyway, you’re still sure that this idea of “leaving the scene” will work at all? And it doesn’t bother you that it predicts an asymmetric scenario while (the experimentally well established) Coulomb’s law yields a (stably) symmetric one?

    It depends on the rate of the change. If it takes \(\approx 10^{-17}\) s to change the spinning vector orientation then it’s hard to tell if the outcome is symmetric or not.

  11. Starting from the 2nd scenario, how does the configuration look like after this \(10^{-17}\)s (which you pulled from thin air)? Nobody will have “left the scene”. Only the \(\vec f_i\) will have changed. But into which configuration?

  12. > Antiparallel to the other two.

    It already was antiparallel to them, that’s how you defined the 2nd scenario. New try please, what’s the spinning configuration after this \(10^{-17}\)s?

    > \(\approx 10^{-17}\) s comes from how long it
    > takes for electron to spin one round.

    Well, duh! But where did you get this value from?

  13. Oops, I misread “spin around” where you actually wrote “spin one round”, sorry.

    Well, what’s that? Yet another new law of TOEBI? \(\lvert\vec f\rvert=\lvert d(\vec f/\lvert\vec f\rvert)/dt\rvert\)?
    Funny!

  14. No new laws… I’ll derive it properly.

    In case of u, u, d spins (let’s borrow the notation from mainstream physics) d electron experience the repulsion from those u electrons according to TL2 or to be precise it will experience the repulsion from the original anchor u electron because the other u is changing its spinning vector at the same time.

  15. > I’ll derive it properly.

    I’ll hold you to your word!

    > In case of u, u, d spins […] d electron experience
    > the repulsion from those u electrons according to
    > TL2

    That was already clear, ok, at t=0 we have the configuration {uud}.

    > or to be precise it will experience the Repulsion
    > from the original anchor u electron because the
    > other u is changing its spinning vector at the
    > same time.

    So, you’re considering a change from {uud} to (say) {udd} within \(10^{-17}\)s, right? That means, we quickly switch from one asymmetric configuration to another asymmetric configuration and electron 3 effectively experiences a weaker acceleration than according to Coulomb (and with different direction). And then, what’s next?

  16. Okay, I saw 2 little scheme appearing explaining nothing at all, just displaying the T0 equilateral situation berry described for you.

    What are we supposed to see?

    And once agian, which part of my comment didn’t you get?

  17. > What are we supposed to see?

    Spinning objects, which are new to us. Because the main problem of Kimmo’s ideas is that our mainstream brains are too dense to understand even his basic premises.

    > And once agian, which part of my comment
    > didn’t you get?

    tl;Kdr

  18. Just for curiosity, could you guys give me a reference to an experiment which plays around with three free electrons?

    Anyway… I’ll update this post in near future so that it includes step-by-step process description.

  19. Oh, I thought we agreed that finally Coulomb was right, and that you’d work out TOEBI so that it fits standard theory.

    So now, as you asked for 2 electrons if we had a proof Coulomb was right, you will ask us if it works with 3 electrons. Do you seriously think those people working to create SEM, the Large Electron Positron, or Free Electron Laser wouldn’t have notice by now?

    One more time, WE UNDERSTOOD your step by step process. I showed it didn’t work. Please explain me what you didn’t get.

  20. But I don’t think that those applications give a damn about three free electrons in equilateral triangle shape with their spins parallel, or uud etc. Or do they?

    And I also mean by free that electrons are not under the influence of a magnetic field.

  21. You do understand by taking the example of 3 free electrons, we try to take a simple case. The problem with TOEBI gets worse and worse when you take more than 3 free electrons.

  22. > We’ll see about that.

    What we’re seeing right now is the umpteenth invocation of First Law of Kimmo. You didn’t even manage to obtain a definite, quantitative prediction of TOEBI regarding the very subject of this blog post, and you’re already playing the ridiculous card of once more denying over hundred years of experimental evidence regarding Maxwell’s equations.

    Also your objection concerning “with their spins parallel, or uud etc” is irrelevant because TOEBI’s spin has nothing to do with mainstream physic’s spin.

    Why don’t you try harder to be honest and just answer my simple question: We quickly switch from one asymmetric configuration to another asymmetric configuration and electron 3 effectively experiences a weaker acceleration than according to Coulomb (and with different direction). And then, what’s next?

  23. Also your objection concerning “with their spins parallel, or uud etc” is irrelevant because TOEBI’s spin has nothing to do with mainstream physic’s spin.

    Mainstream electron spin emerges from TOEBI spinning vector phenomenon. I thought we had this discussion earlier?

    And then, what’s next?

    And the answer will come in the form of updated blog post… as soon as I’m done with it.

  24. > Mainstream electron spin emerges from TOEBI spinning
    > vector phenomenon. I thought we had this discussion
    > earlier?

    We had a discussion about this unsubstantiated speculation of yours in deed. After first claiming that both kinds of spin would behave in the same way in experiments you had to retract and to admit that “Yes, electron spin and electron spinning vector are not the same.” and you couldn’t answer how an experimentalist would actually prepare or measure the TOEBI-spin.

    Hence, there is no way any experiment could possibly have taken into account the TOEBI-spin configuration {uud} discussed here. The crucial job of the TOEBI-spin configuration is rather to make TL2 work (your claim: “Oh no, THE equation changes those spinning vectors antiparallel in case free electrons and then TL2 kicks in.”) but you’re miserably struggling to pull that off (“repulsion chain reaction”, electrons leaving the 1m sized scene).

    >> And then, what’s next?

    > And the answer will come

    Um… the question was not about the next idea but about what happens after the flip is completed. You hadn’t thought this “far” when trying to sell the \(\approx 10^{-17}\)s as a means to rescue TL2? Just as you hadn’t thought very far when throwing in the scene-leaving idea?

    > in the form of updated blog post… as soon as I’m done
    > with it.

    Then, this blog post will pursue both your recourses, scene-leaving and ultra-fast flipping? Or probably you’ll conjure a third rabbit.

  25. I like to pull rabbits out of my hat 😉 Actually, modelling phenomena with TOEBI is very satisfactory because so far my spinning particles are always came on top the phenomena studied.

    Anyway, I have the blueprint already for our three electron case. When I have enough time available I’ll update this post.

  26. One thing about nomenclature. We had this:

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

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

    K> This is crystal clear for now, thank you guys.

    Up to now, I thought this was what “THE equation” is referring to. Was I wrong?

    And then we have \(\dot{\vec f}=\dots\), likewise still missing, which you once fancied to call “transformation equation”.

    Evidently, the latter must follow from the former, but which one is “THE equation” you promised to deliver “within a week or so”?

  27. > modelling phenomena with TOEBI is very
    > satisfactory

    That’s because you don’t require TOEBI to stand up to experimental observations. In most cases you provide just mere speculations about the qualitative implications of TOEBI’s laws (instead of rigorously deriving quantitative relationships). And in the cases where there are definite predictions, they’re in disagreement with reality. That’s no problem for you, you just invoke the First Law of Kimmo (insulting scores of experimentalists, who, unlike you, didn’t rush through physics) or ignore the discrepancies (like an electron radius being at least five million times too big).

    But, yeah, you already intimated that this whole story is not about science.

  28. Evidently, the latter must follow from the former, but which one is “THE equation” you promised to deliver “within a week or so”?

    We’ll see… in couple of days.

  29. > We’ll see… in couple of days.

    Only in a couple of days we will see which one of the two mentioned equations is “THE equation”? So, you don’t even know on which one you’ll be working during this few days? Either you’re making fun out of me or you didn’t bother to actually read my question.

  30. > Those two might be combined.

    Are you always in maximal weasel-mode? Or are you just unable to understand that the latter must follow from the former? That’s the only possible “combination”.

    But all this has nothing to do with my initial question about which one we should agree to call “THE equation”. That’s a question about the present and about a possible misunderstanding in the past, it’s not about the future. Is it due to your clairvoyant capabilities that you’re always confusing them?

  31. > it’s not about the future

    Well, it actually is about the future use of the expression “THE equation”, but it doesn’t depend on whatever you come up with in a couple of days.

  32. I updated the post, there is now a picture for each step.

    > Mainstream electron spin emerges from TOEBI spinning
    > vector phenomenon. I thought we had this discussion
    > earlier?

    We had a discussion about this unsubstantiated speculation of yours in deed. After first claiming that both kinds of spin would behave in the same way in experiments you had to retract and to admit that “Yes, electron spin and electron spinning vector are not the same.” and you couldn’t answer how an experimentalist would actually prepare or measure the TOEBI-spin.

    Based on the orientation postulate we now know that spinning vector will get aligned so that it generates the electron spin up and down behaviour for example in Stern–Gerlach experiment. Ah, but you still don’t believe that spinning electrons can generate a magnetic field… what a shame.

  33. > I updated the post, there is now a picture for each step.

    We understood the steps long before, Kimmo, but what you don’t understand is that they’re nothing but qualitative, incomplete hand-waving and unable to prove a resulting symmetric repulsion between the three electrons.

    > That single antiparallel electrons experiences the
    > repulsion first and after that, electron A changes its
    > spinning vector,

    At which time is “after that”? When and why does C give A a call saying “All right, I’ve experienced enough repulsion, you can flip now.”? What’s the distance between A and C at that time? That’s quite important because after the flip, A and C attract each other again, and you’re totally ignoring what happens then.

    > Based on the orientation postulate we now know that
    > spinning vector will get aligned

    We don’t know anything quantitatively about this alignment process, because you still have no law for it in TOEBI.

