Strong Nuclear Force Linear Thread

[junglelord]

This thread is dedicated to the linear dialogue of the Strong Nuclear Force. Please help me to build it up with linear information that supports or redirects this basic force. What is the gluon? Is that a proper theory? How come we have not isolated one? What other ideas have been presented to deal with the fact no actual isolation of a gluon as it relates to the strong nuclear force has been done?

[junglelord]

Here is a quote from the Meyl Scalar Technology Book, in his reworking of EM he has gotten rid of the Strong Nuclear Force. It builds on his previous work to identify the electron as a dual voretx dipole configuration and his math leads to this startling conclusion.

"Strong interaction"
A central question of nuclear physics concerns the forces which keep the atomic nucleus,
which consists of many neutrons and protons, together and give it its very good stability in
spite of the like positive charge (key question XIV fig. 7.13).
According to today's textbook opinion (course of the field indicated with a in fig. 7.8) the
forces of repulsion between the individual protons increase further as the distance gets
smaller, to obtain immense values within the nucleus. They theoretically had to be
overcome by new and unknown nuclear forces. Therefore physicists assume the
hypothesis of a "strong interaction". But they are mistaken.
The answer to this open question is provided by the course of the field (b) for the proton,
sketched in fig. 7.8. We see that the electric field at first indeed still increases if we
approach the proton, but in the proximity it contrary to all expectations decreases again
until it is zero. With that then also any force of repulsion has vanished! But the course of
the field follows without compulsion from the overlap of the three individual elementary
vortex fields.
The field direction in the z-direction even is reversed! In this topsy-turvy world, in theory,
an electromagnetic force of attraction between two like charged protons can occur. We
conclude:
A strong interaction doesn't exist at all. The usually given values for "range" and
"strength" just represent a misinterpretation. The hatched drawn area marks the difference
which is misinterpreted by quantum physics. The model concept over and above that
answers another mysterious property of the proton. As an electrically charged particle with
a spin it first of all should form a magnetic moment for reason of the rotating charge. But
until now the measurable order of magnitude couldn't be explained.
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=47_ ... sublevel=0

[junglelord]

Well I think I get it. The Strong Force is the Electromagnetic Charge in APM, gluon my butt.

This is as follows. There are two types of charge. EM and Electrostatic. ES is the same for e- and p+, EM is not. But that is four charges, all distributed. No gluon required.

Man I feel retarded...after knowing since I was ten years old that there was two types of charge and after going to college for electronics and after a life time of physics reading...I never saw the disconnect. I saw the classical mess and finally dark matter and dark energy had turned me off. The EU turned me back on. APM reorganized the information. Well the imaginary gluon is the fakeout. I always knew the truth and yet never saw that no one else did. You guys never got shocked enough as a child...

Two Manifestations of Charge
The two types of charge recognized in the Aether Physics Model are the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic charge. In modern physics only one type of charge is quantified. As a result of the two types of charges, we have successfully developed the electron binding energy equation, which accurately predicts the 1s orbital electron binding energies for all the atomic elements. Our white paper, "A New Foundation for Physics," explains the two types of charge in greater detail. A synopsis is given on this page.

Also, in modern physics charge has only one dimension. In the Aether Physics Model charge is distributed (charge squared).

The electrostatic charge is the same as elementary charge, except that it is represented as e2 instead of just e. The value of electrostatic charge in the APM is:

(1.1)

Strong nuclear charge is the product of angular momentum of a subatomic particle and the conductance of the Aether.

(1.2)

(1.3)

Strong charge, (or electromagnetic charge) is written as eemax2 for the electron, epmax2 for the proton and enmax2 for the neutron. Unlike the electrostatic charge, which is the same for both the electron and proton, the strong charge is different for each onn (subatomic particle) and is directly proportional to the onn's mass.

The angular momentum of an electron is represented as Planck's constant:

(1.4)

The conductance of the Aether is:

(1.5)

The proportion of electrostatic charge to strong charge is equal to 8p times the fine structure of the onn.

(1.6)

The significance of this proportion is that it represents the "weak nuclear force" of the particle. Each particle has its own "weak nuclear force".

(1.7)

(1.8)

Equations 1.6 through 1.8 represent the unified charge equations for each onn. Taken together these equations are the basis for a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. Electrostatic charge has one spin and is spherical, while electromagnetic charge has half spin and has steradian geometry.

