swansont

What does the strength of this interaction, between these points, depend on? What does the strength of this interaction, between a point and some particle of mass m, depend on?

The fact that this thread was in speculations as opposed to a mainstream section should be a clue.

Citation? CItation?

We already have the Higgs. That's been predicted theoretically and verified experimentally. That's twaddle. Is there a mathematical solution for the motion of these points? Why do they move? What is the nature of their interaction with each other? Is it an existing interaction, or a new one? Doing the math is most of the work, and it is, IMO, a fool's errand when you can't explain your idea using physics language. Does your idea work with, say, two points? "nodes of convergence"? More twaddle. What is converging?

If they are the source of gravity and gravity is stronger where we have mass, how can it be that they don't congregate where we have mass? Influence...how? They move, according to your animation? Is this because they interact with each other? Is that a gravitational interaction? Do they interact with matter, other than gravitationally? How would they produce photons, which have energy? How do you "nudge" them? So far as we know, neutrinos and electrons have no structure. They are also both spin 1/2, so you would have to explain how the spin arises from this. One of them has charge. Where does that come from?

Is it a vector, though? So why is the gravity from a more massive particle larger? Why do your particles congregate where we have matter? Or photons? How can they travel with photons unless they are massless, but if they are massless they travel at c, so how can they be a part of matter?

You mean neutrinos, right? (They were thought to be, but AFAIK the fact that they have mass means this isn’t exclusive.) https://neutrinos.fnal.gov/mysteries/handedness/ neutrinos turn out to be an anomaly. Other particles such as the quarks and the other three leptons (the electron, muon, and tau) have both left-handed and right-handed versions of both the matter particle and their antimatter partner. I have no idea what you mean by this. In your model they are points rotating. Nothing inherently gravitational. No interaction is described.

Why would Tesla be obligated to cover this?

! Moderator Note Your thread isn’t doing this; open a new one to investigate ! Moderator Note But you still haven’t defined what more civilized means, or that your premise is true. Yet you are asking why it’s true. ! Moderator Note Again, you ask why something is true, instead of asking if it is true

Deck prisms are used on ships/boats. A cheap option is a clear plastic bottle filled with water, fitted into the roof. (aka a liter of light)

! Moderator Note 1. more civilized ≠ more advanced. Which one are you asking about? 2. Provide an explanation of what you mean by the term you choose, and establish that it’s true, before you ask why it’s true.

! Moderator Note This is conspiracy theory, and we’re not a conspiracy discussion site. Take it somewhere else.

You probably got details wrong, and this would allow someone to more easily check what the actual claim was. I have a PhD in physics, and this is a book written for a popular audience. I’m talking about actual physics, not watered-down explanations in popular books. “the literature” being popular books, or peer-reviewed articles? An official Fermilab statement should be easy to cite. I’m not sure what a phantom particles is. You can use a hot-wire detector to detect atoms, you can use a microchannel plate to detect electrons. It’s not all photon detection. Do you have the actual name of the particles they discovered experimentally, without a theory? They’re all given names. I’m in a pickle, I guess

! Moderator Note Please stop doing this; it is irrelevant. Topics for discussion here need to be posted here. Posts that suggest people should go visit your blog are expressly forbidden in the rules.

More useful would be the chapter of the book, and better yet, page numbers. Zero point energy, giving rise to particle-antiparticle pairs. Except they don't break conservation laws. You either have the zero-point energy, or in the context of QM the classical conservation laws don't apply in light of the various uncertainly relations, such as ∆E∆t > hbar/2 You can't tap into the zero-point energy, so it isn't free energy It would be unusual for a physicist to co-opt an existing term and use it to mean something completely different.

No, we won't be doing that. It would anger the Audubon society, and they would instigate Operation Hitchcock, with me playing Tippi Hedren's role. (again. I was dive-bombed by a B1rd some years ago)

If birds are imaginary you need to rotate them 90º

I use upvote and downvote as they have no chance of triggering the self-destruct sequence.

Where does gravity show up in your model's equations?

You still need to know the physics you are trying to mesh with.

One being that if you change one part of physics, it affects so much elsewhere in physics. And all of it has to work. So if you are ignorant of those other parts, you will have no idea how many ways your idea is wrong. Taking the blinders off means learning more (much more) of physics.

And saying rest mass is unaffected does not contradict this. The point behind this is not why accelerators are big, it's your mistaken notion that gravity is affected by linear motion, which, of course, is relative. You are arguing that gravity will increase because some other object moves with respect to it. edit: The bottom line here is that you can do a solution in the rest frame, which must be valid, and the you can do a coordinate transform into the moving frame. Whatever happens has to be able to happen in the rest frame of the particle. You've been asked for your calculation of the wavelength of the emitted light, and your response is to insult me, which strongly suggests you don't have one to share. No, this is not true. Not for rest mass. Which is beside the point, since we are talking about the KE of the CoM. The total energy of something is E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 Any CoM motion, which would result in linear momentum, is accounted for separately from the mass. None of the items you listed result in momentum of the uranium nucleus.

I think a surprising majority of them would somehow assert that this is all perfectly consistent with their beliefs, and in fact foretold in some heretofore obscure passages of their holy books.

IOW you're just making stuff up There is no solution for v=c. The equation diverges This isn't magic. You don't get to just claim stuff happens without regard to physics, and if you have new physics to propose you need to develop a testable model. This one fails, because an electron does not become a neutrino, and the EM field of an electron does not cause the charge to disappear. This DOES. NOT. HAPPEN. Therefore you are wrong and your model is wrong. End of story. ! Moderator Note Speculations have to have models or be backed by evidence. It's not the WAG forum.

In atomic physics, hyperfine structure is defined by small shifts in otherwise degenerate energy levels and the resulting splittings in those energy levels of atoms, molecules, and ions, due to interaction between the nucleus and electron clouds. What if your bouncing object is an electron, which is what you use in another thread. An electron has no hyperfine structure. What if the bouncing object is an atom with nuclear spin of zero? Then it has no hyperfine structure, ! Moderator Note Word salad. making stuff up without a testable model violates the rules of the speculations forum.