Kramer

I think you both ( Mike and swansont ) are wrong, because both of you disregard the main fact:" nature is material, and mater is particularised in some Democritis indivisible particles". Mike believe in power of word, which is ridiculous, because word without material support is emptier than emptiness. The nature of word is sociological, as this it can't have power to act without stick and koulach, with out hell and paradise, etc.. and they all are materialistic means. The debate about prescription of nature with word is sociological too, especially in the field of philosophy. It is impposible to be non biased, hence not true.This we see in modern physic that try to throw out of scene of science notions of particle, of mass , of a space without limits, of an eternal time without flow,of a reality that has nothing to do with what we think or debate. Swanson hiporbolise the power of math in description of nature. But the math is a by product of brain, and has its limits in being absolute. The brain, scientist say, is kinda of a computer. But exactly as in computer what you input, derive the out put. Let say for example: why disciple of quantum physic use only one constant of Plank --"h" and disregard all the others constant? Simple because : if it will use the Plank frequency this will throw in trash can Heisenberg principle this cornerstone of extreme quantum mechanic. There will not be carta bianca in math like h / 0 = infinity, with a manipulation of metaphysics interpretations that derive of. Sorry by interfering in your debate, with my lay-mans scarce knowledge in essentials of thread by two elitist. I hope have not irritated too much the readers and muddied the waters.

Center of Milky Way a recyclable mill of mater. (A controversial hypothesis by a lay -- man) With sixth grade math calculations results that in the center of Milky Way must be a super gigantic cosmic body with a super-mass of 1.69283*10^44 gr. and a radius of 1.250062*10^16 cm. For modern cosmologists this is a “black hole”, an infamous merchandise misnomer. In my lay—man imagination this is a colossal cyclotron with a tremendous gravity. This cosmic body attract from nearby mater ( mass and mass--les common bodies) and run them in a circle movement with a velocity that reach limit velocity C, but cannot over come it, as pretends cosmologists, because isn’t perceived in nature that (G * M / R) to overcome C^2 In this process the mater dismembered, disintegrated step by step until it reach the basis sub-particles from which are all they structured. As sub particles are electric charged and gravity active they create massive flow of electric current in circles. The electric current like solenoid, create high strong electromagnetic field. The alleged unique sub particles interact with each other near the center, and create the basis common particles, those elementary common particles that recreate further new common mater (Mass and mass-less). The electromagnetic field, throw them in the space, in the form of gets which are now perceived by cosmologists, and maybe in other forms that are not jet discovered. The new life of a partial amount of mater began. Isn’t this more truth worth than BIG BOOM?

The believers are eager for a sight of a miracle. And they see them in their imagination in whatever case: in mirages, in cosmic objects, even in the forms of a potato or in the graffiti that left fire on a toast. There is nothing wrong to mock. But what to say when the icon of modern physic and math. using phenomena that he has seen only in his imagination, declare: Let it be light! And lo and behold the light appears ….and the day and night began ---- nevertheless the sun he creates some billion years after.

"Electron is what it is" and "there is nothing inside it" ask for more to elucidate an ignoramus lay-man, doctor Swansont. If you have nothing new about questions : is electron particle or not? , Is it "excitation" of field or it is standing wave? Has it any thing similar with photon as they, after your statement, are both e.m waves? How you explain the mass of electron and the gravity property? If it has not form, that it is only a point, how much is the density.? etc.... then ...... say bluntly that modern physics is nothing but a mean to derange the lay mans and why not even the non physics intellectuals.

Big nose I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is what I object to. That you are just pre-supposing the solution without any good justification for doing so. I am specifically asking you to provide that justification. Is there any way you can provide it? Big nose Yes! It was premeditated to find an equation for spherical lines, which further may be used for my controversial hypothesis. This came from formula of frequency: f = C / (2*pi/alpha)*r. This means: movement in circles. I postulated: 1 – Velocity C is natural property of charges. 2-- Frequency “f” is the number of repetitious movement of charge: in stationary particles with repetitious circles, in waves with helixes. 3 - With a hunch: “alpha” , may have to do with plus circles in one period, and must be a factor of spheroid forms of particles. Maybe is not coincidence that: angle 90 degree ( a condition to have spherical lines closed) is quite near with (pi*alpha^2 *(1gr / M gr.) Let recall that trigonometry, and with it sinusoids, has its beginnings on movement of a point in circle. But particles are not circles in flat 2D, they extended in 3D, in volume. So we need to coordinate sinus function for horizontal circle with sinus function of orthogonal circle. This I create in matlab. I don’t know how to do it in calculus. Swansont Now you're going to have to tell me what u.s.p and U.P. are. It would help if you didn't introduce shorthand, or at least defined it first. u.s.p. ------ unique sub particle. Alleged the only ingredient in all kind of particles. It has 4 combination of electric and gravity charges. This means are 4 kind of u.s.p.--- about electric and gravity ability. This made possible to be combined in pair and to build 10 kind of structures (the common elementary particles). Are supposed they (u.s.p) move with C velocity, in spherical trajectories (in stationary particles), helix trajectories (in photons)., conic trajectories (in free neutrinos), and causal trajectories in dis-integrator combinations. U.P. ------ Unique particle. Alleged upper extreme particle (in Plank constants area). Has the same structure as common particles, is structured by two unique sub particles, which revolve toward each other, but in distance equal their radius. That means: Ku.p. = R / R = 1 The mass of Unique particle is equal the mass of unique sub particles: M = (G.* M^2 ) / ( R * C^2) = (M*(G* M / R) / (C^2 ) ) = M*1 Swansont Now you're going to have to tell me what u.s.p and U.P. are. It would help if you didn't introduce shorthand, or at least defined it first. u.s.p. ------ unique sub particle. Alleged the only ingredient in all kind of particles. It has 4 combination of electric and gravity charges. This means are 4 kind of u.s.p.--- about electric and gravity ability. This made possible to be combined in pair and to build 10 kind of structures (the common elementary particles). Are supposed they (u.s.p) move with C velocity, in spherical trajectories (in stationary particles), helix trajectories (in photons)., conic trajectories (in free neutrinos), and causal trajectories in dis-integrator combinations. U.P. ------ Unique particle. Alleged upper extreme particle (in Plank constants area). Has the same structure as common particles, is structured by two unique sub particles, which revolve toward each other, but in distance equal their radius. That means: Ku.p. = R / R = 1 The mass of Unique particle is equal the mass of unique sub particles: M = (G.* M^2 ) / ( R * C^2) = (M*(G* M / R) / (C^2 ) ) = M*1

A counterfeit cent in table: The forces inner the photon are opposite, and photon is in equilibrium. Near the heavy nucleus the parts of positron are pushed by the gravity out in the Dirac see., leaving parts of electron to be self -structured in electron.. For neutrino the forces are directed toward the centre of neutrino. The radius of neutrino diminished, mass of neutrino augmented (the so called change of "flavor" ??) and neutrino ends in Plank area particle. Sorry if i make a mess instead to help.

Swansont ?? Beg pardon for my mindless. Not any intention for disrespect. What this happen? It is supposed that Koulomb force of unique sub particles are 90 grades disposed from Newton forces. Where you getting the numbers here? 4.4 o311298*10^-5 (m/sec)^2. What are you using for “re”? From formula : G*M / re Where M = 1 .8593899458*10^-9 kg. alleged mass of u.s.p. and re = Compton wave - length divided by (2*pi / alpha) . What is Kx? Kx Is rate : Radius of U.P. divided by radius “rx”of x elementary particle. By Codata we see that Compton wave - length of particles is inverse - proportional with mass. Taking the radius “R” and all parameters of Unique particle as constants of nature, derive that all parameters of common elementary particles are multiple or subdivision of parameters of U.P. BIG nose Why are you agreeing with me when I am basically saying that the method you are using is wrong. If you agree with me, why don't you use a more correct method. And seriously, spell swOnsont's name correctly. It's at the top of every single post he's made. It is just a matter of respect. ------------------- I am not agreeing with you that my method is wrong. I am using method to go from what is solidly known, for to “search” ? the unknown. Discovering (Maybe this word is too pretentious) so let say speculating with a weird hypothesis about something new, controversial with extreme statements of modern physic, even extreme naïve, from a lay man, is not a sin. It is an exercise of mind for poster, and material to work for moderators. Aren’t thousands of scientist physicist that make the same? Papers after papers ! Do you think that all they are worth? Even that they use your method! I think that high math. as it is high useful, so it is high derails. Big nose Yes! It was premeditated to find an equation for spherical lines, which further may be used for my controversial hypothesis. This came from formula of frequency: f = C / (2*pi/alpha)*r. This means: movement in circles. I postulated: 1 – Velocity C is natural property of charges. 2-- Frecuency “f” is the number of repetitious movement of charge: in particles with repetitious circles, in waves with helixes. 3 With a hunch: “alpha” , may have to do with plus circles in one period, and must be a factor of spheroid forms of particles. Maybe is not coincidence that: angle 90 degre ( a condition to have spherical lines closed)is quite near with (pi*alpha^2 *1gr / M gr.) Let recall that trigonometry has its beginnings on movement of a point in circle.

Stivensont When I compared binary system with two unique sub particles that revolve in circle toward each other I meant only about “gravity” ability of the two sub particles. But alleged sub particles posses electric ability too, that is at all differently from binary stars (that posses only gravity and move in plane). I suppose that this fact change trajectories from plane in spherical, from 2D in 3D. and this movement gave mass particles a volume. So is wrong? What?? Indeed. Not indeed. At least not jet In controversial hypothesis like this it is a heavy task to go in unknown path. Especially a l.m. with so lack of knowledge, is like somebody in jungle without compass. But let see my disappointment and your rush “ so is wrong? ( G*M / re ) = 4,40319*10^-5 (m /sec)^2 but this is equal:= = C * Sqrt ( G*me / re ) From above we my have mass of electron particle ”me’: me = ( G *M^2) / (C^2 *re ) = 9.109382081 * 10^ -31 kg. Disappointed? Indeed… Not at all now. (G*M / re ) = C^2 * (R / re ) and in general: (G*M / rx) = C^2 * (R / rx) From this we may write all span of ENERGIES from E = h*1 to Eu.p. = M*C^2 (in Plank area), using only Compton radius. (G*M^2 / r1) = h*1 = ((C^2* R ) / (sqrt (G) * r1))^2 *r1 (G.*M^2 / re ) = Ee = ((C^2*R) /(sqrt (G) * re )) ^2* re (G* M^2 / rp ) = Ep = ((C^2*R ) / sqrt (G) * rp ))^2 * rp ( G*M^2 / R) = Eu,p, = ((C^2) / sqrt (G))^2 * R Short My hypothesis state that all parameters of a common elementary particle are multiple or divisor of parameters of UNIQUE PARTICLE with kx = R / rx. Big nose Yes! It was premeditated to find an equation for spherical lines, which further may be used for my controversial hypothesis. This came from formula of frequency: f = C / (2*pi/alpha)*r. This means: movement in circles. I postulated: 1 – Velocity C is natural property of charges. 2-- Frecuency “f” is the number of repetitious movement of charge: in particles with repetitious circles, in waves with helixes. 3 With a hunch: “alpha” , may have to do with plus circles in one period, and must be a factor of spheroid forms of particles. Maybe is not coincidence that: angle 90 degre ( a condition to have spherical lines closed)is quite near with (pi*alpha^2 *1gr / M gr.) Let recall that trigonometry has its beginnings on movement of a point in circle.

Mike ” In the beginning was word, the word was …..”. The riddle that so much has worried Goethe’s Faust! With your post, do you are trying to give a “scientific explanation”? Recall that “WORD” is by-product of human “brain”, that highest form of so successfully developed organic MATTER.

Big nose. I beg your pardon. It was my mistake asking a favor from a moderator. My wrong thought was that calculus equations, like matlab equations, have a broader fields on using, not only a specific one. I thought that maybe exist a ready equation in “calculus” for spherical LINES as it is for helix Lines. I found two in matlab (Matlab by the way works with portions and it is more real, more understandable). If it is wrong or not exact, correct me. That has nothing to do with: what Cramer will use it for. As for “ad hoc”, the modern theoretic physicists have not left aside any branch of math without trying to put it in their fantastic hypothesis. I do not intend to make career or name with a branch of knowledge were I am totally ignorant. What I want is: to understand enough, so not to buy or eat soap for cheese. Stivensont. About “binars” as a notion adopted for microcosmos. I see in nature that cosmic bodies move around each other: moon around earth, earth around sun, sun around center of galaxy. With my scarce knowledge I calculated that velocity of earth around the sun, is equal sqrt(G*Msun / distance between them). The question (with very important meaning) is: The velocity of earth is caused by gravity of sun, or was a “casualty velocity” which was adopted in gravitation geodesics of ‘space-time’. For me is enough satisfying the Newton variant. So two sub particle with M = 1.85939*10^-9 kg. with a distance between them equal “re “ have a gravitational velocity Vg equal 6.697*10^-3 m/sec. This is a real disappointment for me, because I supposed the velocity of u.s.p. it is equal “C”. And here I dare to “invent’ or “discover” a real crackpot new “notion”: ”The velocity Vg is a “nudge” 90 grad with “C” velocity that change adequately the direction of “C” “. What?? Like the “nudge” bring by steering wheel, change the direction of tires of a massive truck.

Swansont ----Bignose Without abrogate any notion, and insert any new, I think, hypothesis will be copies. I suppose that alleged unique sub particles moves in spherical trajectories for three reasons: 1 – It is supposed that they move with “C’ velocity, a nature property special for them. 2 = It is supposed that having gravity ability they try to revolve toward each other in continuous circles like binars, in their geodesics Vg = sqrt(G*M / Re). 3 – It is supposed that having electrostatic ability they try to revolve in circular continuous circles like “binars” too but in vertical direction. The result is an oblique movement: a spherical trajectories. It is cooked, Yes.It is real? Maybe. Do intent I to try further? Depend by: 1—arbitrary closure. 2 –Interest of somebody that share the same ideas. Swansont I sincerely don’t understand you. Too laconic. You forget that debate with an l.m. Big nose Please, as an expert in math, give me a hand: the calculus equation of spherical trajectories. In calculus I find only for helix.

ACG52 ----- very cheap in debate BIGNOSE ------ When fields lovers (which negate at all existence of particles) use ‘mesh’ to create their physical models: Mexican hat, saddle, elastic sheet etc.. it is okay for you. Why not trajectories? SWANSONT I suppose that C velocity is natural property of sub particles, with an unlimited free directions. What command the direction of velocity, in pair interactions, is equilibrium of electric and gravity force between them; this equilibrium impose an equidistance between them. Fe = e^2 / (4*pi*epsilon0)^0.5 r^2 = G*M^2/ r^2 GRUSHALA I admit that I am ignorant in matlab. What I create with matlab : ‘spherical trajectories’ I achieve from a clue from my grand daugter. In the program both ‘t’ and ‘c’ are angles of a vector the tip of which draw the trajectories. But ‘t’ is the angle oh horizontal component of vector and ‘c’ is angle of vertical component. they both are interdependent.

Thanks for your 0 grade evaluation for my linguistic skills. Sorry to say but not every body has golden luck and intellectual ability. Anyway – for me it has none relevance. Now let me explain the gibberish of expression with a physic way. The two sub particles revolve in spherical trajectories interacting with each other in a combination of gravity movement with electric charge movement. Their vector velocities are 90 grade displaced toward each other. Vector summa of both is “C” which is the own property of each sub particle. So the movement of each sub particle (I mean direction in space of curved velocity ‘C’, of each of sub particles) is commanded by its partner. Moving in spherical trajectories, sub particles have their common center of sphere stay fix in space. So are electron, proton and their anti. that constitute what wee call stationer. Moving in helix movement sub particles create run away particles like photons and neutrinos, because the direction of both of their velocities are in one sense. This hypothesis is a crude one, something out of stream, based most in the logic than math. As Klainos called once: relic of the centuries ago. But I think that idea of something unique , that create all kinds of particles, may give a hunch for many riddles. Now to your question: equations? ????????? Maybe some body may “ translate” in calculus the program of model of linear 3D The program of model is: t = -36.77623021*pi : 0.005:36.77623021; a = 0.0061 c = asin(a.*c); X1 = sin(t).*cos(2*c); Y1 = cos(t).*cos(2*c); Z1 = sin(2*c); axis square; grid on; plot3(X1,Y1,Z1) For curiosity, instead of plot3 write comet 3. It may give a better image how “imaginary chest” created in a slow movement. I hope the gibberish of chest has any meaning. The model is for a half period. Electron has 1.23559006*10Hz period in sec

What is a spherical trajectory? Is it a lay - mans rebut about statement of zero dimension of electron. Spherical trajectories are foot sprints of two Unique sub particles, which moving with C velocity and under existence of electric and gravity force of the called sub particles, create a spherical chest of momentarily positions of them. Those momentarily positions are quasi instantaneous in the view of C velocity and the small Compton radius. So electron is a self - stationary standing structure, pending in space. In calculus I haven’t find any example of spherical trajectories. I created it as model with matlab.

The tongue ever turns to the aching tooth. The permanent dualism: mass and wave, quantum and gravity. I wonder: are sure - sure the experts about the relation between the duals? They speak with so convincing authority! With my l.m. opinion, I support the idea: electromagnetic waves are intrinsic property of common elementary particles, They are under the command of mass gravity (of the same particle) which attract or repulse them, interacting with partners. I would added that the gravity is inseparable with “electric charge”, this ones responsible for electromagnetic waves. If OP disagree with my opinion or think that I am “hijacking” its thread, please I want to know your rebut. Don’t leave it in the hands of moderators, it is your right. By the way, What is the mechanism of deliberation of light from the rear of fire fly, or lamp filament or match, or microwave oven? I suppose it is the same mechanism: deliberation of electromagnetic waves from “inert mass particles”.

It is simple for you it is meaningless for me” When I say it is simple that doesn’t mean I say it is evident. I have not find anything convincible about many riddles in physics: Why things move? Why celestial bodies usually move in quite plane movement? Why Dirac sea doesn’t invade islands of mater to coalesce with electrons and ends in ” annihilation”? How mater and energy change vise verse status? (in the case of the post). Why modern physic use “ h ” as spiritus santus and mum about other Plank constants? Why protons accelerated in C.E.R.N. results in shower of thousands different particles after collision? Etc… If you have answers about all riddles in modern physic then I beg pardon for loosing your time with nonsensical hypothesis. ------------------------- The net charge is zero. In appearance is zero, like in atom of hydrogen. In my hypothesis is the postulate : ” Unique sub particles: --- [ + , -- e / + , -- sqrt ( 4*pi*epsilon0*G) ] ---- is not created, can not annihilated is always in C movement in whatever trajectory, posses ability to attract or repel (via Coulomb and Newton laws) it’s partner---- for creating common stabile (?) ----- particles : electron, positron, proton, antiproton, innumerable photons, innumerable neutrinos and anti neutrinos as integrators for exotics particles and a couple of des-integrators.” I am aware that nobody will buy this kind of postulates, so controversial. But ditto this, let return to rebut: “net charge is zero” The answer: It can’t be zero! Because embedded with electric Charge is its twin (I mean its nemesis): gravity. On the other hand they can’t trespass the unity of distance: R = [ +, -- e / + , --sqrt (4*pi*epsilon0 / G)]. ACG52 I admit that as a lay - man I don’t posses strong knowledge in high math. I know very well the importance of math…. when it is used with logic. But isn’t high math used careless, that has caused so much disarray in physics? If physics math tell me that: E = h / dt --- and you put dt = zero because so fit for your aim, and create with it billions of universes isn’t the logic that has to tell: are you in your nuts? So doesn’t true that logic is worthless in physic and the high math. it is absolute, so absolute as to tell: amen.

About the evidence……… It is based only in the logics. Let see it this way: One electron and one positron collides in the sun. The gamma rays as the result of this reaction come on earth and here they transformed again in electron and positron. How comes that the gamma waves are created from two mass particles and charged ones? How comes the “vise verse process” at the fact that waves have nor charge nor mass? The hypothesis of unique sub particles as the only brick (block) of every common particle has this simple explanation: Electron particle is structured by two unique sub particles: [-- e / -- sqrt ( G ) ] & [-- e / -- sqrt ( G )] Positron particle is structured by two unique sub particles: [+ e / + sqrt ( G )] & [+ e / + sqrt ( G )] (The structure of these particles is explained in the first my post “ Spherical trajectories ---- a hint about structure of electron”) When electron and positron collide, their spherical trajectories transforms in two helicoids trajectories. Their status changed from stationary as it was in spherical trajectories of electron and positron in” run away” helicoids trajectories in gamma photons. Here we have only the change of directions of C velocity of unique sub particles, caused by change of angle between two main forces: electric and gravity from 90 grade in 180 This happen because each unique sub particles of electron associates with each unique sub particles of positron, create new structures: those of two gamma photons. [-- e / -- sqrt ( G )] & [+ e / + sqrt ( G )] gamma photon [ + e / + sqrt ( G )] & [ -- e / -- sqrt ( G )] gamma photon What about your version of modern physics?

I don't understand why you don't let mi to display further my hypothesis? At least why you don't give open rebut about my posts? What is wrong if a post has something controversial ?

What is light ?. The stereotipe answer is :electromagnetic waves. How comes that those waves bring in our ayes mass particles that activate our ayes sensors (or Clainos) detectors)?. Again the stereotip answer is : light is made by photons, those chunk of energy that transform in mass via Ejnstein. How it happen? what is the mecanism of transforming photons in particles? and vice - versa? The answer is mull. How come that from something ,in relative rest, pops the photon with an instant velocity C? The answer is mull. For my opinion this confusion derive by denial of fact that reality is mater in form of mass Democritis particles ( the same for both common particles and photons) all ways in movement (even in the stationary particles) with C velocity. The difference is in form of trajectories : spherical or helix.

Hi doctor Swansont! My hypothetical sub particle is kinda " so coled " tiny black hole : (G*M / R) = C^2. I have read somewhere that scientist in CERN - tried a lot without success to catch black holes. (AT least they had a big succes find Higgs !!), maybe in future (if i will be able to convince them -ha) they will catch it. I beg pardon if my thread loose your time, but i am a lay man that have need for help by professionals, or at least by friends lay mans like me to find where i am wrong. and to find peace of mind . Hi mister Gruchala. Thanks for your interest in my thread. I will further develop my crude hypothesis . I was not able to past here my idea. And please don't irritate moderators

A controversial hypothesis: “ Unique sub particles” I think that “Unique sub particles” are the only elements in the structure of each common elementary particle. (At least, so I convinced myself; maybe I will be able to convince the reader ). Unique sub particle has mass and radius: M = e / ( 4 * pi * epsilon0 * G ) ^ 0.5 = 1.859389987*10^--9 Kg. = = M(Plank) * alpha ^ 0.5 R = e / ( 4 * pi * epsilon0 / G ) ^ 0.5 = 1.380543853*10^--36 m. = = L(Plank) * alpha^ 0.5 So the unique sub particles are like Siamese twins. Their common back bone is mass of mater M, in a sphere with radius R. In fact one of twins is electric CHARGE, the second is square root of constant of gravity ( sq.r.t.( G ). The force of electric charges depend by distance in square, (if we suppose interaction in vacuum), and what is important ,in the structure of common elementary particles, by sign of them. The gravitational force is more complicated: it depends by mode of interpretation from observer: 1—Fg = (( C * Vg ) / sqrt( G ))^2 2 – Fg = (( C * ( rx / R ) / sqrt( G ))^2 3 –Fg = ((M * R ) / (sqrt(G) * rx ))^2 The electric force and gravity force (with their signs) are responsible for movement of sub particles in spherical trajectories ( for common elementary particles, in stationary spheres), and helicoids trajectories for photons and neutrinos.

Doesn't your theory means that Socrates was in opposite side of Demokritis? I have vague knowledge about ancient Greek philosophy. But i see that Plato is one of favored philosophies for modern physics. I don't like that, It smells fishy for me, an camouflage for religious mysticism. The realism is in the philosophy of Demokritis that universe is structured by 'atoms'.

Or : C^2 / sqrt(G) * C^2 / sqrt(G) ! Kramer

Instead of waves packets as building blocks, and moving back in time fantasies, i think is more real the hypothesis of unique particle as building block of electron positron photons even protons, anti protons and neutrinos. If you consider this intrusion as an highjack please disregard this post. Kramer