    > Ah, but you still don’t believe that spinning electrons
    > can generate a magnetic field

    It’s not for me to believe, it’s for you to prove. But you have no law for the magnetic field produced by an electron in TOEBI, either. Everything involving magnetic fields in TOEBI is purest speculation (from which you had promised to refrain, remember? “Meanwhile, I won’t speculate.”). And I won’t discuss magnetic fields now, anyway. This is about three free electrons.

  34. Wow, that’s supposed to be the pictures that *open our eyes* ? Pictures describing exactly what we understood and what we explained to you was wrong in countless way…

    But okay, now that there’s picture, let’s try again…

    So, to begin, why is C having no influence on the last picture? Is it, hem, too far? Because in such a case, it means that A and B collided. You can do the math. Of course. Or you can just blabber FTE flux density spin again. What’ll it be?

    Oh and additionally, do you understand that none of us actually care which electron changes spin first, right? I think Berry and I are peeeerfectly okay with one of them switching on his own because he just feels like it. That is totally irrelevant versus the thinking that you can win against geometry by misunderstanding time.

    Edited by Kimmo

  35. > That’s right, in case of 10 nm initial distances

    You fail to understand that the problem is independent of the initial scale. I had prescribed the 10nm in the utterly unrealistic hope that you would answer in terms of actual numbers.

    > the FTE density will prevent the collision.

    Without forming TOEBI-positronium (which exactly consists of two TOEBI-electrons spinning parallel, as we’re told), of course, because… um… well, the friendly FTE* sprites know what Kimmo wants to come out.

    > Was that some kind of surprise?

    Of course it’s no surprise, that once more the friendly FTE* sprites come to save you. In this case, they “save” you from providing any quantitative results, because you cannot tell (quantitatively!) what happens after the collision. Or can you? Surely, you’re answer will be “We’ll see.”. When? In a couple of days? We’ll see. My observation: Up to now, you never delivered any missing equation, no matter about what.

  36. >That is totally irrelevant versus the thinking that
    > you can win against geometry by
    > misunderstanding time.

    > Edited by Kimmo

    Didn’t you promise to mark where you applied censorship? Not that the no-go expression “stupid” would have been important for Yop’s argument, but a mere “Edited by Kimmo” could still mean anything.

  37. > Well, I do my best here with my very limited
    > free time.

    I can’t confirm that, particularly with the condition of limited time kept in mind. The first thing you always do is to be loud about that we’re wrong anyway and TOEBI is right anyway, instead of carefully thinking about our arguments.

    > Give me some slack…

    You would have more slack if you kept a low profile while actually working on a quantitative solution instead of pompously spouting out impetuous “solutions”. I’d find it more constructive to have now one week of silence until you really come up with something non-handwaving. Are you able to do that? Working assidously on the three electron “conundrum” (no, it’s not solved by above pictures!) without providing teasers about which unrelated new elephants those stupid physicists are overlooking once again? I know that your favorite is “talk big or go home”, but you’re really overdoing it.

  38. That’s right, in case of 10 nm initial distances the FTE density will prevent the collision. Was that some kind of surprise?

    We don’t care whether it’s 10 nm, 1 angstrom or 10 meters. You cannot affirm that C left the scene before A and B collide. That’s all.

    Let’s imagine the distance d between electrons at start, and original repulsion F0. When C is at 2d from A and B, the force it yields is F0/4. That’s not negligible. So C didn’t leave the scene. So A and B are still parallel.

    Oh, but, with a decreasing force inferior to 2F0, C ran a distance d (from d to 2d). Is there any chance that with an increasing force on each, A and B, starting with force F0 to each other, didn’t run this d/2 distance that will bring them into each other?

    And leaving alone this attraction problem, do you realize your setup still doesn’t respect Coulomb prediction?

  39. And leaving alone this attraction problem, do you realize your setup still doesn’t respect Coulomb prediction?

    What do you mean?

    @Berry Sure thing, I’ll work for a week in silence. I might answer to yop one time though.

  40. I mean, as from my first comment, that the average force felt by each particle is inferior to Coulomb’s force.

  41. >When C is at 2d from A and B, the force it yields
    > is F0/4.

    And it doesn’t even reach this distance. When A and B collide, C is 1.82d away from them. But now I’ll shut up until Kimmo comes back with his own quantitative description.

  42. Would it be, after now two weeks, insolent to ask about the state of your calculations? Any \(\dot{\vec f}\) visible at the horizon?

  43. Well… in order to get that \(\dot{\vec f}\) I have researched in more detail the properties of FTE and that has exhausted my available time. In other words, I’m not ready yet.

    On top of that, I have studied more QM.

  44. > Yes I’m.

    Then, what’s your explanation for your perceived robustness of “ToEbi predicted antimatter phenomena and technology”? Beyond slogans like “Just put those prepared solid hydrogen blocks together, the rest is history.”, I mean.

    > But now on I put more weight
    > on robustness

    Glad to hear that, makes a nice New Year’s resolution. 🙂

  45. Mmm… antimatter applications presented in this site are shortcuts at the moment. Gambler-like experimental physicist should take the bet.

    Robustness as a New Year’s resolution 🙂 Not bad!

  46. What’s a “shortcut” in this context? How can you present an application which you’ve never tested and for which your theory is incapable of making robust predictions?

  47. Shortcut due to lack robust theoretical platform. But the concept of antimatter is evident in TOEBI, there is no other way for it and the mechanism for it explains the asymmetry between the amount of matter and antimatter nicely.

  48. > Shortcut due to lack robust theoretical platform.

    I still don’t get it. A shortcut is a path between two points, between which a different, longer path is more common. What are those two points in your case? One is your claim, and the other is what?

    > But the concept of antimatter is evident in TOEBI,

    The concept of antimatter is non-existent in TOEBI. (Positronium e.g. consists of two identical particles in TOEBI.) Well, that’s of course a nice way to get rid of the asymmetry. But this is irrelevant to the fact that TOEBI in its current state is unable to make quantitative predictions about the fate of the two “prepared solid hydrogen blocks”.

  49. >and the other is what?

    How to utilize particle annihilation according to TOEBI. The shortcut is the qualitative description. We’ll get the quantitative description later.

  50. >> and the other is what?

    > How to utilize particle annihilation according
    > to TOEBI.

    What?!? Ok, let’s call that point B. What is then point A?

    > The shortcut is the qualitative description.

    You are just abusing “shortcut” as an euphemism for “unsubstantiated claim”. The “qualitative description” is not even based on a fundamental law of TOEBI. It’s just a description of what you would like to be the qualitative outcome.

    > We’ll get the quantitative description later.

    How much later? Any predictions (more careful ones)?

  51. “In practice” sounds pretty counter-rigorous. Where is \(\dot{\vec f}\) to be found in “Introduction to Theory of Everything by Illusion”?

    And why a new post? If you’ve solved the “conundrum”, why not continue the discussion here? The amount of rigorosiy in your theory does not grow with the number of new posts you start.

  52. Spinning vector orientation changes are, in practice, instantaneous. It means that \(\dot{\vec f}\) is described through the locations of participating particles, particle properties (electron based or composite) and their velocities.

  53. > Spinning vector orientation changes are, in practice,

    What is “in practice” supposed to mean? Are you working daily with some \(\vec f\)s, so that you can see what they are doing in practice? We are talking about your theory! The \(\vec f\)s are part of your theory and the reader wants to known what your theory has to say about \(\vec f(t)\), but instead of an equation for \(\dot{\vec f}\) he gets handwaving again and a deceiving abuse of the expression “in practice”. He has no use for yet another post full of handwaving, he wants to see the equation.

    > instantaneous.

    What does that mean? It can change instantaneously by a finite amount?

    > It means that \(\dot{\vec f}\) is described through the
    > locations of participating particles, particle properties
    > (electron based or composite) and their velocities.

    No, that’s not what instantaneous change means. But it’s an utterly trivial statement that \(\dot{\vec f}\) depends on certain conditions. The key question is how it depends of which conditions. That’s what the equation that you’re promising since one month and that you’re “surely able to construct”, would answer. But it’s still not there, you still cannot compute the trajectories of the three electrons. No need for new posts trying to obfuscate this fact, really.

  54. Spinning vector orientation can make a total flip in that previously mentioned, hypothesized, time, \(\approx 10^{-17}\) seconds. That is pretty instantaneous to me!

    You’ll get the calculation for the trajectories in couple of days, maybe even tomorrow.

  55. > \(\approx 10^{-17}\) seconds. That is pretty instantaneous
    > to me!

    That’s just because you compare it to the time scale of us human beings. In the microscopic world, it’s not that short. E.g. the frequency of the classical motion of an electron around a proton is of this order of magnitude. It’s also a time scale which is reachable in controlling laser pulses (cf. http://phys.org/news192909576.html). The lifetime of the weak bosons, on the other hand, is 100 million times shorter.

    I take that for you, “instantaneous” does not mean “in actual zero time”, but that’s not that important, yet.

    > You’ll get the calculation for the trajectories in couple
    > of days, maybe even tomorrow.

    We’ll see. “In couple of days”, that rings a certain bell to me.

  56. >The lifetime of the weak bosons, on the other hand, is 100 million times shorter.

    That is fast indeed. We might see in future if there is an electron lurking inside W bosons…

  57. > That is fast indeed.

    But it’s still 10 trillion times longer than the Planck time.

    > We might see in future if there is an
    > electron lurking inside W bosons…

    “Meanwhile, I won’t speculate”, yeah, sure, Kimmo. But just for the record: The \(W^-\) boson is long known to be able to decay into an electron and an antineutrino. You’re too late.

  58. Eh… I have to admit that calculating the trajectories won’t be possible purely with TL2. I started to investigate possible solution regarding free electron systems.

    However, at the same time I’m writing about bound state electron systems which I think you might find very interesting… (I updated the paper) I’m approaching EM phenomena in deriving manner.

  59. > I have to admit that calculating the trajectories won’t be
    > possible purely with TL2.

    Duh! You admitted that already three three weeks ago:

    B>> With TL2 alone (i.e. without \(\vec f_i(t)\)) that’s impossible.
    K> That’s right,

    > I started to investigate possible solution regarding free
    > electron systems.

    You now started with that?!? But we already know the solution since more than three weeks: \(\dot{\vec f}\) is needed, about which you claimed one month ago: “I’m surely able to construct a proper equation for it,”

    > However, at the same time I’m writing about bound state
    > electron systems which I think you might find very
    > interesting

    I rather find it very evading. Switching he subject, you’re trying to distract from the fact that you’re actually not able to construct a proper equation for \(\dot{\vec f}\).

    Summarizing, TOEBI is incapable to predict the movement of three free electrons, which is a very simple problem. Nevertheless, you continue to advertise TOEBI as the “new theoretical platform which functions as the true theory of everything“. And you’re still wondering why you’re not taken seriously?

  60. \(\dot{\vec f}\) is already clear. Spinning vector changes its orientation (if it’s allowed to) in time \(t_{f}\approx 10^{-17}\) seconds antiparallel to its interaction partner’s spinning vector if we talk about particle-particle interactions. All this is clear, right?

    Above combined with TL2 gives us nice and easy the behaviour of “charged” particle in e.g. magnetic field.

  61. > \(\dot{\vec f}\) is already clear.

    You must be kidding. Nothing is clear about it. Where is its equation?

    > Spinning vector changes its orientation (if it’s allowed to)

    When is it not allowed to? That would be answered by the equation for \(\dot{\vec f}\).

    > in time \(t_f\approx 10^{-17}\) seconds

    Always within this time scale, irrespective of its distance to any other particles? That would be answered by the equation for \(\dot{\vec f}\).

    > antiparallel to its interaction partner’s spinning vector

    Which one is its interaction partner in the case of \(N>2\) particles? Or can it have more than one? If yes, then anti-parallel to which direction? And does it always perform a full flip? All this would be answered by the equation for \(\dot{\vec f}\).

    > All this is clear, right?

    Clear is only that you still didn’t deliver any equation at all. Clear is only that you think you could weasel out of the promise of an equation for \(\dot{\vec f}\) by simply claiming “Spinning vector orientation changes are, in practice, instantaneous.”

    If you actually had an equation for \(\dot{\vec f}\), the trajectories of the three electrons could be computed. The fact that you cannot do that proves once more that your predictions about the temporal evolution of \(\vec f\) are utterly incomplete.

    > Above combined with TL2 gives us nice and easy the
    > behaviour of “charged” particle in e.g. magnetic field.

    That’s not true, either. You continue to claim that, but it
    just stays one of the too many unsubstantiated claims.

  62. Well, inventing the equation for \(\dot{\vec f}\) which accommodates all the requirements isn’t a walk in a park. By approximated spinning vector behaviour I can take over EM phenomena faster (believe it or not).

    I haven’t dropped the goal for inventing the equation. I must let my subconscious do its part in this inventing process…

  63. > Well, inventing the equation for \(\dot{\vec f}\) which
    > accommodates all the requirements isn’t a walk in a park.

    I never said it was. You were talking about “In couple of days”, which sounds quite like a peace of cake to me.

    > By approximated spinning vector behaviour I can take over
    > EM phenomena faster (believe it or not).

    As I’ve already said, it’s not for me to believe, it’s for you to prove. So let’s have a magentic field of 0.1T in z-direction and an electron with \(\vec f\) aligned in x-direction and a velociy of 100m/s in x-direction. What happens according to TOEBI?

    > I haven’t dropped the goal for inventing the equation. I
    > must let my subconscious do its part in this inventing
    > process…

    Yeah, sure. Kimmo, who are you trying to fool? You’ll never deliver a proper equation for \(\dot{\vec f}\). Do I already hear your answer “We’ll see”? Sure, we’ll see.

  64. Ah… something to calculate, lovely. I have only a little problem with Tesla unit, but I’ll try find large enough amount of electrons (in magnetic poles) which will do the job (in equivalent manner). I presume we are talking about homogenous magnetic field.

    I’ll do the math tomorrow.

  65. > I presume we are talking about
    > homogenous magnetic field.

    Of course. Most simple problems, like the three free electrons.

  66. f⃗ ˙ is already clear. Spinning vector changes its orientation (if it’s allowed to) in time tf≈10−17 seconds antiparallel to its interaction partner’s spinning vector if we talk about particle-particle interactions. All this is clear, right?

    Nope, it’s not clear, we already saw that it was wrong 3 weeks ago. Because it doesn’t respect Coulomb’s force in the case of more than 2 electrons, especially in the case of 3 electrons, which berry rose up precisely to show you TL2 was stupid and PRECISE calculation for f orientation was needed.

    And, no don’t think you can fly away with your “amazingly short” 10^-17 s. Some people have now gotten quite good at exploring phenomenas at this time scale using ultrashort laser pulses.

  67. Just because I’ll answer in the new post, don’t think it went unnoticed that TOEBI failed in the topic of this post.

  68. I wonder why I haven’t stick with TL2… because in case of three electrons initially there is attractive force which does the work against repulsive force. At some point, repulsive potential energy kicks in.

    The trick is that when electrons are at a close proximity the wave pattern generated by spinning particle is lost, hence no spinning induced force present.

    No need to change any spinning vector orientations, neat huh?

  69. > I wonder why I haven’t stick with TL2…

    I beg your pardon? You still stick to it, you just drop the temporal evolution of \(\vec f\), because it’s too difficult for you. That means, your last week’s “And again, I need that equation.” is forgotten, instead my prediction has become true: “And after one week without success, will you make up yet another silly excuse why it can actually be avoided.”

    > because in case of three electrons initially there is attractive force

    Only in TOEBI, not in reality.

    > which does the work against repulsive force.

    Where does that suddenly come from? Ah yes, the friendly FTE* sprites once again come to rescue. Thus, once again, nothing can be known about this repulsive force, not even at which distance it “kicks in”.

    > No need to change any spinning vector orientations, neat huh?

    It couldn’t be farther from being “neat”! Instead of solving the problem, you declare TL2 as no longer being valid “when electrons are at a close proximity”, just by throwing in a new buzzword “wave pattern”. Brief, you replaced a definitive (but wrong) prediction by handwaving, which moreover makes things even worse: Now, even the trajectories of two electrons cannot be computed anymore. It’s all very sad.

  70. I beg your pardon, but wave pattern is not a new buzzword. It’s the explanation to double slit experiment and quantum eraser, according to great master Kimmo. A problem that’s been solved by TOEBI long ago already. Well, there’s still this part about calculation not being made and no prediction available, but he said some wave pattern stuff, so like photons go there or there, and wave pattern breakdown if you have quantum eraser. Very informative.

  71. Oh, sorry, I didn’t know. Ok, then all pieces of TOEBI suddenly fit together and it becomes quite obvious why “Country (or countries) who adopts first the ToEbi predicted antimatter phenomena and technology has a HUGE advantage over the other countries in every way.”

    I see… We live in very exciting times, don’t we?

  72. Definitely. As Einstein probably said “There’s a fundamental problem with antimatter. Probably some country will one day discover it’s spinning spiky stuff and rule the world”.

  73. Hilarious! Too bad that Einstein is dead… he might have appreciated TOEBI because of its realism and how it shows that QM is just an approximation from TOEBI 😉

  74. > because of its realism

    … like attracting electrons …

    > and how it shows that QM is just an approximation
    > from TOEBI 😉

    … as follows immediately from TL2 and its companion, the Fairy Tale Extensions.

  75. Feel free running the experiment described in updated part, attraction between electrons is observable. At least in the case you don’t believe that the attractive force between two conductive wires is generated by aligned electron spins.

  76. > Feel free running the experiment described in
    > updated part,

    If you predict violations of Maxwell’s equations, it’s your job to provide experimental evidence.

    > attraction between electrons is observable.

    The subject of this post, also after the breathtaking update, is an electrostatic situation, Kimmo, not a magnetic one with electric currents.

    Nice try, though.

    And any idea, why the electrons must be in a wire?

  77. I overlooked that one:

    > that the attractive force between two conductive wires
    > is generated by aligned electron spins.

    It isn’t, unless the wires are ferromagnets, but then the conductiveness is irrelevant.

  78. It isn’t, unless the wires are ferromagnets, but then the conductiveness is irrelevant.

    Do you think/know that those electrons running through the wires don’t have the same spins?

  79. Of course, otherwise there would be a magnetic field even for vanishing current. It’s actually takes quite an effort to have currents with aligned spins, that’s what the guys in spintronics are workng on since about thirty years.

    But it’s not relevant for TOEBI anyway, because \(\vec f\) is not the electron spin from mainstream physics.

  80. > What prevents that there exists a weak and maybe local
    > magnetic “domains” (with whatever orientation) for
    > vanishing currents?

    Temperature. But I won’t give lectures here about spin based magnetism to you, who proudly avoided books on physics.

    Instead, let’s get back on track, i.e. interaction between electrons. Since TOEBI is so much more concrete than “current physics assumptions”, here one concrete question: What is the force between two electrons with parallel \(\vec f\) and a separation of 10nm according to TOEBI? Magnitude and direction, please.

