Excal wrote:I was unaware of Johnson's work. So far as I can see at this point, it is very interesting, especially in light of Le Cornec's work with the ionization energies of the periodic table. He found that the ratio of the square roots of the energies with the square root of the H ionization energy, are linear and cannot be explained by QM (see here.)
I have adopted the nuclear structure consisting of He building blocks that my friends Montgomery and Jeffrey developed a few years back.
What I'm interested in learning from this forum is how these oscillations might be deformed into oblate or prolate ellipsoids, giving rise to the electric dipoles that generate gravity in the EU, if I understand correctly.
I was happy to notice that junglelord brought up the fundamental paradox of charge defined as a point particle. We should never allow this point to slip into the background: a point by definition is zero dimensional and thus cannot be charged, since the vanishingly small radius of the electron would require the non-electrical binding force (the so-called "Poincare stresses" that Feynman amusingly characterized as rubber-bands) to keep the force formula from exploding it to smithereens.
by Alphane » Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 pm
What is charge?
mjv1121 wrote:Charge acts at a distance - so it is an emergent property.
Therefore, charge has to be an emission of smaller particles
What justification do you have for choosing to posit emission rather than a communicating ether?
RobertFritzius wrote:Here's a link to my version of what charge is.
Emission-Absorption-Scattering Sub-quantum Physics
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/eas.htm
Bob Fritzius
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: X-RAY and 7 guests