Gravity & Strong Force

[Bengt Nyman]

In today’s Standard Model, Strong Force is considered one of the four fundamental forces in the universe. Strong Force is described as the strongest of the four forces and as having the shortest reach.
The composite dipole hypothesis described below suggests that Strong Force is the result of a multitude of dipole force vectors. These force vectors are both attracting and repelling. The fact that these different dipole forces are based on different dipole distances creates a complex resultant which is highly dependent on the distance between the particles.
Let us start with two free protons placed in the vicinity of each other. Looking closer at the protons we know that they each consist of a group of three quarks. There is one external ES force vector between each quark in one proton and each quark in the other proton, for a total of nine external ES force vectors.
Now let us force these protons closer together. So close that the cheeks of the protons are no further apart than the quarks in one of the protons. At least one of the quarks in proton 1 is now very close to one of the quarks in proton 2. If these close-up quarks are of the same charge it is easy to see that the composite force is likely to be repulsing. Because even if the remaining and more distant quark charges attract each other they are disadvantaged by their longer separation distance.
However if these nearby charges happen to be attracting each other while the more distant charges repel each other it would appear that the situation could turn out differently.
Simulations made with two different kinds of physics software both show the following:

1. Two protons placed closely together will repel each other most of the time.
2. Two protons shot at each other will bounce off and repel each other most of the time.
3. However, It is occasionally possible to shoot two protons at each other with the right speed and quark pattern so that they latch on to each other, fuse and stay together, held in place by Strong Force. See simulation links below.

Two protons affect each other with a total of nine ES force vectors. Five of these are repelling and four are attracting. At most distances between the protons these vectors add up to a resultant which is an overwhelmingly repelling force.
However, once two protons come close enough to each other, with the right quark postures, they fuse and latch together with Strong Force.
Strong Force is a conditional resultant force made up of nine force vectors. Strong Force depends on very close distances between attracting constituents to remain positive.
If we could grab two fused protons and start pulling them apart we would find that as we increase the gap between the attracting quarks the Strong Force weakens very quickly. Very soon we would reach the mathematical crossover point where the resultant of the nine ES force vectors becomes zero and where the two protons loose their grip on each other. This is where Strong Force goes to zero, changes its name and transforms into a much weaker, nine component repelling force, which we know as repulsion between similarly charged objects.

Links to Strong Force simulations:

Repulsion between 2 protons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjhjAMEHNyQ

Collision between 2 protons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8oN0ERvQJY

Special collision between 2 protons producing Fusion and Strong Force
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-mDtDW5c4w

Bengt Nyman

[junglelord]

Hi junglelord,

Excellent! And soon, when we agree that gravity is an ES force, we are down to two forces: EM and ES.
I like it already.

Bengt Nyman
http://www.dipole.se

Gravity is not an ES force. ES and EM are two fields mediated by the photon. ES is a photon pressure field, while EM is a photon spin field. Gravity is an acceleration field, probably more a kind of holistic appearance to integrate our experience of the world than a real field.

The two force law seems to be appearing over and over, nothing but a push and pull, a tensegrity.
http://www.amperefitz.com/qamp.htm
http://www.rbduncan.com/TOEbyFitzpatrick.htm

[Bengt Nyman]

Strong Force quantification

If fusion of two protons follows the posturing shown in the simulation called “Special Collision between 2 protons” shown earlier in this thread we can deduce a possible geometry and associated pattern of distances between the six quarks. This allows us to calculate the nine forces between them in accordance with Coulombs Law. Let us accept the standard assessment that a proton has a radius of approximately 10^-15 m. Dividing the proton into three quark regions produces quark regions with a radius of slightly less that 0.5*10^-15 m. If we accept that the center distance between two of the closest quarks in the two fused protons is in the order of 1*10^-15 m we can calculate the nine force vectors interacting between the two protons. Five of these vectors produce repulsion while four produce attraction. The sum of the nine forces is here suggested to be Strong Force.

The quantification calculations suggest that Strong Force between two protons is in the order of 50 Newton.

By increasing the distance between the two protons we can also calculate when strong force goes to zero, or ceases to exist. Beyond this distance the nine force vectors combine into a repelling force, as expected between two bodies of similar charge. The calculations show that when the distance between the protons is increased by approximately 1*10^-15 meter the strong force becomes zero and changes sign and name. At further distances it becomes the repelling force that we have come to expect between bodies of similar charge.
In other words:

Strong Force between two protons has a reach of approximately 1 times the radius of the proton.

This is measured as the free gap between the two protons, which equals 3 times the radius of the proton if measured between the centers of the two protons. Beyond this distance the phenomenon of Strong Force ceases to exist and continues as a repelling force, still in accordance with Coulombs Law.

We all know that the world of quarks still holds many mysteries. The above in no way minimizes the importance of the very complex understandings of the world within quarks presently under development. However, that is no reason why physics we have come to trust among larger things, should not at least be tested on smaller things as well.

Bengt Nyman

[Bengt Nyman]

Gravity between 2 Hydrogen atoms

Below please find a link to a more detailed simulation of Gravity between 2 Hydrogen atoms.
The larger circles represent the two -e electron clouds. The larger of the quarks are the +2/3e U-quarks, while the smaller circles represent the -1/3e D-quarks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTw8n2GQ1I

Bengt Nyman

[dfitz]

Einstein wrote in 1954 - just bfore he died - that the concept of the field might be wrong.

He wrote this:

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Einstein was right: Physics cannot be based on the field concept unless it is realized that fields, like motion, must be restricted to certain spin/orbit frequency parameters. Future science will not be based on fields! Physics must be based on individual quanta (spin/orbit orientations), which when all added up simply resemble a field. In this new scalar frequency universe of Wolff and Schrödinger, the field is never a continuous structure: It's always a structure with absolute spin/orbit frequency limits of a particular entity; and this new knowledge gives us the reason why we have the various gauges, and different rules for each of them, in quantum mechanics. For instance: the QED (Quantum ElectroDynamics) gauge is limited to the spin/orbit frequency range of the electron and the QCD (Quantum ChromoDynamics) gauge is limited to the much higher spin/orbit frequency range of the quarks. Math and rules for these two gauges are entirely different.

Even though a multitude of quanta resemble a field, a quantum and a field are entirely different. So field rules and math are used only where a multitude of quantum exchanges take place.

You cannot analyze an individual quantum energy exchange, where an orbit or spin has changed, using field rules and math.

So for gravity I'm putting this together. I'll have it finished and polished in about a week but here it is now if anyone wants to read it:

http://www.amperefitz.com/why.we.have.gravity.htm

cheers,

dan fitzpatrick

[Bengt Nyman]

Thank You Dan.
I am flattered that you have found new inspiration.
I believe that a man who finds answers within comprehension looses his urge to lead others beyond.
Cheers
Bengt

[Bengt Nyman]

An updated Hydrogen Gravity simulation is listed below. The larger circles represent the -1e electron clouds. The next smaller circles represent the +2/3e U-quarks. The smallest circles represent the -1/3e D-quarks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKlaKhLzhOQ

Bengt Nyman

[junglelord]

From my work on the Aether Physic Model This will explain how conductance of the aether and coulombs constant derives Strong Charge. I believe quarks to be not elemental. Only electrons and protons are elemental, in my view of atomic charge. I do however like the work of Paul Laviolette on Subquantum Kinetics when viewing the world of the quark as fundamental.
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-SQK.html

Conductance of the Aether and Strong Charge
The Aether conductance constant (Cd) shows to be a factor of Coulomb’s constant and its relationship to the other known constants of the “vacuum”.
Cd = kc X /c X μ0 Where = Vacuum permittivity, also called permittivity of free space or the electric constant is the ratio D/E in free space.
μ0 is the magnetic constant.

Cd = 2.112 X 10^-4 (sec X coul^2/kg X m2)

scant literature exists describing the conductance of the Aether (vacuum, free space, quantum foam), and modern physics. Conductance is the measure of a materials ability to conduct electric charge. Electrons do conduct through the Aether, as observed when electrons travel in the space between the Sun and the Earth. Electrons also pass through Aether in a vacuum tube. The conductance constant is a specific measure of the Aether's ability to conduct strong charge.


In quantum measurements, the conductance constant notates as
Cd = e emax^2/m(e) X Lq^2 X Fq

Conductance of the Aether is also equal to
Cd = e emax^2/h


The variable h is Planck’s constant and represents the angular momentum of the electron. Planck’s constant generally defines in modern physics as “the constant of proportionality relating the energy of a photon to the frequency of that photon.” The Standard Model has missed the fact that Planck’s constant is actually the quantification of the electron.
h = 6.626 X 10^-34 kg X m^2/sec

Strong charge then calculates as

hXCd = e emax^2
e emax^2 = 1.400 X 10^-37 coul^2

Where e emax^2 is the strong charge. The strong charge, like the electrostatic charge, is distributed. The strong force carrier, in the Aether Physics Model is the electromagnetic charge, or strong charge. The strong charge quantifies as the angular momentum of the onn time to the conductance of the Aether. The angular momentum of the proton in the Aether Physics Model is similar to the angular momentum of the electron, with the exception that it calculates with the mass of the proton. Thus, the strong charge of the proton is equal to
e pmax^2 = h(p) X Cd

The strong force of the proton calculates using the strong force law, which is similar to that of the electrostatic force law and the gravitational law. As in the case of the electrostatic law, the product of two strong charges calculates from a single dimension of each charge. Since the binding force causes the protons and neutrons to have large “small radii” and small “large radii” the on to appear spherical. Thus, the Coulomb constant instead of the Aether unit constant is the force mediator.
kc (e pmax X e pmax/Lq^2) = F

The strong force of the neutron is similarly calculated.
The strong force law for free protons and free neutrons would probably integrate the Aether unit constant with the Coulomb constant. This is because free protons and free neutrons are more toroidal in shape. However, once they bind, there shape becomes spherical.
The total nuclear binding force is the sum of all force acting upon onta in an atomic nucleus. The total force acting upon a single neutron at one quantum length, even though there are no other neutrons and protons nearby is
Au (e nmax^2/Lq^2) = 1.839 X 10^3 forc

Aether conductance is also equal to other expressions of strong charge to primary angular momentum.

Cd = e pmax^2/h(p)
Cd = e a^2/h(a)

Where h(p) and h(a) are the angular momentum of the proton and Aether,
and e pmax^2 and e a^2 are the strong charge of the proton and Aether
This is just one of many demonstrations of the exact mass to strong charge ratio, which is consistent throughout the universe. Were ever strong charge appears, it is always exactly proportional to the mass within the angular momentum that produces it, and therefore it is quantum.

Unlike electrostatic charge, each onn has a strong charge value proportional to its mass. This is because the strong charge depends on the angular momentum of the onn, and the Aether length and frequency dimensions are quantum measurements.
Strong charge, notates as
e emax^2 for the electron
e pmax^2 for the proton
e nmax^2 for the neutron

The Standard Model of particle physics does not recognize conductance as a essential constant. This might prompt want to ask, why bother? As showing in the Aether Physics Model, the conductance constant is essential for understanding the strong charge of the onta. The understanding of strong charge in turn reveals the relationship of the strong nuclear force, Van der Waals force, Casimir force, plasmas, and other phenomena.

An essential use of the conductance constant appears in the strong charge equation.
e emax^2 = h X Cd
The same form of equation holds for any onn with angular momentum. The angular momentum of the proton in the Aether Physics Model is similar to the angular momentum of the electron, with the exception that it calculates with the mass of the proton.

Weak Interaction
The proportion of the electrostatic charge to strong charge, the sequel to 8pi times the fine structure of the onn.

e^2/e emax^2 = 8pi e

The significance of this proportion is that it represents the weak interaction of the onn.
Because each onn has its own strong charge, it will also have its own weak interaction constant.

e^2/e pmax^2 = 8pi p
e^2/e nmax^2 = 8pi n

These equations represent the unified charge equations for each onn. Taken together these equations are the basis for mathematically correct Unified Field Theory. The Aether Physics Model shows that the weak interaction is merely the proportion of the electrostatic force to the strong force. When the relative strengths of distributed charge carriers or analyze, we find electrostatic charge to be 10,000 times weaker than the electromagnetic charge. However, since the Standard Model views charge in single dimension, it appears is only 100 times weaker.

The unified charge equations dictate a general geometry for the onta. Electrostatic charge has a solid angle of 1, while the strong charge has a solid angle of a steradian. The strong charge has a solid angle equal to 1/4pi of the spherical electrostatic charge. What this means is that the distribution of the electrostatic charge is spherical, where is the distribution of the strong charge is 1/4pi of an equivalent strong charge, 1-spin sphere.

Again, the electrostatic charge has 1 spin due to its relation to the Aether spherical distributed frequency. The strong charge has 1/2 spin, due to the 1/2 spin of the angular momentum, so multiplying ½ spin by 2 converts ½ spin to 1 spin. Now multiplying the steradian solid angle of strong charge by 4pi converts the steradian solid angle of the strong charge to a solid angle sphere.

Kaluza - Klein Five Dimensional Model - page 292- 293
In the standard model of particle physics, particles or points, moving through space, tracing out a “World Line”. To take into account the different interactions observed, one has to provide particles with additional degrees of freedom beyond position and velocity, including mass, electric charge, color charge and spin. In string theory, all particle types are replaced by a single fundamental building block called a string.

The goal here is to try to visualize a basic string-like theory as developed by Kaluza - Klein. Kaluza first developed this method in 1919. In his original work it was shown that if we start with a theory of general relativity and five-space time dimension's and then curl up one of the dimension's into a circle we end up with a four dimensional theory of general relativity plus electromagnetism. If we assume that the electron has a degree of freedom corresponding to a point on a circle and that this point is free to very on the circle as we move around in space time, we find that the theory must contain the photon and that the electron obeys the equations of motion of electromagnetism. In 1926 Oskar Klein extended this idea. Instead of assuming total Independence of the extra dimension, he assumed it to be compact. This means the fifth dimension would have the topology of a circle with the radius of the order of the Planck length. The Kaluza Klein mechanism simply gives a geometric explanation for the circle. It comes from an actual fifth dimension that has been curled up.

The object represents a superimposition of three objects if viewed in 3-D slices. A helix in the w-x-z coordinates, a sine wave in the x-y-z coordinates, and a circle in the w-x-y coordinates. Being viewed in these three-dimensional slices the object can be defined as both open and close-ended. We will define the four dimensional object as representing light. Maxwell’s wave theory will be shown to be defined by the sine wave into x-y-z coordinates, while the quantum nature of light will be defined by the helix’s end points rotating on the circle in the w-x-y coordinates.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 21&start=0

[StevenO]

People and theories that assume that x,y,z axis are spanning space will get a distorted view of the world. They could completely ignore photons or think they're virtual since they fail to realize that photons travel the direct,shortest path. They also have to give properties to empty space or virtually twisting ethers for failing to realize that photons spin.

APM should go back to the drawing board as I've said a gazillion times before. To me it appears they prefer to twist in their own virtual mud for lack of being able to throw with it.

[Bengt Nyman]

Thank you Steven and junglelord. Remember: No mudslinging.

Bengt

[Bengt Nyman]

Strong Force simulation and quantification credibility test

Existing observations and measurements suggest that: “Strong force between two protons binds the protons with about 25 MeV of energy. The electromagnetic forces repel it with slightly less. The result is that about 1 MeV of energy would be required to split the two protons apart”. 1MeV = 1.602*10−13 Joule

The proton gravity simulations shown above suggest a specific quark posture between the two protons. Applying Coulombs law to the nine force vectors between the six quarks yields a Strong Force in the order of 52 Newton.
The same calculations show that the strong force has a reach of about 0.883 proton radii before it crosses through zero to continue as a repulsion force at larger distances. At a distance of 0.442 proton radii, or half its reach, the non-linear Strong Force is in the order of 10.5 Newton.

Information about the radius of a proton ranges from 10^-13 to 10^-15 meter. Using the average of 10^-14 and integrating this Strong Force over its non linear reach of .883 proton radii produces a binding energy of approximately: (52*0.883*10^-14)/3 Nm which is: 1.53*10−13 Joule.
Existing texts suggest a binding energy of 1MeV or: 1.60*10−13 Joule.

Had I used the more standardized 10^-15 m for the proton radius I would have produced a more credible error margin. However I gratefully accept coming close to already established results.

I hope that this contributes to an easily accessible understanding of Gravity and Strong Force.
I also hope that it contributes to a more detailed quantitative knowledge about the strength, profile and reach of Strong Force.

Also see:
http://www.dipole.se

Bengt Nyman

[junglelord]

People and theories that assume that x,y,z axis are spanning space will get a distorted view of the world. They could completely ignore photons or think they're virtual since they fail to realize that photons travel the direct,shortest path. They also have to give properties to empty space or virtually twisting ethers for failing to realize that photons spin.

APM should go back to the drawing board as I've said a gazillion times before. To me it appears they prefer to twist in their own virtual mud for lack of being able to throw with it.

actually APM says the photons are real not virtual, so again, you do not fully known the model.
Again, they have more in common, they you seem to realize.

[StevenO]

actually APM says the photons are real not virtual, so again, you do not fully known the model.
Again, they have more in common, they you seem to realize.

APM does not recognize that photons mediate both electrostatics and E/M.

They try to mimic mainstream to simulate that the theory has some weight, e.g. by use the same type of jargon and gibberish to hide lack of (mechanical) content and they mess illogical constants like the Coulomb and angular momentum even up more!

[junglelord]

The photon mediates both charges....I agree, and I believe that APM would also.
The work of Miles is very important. The way one can allow the models to mess, is easier for me I guess.
The virtual photon is a work of fiction by the establishment, both Miles and Thomson know that.
The Photon must mediate both charges as APM states the photon is an electron expanding at the speed of light. Since in APM the eletron is a dual charge entity, then the photon must also be the same....also APM states that the constant h (planck) actually relates the photon not the electron. This photon is a real photon, not the virtual one of the established model. The creation of two forces is not far removed from the work of three forces. I agree that the tensegrity of the Miles model is a Buckyball of perfection. The three force model would emerge from the two force model, as nothing more then a two force model, where again, gravity is acceleration....and then the two become one again...the relationships b/t the two theories are very integrated in my synesthesic mind.

I have read a lot of both, I also see with personal conversation with Miles, that he does not have any good thing to say about Dollard, while Thomson has nothing but praises, so in some ways, Miles work has gone to his head.

That could also happen to you or to me, Steve. I think that the way Miles dismissed UFO's and Dollard was way to symbolic of man with a closed mind, the way he swept his hand and cleared the table, like it was so simple to just say it is not so, makes it that way....So when I read the stuff, I have talked to the guy. The same with APM. David Thomson has way more going for his work then you give him credit. But as a person, he has a more open mind....I find the open mind to be a good thing.

Repectfully JL.

[StevenO]

No hard feelings, JL. I'm just an engineer at heart, so looking for the cold hard facts to work with.

I'm also not so much into UFO's and other unexplainable phenomena, more into music, electronics (build my first radio transmitter at 12 and my first synthesizer at 16) and explaining how physics is nothing more than a tautology for the world seen from a human perspective. What I strongly dislike is believing fairy tales, that is human conditioning from early childhood. You have to live fairy tales.