  81. I can’t answer… it depends on how FTEP based repulsion behaves mathematically and I don’t have that figured out yet.

    In free hand waving mode it goes so that at first electrons attract each other and they move towards each other. If it’s a direct hit then trajectories will be reversed.

  82. So, your theory of everything can no longer predict even the simplest cases, and its Second Law is of no use anymore. Kimmo, that’s really a very impressive theory you’ve got there.

    And even its qualitative predictions are in direct conflict with over hundred years of empirical evidence (resting electrons first attract and move towards each other, sure!). And whom exactly do you want to convince with this ruins of a theory?

  83. I update the theory all the time and currently the most important missing piece is the equation for FTEP based repulsion. I’ll pull it off, no worries.

  84. > I update the theory all the time

    I know, but the updates are no improvements. The number of quantitative predictions has dropped to zero now. With TL2, at least something definite (but still wrong) could be predicted. Now, there’s nothing left than handwaving, and even that produces nonsense.

    > I’ll pull it off, no worries.

    Yeah, sure thing, Kimmo. Just as you pulled off e.g. the muon, the equation for \(\dot{\vec f}\) and the homogeneous magnetic field, right? And when will you deliver? “In couple of days”? May I remind you, that you promised “THE equation” already several weeks ago? And what came out? Nothing.

  85. I’m a very busy man, and also extremely optimistic 😉 One thing wonders me… if (and when) I’m right about the underlying “secrets” of Nature and we’ll be capable of harness “antimatter” for our purposes does it bother you at all? I don’t give a fuck in case I don’t get any credit for it, you know why? Because in practice, that’s the end of our existence.

    Back to business… you said that there is no quantitative prediction power left in TOEBI anymore. Surely there is… TL2 is still live and kicking, you can calculate the force for (almost) any static electrons’ setup, even the force between two magnets 😉

  86. > TL2 is still live and kicking, you can calculate the force
    > for (almost) any static electrons’ setup

    Why this silly lie? Just above you admitted that you cannot even calculate the force between two electrons. You now have to pull yet another Fairy Tale Extension out of thin air to get rid of the attractive TL2-force.

    > even the force between two magnets

    That’s not true, either. Sure, you can plug formulas involving TL2 into each other without much sense, but it all comes out wrong. You don’t even get the direction of the force in your “homgeneous magnetic field” http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/electron-in-magnetic-field right.

  87. Just above you admitted that you cannot even calculate the force between two electrons.

    Surely I can, for the initial setup excluding the repulsive element. No problem.

  88. No problem obtaining irrelevant numbers, that’s true. excluding the repulsive element is the killer! Can you switch it off during an experiment to measure \(\vec F_\mathrm{TL2}\)? No, you can’t. Hence, \(\vec F_\mathrm{TL2}\) is fundamentally unobservable now. Always it’s \(\vec F=\vec F_\mathrm{TL2}+\vec F_\mathrm{FTE}\) acting on a TOEBI-electron, where the tags are a bit inaccurate, because TL2 is claimed (unsubstantiatedly as usual) to be caused by FTE, too.

    Now, if you massage the fairies of your Fairy Tale Extensions long enough, maybe one day you’ll get agreement with experimental facts, i.e. \(\vec F=\vec F_\mathrm{Coulomb}\), which means \(\vec F_\mathrm{FTE}=\vec F_\mathrm{Coulomb}-\vec F_\mathrm{TL2}\). In other words, \(\vec F_\mathrm{TL2}\) drops out when adding the two contributions and its actual form and thus the numbers it yields are totally irrelevant: TL2 is doomed by your latest strike of genius.

  89. \(\vec F_{FTE}\) is relevant only in very short distances (it’s the force preventing particles touch & get destroyed in TOEBI world), TL2 functions in much broader spectrum.

  90. Yes, something like approximately $$10^{-10}$$ m and actually that distance is more appropriate for electron-proton interactions. In case of electron-electron the distance is even smaller (devide that with roughly 1800).

  91. So, according to TOEBI, two electrons with parallel spins, initially (say) 1cm apart and resting, will approach each other down to at least 0.1pm. Yes?

  92. And your explanation for this utter contradiction to Coulomb’s law (supported by over hundred years of emperical evidence) is what? That nobody has ever worked with exactly two “free” electrons? Or dou you just evoke plain old First Law of Kimmo?

  93. So, I too can claim “Two free planets repel each other!” and then fake pity that the test is so difficult because our solar system has more than two planets? I would feel rather stupid with such nonsense.

    Anyway, two such (i.e. parallel \(\vec f\), initially resting and more than 0.1pm apart) electrons attract each other in TOEBI-world. How about three such electrons?

  94. Oh my Kimmo!

    That’s insane. I can’t imagine Berry even argued past the “repulsion kicks in at 1 angstrom distance” stupidity.

    Didn’t we agree Coulomb’s force was reality and you had to correct your stuff so that it fits well known and observed classical physics?

    Do you realize to where your stubborness is leading you? If you stick with your stupid TL2 using such argument, it’s very likely that I’ll stop commenting once and for all, and I don’t think berry will keep up with that much longer.

    So you’ll be alone, doing your little bullshit on your own, with no one to correct and teach you. If that’s what you want, so be it. If you want to take advantage of the knowledge we can bring you, you’ll have to show more respect and open mind.

  95. > Neighboring electrons with proper spinning vectors surely
    > can “collapse” and then bounce off,

    I’m not interested in the fate of neighbour bounces. I just want to make sure about TOEBI-world: We have a cloud of electrons somewhere in space, where the Sun is their gravity boss, which aligns their TOEBI-spins all (essentially) in the same direction. The initial density of the cloud is (say) \(1/\)mm³. Due to TL2, this electron cloud then collapses and attains a higher density, right? Actually, the density could go up to about \(10^{33}/\)mm³.

  96. @Berry

    It doesn’t work that way. Those electrons have their spinning vectors aligned according to Sun but only on the plane perpendicular to the direction of Sun.

    On that plane, electrons can have any spinning orientation (in relation to other electrons), hence no collapse.

  97. @Yop

    I appreciate your (both of you) knowledge and guidance for sure, but you have to be open minded. If you don’t know for sure, how for example two or three electrons behave in certain situation, then keep my description as a possibility, even though very unlikely possibility. If my theory conflicts, for sure, with contemporary wisdom in physics then I’ll fix it.

  98. You’re really gonna used 3-years old argument “no, you should be open minded”. It’s not a question of being open minded to disagree with someone who, for no reason, explains you that one of the most well known laws of physics is wrong in the precise situation where it’s the only one applying.

    2 or 3 free electrons will repulse each other according to Coulomb’s law. FOR SURE.

    In the case which interests us, you are pulling off some crazy idea of electrons actually closing up rather than repulsing, only to defend the very existence of what you insist to call a fundamental law despite not being fundamental and hardly being relevant in the context of mechanical ether.

    Your claims are utterly wrong, since they contradict all observations made since hundred years. Your reasons for this claim are utterly bad, since they’re not bringing anything into TOEBI. What could possibly go wrong?

  99. > On that plane, electrons can have any spinning orientation
    > (in relation to other electrons), hence no collapse.

    But if they happen to be aligned also within that plane, the cloud would contract (“collapse” sounds so catastrophic), right? Now, what happens if we have two groups in that cloud, TOEBI-spins aligned within each group and the two “group spins” being opposite. What would happen?

  100. > you have to be open minded

    FYIO: You are the one who’s not open-minded. You shut yourself and your TOEBI-Baby against experimental evidence and rational reason.

  101. 2 or 3 free electrons will repulse each other according to Coulomb’s law. FOR SURE.

    For sure, but initially there might be attraction.

    My claims are TOEBI predictions, like the initial attraction between parallel spinning vector electrons. Sounds pretty testable to me.

  102. But if they happen to be aligned also within that plane, the cloud would contract (“collapse” sounds so catastrophic), right? Now, what happens if we have two groups in that cloud, TOEBI-spins aligned within each group and the two “group spins” being opposite. What would happen?

    To the first question: Right.

    To the second question: Let’s restrict the setup so that electrons are in grid-like pattern. Both groups would collapse initially and at the same time generate repulsion towards the other group. After the initial collapse, both groups would expand due to FTE density induced repulsion and at the same time generate repulsion towards the other group. So it just looks like that those two clouds eject their electrons into the opposite directions due to TL2 repulsion and/or due to FTE density induced repulsion.

  103. FYIO: You are the one who’s not open-minded. You shut yourself and your TOEBI-Baby against experimental evidence and rational reason.

    For sure, but I try to identify biases and deal with them. After all, I’m human being…

  104. > like the initial attraction between parallel spinning
    > vector electrons. Sounds pretty testable to me.

    Nope, because after all TOEBI-spin is really not the standard electron spin, and we’re back at the experimentalists question as how to measure and prepare TOEBI-spin.

    Moreover, nobody will test such a ridiculous prediction. It’s like I would say “Well, h(t)=h(0)-gt²/2 is all nice and well, but I predict that it doesn’t hold true for pink octaeders dropped right at the north pole. That’s quite testable, why doesn’t anybody do this test?”

    > So it just looks like that those two clouds eject their
    > electrons into the opposite directions

    That means, the cloud should demix, right?

    > but I try to identify biases and deal with them

    Can there be a better justified bias than confirmation by experiments?

  105. Nope, because after all TOEBI-spin is really not the standard electron spin, and we’re back at the experimentalists question as how to measure and prepare TOEBI-spin.

    That’s right, but electron spin emerges from TOEBI spin (In my todo list).

    Demix, right.

    Can there be a better justified bias than confirmation by experiments?

    It depends on the experiment. If the experiment seeks outcome which is too “black&white” then we should look at the phenomenon in more detailed fashion so that we can discover all possible subtleties regarding it. Just like in the case of electron-electron interactions.

    I’m pretty sure that the more detailed experiments regarding free “spin enhanced” electron-electron interactions will reveal something new to contemporary physics. Easy Nobel prizes anybody? 😉

  106. > electron spin emerges from TOEBI spin (In my todo list).

    Things on your TODO list prove even less (if that’s possible at all) than things on your DONE list. Thus, this unsubstantiated emergence claim is irrelevant and, moreover, doesn’t answer the experimentalist’s question at all.

    > Demix, right.

    Then, what happens to either “purified” cloud after the demixing?

    > Just like in the case of electron-electron interactions.

    And you know from your detailed literature study, that the electron-electron interaction is experimentally quite neglected?

    > I’m pretty sure

    The things about which you’re pretty sure and the things which are actually true are totally unrelated. How many times have you been sure that you had solved a problem in TOEBI during the last months?

  107. For sure, but initially there might be attraction.

    No. You seem to have a problem with the definition of time. It seems like for you, there’s always a kind of convenient very short time where electrons will behave as you like so that your little fairy tales are true.

    Few weeks ago, the miracle happened because “oh, the spin vector orientation is changing, like, very very very fast, so it’s okay”. No it was not and I showed it.

    Now, the new fairy tale is “oh, but at the beginning, they attract each other, but so fast you won’t ever notice”.

    For fuck’s sake, people have been sending bunches of electrons and positons at each other at relativistic speed and recording the precise place of their collision for years. People are making bunches of electrons oscillate to obtain x-ray coherent beam. People created SEM, TEM, which involves manipulating a beam of electrons and focusing it. People are using ultrashort laser pulse to see electrons go from one atomic bond to another.

    Do you think none of these hundred of thousands of people who worked on the very subject of electrons for hundred of years, NONE OF THEM, would have noticed free electrons attracting each other, once in their life? EVER?

    No, they all missed the big stuff that when you make a bunch of electrons, something like half of them attract for a few nanosecond ’til almost colliding. Thanks Kimmo, we’ll be more careful next time. Probably you just fixed all those SEMs, TEMs, FELs and LEPs troubles that have been bugging science results for years.

  108. And you know from your detailed literature study, that the electron-electron interaction is experimentally quite neglected?

    That made me smile 🙂

    Ok, how experimentalist can manipulate TOEBI spinning vectors? Naturally with particles (e.g. photons, electrons)… by shooting particles towards our test electron does has an effect on the test electron’s spinning vector orientation. Such interaction is described in the book (two electrons case), in future I’ll describe how incoming photons affect spinning vector orientation.

    Then, what happens to either “purified” cloud after the demixing?

    Nothing I ques… Just like in case of three electrons, initial attraction then FTE density induced repulsion.

  109. Now, the new fairy tale is “oh, but at the beginning, they attract each other, but so fast you won’t ever notice”

    And I presented a way for measuring it.

    NONE OF THEM, would have noticed free electrons attracting each other, once in their life? EVER?

    Have they EVER noticed electron-positron attraction? 😉

  110. >> And you know from your detailed literature study, that the
    >> electron-electron interaction is experimentally quite
    >> neglected?

    > That made me smile 🙂

    Because you felt proud?

    >> Then, what happens to either “purified” cloud after the demixing?

    > Nothing I ques… Just like in case of three electrons,
    > initial attraction then FTE density induced repulsion.

    That’s far from being nothing. So, what happens in the “long” run of (say) one second?

    > And I presented a way for measuring it.

    No, you didn’t.

    > Have they EVER noticed electron-positron attraction? 😉

    Of course they have. Positronium e.g. has been oberserved experimentally. What is your point?

  111. And I presented a way for measuring it.

    Who would measure something that has been proven to be wrong for hundred of years?

    Have they EVER noticed electron-positron attraction?

    Ok, I’ll ignore this smiley that’s making you more ridicule that a human being has the right to be. Electron and positron never showed any repulsion behavior. AND NO, NEVER HAS AN POSITRON SUDDENLY TURNED INTO AN ELECTRON a fraction of angstrom close to each other.

    Anyway, a little chronology of your BS is needed now:

    1 – TL2 works for 2 electrons if spin vectors antiparallel.
    2 – It’s not possible to make it work for 3 electrons (despite very long argument about spin “spinning” very fast, blah blah blah, I don’t know any geometryn blah blahà.
    3 – Oh, I… I… I feel something in my ass. I’ll pull it out… OH, a new “addition” to TL2 : suddenly there’s repulsion after attraction (attraction until ridiculously small distances).
    4 – Now, TOEBI works for a big bunch of electrons.
    5 – How come we don’t see kind of half the electrons attracting when in a bunch, despite an incredibly huge number of study where it should have been noticed.
    6 – “No, because you can observe it only with 2 electrons in free space”.

    So to sum it up, the rule you made up for TL2 to be valid in the case of 3 or more electrons should NEVER be observed when using a lot of electrons. Instead, we should focus on seeing it with two electrons, only in this case.

    You realize it’s YOU you’re trying to fool?

  112. That’s far from being nothing. So, what happens in the “long” run of (say) one second?

    Most like electrons keep on moving according to their trajectories. That might need some simulation after all the pieces are at place.

    > And I presented a way for measuring it.

    No, you didn’t.

    Yes I did.

    In principle it should be possible to measure the different electron behaviour between this setup and the setup where all spinning vectors were parallel. All we need to measure is if all these electrons hit symmetrically (and with proper distances) set up measuring devices at the same time. In case of all spinning vectors parallel, electrons should hit the measuring devices at the same time but in the other case one electron (antiparallel one) should hit the measuring device before the other two. Those other two electrons have to travel an additional distance before they start experience the repulsive force.

    There is no need for positrons in TOEBI, electrons can act as positrons.

  113. >> That’s far from being nothing. So, what happens in the
    >> “long” run of (say) one second?

    > Most like electrons keep on moving according to their
    > trajectories.

    That’s quite a tautology, isn’t it?

    > That might need some simulation after all the pieces are at place.

    I’m just interested in the qualitative behavior at the moment. Well, if the cloud has too much disorder, let’s go back to two TOEBI-electrons with parallel \(\vec f\), resting 1mm apart at time \(t=0\). They attract and thus approach each other, they collide head on, where the “collision” is the kicking in of the miraculous repulsive force at 0.1pm separation, either velocity gets reversed at time \(t=t_1\) and they move apart again. What then, what happens for \(t>t_1\), especially for \(t>2t_1\)?

    > In principle …

    How do you prepare three electrons symmetrically at rest? Especially if their \(\vec f\)s have to be set up “naturally by shooting particles towards” them. And do I have to mention that you are unable to tell how to shoot them in order to obtain a certain \(\vec f\)?

    Hence, you did not “present a way for measuring it”, you just inserted the word “measuring device” into a gedanken experiment.

    > There is no need for positrons in TOEBI, electrons can act as positrons.

    How do they do that?

  114. I’ll get back to your comment probably tomorrow morning!

    I’ll remind you of the question here, since it’s always difficult to obtain a clear answer.

    Why aren’t you satisfied by the study of several electrons since you created your “new rule” precisely for them?

  115. That’s quite a tautology, isn’t it?

    LOL, sorry about that. But you understood what I meant.

    What then, what happens for \(t>t_1\), especially for \(t>2t_1\)?

    No changes at that point because the magical FTE between the electrons has its wave pattern disturbed.

    Yeah, let’s postulate (just because the lack of time) that we have a device capable of setting up any spinning vector orientation we want.

    > There is no need for positrons in TOEBI, electrons can act as positrons.

    How do they do that?

    It’s all about spinning vector orientations and this applies especially in magnetic fields where physicists observe particles. For example, in case of electron-positron decay outcome in a magnetic field, the important thing to remember is that those two were created in that magnetic field. Can you guess why this is important?

  116. @Yop

    Why aren’t you satisfied by the study of several electrons since you created your “new rule” precisely for them?

    I am happy. Actually I didn’t create that “new rule” precisely for them, it applies as well in case of two electrons.

    So, what seems to be the trouble here? I mean, if we have a bunch of electrons with random spinning vector orientations in some volume what would happen according to TOEBI?

    There will be attraction-collision-repulsion events all over the place as well as pure attraction/repulsion events, right? What’s wrong?

  117. >> What then, what happens for \(t>t_1\), especially for
    >> \(t>2t_1\)?

    > No changes at that point because the magical FTE between
    > the electrons has its wave pattern disturbed.

    Fairy Tale Extensions in overdrive mode? What’s this wave pattern jabbering supposed to mean? TL2 is no longer valid for \(t>t_1\)?

    > Yeah, let’s postulate (just because the lack of time) that
    > we have a device capable of setting up any spinning vector
    > orientation we want.

    Yeah, great idea! To save even more time, let’s postulate that every problem of TOEBI is irrelevant and that everything what Kimmo says is true. Sure…

    You did not “present a way for measuring it”, period.

    >>> There is no need for positrons in TOEBI, electrons can
    >>> act as positrons.

    >> How do they do that?

    > It’s all about spinning vector orientations

    Be specific: What makes a TOEBI-electron a TOEBI-positron?

