The Annals of Frontier and Exploratory Science

"Torsion" or Spinning (Rotation) Physics Scaled (SPS) - What is it When the Physical Objects being Presented at Scales not as the Point-Mass-Charge-Torsion Objects, but as the Physical Volumetric Rotating not Twisting Reality? Because any of These Spinning or Rotating Subjects, Particles are of Volume and Have the Bounding Surfaces

Vladi S. Travkin

Hierarchical Scaled Physics and Technologies (HSPT), Rheinbach, Germany, Denver, CO, USA

INTRODUCTION

In this part of advanced physics - no doubt we can name it the 2nd physics, it should be advisable, we write on this for a few other parts as well, to students and professionals to gain at first if possible the free unrestricted mindset, to get rid of the "inhibition of apprehension" of conventional level physics education, and seek in studies the honest non-political observation of physical facts that is desired and welcome. In "torsion" or better to say Spinning physics those facts first of all are of experimental studies. That all require time for technical examination, thinking, overcoming the barriers of general school and university education, overcoming the restrictions on the knowledge of the unknown.

It is of interest to many readers that we have stated for many years that the main body of physical and mathematical arguments, concepts, problem statements, solutions, assessments for HSP (Hierarchical Scaled Physics) have been already outlined, obtained, delivered, published, and discussed in 1980s-2000s within and around of Continuum Mechanics physical disciplines and later for the smaller scales physical disciplines (see many sections of this site and other publications) [1-10,12-20]. That means, the HS physics came to the Atomic, nuclear, particle and other fields of small scales physics from the ABOVE (Upper) scales. Not vice versa, as researchers usually making their theories developed - in the atomic and particle physics just staying with the same scale (OSFA) formulation.

And that's good, because this situation deprives conventional (COHP - Conventional One-scale-Orthodox Homogeneous Physics) physics followers of the arguments regarding the base, the mathematics, solutions, proofs, etc. That's all have been already done. Yet, those physicists need some qualification level to grasp, to comprehend other than QM, QED, etc. tools. The basics have been taught sporadically in the universities, unfortunately. It's basically a long time already (since the 80s) more the political trends in physics, rather than physical.

There is a struggle for the future Bread (Lucrative) Chairs in physics - that is the cold fusion, magnetic motor, Papp's engine, etc. the real existing outside of the COHP possibility for explanation devices and theories will not be able to sweep under the rug and announce pseudoscience or junk science. And the need to explain and get rid of indiscriminate vilification in respect of Spinning Physics ("Torsion" Physics) is now obvious.

Nevertheless, it is true also that the span between the frontier science and textbook science in physics, in many Hierarchical Scaled physics disciplines is wide. The levels of development between the Hierarchical Scaled Fluid Mechanics and Hierarchical Scaled Thermal Physics (some areas) in comparison to COHP equivalent sciences, for example, and to many other sciences is wide and not taught, delivered in the universities.

The Aether Phase at the Sub-Atomic Scales

We would like, for many reasons, to keep referring to the medium that infiltrate all the materials' forms around, in environment, in atoms, and known to exists and to be believed by physicists in old times as an aether.

We would address to some degree here in this analysis the terms - "quantum vacuum," "physical vacuum," and the aether while it could be acquired by many in their modified description and models that are questionable, in spite of many known experimental studies, from the point of view of recent or of new transcribed models of physical realities of the physical sub-atomic world.

For the strictness of exposition of known and coherently explained and modeled within the paradigm of simultaneous Polyscale-Polyphase-Polyphysics (3P) physical entities and modeling them as a set of related concepts, 3P theories has been suggested as the needed concept along of intermediate medium - an aether. The long range interaction can not be provided, executed via the real emptiness, real nothing instead of the ather.

It is known for centuries that physicists always considered the presence of some intermediate substance and called it an aether.

There is the need to stress out that at the beginning of XX century there was no understanding and physics and mathematics of polyphase, Heterogeneous physical subjects. Physicists couldn't even approach to that kind of problems. The understanding of needs for Heterogeneous media physics had appeared later at the time of WWII for the tasks related to nuclear weaponry and nuclear power.

The fundamental issue of acceptance of aether existence immediately stands the question that physicists of XX century couldn't approach and solve: Any medium with aether recognized is being meant having at least of the two "phase" medium - one is the aether itself and another is what is put in the problem at the beginning of any study - at least one medium for even a homogeneous medium.

As these Heterogeneous Two-phase media, for example,

MATH

MATH

MATH

MATH

But the two-phase and polyphase media physics and mathematical methods for them did not exist at the first half of XX century. This is not taught in the universities and students don't know about this.

What is the Problem in This Physics?

There are the phenomena noticed long ago:

a) First is that when the two Spinning Tops if placed close around each other when rotate behave strangely?

b) Experiments in astrophysics and in on earth laboratory performed by N.A.Kozyrev [19K-102K] shown up the unexpected and inexplicable in conventional physics results with regard of spinning, rotating bodies.

Then some of these experiments were repeated by M.M.Lavrentiev with his co-authors [1L-4L] and confirmed the results of N.A.Kozyrev. But no one put forward the theory even M.M.Lavrentiev, and he was a brilliant mathematician.

There are many other experimental data with the rotating bodies that have been unexplained within the traditional university-organized and funded by governments physics. We just do not have it in order to deal with the reviews in the introduction. But they are all talking about the inadequacy of university physics and physics of rotation.

Since then the whole area in physics is devoted to spinning ("torsion") physics experiments and their understanding, explanation regarding their physics and for already done applications in a variety of sciences and human useful technologies.

The problem is that the theoretical, even any explanation is inadequate, not workable. Without theoretical comprehension there won't be a lot of development and applications. Also, experiments revealed some dangerous consequences of these "torsion" fields.

Because one of the last theories applied to "torsion" experiments is the PV (Physical Vacuum) theory that is like a theory for "everything" (which is wrong) and is tied to the Relativity theories then it is not seen as a credible theory for "torsion" phenomena. Experimentally confirmed phenomena in Spinning "Torsion" Physics are formidable, but have no credibility for general cohort of specialists in physics and engineering because of COHP (even COHP?) rejecting this PV theory.

Meanwhile, COHP itself cannot make a proper theory - it has internal deep fundamental contradictions within itself. This is the problem. Nothing is more important in physics. ====================================================

What's Wrong ?

The biggest problem was created by COH physics itself when agreed, probably by every one of particle physics creators to consider the sub-atomic particles as the dots without a size and a surface, meaning that the point-mass-charge-spin is the thought after sub-atomic particle. We have discussed on this and explained - What a mess and blockage for future advancements has being done with this simplification for the sub-atomic particles, instead of relief, in our -

  • "Particle Physics - Heterogeneous Polyscale Collectively Interactive,"

  • Particle Physics 2. Fundamentals,

  • Nuclear Physics Structured. Introduction,

  • Atomic and Subatomic Scales Description of Matter with HSP-VAT.

  • Atomic and Subatomic Physics 2 - Elements 3P

    For future Spinning "Torsion" Physics (SP) was done almost mortal blow by this "dot-point" conjecture that became a postulate. Because the whole great nature of phenomena in SP is based and consists in ability of sub-atomic particles to rotate, to spin as a volumetric body, not as a point.

    The point is nothing in physics and in mathematics - but the coordinates of this point in space and the determination of the physical properties for some surroundings of this point.

    NOT INSIDE OF THIS POINT - BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING IN INSIDE (because there is "no inside") AND NO SURFACE OF THE POINT.

    So, there is no matter and no physics, no phenomena "inside" or "belonging" to the point. Only the value(s) Assigned to the point, as in mathematics always is done. But not in physics. Is this clear? To most of physicists this is not understandable. This is the education to blame for.

    It is a particle and an absence of particle in the aether have physics. A medium near the point has physics of it. The point itself does not.

    As long as we don't know the structure of the aether (it should have it) we cannot take the point in the aether as well without some explanation and of volume - no matter how small.

    Basic Facts Related to Physics of Spinning Objects (Particles, Bodies) in a Substance

    It must be said here, re-iterate, using the great chance to state that the conventional one-scale Homogeneous physics, which is based on the electrodynamics mostly by the nature of accepted as the acting forces involved at different scales, but used as for a one scale, has the great fault and conspiracy especially after ~1970 (sub-conscious may be) that hidden behind the inability of conventional one scale physics to provide for the up-scaling, or/and down-scaling the correct mathematical operations including and averaging assessment in atomic, particle, nuclear, gravidynamics, and "Torsion" physics since the beginning of XXth century.

    While the averaging provides the paths to generalize, to develop picture not only for one by one objects or one against the same other object, for example - one, two electrons or photons - Coulomb "law" is about TWO particles; one, two atoms, one molecule, two molecules, one cell, etc., but to discover the upscale more general formulation. Or search for a downscale source(s) of effect. Conventional university physicists use far and wide the point-particles scheme instead. Then an averaging done easier and wrongly, while the few physical phenomena have been lost, invisible in the one scale physical and mathematical theories, models.

    We should understand and remember that the whole body of the orthodox physics stands on the statement that - the averaging, even sometimes the collective interaction can be provided, achieved everywhere where in need, can be and has been provided within this the one scale physics. While that is not true, yeah, unfortunately this is a pure uneducated lie.

    Nevertheless, they teach students in the way of false one-scale atomic physics, particle, nuclear physics well, more than 90 years since the Lorentz time. At the beginning and middle of the XXth century there were no appropriate scaling methods, tools in physics and math. But not after 1967, when they started to appear. Now it is a lie to say to students - we are teaching at the state of the art in this and that regarding averaging or collective interaction, process and what's beyond of it. Research is also mostly a waste of money and time when used OSFA (One Scale For All) physics.

    Now - in COHP workers have the "inhibition of apprehension" regarding the phenomena of "Torsion" mechanics, physics. It is just the terra incognita for COHP. The Great Unknown largely area of physics has being missed by COHP - unbelievable disqualification of COHP itself.

    One of the reasons for invisibility-like of "Torsion" physics is the missing of aether, the denunciation of the aether in COHP. By using the words as "physical vacuum" is not enough to recognize the facts of appearance and disappearance of sub-atomic particles in the invisible aether, the word that designates to some extent the unknown and not-understood features of the aether.

    For a large number of engineers and scientists the part of physics, the field we should dedicate to this section-science is not probably of a real scientific nature.

    Mass media and orthodox physics literature with its smeary campaigning regarding this field have painted the "torsion" mechanics, "torsion" physics as something of metaphysics, an imaginable half-psychic areas devised by "these" physicists.

    That is improper and simply plain wrong thinking, the "inhibition of apprehension" due to the lack of education, usual for COHP rejection of things that it does not comprehend, and insufficient advancements in the area of "torsion" physics.

    The nature of "torsion" phenomena, physics are not clearly understood, nevertheless, the great effort experimental results speak for themselves. The volumes where the "torsion" effects are noticed and studied can be characterized as the ones where the spinning, rotating objects demonstrate their activity.

    Thus, the spinning objects (particles mainly) and the inter-object medium should be distinguished.

