Quantum Mistake!

[geoff]

in my universe my 'particles' are spinning  , like kids toys on my kitchen table , if they are spinning  in the same 'direction' they bounce off each other and keep going, so no particle swop strong force required, if they are spinning in opposite directions when they touch they crash and fall over, when a positron and electron collide the result is the loops break up and fly off as EM light or gamma ?  

 

How does your universe work with its exchange particles? preferably in simple language, 

[geoff]

As my kids toys approach earth the soup gets thicker so there spin slows , or if you prefer from there frame of reference time slows

 

please explain how your gravity affects time.

[geoff]

so we are now heading off at 0.6c , our spinning proton , which I'll suggest spins in at least two planes, is now under some stress, the EM wave, or chain of photons, your choice, Is limited to c so photons moving in the direction of travel cannot exceed 0.4c, the others moving in the opposite direction are free to accelerate , this, I propose, will cause our proton to vibrate . so she's spinning slower, so time has slowed and the vibration is causing the surrounding aether to vibrate at the same frequency, now if we accept maxwells suggestion that the aether is elastic, and obviously I do, the vibrating mass of ajacent aether will be your sprung mass and it is clear to see there will be a specific amount of mass moving, so the resonant frequency  is maintained , the proton will become more massive as a result. Reading back my prose it is a tad clumsy , but if you picture the situation you should understand.

 

so this is going to happen gradually as we accelerate from rest to 0.6c   So the model is working as predicted by relativity, with a mechanism that causes a mass increase and a relative slowing of time , your point particle just does because ? we know it does but there is no mechanism given for these changes, my model predicts the results of general relativity.

 

My fluid dynamics are not what they used to be after thirty years,(Ha ha) but if I am right I think that spinning things in water tend to be drawn together which would explain your weak force attraction so protons and neutrons would be expected to collect together.

 

so with no add on forces or bits and bobs added to make it work, my model is ticking all the main box's and is is giving a mechanism for energy transfer , the creation of atoms  and matter/energy conversion

 

 

obviously this needs a lot more work, I really haven't bothered to research this since it popped into my head two years ago, but then this is the first time it's not been taken down almost immediately by the moderator which only worked this time because I acted like a twerp.

 

 

Its gone quite now , anyone any constructive observations or sensible criticism ? we know I can't write or spell what about the science?

[exchemist]

PS Tesla's electrons were wave's 

Extra points for mentioning Tesla as well.

[DrKrettin]

Extra points for mentioning Tesla as well.

 

PS Tesla's electrons were wave's 

 

 

Damn - I missed that. Perhaps even more points for the spurious Saxon genitives?

[geoff]

The model I used for my particle was cooked up by a couple of lads from  CERN thought it might ease the shock, assuming someone's following the rational. My prefered and best fitting model goes thus; a tiny highly compressed drop of aether would trap a few photons or EM wave by refraction setting up a standing wave not unlike that of ones electron in its orbit/energyshell/valence , spinning of course and obviously it would explain the mass increase as the 'particle' approached light speed,obviously it would bring the frequency back down or maintain the correct frequency. a complex wave if you like, 

 

Tesla once said  If you want to understand the mysteries of the universe think in terms of vibrations and waves, or words to that effect and of course Einstien when asked how does it feel to be a genius ? he replied, I don't know ask Tesla. 

 

way too easy isn't it way too simple, but it work's

 

I'll try and explain why all those genuinely brilliant minds are still in the dark , adding bits to a dead theory to try and make it work, and failing 

 

It's the observer , our brain's data analysis systems, you probably think that noisy bit in the front of your head is running the show ,its not , all decisons you make are either purely instinctive, you've done it before so do it again , or it takes seven seconds for the pattern crunching machine in the back of you head to process an option , meanwhile it comunicates the decisions by body language and other means to others around , small children are fluent and aware of this communication, as are  animals most of the time. I spotted and tested this back in 1997. Five or six years ago I heard a psycologist on the radio, he explained that he had taught himself some simple(very!) body language, his subjects were asked to make a random left/right decision  " he was able with 100% accuracy exactly seven seconds" before the subject hit the left or right button. I smiled and my thoughts were,  Thats rather long for a random , stable conditions no win or lose of course the full seven seconds, what does he mean exactly? 7 , 7.0 or 7.00 ? (my experiments were opportunistic and in the field) and the i laughed as i pictured his hands poised over the steering wheel of the car.  A couple of years later I heard about an experiment , subjects had been convinced of a fact ,then shown the evidence that it was wrong, which they accepted, then they proceeded to answer questions as if the original fact was true. All adults running one of the four basic programs I've identified, do this. Kids run a different system, as they build up evidence they put together a jig-saw puzzle ,if a new piece does not fit the presumed picture, they break it up and build a different picture. The psyc's describe this as a 'plastic ' system , Back in 1997 and for a few years after, I was running the small child program , the learning curve was near vertical, no anger no fear and calm in situations that my peers would have been panicked into stupid responses, although they would have been considered totally understandable, and I had pre- warning of what was coming , awfully usefull.

 

Any way , yes I realize science has no evidence for an aeither, but I do, and it's peer reviwed, also i can explain why an electron gets from one side of a chloroplast to the other without colliding with the stuff in between, and demonstrate it on my kitchen table, dozens of people have seen me do it and none doubt the evidence but its not for publication.

 

sos for the spelling stuff to do, hugs and cuddles, geoff.

[exchemist]

Damn - I missed that. Perhaps even more points for the spurious Saxon genitives?

A nasty outbreak of Greengrocer's Apostrophe, certainly. But I'm not sure one gets actual crank points for that.

 

I suspect this thread is now dead for intelligent readers. I'm on a skiing holiday in France so won't look at it again for a while.

 

A bientot.........

Edited February 14, 2017 by exchemist

[geoff]

An intelligent person would have pointed out the graph you get for the photoelectric effect showed no evidence of resonance being involved, , which is what I did. ho hum , go on somebody give us a model that explains gravity, alpha particle tunneling, etc

[geoff]

if you look at a graph of a typical speaker drive unit thats the efficiency of energy transfer,not the amount , the graph you get with photoelectric effect is the energy given by the light, energy is transfered in whole cycles or quanta. as one drops below threshold energy transfer still occurs, it gets hot ,at some point there might be a cut of ,but i haven' t investigated it , so you don't appear to understand the physics, none of you are interested in thinking outside the box but  you do enjoy abuse, so i reckon i'm geting close

 

thanks for your time   geoff