Could this be Our Part of the Multi-verse?

[Ant Sinclair]

Only if you can explain WHY you are doing apparently random arithmetic operations on apparently random numbers.

 

And then explain what the results mean. And why they mean that.

 

Otherwise, being sensible people, they will just go, "Oh no, yet another numerologist. Trash."

Numeroligist Trash - Right, if the "big" boys aren't coming out to play I shall close this thread. Strange, either stop being or stop acting naive as to this threads content

[Strange]

Numeroligist Trash - Right, if the "big" boys aren't coming out to play I shall close this thread. Strange, either stop being or stop acting naive as to this threads content

 

I am simply trying to explain why you need to do a better job of communicating your idea. You can't just throw some numbers around and expect others to work out why.

 

You need to explain, step by step, WHY you are doing what you are doing.

 

I suppose you think that because it is all very clear in your own head, that it must be obvious to others. It isn't. After nearly 40 years as a technical communicator I can assure you that if your audience doesn't understand you it is not their fault.

 

To be honest, I don't have much interest in your idea but I am keen to help you explain it (or, at least, to help you see why you are failing to explain it). Producing a table of numbers with no explanation helps nobody.

[Ant Sinclair]

I am simply trying to explain why you need to do a better job of communicating your idea. You can't just throw some numbers around and expect others to work out why.

 

You need to explain, step by step, WHY you are doing what you are doing.

 

I suppose you think that because it is all very clear in your own head, that it must be obvious to others. It isn't. After nearly 40 years as a technical communicator I can assure you that if your audience doesn't understand you it is not their fault.

 

To be honest, I don't have much interest in your idea but I am keen to help you explain it (or, at least, to help you see why you are failing to explain it). Producing a table of numbers with no explanation helps nobody.

You are right Strange, folk probably don't see how much You have helped I along with all of this and how the Mods have been incredibly ptatient with I.

I have tried to pick up my game and hope it shows a little lately, so thanks to You and the Mods

I have attached a jpeg that may help a little with the particles.

I shall continue in trying to improve my works appearance, getting the cold shoulder from someone who has helped I along with this lot was a wake up call to go back over my threads and think about how I should be showing the ideas more clearly.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Ant Sinclair

[swansont]

The significance is maybe CERN could use this Mass Table as a guide to their work Strange ;-)

 

 

The first 6 masses on your list are smaller than the electron's mass. These should have been discovered well before CERN was even a hole in the ground. Why has nobody spotted them? It's not due to accelerators lacking in available energy.

 

You also need to say what the charge and spin properties are.

[Ant Sinclair]

The first 6 masses on your list are smaller than the electron's mass. These should have been discovered well before CERN was even a hole in the ground. Why has nobody spotted them? It's not due to accelerators lacking in available energy.

 

You also need to say what the charge and spin properties are.

SwansonT, if you remember back to a previous thread, yourself, Strange and I discussed Neutrinos, to which I was told Neutrinos were massless, which we know is not the case, also it was believed that Photons were massless, again this is not the case.

The Proton and Electron are the two most widely studied Particles in Physics and hence the amount of knowledge we have on them.

Neutrinos are notoriously hard to study and hence the special facilities built to study them.

The Neutrino fits I believe into the -39Kg slot in the table and the photon in the -45Kg slot.

We need correct particle mass sizes to be able to see what's what. I haven't really gone into the history of particle detection other than looking at the double slit experiment and Neutrino detection.

We know how important experimental physicists are because without experimentation no hypothesis is proved.

With the Neutrino being such a dodgy customer can we expect the other particles to be any easier to get to grips with?

[Strange]

also it was believed that Photons were massless, again this is not the case.

 

Citation needed. I think this would have made headlines, if true.

 

 

The Neutrino fits I believe into the -39Kg slot in the table

 

What you, or anyone else believes is hardly relevant.

 

Do you have observational data that is consistent with this claim?

 

And what about other properties such as charge and spin?

p.s. Do you see the same communication problem again? You just list some numbers and expect people to somehow guess(?) that you think some of them might be neutrinos.

[swansont]

SwansonT, if you remember back to a previous thread, yourself, Strange and I discussed Neutrinos, to which I was told Neutrinos were massless, which we know is not the case,

I'm not inclined to accept your recollection at face value.

 

also it was believed that Photons were massless, again this is not the case.

Nope.

 

There are experimental upper bounds on the mass, since no experiment can measure zero exactly. But no experimental evidence that it's not zero.

 

The Proton and Electron are the two most widely studied Particles in Physics and hence the amount of knowledge we have on them.

Neutrinos are notoriously hard to study and hence the special facilities built to study them.

The Neutrino fits I believe into the -39Kg slot in the table and the photon in the -45Kg slot.

Well, here's a problem with that. 1 eV is 1.78 x 10^-36 kg

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Convert?exp=0&num=1&From=ev&To=kg&Action=Convert+value+and+show+factor

 

The various upper bounds on the photon mass are no larger than ~10^-14 eV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

 

So that puts the upper limit at around 10^-50 kg. You're too big by 5 orders of magnitude, minimum.

 

And that's not even getting into the issue of your "belief" being based on zero physics whatsoever.

 

[Ant Sinclair]

Thanks for your replies Strange/SwansonT, as regards the mentioning of the Neutrino from an earlier thread, I remembered that Strange had said Neutrinos had no magnetic moment, but Neutrinos have been found to have magnetic moments, would I be correct in thinking that a Neutrino would need mass to have a magnetic moment?

As regards the mass table please find attached a jpeg, some values are slightly rounded.

Looking at the MeV range of the particle list I noticed something not quite right to my eYe in that a proton mass is 0.940GeV, dividing this by 0.511MeV I got 1840.

Then when I divided 1.246e-27Kg by 7.0319e-31Kg I got 1772 times the mass of the smaller particle, seems a little mixed up to I.

Which particle is the electron?

[Strange]

Thanks for your replies Strange/SwansonT, as regards the mentioning of the Neutrino from an earlier thread, I remembered that Strange had said Neutrinos had no magnetic moment, but Neutrinos have been found to have magnetic moments, would I be correct in thinking that a Neutrino would need mass to have a magnetic moment?

 

 

As far as I know, if the neutrino does have a magnetic moment (through its interactions with other particles) it is far smaller than we can measure currently. So I don't think they have been "found" to have a magnetic moment. But yes, they need to have mass (which they do) to have magnetic moment.

 

For example: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9907432.pdf

 

Your theory should, perhaps, predict the magnetic moment of these particles. As well as mass, spin, charge, etc.

 

 

 

seems a little mixed up to I.

 

"me" not "I".

 

 

 

Which particle is the electron?

 

You tell us. It's your theory.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Strange

[Ant Sinclair]

Wrong paste

Edited August 7, 2016 by Ant Sinclair

[Strange]

I hinted in post 22 of this thread that We, the earth, solar system, milkyway etc could already be travelling at C relative to the centre of Our Multi-Verse, this would mean photons would have to be travelling at a minimum of 2C relative speed to the Multi-Verse's centre and hence at C relative to us.

 

 

It is very well established that photons always travel at c, relative to any source or any observer. So they do not travel at 2c relative to anything.

 

 

 

Could the actual speed of photons be (2xPi)C relative to photons spinning in opposite directions from the toroids centre

 

No. See above.

 

 

 

With this in mind Albert's energy formula would need to be adjusted relatively.

This would make E = m x C^2 become E^3 = m x C^6

 

Why? This seems like a completey arbitrary change.

 

And basic dimensional analysis shows it to be wrong (as you will see if you include the units in your calculation).

 

 

 

This would mean there is a particle smaller than the photon, the 7.0319e-43Kg particle.

 

If by "less" you mean with less mass, then there are no particles with less than zero mass. (There is absolutely no reason to think that the mass of the photon is not zero.)

[Ant Sinclair]

I'm not inclined to accept your recollection at face value.

 

 

Nope.

There are experimental upper bounds on the mass, since no experiment can measure zero exactly. But no experimental evidence that it's not zero.

 

 

Well, here's a problem with that. 1 eV is 1.78 x 10^-36 kg

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Convert?exp=0&num=1&From=ev&To=kg&Action=Convert+value+and+show+factor

The various upper bounds on the photon mass are no larger than ~10^-14 eV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

So that puts the upper limit at around 10^-50 kg. You're too big by 5 orders of magnitude, minimum.

And that's not even getting into the issue of your "belief" being based on zero physics whatsoever.

 

Thanks for the reply SwansonT, in particular for mentioning the Photons Upper Bound Mass of 1e-14eV.

 

The Mass Table shown has a minimum massed particle of 7.0319-43Kg originating directly from the spinning toroids, like you say, is several orders of magnitude larger than the Photons upper bound mass.

The frequencies quoted so far included lower frequencies of 27Hz, 216Hz & 729Hz.

The 27Hz when entered into Planck's energy formula gives an energy of 1.789-32, dividing this by C^2 gives 1.99-49Kg.

Is this product of the spiral wave closer to the Photons upper bound mass of of 1e-14eV ?

 

Strange, as regards to which particle out of a possible three candidates the electron could be, I'd have thought the 7.0319e-31Kg particle as a whole, ie two strings, could the electron having two strings explain the double slit experiment?

[swansont]

Thanks for the reply SwansonT, in particular for mentioning the Photons Upper Bound Mass of 1e-14eV.

 

The Mass Table shown has a minimum massed particle of 7.0319-43Kg originating directly from the spinning toroids, like you say, is several orders of magnitude larger than the Photons upper bound mass.

The frequencies quoted so far included lower frequencies of 27Hz, 216Hz & 729Hz.

The 27Hz when entered into Planck's energy formula gives an energy of 1.789-32, dividing this by C^2 gives 1.99-49Kg.

Is this product of the spiral wave closer to the Photons upper bound mass of of 1e-14eV ?

 

 

 

You tell me. It's your conjecture.

 

But if it's a matter of guessing numbers until you get one that might work, then it wouldn't seem to have much value. You've predicted 5 (?) particles that nobody has observed (mass only, though. No other properties). Not much of a track record.

[Ant Sinclair]

You tell me. It's your conjecture.

 

But if it's a matter of guessing numbers until you get one that might work, then it wouldn't seem to have much value. You've predicted 5 (?) particles that nobody has observed (mass only, though. No other properties). Not much of a track record.

Attached is a jpeg, the jpeg shows in the top left corner eight low frequencies and their equivalent masses that are a product of the toroids geometric centre and what occurs at this centre, why eight low frequencies?, if you look back at one of the earlier posts on this thread there is a jpeg showing the toroids centre that is "zoomed-in", this centre shape is octagonal.

 

If you look down the low frequencies from the 3Hz to the 729Hz and their equivalent masses, you may notice a tale being told!

 

As regards swansons last post; The edited message "Wrong paste" was put there only a very short period of time after the original post was posted in an edit after, obviously I'd seen it did not have the content I'd intended it to have and hence edited it "Wrong paste".

It learned I a few of things from this ie the two daughters have mastered copy and paste has I have been showing them lately on word and spreadsheet, not to leave my folders open on the pc and to be more careful when posting from smartphones, specially as only the top few lines can be seen of the text within a message/mail.

I find swansons "cheap-shot" above saddening and insulting, and unfortunately for him it shows his true colours, nature, whatever you like to call it.

From this moment this thread is closed.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

...
From this moment this thread is closed.

 

 

I concur. Thread locked. You have failed to fulfill the requirements of the Speculations forum given many opportunities. Please do not open a second thread on this topic.