What actually is 'charge'?

[seasmith]

So if we have an Evanescent standing wave between quarks, h/e x exp(-1) = 1.5214269 x 10-15 m is the quarks' lattice spacing. -Querious

Querious,

Sounds like you've fallen down a rabbit hole connecting with Michael V's warren, where all the Leporidae are trying to particulate the aetheric matrix.
Quarks are unnecessary, unless one just needs to flavor a dual trinity of negative, positive & neutral charge, like for a nemonic or something
Evanescent "waves" are not radiative but, through the phenomenon of 'evanescent-wave coupling' (quantum-tunneling, to the mystical science crowd), they can conduce radiant waves from a nearby resonator/wave guide.
Near-field, mechanical resonance and plasmon-type exponential decay characteristics. This is probably a clue.
When organized (or 'ponderable') matter is is made to oscillate (by sound, light, EM, etc. forces), the Near-By matrix is 'vibrated' a little bit at a quadrtic vector orthogonal to the radiant x,y,z space [3-wheel gyroscopic progression] and a Near-By object may resonate, depending on its form and function.
Charge may be recycled, we don't know because the essence of the above mentioned "coupling" is unknown to us at present.
Its occurrence however, is ubiquitous across the energetic spectrum.
s

[querious]

Furthermore, because this magic force is so strong, the quarks can never be separated, and because they cannot be separated, they cannot be detected as separate particles.

The quarks can OF COURSE be separated, they do it all the time. The problem is that as soon as you apply enough energy to separate them, new ones appear from that energy. That's the only reason you can't see an individual quark. But if you think there's "no evidence" for them, you're wrong, there's copious evidence for them.

[Goldminer]

Furthermore, because this magic force is so strong, the quarks can never be separated, and because they cannot be separated, they cannot be detected as separate particles.

The quarks can OF COURSE be separated, they do it all the time. The problem is that as soon as you apply enough energy to separate them, new ones appear from that energy. That's the only reason you can't see an individual quark. But if you think there's "no evidence" for them, you're wrong, there's copious evidence for them.

With reasoning like this we can explain why Unicorn poo is almost never found!

[Michael V]

querious,

wiki quote from QCD page, again:
"Confinement - which means that the force between quarks does not diminish as they are separated. Because of this, it would take an infinite amount of energy to separate two quarks; they are forever bound into hadrons such as the proton and the neutron. Although analytically unproven, confinement is widely believed to be true because it explains the consistent failure of free quark searches"

The quarks can OF COURSE be separated, they do it all the time. The problem is that as soon as you apply enough energy to separate them, new ones appear from that energy. That's the only reason you can't see an individual quark.

So an infinite amount of energy (presumably we're talking wispy non-material substanceless substance here) appears "all the time", and promptly turns into quarks. Since the only reason for the appearance of this "infinite amount of energy" was the separation of said quarks, why does it then transmogrify itself into an undetectable material quark?, and what happened to the separated quarks?, and quickly do an infinite amount of rabbits breed?

...there's copious evidence for them.

Really?

As I am an advocate for mysterious, invisible, undetectable, aethereal particles, I am not in an ideal position to completely deny the possible existence of quarks. My scepticism originates from the unreasoned, illogical and pointless assigning of a mysterious action-at-a-distance "charge", from electron and proton to quark. Clearly there is no attempt here to understand or explain "charge", merely an act of misdirection, since action at a distance is still used without any increased understanding. Heaped on top of this, there are all manner of types and "flavour" changes required to keep the mathematical construct viable. A "flavour change" (as with neutrinos) is of course an ad hoc alteration of the fundamental properties of the particle/entity from those previously assigned, with the only logical purpose being to maintain the functioning of the gloriously complicated maths.

Michael

[querious]

Furthermore, because this magic force is so strong, the quarks can never be separated, and because they cannot be separated, they cannot be detected as separate particles.

The quarks can OF COURSE be separated, they do it all the time. The problem is that as soon as you apply enough energy to separate them, new ones appear from that energy. That's the only reason you can't see an individual quark. But if you think there's "no evidence" for them, you're wrong, there's copious evidence for them.

With reasoning like this we can explain why Unicorn poo is almost never found!

Such wit! You remind me of the priests who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

While Unicorn poo has never been found, the process described above (called hadronization) is commonplace in high energy colliders. See this for a decent intro... http://www.quantumdiaries.org/author/brian-dorney/page/2/

[Michael V]

querious,

Such wit! You remind me of the priests who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

Your mention of priesthood oddly is directed.

Color charge has analogies with the notion of electric charge of particles, but because of the mathematical complications of QCD, there are many technical differences.....The term color was chosen because the abstract property....

Your mathematical faith in your abstract religion is commendable.


We must agree to disagree, since I reject your belief system and instead I choose to put my faith is motion and logic and that which can be understood as possible in physical mechanical systems.

Michael

[Michael V]

virtual quarks.jpg (14.93 KiB) Viewed 952 times

Here an electron and a positron annihilate, emit a virtual photon,
which then pair produces a quark and an anti-quark

Presumably, we may understand from the term "virtual photon", that it is computationally generated.

[Sparky]

Michael,

there are all manner of types and "flavour"

I like mine bar-b-q'd!. Throw another quark on the bar-be, mate!


And it's Free! No Charge!

[Oracle_911]

Why everybody assumes the current (Bohrian) atomic model is correct?

[seasmith]

~
can your model define everybody ?

[Chromium6]

http://www.milesmathis.com/ether.html

http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html

[Oracle_911]

~
can your model define everybody ?

The majority of discussants.

[querious]

Looks like I was on the right track before, but I forgot that the "quantum" of magnetic flux was actually caused by a "Copper Pair" of electrons. Since each charge only contributes half the flux, the lattice spacing should also be halved:
h/4e=1.033917E-15 Wb (=meter, if charge=momentum).

Given an inter-quark lattice spacing of 1.033917E-15 m, the volume per nucleon works out to 3.5722E-45 m3...



So, using the latest data I could find on nuclear radii, Table 1 from here, I created a Chart comparing ALL the experimental data against 3.57 (red line) from above...

[Lloyd]

* I'm moving 2 posts here from the "Work- What is it really??" thread, because they're more relevant here, I think.

postby Lloyd » Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:54 pm

Michael said: See Fatio for a guide on the basic operation of a material particle field gravity.

* I believe I looked through a link you provided some months ago and was not impressed, since it didn't seem to make sense. Unfortunately, I don't recall any details right now. As for photons, I don't know why you consider them not to be the aether.
* You also speak of electrons orbiting nuclei. I suppose that's possible, but Kanarev's claim that they hover over protons, due to electrical repulsion and magnetic attraction, seems more plausible to me, as the electron goes to where the two forces balance. Have you checked out Kanarev? I put links to his material and gave some samples on the second page of the NPA Conference thread on the EU board.

postby Michael V » Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:25 am
- Lloyd, Looks like we are going off topic here, but look at the LeSage portion of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation
Fatio's work is more commonly credited to LeSage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
- At this stage all you need to understand is the basic "shadowing" mechanism that results in objects being pushed together by the field.
- You should understand that I did not research, and then settle on the Fatio/LeSage theory as the most satisfactory. I started with a blank sheet of paper and my only agenda was that gravity should have a physical cause. I independently concluded that a randomly moving aethereal particle field is the only physical possibility. Gravitational force, and thence acceleration, at any given point between two objects is therefore dependent on the mass density and size of the objects and the distance between them. Having satisfied myself that my model was an accurate representation of Newtonian gravity, I then discovered via google that Mr Fatio had come to an almost identical conclusion 350 years previously.
- Despite the social, political and financial success of the 120 year cult of energy substance, a non-agenda led analysis shows that mass is a measure of interaction. Two masses in the field interact with the field such that the field produces a net pushing force that pushes the two masses toward each other. This force is the result of the combined effects of interaction of both masses with the field, hence GMM/r2. The inverse square is rather obvious, but the important points are the "mass times mass" and the gravitational coefficient G. Without going into too much detail here, G defines the mass density and also includes the effect of repulsive "charge". As I have pointed out many times, charge, and thereby electromagnetism in general, is of course not "electric". That is to say it is simply another kinetic mechanism within the field; another type of interaction between matter and the field. I realise such comments fly in the face of religious fervour that yearns for an innate "electric" property, but long after the inaccuracies of analyses past have been forgotten, physics and logic will remain satisfied.
- Anyway, as you can see gravity, a force caused by one physical medium acting upon another, is doing work, so our digression is not as entirely off topic as it may have first seemed. Further study has led me to uncover the inadequacies of Newton's otherwise accurate and most excellent equations.
- (Note: in the above, "the field", is interchangeable with and may be freely replaced by "the aethereal field", "the aether", "the quantum aether",.... In short, "the field" is "the aether". As a field that conveys forces and mediates interactions between matter it is a direct physical replacement for action at a distance. Also, as a field that conveys forces, it presents extremely important consequences for considering the nature and operation of light.)
- Michael

* Thanks for the links. Maybe I'll have time soon to check them out. But I do remember Tom van Flandern had an article about that and an illustration showing that the shadowing of particles would tend to force them together as gravitation. That's pretty much what I was suggesting, but letting photons be the aether, instead of the conventional mysterious substance called aether.
* The model seems to start with randomly moving aether particles. Somehow, two of them collide and stick together and then two more nearby do so as well. Now both pairs shadow each other, so the other aether particles are less numerous in the space between the two pairs, so there's less pressure on them within the intervening space, so the greater outer pressure forces them together. Presumably, something makes them stick together.
* Miles Mathis' stacked spins seem to explain how they would stick together. As photons or aether particles collide and develop enough stacked gyroscopic spin patterns, they become electrons, and, after some more stacked spins are added, they become protons. Electrons and protons act like spinning turbines. Here's an illustration I made.

* The proton spins at the speed of light. Any photons inside are thrown out through the vents by centrifugal collision force. With fewer photons remaining inside, the photon pressure outside forces more photons in through the polar openings. The photons exiting the proton form a disk shape along the proton's equator. Somehow the proton itself acquires a disk shape and this allows two protons and two neutrons acting as spacers to stack up into a helium nucleus, due to each proton "pulling" aether in through the polar openings. Elements are built up from such helium alpha particles or doubles or triples of them. The elements spin and the protons, neutrons and electrons have to be balanced, or they come apart. Here's a sample element from http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf.

* The blue disks are alpha particles, i.e. double proton disks with double neutrons. The black disks are single protons. The particles are arranged the way the forces act. The disks are repulsive; the poles of the disks are "attractive". The parallel proton can't hold any more nucleons, because they would be unbalanced and the centrifugal force may be too great there. But the perpendicular alpha particle can hold more nucleons, because they would retain balance and there's little centrifugal force.

[Michael V]

Lloyd,

The model seems to start with randomly moving aether particles. Somehow, two of them collide and stick together and then two more nearby do so as well. Now both pairs shadow each other, so the other aether particles are less numerous in the space between the two pairs, so there's less pressure on them within the intervening space, so the greater outer pressure forces them together. Presumably, something makes them stick together.

Don't know where you get this from - where do you get the concept of aether particles "sticking" together.

Diagram borrowed from wikipedia "Mechanical Explanations of Gravity" page.

The two circles/spheres represent two objects, A and B, the arrows represent the motion of aether particles coming from all directions. The concept is that the aether particles travel into an object, some of those particles collide with the matter from which the object is made, although the vast majority of aether particles pass straight through unaffected. Those that do collide will be blocked/deflected back out. The amount of interaction with the field is directly proportional to the mass of the object.

When two objects come into proximity, the following occurs:
Some of the aether particles approaching object A in the direction of object B are blocked/deflected by collision with object A and so a smaller "pressure" of particles reaches object B from the direction of object A.
Likewise some of the particles approaching B in the direction of A are blocked/deflected by B and so a smaller pressure reaches A from the direction of B. The result is that both objects cast mutual "momentum shadows" on each other and so there is a net greater force from "outside" that pushes them towards each other - the gravitational force is proportional to MASS1 x MASS2 as per Mr Newton's instructions (and also to the inverse square of the distance between the objects).

You can also see from this that mass density is extremely important - a small dense object can have the same gravitational force as a large less-dense object. The aether field is still only operating-on/interacting-with the mass of an object, but the resultant force depends on the mass density and size of objects. In this respect you can start to think of the two objects and the, mutually shared, space between them as a single system.

Michael