The unified charge equations dictate a general geometry for the subatomic particles.



Figure 1 Subatomic Particle Geometry
The above graphic illustrates the two charges as they are related to each other and shows the proportion of their surfaces.

Electrostatic charge has the geometry of a sphere (small sphere in center of Figure 1) while the strong charge has the geometry of a toroid. Since strong charge belongs to the half spin subatomic particle, strong charge must multiply by two to be equal in spin to one spin electrostatic charge. And since electrostatic charge has a solid angle of one (spherical) electromagnetic charge must multiply by 4p to be equal in geometry. This is the meaning of the 8p geometrical constant, which also occurs in Einstein's simplified field equation for General Relativity.

The proportion of the electrostatic charge sphere (small sphere in center) to the electromagnetic charge sphere (large gray sphere) is alpha, the Fine Structure constant. The fine structure constant is the proportion of the one spin electrostatic sphere to the equivalent strong charge one spin sphere.

Fine Structure of the Proton and Neutron
From equation (1.6) the fine structure of the proton and neutron can also be determined. First the equation is solved for alpha:

(1.9)

Substituting epmax2 for eemax2 we get the values for the fine structure of the proton (p) and neutron (n).

(1.10)

(1.11)

The neutron has a fine structure constant just as the proton and electron do even though the charge is neutral. The point is, even though the charge is neutral, it still has an electrostatic charge based on a proton that has bound to an electron. Whether the charge is positive, negative or neutral does not change the nature of the electrostatic charge.

(1.12)

(1.13)

Strong Nuclear Force
The mechanics of strong charge can be carried over to the proton and neutron.

Planck's constant is the angular momentum of an electron. Similar constants can be derived for the neutron and proton. In the case of the proton the angular momentum is:

(1.14)

where hp is equal to the angular momentum of the proton, mp is the mass of the proton, c is the speed of light and is the Compton wavelength. Similarly, the angular momentum of the neutron is:

(1.15)

where hn denotes the angular momentum of the neutron and mn is the mass of the neutron. The values of these angular momenta are:

(1.16)

(1.17)

The reader will note that the above values for proton and neutron angular momentum differ from the values given by NIST (interestingly, NIST has subsequently deleted values of the proton and neutron angular momenta from their web site). This is one of a few units the Aether Physics Model disagrees with the Standard Model over.

The rationale for using the above units for proton and neutron angular momentum is that the Aether appears to have just one quantum length and just one quantum frequency. The masses of the proton and neutron as given by NIST are not disputed.

When calculating the maximum charge for the proton and neutron in terms of elementary charge as in equation (1.5) we obtain the following values:

epmax = (1.18)

enmax = (1.19)

Both (1.18) and (1.19) result in the relative value of the "strong nuclear force" compared to the elementary charge. In 1994, Robert Mills published "Space Time and Quanta - an introduction to contemporary physics" in which he suggests the strong nuclear force is an electromagnetic force. Equations (1.18) and (1.19) offer evidence to support his theory. A brief overview of this theory can be found at PHYSICS MYSTERIES EXPLAINED PART III.

All of the above concepts concerning charge are explained in greater detail and with more visual aids in our book, "Secrets of the Aether."
http://www.16pi2.com/charge.htm

BREAKING NEWS: We have successfully developed the electron binding energy equation, which accurately predicts the 1s orbital electron binding energies for all the atomic elements.

Coulomb's constant can be conveniently represented as the result of four discrete components.

Starting with Coulomb's Constant:

(1.1)

The units are expanded to:

(1.2)

From the above it would appear that Coulomb's constant might be a combination of velocity, inductance and capacitance. But in the Aether it is known that the units of inductance and capacitance are actually involved in permeability and permittivity, respectively. This leaves the units of amp per volt, which is conductance, which is in units of siemens:

(1.3)

It would appear that the Aether contains a conductance constant, which can be derived as:

(1.4)

(1.5)

such that Coulomb's constant can be expressed as

(1.6)

This reveals four factors contributing to Coulomb's Constant:

Speed of Light

Conductance of Aether

Permeability of Aether

Permittivity of Aether

As is seen on the Charge page, subatomic particles have more than just an elementary charge. Electrons, protons, and neutrons also have a strong nuclear binding charge, or electromagnetic charge.

(1.7)

This gives another expression for the conductance constant:

(1.8a) and

(1.8b)

From equation (1.8a) it can be seen that conductance of the Aether is a swirling motion as it is related to the angular momentum of Planck's constant. The conductance constant can also be expressed in terms of Aether charge associated with conductance and Aether angular momentum; where angular momentum of mass associated with the Aether is equal to:

(1.9) or

(1.10)

ma is the mass associated with the Aether, Fq is the quantum frequency, and is the Compton wavelength (quantum length.) In terms of Aether values, the conductance constant is expressed as:

(1.11)

where ea2 is the electromagnetic charge associated with the Aether. The same relationship to the conductance constant can be obtained with the proton and neutron. This common relationship is due to the universal mass to electromagnetic charge ratio.

One practical use of the Aether conductance constant is in the equation for particle strong charge (electromagnetic charge).

Geometry of Coulomb's Constant
The geometry of Coulomb's constant is a plane as expressed as:

(1.15)

or

(1.16)

where m2 / coul2 is the same as St2 (stroke squared.) This plane represents the boundary between space-time and subatomic angular momentum. Stroke is further defined on the Gravitational Constant page. The shape of the plane can be a cylinder, the surface of a sphere, or any other simple surface determined by the configuration of the charges involved.

Coulomb's Constant is also closely related to the rmfd (or Au) constant.
http://www.16pi2.com/coulombs_constant.htm

[junglelord]

THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE IS ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE
Section 2

The author proposes that the strong force is fundamentally an electromagnetic force and that the strong force simply appears different than the familiar manifestations of electromagnetic force because of the vastly different distances between the centers of charge within the quark triplet substructure with its tripolar centers and much higher amounts of energy versus the distances between centers of charge of classical electrical charge involving electrons and atomic nuclei with single centers of charge and much lower amounts of energy.

The major difference between strong force interactions and classical electrical interactions which makes them appear as different forces is the amount of energy in closed electrical field lines between the two types of interactions. When centers of charge are as close as in the strong force of the quark triplet substructure, the electrical field lines are highly deformed, and yet they contain high energy as opposed to classical electrical fields which involve much lower amounts of energy in rotation about one or two centers of charge and involving much less energy inthe closed loop electrical field lines.

The strong nuclear force is a manifestation of electromagnetic force in which the distances involved between centers of electrical charge are within the structure of quarks as opposed to the distances between the centers being the distances of atomic nuclei and electrons.

High energy gluons carve tight gluon field lines whereas 'virtual photons' carve much less tight electrical field lines.

This view fits with Robert Mills view of quark color confinement in which gluon field lines are strings of energy which require energy to be stretched. Dr. Mills view is correct because it involves energy in a tight closed loop rotation (a string) while the proposed unit particle substructure also proposes closed loop bound energy in rotation.


http://www.starlight-publishing.com/Mat ... Force.html

[junglelord]

More evidence, this time from Dirac's Sea of Negitive Energy, that the strong force is the electromagnetic force.

That is three powerful examples all pointing in the same dirction, of where the standard force model is wrong concerning strong force and what causes it. Correct the strong force as the EM charge and your going to complete the force model accurately.

The Strong Nuclear Force
However, the prime merit of this model has to be its representation
of the strong nuclear force. Here we need to note
a strange coincidence: the mass of the proton, in electronmasses,
is roughly the same as the strength of the proton’s
strong force, in electron-forces. (Mass of proton: 1836 electron-
masses. Strength of the electromagnetic force: the “fine
structure constant” a = e2/hc = 1/137; strength of strong
force: g2/hc = ~15. Ratio: ~15 x 137, somewhere around 2000
[Shankar, 1994].)

Thus the ratios of the masses and of the forces are roughly
the same, “around 2000.” This is a major clue to the
nature of the “strong force.”

Gravitation and the Coulomb force both have simple
inverse square “shapes” that operate over long distances.
Theoretically, at least, they never drop to zero. However, the
shape of the strong force between nucleons is radically different
and very peculiar. Up to a distance of around a fermi
(10-15 m.), it is very strongly repulsive, keeping the nucleons
apart. Then, for no apparent good reason, it changes abruptly
to very strongly attractive, then drops off very rapidly, so
that at a distance of around three fermis it becomes immeasurable.
This peculiar shape has never been successfully modeled
by any theory.

Note how current theory, in which the fudge is an accepted
scientific procedure, “solves” this problem. Since current
theory can’t model this observed force, it simply ignores it,
and instead invents (fudges) an unobserved (fifth!) force carried
by eight “gluons” (designed to be unobservable) between
eighteen or thirty-six “quarks” (also designed to be unobservable)
inside the nucleon. It then “suggests” that this fudged
gluon force in some unspecified way “leaks out” of the
nucleon to make up the peculiar shape of the measured
strong force. However, our “epo model” of the nucleon models
this very peculiar shape simply and intuitively.

Because of the uncertainty principle, the nucleon, with its
measured diameter of around 1.9 fermis, can not be a perfect
sphere, but must be a pulsating spheroid. However, the epos
that make it up have “asymptotic freedom”—they vibrate
individually, and each lepton is free to form a relationship with
any available antiparticle.

This means that, as two nucleons
approach each other, at a distance of about three fermis, electron-
positron pairs will begin to form, not just within the
nucleons, but between them. (Pairs of “internucleon” epos
would have to form at the same time, keeping the total number
of paired charges in each nucleon at 9180.) This would
cause a strong, short-range attraction between the nucleons as
more and more pairs formed.

This would increase to a maximum
at around 1.5 fermis, after which it would rapidly turn
into a strong repulsion (since the individual epos have to
maintain their average 1.87 fermi separation), keeping the
nucleons a stable distance from each other.

Moreover, a maximum of 918 such “internucleon” pairs
could form, the number vibrating in the direction joining
the two nucleons, one-tenth of the total. This would give the
interaction the strength of 1836e, and exactly explain the
strength of the strong force, “about 2000 times as strong as
the Coulomb force” (Shankar, 1994).

Now, what is the chance that a completely wrong model of
the nucleon would exactly match both the strength and the
very peculiar shape of this most individual of forces? After fifty
or so years of effort, the huge physics establishment admittedly
has failed utterly to provide a model that comes close to
matching that peculiar shape of the nuclear force. Yet Dirac’s
equation provides a model that fits like lock and key.

http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf

[StevenO]

The strong force does not exist.

Nuclear Atom
According to present theory, all forces between entities result from the exchange of quanta. It has been theorized that the force between the supposed neutron and proton in the atom results from an exchange of mesons. These mesons were supposed to be charged, thus producing a current when in motion. Benson T. Chertok spent some ten years of work at the Stanford Linear Accelerator . Center to find these meson-exchange currents. As quoted in the Science News of May l0, 1975, Chertok said his experiment found no evidence for these mesonexchange currents.”Ten years of work shot down,” he says.

This is typical of present practice, where theorists keep on postulating entities that experimenters do not find, and experimenters keep on finding entities that theorists have not postulated.

The atom itself s not composed of seperate neutrons, protons, and electrons, and thus no force is needed to explain the attraction between protons and neutrons. The atom is really one whole unit, composed of three different types of rotational spin. This also explains why particle creation only happens around existing matter. The particles are stripped of or added as rotational energy to existing atoms.

[junglelord]

The atom is not soley composed of three spins. However the individual subatomic units are each made from 2 geometric charges which are distributed.

Of course the Strong Force exists, the question is what causes it?
I have found enough evidence to convice me it is an expression of EM distributed charge.

[StevenO]

The atom is not soley composed of three spins. However the individual subatomic units are each made from 2 geometric charges which are distributed.

You are exactly right. In APM two counterrotating distributed charges would equal a three spin component in the ST/Reciprocal system.

Of course the Strong Force exists, the question is what causes it?
I have found enough evidence to convice me it is an expression of EM distributed charge.

I have explained that the distributed charge is a matter of interpretation. But show me a real proof that there is something else inside an atom except spinning charge.

[junglelord]

It must have quantum length-area-volume, quantum frequency, quantum resonance, quantum mass, quantum distributed charge both EM + ES, spherical geometry, angular momentum, and a two spin rotating magnetic aether unit all together to exist....this is driven by the Gforce.

[StevenO]

It must have quantum length-area-volume, quantum frequency, quantum resonance, quantum mass, quantum distributed charge both EM + ES, spherical geometry, angular momentum, and a two spin rotating magnetic aether unit all together to exist....this is driven by the Gforce.

I'm not sure what you mean now...are'nt atoms are the ultimate examples of something quantized?

I just don't believe in taking a label as the explanation of an effect. Since it hides the searching for a deeper thruth, which ultimately must be an expression of (broken) symmetry. Labelling is just replacing the search with expressions of human beliefs. It hides the other side of objects and leads to the building of epicycles.

So my questions seeing all these labels would go like:
- why is there a quantum length (amongst others)?
- what is ment by "distributed charge": a charge manifold or "statistical distribution" of charge?
- why is there spherical geometry?
- what is the other side of the Gforce?

How to recognize an expression of broken symmetry? It is always another expression of unity, e.g.:

exp(pi * i) = 1, or
e^2/(2 * e_0 * h * c * alpha) = 1

In contrast, c=299 792 458 m/s is not a symmetry expression, it gives the observable of a broken symmetry.

[junglelord]

These quantum units are not broken symmetry. They are the first units of existence. The symmetry of these units is complete. That is why they are the quantum constants. That is my frame of reference.

To me broken symmetry is the work of particle accelerators and particle physics.

A quantum constant is not a broken symmetry. Not in my mind. In fact a superconductor, laser, BEC, shows that it is not broken symmetry.....


Rather it is coherent, charged, entangled, etc. none of these imply broken.

PS Distributed Charge means surface, not a line or a point.

[junglelord]

The Mass to Strong Charge Ratio (mchr) is a constant that appears in the Aether as well as the physical Universe.
http://www.16pi2.com/mass_to_charge_ratio.htm
As shown on other pages in this web, all subatomic particles have both elementary charge and strong charge. The ratio of mass to strong charge is always the same in subatomic particles.

When calculating the maximum charge for the proton and neutron in terms of elementary charge as in equation (1.5) we obtain the following values:
http://www.16pi2.com/charge.htm
Both (1.18) and (1.19) result in the relative value of the "strong nuclear force" compared to the elementary charge. In 1994, Robert Mills published "Space Time and Quanta - an introduction to contemporary physics" in which he suggests the strong nuclear force is an electromagnetic force. Equations (1.18) and (1.19) offer evidence to support his theory. A brief overview of this theory can be found at PHYSICS MYSTERIES EXPLAINED PART III.


it appears that the Casimir effect is the result of the electron strong charge of the atoms in the metal plates affecting each other through a form of Coulomb's law. Taking the area and lengths to be the quantum wavelength, the equation can be written and simplified as:
http://www.16pi2.com/casimir_effect.htm
which is exactly the form of Coulombs law except that the force is calculated for the electron strong charge and not the electron elementary charge. The above equation can be further developed to allow for the rmfd constant to replace Coulomb's constant. The rmfd constant is equal to 16pi2 times Coulomb's constant:
To calculate the force between two Casimir plates, measure the strong charge of each plate (they may not be equal), divide by the distance between them squared, and multiply by the rmfd constant. The strong charge is easy to calculate as it is always proportional to the mass.

In short, the Casimir Effect is experimental proof that the Aether Physics Model is correct in its claim that eemax2 is the strong charge of the electron.

According to Gibbs, "The energy density decreases as the plates are moved closer which implies there is a small force drawing them together." That small force is the force of the Aether manifested as the rmfd constant and acting on the strong charge of the electron..

[StevenO]

These quantum units are not broken symmetry. They are the first units of existence. The symmetry of these units is complete. That is why they are the quantum constants. That is my frame of reference.

To me broken symmetry is the work of particle accelerators and particle physics.

A quantum constant is not a broken symmetry. Not in my mind. In fact a superconductor, laser, BEC, shows that it is not broken symmetry.....


Rather it is coherent, charged, entangled, etc. none of these imply broken.

PS Distributed Charge means surface, not a line or a point.

Maybe I was'nt expressing myself clear enough...I'll try to clearup the confusion.

Noether's theorem, which is driving all physics conservation laws says: "a broken symmetry creates an observable quantity". It is a little abstract , but it means that any observable physics quantity comes with a conservation law, like conservation of energy, charge, momentum, etc. Just postulating a constant hides the conservation law behind it.

A good example is "constant light speed". We can postulate it to be constant (Einstein SR) or we can see it as an expression of constant force on each point of space ( GForce, APM) but both of these are hiding the conservation law behind it, which is "the speed of space is preserved". This law shows that there are two sides of light speed (or a front and backside of space) with an conserved quantity in between, which is the speed of space. This is also expressed by equations as "epsilon_0 * mu_0 = c^2" or "group velocity * phase velocity = c^2".

For me this explains why Dewey Larsons "Constant Reciprocal Motion" theory is so succesfull, since it works out the implications of this conservation law.

[junglelord]

Speaking of conservation, equalites, ect....lets talk this out.



certainly to me APM has made equality with a three force model with two fundamental charges. This model accurately accounts for the strong nuclear force charge as an expression of EM charge and the Weak force as the relationship between both ES and EM. There is perfect conservation and equality in APM. Especially because with two elemental charges we can resolve the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force! That is impossible to ignore.

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

I have a quote on my view of things since I now have a proper handle on measurement, unit, constant, dimension.

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.

In other words dimensions build up into units of which we take measurements of these constants. I have different definitions then the classical mess provides. Lets take for example the equality and conservation of the most famous equation of all....Einsteins theory that E = mc^2

That is totally false and not equal at all

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.

So what is a dimension of mass then, if it is not equal to a unit of energy?

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.

I now see how we differ in our view of even the word 3D, because I work in 5D, I would rather use volumetric then 3D.

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.

If you consider a three force universe with 5D then you will get a wonderful equality and conservation.
PS
All quotes are from Secrets of the Aether by Dave Thompson

[junglelord]

These quantum units are not broken symmetry. They are the first units of existence. The symmetry of these units is complete. That is why they are the quantum constants. That is my frame of reference.

To me broken symmetry is the work of particle accelerators and particle physics.

A quantum constant is not a broken symmetry. Not in my mind. In fact a superconductor, laser, BEC, shows that it is not broken symmetry.....


Rather it is coherent, charged, entangled, etc. none of these imply broken.

PS Distributed Charge means surface, not a line or a point.

Maybe I was'nt expressing myself clear enough...I'll try to clearup the confusion.

Noether's theorem, which is driving all physics conservation laws says: "a broken symmetry creates an observable quantity". It is a little abstract , but it means that any observable physics quantity comes with a conservation law, like conservation of energy, charge, momentum, etc. Just postulating a constant hides the conservation law behind it.

A good example is "constant light speed". We can postulate it to be constant (Einstein SR) or we can see it as an expression of constant force on each point of space ( GForce, APM) but both of these are hiding the conservation law behind it, which is "the speed of space is preserved". This law shows that there are two sides of light speed (or a front and backside of space) with an conserved quantity in between, which is the speed of space. This is also expressed by equations as "epsilon_0 * mu_0 = c^2" or "group velocity * phase velocity = c^2".

For me this explains why Dewey Larsons "Constant Reciprocal Motion" theory is so succesfull, since it works out the implications of this conservation law.

Its ovbious at this point we see the universe from two very different places and constructs. This is my reason for stating what I did. I do not agree with Noether's theorem. I think he has to say that because he does not have any quantum constants.


I do agree with the dimensional and geometric constructs of APM that create quantum units and quantum constants.

Although I had not read this part of SOTA yet, till this morning, it states exactly what I did in reply to your question. I was ovbiously on the same track as Dave Thompson. I thought it reasonable to show that there is more then one way to create conservation laws.

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.
All quantum units are also quantum constants. This is possible because the universe arose from very precise, first measurements. A quantum measurements apply equally to force, matter, and the environment, as they all arise from the same source. A physics system were quantum units are also quantum constants has many advantages, particularly when we examine the qualities of onta and their interactions.

Why should the measurements be quantum at all? If the quantum measurements of onta did not exist, there would be no conservation laws and universe would lack a reliable framework. It is because there is a single either unit, a single value for electron mass, a single value for proton mass, a single quantum length, a single quantum frequency, a single quantum electrostatic charge, a single quantum strong charge of the electron, and a single quantum strong charge of the proton, that we can make predictions about the universe at all.

At the level of quantum existence, each interaction will be the same on earth as in some distant galaxy. This means not only will the electron angular momentum be the same in all places and at all times, but also that the velocity of light in a vacuum, the permeability, the conductance, and the permittivity of aether will be the same.
Secrets of the Aether, chapter 7, Constants, page 151