I wanted to discuss another topic for today, the electric field and the magnetic field when we have magnetic monopoles in existence and when neutrinos are longitudinal waves composed of magnetic monopoles. The idea is that Space itself is the arrangement of magnetic monopoles and that a wave of energy whether a photon or neutrino is the displacement of magnetic monopoles.
So consider Space as coordinate points and the points are magnetic monopoles where a point is M+ and nearby the next point is M-. Now a disturbance of a energy wave comes along and if a photon it is a transverse wave motion of magnetic monopoles, if a neutrino then it is a longitudinal disturbance.
Now Space as these arrays of magnetic monopoles means that the electric field and magnetic field have to have something in common, not just the fact that they are perpendicular to one another. So what do they share in common? Well if we understand the need for magnetic monopoles to quantize electric charge by 137/2(e), then we understand a quantity is shared in common.
Now we can argue for some time as to whether the electric charge is equal to 137/2(M) or whether the monopole is equal to 137/2(e). But let us say the charge is 137/2 monopoles so that the photon E field is 137/2 more dense than the B field. And since the neutrino has no E field, it is going to be limited in strength by a factor of 137/2. Now I wonder about astronomy reports of supernova where they see an influx of photons, light waves, but see no influx of neutrinos? I know of one supernova that shows the influx of both photons and neutrinos, but are there supernova with only photons and no neutrinos to accompany? And another test here closer to Earth. Has anyone determined the influx of neutrinos versus photons from the Sun? Is there a factor of 137/2 in favor of photons versus neutrinos?
Now this is a dreadfully complex and complicated subject of Space as magnetic monopoles. But let me touch on another aspect of this topic. The force of gravity is easily seen as the EM force only 10^40 weaker of the EM force, with the same force law of inverse square. The only hold-up of why Franklin could not made Coulomb law to be Newton's gravity is that EM has repulsion along with attraction and gravity is attraction only. So if Franklin could have eliminated repulsion, he could have discovered the Coulomb law and the **more true** law of gravity that is a EM force only 10^40 weaker.
So, now, I have Space as magnetic monopoles, both M+ and M- side by side. Can I do something to that picture so that Franklin could have discovered the Coulomb law by using Newton's gravity? In other words, could I do something with Space monopoles so that there is no repulsion, only attraction?
I think I can, only I have some rough spots to hurdle.
If the Cosmos is an Atom Totality, then the space of our observable universe is composed of magnetic monopoles, both M+ and M-, but also our observable universe is the last electron of 231Pu. Being an electron places a dominance of one magnetic charge over another magnetic charge. So that Space would have more M- charges than M+ charges since that region of space is a gigantic electron and the galaxies reside in that electron space. So instead of having equality of M+ to M-, that Space has a abundance of 137/2 of M- over M+, which causes attraction but no repulsion. This is seen in the Ampere law where parallel currents attract and antiparallel repel. But I have to be careful here, because in the late 1990s was news of a cosmic type of repulsion and acceleration of far away distant galaxies. So it may be the case that in our local galaxies, we have only a localized EM where we have only an attraction EM and we call it gravity, but if we go to faraway galaxies they may have a version of repelling-gravity.
Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine- bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here: