Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: Space as magnetic monopoles and gravity as EM #1232 New Physics #1352
ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 0

 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Posts: 17,468 Registered: 3/31/08
Space as magnetic monopoles and gravity as EM #1232 New Physics #1352
ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Feb 16, 2013 1:14 AM

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:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies