A controversial hypothesis: “ Unique sub particles”

[Bignose]

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. [/i][/size][/font]

I'm going to politely decline. I'd rather not just give you an equation that you don't know where it comes from, what it says, or what it means.

 

To be blunt, all that is stuff you should do. If I just give it to you, the chances of misuse and misinterpretation are very high based on what you've posted in this thread so far.

 

And I still say that the 'spherical trajectory' (a term I still don't think is adequately defined, really) is something that should appear from setting up your equation correctly in the first place. Trying to find an equation that gives you the answer you want is hardly scientific in this case. If you had measured data and was trying to fit that, then we could talk. But, I want zero part of someone supposing an answer and then creating an equation that gives that answer for them.

[swansont]

I want zero part of someone supposing an answer and then creating an equation that gives that answer for them.

 

Indeed. That's ad-hoc, which is not the way science generally proceeds.

 

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).

 

But you are not describing a binary system, revolving around a central point.

[Kramer]

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]

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.

 

They do not have velocity vectors displaced by 90º. Isn't that what your model is?

 

 

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”.

 

 

So it's wrong?

 

 

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.

 

"What?" indeed.

[Bignose]

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.

You are still completely missing the point. The equation when properly set up -- the solution to that equation defines the pathology of the resulting function.

 

For example, if you calculate height x of a ball tossed in a gravity field, the x vs. t graph will be parabola. Not because someone decided that it should be a parabola, but because that is how the math works of integrating the second derivative of a constant (gravity).

 

THIS is what you need to do for your 'spherical lines' (once again, a term I don't know what it means. I know the two words separately, but I don't know what you mean when you combine them like this.) The physics that govern the situation -- like the forces on the particle, should drive the creation of the differential equation and the the solution comes out because that is the solution.

 

This ad-hoc backwards way of deciding on a solution then seeking an equation that creates it is really poor science at best.

[Kramer]

 

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.

[swansont]

 

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.

How does this happen?

 

( 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.

Where are you getting the numbers here? 4,40319*10^-5 (m /sec)^2? What are you using for re?

Kramer, on 22 Apr 2013 - 11:30, said:

My hypothesis state that all parameters of a common elementary particle are multiple or divisor of parameters of UNIQUE PARTICLE with kx = R / rx.

What is kx?

[Bignose]

Big nose

 

Yes!

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.

[swansont]

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.

Muphry's law is alive and well

[Bignose]

Muphry's law is alive and well

I do what I can (and it really wasn't intentional to misspell your name when chiding someone about misspelling your name. I do apologize.) Edited April 22, 2013 by Bignose

[swansont]

I do what I can (and it really wasn't intentional to misspell your name when chiding someone about misspelling your name. I do apologize.)

 

None necessary. A blip on the radar. One data point does not make a trend.

[Kramer]

 

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.

[swansont]

It is supposed that Koulomb force of unique sub particles are 90 grades disposed from Newton forces.

Yeah, I asked about this before — how do you get a circular path with these forces being (what I assume to be) 90º different.

 

 

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.

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.

[Bignose]

Kramer, on 24 Apr 2013 - 11:36, said:

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 have probably read several thousand papers in my day. I cannot recall a single one that pre-supposed a functional form and used that to write the equations that supposedly govern the phenomena.

 

Many derive the equations (often called 'from first principles') based on the phenomena and the explore what the solution looks like.

 

And some used data that was published and perform fits on that data to attempt to discover the most probably functional form of the solution.

 

But you are doing neither of these. Specifically I see no first principles derivation that leads to an equation in which 'spherical trajectories' (a term that STILL remains undefined, any chance you'll clearly define that for us soon?) are a solution. Nor is any data presented in which a 'spherical trajectory' is demonstrated to be the best (or even at least good) fit to the data.

 

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?

[Kramer]

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

 

[Bignose]

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.

reposting the same thing in a bigger bolder font don't actually address any of my concerns. A final word of advice... such soapboxing is against the rules. Edited April 27, 2013 by Bignose

[Kramer]

 

EINSTEIN CONSTANTS VIS-A-VIS PLANCKS

Are derived by hypothesis that elementary particles have two limits where all kind of energies obtain the same value:
Upper limit is when C^2 = ( G * Me / Re ) ;
Lower limit is when E = h * f = h – Joule ;
From this hypothesis we can write a series of identities:

Part I (Upper limit of reality)

Ee = 167113637.9 joule

Ee = e^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * Re) ; (1)
Ee = Me * C^2 ; (2)
Ee = ( G * Me ^2 ) / Re ; (3)
Ee = h * fe ; (4)
Ee = Kb * Tem.e ; (5)

From these equations we derive :
Me = e / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * G )^ 0.5 = +-e / +-g = 1.859389987 * 10 ^ -9 Kg. (Sub-particle)
Re = e / ( 4 * pi * ε0 / G) ^ 0.5 = +- e / +-J = 1.380543854 * 10 ^ -36 m.
fe = C / ( ( 2 * pi / α ) * Re ) = 2 522063136 * 10 ^ 41 Hz. = Ee / h
Te = 1 / fe = 3.965007797 * 10 ^ - 42 sec.
Tem.e = c2 * fe / C = 1.210397996 * 10 ^ 31 grad Kelvin. = Ee / Kb

-------------------------------------------------------------
This thread is posted for people that share ideas different from main – street , which may be senseless speculation, but maybe have something rationale for thought.
Lay-man aims to promote idea of Unique sub-particle of NATURE ( “Me” ) as the only brick of reality.
I think that SPHERICAL frequency, together with hypothesis of Unique sub –particle, maybe will builds a bridge between classic and quantum, maybe will links together two extremes.
This hypothesis is based in disputable hypothesis of antigravity of antimatter.

The Unique sub particle of NATURE ---- versus Higg’s GOD particle.
It is a Lay-man’s shameless pretense, an ignorant’s hypothesis, that irritate the nerve of honest workers of science. But I can’t resists motto: “ trouble the waters --- to clarify”.
They will protest that those kinds of thread derail students with crack-pottery teaching, and loose their precious time.
But this hypothesis, it is supported by solid basement of classic particular physic. It goes versus quantum mechanic that consider space as a building, up on this basement, as only a void filled with different kind of fields.
So, there is a lot for dispute.

Part – II ( Lower limit of reality )
Ee1 = h * f1 = h * 1 = 6.62606876 * 10 ^ - 34 joule

Ee1 = h * f1 = h * C / ( ( 2 * pi / α ) * R1 ) = h * 1Hz (1) ; R1 = C / ( 2 * pi / α )
Ee1 = Me * C^2 * ( Re / R1 ) ; (2)
Ee1 = e^2 / ( 4 * pi * ε0 * R1 ) ; (3)
Ee1 = ( G * Me^2 / R1) * (Re / R1 ) ; (4)
Ee1 = Tem.1 * Kb. (5) ; Tem.1= c2 * f1 / C

R1 = 3.481818608*10^5 m Tem.1 = 4.79923089*10^-11 grade Kelvin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Between two limits exists possibility for a zillion kinds of common elementary particles. They may classified :
1 --- Stationary particles: electron, proton. In spherical structure. Gravitate. Charged.

2 --- Stationary anti particles : positron, antiproton. In spherical structure. Anti -gravitate. Charged.

3 --- Run away particles : Photons. In helicoidal structures, Charge neuter. Gravity neuter. Leptone origine ( electron – positron). Barione origine (proton –antiproton)

4 --- Run away particles: Neutrino. In conical structures. Charge neuter. Gravitate.
Lepton –barion origine: (electron-proton = neutrino) and (positron -- anti-proton= anti)

5 --- Highly disruptive structures, when casualty happens momentarily created. Charged. Gravity neuter. Origine: lepton--- anti-barion.( electron – anti-proton) or vice-verse.
-------------------------------------------
Mass and radius are variable and inverse induce on each other.

Part III

1-- Spatial structures of common elementary particles, created by eterne movement of intertwined unique particles.
2-- The explanation about the same - value of all kind energies, in Planck area, with hypothesis of spherical structures.
3-- A naïve explanation about “alpha” (nature constant of fine structure) and the frequencies inside frequencies.

[Kramer]

 

---- Spherical structure of stationary elementary particles: Model only.

>> t = - 90: 0.05:90;

a = 0.0079

c = asin(a.*t);

x = sin(2*c).*cos(t);

y = cos(2*c).*cos(t);

z = sin(t);

figure(9);

axis square; grid on;

plot3(x,y,z)
or comete3(x,y,z)

This structure of spherical trajectories is created by two “alleged unique sub-particles”.
An unique sub-article is supposed to have an electric charge “e”, a gravity ability represented by sqrt G. and the intrinsic ability to move in whatever direction with “C” velocity.
”If accepted” unique sub-particle is represented:
ME = e / (4*pi* ε0 *G)^0.5 with real electric and gravity elements. And are those two elements that give “direction” of movement on two sub-particles interacting between them, in the pseudo-structure of “X” elementary particles.
The pseudo structure is in fact nothing else as presence of two unique sub-particles during eterne trajectories in a spherical volume, with radius “Rx”.
The radius is derived by Compton wave- length.
(Doesn’t bell rings about this, as a simplification of Schrodinger’s cloud? )
Now let imagine how this may work in an electron mass particle:
1 – Two unique sub-particles represented by –ME = - e / - (4*pi* ε0*G)^0.5 revolve toward each other with velocity “C”, in circles with radius “re”, from Compton wave length λe = ((2*pi / α)*re).
2—Both unique sub-particles are in equilibrium because, between them acts electric force and equal with it -- gravity force. They are in opposite senses.
3---I am convinced in a law of nature that two sub – particles move in equi -potentials of each other, that means the movement is in perpendicular direction with line of forces between partners, that means they move in circles.
4—In case of alleged sub particles, we have two kinds of forces, (gravity and electric), this means we have two kinds of equi-potential fields: gravito-static and electro-static.
( I say gravito static and electro static because even though sub-particles are always in movement, they doesn’t change the distance between each other)
5 – “First Speculation” is that two kinds of circles (electric and gravity) are
perpendicular each other.

6 – “Second Speculation” is that frequencies of circles are different from each other: “Electric charges frequency” is fe = C / ((2*pi / α) * re)
“Gravity frequency” is fg = C / ((2*pi)*re)
7 – The “C” velocity consists with two components: the gravity component is 137. 036 times more than electric component.
So math-lab presentation above is equal 1/2 Hz. of main frequency ( electric frequency) and 137/2 Hz of secondary frequency (gravity frequency)
---------It is this discrepancy of derived frequencies, in Planck constants compared to Einstein constants.
This discrepancy is naturally motivated by “constant of fine structure α “ which seems NOW to have a concrete physic’s meaning. That is “constant alpha” is the cause of sphericity of elementary particles.
Constant alpha is the cause of secondary frequencies inside the primary ones.

-------- About the same value of energies for each law of physics, in elementary particles:

Let suppose we put the center of Cartesians in first sub-particle. The second sub-particle even though is in continuous movement, he stay in the same distance toward first. We may say:
Ee = e^2 / (4*pi*ε*re) = me*C^2 = h*(c / ((2*pi/α)*re) = G*M^2 / re = M*C^2*R/re = (C^2 /sqrtG) ^2*R/re…….etc identities.
( here M = Me------ Einstein Mass, R=Re -------Einstein distance)

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Similar subjects merged

Note that all previous unanswered questions are still unanswered.

[Kramer]

 

Swanson
Posted Yesterday, 11:48 AM

!

Moderator Note

Similar subjects merged

Note that all previous unanswered questions are still unanswered.

------- Right!
But about of what kind of questions are you alluding? Do you think that your questions have any answers in mainstream of modern physics? I bet no!
For many years hundred mathematicians and physicists of high qualification, are coming around, like housefly without head, about questions on the nature of mater.
Have they arrived any “verdict”? They all are in disarray, they for years contradicts each other. But strange a lot: they all gave anathema about “Democritis particle”.
I read in another forum, the questions and answers about electron.
The crude idea is: electron is nothing else but “excitation” of the infinite electric field, which, beginning from infinity, comes continuous concentrating toward a point dimension-less that we call electron. This concentration is called “electric charge”. So, they say, learn: it is field that gave birth to charge. Not vice-versa.
What about mass of particle?
Very simple. Another kind of field, Higgs field, has the duty to give this excitation (which is less important than other kinds of excitations ?) some lesser “gravity“!
---- This is the main-stream explanation about the nature of electron. Is proven mathematically, experimentally. It is solid gold. Is it ??
Mister Swansont. I don’t pretend that my hypothesis about “unique particle” has any priority, toward those of main - stream. On the contrary.
Only, my hypothesis it is the opposite possibility. Has not any mathematical or experimental support. Is it simple …a hypothesis.
How many other hypothesis float in physics circles?: string, loop-quantum, solitons, preons….. Why?
Because of “ unanswered questions”.
My question to you is:
Has main-stream modern physics found why “the stabile particles” or “excitations” have the characters they have, and not different? Why they have that fixed wave-length and not other? etc… If yes, please give me a short explanation about, and I quit to flog a dead horse.
By the way in the forum mentioned above, moderators were interlocutor teachers, that is they discarded arguments of O.P. but gave more trustworthy arguments.

[Bignose]

Is it simple …a hypothesis.

How many other hypothesis float in physics circles?: string, loop-quantum, solitons, preons….. Why?

Because of “ unanswered questions”.

This isn't sufficient, though. You are asking science to be completely democratic, when it profoundly isn't. Science is supremely meritocratic.

 

Science is only interested in ideas that make good predictions. If an idea is started, and it makes predictions that are opposite of already known facts, it is tossed out. There is no value in keeping an idea that is already known to fail in science. Ideas alone have very little value scientifically. Only when the next steps are taken and those ideas are used to make predictions and those predictions are compared to reality -- then the idea has value.

 

The things you cite above have gone through that. They certainly aren't complete. But if sting theory predicted gravity to repel matter and the sky to be polka dotted... it would have been rejected. As it is, it makes a few predictions that do agree. That's why it is still around. If those ideas lead to predictions that aren't seen or can't be found... the idea will be rejected.

 

So, now we're to your idea. The implications of your ideas are things that have not been observed, when they should have been. It would like if in my idea a flea could push a boulder across a field. Is it possible that in all the experiments done to date that we've missed this? It certainly is possible. But it is extraordinarily unlikely, and no one is going to believe it until some good objective evidence can be presented. That's where this thread was at the last time you posted... it was asking you for some extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claims.

 

If it really is only you just tinkering, then consider what has been posted as feedback. If you want to take your tinkering to the next step, then you need to address the questions answered. If you are just tinkering for your own sake, then you need to do that someplace that is not a science forum. Because on this science forum, we value discussions that follow the rules of science. And in the rules of science, just tinkering is not valuable. Value comes from actually doing scientifically useful stuff with that tinkering.

[swansont]

 

But about of what kind of questions are you alluding?

 

The questions that have been asked about your model that you have avoided answering.

[Kramer]

Big nose
This isn't sufficient, though. You are asking science to be completely democratic, when it profoundly isn't. Science is supremely meritocratic.
-------The democratic science doesn’t exclude merito – valuations. On the contrary. It give real esteem to those that merit it. I don’t like term meritocratic. It tastes badly, ---like dictatorships. It suppress free meditations and dispute, it stimulate servility, it exploits the work and merits of subordinates. But all this is out of theme.

Science is only interested in ideas that make good predictions. If an idea is started, and it makes predictions that are opposite of already known facts, it is tossed out. There is no value in keeping an idea that is already known to fail in science. Ideas alone have very little value scientifically. Only when the next steps are taken and those ideas are used to make predictions and those predictions are compared to reality -- then the idea has value.
-------This seems like a lecture: how it must be. I agree.
Do you know very well how many posts are flushed away only on this forum, how many have gone in trashcan. Do you think we made science in this forum? Please don’t flatter this idea. At least I know my aim in the forum: To change with somebody ( if somebody is interested ) ideas, meditations especially if that somebody has the opposite standing. And this only to pass flow of time (if flow is real as Mr. Swansont has experimented.) in a “cultured manner”.


The things you cite above have gone through that. They certainly aren't complete. But if sting theory predicted gravity to repel matter and the sky to be polka dotted... it would have been rejected. As it is, it makes a few predictions that do agree. That's why it is still around. If those ideas lead to predictions that aren't seen or can't be found... the idea will be rejected.
------- And what happen in this forum, alas it happens even in real scientific circles, where people are paid to make science. Let leave string theory to dispute with loop quantum about how they values each other.
As for “ predicted gravity to repel matter and the sky to be polka dotted….” Yes ser, it is the main argument that matter and anti matter repel each other that discard or support my hypothesis. If you have proof that this is not true, I give up.

So, now we're to your idea. The implications of your ideas are things that have not been observed, when they should have been. It would like if in my idea a flea could push a boulder across a field. Is it possible that in all the experiments done to date that we've missed this? It certainly is possible. But it is extraordinarily unlikely, and no one is going to believe it until some good objective evidence can be presented. That's where this thread was at the last time you posted... it was asking you for some extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claims.
-------About the idea of: “a flea could push a boulder across the field”. Do you allude about the massive unique –sub particle of my hypothesis?
Many time I thought that this argument discards automatically the essence of hypothesis.
But in the end I thought that unique sub-particle it isn’t a unique particle. It is able to give particles that create, charge and gravity (or charge-less and mass-less) only, interacting with the partner. Like: needs two to play tango.

If it really is only you just tinkering, then consider what has been posted as feedback. If you want to take your tinkering to the next step, then you need to address the questions answered. If you are just tinkering for your own sake, then you need to do that someplace that is not a science forum. Because on this science forum, we value discussions that follow the rules of science. And in the rules of science, just tinkering is not valuable. Value comes from actually doing scientifically useful stuff with that tinkering.
-------- Maybe this stuff ” tinkering “ is very precise and appropriate. It made me smile.
So until real physicists have not find any break throw that support my “hypothesis” I quit this thread. With good intention to not devaluate our scientific forum.

Swansont

The questions that have been asked about your model that you have avoided answering.
-------You too, in many puzzles that my have asked an ignorant lay-man.

[Bignose]

So until real physicists have not find any break throw that support my “hypothesis” I quit this thread.

You do realize that this responsibility falls on no one else but you, right? No one is under any obligations to find evidence to support your idea but you. Not the 'real physicists'. Not me. Not swansont. Just you, if you want to claim your idea is scientific.

[swansont]

The questions that have been asked about your model that you have avoided answering.

-------You too, in many puzzles that my have asked an ignorant lay-man.

 

The difference here is that the rules obligate you present evidence for your model, so questions about that must be answered. It's your model, so you own the whole thing.