  118. What’s this wave pattern jabbering supposed to mean? TL2 is no longer valid for \(t>t_1\)?

    That’s right.

    What makes a TOEBI-electron a TOEBI-positron?

    Spinning vector orientation in a magnetic field. Normally when electron approaches and enters a magnetic field it changes its spinning vector orientation as described in TOEBI and this happens pretty much every time (not always though).

    Things change for example in case of electron pair production in a magnetic field. The other electron has its spinning vector antiparallel to the other electron hence behave in opposite manner than the “normal” electron. Hence mainstream physicists concluded that the oddly behaving electron must be electron antiparticle, positron. A huge mistake, if I may say so!

  119. There will be attraction-collision-repulsion events all over the place as well as pure attraction/repulsion events, right? What’s wrong?

    -sigh- Once again missing the point.

    What’s wrong is that hundred of years of study of electrons has only shown that a bunch of electrons will only create repulsion between them.

    Once again, when telling us we should carry an experiment specifically with only 2 free electrons, you implicitely accepted the precedently made experiments were right. You didn’t disprove them. You dismissed them as irrelevant for your problem.

    So, what happens with a bunch of electrons is repulsion. Only repulsion. Always repulsion. Observed, verified, used in complicated machine.

    Why does your attraction rule disappear in this case ?

    (Can you answer this question clearly for once?)

  120. >> TL2 is no longer valid for \(t>t_1\) ?

    > That’s right.

    That’s… breathtaking. So, which force is acting on the electrons for \(t>t_1\)? None? And is TL2 ever allowed to participate again? When and why?

    >> What makes a TOEBI-electron a TOEBI-positron?

    > Spinning vector orientation in a magnetic field.

    So, without a magnetic field, they are indistinguishable?

  121. Why does your attraction rule disappear in this case ?

    It doesn’t. You can understand how attraction in a cloud of electrons can seemly disappear, can’t you. Just combine all that I have explained… hint: eventually attractions between free electrons lead to repulsion.

  122. None? And is TL2 ever allowed to participate again? When and why?

    None. Right after the closest approach (collision) between the electrons. Spinning induced wave pattern is lost due the collision.

  123. >> What makes a TOEBI-electron a TOEBI-positron?

    > Spinning vector orientation in a magnetic field.

    So, without a magnetic field, they are indistinguishable?

    That’s right in case of random electron spinning vector orientations.

  124. It doesn’t. You can understand how attraction in a cloud of electrons can seemly disappear, can’t you. Just combine all that I have explained… hint: eventually attractions between free electrons lead to repulsion.

    Well, I can very well imagine how it won’t be the same at all actually. And I can very well imagine how people doing FEL (to chose ones) would have noticed their electrons sometimes attracting, while they are organizing bunches of electrons so that they emit coherent X-rays.

    So now we finally agreed experiments with 2 free electrons is no use to prove your BS. New question : how do you explain scientists working on SEM, TEM, Synchrotron, FEL, LEP, etc. not noticing free electrons appearing?

  125. >> None? And is TL2 ever allowed to participate again? When and why?

    > None.

    So, for \(t>t_1\) they move force free?

    > Right after the closest approach (collision) between the
    > electrons. Spinning induced wave pattern is lost due the
    > collision.

    And since TL2 is (totally obviously) caused by “spinning induced wave pattern”, it is gone. But for how long? You didn’t answer that.

    >>>> What makes a TOEBI-electron a TOEBI-positron?

    >>> Spinning vector orientation in a magnetic field.

    >> So, without a magnetic field, they are indistinguishable?

    > That’s right

    But in experiements electron and positron attract also without a magnetic field.

    > in case of random electron spinning vector
    > orientations.

    Two TOEBI-electrons cannot have random spinning vectors, they always form some specific \(\alpha\).

  126. But in experiements electron and positron attract also without a magnetic field.

    So does TOEBI electrons if spinning vectors favour it, coincidence? 😉

    Yes, random \(\alpha\) I mean.

  127. So does TOEBI electrons if spinning vectors favour it, coincidence? 😉

    And the fact that TOEBI electrons will bounce instead of collide in a burst of X-rays doesn’t interrupt your BS?

  128. No, it DOESN’T, because in TOEBI’s world, a repulsion force suddenly occurs that will take the 2 particles away from each other.

    That’s hilarious when one thinks you stick to TOEBI only for your “antimatter” BS.

    Oh, and the preceding question is still pending: how do you explain scientists working on SEM, TEM, Synchrotron, FEL, LEP, etc. not noticing free electrons attracting?

  129. No, it DOESN’T, because in TOEBI’s world, a repulsion force suddenly occurs that will take the 2 particles away from each other.

    What do you think happen in between the electrons during the collision? For sure, at least FTE density gets higher. At some point new particles start to emerge, photons and in right circumstances more massive particles (e.g. electron pair production).

  130. What do you think happen in between the electrons during the collision?

    Who cares? The problem is that in standard physics there’s no electron or positon remaining while in your case there is!

    Oh, and the preceding question is still pending: how do you explain scientists working on SEM, TEM, Synchrotron, FEL, LEP, etc. not noticing free electrons attracting?

  131. Who cares? The problem is that in standard physics there’s no electron or positon remaining while in your case there is!

    You mean annihilation? That happens in TOEBI when two electrons with antiparallel spinning vectors are in the same line and collide.

    I’ll get back to your later question later.

    Update: I pulled back my latest blog post… it was meant to be much more longer and broader.

  132. You mean annihilation? That happens in TOEBI when two electrons with antiparallel spinning vectors are in the same line and collide.

    Listen Kimmo, can you stop trying to fool me?

    Your “positron=electron” stuff was pulled into the discussion because you wanted to say electrons could attract each other, and that scientists mistook positron-electrons for your electrons attracting each other.

    I answer you that in the case of antimatter, there’s always an annihilation. Not in yours. That’s all.

    Oh, and the preceding question is still pending: how do you explain scientists working on SEM, TEM, Synchrotron, FEL, LEP, etc. not noticing free electrons attracting?

  133. Oh, and the preceding question is still pending: how do you explain scientists working on SEM, TEM, Synchrotron, FEL, LEP, etc. not noticing free electrons attracting?

    One thing which prevents free electrons from attracting each other is often their orientation. One possibility are different particle patterns which prevent particles from leaving their “places” in pattern.

    One thing is related to the speed of particles. I mean faster they move more their wave patterns suffer from incoming FTEPs, hence TL2 loses its ground. This speed factor should be integrable into existing TOEBI’s equations, but we’ll see…

  134. >> But in experiements electron and positron attract also
    >> without a magnetic field.

    > So does TOEBI electrons if spinning vectors favour it

    Like parallel \(\vec f\)?

    > Yes, random \(\alpha\) I mean.

    A single angle cannot be random, either.

    Again you have ignored this:

    >> None? And is TL2 ever allowed to participate again? When
    >> and why?

    > None.

    So, for \(t>t_1\) they move force free?

    > Right after the closest approach (collision) between the
    > electrons. Spinning induced wave pattern is lost due the
    > collision.

    And since TL2 is (totally obviously) caused by “spinning induced wave pattern”, it is gone. But for how long?

  135. @Yop and @Berry

    If you guys want I can create user accounts for you so you interact more easily here. For Berry I can do it now, but Yop, I need a valid email address from you.

  136. One thing which prevents free electrons from attracting each other is often their orientation. One possibility are different particle patterns which prevent particles from leaving their “places” in pattern.

    Not often. Exactly half the time in TOEBI. Half the time in TOEBI, two randomly chosen electrons meeting will attract each other. The same exactly happens in a bunch of randomly chosen electrons. Exactly the contrary of what scientists observe.

    What do you think is more likely? That you are wrong, or that every bunches of electrons observed and used until now, some of which self organize, were miraculously particular pattern occupying electrons? Seriously, aren’t you tired of being delusional?

    If you guys want I can create user accounts for you so you interact more easily here. For Berry I can do it now, but Yop, I need a valid email address from you.

    No thanks.

  137. Thanks, but that’s not necessary. Due to the captcha-reminder and the re-edit possibility (the backslash problem of which can actually be worked around by providing a double backslash), posting works quite well. But could you point me to documentation regarding the blog’s LaTeX possibilities?

    And don’t forget my questions:

    No forces for \(t>t_1\)? TL2 is never revived? If it is, when and why?

    And of course, Yop is right. Your plea “One thing which prevents free electrons from attracting each other is often their orientation.” is nonsense. You simply cannot have a bunch of \(N\) electrons where most of the \(N\cdot(N-1)/2\) angles \(\alpha\) are close to \(\pi\). My three electron example was a (failed) try to make you understand that. You thought you could weasel out of that problem by ultra fast \(\vec f\) switching but when you couldn’t pull that off, you just accepted this erroneous prediction of TL2 and invoked First Law of Kimmo once again.

  138. Not often. Exactly half the time in TOEBI. Half the time in TOEBI, two randomly chosen electrons meeting will attract each other. The same exactly happens in a bunch of randomly chosen electrons. Exactly the contrary of what scientists observe.

    Attracting electrons attract only initially, after their collision it’s all about repulsion. In that light, what’s the problem?

    And talking about patterns… well, pretty much everything comes with patterns. I won’t see emerging patterns as a problem. But let’s not derail.

  139. >> No forces for \(t>t_1\)? TL2 is never revived? If it is,
    >> when and why?

    > Surely it can’t go forever without forces…

    Surely it can’t. But for how long at least? Another \(t_1\)? \(2t_1\)? \(10t_1\)?

    > but I haven’t investigated the phenomenon thoroughly yet,

    “investigated the phenomenon thoroughly” is really funny! Firstly, it’s not a “phenomenon”, it’s yet another incompleteness of TOEBI. Secondly, you not just didn’t investigate it thoroughly, you didn’t think about it at all until I asked. You just went: “Well, these annoyingly pedantic folks still deem electron repulsion important, repulsion they’ll get!” Thus, after the failure of the ultra fast \(\vec f\)-dance (“repulsion chain reaction”, yessir!) you just pulled yet another Fairy Tale Extension out of your ass hat: “repulsive potential energy kicking in” due to “loss of wave pattern” at ultra short distances, problem solved! That’s how far you thought, “from 12 AM to noon” as we say. Thirdly, how could you possibly investigate it? There are now underlying laws for it, despite your usual promises: “the equation for FTEP based repulsion. I’ll pull it off, no worries.”

    So, what’s the state of TL2? About a week ago, you proudly proclaimed: “TL2 is still live and kicking, you can calculate the force for (almost) any static electrons’ setup” Now, TL2 is valid only for repulsion-free electrons fresh from the factory. It’s all very sad.

  140. TL2 stays as is, at least for now. I haven’t worked on the modifications needed on TL2 when we are talking about collisions and life after such an event. It surely misses its validity temporarily. Does it come back little by little or at once? In what time scale? Collision’s effect on spinning vector orientations? Is the validity lost only between the interacted electrons? I have to figure those out and that requires some time.

    I have some ideas and I’ll go through them in future…

  141. > I haven’t worked on the modifications needed on TL2 when
    > we are talking about collisions and life after such an
    > event.

    You brought in the collisions, just because TL2 makes such silly predictions.

    To put it in a nut: No part at all of TOEBI’s predicted electron trajectory agrees with experiments!

    You tried to deceive yourself (and us, without success) that TOEBI’s weird electron attraction was only a short and minute effect, which apparently must have slipped the attention of all physicists for more than a hundred years, but afterwards there would be the repulsion, which all these lame mainstream people know so well.

    But now it maybe even dawns on you, that TOEBI still doesn’t know anything about such repulsion. The repulsion it “knows” about is the collision event which reverses the velocities and blows out TL2’s light. Afterwards, there could be separation but no repulsion.

    Hence, you need another law (the fairies will whisper it into your ears, no worries) which provides actual repulsion, overruling TL2 (in the case it ever gets switched on again). Or maybe you’ll postulate a \(\vec f\)-flip due to the collision? Then we’re back at where this blog post started.

  142. Attracting electrons attract only initially, after their collision it’s all about repulsion. In that light, what’s the problem?

    I don’t know, what problem could there be? Hmmm… Really, tough question…

    ATTRACTING ELECTRONS? You know, the unobserved bullshit that you insist exist despite tons of experimental evidence it doesn’t?

    And talking about patterns… well, pretty much everything comes with patterns. I won’t see emerging patterns as a problem. But let’s not derail.

    Let’s not derail? You’re the one invoking magical patterns where attracting electrons would appear as behaving normally by standard physics standards. So, it’s certainly not derailing to ask you to explain precisely what ARE these patterns, and why electrons only behave in THESE few miraculous patterns.

  143. ATTRACTING ELECTRONS? You know, the unobserved bullshit that you insist exist despite tons of experimental evidence it doesn’t?

    That’s right, at least in case there exists a TOE.

  144. Or maybe you’ll postulate a \(\vec f\)-flip due to the collision? Then we’re back at where this blog post started.

    That occurred to my mind 😉 And actually it has to in order to behave consistently in a magnetic field, it doesn’t even require collision between electrons.

  145. In powerful TOE all phenomena emerge from a simple primary phenomenon, just like in TOEBI. In that sense, spinning vector orientation really makes the difference between attraction and repulsion.

    btw. I deleted your comments from that watch out the curve post. Your comments are recently went into a wrong direction regarding their attitude. Do I really have to moderate your every comment beforehand?

  146. In powerful TOE all phenomena emerge from a simple primary phenomenon, just like in TOEBI. In that sense, spinning vector orientation really makes the difference between attraction and repulsion.

    I don’t care about your logical fallacies, and we won’t go back into your 2 month ago reasoning “I like my TOE so it must be right despite all evidences”. I’m actually trying to talk to a grown up with critical mind, who can recognize where he’s wrong.

    So now, back to the question: no experimentalists ever saw electrons attracting each other. How do you explain that?

    To avoid repetition, let’s sum up your preceding erroneous answers:
    1 – They mistook it for positrons ==> Impossible, positrons annihiliate in all case with electrons, in your law the electrons just bounce back.
    2 – Bunches of electrons always act following some specific pattern which fortunately should work out to delete the impression that they attract ==> You didn’t present any mathematical nor physical proof for it, and you should since it seems highly unlikely. Maybe you could present it for 3 electrons. You know, it’s kind of what we asked one month ago.

    Regarding my attitude, you should be aware that:
    1 – Your post is really hilarious. Sorry if you didn’t intend to be.
    2 – My change in attitude might be linked to yours, since you clearly switched from “I’ve been bragging and I should now regard more cautiously experimental evidence” back to “I’m right, if you don’t listen to me you’re doomed, and I don’t care about experiments since physicists are stupid”. Think of it.

  147. So now, back to the question: no experimentalists ever saw electrons attracting each other. How do you explain that?

    If we talk about free electrons, I was wrong, that’s why. I updated Introduction to TOEBI. Now the problem is with the three electrons… most likely those three electrons just start to change their spinning orientation constantly and nothing else happens.

  148. I had overlooked this one:

    > Attracting electrons attract only initially, after their
    > collision it’s all about repulsion.

    Just to make sure: That’s wrong as we now learned. After their collision, it’s all about ignorance. There may be separation, but there’s nothing providing repulsion.

    > That occurred to my mind 😉

    Which means that you didn’t learn much from the failed ultra fast \(\vec f\)-dance.

    > And actually it has to in order to behave consistently in
    > a magnetic field,

    You didn’t even manage to get a single TOEBI-electron behaving consistently in a TOEBI-magnetic field. So that’s hardly an argument for yet another \(\vec f(t)\)-rule, for which again you have no quantitative description.

    > In powerful TOE all phenomena emerge from a simple primary
    > phenomenon, just like in TOEBI.

    The first part is an unsubstantiated claim without even an a-priory reason, the second part is a lie, because TOEBI is just the opposite of being powerful. And the claimed implication of attracting electrons is logical nonsense.

    A powerful TOE wouldn’t contradict any experiments, that’s its first rule. TOEBI, on the other hand, doesn’t agree with any experiments.

    > Now the problem is with the three electrons…

    No, you’ve got the same problem with \(N\) electrons. I repeat: No part at all of TOEBI’s predicted electron trajectory agrees with experiments!

  149. @Berry

    I’ll update the magnetic field blog post in near future. You might get the idea by checking out my latest updates in Introduction to TOEBI paper which I just released. I had got all wrong the behaviour of spinning vector during particle movement.

  150. > I had got all wrong the behaviour of spinning vector
    > during particle movement.

    You’re telling me.

    But this time, of course, it’s utterly impossible that the upgraded version is wrong again, isn’t it? This time, you ruled out every possible error yourself, right?

  151. If we talk about free electrons, I was wrong, that’s why. I updated Introduction to TOEBI. Now the problem is with the three electrons… most likely those three electrons just start to change their spinning orientation constantly and nothing else happens.

    Wait, you gave up on electrons attracting each other?

  152. most likely those three electrons just start to change their spinning orientation constantly and nothing else happens.

    Hypothesis disproved in the very first comment of this post. Ain’t we going in circles?

  153. > Ain’t we going in circles?

    That’s what I’ve told him already: “Or maybe you’ll postulate a \(\vec f\)-flip due to the collision? Then we’re back at where this blog post started.”

    But that won’t stop a Kimmo, would it? Because, don’t forget: It’s always Kimmo who knows best.

  154. Sorry, I can’t; flu or not, it’s just too much.

    > I’ll update the magnetic field blog post in near future. You might
    > get the idea by checking out my latest updates in Introduction to
    > TOEBI paper which I just released.

    I checked it and there isn’t any improvement at all, quite the contrary: Now you’ve changed the stopping criterion in the \(\theta/\phi/\vec v\)-rules from OR to AND (emphasized, no accident), which in itself is already totally insane. But this regression was not enough for you! In the 0% of cases where this new criterion happens to work, the final outcome now is \(\vec f\perp\vec v\), in direct contradiction to the Fairy Tale Extensions, which postulate \(\vec f\parallel\pm\vec v\) because: “Obviously, when particle spinning vector is in the same line as its velocity vector then particle is more capable of advancing through FTE.”

    Is stuff like this that a foretaste of your annoncement “Well, I have few surprises coming.”?

    It’s all so annoyingly wrong in TOEBI. Why e.g. is a particle under gravitational acceleration a stationary one? Just like a volume \(V\) under gravitational influence is “in every way isolated”?

    It’s really a very sad story. Nothing works in TOEBI, none of its predictions agree with experiments (i.e. you have to evoke First Law of Kimmo all the time), it’s full of glaring holes (Fate of TL2 after a collision? Nobody knows.) and none of your holy updates brings improvement, as we witness here once more.

    And, as usual, none of these obvious failures can change your attitude. You’re still Kimmo the Great, who will teach all this stupid physicists a lesson and will “show how it works” (in couple of days, with the next holy upgrade). It’s really mind numbing to me.

