Dot-Wave Unified field theory

[Roadam]

Thing is that even if you destroy the proton, where does the energy go? Unless your dots have some strange ability, the usual thing it would happen I guess is the generation of some other particles which would carry away the energy. Either in the state of EMW or heat.

[jerrygg38]

Thing is that even if you destroy the proton, where does the energy go? Unless your dots have some strange ability, the usual thing it would happen I guess is the generation of some other particles which would carry away the energy. Either in the state of EMW or heat.

 

The proton breaks down into the u-mesons and the pi-mesons, they in turn break down into photons and positrons and electrons. Everything breaks down into phothons. The dots are the photons in the purest form.

 

Everything turns into heat and photonic energy which flows ourward from a rocket engine or is used to heat stream for electric power generation.

 

The lowests quanta of light energy is a pair of dots.

 

As we look into space we find areas of pure empty space. These are filled with the dots. there may be protons there but it may very well be that the electrons and protons already self destructed.

 

In the end of the process, the universe ends in cold death. All the material universe converts into photonic energy which is the dots. The plus minus dots then converge back to the inner radius of the universe and then the dots converge into black holes and billions of simultaneous big bangs reoccur. thus we go from a mechanical universe to an electrical universe and then back to a mechanical universe at the black holes. then we return to this state of both mechanical and electrical energy.

[Pyrotex]

...The plus minus dots then converge back to the inner radius of the universe and then the dots converge into black holes and billions of simultaneous big bangs reoccur. thus we go from a mechanical universe to an electrical universe and then back to a mechanical universe at the black holes. then we return to this state of both mechanical and electrical energy.

Hello, jerrygg38,

I've enjoyed reading your posts.

You've had one heck of a career, working on all those great projects.

I'm not quite as old as you, but I worked for Texas Instruments, McDonnell Douglas, and others. I worked with laser pointing devices, infra-red imaging detectors, designed one of the first computer networks, and built my own telescopes. Congratulations on all your achievements.

 

As you have discovered, the folks here at Hypography don't really know how to take you, or how to understand your dot-waves. But I think I do. You started with conversion tables, right? A guy could go blind reading all the conversion tables out there in engineering books. And you had a lot of time on your hands.

 

So, you probably discovered one day that if you worked the MCS and the MRS units right, making sure that some units canceled out and other didn't, then you came up with some astonishing results. And your dot-wave theory was born.

 

That's a pretty good hobby for a 70-year old man. It keeps you occupied and it certainly is a worthwhile use of your time. Not a waste of time, like playing video games or reading romance novels. You're not the kind of guy who would spend his last years wasting his time. I can tell that about you. You've got determination. I admire that.

 

Now, as to whether or not your theory is correct, these other folks seem to think that's the most important thing. Where's your proof! But you and I know that's not the most important thing. What's important is your determination and your commitment to discovering something about the universe and sharing it with humanity.

 

I'd say you've done a pretty good job at that. You know, I used to work in graduate school reading the scientific papers sent in by folks just like you, folks who had a new theory about math or science. I had to figure out if the authors knew what they were talking about. Reading your theory took me back to those good old days, so, thanks a lot.

 

It wasn't easy figuring out whose theory made sense and whose didn't. It's still not easy. But you're doing what you love, and it's making a difference in your life, right? Life would be pretty damn boring if you didn't have this wonderful hobby. I applaud your creativity.

 

I guess you know by now that these other rapscallions don't think much of your theory, but maybe they're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Maybe they'll come around some day. But you've done a good job stating your case. I guess all there is to do now is just wait for the right reader to come along. Best wishes to you, jerrygg38. Best of wishes for your theory. It will always be right here at Hypography for all the newcomers to read, if they want to. Someday, somebody will understand it. You take care of yourself.

 

Pyro / Nelson

[jerrygg38]

Hello, jerrygg38,

I've enjoyed reading your posts.

You've had one heck of a career, working on all those great projects.

I'm not quite as old as you, but I worked for Texas Instruments, McDonnell Douglas, and others. I worked with laser pointing devices, infra-red imaging detectors, designed one of the first computer networks, and built my own telescopes. Congratulations on all your achievements.

 

As you have discovered, the folks here at Hypography don't really know how to take you, or how to understand your dot-waves. But I think I do. You started with conversion tables, right? A guy could go blind reading all the conversion tables out there in engineering books. And you had a lot of time on your hands.

 

So, you probably discovered one day that if you worked the MCS and the MRS units right, making sure that some units canceled out and other didn't, then you came up with some astonishing results. And your dot-wave theory was born.

 

That's a pretty good hobby for a 70-year old man. It keeps you occupied and it certainly is a worthwhile use of your time. Not a waste of time, like playing video games or reading romance novels. You're not the kind of guy who would spend his last years wasting his time. I can tell that about you. You've got determination. I admire that.

 

Now, as to whether or not your theory is correct, these other folks seem to think that's the most important thing. Where's your proof! But you and I know that's not the most important thing. What's important is your determination and your commitment to discovering something about the universe and sharing it with humanity.

 

I'd say you've done a pretty good job at that. You know, I used to work in graduate school reading the scientific papers sent in by folks just like you, folks who had a new theory about math or science. I had to figure out if the authors knew what they were talking about. Reading your theory took me back to those good old days, so, thanks a lot.

 

It wasn't easy figuring out whose theory made sense and whose didn't. It's still not easy. But you're doing what you love, and it's making a difference in your life, right? Life would be pretty damn boring if you didn't have this wonderful hobby. I applaud your creativity.

 

I guess you know by now that these other rapscallions don't think much of your theory, but maybe they're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Maybe they'll come around some day. But you've done a good job stating your case. I guess all there is to do now is just wait for the right reader to come along. Best wishes to you, jerrygg38. Best of wishes for your theory. It will always be right here at Hypography for all the newcomers to read, if they want to. Someday, somebody will understand it. You take care of yourself.

 

Pyro / Nelson

 

Thanks for the wonderful comments. I just finished rewritting the manuscript.

I used to be able to come up with the $6000 and have 1000 copies printed by McNaugton &Gunn. I sold some but gave most away to libraries. Right now I will only be sending out the manuscripts in a clear cover report folder. It is free for the asking. Some people want to pay for the postage and printing costs. It costs me $2.50 postage and about $6.00 for folder and paper and ink. (Non-profit). Payment later if they like the work. Anyone who wants an autographed copy can email me at [email protected].

Right now I am looking for a job so I can buy the 1000 copies. I also work as a small handyman business. Mostly older customers who cannot pay much.

In Virginia Breach I had a good worker John who had some handicaps but was a good worker. When I left I gave the customers to him along with a good supply of tools. I enjoy helping people out.

I miss the good old days at Sperry when the jobs were fun. Things went downhill arout 1991 and then they downsized in 1993. Out in the street for me and 250 other older engineers.

Anyway thaks for the comments.

[modest]

We can get to the moon in 3.5 hours. We will ride the light beam at constant acceleration of G. Halfway to the moon we will reverse to a deceleration of -g. Thus except for a reversal of one minute, we will never be weightless. The photonic fuel cell is a very gentle method of space travel.

In Doppler Space Time 2000 we can get to Mars or Venus in a little over 2 days. Pluto requires 25 days. We can also get to Alpha Centauri in reasonable time.

These claims seem unrealistic, but I admit I have not done the maths. How do you get from the Earth to the moon in 3.5 hours at only 1 G?

I just calculated these things in my Doppler Space Time book in 2000. Using S=0.5at^2 and V=at, and ignoring that we have to take off from the Earth at 2g initially until we clear the atmosophere, the trip to the moon will reach a maximum velocity of 137,400 miles per hour at the halfway point. The trip to Mars or Venus will reach a speed of 2.08 million miles per hour. ( I have not rechecked the numbers since the printing of the book).

 

A quick check verifies the figures. Figuring half the distance to the moon using Jerry’s numbers:

 

Initial velocity = [math]v_0[/math] = 0 m/s

Acceleration = a = 9.8 [math]m/s^2[/math]

Time = t = 6300 sec.

Velocity = v = [math]v_0 + at[/math] = 61,740 m/s

this converts to 138,108 miles per hour which is near the 137,400 Jerry gives

[math]v_{avg} = 1/2v[/math]

 

[math]\Delta x = V_{avg}t[/math] = 194,481 km

 

Which is roughly half the distance to the moon. Decelerating the second half of the trip would double the distance in equal time, so this is correct. Mars and Venus checked out about the same. I think Pluto would be a bit less than 25 days.

 

As far as Alpha Centauri, you’d have to take relativistic effects into account. Using the relativistic rocket equation for proper time of the passenger:

[math]T=\frac{c}{a} argcosh \left(\frac{ad}{c^2}+1 \right)[/math]

Half the distance to Alpha Centauri is 2.15 lightyears and acceleration (in light-year units) is 1.032 lightyears/years^2.

