we find that these particles are still unique without denoting which time dimension do the particles exist in. So we can reduce the diagrams to,
In this case, a charge is a particle with electric potential energy oscillating in the orthogonal dimension. Similarly, gravity and temperature particle each has energy oscillating in the respective time dimensions. In this formulation, collisions releases energy in the time dimension along which the wave is at light speed \(c\); an electron gives heat upon collision but a proton provides gravity potential energy upon collision.
How in circular motion, these particle manifest the energy in the orthogonal time dimension is not clear. In the case of an electron, we see that as \(x\) is rotated in a circle, anticlockwise, \(t_c\) points toward the center of the circular path and sweeps out the area of the circle, \(t_T\) is always perpendicular to the circle and move on the circumference of the circle, pointing in the direction given by the right hand screw rule. There is no field perpendicular to the circular path.
Previously, when a particle with oscillating energy in the \(t_T\) dimension but exist in the \(t_c\) dimension (ie. an electron), moves in circular motion and \(x\) goes round in a circle, we see that \(t_T\) is perpendicular to the circular path with a changing \(\psi\) along it. So there is a force field of \(t_T\) nature in this perpendicular direction.
The new reduced view does not provide any indication of a force perpendicular to path of the particle when it goes into circular motion. However in the case of an electron, the rotating \(t_c\) that sweeps out a circle is consistent with the view of a rotating dipole. In this case, the perpendicular force field created when the particle goes into circular motion is then not related to \(t_T\). \(B\) is not \(T\).
We may conclude for consistency, \(g_B\) exists as the result of a rotating \(t_g\) and \(T_B\) exists as the result of a rotating \(t_T\). All these are consistent with the dipole formulation. Each force has a complementary perpendicular force when the particle is in circular motion.
In both scenarios, we are dealing with the same set of particles. The identity of individual particles are however, different. In the top diagram, charges are in the middle pair. In the latter diagram, charges are at the top and bottom on the right. Which is which?
The key is that \(B\) field interacts with moving electrons NOT stationary electrons. In the reduced view, \(B\), an rotating \(t_c\) will interact with oscillating \(t_c\) (both electrons and protons) irregardless of whether they are in motion!
If \(B\) is of the nature \(T\), all particles with \(t_T\) component will be effected by \(B\). It will also interact with moving gravity particles with light speed along \(t_T\).
Another key question is, can \(B\) separate temperature particles. In the reduced view, only moving and oscillating \(t_c\) components are effected by \(B\), and so only one of the temperature particle is affected by \(B\).
The reduced view is not consistent. In the original perspective, a particle exists in a particular time frame, with characteristics of that time dimension. It is wave with component potential energy of other orthogonal dimensions. An explicit view, indicating the time dimension of existence, is needed to differentiate waves with speed in space but in different time dimensions. A wave with speed \(c\) in \(t_c\) is different from wave with the same speed \(c\), but in the \(t_g\) time dimension. In the former, the wave carries electric potential energy, and the latter carries gravitational potential energy.
\(B\) can still be \(T\).
And where are all these particles in a material? Are they orbiting in a nucleus-satellite formation like electrons and protons.