  155. Wait a minute… isn’t polar angle measured from \(z\)-axis, is it? So in case \(\phi=\frac{\pi}{2}\) and \(\theta\) is 0 or \(\pi\) makes \(\vec f\parallel\pm\vec v\), right?

    It’s really mind numbing to me

    Maybe you should do something else then…?

  156. Gosh, did the update include the tags “(Azimuthal angle)” and “(Polar angle)”? I’ve been using the convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3D_Spherical.svg, which is just the opposite of yours. Ok, I retract the \(\vec f\perp\vec v\)-part, which, alas, reintroduces the problem of \(\vec f\parallel\pm\vec v\) contradicting \(\vec f\)s “perpendicularity to gravitation” with probability 100% and which doesn’t change the bogosity of the AND condition.

    >> It’s really mind numbing to me

    > Maybe you should do something else then…?

    Maybe I should, yes. When the annoyance eventually dominates the morbid fascination, I ought to leave.

  157. Maybe I should, yes. When the annoyance eventually dominates the morbid fascination, I ought to leave.

    Fascination is the good word. Most delusional person will either ban you, either insult you if you keep pointing his/her inconsistency. Here, it seems that kimmo somehow always finds a way of being more delusional pretending he’s actually answering our criticism. I wonder when and how it stops.

    I mean, anybody with the least intellectual honesty would have totally dropped at least TL2, and probably TOEBI as a whole when discovering each and every predictive statement of his theory are so wrong. But anybody without such honesty would never accept to see so much of his theory destroyed by mere commenters on the internet.

    This is fascinating. Really. I can’t wait when we switch to massy photons.

  158. This has been entertaining, but why do you still circle fruitlessly around this spinning vector’s time evolution? Everyone should know that it won’t lead to anything. Just skip to dynamics of the ether and this can be entertaining again.

  159. Because it’s important. This circling might seem to be fruitless but in fact it’s not. I have pretty decent blueprint in my mind and I just have to write it down. Unfortunately, I catched some kind of “death” flu virus so I’m a bit exhausted at the moment.

    @Berry I have thought a lot about dismissing that gravitational spinning vector aligning. It feels a bit obsolete, at least in this flu altered consciousness. Let’s see how that plays out…

  160. asd> why do you still circle fruitlessly around this spinning vector’s
    asd> time evolution?

    Because only with \(\vec f(t)\) known, something can be computed from the Second Law of TOEBI, at least up to the first collision — the rest is silence.

    asd> Everyone should know that it won’t lead to anything.

    But this applies to all parts of TOEBI, so that’s hardly a point.

    > I have pretty decent blueprint in my mind and I just have to write
    > it down.

    Hmm, that reminds me of your announcement “Anyway, I have the blueprint already for our three electron case.” from mid December. What came out of that? The neat pictures above, which don’t show anything, except that the ultra fast \(\vec f\) dance wasn’t well thought out.

    > I have thought a lot about dismissing that gravitational spinning
    > vector aligning. It feels a bit obsolete

    Sure, feel free to drop it. Almost anything in TOEBI can be changed on the fly without worries to break anything. Advantage of dismissing it: You can finally ignore my objection involving the three dust particles. And the contradiction with Stern-Gerlach is gone, too; hence, you don’t even need to back up your swaggering utterance “Nonsense. I’ll demonstrate how it works according to TOEBI after I have updated this post.” Great, isn’t it?

    That doesn’t mean that your \(\theta/\phi/\vec v\)-rules would make sense, though. They still have the problem that the influence of the tiniest dust particle is not minuscule, but can determine a remote electron’s \(\vec f\) to a totally different outcome by just having a vanishingly different velocity. Even you admitted that to be implausible. Furthermore, there is still the nonsensical AND condition (and another peculiarity, which I didn’t mention yet). And of course, it assumes that \(\vec v\) doesn’t change much during \(t_f\), which is already violated by such simple scenarios as the (classical) electron movement in a H atom. But AFAIR there isn’t any movement in TOEBI atoms, so that won’t be a problem. Another problem is the total lack of any coupling to TL2-generated forces, which kills all your tales of alignment of \(\vec f\) in TOEBI-magnetic fields.

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

  161. > And the contradiction with Stern-Gerlach is gone, too;

    Oops, wrong. Velocity driven spin alignment would kill SG, too. But doing this comparison already means equating real electron spin and TOEBI’s \(\vec f\), which is free of any justification. Sure, there is your standard claim that the former emerges from the latter, but there is also your standard inability to prove that.

  162. This has been entertaining, but why do you still circle fruitlessly around this spinning vector’s time evolution? Everyone should know that it won’t lead to anything. Just skip to dynamics of the ether and this can be entertaining again.

    It’s what I’ve been saying almost since my 5th or 6th comment on this blog.

    But Kimmo has been (un)surprisingly reluctant to do so. As you can see from his answer to your comment, he doesn’t have any valid reason not to. The unofficial reason is that he has neither the physicial knowledge of basic dynamics not to talk about fluid mechanics, nor the mathematical skills to acquire quickly this knowledge. So he prefers to try and hope that his delusional attempts to obtain something out of TL2 will work.

  163. The real reason for not going into fluid mechanics is my chronic lack of time. I have always something more important or interesting in scope… at least I think I do.

  164. You joking? Look at the time you wasted trying to correct TL2 while berry and I explained you in details and with the simplest words it could not work. If you had spent a hundredth of this time trying to understand our objections, like redoing the maths, you would have had plenty of time left for going into other fields.

    Considering how evident is TL2’s failure, it’s hard to believe there are not some hidden reasons for you to be so reluctant to study FTEPs’ dynamics. Namely your lack of physics’ knowledge and math skill.

  165. How can anything be more important than dynamics of the ether? The second law isn’t usable, because in every situation something doesn’t match, but the ether without any proper model comes to rescue. If you keep handwaving about FTE densities and wave patterns in the ether and whatnot, you have to give a precise model for ether dynamics. However good your blueprint may be, if it refers to some other situation than static ether, it’s unusable. In current situation this “theory” doesn’t predict anything, because the basic laws aren’t applicable anywhere and they don’t even cover the ether.

    I sympathise you, Kimmo. I also caught some death flu. Unbearable.

  166. However good your blueprint may be, if it refers to some other situation than static ether, it’s unusable. In current situation this “theory” doesn’t predict anything, because the basic laws aren’t applicable anywhere and they don’t even cover the ether.

    THANK YOU. I couldn’t sum up better the situation… Hope your new look is taken into account more wisely than the one from older commenters…

  167. @asd TL2 applies where there is fixed spinning vectors involved (e.g. two ferromagnets, two conducting wires with decent current). The problem in theory-wise is when single particle interacts with a magnetic field its spinning vector starts to rotate due to multiple surrounding fixed electron spinning vectors. On the other hand, particle’s movement somehow holds back this rotating phenomenon, faster it moves more aligned its spinning vector will be (with magnet’s electrons’ spinning vectors).

    I also caught some death flu. Unbearable.

    Painkillers, rest, bunch of good movies, maybe something to read and lots of warm tea, cocoa, coffee… and time. Straight from the flu survivor’s manual.

  168. @dwarf Thanks for your support.

    @to all

    dwarf is a guy from Japan who trolled me for our both amusement before any real physicists were around. Unfortunately he went overboard with his trolling (twice) and got banned. I promised to remove the ban last year if he makes 1000 dollar donation for a charity organisation of his choice. Another option (valid through 2015) is by revealing his valid email address given with a comment, naturally I won’t disclose it.

  169. > TL2 applies where there is fixed spinning vectors involved (e.g. two
    > ferromagnets, two conducting wires with decent current).

    That’s totally vacuous, because magnetism doesn’t work at all in TOEBI. Look at the state of my “challenge” http://www.toebi.com/blog/theory-of-everything-by-illusion/electron-in-magnetic-field

    Fact: The “TL2-field” (i.e. the force field resulting from the superposition of all the forces created by the TOEBI-electrons in a given setup including their \(\vec f\)s) isn’t a magnetic field; and TL2 isn’t applicable to these source electrons, either, because they are fixed in space by unspecified means.

    It’s actually the multitude of levels on which TOEBI fails, which makes it so fascinating.

  170. TL2 applies where there is fixed spinning vectors involved (e.g. two ferromagnets, two conducting wires with decent current).

    Last time we talked about it, TL2 was supposedly valid only for selected elementary particles in some selected conditions, namely free electrons. When did we make this outbreak which could explain ferromagnets (I’m not even talking about conducting wires, you promised at some point to get some knowledge about electromagnetism, where did that disappear?).

  171. > That made me laugh even though I’m almost at sleep.

    Nice to be able to cheer you up. Parane pian!

  172. No, it was funny because Berry was wrong. And it’s even funnier in the light that Berry can’t see TOEBI’s behind the corner lurking potential.

    Parane pian!

    I’ll do my very best 🙂 Actually I’m doing a bit better than yesterday.

  173. > No, it was funny because Berry was wrong.

    Unlike you, I can prove my objections.

    > And it’s even funnier in the light that Berry can’t see TOEBI’s
    > behind the corner lurking potential.

    That’s not funny but rather inevitable, because TOEBI’s potential is exactly what gave it its name: your very own illusion

    For me it’s funny how one could even think that a magnetic filed could emerge from TL2. In my “challenge” you’ve had the possibility to disprove me, and you failed miserably. But I know, nevertheless it’s always Kimmo who knows best.

  174. No, it was funny because Berry was wrong. And it’s even funnier in the light that Berry can’t see TOEBI’s behind the corner lurking potential.

    This, in turn was really hilarious.

Leave a Reply

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