 

Rearranging and rewriting the equation above in a computer friendly format where c = 1 we get:

T=1/a*LN(((a*d)+1)+SQRT(((a*d)+1)^2-1))

where a = 1.032 ly/y^2 and d=2.15 ly:

T=1/1.032*LN(((1.032*2.15)+1)+SQRT(((1.032*2.15)+1)^2-1))

T=1.78 years

 

Doubling in order to decelerate the second leg of the trip makes our journey to the nearest star at 1g roughly a 3.56 year affair.

 

~modest

[maddog]

jerrygg38,

 

I have finally read this thread and excuse me if I give you that "Spock" look and say

"interesting...".

 

Your theory apparently at the root depends upon only two particles, one

a minutely small + charge and mass, the other with a minutely small - charge and mass. You make up a composite particle made up of one + and one - charged particle. With these you make all the known (and unknown-?) particles in the universe).

 

I can consider alternate theories as I often do. What problem I would have with this one, is how it can account for all the known interactions.

 

From what you have said, you account for the electron, proton, neutron.

 

e - composed of number of - dots to equal its charge.

p - composed of number of + dots to equal its charge.

n - composded of number of +- (composite) dots to equal its mass.

 

You mention a neutrino yet do not describe its composition.

 

You do not describe the what constitutes the following particles:

 

Muon, Positron (anti-particle of electron), Anti-Proton, Anti-neutrino.

 

I suppose due to the similarity of the electron with a muon

(same charge) that you just add some +- composite dots. Though what

do do with the anti-particles ?

 

I have not bothered to ask about quarks as your interpretations removes the need for SU(2)xSU(3) symmetry or Chromodynamics. I do wonder what you do with the other Baryons and Mesons that have been discovered

by the worlds current and past accelerators ?

 

I you don't consider the need for Antimatter then how do you explain the

interaction observed as Hydronium {[imath]e^+ + p^- -> 2[gamma][/imath]} to emit gamma rays (highly energetic photons).

 

Second what force would hold the electrons or protons together given EM's nature to repel like charges ?

 

Third it appears you only have two forces EM & Gravity. So what holds nuclei together ?

 

In case you didn't ever learn the name of the professor you were thinking of, it was Dr Richard Feynman, inventor of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics).

 

How do you account for Electron Tunnelling and whole interaction of Semiconductors ?

 

How do you explain the Thompson 2-slit experiment for both light or electrons when emitting on single photon or electron per second ?

 

How do you explain what is going on in any material that can undergo superconduction ?

 

How do you explain Bose-Einstein Condensation ?

 

How do you explain Particle Entanglement or EPR Paradox ?

 

I also didn't know whether you consider the need for a Magnetic Monopole.

 

How do envision Gravity as a force behaving near the Planck Scale ?

 

How about the notion of Parity ? How do you make this work with only

two particles to make up things ?

 

What prevents a neutron from accepting one more + or - dot to deviate from a neutral particle.

 

What makes neutrinos so weakly interacting if they are actually made of + or - particles. Are the other WIMP like particles -- so as to explain Dark Matter ?

 

Given the from WMAP data, how do you account for the need for Einstein's Omega-0 or Dark Energy (or not) ?

 

How does fission and fusion work without the Weak or Strong Forces ?

 

How do you deal with De Broglie waves for the electron for example ?

 

I could keep going. I am more interested in finding/knawing on these first though.

 

Any good theory of merit deserves to meet a good challenge. This is what strengthens such a theory.

 

I am curious.

 

maddog

[watcher]

hi jerry,

 

i found this in the internet. it seemed to be conceptually similar with your dot theory. its here if your interested ...

Fundamental Particle Physics, The Geatron Nuclear Model, MegForce.com: Physics, Order of the Forces, Fundamental Particle, Unifying Theory

 

 

THE PERFECT NUCLEAR MODEL:

 

A perfect nuclear model will be able to answer each of the above questions along with any other relevant question and be able to correct the unsound assumptions listed here and those other unsound assumptions administered by our scientific overseers. This model will be able to identify the ONE fundamental particle from which all other particles are formed and the ONE fundamental force from which all other forces are derived. It will illustrate the nature and origin of this and other fundamental forces. The model will show the structure, exact composition and the methods of formation of every composite rudimentary, elementary, sub-nuclear and subatomic particle that is known to exist. The model must define energy and identify its primary sources. The model must provide a fundamental constant that will be the unit by which matter and energy will be measured. The model will provide an extensive list of valid predictions that will describe everything from the system for solar energy production to the internal workings of a black hole. Without limitation, the model will explain the mysterious nuclear events presently described as the nuclear strong interaction, nuclear strong force, nuclear weak interaction, nuclear weak force, electromagnetic force, and gravity. And it must provide specific data for existing composite particles that have not been detected and those that may not be detectable for various reasons. It will identify Dark Matter and Dark Energy and their origin. Finally, the model will demonstrate the structure of matter, its methods of assembly and system of nuclear bonds.

 

WHAT MUST EXIST:

 

To answer all of the above questions, a basic application experiment will demonstrate that only three distinct fundamental particles are required, no less and no more, with each having a simple, yet, distinct property. However, to proceed freely and without hindrance or interference, it is important to disregard all current theories and all unproven nuclear models. For this experiment to succeed, we must assume that all previously formulated or currently accepted theories and models are incorrect and not allow any influence there from. This experiment must be based upon the actual physical experimental and observational data and direct evidence in possession, pertaining to everything we know about the pertinent subjects of physics. Considering everything that is known of nuclear and particle physics, analyzing it and determining all reasonable possibilities, at the Fundamental Nuclear Level, this is the simplest possible system that could exist:

 

1. Since every composite elementary or subatomic particle known has an electric charge that corresponds to one of the three possible charge states (+, –, 0), this signifies that only two fundamental particles are required to explain the existence of all charged and neutral particles including all events of particle charge transformation.

 

A. One fundamental particle must have a constant whole positive electric charge with a magnitude of 1.602 x 10-19 Coulombs, equal to the charge carried by the positron. This will be identified as the A-particle. Note: Keep in mind that this identified electric charge is fundamental, however, the positron and other known particles that carry the charge may not be fundamental.

 

B. The second fundamental particle must have a constant whole negative electric charge with a magnitude of 1.602 x 10-19 Coulombs, equal to the charge carried by the electron. This will be identified as the B-particle. Note: Keep in mind that this identified electric charge is fundamental, however, the electron and other known particles that carry the charge may not be fundamental.

 

a. This will show that composite particles with positive electric charges are a result of one extra positive charge in composition relative to the total number of negative charges. Stated another way, the total of positive and negative charges in composition are in equal numbers except for the one extra positive electric charge that identifies the particle's charge. Note: This applies to all known elementary and subatomic particles, both charged and neutral, such as the electron, positron, proton, neutron, the subatomic, and the muon, pion kaon, the elementary, etc., because the evidence shows that they are composite particles. Consider the mass, electric charge, charge magnitude and particle classification differences as related to the electron, positron and proton? Both the electron and positron are classified as leptons and have an identical mass of .511 MeV and the identical charge magnitude of 1.602 x 10-19 Coulombs, yet the proton, a baryon with a mass 1800 times that of the positron, has an electric charge that is identical in magnitude and in every other way to that of the positron?

 

b. This will show that composite particles with negative charges are a result of one extra negative charge in composition relative to the total number of positive charges. Stated another way, the total of positive and negative charges in composition are in equal numbers except for the one extra negative electric charge that identifies the particle's charge. Note: This applies to all known elementary and subatomic particles, both charged and neutral, such as the electron, positron, proton, neutron, the subatomic, and the muon, pion kaon, the elementary, etc., because the evidence shows that they are composite particles.

 

c. This will show that composite particles with neutral charges are simply a result of equal numbers of positive and negative charges in composition. Because the positive and negative charges are in equal numbers, this will neutralize the electric charge and the result is a neutral particle. Note: This applies to all known elementary and subatomic particles, both charged and neutral, such as the electron, positron, proton, neutron, etc., because the evidence shows that they are composite particles.

 

d. This conforms with all known research and data relating to any and every charged or neutral particle.

 

2. Since photons, elementary and subatomic particles exhibit both particle properties and wave properties, this signifies that a third fundamental particle must exist exhibiting both vibration and, under certain conditions, oscillation, along with some method of attraction to other indivisible particles, small composite particles and mass, in general.

 

C. Therefore, this third particle that must exist is required to be a vibrating particle with possibly a net ‘0’ electric charge; however, as the evidence indicates, it must also exhibit some form of attraction through the electric charge or through some other force and must also exhibit a frequency of vibration within some system. These complicated requirements will make it difficult to identify such a particle; nevertheless, it will be found, and to remain consistent, it will be named the C-particle.

 

These are the three requirements and at the same time, the clues that must help us to identify the actual fundamental particles. From these three particles, all forces including gravity, energy, and the structure, composition and the formation of rudimentary, elementary, sub-nuclear, and subatomic particles are explained.