    Meanwhile, the few theoretical explanations that have been presented in the known literature are ignoring the presence of intermediate physical "substance," even cannot address this issue - because in COH physics it is absent in nuclear, particle, and atomic physics. Just absent - dropped by creators of these sciences from visibility, from observables, we analyze this in our:

  • "Particle Physics - Heterogeneous Polyscale Collectively Interactive,"

  • Particle Physics (Particle Physics 2). Fundamentals,

  • Nuclear Physics Structured. Introduction,

    then on the "Atomic and Sub-atomic Scale Description....," in section

  • Atomic and Subatomic Scales Description of Matter with HSP-VAT.

  • Atomic and Subatomic Physics 2 - Elements 3P

    The inter-object (if in between the sub-atomic particles) medium we can identify with the aether which itself has the heterogeneous nature at smaller scales. Or with the other substance - gaseous particularly.

    All further theory and modeling governing equations are following these plain initial smallest scale media premisis and their physical properties. Apart of the statement that - we don't get down to the nature and structure for the electric and magnetic particles, but their existence.

    We do not discuss the nature and yet the mass of material objects, which in spinning, and not only in spinning physics, experiments come from creating in the aether thereof. That is in itself an extra-extraordinary phenomenon. Что есть само по себе экстра-выдающееся явление.

    There is no evidence of the contrary, but more of that there are evidences and theories suggesting the heterogeneity of the aether medium down to ~10^(-(40-45)) [m].

    Our understanding and aim into the description of media that consist of obvious known physical subjects as the sub-atomic, atomic, and nanoscale particles, molecules, etc. along with the penetrating them aether (or/and other intermedia) strangely enough up to these times (2006-2014) is that this kind of media is not known in the fields of "Torsion" Mechanics, Physics and LENR.

    The problem and the great problem for workers in the atomic and sub-atomic fields is that in the educational systems that researchers were subjected in the years of fundamental courses there have been no basic training regarding the polyphase media sciences.

    That resulted in the perception by workers in the media of interest - atomic and sub-atomic sciences and technologies, that these media consisting of particulate substances as the only important medium with the presence of "vacuum" or "physical vacuum" with no properties of a medium for it, but some electromagetic constants!?

    Thus, in this case the "vacuum," or "physical vacuum" again is the medium with features of Homogeneous or Homogenized (HH) medium with some properties.

    Then, the worst scenario of COH physics started to be implemented. That means - the "physical vacuum" (PV) and the particles or any spinning (rotating) objects are acting in a physical theory, method, for example - in "torsion" theories of current time, as the separate weakly communicated entities? Which is the old known problem of the same OSFA (One Scale For All) Homogeneous physics.

    Researchers in "Torsion" mechanics started to pay some attention to this situation, we can mention among a number of manuscripts, the studies and publications by Bobrov, A.V. [11].

    The effects around of a real, spinning (rotating) body, object, sub-atomic particle and the continuum mechanics field(s) created by this particle - recognized effects of a one only particle is announced as the real physical phenomenon that should have a special "spinning" field(s). At the same time the general overall "torsion" field effects that are existing in the PV is also recognized as the "torsion" field.

    The two alike, but separately described, explained by spinning of objects "torsion" fields? As we assert in our studies (supported by Polyphase physics research in many sciences) that these two fields named either "torsion" or spinning fields are the fields of the same origin, but various scales connected.

    There is the need to make the initial statement regarding this relatively new, but pretty large step forward in physics as we understood this in the XXI century.

    Despite what some significant steps have been taken yet by N.A.Kozyrev in the 1940-1970s [19K-102K] and later pronounced as of immense importance the new level of physics, we found - meanwhile, this another physics is still described with the tools of Conventional Orthodox Homogeneous Physics (COHP) as this is being explained for many sciences-sections at this website and other our publications - "Hierarchical Scaled Physics and Technologies."

    But it's not - it's not compatible, as not compatible COHP theories of cold fusion with the process of cold fusion. This is, of course, the "jokes" of COHP workers.

    When in 1913-1922 E.Cartan, later H.Weyl, before that G.Ricci, H.Minkowski, and H.Poincare have been developing mathematics of curved and torsion (twisted) medium - they all worked within the OSFA (One Scale For All) paradigm. Meaning that everything, any medium of interest was/is of Homogeneous or Homogenized (HH) nature in physics and mathematics. MATH

    Water molecules, electrons, hydrogen atom, hydrogen molecule, and Point-Mass-Charge-Spins (PMCS) arrows of COHP those should have no visibility, no image at all, but only arrows showing the places in the coordinate system of real points that being designated in COHP as the Sub-atomic "particles" - as well as of atoms, as it is taught to students in COHP. And these arrays of arrows do "create" (?!) the Homogeneous media of COHP in the Upper part of the volume outlined by sphere, but not the Lower part of this volume REV in the figure. This Lower part is the Heterogeneous media of material substances, any substance.

    What does it mean for the Particular (Particle) and the "Torsion" Physics?

    That means the any medium of Spinning, Rotation nature is present in the theory mostly as just the mathematical construction of these great mathematicians - they all meant the Twisting not a real Rotation, Spinning of the part, separate volume within the space for the more than 360° degrees while they all considered their subject media as the One Phase media.

    With this premise in mind, everyone should understand that when these mathematicians (not physicists) said or meant the torsion or twisting in the spot (dot) of a space - they had meant the twisting features of that or this particular dot of Homogeneous media in space, but not the dot of rotating with tremendous speed particle or the same rotating particle dot on the surface or in the body of that particle - nanosize or of the sub-atomic size.

    In the neighbor dot of a close location the medium's physical features would be assigned, modeled, calculated, or theorized on the base of a HH medium - with the same kind of equations, and these equations have been derived for a HH media alike. So, it was similar to the elasticity theory with twisting of the Homogeneous medium.

    Later on, all these mathematical structures were taken into the theories of relativity, the theory of the physical vacuum by G.I.Shipov and also purely mathematical theory (ECE) of M.W.Evans (Einstein-Cartan-Evans). All of them are purely mathematical projects first of all. They do not start from the physical objects, they start from the mathematical spaces and operators. By the way, as well as in the Quantum Mechanics textbooks and manuals. Because it's difficult, if ever possible to connect the real physical particle and the imaginable mathematical wave in a sober mind of students. All are about Homogeneous matters. Therefore, the claims that - all Physics this is simply Geometry, can be found in these "Physical (?)" theories.

    It worth for some readers explaining - that the theory of M.W.Evans (ECE) completely and once again refutes both Theories of Relativity (SR, GR). There is a whole literature exists about the refutation of the TR that is not communicated to students, hidden from them.

    This also means that ECE theory also completely refutes the theories of Shipov, G.I.? Surprised, or not? G.I.Shipov himself is not commenting on ECE developments, as well as M.W.Evans does not talk on PV of Shipov - they claim neutrality against each other? Not known finally.

    What is the difference in formulation of physical theory, mathematics, models for Heterogeneous Media in comparison to Homogeneous (HH) one?

    Physicists in astrophysics, atomic, molecular, particle, nuclear and smaller scales physical disciplines and orthodox mathematicians have no idea, majority of them. This is the reality of the educational system that doesn't deliver to them in the universities.

    We would like to make some (a few of many) initial statements, Concepts regarding the function and building of Spinning (Rotation) Heterogeneous Scaled Physics, that introduce the Polyphase (it's true)-Polyscale (it's true also)-Polyphysics ( it's true also when we start to think about the experimental results) description of this probably most fascinating so far part of physics with its phenomenal features and possibilities. Not even close to understanding and theorizing in COHP. Not a way.

    Concepts of Spinning (Rotation, Rotary) Heterogeneous Scaled Physics (SHSP) (2014)

    1) All physical media where the Spinning (Rotation) features are experimentally found, present, confirmed consist at least of the two "phases". One "phase" - that is the spinning, rotating volumetric objects, particles ("particles") of the 3D shaped volumes.

    The second "phase" is the intermedium phase, mostly consisting of the aether, but not exclusively.

    2) Any problem in this at least 2-phase medium should be stated, considered, modeled and simulated as the local-nonlocal at least 2-phase problem including the sub-atomic particles phase and the aether phase. We don't use the term "physical vacuum" mostly because in physics community of "torsion" physicists this term is associated with the Physical Vacuum Theory (PVT) of G.I.Shipov that is in its turn directly connected, communicated to the SR and GR that are impaired theories and recognized as being found with numerous inconsistencies and faults. So, the term "physical vacuum" is a compromised term.

    Also the physical vacuum term embraces the features connecting it to COHP that is in its turn compromised because of numerous inconsistencies and faults within COHP itself that can not be stated as the base for the 2nd Physics.

    3) Any problem related to the spinning fields of the local (also named (Bobrov [11]) the "own" spinning field) and the nonlocal Upper scale spinning field should be studied and generalized for all the space of interest. That means the both at least spinning (rotating) fields should be considered as inseparables.

    4) Mathematics that is accepted as the universal applicable science, meanwhile, is not the final theory for all physical problems.

    5) Mathematics should be taken into account and used in exploratory physics as the inseparable part of the physical reality.

    6) The word "torsion" is compromised in regard of application to the highly controversial, but considered as to be found with the numerous experimental confirmations, part of Spinning physics because this term firstly was used by mathematicians for the mathematical purposes, theories and continue to be used widely, and justified as for the Homogeneous media only.

    Meanwhile, the subject of spinning, rotating 2-phase at least - but not only twisted media is the area of interest in the part of physics that at present has been named as "Torsion" physics also.

    Twisting media is the simplified reality of the Homogeneous Continuum Mechanics physics with Twisting of a Single Phase and is not applicable to the sub-atomic world phenomena with Rotating particles of the sub-atomic scale (size). Meanwhile, Twisting medium is continued to be a legitimate subject for study as for Homogeneous and Heterogeneous media.

    Up to the present time the twisted, torsion media have been considered and have theories as of only Homogeneous nature and origin.

    7) To the present time the theories of Homogeneous media Twisting (not Rotating or Spinning) and of Curvature that have being developed in works by G.I.Shipov (PVT) and M.W.Evans (ECE) and their co-authors are still applicable to only the Homogeneous media.

    That is the fundamental difference (concept) which bans application of Homogeneous PVT and ECE along with their governing equations to the natural media consisting of at least the two phases - spinning, rotating particles and of the intermedium - aether, air, or other substances.

    We are not presenting and discussing here the other compromising and impaired features and accusations of blunders in both theories PVT and ECE that are known in the specialized literature on this kind of COH theoretical physics.

    The R.Weitzenbock geometry spaces also don't save the situation regarding the Homogeneous mathematical spaces and Heterogeneous matters in physics.

    The treatment of all space media as the single phase medium logically and mathematically is insolvent. Those attempts have been in the development throughout the XIX and XX centuries and finalized anyway in the theories based on the Heterogeneous vision of composite polyphase media after the WWII only.

    At present - up to 2015, there is not even a single problem that has been solved in Spinning ("torsion") Physics with an applied physical and mathematical model throughout all these years of "Like Theories" that have being used for explanation of the "torsion" physics. And this is not surprising - theories have being inadequate, taken based on inadequate COH physics.

    Meanwhile, there are suitable, appropriate initial scaled mathematical models for Spinning Physics that in HSP already have been solved for 18-20 years in the 1990s as, for example, in -

  • "Globular Morphology Two Scale Electrostatic Exact Solutions"

  • "Effective Coefficients in Electrodynamics"

  • "What is in use in Continuum Mechanics of Heterogeneous Media as of Through ~1950 - 2005 ? "

  • "Who Are in the Continuum Mechanics Continuing to Dwell in an Ivory Tower? Who Tries to Re-Invent the Wheel? What Are the Damage and Financial Loss? "

    8) Because of the reasons stated in the previous clauses on "torsion" physics it is desirable to coin another name for the field more fitting to the physical subject, to the phenomena in the field as - the name Spinning or (Rotation, Rotary), not Spin, for the rotated objects and Spinning Polyscale physics about these objects and effects communicated to them for the scales from the sub-atomic and up to the Continuum Mechanics ones, as the only physically connected to the discussed physical phenomena regarding rotated objects in the spaces, phases of the physical world.

    9) The terms as "torsion," Spinor Analysis should be left for Homogeneous media phenomena, Homogeneous Mathematics, that is actually a common practice in physics.

    10) Spinor Analysis it is the Homogeneous Medium Twisting Dynamics Mathematics of Twisting Points - not Particles, not Rotation, not Spinning over 360°, not Composite Spinning. Spinning (Rotating) the Sub-Atomic Particles Media Give the Different Physics and Math.

    Instead of that - if the sub-atomic and alike volumetric objects, particles (rotating, spinning) had been accepted and included into atomic, particle, and nuclear physics, into analysis at the beginning of XX - then mathematicians of XX had to have the Scaled Heterogeneous Mathematics (SHM) for at least the Two-scale Heterogeneous media. Then the rotating particles could be treated, analyzed and modeled. Also they would need the aether presence as the part of the polyphase medium.

    This was not possible at the beginning of XX.

    11) At present, the many problems of rotating particles (spinning) at the sub-atomic, nuclear, and atomic scales can be (and should) stated and modeled as the two and more phase problems:

  • "Fundamentals of Hierarchical Scaled Description in Physics and Technologies"

  • "Particle Physics - Heterogeneous Polyscale Collectively Interactive"

  • "Atomic and Subatomic Scales Description of Matter with HSP-VAT"

  • Atomic and Subatomic Physics 2 - Elements 3P

  • "Electrodynamics 2 - Elements 3P"

  • "What is the Particle Physics Now?"

  • Nuclear Physics Structured.Introduction

    12) The field(s) in physics and biophysics that is about of connection of rotating objects, particles in the 2-phase (or more) media should be considered and studied firstly as the part of physics, but not as a mathematical theory that might or might be not relevant or useful to physics. That means the physical experimental outcomes, explanations, statements are first of all the physics issues. Meanwhile, the theoretical, mathematical ideas, theories, methods should be built upon that and for that result verifications.

    13) Right now the physical and mathematical methods, statements for Spinning (Rotation) physics can be built and was built on the foundation of HSP (Hierarchical Scaled Physics) that for almost 50 years has being developed for many physical and engineering sciences and technologies.

    The single and unified resources for HS physics, biology, biophysics, medicine and other sciences and many Scaled technologies based on them or using them are in - http://www.travkin-hspt.com (with more than 1000 of the 2-nd physics themes, areas in it) and hard copy publications - see references.

    14) Modeling, simulation, and design of experiments for Spinning physics problems written in a strict Heterogeneous, Polyphase mathematical form, statements are available at present [1,3,7,10,14,16].

    15) The presentation of spinning, rotating particles (sub-atomic first of all) in COHP and consequently in "Torsion" physics as the mythical point-mass-charge-torsion dots has been prohibiting the correct Heterogeneous, Polyphase vision and treatment of the problems in physics of rotating particles (even of Continuum Mechanics scale) that have dynamics of movement in the volume filled with the aether or other substance, but not with the "quantum vacuum" widely used in COHP or the "physical vacuum" that has in COHP also the incomplete description of "nothing" with ability to create the sub-atomic particles. Up to these days students are fooled with books on "quantum vacuum" priced in tens of dollars?

    These latter "vacuums" are not the substances or media in COHP, there is no interaction between those and sub-atomic particles, so the particles are hanging, moving within the "nothing" with some electromagnetic properties while having the "action-at-a-distance" between themselves throughout the "nothing" and with pretty simplistic or simply wrong the Lorentz force formula, etc.

    By the way - the Lorentz force formula can not be generalized for multiple particle interaction correctly in COHP "Electrodynamics 2 - Elements 3P" just because COH physics doesn't know how to do this ?

    There is no intermedium, the particles are the point-mass-charge-rotation(?) objects and there are no tools, methods, Heterogeneous mathematics in COHP for this task.

    The "methods" that are in use in COHP as with the Lagrangians or the Hamiltonians that are defined locally, and as the known interactions are totally reducible to local-differential and potential treatments are not applicable to the issues on collective interactions and should be left to the XVIII century that they came from.

    While COHP physicists cannot confess on this "top secret" shame, sorry for reminding.

    The various theories of aether recognize at least that this is the substance with not known so far many characteristics. Nevertheless, acceptance of the aether as a substance with some known features justify at present all the physics of known mostly experimentally Spinning (rotating, but not twisting) particles dynamics and interactions within the scale of interest as well as between the scales and up to a Continuum scale.

    The properties of physical effects allegedly considered as of the Spinning physics related and associated other necessary physical effects (3P as magnetic, electric, gravity) can be found, theorized, studied experimentally and modeled now in a mathematically correct way.

    16) It is our privilege to say that any experimental study in Spinning Physics provided for the last ~50 years are the studies on polyphase effects of aether regarding the collective interaction of subatomic and larger rotating particles (bodies) and any of these experiments can be analyzed only with the application of HSP techniques, for example, as noted on some of these in - Experimental Science in Heterogeneous Media

    The difference in the HSP theory and mathematical implementation for Spinning ("torsion") physics is so large that the principal physical and mathematical models, modeling and simulation are qualitatively different in comparison to Homogeneous one scale governing equations and statements in COHP. It is not that the one, two terms or coefficients are different, it comes to different kinds of governing equations with additional physical phenomena that are not seen in the COHP statements. That is why the direct comparison is only partially possible [8-10, 13-15] while physics is different whatsoever.

    These are exactly the issues that show and explain the qualitative differences between Spinning ("torsion") physics theories proposed in the COHP and HSP.

    So far no other theory in physics being able to follow the details of physical nature for Spinning Physics experiments and respond with the credible explanation and models of local and nonlocal character. ======================================================

    What is the Natural Physical Base for Spinning (Rotation) Heterogeneous Scaled Physics (SHSP)

    We have shown in many physical sciences, technologies

  • "Fundamentals of Hierarchical Scaled Description in Physics and Technologies"

    and in this website by means of the Two-scale solutions, Heterogeneous Mathematics, methods of Scaleportation of physical and mathematical definitions, statements, solutions between the scales, especially with the exact Two-scale solutions of the few common textbooks known physical classical problems, for example, as in -

  • "Classical Problems in Fluid Mechanics"

  • "Classical Problems in Thermal Physics"

  • "Globular Morphology Two Scale Electrostatic Exact Solutions"

    that this new kind of Theoretical, Mathematical Physics for old problems that used to be considered as the one scale problems, but are really the two-scale ones, can be successfully tackled and solved within and by the methods of HSP.

    Obtained after 2002 the analytical solutions of the following classical problems that have not been solved and cannot be solved for many decades by other methods (given in textbooks the Lower Homogeneous scale "solutions" are wrongly attributed to the Upper Heterogeneous scale averaged fields)

  • "When the 2x2 is not going to be 4 - What to do?"

  • "Two Scale EM Wave Propagation in Superlattices - 1D Photonic Crystals"

  • "Two Scale Solution for Acoustic Wave Propagation Through the Multilayer Two-Phase Medium"

  • "Effective Coefficients in Electrodynamics"

    These solutions leave no chances for modeling, calculations or comparison with experiment of the Upper scale characteristics using the basis of Homogeneous physics. This has no sense, invalid for Heterogeneous problems. Meanwhile, every researcher in physics knows that the mostly sought after the properties and solutions of the medium problems are of the Upper scale - as in the problems of Spinning Physics of Heterogeneous Media, where we are interested in especially the effects of collective interaction of subatomic particles and aether but on the Upper scale. On such a scale, where the Upper scale opportunities of modern experimental devices can detect and record changes in the volumes with (аx10^6) and (вx10^9) and more particles.

    Following from the above stated some initial obvious concepts (there are others) of Spinning (Rotation, Rotary) Heterogeneous Scaled Physics (SHSP) the spatial vision, experiments, modeling and simulation of SHSP problems, for example, of the water based media can be assessed with methods developed within HSP (Heterogeneous Scaled Physics) as for shown in these pictures media

    MATH

    "Elementary" Particles in Space (Aether) Schematic.

    MATH

    Modeling of water (HSP-VAT) as a bunch of molecules and some other particles as electrons in aether as the medium.

    MATH

    Modeling of Fe^56 in the aether (HSP-VAT) as a bunch of interactive atoms. This is to illustrate that the physics (HSP) is more complicated than COHP's the gang of just charged points-mass'. The scales here are for depiction of the ideas, not the real scales.

    MATH

    An array of ordered electrons in dynamics. To theorize and model this array the COHP methods are artificial, so the modeling of particles swarm in particle accelerators is pretty simplified, while dynamics equations are incorrect - see our analyses, texts, papers in relevant chapters-sections in this website (references below) and elsewhere.

    The hydrogen gas properties can be shown have obvious and straightforward definitions and models for their simulation, while we can shortly address the existing homogeneous theories (homogeneous by nature of accepted methods for gaseous medium as being homogeneous in COHP for actual heterogeneous polyphase (at least three phases - gaseous molecules, CMBR and an aether) problems of gaseous media in a volume).

    MATH

    Hydrogen molecules at moderate temperatures and pressure - hydrogen gas (ortho- and para-hydrogen molecules) in a volume. Anyone can point out to a specific misrepresentation(s) in the figure?

    We guess, that the COHP education won't allow to point out - What's wrong with this picture? Wrong not in terms of COH chemistry - that is OK, but the molecules are not the balls or similar structures. What a change. We are talking about the polyscale chemistry.

    Besides, the methods of COH physics do not allow to model and simulate this gas in a vessel. The COHP MD can not treat this gas, with these molecules.

    In the preceding volumes of Heterogeneous Hierarchical physics for the sub-atomic and atomic scales -

  • "Particle Physics - Heterogeneous Polyscale Collectively Interactive"

  • "Particle Physics (Particle Physics 2). Fundamentals" ,

  • "Nuclear Physics Structured. Introduction" ,

    then on the "Atomic and Sub-atomic Scale Description....," section

  • "Atomic and Subatomic Scales Description of Matter with HSP-VAT"

  • "Atomic and Subatomic Physics 2 - Elements 3P"

    and on the Ht MHL (Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz) Electrodynamics

  • "Electrodynamics,"

    with the following content on Galilean Polyscale Electrodynamics

  • "Electrodynamics 2 - Elements 3P"

    with stated in the introductory -

  • "What's Going on in Particle Physics with Homogeneous Approach? How we Can Up-scale from the Sub-Atomic to the Continuum Mechanics? By MD it is the False Method (via the Homogeneous MD) and Even a False Math."

    and in

  • "What is the Particle Physics Now?"

    and

  • "Quantum Mechanics-Why Not? What's Wrong? Some of the History,"

    and in

  • "Quantum Mechanics Other Theories (de Broglie--Bohm Theory, etc.) - Why Not 2? What's Wrong?,"

    and in

  • "What's Wrong with Particle Physics and Atomic Science Regarding the Averaging Assessment and Prohibited Idea of Scaling in Them?"

    then using this information on 2nd physics including HSP, one can assess the large gap that now is of pure vision, in advancements between the COHP and the front edge achievements and Physical Research (Frontier physics) in the 2nd physics that is blocking in many instances the progress in physics and in the most suffered areas as of energy and transportation.

    Here we have in mind primarily the physical foundations of future technologies in the energy and transportation, including transport of objects of the microworld and the subatomic world.

    These chapters-sciences below in HSP have a lot of contents in these and others small scales physics areas (sciences) for Hierarchical, Scaled, Heterogeneous subjects.


    Well, as soon as practically all of this Spinning ("torsion") Physics has being developed by Russian speaking physicists, started, of course, by great astrophysicist N.A.Kozyrev - we would like to give here some texts on SHSP (Spinning (Rotation) Heterogeneous Scaled Physics ) in Russian as for the recognition of this Russian language pioneering branch of physics - Physics that soon be explaining the other fields of physics. Nothing is now of more important value. (In physics, of course.)

     

    1064)    Физика Вращения (Спиннинг) Масштабная (ФВМ) - Что Это, Когда Физические Вращающиеся Объекты Представлены на Масштабах не как Масса-Заряд-Кручение Точки, Но Как Вращающиеся (Но Не Скрученные) Физические Объемные Реальности (Объекты)?

     

    (Потому Что Любой из Этих Вращающихся Предметов, Частиц Имеет Обьем и Ограничивающие Поверхности).        (in Russian)  

    Физика Вращения (Спиннинг) Масштабная (ФВМ) - Что Это За Физика? **

    References:

    1. Travkin, V.S., Fundamentals of Hierarchical Scaled Physics (HSP-VAT). Description of Transport and Phenomena in Heterogeneous and Scaled Media http://travkin-hspt.com/fundament/index.htm. (2003)

    2. Travkin, V.S., and Catton, I., Transport Phenomena in Heterogeneous Media Based on Volume Averaging Theory, in Advances in Heat Transfer, Vol. 34, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-144, (2001)

    3. Travkin, V.S., Continuum Mechanics of Heterogeneous (Ht) Media; Elasticity, Plasticity, http://travkin-hspt.com/elastic/index.htm, (2005)

    4. Travkin, V.S., and Catton, I., "Porous Media Transport Descriptions - Non-Local, Linear and Nonlinear Against Effective Thermal/Fluid Properties," in Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, Vol. 76-77, pp. 389-443, (1998)

    5. Travkin, V.S., "Why is it Different from Homogeneous and other Theories and Methods of Heterogeneous Media Mechanics/(other Sciences) Description?" http://travkin-hspt.com/fundament/03.htm, (2002)

    6. Travkin, V.S., "Reductionism and/versus Holism in Physics and Biology - are Both Defective Concepts without Scaleportation," http://travkin-hspt.com/fundament/scaleport/scaleport.htm, (2004)

    7. Travkin, V.S., "Solid State Plasma Models," http://travkin-hspt.com/atom/01.htm, (2006)

    8. Travkin, V.S., What's Wrong with the Pseudo-Averaging Used in Textbooks on Atomic Physics and Electrodynamics for Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz Electromagnetism Equations, http://travkin-hspt.com/eldyn/maxdown/maxdown.htm, (2009)

    9. Travkin, V.S., Incompatibility of Maxwell-Lorentz Electrodynamics Equations at Atomic and Continuum Scales, http://travkin-hspt.com/eldyn/incompat/incompat.htm, (2009)

    10. Travkin, V.S., Electrodynamics 2 - Elements 3P (Polyphase-Polyscale-Polyphysics), http://travkin-hspt.com/eldyn2/index.htm, (2013)

    11. Bobrov, A.V.,, "The Interaction of Spin Fields - Fifth Fundamental Interaction. Pt.2," International Journal of Unconventional Science, Vol. 1, No.2, pp. 8-22, (2013)

    also at: http://www.unconv-science.org/n2/bobrov/; retrieved 08/29/2014

    12. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N., "The Classical and Sub-Atomic Physics are the Same Physics," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys/pdf/51_PrAtEd-QM-Ref-2HSPT.pdf, (2013)

    13. Travkin, V.S., Particle Physics - Heterogeneous Polyscale Collectively Interactive, http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys/index.htm, (2011)

    14. Travkin, V.S., Particle Physics (Particle Physics 2). Fundamentals, http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/index.htm, (2013)

    15. Travkin, V.S., Nuclear Physics Structured. Introduction, http://travkin-hspt.com/nuc/index.htm, (2006-2013)

    16. Travkin, V.S., Experimental Science in Heterogeneous Media, http://travkin-hspt.com/exscience/index.htm, (2005)

    17. Travkin, V.S., Statistical Mechanics Homogeneous for Point Particles. What Objects it Articulates? http://travkin-hspt.com/statmech/index.htm, (2014)

    18. Travkin, V.S., Solid State Polyscale Physics. Fundamentals, http://travkin-hspt.com/solphys/index.htm, (2014)

    19. Travkin, V.S., "Two-Scale Three-Phase Regular and Irregular Shape Charged Particles (Electrons, Photons) Movement in MHL Electromagnetic Fields in a Vacuum0 (Aether)," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/abstracts/twoparticlesshort-ab.htm, (2013)

    20. Travkin, V.S. and Bolotina, N.N., "Two-Scale Two-Phase Formation of Charged 3D Continuum Particles - Sphere and Cube From Electrons in a Vacuum0 (Aether). An Example of Scaleportation of Charge from the Sub-Atomic to Continuum Charged Particles, Conventional MD Cannot be Applied," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/abstracts/subtocontin-ab.htm, (2013)

    21. Travkin, V.S., "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Hierarchical Processes in the E-Cat Nuclear Reactor. Physics 2 ," http://travkin-hspt.com/coldlenr/ecathier1/ecathier1-ab.htm, (2012-2013)

    22. Travkin, V.S., "What Classical Mechanics of XVIII Provided in XX Has Done Wrong to the Base of Mechanical Science Including the Classical Mechanics of Continuum Particles and Conventional Orthodox Homogeneous Particle Physics", http://travkin-hspt.com/rottors/classmechwrong/classmechwrong.htm, (2014)

    23. Travkin, V.S.,"The Major Forces Have Been Missing From Governing Equations for Dynamics of Sub-atomic and Continuum Particles, Bodies in XVIII - XX ", http://travkin-hspt.com/rottors/forcemissing/forcemissing.htm, (2014)

    24. Travkin, V.S., Atomic and Subatomic Physics 2 - Elements 3P, http://travkin-hspt.com/atom2/index.htm, (2003-2015)

    25. Travkin, V.S., "Classical Mechanics Attempts for Description of Atomic Physics (ClM One-scale One-phase Homogeneous Atomic Physics - ClMO2HAP) Phenomena ," http://travkin-hspt.com/parphys2/clmechonesc1/clmechonesc1.htm, (2014)


    Special Publications of Kozyrev, N.A.

    19K. Kozyrev, N., "Note on the Structure of Sunspots," Circulars Ch. Astronomical Observatory at Pulkovo, #2, pp. 3-5, (1932)

    23K. Kozyrev, N., "Note on the Depth of Sunspots," Circulars Ch. Astronomical Observatory at Pulkovo, #6, pp. 3-9, (1933)

    24K. Kozyrev, N., " Spectrophotometry," in "The Course of Astrophysics and Stellar Astronomy," Part 1: Methods of Astrophysical Research and Astrophotographic Investigations, Ed. B.P.Gerasimovitch, Ch. 4, pp. 266-314, (1934)

    25K. Kozyrev, N., "Radiative Equilibrium of the Extended Photosphere," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astron. Society, V. 94, No. 5, pp. 430-443, (1934)

    27K. Eropkin, D.I.,Kozyrev, N.A., "Spectrophotometry of the Night Sky and Zodiacal Light," Circulars Ch. Astronomical Observatory at Pulkovo, #13, pp. 21-25, (1935)

    28K. Kozyrev, N.A., "Sources of Stellar Energy and the Theory of the Internal Structure of Stars," News Krymsk. Astrophysical Observatory, Vol. 2, pp. 3-43, (1948)

    31K. Kozyrev, N.A., "The Internal Structure of Stars on the Basis of Observational Data," Bulletin of Leningrad Univ., Vol. II, pp. 32-35, (1948)

    35K. Kozyrev, N.A., "The Theory of the Internal Structure of Stars and Sources of Stellar Energy," News Krymsk. Astrophysical Observatory, Vol. 6, pp. 54-83, (1951)

    36K. Kozyrev, N.A., "The Internal Structure of the Major Planets," Dokl. USSR Academy of Sciences, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp 217-220, (1951)

    46K. Kozyrev, N.A., Causal or Asymmetrical Mechanics in Linear Approximation, Pulkovo, (1958) 90 p.

    49K. Kozyrev, N.A., "Volcanic Activity on the Moon," Nature, Vol. 3, pp. 84-87, (1959) (in Russian)

    52K. Kozyrev, N.A., "Observation of a Volcanic Process on the Moon," Sky and Telescope, Vol. 18, N. 4. P. 184-186, (1959)

    60K. Kozyrev, N.A., "Spectroscopic Proofs for Existence of Volcanic Processes on the Moon," in The Moon, Proceedings of the Symposium N 14 of The International Astronomical Union held at Pulkovo Observatory near Leningrad, December 1960. L., N.Y., pp. 263-271, (1962)

    89K. Kozyrev, N.A., "East-West Asymmetry of Saturn's Ring," Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 111-116, (1974)

    94K. Kozyrev, N.A., Nasonov, V.V., "On some Properties of Time Discovered by Astronomical Observations," in Manifestation of Cosmic Factors on the Earth and the Stars, M.; L., pp. 76-84, (Problems Investig. Universe, Vol. 9), (1980)

    99K. Kozyrev, N.A., "About the Impact of Time on the Substance," in Physical Aspects of Modern Astronomy, L., pp. 82-91, (Problems Investig. Universe, Vol. 11), (1985)

    102K. Kozyrev, N.A., Selected Works, Leningrad, LGU, (1991). 445 c.


    Special Publications of Lavrentiev M.M.

    1L. Lavrentiev, M.M., Yeganova, I.A., Lutset, M.K., Fominykh, S.F., "On the Remote Influence of Stars on the Resistor," Doklady Academii Nauk SSSR, Vol. 314, # 2, pp. 352-355, (1990)

    2L. Lavrentiev, M.M., Gusev, V.A., Yeganova, I.A., Lutset, M.K., Fominykh, S.F., "On the Registration of a True Position of Sun," Doklady Academii Nauk SSSR, Vol. 315, # 2, pp. 368-370, (1990)

    3L. Lavrentiev, M.M., Yeganova, I.A., Lutset, M.K., Fominykh, S.F., "On Registration of Reaction of Matter to the External Irreversible Process," Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1991, v.317, # 3, pp. 635-639, (1991)

    4L. Lavrentiev, M.M., Yeganova, I.A., Medvedev V.G., Oleinik V.K., Fominykh, S.F., "On the Scanning of the Star Sky with Kozyrev's Detector," Doklady Academii Nauk SSSR, Vol. 323, # 4, pp. 649-652, (1992)

    UNDER CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT