There is a very successful theory based on "electricity", namely quantum electrodynamics. However this only deals with photons and electrons, and doesn't offer any intuitive understanding. An extension of this is quantum chromodynamics, which is then extended into the Standard Model. Again there's no intuitive understanding, and it's all very mathematical. But electricity does matter, and it's in there at a more fundamental level than merely the flow of electrons.Callesen58 wrote:I have been thinking for a while, that electricity should matter when it comes to atoms, after all it is divided into negative and positive areas, and since electricity and plasma-physics is supposed to be scale-proof, should'nt it also be able to explain the atom in electric terms? Anything would be better than the purely mathematical contructs of today, anyway.
Farsight: Think of this [pretzel-shaped electron motion] as being made of strong elastic. Grab hold of it firmly, and pull at one of the loops.
15. What replaces the gluons in APM?
Answer Page 39
According to the standard model gluons carry the strong force in quarks, and pions carry the strong force in nuclei. In APM, the strong force carries by strong charge. Strong charge is related to elementary charge, but it has a different geometry, spin and magnitude. Strong charge notates as e emax for the electron, e pmax for the proton, and e nmax for the neutron. But as in the case of elementary charge, Strong charge is always distributed. So for example, electron strong charge would notate as e emax^2
16.What is the weak interaction in APM?
Answer. Page 39
The weak interaction is the proportion of the elementary charge to the strong charge. The weak interaction is equal to 8pi times the fine structure of the onn. The relationship of the elementary charge, strong charge, and weak interaction for each onn appears as follows where * (alpha), p, n are the fine structures of the electron, proton and neutron respectively.
Electron onn = e^2/e emax^2 = 8pi *
Proton onn = e^2/e pmax^2 = 8pi p
Neutron onn = e^2/e nmax^2 = 8pi n
The Standard Model removes Dimensions from data.
APM data collects in dimensional and geometric form, processes in dimensional and geometric form, which materializes equations in dimensional and geometric form. By keeping dimensional and geometric form with data and equations, old concepts die, for example, the Aether unit and its geometry, will influence the understanding of physics.
28. Does E = mc squared qualify in APM?
Answer page 24
No
29. Why does E = mc squared, not qualify in APM?
Answer page 24
Because the variables have dimensions but no value. Therefore it is not a true equation, rather an expression or formula.
If E and m had inherent value, as does the constant c then E = 1 unit and m = 1 unit
E = joule
m = kg
E = mc^2
Joule = kg X 8.988 X10^16 (m^2/sec^2)
through transposition this would resolve as
1 = 8.988 x 10^16
Therefore E does not equal mc squared because there is no true equality! If you apply a constant to both E and m things are no where near equal!
Energy is a unit, mass is a dimension
E is composed of the dimensions of mass, length, frequency.
E = M X L^2 X F^2
When it comes down to the truth to the truth of it, mass is a dimension while energy is a unit made up of three dimensions.
In SR, mass converts to energy as an object approaches the speed of light. If this were true, then instead of having an infinite mass as the theory proposes, a spaceship should be massless at the speed of light. However, if the spaceship were massless at the speed of light, then it would have no energy because the mass is zero.. No double the die hard relativists will come forth with arguments that there is relativistic mass, which is different from rest mass.
Mass is ultimately only a dimension. Mass is not equal to matter or energy. Mass does not rest and does not move as an independent entity. There is no such "thing" as mass that can be converted to energy, of which energy is merely a unit.
What is mass?
Page 93
Mass is merely a dimension. Of itself, it has no material existence, although it is one of the defining qualities of the material objects. In a weightless environment mass does not change to zero. When mass is a near large planet, it does not become greater. When an object with mass is accelerated to near the speed of light, it does not increase mass. There is mass in resistance, there is mass in potential, there is mass in energy, there is mass in angular momentum. It is all the same mass, but manifested differently. It might help to realize that there is time in units too. There is time in resistance, there is time in potential, there is time in energy, and there is time in angular momentum. You can perceive time as change, but you cannot isolate time from a unit. You can perceive mass as inertia and length as distance, but you cannot separate the dimensions of mass and length from units. In the same way, you cannot remove the bricks from a brick building without also removing the building.
Once we stop thinking of mass as equal to matter, and realize that mass is neither physical nor is it something convertible, then it becomes easier to see what mass really is and how mass behaves. You cannot truly weigh mass, but you can weigh something that has mass. You cannot make mass turn into energy. The whole issue about converting energy from mass clearly reveals itself when we realize the indestructible and unchangeable nature of dimensions. You cannot convert mass, length, time, or charge. They are absolutes. Mass is always mass. Mass is only a dimension.
The quantum constant for mass in APM is the mass of the electron for most equations, but can equal the mass of the proton, neutron, aether.
Chapter 5, Dimensions, SOTA, third edition
From the dimensions of length, frequency, mass, charge, and spherical geometry come Aether, primary angular momentum, and all other units of dimensions. According to the Aether Physics Model, the dimensions of discrete natural units (quanta) are length, frequency, mass, charge and spherical geometry. Dimension is the fundamental attribute of measurement, but is not itself measurable. Absolute dimension is a quality of reality, seemingly arising from the ultimate Source of all existence. When quantity is associated with dimension, then the two together form a measurement.
Through the lack of coherent understanding of dimensions and units, it has become standard practice to view measurements as units. For example, the kilogram defines a unit of mass. It would be far more coherent if the kilogram defined a measurement of mass, with the definition of “unit” reserved for compound dimensions. The concepts of measurement and units are quite different from one another. Using the same word to define two different concepts easily leads to confusion.
Page 93
The quantum level, has five dimensions, length, frequency, mass, charge, spherical geometry. Dimensions increase in complexity as the orders of reality become more complex. The key to understanding the quantum level of existence lies in more precise and simple definitions of the terms “dimension”, "constant", “measurement” and “unit”. There are four fundamental dimensions in the MKS system of measurement: mass, charge, length and frequency. This very example of mismatching terms shows the classical mess of modern theory.
It is from the fundamental dimensions that units are constructed. The unit of area is equel to length dimension squared. The unit of volume is equal to length dimension cube. A unit of volume therefore has three dimensions of length.
Lq^3 = volm
However, there are also three dimensions in a unit of momentum. Mass times length times frequency.
m(e) X Lq X Fq = momt
So it is more accurate to call “3-D” objects Volumetric than three dimensional. Technically, an object with three dimensions of length, is three dimensional, but three dimensions need not mean three dimensions of length.
It doesn't sound entirely right. Think of neutrons as boys with their hands free, and protons as girls with their hands on their hips. One neutron will link two protons, like you can link arms with two girls. If there was a lot of chopping and changing going on, it sounds to me as if the nucleus would fall apart.Lloyd wrote:AllynH says neutrons are always unstable, even within atoms. He says the neutron ejects the electron, making it a proton, and a nearby proton in the atom then absorbs the ejected electron to become a neutron and the process continues indefinitely. He says radioactivity is a result of having too many neutrons in an atom and that's why deuterium is stable, but tritium is radioactive. When the two neutrons in tritium happen to eject their electrons at the same time, it's like musical chairs with only one proton available to absorb one electron, so the second neutron gets ejected from the atom. What do you think of that? I just happened to think that would seem to mean that the second neutron would get ejected as a proton and electron. Right? Or would getting ejected from the atom keep it stable for another 15 minutes?
It isn't like that, Lloyd. There is no point-particle going round and round. Think about long-wave radio. The wavelength might be 1500 metres. Now wrap it up into a pretzel shape 200 metres across. There is no orbiting particle, the pretzel is not describing a particle's orbital motion, it's telling you the disposition of a soliton. The proper name is a vorton. It's a bit like a whirlpool, but in three dimensions.Lloyd wrote:How could a particle's orbital motion be treated like the orbit is a solid object? That's like saying to grab the Earth's orbit and pull on it. Or like saying grab a rapidly rotating propeller and juggle it.Farsight: Think of this [pretzel-shaped electron motion] as being made of strong elastic. Grab hold of it firmly, and pull at one of the loops.
I don't. I'm something of a Feynman fan and happy with QED, but not so happy with QCD. The only stable particles which incorporate quarks are the proton and the antiproton. Annihilate them and you don't see any quarks. You might get mesons, but they don't last, because they decay too. The end product is electrons and photons and neutrinos.junglelord wrote:Very interesting Farsight, but that geometry does not prove the strong nuclear force...neither does it confirm three quarks as up and down....how do you account for colour?
Thanks re the mind thing. I'd say things like π are in there anyway.junglelord wrote:But the geometry aspects are well learned by you, and I for one applaud your mind. However, there are other geometries that need to be included, Pi, Phi, e. The Sacred Three.
I'll check it out. I sympathise with your sentiment...junglelord wrote:I have some very good work about quantifying Electrostatic charge into the Force Model. This bumps EM charge up and the supposed Gluon of the Strong Nuclear Force, which no one can find, not even in your diagram, becomes EM charge. Take a look at the full indepth reason to see things this way.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=506&start=0
...and I'm definitely into geometry. But I don't see gravity as anything special. Or should I say, I see it as something electric. To do with vacuum impedance.junglelord wrote:The quantifying of ES charge automatically creates a algebra and geometry of the Weak Nuclear Force, due to the geometric difference between ES charge of a Sphere and EM charge of a Toroid. The toroid surrounds the sphere. All charge is distributed. The inclusion of ES charge and the quantification of ES Charge, creates a three force model. There is only charge and gravity.
IMHO gravity is really really simple, junglelord. And matter and antimatter. You just have to think out of the box. Get this: the proton is antimatter.junglelord wrote:That tleaves us with gravity. Being polar, like all forces, it should repel and I believe that matter and antimatter should repel.
JL: Photons are electrons expanding at the speed of light.
JL: Electrostatic Voltage is a Hill or a Valley, depending on its polarity.
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests