magnetic monopole

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Gravock

What an interesting post.  Delighted to see that you've done some research.  And just a tad concerned that you've not mentioned the 'monopole' which was, after all, our bone of contention.  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you were seriously attempting to duck the issue. 

I had no idea that those quarks had all be found.  Golly.  But nor am I that impressed.  And.  Come to think of it - I should have guessed at this.  There are absolutely NO particles that have been postulated that have NOT been subsequently DISCOVERED.  It was a source of some considerable embarrassment amongst some of our greats.  When one such was discovered - about the 210th - Pauli famously asked 'who ordered that?'.  lol.  It was then referred to as the particle zoo.  The point is this.  The particle accelerators rely on the forceful impact of one or more particles against another or more - in order to disturb them and see what, if anything, comes out of the mix.  My own contention - for what it's worth - is that as a result of that impact, they are also disturbing the hidden particles in a magnetic field.  Theoretically therefore, there are an infinite number of potential emanations of these particles within the field.  But, with the exception of our stable particles, they all decay back into 'the void'.  So.  By and large - I'm actually not that impressed.  This method of analysis is as crude as firing a double barreled shot gun at an ant to determine it's atomic structure - or  bombing an elephant to determine it's skeletal structure.  Just a tad inappropriate.  But that's just my own opinion.  As always, there's the outside chance that I may very well be wrong.   

Regarding your reference to hadrons as composite particles.  I know this.  I've already mentioned it.  I'm glad to see that you took the trouble to check out the fact.  And I think you're right.  Technically the proton and neutron are both hadrons.

And regarding your statement that my 'reading comprehension' is somehow impaired.  I'm sure you're right.  If the concept of an axial magnetic dipole is enshrined in the tomes of wiki - then - unquestionably, it MUST be acknowledged as part of the standard model.  Who am I to gainsay wiki.  Same goes for a 'polar electric dipole'.  Again.  If I didn't know better I'd have thought that Comay - like so many of you - are desperately trying to make sense of the evidence of a dual charge potential in electric current flow.  My own proposal is simply to use a magnetic dipole in the magnetic field.  But I realise that such a solution is way too simple. 

And here's where you reference Comay's proposal that a proton comprises anti matter.

According to Comay’s theory, quarks carry one unit of a negative magnetic charge and anti-quarks have one unit of positive magnetic charge.

Gravock

Gravock.  It's as meaningless - to me - as saying that an elementary unit of the monopole is a free parameter.  Just  a jumble of clever sounding terms 'signifying nothing'.  I am tired, really tired, of reading ever more complex explanations for the abundance of questions posed by ... so much - in physics.  The more so as most of these questions are comprehensively answered by using nothing more than Faraday's lines of force.  It's pretentious nonsense.  But.  Who am I to argue?  I get it.  I really do NOT have the qualifications to comment.  And it is very unlikely that I have any solutions.  But spare me that nonsense about  a quark's electric OR magnetic charge.  (edit) Please.  If that's what Comway's proposing based on an analysis of the spin of a quark - then it seems that all and sundry can propose anything they want - WITHOUT DEFINITION - in a veritable orgy of free association.  Sorry.  I think the term is 'free parameters'. 

Rose, It seems that in order to support your convictions, you tend to ignore facts that do not go smoothly with your own model. 

I am not sure that I made any reference at all to my model.  SO.  I'm also not sure that the following statement is justified. 

For starters - Don't reply to my posts if you haven't read the references submitted while being open-minded, even if they may go against your own model. You're the one who is trying to bamboozle and hoodwink everyone with your BS model.  The science I presented does have clear definitions (You would have known this if you had actually read Comay's work or the references I provided).

But if it helps you to rant.  Feel free.  And as for this...

Let's settle this issue.  Here's a link to all of the Units contained in the publication titled, "What's inside the Proton"(Complete Version), and you read it all the way through.  Then we'll both be on the same page and can have a rational discussion without all of the BS.  If you want clear definitions and terms, then read the publications and references provided.  If not, then don't reply to my postings.

I'll pass - if you don't mind Gravock.  If your wiki references are anything to go by - then I'm not sure of the authority.

Kindest regards, and happy new year
Rosemary

EDITED 'or'
AND TOMBS TO TOMES,  Not sure that 'tombs' wouldn't have been more appropriate.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I feel that magnetic lines of force spin on their axis.When magnetic lines repell each other their spins are opposite of each other.When they attract each other their spins are similar.Could it be that magnetic lines of force are a form of matter?Since they come from the atom anyway?
triffid

And triffid - for the record.  I'm with you on this one.  I think you're bang on.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[gravityblock]

Rose,

Condemnation before investigation is folly.  You condemn Comay's model without investigating his work.  What a way to be, lol.

Gravock

[Rosemary Ainslie]

My dear Gravock,

I'll be more than happy to approve any theory that endorses a magnetic field comprising the material property of magnetic dipoles that moved at 2C and that are responsible for all the forces.  Until then - I'll simply depend on my own thesis.  It has the dubious merit of being a self-consistent argument, the unarguable merit of NOT conflicting with the standard model - and the supreme merit of being experimentally evident.  At this stage all it lacks for wide acceptability is the ENTIRE LACK of confusing, pretentious and obscure terminologies.  And, of course, its promulgation by some well educated young man, as opposed to an entirely ignorant old woman.   

Regards, again
Rosemary

[BobTEW]

 My workings of the 'repel' side of magnet.