 

D. However, the evidence shows that a fourth particle must exist; as it turns out, this very simple particle appears to be the origin of the previous three, it will be named the D-particle. We know that it exists because it is simply an A, B, or C particle that has lost its primary property through some nuclear event. But, it is also a particle that has not yet converted into an A, B, or C particle, therefore, it must be a D-particle.

 

By determining "What Must Exist" or the minimum requirements of fundamental particle properties that could and must account for the existence of energy, the forces and the formation and composition of matter, it will be observed that the system described above provides the basis for the Geatron Nuclear Model.

[jerrygg38]

To Watcher

thanks for the info. I have been rewriting my theory the last two weeks to make it clearer. In the process I discovered many more things about the my dots. The minute I looked at Brians Greene , The Elegant Universe, I began to calculate the size of my dots. It turns out that it is in the ballpark of string theory. Then I started to realize that since the mathematicians already discovered multi-dimensional space time at that tiny size, I started to apply my dot-wave theory to that concept.

The results have been fantastic. For 27 years I never looked inside my dots. Now I am amazed by what I see. Now I can explain why a plus charge is pushed to a minus charge.

Once I write something down, then I attack it. I am my own devils advocate. Sometimes it takes a year for me to attack my work. It is only a few weeks that I wrote the dot-wave theory. And already I have attacked it twice. Yet each time I attack it, it gets better. My equations do not change. But my explanations change greatly. then I begin to understand it.

Anyway it is nice that someone else believes we can produce the entire universe from two things. But I have been saying that for years.

Once we go to multi-dimensional space time, these two things develop different characteristis depending upon which dimension they are in. Thus the plus dot become a plus magnetic dot which moves at C. The minus dot become the negative magnetic dot moving at C. They keep changing. The plus and minus dot operate in different dimensions and become a mass dot. the mass dot changes dimensions and become a photon dot. the most important equation is

 

+Qd +(-Qd) <--------> Md

 

This is the top equation. A plus dot plus a minus dot transforms into a mass dot. For 27 years I thought they were equal. They are not equal. Mass is a different property of the dots. They are transforms of each other. This equation explains everything. I am very excited by it. I just finished rewriting my theory 3 times. I will check it one more time then I will start posting it. Stay tuned.

[jerrygg38]

jerrygg38,

 

I have finally read this thread and excuse me if I give you that "Spock" look and say

"interesting...".

 

Your theory apparently at the root depends upon only two particles, one

a minutely small + charge and mass, the other with a minutely small - charge and mass. You make up a composite particle made up of one + and one - charged particle. With these you make all the known (and unknown-?) particles in the universe).

 

I can consider alternate theories as I often do. What problem I would have with this one, is how it can account for all the known interactions.

 

From what you have said, you account for the electron, proton, neutron.

 

e - composed of number of - dots to equal its charge.

p - composed of number of + dots to equal its charge.

n - composded of number of +- (composite) dots to equal its mass.

 

You mention a neutrino yet do not describe its composition.

 

You do not describe the what constitutes the following particles:

 

Muon, Positron (anti-particle of electron), Anti-Proton, Anti-neutrino.

 

I suppose due to the similarity of the electron with a muon

(same charge) that you just add some +- composite dots. Though what

do do with the anti-particles ?

 

I have not bothered to ask about quarks as your interpretations removes the need for SU(2)xSU(3) symmetry or Chromodynamics. I do wonder what you do with the other Baryons and Mesons that have been discovered

by the worlds current and past accelerators ?

 

I you don't consider the need for Antimatter then how do you explain the

interaction observed as Hydronium {[imath]e^+ + p^- -> 2[gamma][/imath]} to emit gamma rays (highly energetic photons).

 

Second what force would hold the electrons or protons together given EM's nature to repel like charges ?

 

Third it appears you only have two forces EM & Gravity. So what holds nuclei together ?

 

In case you didn't ever learn the name of the professor you were thinking of, it was Dr Richard Feynman, inventor of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics).

 

How do you account for Electron Tunnelling and whole interaction of Semiconductors ?

 

How do you explain the Thompson 2-slit experiment for both light or electrons when emitting on single photon or electron per second ?

 

How do you explain what is going on in any material that can undergo superconduction ?

 

How do you explain Bose-Einstein Condensation ?

 

How do you explain Particle Entanglement or EPR Paradox ?

 

I also didn't know whether you consider the need for a Magnetic Monopole.

 

How do envision Gravity as a force behaving near the Planck Scale ?

 

How about the notion of Parity ? How do you make this work with only

two particles to make up things ?

 

What prevents a neutron from accepting one more + or - dot to deviate from a neutral particle.

 

What makes neutrinos so weakly interacting if they are actually made of + or - particles. Are the other WIMP like particles -- so as to explain Dark Matter ?

 

Given the from WMAP data, how do you account for the need for Einstein's Omega-0 or Dark Energy (or not) ?

 

How does fission and fusion work without the Weak or Strong Forces ?

 

How do you deal with De Broglie waves for the electron for example ?

 

I could keep going. I am more interested in finding/knawing on these first though.

 

Any good theory of merit deserves to meet a good challenge. This is what strengthens such a theory.

 

I am curious.

 

maddog

 

You ask a lot of good questions. I have just finished rewriting the theory for the third time. I do not answer all the questions in my manuscript. I am a retired Electrical Engineer and only certain things interested me such as the basic structure of the universe, the size and shape of the universe, the double slit experiment explanations, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the U-Meson shower, the K-Mesons and 2182Me Lamba, the binding energy of the proton, the red shift, the Michelson Morley experiment, the proton and electron right after big bang, the structure of space so that positive and negative particles attract.ETc.

 

Slowly I will post these things. If you like a copy of the manuscript I will mail it to your free if you want or you can pay for postage and printing at $8. I only send the paper copy. (most people want to pay the printing and postage but I don't care since I have sent so many copies of my work free over the years. ( I am independently poor on social security) Email at

[email protected] if desired.

 

Anyway to me antimatter is simple the electron being in the center and the proton being on the outside with the mass reversed. Thus my dots can produce either. In the lab energy turns into positrons and electrons. I am not concerned about those details since my dots do so much especially since I brought them into multi-dimensional dots similar to string theory> The radius of my dots is 2.15941E-29 meters now but was 1.59407E-37 meters at the time of big bang.

 

I will try to answer your questions soon. I guess the bests way is for me to print it out and answer off line. I am not really that good on the internet. So I don't know how to break apart a long post such as yours.

[maddog]

If you like a copy of the manuscript I will mail it to your free if you want or you can pay for postage and printing at $8. I only send the paper copy. (most people want to pay the printing and postage but I don't care since I have sent so many copies of my work free over the years. ( I am independently poor on social security) Email at

[email protected] if desired.

In time, I may though I have to equalize against the monthly expense of bills that my wife and I are whittling down. ;-)

Anyway to me antimatter is simple the electron being in the center and the proton being on the outside with the mass reversed. Thus my dots can produce either. In the lab energy turns into positrons and electrons.

This also happens in nature as well. So it is phenomena that does have to have an explanation for a theory to be able address it. Otherwise said theory would have a flaw.

I am not really that good on the internet. So I don't know how to break apart a long post such as yours.

How I bring in your quote is push the quote button to bring the whole thing in.

 

Then I have learned that at the beginning of a quote is the header == like

 

"["quote=posterid;somenumber].....quote....[/quote"]" <--- take out the quotes (")

 

I then edit copying everything in the first [] pair to become the beginning of the quote I wish to discuss, followed by the last [] pair as exactly "

" at the end of the quote to discuss. Thus I can break your quote into multiple pieces. I edit out what I don't want to discuss. This becomes easier with practice.

 

maddog

[maddog]

Bigger problem I see is with only two particles, opposite charges attract -- how do you keep particles appart. Keep Electron going around the Proton in a Hydrogen atom. If it all depends on EM alone this wouldn't work.

 

A form of Gauge Theory might work here. By allowing EM to change its "flavor" with distance. EM's group theoretic properties are as U(1) so all it can do is flip sign (from attractive to repulsive). Intensity is a scaling factor.

 

Still you have no Boson as force carriers. So how do you describe the Spin 1 characteristics of force particles. I guess the Spin 1/2 Fermion you are kinda' taking care of with the + and - particles.

 

Positron is not just and Proton in place where an Electron goes !

In all respects a Positron IS an Electron with an inverse sense of Time also

considered a change in Chirality. In a bubble chamber a Positron will spiral

the opposite way that an Electron does during a decay process.

 

As for that other theory mentioned, it had four flavors of one particle. Two were your +, - particles, third was your combined +- particle and the fourth was some weird thing that could become any one of the other three.

 

I am not quite as old as you are in that I am not yet retired. My background in the last 25+ years has been designing Software. My collegiate training was both Physics and Astrophysics and I realize your theory will have to consider High Energy interactions to account for what goes on in most Physics today. You don't get to dismiss it.

 

maddog

[jerrygg38]

Bigger problem I see is with only two particles, opposite charges attract -- how do you keep particles appart. Keep Electron going around the Proton in a Hydrogen atom. If it all depends on EM alone this wouldn't work.

 

A form of Gauge Theory might work here. By allowing EM to change its "flavor" with distance. EM's group theoretic properties are as U(1) so all it can do is flip sign (from attractive to repulsive). Intensity is a scaling factor.

 

Still you have no Boson as force carriers. So how do you describe the Spin 1 characteristics of force particles. I guess the Spin 1/2 Fermion you are kinda' taking care of with the + and - particles.

 

Positron is not just and Proton in place where an Electron goes !

In all respects a Positron IS an Electron with an inverse sense of Time also

considered a change in Chirality. In a bubble chamber a Positron will spiral

the opposite way that an Electron does during a decay process.

 

As for that other theory mentioned, it had four flavors of one particle. Two were your +, - particles, third was your combined +- particle and the fourth was some weird thing that could become any one of the other three.

 

I am not quite as old as you are in that I am not yet retired. My background in the last 25+ years has been designing Software. My collegiate training was both Physics and Astrophysics and I realize your theory will have to consider High Energy interactions to account for what goes on in most Physics today. You don't get to dismiss it.

 

maddog

 

I just finished the manuscript and will send it to Library of Congress tomorrow.

Now I have time to answer your questions.(If you want a copy I would be happy to send it to you. No money necessary.

 

You ask how you keep the particles apart. The answer is I don't. The particles exist at 2.15941E-29 meters. A plus dot has a charge of 1.31144E-57 coulombs. When stationary it is a charge. A split second later it moves at light speed C and is a point magnetic source. A split second later it is a charge again. thus the plus dot continually changes from a point charge to a point magnetic source. The minus dot does the same thing for the negative.

These operate at different dimensions as per String theory type concepts.

When a plus charge and minus charge unite, they form a mass bipolar dot when stationary and a grav-photonic dot when moving at C. Again this change is continuous.

The moving electron has bipolar dots continually changing as it moves. Dots do not move continuously. They stop. They jump at light speed, then stop again. Thus the dots are particle-waves.

 

As far as the electron moving around the proton is concerned the basic equation of the universe is

 

Qd + (-Qd) <-------------> Md

 

Md = 7.33982E-69Kg. The above equation is a transformation equation. I used to believe it was an equals equations. However after thinking about string theory for the last few weeks, I completely changed my theory. Sadly after 27 years, my work changed three months ago. Now after the last few weeks things are making more sense to me. Although I am near 70 years, I have a mind which keeps generating alternate theories.

The worst thought I had was that in the near future I would find myself on morphine during my last few days. At that time, I would realize the errors in my work and I could do nothing about it. Well I am happy to say that although my work of 27 years has been destroyed by myself, I am not on morphine yet.

The worst thing was that my Doppler Space Time was destroyed two days ago. It isn't that my equations are destroyed. My explanations suck.

I have my dual brain to contend with. the concept portion cannot speak but comes up with great ideas. My audio/visual portion can speak and see but cannot often understand what the other half of my brain understands.

So I know the answers but cannot understand them.

On tests I used to write the answers first and then try to work them out. I was a terrible logic designer. I wrote out the designs and then checked them. I made little corrections and they worked well. But the regular designers could not understand how I could do that and I could not understand how they could do their work.

The big problem was when I had to explain to the customers how my designs worked. So Technical writers fudged some answers and everyone was happy. I just do things backwards.

Therefore to solve the universe I write down answers and then see how they work out. Then I try to explain them. This is especially hard when you really do not understand how they work and why.

 

So we look at the problem with the electron in the Bohr orbit. At the Bohr radius, the equations are:

 

F= K WQ Q /R^2 = Ma V^2 / R

 

where Ma = Mo / (1-(V/C)^2) ^0.5

 

The first equation is the standard balance of forces between two charges and the centrifugal force. The second equation is the Einsteinian relationship.

Notice most physics books of long ago did not look at the Einsteinian term.

When we calculate the mass increase at c/137.036 we find it to be

13.606EV. This is exactly the same as the ionization energy.

Unless you were taught differently, this has been overlooked. At least in my 1966 course. (I went 10 years at night).

Look what happens when the electron tries to reach the proton, the Einsteinian term becomes huge. Thus the electron cannot achieve the proton radius without the neutrino.

The other problem is the electrical energy to mass conversion formula. As the electron nears the proton, it loses charge.

Since 1 kilograms <-----------> 3.08302E11 coulombs,

1 electron volts transforms into 5.49598E-25 coulombs

Therefore Delta Charge = 3.73892E-24 coulombs and

Q = 1.60218E-19 -3.7892E-24 = 1.60214E-19 Coulombs

 

This is only 23.34 PPM of charge change.

 

The loss of charge and the increase of Einsteinian mass/energy prevents the electron from flowing into the proton.

[jerrygg38]

Still you have no Boson as force carriers. So how do you describe the Spin 1 characteristics of force particles. I guess the Spin 1/2 Fermion you are kinda' taking care of with the + and - particles.

 

Positron is not just and Proton in place where an Electron goes !

In all respects a Positron IS an Electron with an inverse sense of Time also

considered a change in Chirality. In a bubble chamber a Positron will spiral

the opposite way that an Electron does during a decay process.

 

As for that other theory mentioned, it had four flavors of one particle. Two were your +, - particles, third was your combined +- particle and the fourth was some weird thing that could become any one of the other three.

 

I am not quite as old as you are in that I am not yet retired. My background in the last 25+ years has been designing Software. My collegiate training was both Physics and Astrophysics and I realize your theory will have to consider High Energy interactions to account for what goes on in most Physics today. You don't get to dismiss it.

 

maddog

 

In my manuscript I speak of spin in terms only. This is a very difficult subject because I have so many different types of spins and I do not know how to calculate them. The electric dot-waves spin, the bipolar dot waves spin, the electron itself spins with its dot-waves, the body of the electron can spin at a different angle from the spin of the bipolar dot waves, the housing of the dot waves can spin at a different angle from the dot-waves themselves. Thus I have so many spins and it would take me 20 years to figure them out.

 

All I can do is leave the theory for others to figure out.

 

Yes the Positron is different than just a reversal of the electron/proton combination. The spins are most likely opposite but I do not understand enough about the dot-wave spins. After all my dot-waves are only 3 months old. I was happy with just dots until I looked at Brian Greene book. Then I was forced to look inside my dots.

 

As a single person I cannot rewrite all the equations of physics which developed over 100 years. All I can do is present the salient parts of the dot-wave theory for others to study and work on.

 

My dot-waves are quite flexible. Since a dot wave changes from particle to wave constantly, everything is a particle wave.

In effect parts of an electron materialize and dematerialize constantly. Thus Heisenbergy uncertainty principle is clear with the dot-wave theory. So is the Double slit experiment. Here are the dot-characteristisc

Dot........Velocity........Mass.........Charge........Fields

 

Plus........0..................0.............+Qd...........DC fields

Minus.......0................0..............-Qd............DC fields

Bipolar......0................Md.............0...............Grav. field

plus..........C...............0................+Qd...........Magnetic

minus........C..............0................-Qd.............Magnetic

Bipolar.......C.............0..................0..............Grav &Photonic

 

Notice that my 2 dots have have six different properties. this is because within the radius of the dot, they all operate in different dimensions. I only realized this 3 weeks ago. For 27 years I thought I could build a universe with only 2 electrical dots. Then I started to rewrite my dot theory based upon the conversion of mass to charge rather than mass to charge times velocity C. Suddenly the same equations started to make sense.

 

So I failed to produce a viable theory in 27 years. I am glad I am not on morphine yet. My last upper biting tooth just broke yesterday. Now I need dentures. I guess I will be in the old age home soon with my tongue hanging out. I had good equations but for 27 years I did not understand the multi-dimensional dots. Thank God for the String mathematicians. the pictures in the book look funny. My dots are simplier. However without them I would not have the dot-charts.

Anyway happy Thanksgiving. Until my dentures arrive, I am left to chop meat and rice.

[jerrygg38]

I guess I have been basically thrown out of this forum

Anyone interested in the Dot-Wave theory can discuss it at my space page

I will start a science group in about a week

MySpace.com - Gerald - 69 - Male - Cary, North Carolina - www.myspace.com/kmm8qq

[CraigD]

I guess I have been basically thrown out of this forum

Jerry, you have not been thrown out of hypography. Were this the case, you would be unable to post, and “suspended” would appear under your name when others viewed your posts, or you viewed them as a guest (by clicking “log out”).

 

Because your posts in several threads didn’t follow the site rules requiring backing up your claims, and your writing didn’t meet the requirements of scientific theory (eg: mathematical rigor, making experimentally verifiable predictions), the threads have been moved to the strange claims forum. You are welcome to continue posting to these and other threads, but should make an increased effort to follow the site rules.